by Rudolf Müller, Kastanienbaum, Switzerland

This Progress Report was prepared following the request of 12 February 1998 by the EIFAC Secretariat. It covers the intersessional activities carried out within Sub-Commission III since May 1996. Items follow the sequence given in FAO Fisheries Report No. 541 (FIPL/R541) reporting on the 19th Session of EIFAC in Dublin, 1996.

The objectives of the working party, as it was defined by EIFAC in 1990, are the collection of information on the modes in which fisheries management can contribute to the amelioration of the aquatic environment, and an analysis of how appropriate management of fisheries and aquaculture can be used to maintain/improve the quality of the aquatic environment. The working party was intended to work primarily by correspondence, at least in the beginning.

After repeated difficulties and considerable delay in finding a Convenor for this Woking Party, Miran W. Aprahamian (United Kingdom) agreed to accept this task in October 1997.

It was suggested that as a first step the relevant literature on the subject should be collected and summarised. The first results of this activity will be presented to the Session of Sub-Commission III.

The main activity of this Working party so far consisted in the elaboration of the �Manual and guidelines on the improvement of riverine habitats for fish communities� (original title). After some major restructuring and rewriting of various chapters of a first version from 1994, a final version was received by the EIFAC Secretariat in 1996. After some further work on the layout, the 260 page volume with the new title �Rehabilitation of Rivers for Fish� has appeared in printed form in spring 1998, edited by I.G. Cowx and R.L. Welcomme and published by �Fishing News Books�, Oxford.

The Chairman of the working party, J. Coeck (Belgium) has initiated discussions among working party members as to the future activities on post-project appraisal and assessment of the effect of restoration measures. A workshop focusing mainly on post-project appraisal, originally planned for 1996, took place on 30 March 1998 preceding the International Symposium on Management and Ecology of River Fisheries, organised by the University of Hull (United Kingdom) During the workshop the following items were discussed:

• Overview of remedial actions undertaken in the different countries
• Effectiveness of river rehabilitation (for fish/fisheries)
• Evaluation methodologies for river rehabilitation.

A full report on the outcome of the workshop is attached in Annex 1.

The convenor of the sub-group "Methodologies for rehabilitation of lakes and reservoirs", Mr Hannu Lehtonen, in consultation with Heiner Naeve and Gerd Marmulla decided that the sub-group will meet on Saturday 27 June 1998. For the discussions and further work he is preparing a short draft paper which will have the following tentative contents:

1. Introduction

2. Habitats and requirements of fish

3. European lakes and reservoirs and their fish assemblages

4. Impact of man's activities on habitats

5. Habitat modification

6. Methods of rehabilitation

7. Fish stock enhancement strategies

The work has proceeded slower than expected because of the chairman�s heavy work load of teaching and supervising masters and doctoral students, and being a member of an evaluation committee for a professor's position.

Although there has been no coordination so far with the working party on the "Effects of physical modifications of the aquatic habitat on fish", it is hoped that an exchange of information with the Convenor of the working party, Johan Coeck (Belgium), during the EIFAC Session in Portugal will be possible. Participation in the sub-group has been rather limited till now, and more active participants will be identified during the upcoming symposium.

The Coordinator of the ad-hoc Expert Consultation, Z. Svobodová (Czech Republic), reports that in the course of 1997, the Department of Aquatic Toxicology of the RIFCH Vodnany continued sampling of fish and other components of aquatic ecosystems for the determination of pollutants. Again, the results of the analyses were entered into the database of both the RIFCH and the Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic.

The results of monitoring the pollutant content in fish and other components of aquatic ecosystems were presented on two international conferences:

• On the European toxicological conference EUROTOX in Århus (Denmark), the results of chemical and biological monitoring of river dam reservoirs were presented, focusing on the Hg and PCB contamination of fish and bottom sediments. The phenomenon of newly filled dam reservoirs was again found on the Luèina reservoir, i.e. an intensive transfer of Hg from sediments to the food web and to the fish 10-15 years after filling the dam.
• The Skalka reservoir, strongly contaminated with Hg, also was investigated. Although the values of total Hg content were several-fold over the hygienic limits, the level of metallothioneins in fish liver did not show such a pronounced increase. It seems that this biochemical marker does not reliably reflect the Hg contamination of localities. Likewise the Hg content in fish endoparasites was not significantly increased, although elevated Hg levels were found in muscle.
• A workshop on �Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) in Environmental Matrices of Bavaria and the Czech Republic� was held at Neuherberg near Munich in November 1997. The workshop discussed the common problems of environment conservation in both the Czech Republic and in Bavaria, as well as a possibility of further cooperation.
• Prof. Kettrup and Prof. Heinisch from the Institute for Ecological Chemistry at Neuherberg, Germany, are in charge of preparing the following joint publication together with researchers of the RIFCH Vodnany: �Persistent organic compounds in food chains in Bavaria and the Czech Republic; part 2: Aquatic systems�.

