Opening of the Meeting
Adoption of the Agenda and Meeting objectives
Presentation and role of the Environment and Aquaculture in the Mediterranean Network (EAM)
Aquaculture and the environment in the Mediterranean: overview on current policies and regulations
Research and other activities on environmental issues in Mediterranean aquaculture
Priorities to be addressed by the Environment and Aquaculture in the Mediterranean Network (EAM)
Any other matter
Adoption of the Report
EXPERTS
Dror ANGEL
Recanati Institute for Maritime Studies
Haifa University
Mt
Carmel, Haifa 31905, Israel
Tel.:
+9724 8288130
Fax:+972
4 8240493
E-mail:[email protected]
Bernardo BASURCO
International Centre for Mediterranean Agronomic Studies (CIHEAM)
Mediterranean Agronomic Institute of Zaragoza
(IAMZ)
Apartado 202, 50080 Zaragoza, Spain
Tel.:+34
976 716000/ 716006
Fax:
+34 976 716001
E-mail:
[email protected]
Stefano CATAUDELLA
Dipartimento
di Biologia
Università
di Roma “Tor Vergata”
Via
della Ricerca Scientifica
00133
Rome, Italy
Tel.:+39
06 2026187
Fax:
+39 06 2026189
E-mail:[email protected]
Souha EL
ASMI (Ms)
Regional Activity Centre for Specially
Protected Areas (RAC/SPA)
Boulevard du Leader Yasser Arafat
BP 337, 1080 Tunis Cedex, Tunisia
Tel.:
+216 71 795760
Fax:
+216 71 797349
E-mail:
[email protected]
Abderrahmen GANNOUN
United Nations EnvironmentProgramme
Mediterranean Action Plan (MAP)
Regional Activity Centre for Specially
Protected Areas (RAC/SPA)
Boulevard du Leader Yasser Arafat
BP 337, 1080 Tunis Cedex, Tunisia
Tel.:
+216 71 847122
Fax:
+216 71 848069
E-mail: [email protected]
Ioannis
KARAKASSIS
University
of Crete
Department
of Biology
PO
Box 2208
Heraklion
71409, Greece
Tel.:
+30 2810 337828
Fax:
+30 2810 337822
E-mail: [email protected]
Ivan KATAVIĆ
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water
Management
Ulica Grada Vukovara 78
10000 Zagreb, Croatia
Tel.: +385 1 610 65 31
Fax: +385 1 610 65 58
E-mail:[email protected]
Denis LACROIX
Palavas
Station
Institut français de recherche pour l'exploitation de la mer (IFREMER)
34250
Palavas-les-Flots, France
Tel.:+33 467 504102
Fax:+33 467 682885
E-mail:[email protected]
Philippe LEMERCIER
International Affairs
Institut français de recherche pour l'exploitation
de la mer (IFREMER)
155, rue Jean-Jacques Rousseau
92128 Issy-les-Moulineaux, France
Tel.:+33 1 46482229
Fax:+33 1 46482188
E-mail: [email protected]
Nuria MARBA
(Ms)
Institut Mediterrani d'Estudis
Avançats
Miquel Marques 21
07190 Esporles
Illes Balears, Spain
Tel.:
+34 971 611720
Fax:
+34 971 611720
E-mail: [email protected]
Abdellatif ORBI
Institut national de recherche halieutique (INRH)
2, Rue Tiznit
Casablanca, Morocco
Tel.:+212 22 298534
Fax:+212 22 266967
E-mail:[email protected]
Marco SAROGLIA
Dipartimento di Biotecnologia e Scienze
Molecolari
Facoltà di Scienze
Sede di Varese
Via
H.J. Dunant, 3
21100
Varese, Italy
Tel.:+39
0332 421 332
Fax:+39
0332 421 500
E-mail: [email protected]
François
SIMARD
The
World Conservation Union (IUCN)
Centre for Mediterranean Cooperation
Parque
Tecnológico de Andalucía
Calle
Maria Curie, 35
Campanillas
29590
Malaga, Spain
Tel.:+34
952 028 430
Fax:+34
952 028 145
E-mail: [email protected]
GFCM SECRETARIAT
Food
and Agriculture Organization
of the United Nations (FAO)
Viale
delle Terme di Caracalla
00100
Rome
Alain BONZON
GFCM Executive Secretary
FAO Fisheries Department
Tel.:+39
06 57056441
Fax:
+39 06 57056500
E-mail: [email protected]
Doris SOTO (Ms)
Senior Fishery
Resources Officer
Inland Water Resources and Aquaculture Service
FAO Fisheries
Department
Tel.:
+39 06 57056149
Fax:+39
06 57053020
E-mail: [email protected]
Alessandro LOVATELLI
CAQ
Technical Secretary
Fishery
Resources Officer
Inland
Water Resources and Aquaculture Service
FAO Fisheries Department
Tel.:
+39 06 57056448
Fax: +39
06 57053020
E-mail: [email protected]
Donatella CROSETTI (Ms)
Visiting
Scientist
Marine Resources Service
FAO Fisheries Department
Tel.: +39 06 57056815
Fax: +39 06 57053020
E-mail:[email protected]
AdriaMed and MedsudMed Projects
Fabio
MASSA
Project Coordinator
Corso Umberto I, 30
86039 Termoli (CB), Italy
Tel.:+39 0875 708252
Fax:+39 0875 720065
E-mail: [email protected]
The Network on Environment and Aquaculture in the Mediterranean (EAM) was created in 1992 following a MEDRAP (Mediterranean Regional Aquaculture project) decision and was transferred under the aegis of the Committee on Aquaculture (CAQ) of the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM) through the coordination of the Mediterranean Action Plan. EAM temporally suspended its activities in 1996. As a result of process, comprising an external evaluation of CAQ and its Networks, in 2004, the GFCM requested as a matter of priority that EAM be re-established. This paper describes the process which leaded to the GFCM decision. It also suggests elements that need to be considered in order to reach the two main objectives of the Expert Consultation for the re-establishment of EAM, i.e. (i) identifying a short/medium-term programme for EAM and (ii) a suitable institutional framework and cost-efficient modus operandi to ensure its sustainability.