A grant on �Assessment of xenobiotic burden in fish using biochemical markers ended in 1997. Based on experience from the previous projects and from this grant, the following proposal of a system of biological monitoring of surface water contamination was proposed:

• Bioindication at the level of biocenoses (observation of changes in species composition and age spectrum of ichthyocenoses and abundance of fish stocks),
• Fish health examination (clinical, pathological and anatomical examination, as well as other special examination in a special case),
• Evaluation of histological and pathological changes in fish tissues (mainly liver, spleen, cranial and caudal part of kidney),
• Assessment of differential leukocyte count (leucogramme), determination of index of stress loading and evaluation of changes on blood cells,
• Assessment of genotoxicity of particular aquatic environments by means of a MNT screening method, or appropriately using other methods evaluating genotoxicity,
• Determination of cytochrome P4501A activity (fluorometric assessment of 7-etoxyresorufin-O-dietylasis - EROD) in microsomal fraction of liver tissue,
• Determination of oxidative stress parameters, i.e. of glutathion-S-transferasis (GST) activity and of lipid peroxidation in microsomal fraction of liver tissue,

Determination of vitellogenin concentration in fish male blood plasma as a parameter of an effect of xenoestrogenic substances.

The proposal of a system of biological monitoring of surface water contamination includes a whole series of parameters, from general ones (bioindication at the level of biocenoses) to very specific ones (determination of vitellogenin concentration in male fish). The proposed system is not a closed one but it is necessary to develop the problem further and to make it more precise, within the frame of other linked research projects.

At the end of 1997 and in 1998, the attention focused on problems relating to the effects of xenoestrogenic substances on fish. A grant proposal called �Xenoestrogens in the aquatic ecosystems of the Czech Republic: Biological effects and the occurrence on selected localities� was recently submitted to the Grant Agency of the Czech Republic.

The main activity of this working party consisted in following this important matter at the European level. Cormorants continue to be the object of ardent discussions between nature (bird) conservationists, fisheries managers and fishers. Within this context, one of the core events was the expert meeting of the European Action Plan for the Management of the Great Cormorant in the African-Eurasian Region, Copenhagen, 25-26 September 1997. The meeting was under the umbrella of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS or Bonn Convention). The Convenor of the working party, E. Staub (Switzerland), participated at the expert meeting as EIFAC observer. His report is attached as Annex 2.

The main point of discussion was the Draft Action Plan on the Management of Cormorants. Unfortunately, only four out of 14 participating Range States had sent representatives from the fisheries sector to make the point on behalf of fisheries management and ecology. When the discussion came to the measures at the population level, the German delegation who had a clearly pre-discussed and homogenous position (with parity of fish and bird representatives) proposed a 25% reduction at the population level during the next two years. This proposal was supported by the EIFAC observer who mentioned the crucial need to have a clear quantitative goal for the management of the population.

Because a clear majority of the delegations was not willing to discuss management measures at the population level and to determine quantitative figures for the European population- as proposed by the German delegation -, the discussion ended already after a short time. Thus, the final version of the Action Plan included the following elements (listed in order of preference:

1. Appropriate site-specific fisheries management
2. Local management and control of cormorants
3. Co-ordinated management and control of cormorants between Range States.

The Action Plan was endorsed against the opposition of a small minority consisting of the underrepresented fisheries sector. Because a stabilisation or reduction of the European strongholds at the population level is not foreseen in the present Action Plan, the Action Plan will not be able to significantly reduce the cormorant-fish conflict.

By the end of 1997 the finalised Action Plan for the Management of the Great Cormorant and an additional document with remarks to the different measures (to be elaborated by NL/DK) were expected be sent out to the Scientific Council of the CMS Convention and to the Range States. The CMS experts propose an immediate implementation. However, as Germany could not endorse this Action Plan it remained unclear if there will be a formal step before the discussion / approval of the Action Plan during the next conference of the Range States in 1999. Anyhow, the mailing of the Action Plan will be an important moment for the EIFAC national correspondents to intervene within their countries in the sense of the position of Germany, i.e. (i) refusing an Action Plan as long as quantitative goals for the management at the population level are missing and (ii) asking for further negotiations.

The CMS Recommendation 5.3 also recommends to establish an Advisory Committee with members from nature conservation and fisheries (in parity) and organised as a subgroup of the Scientific Council of CMS. The future of this body, however, remains unclear as neither the Netherlands nor Denmark wanted to take any initiative. There was also no Range State to be found for taking the responsibility for a secretariat of the Action Plan.

A new problem relating to fish and the environment has recently emerged in several countries in Europe. It is proposed to explorethe need and feasibility to engage Sub-Commission III in this field:

• Endocrine disrupters and the problem of decreasing trout stocks in Europe.

by Johan Coeck, Hasselt, Belgium

The 260 pp �Manual on Rehabilitation of Rivers for Fish�, prepared by the Working Party and edited by I.G. Cowx and R. Welcomme, was published in 1998 by arrangement with FAO by Fishing News Books, Oxford.

As suggested during the Nineteenth Session of EIFAC, an important part of the International Symposium on Management and Ecology of River Fisheries (29 March - 3 April 1998), organised by the University of Hull (UK) in collaboration with EIFAC was dedicated to the effectiveness of river rehabilitation. Sessions were held on: assessment of fish community structure and dynamics, anthropogenic impacts, habitat requirements, conservation, management of floodplain fisheries, rehabilitation of river fisheries, management, large river fisheries, fisheries ecology. The proceedings of the symposium will be published by Fishing News Books, Blackwell Science.

On 29 March, in concomitance with the Symposium, the one-day Workshop on Management and Ecology of River Fisheries was opened and chaired by Dr. Ian Cowx. Two discussion group meetings were convened in parallel. Mr. G. Marmulla chaired the Workshop session on "Anthropogenic Activities and Fisheries" and "Rehabilitation and Mitigation Activities" which was at the same time considered as the Session of the Working Party. Mr. M.C. Lucas (UK) reported to the Symposium plenary.

The conclusions and recommandations of the workshop were as follows.

1. In dealing with the issue of rehabilitation, it was observed that fisheries biologists and managers are generally able to

• identify and prioritise the problems, impacting upon fisheries and aquatic communities
• identify and carry out appropriate technical solutions to these problems (acknowledging, within this context, the influence of continued innovation and the effects of the scale of some problems)

2. Currently, it has become clear that the socio-economic aspects of restorations are of growing importance.

3. Pro-activity:

• Fisheries specialists need to be involved at an early stage in river management schemes.
• Since most of the factors causing problems for fish communities are outwith our immediate control (i.e. interaction with other interest groups,�) it is necessary that fisheries specialists broaden and strengthen their cause.

4. Strategy:

• Fisheries specialists need to evaluate and differentiate between perceived and genuine problems in order to define their relative magnitude.
• According to the scale of the problem, it is necessary to identify by what means of resource (funding !) the objective can be achieved.
• The objectives should be set in conjunction with allied groups, taking into account political-economic�motives.
• A flexible, multi-objective approach for rehabilitation studies should be adopted.

5. Evaluation:

• In arguing the case for restoration works, the cost-benefit evaluation needs improvement, as does its methodology, which has yet to be standardised. In addition, the scale of the project has to be taken into account.
• The training of fisheries specialists in the socio-economic assessment should also be improved.
• By promoting the value of fish and aquatic communities, the dialogue with politicians and the general public can be uplifted.
• In the future, post-restoration assessment not only needs to be improved, but should also be incorporated into the budgeting when seeking funds.

During the Hull 1998 meeting it was suggested that the Working Party should try to collect information on completed rehabilitation projects in collaboration with the EIFAC secretariat. The possibility of opening an internet-site for this purpose will be studied.

by Erich Staub, Berne, Switzerland

An invitation by Denmark was sent directly to E. Staub (letter of 15 July 1997) as he had represented EIFAC already in 1996 when The Netherlands organised a workshop to prepare the European Management Plan. After contacting the EIFAC chairman, C. Moriarty, E. Staub participated as EIFAC observer again.