See Annex 1 for selected references and information on Mediterranean aquaculture and environment
BACKGROUND ON EAM
Constitution of EAM
In 1993, the GFCM endorsed the four aquaculture networks established by the United Nations Development Programme/Food and Agriculture Organization (UNDP/FAO) Mediterranean Regional Aquaculture Project, MEDRAP II (1990–1995). These networks were:
Information aspects for promotion of aquaculture in the Mediterranean (SIPAM).
Technical aspects for promotion of aquaculture in the Mediterranean (TECAM).
Economic and legal aspects for promotion of aquaculture in the Mediterranean (SELAM).
Environmental Aspects of Aquaculture in the Mediterranean (EAM).
The constitution of EAM took place in a seminar held in Athens, Greece, in June 1993 (MEDRAP II,1993a) when it was proposed that the Mediterranean Action Plan (MAP), through its Regional Activities Centre for the Priority Actions Programmes (RAC/PAP), should be entrusted with the coordination, continuation and management of EAM activities as a network. The seminar also suggested having a working group meeting in September of that year to elaborate a more specific programme of activities for 1994–1995 (MEDRAP II,1993b) to be submitted to the MEDRAP II Network Steering Committee.
The main objectives of the EAM Network were defined as:
To contribute to optimization of aquaculture production through ecological characterization of coastal zones, set-up of a site identification methodology and develop management guidelines for dominant production systems.
To contribute to the protection and preservation of natural resources and the environment through specific procedures of monitoring, through establishment of standards, recommendations and framework for national legislation.
To provide information on the environmental performances of aquaculture in order to define its position within the context of Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICAM).
EAM priorities and main activities
During the above mentioned EAM Network constitution seminar (MEDRAP II, 1993a), four priority topics were selected:
lagoon management;
interactions between aquaculture and environment;
site evaluation and protection;
ecologically sound integrated management of mollusc culture.
At the First session of CAQ (Rome, 9–12 September 1996), EAM reported several activities carried out during the intersessional period 1994–1995. These included:
Workshop on “Impacts of intensive farming outfalls on the coastal ecosystem” (Jerba, Tunisia, April 1994).
Workshop on “Environmental aspects of shellfish culture in the Mediterranean with special reference to monitoring” (Dubrovnik, Croatia, July 1994).
Two working group meetings on lagoon management (Nador, Morocco, July 1994; Montpellier, France, June 1995).
Workshop on the “Selection and protection of sites suitable for aquaculture” (Heraklion, Greece, November 1995).
Among the salient outputs of EAM was the production of guidelines, such as on selection and protection of sites suitable for aquaculture.
These activities were facilitated through collaborative efforts mainly by MAP-PAP/RAC, MEDRAP II, INSTOP (Tunisia), ISPM (Morocco), IOF (Croatia), IMBC (Greece), Montpellier University and IFREMER (France) and FAO.
Although the EAM Coordination Committee held its first meeting in April 1995 and prepared a programme of work, no activities were carried out after 1996. In its 1996 report of activity, EAM noted that funds allocated by MAP-RAC/PAP were inadequate to carry out the proposed activities for 1996/1997 and called upon additional resources from collaborating institutions and GFCM Members to secure sustainability and continuity of the Network.
As a result some of the environmental aspects of Mediterranean aquaculture were partly covered under a number of TECAM and SELAM seminars and training courses organized by the International Centre for Mediterranean Agronomic Studies (CIHEAM) in cooperation with the FAOFisheries Department.
EAM and the GFCM Committee of Aquaculture (CAQ)
At its twenty-first session in 1995, the GFCM established the Committee on Aquaculture in replacement of its Working Group on Artificial Reefs and Mariculture. To date the CAQ has held four sessions. The mandate of the Committee is defined in Rules X (1) of the GFCM Rules of Procedure, as summarized below:
to monitor developments and trends of aquaculture practices in the region;
to monitor the interaction between aquaculture development and the environment;
to oversee and guide the work of the four networks created as a result of the activities of MEDRAP II, and in particular by monitoring the progress, evaluating the proposed programmes of the various networks;
to seek additional support to complement the contribution of the institutions, which support the established networks, namely CIHEAM, MAP-PAP/RAC and FAO, and to enhance the work of the four networks;
to carry out other duties related to aquaculture promotion and development that may be referred to the Committee by the Commission.
At the first session of CAQ (Rome, 9–12 September 1996), the Committee acknowledged the difficulties, especially financial, encountered by EAM, and took note of the high priority given by MAP to environmental interactions of aquaculture. Given the limited funds available, the delegates suggested that themes should be further prioritized. Suggestions on most urgent needs include guidance on appropriate environmental impact assessment and monitoring techniques, definition of environmental quality objectives and standards, development and harmonization of environmental regulations at national and international levels, research on environmental impacts of aquaculture, with emphasis on cage culture, as well as methodologies for selection, allocation and protection of sites suitable for aquaculture.