The meeting was under the umbrella of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS or Bonn Convention). The mandate was formulated in CMS-Recommendation 5.3 of 16 April 1997: "to bring together an international group of experts from the nature conservation and fisheries sectors, to complete the action plan ... taking into account the relevant national and international legislation, having regard to the activities of the European Inland Fisheries Advisory Commission and the Wetlands International working groups".

A Draft Action Plan was mailed in advance. Unfortunately the material of the preparatory workshop in 1996 was distributed with delay, partially at the 1997 meeting itself (minutes) and partially some weeks after this meeting (final version of the important paper with the simulations of different scenarios for a control or reduction at the population level).

14 Range States were participating. Whereas all States had representatives of nature conservation in their delegation there were only 4 States with representatives of the fisheries sector. Even the hosting country, Denmark, attended without a representative of the fisheries sector. The German delegation was most numerous (8 persons originating from different "Länder") and showed a clearly pre-discussed and homogenous position of the delegation (with parity of fish and bird representatives) but still giving room to its members to present their views. Also the Dutch delegation was large (5 persons) an had a delegation opinion (no opinion presented by the fisheries' representative).

During the first day of the meeting the discussion focused on technical problems of different measures and the necessary monitoring program. In the later afternoon the discussion approached the corner stone of the management plan, the measures at the population level:

• The German delegation proposed a 25% reduction at the population level during the next 2 years. This proposal was supported by the EIFAC observer, who mentioned the crucial need to have a clear quantitative goal for the management of the population, in the sense of an upper limit that should not be exceeded and a lower limit where all management and control measures should be stopped.
• The German proposal was said to be in contradiction with the Bonn Convention. Furthermore, the Dutch delegation (supported by DK) explained that a limitation of the breeding population would be no matter of discussion in their countries because this would mean mass kills.

As a clear majority (reflecting the above mentioned 14:4 composition of the delegations) was not willing to discuss a management at the population level and to determine quantitative figures for the European population, the discussion ended already after a short period. The first day ended with a mandate to a small working party to find (overnight) a wording for this situation. The monitoring program remained unchanged in spite of the fact that a management at the population level was refused.

During the second day there was a reading of the improved text of the Action Plan which needed a good hour. Thus, the meeting ended already in the morning without continuing in the afternoon as originally planned.

The final version of the Action Plan for the Management of the Great Cormorant in the African-Eurasian Region includes the following elements (listed in order of preference):

• appropriate site-specific fisheries management
• local management and control of cormorants
• co-ordinated management and control of cormorants between Range States

Comment by the EIFAC observer: Tacitly excluded is a stabilisation or reduction of cormorants at the population level, under the lead of CMS Convention and with forced inclusion of all Range States with breeding, stop-over and wintering areas.

The Action Plan was endorsed against the opposition of a small minority consisting of the underrepresented fisheries sector. The delegation of Germany informed the meeting, that it could not endorse the content of the proposed Action Plan and asked for an additional meeting to negotiate under other rules, i.e. decision making with unanimity instead of majority. This proposal was refused. The representative of France, having no official mandate to accept or refuse the Action Plan, announced his personal abstinence. The representative of EIFAC insisted on the problem that the CMS experts had just refused what the fisheries sector was explicitely asking for, i.e. the stabilisation or reduction of the European strongholds at the population level. Thus, the CMS Action Plan would not be able to significantly reduce the cormorant-fish conflict.

• By the end of 1997 the finalised Action Plan for the Management of the Great Cormorant and an additional document with remarks to the different measures (to be elaborated by NL/DK) will be sent out to the Scientific Council of the CMS Convention and to the Range States. The CMS experts propose an immediate implementation. However, as Germany could not endorse this Action Plan it remained unclear if there will be a formal step before the discussion/approval of the Action Plan during the next conference of the Range States (in 1999). Anyhow, the mailing of the Action Plan will be an important moment for the EIFAC national correspondents to intervene within their countries in the sense of the position of Germany, i.e. (i) refusing an Action Plan as long as quantitative goals for the management at the population level are missing and (ii) asking for further negotiations.
• The CMS Recommendation 5.3 also recommends to establish an Advisory Committee with members from nature conservation and fisheries (in parity) and organised as a subgroup of the Scientific Council of CMS. The future of this body, however, remained unclear as neither the Netherlands nor Denmark wanted to take any initiative. There was also no Range State to be found for taking the responsibility for a secretariat of the Action Plan.

Bern, October 1997