At the CAQ Consultation on the Application of Article 9 of the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries in the Mediterranean, held in Rome, from 19 to 23 July 1999, within the five elements identified in the proposed Action Plan for the Promotion of Responsible Aquaculture in the Mediterranean, “Element C” concerns the enhancement of harmonization between aquaculture development and environmental conservation. (FAO, 1999; Annex 2).
The Report of the Consultation, including its Action Plan was endorsed at the second session of CAQ (Rome, 13–16 June 2000) and further on by the GFCM. While discussing at this session the work of its network, questions were raised by CAQ Delegates about the inclusion of environment related activities which were to be carried out by EAM, such as problem of genetic pollution, fish escapees, effects of introduced species, etc. The need to work on aspects of environmental policy and strategies for decision-making was also pointed out.
At the third session of CAQ (Zaragoza, Spain, 25–27 September 2002), several Delegates insisted on the importance of environmental aspects in the work of the Committee. CAQ considered, however, that in view of current financial constraints, a re-activation of EAM was premature and that TECAM should pursue activities related to environmental issues.
An Ad Hoc Meeting of Experts on the External Evaluation of the Committee on Aquaculture and its Networks was convened in Rome, from 29 to 30March 2004. The experts stressed that the activities under the EAM Network have only partly been addressed by TECAM, and that the former should be resumed and operated as a separate entity. Indeed, the experts noted that among the weaknesses of the four networks was the fact that they were not used as tools for policy issue discussion and implementation, and that liaison and collaboration among the networks was still rather inadequate (GFCM, 2003a).
At its fourth session (Alexandria, Egypt, 7–9 June 2004) the Committee on Aquaculture stressed that an adequate share of the GFCM autonomous budget should be allocated to support and direct the activities of its networks and to strengthen the synergies among them. Specific recommendations were endorsed concerning the strengthening of TECAM and SELAM. In particular, the re-establishment of EAM was recommended, including the broadening of its scope of activities to encompass issues of strategic and regional importance (GFCM, 2004a).
At its Extraordinary Session (St Julians, Malta, 19–23 July 2004), the GFCM endorsed the above recommendation from CAQ and further agreed that funds from the GFCM autonomous budget, for CAQ activities, be dedicated in priority to the strengthening of SELAM and the re-establishment of EAM.
Finally, at its twenty-ninth session (Rome, 21–25 February 2005) the Commission reiterated the need to re-establish a functional EAM at the earliest. Following an explicit request from Croatia, the delegate from France expressed willingness to positively consider various options to give a new impetus to EAM. The Commission, however, did not discuss the working paper (GFCM/30/2005/8), first presented at the GFCM Extraordinary session by which, the Secretariat invited the Commission to provide clarifications on the institutional relationship between CAQ and all of its networks on issues of coordination and financing.
RELEVANCE OF CURRENT SCENARIOS AND FRAMEWORK FOR THE SCOPE OF EAM IN THE XXI CENTURY
Present state of Mediterranean aquaculture
Marine and brackish water aquaculture production in the Mediterranean and Black seas has increased steadily since the 1980s and in 2003 reached an estimated 371000 tonnes (FAO, 2005) of which the largest proportion is represented by marine finfish (49 percent). Aquaculture production is expected to continue at the present level or to further increase.
Missing information for policy and decision making process: a potential scope for EAM
Although aquaculture relieves pressure on fisheries, its impact on aquatic resources and on the environment is not yet fully understood and is still being debated.
In general, while local effects of nutrient enrichment are very well covered by theUnited Nations Environment/Mediterranean Action Plan (UNEP/MAP) report (2004) and by other recent studies (Karakassis, Pitta and Krom, 2005), there is little or no information on the ecosystem carrying capacity at regional levels, for example in the Adriatic Sea, or along the coasts of Greece, etc. Such information is most relevant to prevent regional eutrophication, hypoxic conditions, outbreak of red tides, toxic outbreaks, etc.
Other potential impacts are not well studied, such as the effect of escapees and their interactions with wild species and fisheries. Similarly, the potential effects of species introductions and transfers are not well understood. Indeed, much of the research on the genetic impacts of farm escapees and restocking concerns mainly salmonids, especially Atlantic salmon and brown trout, where as much less is available for Mediterranean farmed marine species.
With regards to the use of chemicals and drugs, such as antibiotics, pesticides, vitamins, etc., it is acknowledged that there is limited or no information on their effects in the Mediterranean Sea, while effects are well documented elsewhere.
There is comparatively less information on the effects of bivalve aquaculture on the Mediterranean Sea and such effects should not be underestimated. Indeed, one of the first activities of EAM included a seminar on “Environmental aspects of shellfish culture in the Mediterranean with special reference to monitoring” (Dubrovnik, Croatia, July 1994; FAO, 1996).
There are also new forms of aquaculture which have recently being developed in the Mediterranean, one of the most relevant being bluefin tuna fattening, the impact of which is still largely unknown. The joint ad hoc GFCM and International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) Working Group on Sustainable Bluefin Tuna Farming/Fattening Practices in the Mediterranean recently adopted the “Guidelines on Sustainable Bluefin Tuna Farming Practices in the Mediterranean” (GFCM/ICCAT, 2005). These guidelines place considerable emphasis on environmental issues, especially Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA).
Opportunities
An important event during the past decade was the adoption of the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (CCRF) in 1995. The above mentioned Consultation on the Application of Article 9 of the FAO CCRF in the Mediterranean Region (FAO, 1999), especially its Action Plan, should be considered as an important step forward that could serve as a guide for future actions of EAM.
The active presence of the FAO regional projects in support of GFCM (AdriaMed, CopeMed, EastMed and MedsudMed)1 could also provide opportunities for investigations, interactions, joint activities, coordination, etc. For example, the AdriaMed project organized in November 2003organized a consultation on the interactions between aquaculture and capture fisheries. In addition to providing a comprehensive framework on aquaculture in the Adriatic, the Consultation defined a matrix and identified indicators using a systemic approach (ecology, economy, governance and legal framework) to support the analysis of the interaction between the two sub-sectors. The results of the Consultation were highly received by the fourth session of CAQ as well as the sixth session of the GFCM Scientific Advisory Committee. As a result it was recommended to consider using such an approach in other part of the Mediterranean, taking into account the impact on biodiversity, restocking, space competition, marketing and the role of local fishing communities.
As mentioned above, other GFCM-CAQ networks have partially taken environmental “responsibilities” . Such is the case of TECAM and SELAM under the coordination of CIHEAM. As an example of such activities there was the CIHEAM sponsored seminar on the “Impact assessment of Mediterranean aquaculture farms” (Uriarte and Basurco, 2001). Also the latest UNEP/MAP 2004 report provides a synthesis of environmental issues related to aquaculture in the Mediterranean. This report provides important baseline information and advance in the understanding of the environmental problems in the Mediterranean (or evidence of the lack of it). Another initiative supported by The World Conservation Union (IUCN) was a recent seminar on environmental issues in the Mediterranean (De Monbrison, 2004). In April 2004, an international workshop entitled “Sustainable aquaculture: animal welfare, human health and interactions with the environment” was held in Pontignano (Siena, Italy) (Focardi, 2005).
Numerous scientific groups have been doing research related to aquaculture and environment in the Mediterranean Sea with an ecosystemic perspective including the development of norms and regulations (ASLO 2005;ECASA 2005;MARAQUA project;Read, Fernandez and Miller,2001;MedVegproject 2004; See section 4 for further details). The presence of these groups, networks, NGOs, etc., with potentially common interests could be considered as partners to any EAM initiative.A further opportunity is also represented by the SIPAM with regards to the dissemination of information on environmental issues produced by EAM.
However, all these initiatives will require coordination and streamlining, particularly to avoid overlaps, to ensure cost-effectiveness and possibly lead to establish the basis for sound decision making process. EAM could play an important role in this respect.
CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF EAM
Selected issues related to EAM mandate
Although there are several environmental initiatives related to aquaculture in the Mediterranean, there is a need to integrate all actions, existing networks and programmes to ensure the provision of proper advice and recommendations to theGFCM Members. Considering however that the Mediterranean is one ecosystem it may be necessary to consider first the carrying capacities different basins in order to protect the whole ecosystem. On the other hand, the need for a coherent regulatory framework on a regional scale has been strongly recommended by the UNEP/MAP (2004) review.
These are complex issues since there are numerous initiatives which are somehow networking on environmental issues in the Mediterranean (e.g. UNEP/MAP, ECASA). However, EAM could play a coordinating role under the CAQ and GFCM umbrella.
In general, from the experience of established networks such as NACA it is important to underline clearly which are the services to be provided by EAM and establishing some sort of “Value” for such services. Some of these “Services” are describe in the following paragraphs.
Toward a common environmental regulatory framework for aquaculture activities. Even though from a scale perspective aquaculture contributes only with a very small proportion to the pollution (e.g. organic matter) into the Mediterranean Sea (Karakassis, Pitta and Krom, 2005), given its location in coastal zones, often well exposed to public perception, its potentially notorious local impacts could make the activity “damaging” or perceived as such.
Often, problems with licensing of aquaculture sites and the different regulations and requirements (or the lack of them) for different regions within a country and among countries make difficult the development/use of clear environmental standards and even more the reinforcing of such regulations. Although for European countries the EU2 requires that certain aquaculture activities undertake anEnvironment Impact Assessments (EIA) before a licence is granted, variability among countries could be great (Read, Fernandez and Miller, 2001).
Therefore EAM could play an essential role for promoting the development of guidelines and common environmental methodologies and standards, thereby contributing to the establishment of a coherent and compatible regulatory framework. For example, commonly accepted EIA systems and monitoring tools for aquaculture could further produce a database with a GIS support system and could be connected to a more global permanent monitoring programme.
Permanent environmental monitoring programme of the Mediterranean connected to aquaculture activities. Such programme should evaluate the general physicochemical conditions of the Mediterranean taking care of potential eutrophication events, climatic events such as increases in temperature, decreases in oxygen levels, outbreak of harmful algal blooms. Such monitoring programme would also serve as a prevention tool with warning capabilities for environmental management. Such a tool could also help fish farmers to better plan the production process, optimize feed use, etc. Global warming is also being observed in the Mediterranean where there are clear sea warming tendencies (Duarte et al., 1999; Duarte, 2003) which may have strong effects on aquaculture. Furthermore such a monitoring programme could also produce a GIS connected with production intensity and distribution of aquaculture activities.
The databases and information should also be connected to the action of other networks/entities/projects such as SIPAM, AdriaMed, CIHEAM, IUCN, ECASA, etc. There are some databases and modelling systems such as MODB3 (Mediterranean Oceanic Database of the University of Liege Geo-hydrodynamics and Environmental Research) which could also be linked to support more localized information for aquaculture. This kind of information of technical character could be edited and translated for practical use in aquaculture.
Developing responsible management practices for fish farmers in the Mediterranean Sea. This can offer important advantages not only for the environment but also for the access to regional and global markets; here the Network could act as a coordinator amongst the scientific technical community - the private sector-governments. Such activity with private sector could include other related actions such as the establishment of Clean Production Agreements which can be achieved in a stepwise manner being easier to adopt by farmers. Management practices can be revised and permanently improved according to technological development, training, etc.
Facilitating the development of integrated aquaculture projects, optimizing the use of coastal zones and minimizing environmental impacts, e.g. coupling mussel farming with fish farming (Neori, Shpigeland Ben-Ezra, 2000). The integration of some forms of aquaculture and fisheries could be beneficial in terms of diminishing environmental impacts particularly with regards to organic matterinputs. These may in fact be re-cycled. Furthermore such integration can provide better environmental conditions for farmed fish (cleaner water) and additional food to filter feeders. The possibility to couple aquaculture and recreational fisheries has been poorly explored although the potential benefits may be numerous. Such approaches could provide environmental, economic and as well as social benefits when the community is adequately informed of the advantages of such farming systems. Such facilitation should include the better management of aquaculture and fisheries interactions and may require developing a GIS base description of optimal areas for different aquaculture activities.
Monitoring and prevention of diseases for cultured fish and other species. The Mediterranean is one contained ecosystem that includes a number of adjacent basins. Therefore, intensive aquaculture will always present the risk for diseases outbreaks and dissemination. A permanent database and GIS map of diseases and health status for the main aquaculture species will be an “insurance” and a useful management tool.
Specific actions for mitigation impacts of social and environmental relevance. The development of joint and coordinated mitigating actions to solve impacts from aquaculture for example the damage to Posidonia beds.Initiatives can be undertaken through several independent and/or coordinated actions such as workshops, training courses, working groups, etc.Many of these initiatives are listed in the “Element C” of the Action Plan for the Promotion of Responsible Aquaculture in the Mediterranean (FAO, 1999; Annex 2).
2 EC Directive 97/11/EC amending Directive 85/337/EEC.
3 http://modb.oce.ulg.ac.be/modb/welcome.html.
Experts meeting
As mentioned above, at its Extraordinary session in 2004 the Commission recommended that an expert meeting for the re-establishment of the “Network on Environment and Aquaculture in the Mediterranean” should be organized.
Main objectives of the meeting
to bring together the relevant expertise and knowledge on issues relevant to aquaculture and the environment, including existing operational networks and elaborate a diagnosis on the current state of affairs;
to identify the rationale, objectives, mandate and operational structure for a new EAM, taking into consideration existing programmes, networks and available institutional capacities;
to set-up initial common priorities and activities on the basis of a short-and medium-term programme of work for EAM;
to suggest the most appropriate institutional set-up and modus operandi for EAM.
Institutional set-up, structure and functioning of EAM
Once the relevant issues and actions to be undertaken by EAM (under a general framework of initiatives such as those proposed above) have been developed, these would need to be translated into a programme of work and preliminary budget, from which funding would be investigated.
From the institutional point of view, a number of options could be envisaged, among which the following:
- EAM is maintained as a “network” coordinated through an international organization (as in the past) or a national institution, continuing to report to the GFCM.
- EAM is developed as a full-fledged subsidiary body of the GFCM Committee on Aquaculture. This can take the format of a sub-committee, of a permanent working group or as a set of independent, ad hoc and problem solving activities based on experts networking or a combination on these.
It can also be foreseen that the modus operandi and financing of EAM would, in turn, likely be influenced by the institutional set-up retained.
Annex1
Selected references and information on Mediterranean aquaculture and environment
ASLO (American Society of Limnology and Oceanography) Summer Meeting 2005. Special session
on the ecosystem approach to aquaculture.
http://www.sgmeet.com/aslo/santiago2005/sessionschedule.asp?SessionID=SS19
Cataudella, S., Massa, F. & Crosetti, D. (eds.).2005. Interactions between aquaculture and capture fisheries: a methodological perspective. Studies and Reviews. General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean. No.78. Rome, FAO. 229pp.
Conseil général des pêches pour la Méditerranée/General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean. 1996. Rapport de la première session du Comité pour l'aquaculture. Rome, Italie, 9–12 septembre 1996/Report on the first session of the Committee on Aquaculture. Rome, Italy, 9–12 September 1996. FAO Rapport sur le pêches /FAO Fisheries Report . No. 546. Rome, FAO. 40p.
De Monbrison, P. 2004. Mediterranean marine aquaculture and environment: Identification of issues, IUCN document.
Duarte, C. 2003. The unknowable: identification of the drivers of change-potential drivers of change to marine resources in the Mediterranean and Black Sea. In: Arvanitidis, C. et al ., 2003. Electronic conference on “Marine Biodiversity in the Mediterranean and the Black Sea” , 7–20 April 2003. 46–48pp.
Duarte, C.M., Agusti, S. Kennedy, H. & Vaqué, D. 1999. The Mediterranean climate as a template for Mediterranean marine ecosystems: the example of the northeast Spanish littoral. Progress in Oceanography, 44: 245–270
ECASA. 2005. www.ecasa.org
ICES CM 2003/F:05 Report of the Working Group on Marine Shellfish Culture, 2003. International Council for the Exploration of the Sea/Conseil international pour l'exploration de la mer, Palægade 2–4 DK-1261 Copenhagen K, Denmark.
FAO. 1999. Report on the consultation on the application of article 9 of the FAO Code of conduct for Responsible Fisheries in the MediterraneanRegion.Rome, Italy, 19–23 July 1999.Rapport de la Consultation sur l'application de l'article du Code de conduite pour une pêche responsable de la FAO dans larégionméditerranéenne. Rome, Italie, 19–23 juillet 1999.FAO Fisheries Report/ FAO rapport sur les pêches .No. 606. Rome, FAO. 208p.
FAO Fishery Information, Data and Statistics Unit/Unité de l'information, des données et des statistiques sur les pêches/Dependencia de Información, Datos y Estadísticas de Pesca. 2005. Aquaculture Production 2003. Production de l'aquaculture 2003. Produccíon de acuicultura 2003. FAO yearbook. Fishery statistics. Aquaculture production/FAO annuaire. Statistiques des pêches. Production de l'aquaculture/FAO anuario. Estadísticas de pesca. Producción de acuicultura. Vol.96/2. Rome/Roma, FAO. 195p.
FAO/General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean/Commission générale des pêches pour la Méditerranée. 2002. Report of the third session of the Committee on Aquaculture. Zaragoza, Spain, 25–27 September 2002/Rapport de la troisième session du Comité de l'aquaculture. Saragosse, Espagne, 25–27septembre 2002. FAO Fisheries Report/FAO Rapport sur le pêches . No. 689. Rome, FAO. 29p.
FAO/General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean/Commission générale des pêches pour la Méditerranée. 2004. Report of the fourth session of the Committee on Aquaculture. Alexandria, Egypt, 7–9 June 2004/Rapport de la quatrième session du Comité de l'aquaculture. Alexandrie, Egypte, 7–9 juin 2004. FAO Fisheries Report/FAO Rapport sur le pêches . No. 743. Rome, FAO. 37p.
FAO/General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean/Commission générale des pêches pour la Méditerranée. 2004. Report of the Extraordinary Session. St Julians, Malta, 19–23 July 2004/Rapport de la Session extraordinaire. Saint-Julien, Malte, 19–23 juillet 2004. FAO Fisheries Report/FAO Rapport sur le pêches . No. 755. Rome, FAO. 58p.
FAO/General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean. 2005. Agreement for the establishment of the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean, rules of procedures and financial contribution. GFCM twenty-ninth session. Rome, 21–25 February 2005. GFCM/XXIX/2005/inf.3
FAO/General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean. 2005. Issues connected with the functioning of the Commission. GFCM twenty-ninth session. Rome, 21–25 February 2005. GFCM/XXIX/2005/8
FAO/General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean. 2005. Report of the twenty-ninth session. Rome, 21–25 February 2005, GFCM Report .No.29. Rome, FAO. 50pp.
FAO/General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean. 2005. Report of the Ad Hoc Meeting of Experts on the External Evaluation of the Committee on Aquaculture and its Networks. Rome, 29–30 March 2004/Rapport de la Réunion ad hoc d'experts sur l'évaluation externe du Comité de l'aquaculture et de ses réseaux. Rome, 29–30 mars 2004. FAOFisheries Report/FAO Rapport sur le pêches . No.770. Rome, FAO, 77pp.
FAO/General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean/International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas. 2005. Report of the third meeting of the Ad Hoc GFCM/ICCAT Working Group on Sustainable Bluefin Tuna Farming/Fattening Practices in the Mediterranean. Rome, 16–18 March 2005. FAO Fisheries Report . No.779. Rome, FAO. 108p.
Focardi, S.2005.Preface to the International workshop on “Sustainable aquaculture: animal welfare, human health and interactions with the environment” , Pontignano (Siena, Italy), 31 March –1 April, 2004. Aquaculture International, 13:1
GESAMP (IMO/FAO/UNESCO-IOC/WMO/WHO/IAEA/UN/UNEP) Report, 1991. Reducing environmental impacts of coastal aquaculture Rep. Stud. GESAMP, No.47: 35pp.
Izzo, G. 2001. Monitoring of Mediterranean marine eutrophication: strategy, parameters and indicators. UNEP (DEC) Report (draft) presented in Review meeting of MED-POL, Rome 5–7 December2001.
Karakassis, I., Pitta, P.&Krom, M.D.2005. Contribution of fish farming to the nutrient loading of the Mediterranean. Scientia Marina, 69: 313–321
Katavic, I. 1996. Report of EAM activity, EAM Network, GFCM Committee on Aquaculture, First session, Rome Italy, 9–12 September 1996, Mediterranean ActionPlan/UNEP/Priority Actions Programme, 6pp.
Macchias, A., Karakassis, I., Giannoulaki, M., Papadopoulou, K.N., Smith, C.J. & Somarakis, S. 2005. Response of demersal fish communities to the presence of fish farms. Marine Ecol. Progress Series , 288: 241–250
MARAQUA (Monitoring and Regulation of Marine Aquaculture) project. This project was funded under the European Union FAIR - contract number PL98-4300. The project, which lasted for two years commencing on 1st January 1999, was a “Concerted Action” therefore it did not involve new research but instead concentrated on a review of existing information and the establishment of agreed guidelines for the monitoring and regulation of marine aquaculture (http://www.lifesciences.napier.ac.uk/maraqua/).
MED-POL.2004. Mariculture in the Mediterranean. MAP Technical Report Series .No.140. UNEP-MAP, 80pp.
MEDRAP II.1993a. Network constitution seminar on environment and aquaculture in the Mediterranean “EAM” , Athens, June 14–15 1993. MEDRAP II Field Document . No. 93/23, 102pp.
MEDRAP II.1993b. Working group on the elaboration of 'EAM” 1994–95 Programme of activities, Biarritz, 8–10 September 1993, MEDRAP II Field Document 93/25, 25pp.
MedVeg Project. 2004. Effects of nutrient release from Mediterranean fish farms on benthic vegetation in coastal ecosystems, an EU-funded project under the Fifth Framework Programme Quality of Life (http://www.medveg.dk/).
Neori, A., Shpigel, M. & Ben-Ezra, D. 2000. A sustainable integrated system for culture of fish, seaweed and abalone. Aquaculture, 186: 279–291
PAP/RAC, 1996. Approaches for zoning of coastal areas with reference to Mediterranean aquaculture. PAP-IO/EAM/GL.2 Split. 35pp.
Read, P.A., Fernandez, T.F.,&Miller, K.L.2001. The derivation of scientific guidelines for best environmental practice for the monitoring and regulation of marine aquaculture in Europe. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 17: 146–152
Uriarte, A. & Basurco, B. (eds).2001. Environmental impact assessment of Mediterranean aquaculture farms: Proceedings of the seminar of the network on technology of aquaculture in the Mediterranean (TECAM), CIHEAM and FAO. In: Cahiers Options Méditerranéennes, No.55
Annex2
Element C of the Action Plan for the Promotion of Responsible Aquaculture in the Mediterranean (FAO, 1999)4
Within the five elements (or objectives) identified for the proposed Action Plan for the Promotion of Responsible Aquaculture in the Mediterranean, “Element C” concerns the enhancement of harmonization between aquaculture development and environmental conservation.The text of “Element C” is reproduced below.
"ELEMENT C: To enhance harmonisation between aquaculture development and environmental conservation
The analysis of the national reports highlighted the progressively increasing competition (and sometimes conflicts) between the expanding aquaculture sector, alternative resources users, and the needs of environmental protection. As stated in the Synthesis, there is no specific legislation in all the reporting countries which regulates the environmental impact either on or of aquaculture. This has negative effects on the potential for further aquaculture development and its sustainability. Dialogue between the public and private sectors and, even more critically, between the public authorities involved in rural or fisheries production, administration and those responsible for environment conservation, is still weak. In general, public and private institutions (whether scientific centres or NGOs) seem to be insufficiently aware of the fact that aquaculture development can be essentially compatible with sustainable resource use. There is an evident need for collaboration to effectively apply the recommendations of the Code of Conduct on Responsible Fisheries (CCRF) on topics such as:
the
introduction of new species
New
species are also brought in by the private sector either without any effective
public control or, in other cases (even when forbidden a priori ),
without sufficiently scientifically proven justification.
the reduction of organic waste
These
are chiefly due to the use of inappropriate aquafeeds and feeding techniques or
inadequate effluent treatment.
the
control of disease outbreaks
These
spread in the region through the sale or exchange of live animals (e.g. broodstock,
fingerlings, spat) because of the absence of effective sanitary controls or
(where they are applied) because of their circumvention by producers.
the
minimization of the use of dangerous chemicals,
therapeutants and hormones
Frequently,
safe threshold limits are exceeded, or they are even used without any knowledge
about their toxicity.
“Element C” of the Action Plan is thus geared to strengthening the bonds between aquaculture development and environmental conservation, which responds to the basic statement in the concept of the precautionary approach (which takes into consideration the needs of future generations). The relationships between “Element C” and the previous elements of the Action Plan are clear. An enhanced attitude towards responsibility in aquaculture development (Element A) and improved planning of resource use (Element B) are in fact obligatory steps towards the development of environmentally compatible production activities. On the other hand, the future of aquaculture itself mainly depends on the preservation of healthy environmental conditions. Aquaculture administrators and producers must become fully aware of these facts, not only to minimize any negative impacts on the environment, but also to exert the rights of the industry that safe external conditions should be assured by other resources users.
National acceptance and application of the principles of the CCRFis an essential pre-requisite to “Element C” of the Action Plan. Effective institutional cooperation and coordination on environmental management and aquaculture development is of paramount importance. As mentioned earlier (Element B), all the relevant authorities should be consulted and should provide their technical viewpoints during the general process of development planning. According to the CCRF, environmental issues have the highest importance and must be widely discussed while the possible impacts of aquaculture activities are considered. Participation in development planning must be extended to producers organisations, representatives of local communities and, more broadly, to those who represent the interests and opinions of the general public. Involvement of the academic sector and NGOs is essential in order to reach agreement about the selection of appropriate areas where farming activities could develop with little or no impact on the environment. The possibility of using model aquaculture units which play an active role in environment conservation, while concomitantly providing significant social and economic return (see Element D), for example in reservoirs or coastal lagoons, is also worth consideration.
The heterogeneity of Mediterranean aquaculture probably means that the evaluation of its relationship with the environment must be considered on the basis of a production system approach. A number of examples can be given. Firstly, culture-based fisheries or extensive aquaculture activities draw attention to potential impacts on the integrity of local fishery stocks, the introduction into the wild of competitive species, or an imbalance amongst the proportion of local species. Secondly, intensive inland aquaculture may affect water quality because of the concentration of pollutants in rivers, while intensive coastal aquaculture might cause considerable concern because of organic waste accumulation below floating cages, or the possibility of uncontrollable disease outbreaks. As a third example, mollusc rearing requires effective controls on water quality in the farming sites to prevent the sort of incidents which have been shown to have a dramatically negative impact, not only on the sales of molluscs, but also on the trade of all fisheries products.
The definition of precise standards for application to production activities is urgent. This involves further technological research which is geared to the various production sectors, the identification of potential qualitative parameters and their value for environment control, and the issuance of clear national norms for the application of standards (which should include incentives and deterrents). Regional collaboration on this topic will significantly contribute to the acquisition of information from other countries, within and outside the region, as well as from non-aquaculture production sectors. For example, much of the experience in effluent treatment in other productive sectors may be adaptable to aquaculture.
The promotion of enhanced education for producers and of their direct participation in environmental control is advisable as a means of getting the most effective and durable results. Research results need to be made more readily available to producers. Producers need to be provided with training, which should be arranged separately for (and specifically geared to match the differing characteristics) commercial aquafarmers and small-scale artisanal producers. This training should provide simple and (preferably) cheap environmental quality control methodologies, so that producers can become:
able to monitor external environmental conditions and maintain them safe for production activities;
appropriately skilled in their production management, in order to develop rearing units which are not only technically and economically efficient, but also environmentally sound;and
sufficiently prepared to assume full responsibility for production impact control.
This would allow producers (with periodic public controls) to establish self-certification systems based on agreed standards for product and management responsibility.
Collaboration between producers would also contribute towards solving the commonly reported problems of shortages in public funds (and even staff), which prevent public administrations from efficiently enforcing environmental controls in some countries. In fact, producers might represent a capillary source of data which, opportunely collected and analyzed, could become the basis of a national monitoring system. A high degree of mutual dependence between the public and private sectors is obviously desirable. Adequate training and advice would increase the knowledge of producers and, as already happens in some countries, assist them to accept better farming standards (e.g. limited rearing densities to reduce impact of and on production) in their own interests. However, it is worth noting that this desirable result nevertheless predicates that public institutions develop a balanced attitude towards aquaculture. The prosecution of resource users who damage the environment is necessary, but it needs to be balanced with the potential benefits which aquaculture can provide. An example of value to others in the Mediterranean area is the collaboration between researchers, regulatory officials and the private sector in northern Spain to operate the mussel culture industry in a more sustainable way.
Close collaboration between public and private sectors is clearly necessary to provide practical answers to the problems which have been identified in the national reports.
ELEMENT C of the Action Plan, which seeks to enhance harmonization between aquaculture development and environmental conservation, could be achieved by a number of activities, including:
conducting
impact studies on non-indigenous species
New
studies appear to be necessary to assess the environmental risks due to the use
of non-indigenous species. These assessments of risk need to be carried out
concomitantly with the evaluation of the economic and social advantages of
importing better performing species. Such studies should be made with the
active participation of the production sector.
conducting
impact studies on the use of genetically modified organisms
Research
on the use of genetically modified organisms needs strengthening. This work can
be accomplished, as some countries have already demonstrated, with an enhanced
involvement of private aquaculture companies.
initiating
research, collaboration and education programmes geared towards the use of more
eco-friendly aquafeeds and feeding practices
Collaboration
between producers and suppliers could contribute towards increasing knowledge
about, and promoting the use of eco-friendly aquafeeds. Information transfer on
research for replacing marine ingredients in aquafeeds seems to be an urgent
need. Training concerning nutritional efficiency and the cost-benefits of
applying alternative feeding strategies should be carried out. However, public
administrators need to remember that the high cost of aquafeeds is a major
constraint to the aquaculture industry; this factor needs to be taken into
consideration in designing research approaches towards improving the eco-friendliness
of aquafeed use.
defining, testing and modifying standard responsible production methodologies
Once
defined standard responsible production methodologies and parameter values have
been developed for the various types of aquaculture activities, producers could
fully collaborate in testing the suggested procedures and in suggesting
necessary adaptations to local conditions.
increasing awareness about the risks of disease transfer
As
the Synthesis shows, national reports indicated a need for enhancing the
awareness of producers concerning the high risks of disease transfer throughout
the region. In this respect, collaboration with the public sanitary authorities
needs to be improved. The provision of free technical advice and training, the
establishment of economically reasonable insurance, and the allotment of public
funds to assist the private sector to overcome the general trading difficulties
caused by high-profile outbreaks of disease are three of the activities which
would improve public-private sector collaboration and the acceptance of
sanitary emergency measures.
increase awareness of the necessity of collaboration among neighbouring countries to protect the environment against irresponsible aquaculture activities or to
safeguard the potential for aquaculture development against the activities of other resources users
The
existence of bilateral agreements among neighbouring countries that should be
simple and comprehensible to be implemented is an essential requisite to
increase common actions to avoid negative impacts with respect to aquaculture
and the spread of diseases.
educating producers
The
education of producers will play a major role in the achievement of this
element of the Action Plan. The private sector needs to be provided with
technically and economically feasible alternatives which enhance the
responsibility of their management. These would include improved technical
standards, lists of acceptable products, and the provision of regular
monitoring services and advice.
increase collaboration between the authorities, public sector and NGOs to promote initiatives of responsible aquaculture practices through seeking new or amended
legislation
The
Synthesis reflects a general lack of dialogue between government authorities
dealing with aquaculture, the private sector and NGOs. This dialogue should
start in each country and should be reflected in new or amended legislation
which will take into consideration the environmental needs of the sector.
Regional cooperation among public authorities, research centres and producer organisations would favour the development of common actions towards a region-wide enhancement in environmental protection and the sharing of the results achieved. One specific example could be a regional programme on predation and the protection of wading birds. NGOs could significantly contribute towards promoting regional media campaigns to present aquaculture as a responsible food producing activity rather than something which is environmentally harmful. In order to gain the confidence in aquaculture as a responsible activity, which such cooperation (with NGOs and the public) would need to have, the conflicts between aquaculture producers and other resource users have to be reduced as far as possible. These conflicts result from inappropriate rearing practices, which can impair the image of the sector and constrain its future growth. The demonstrable effects of an enhanced responsibility on the behalf of the aquaculture sector would reconfirm aquaculture as a production tool with the potential to reduce the excessive exploitation of wild resources.”
