MUSSEL FARMING ACTIVITY IN GULF: AN OVERVIEW FOCUSING ON THE CHALLENGES OF STAKEHOLDERS' PARTNERSHIPS AND INTERDISCIPLINARITY IN THE FRAMEWORK OF ICZM

Konstantinou Z.I., Krestenitis Y.N. Division of Hydraulics & Environmental Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering, Aristotle University of , Thessaloniki, 54124,

Abstract This paper attempts to deal with two main categories of challenges faced in any ICZM attempt: (i) those created during the interface of different stakeholders (administrators, private investors, public, scientific community, etc.) and (ii) those created during the interface between experts from different fields (for instance between environmentalists and engineers or sociologists, etc.) during the drawing up of integrated management plans. The issue is very crucial regarding the acceptance and development of integrated coastal management but it is also strongly related to the area of implementation, as the unique cultural and circumstantial characteristics are important parameters of influence. More specifically this paper will focus on the aforementioned elements regarding the sustainable management of the mussel-farming activity on Thermaikos gulf, trying to identify and highlight the reasons determining the interrelationships between different stakeholders and the ways that they affect the implementation of coastal management in the area regarding this issue. Keywords: stakeholders, interdisciplinarity, mussel farming, Thermaikos gulf.

1. Introduction The basic concept of Integrated Coastal Zone Management is utterly related both to (i) the comprehension of the stakeholders in the decision-making process and also to (ii) the collaboration of multidiscipline experts to the plan and implementation procedure (Tett et al.2011). Those fields can provide a range of opportunities for collaboration and development yet they can also prove to be handicaps of ICZM when the interaction procedure is not kept clear and transparent through all of its stages. The literature provides a range of examples about the importance of stakeholder involvement in the success of ICZM planning deriving from case-studies through the entire world. Yet those cases often reveal the importance that the different cultural and circumstantial characteristics play in the implementation of participatory approaches in management and decision making. In this paper an effort will be made in order to identify the aforementioned “hot spots” regarding stakeholders’ participatory approaches and interdisciplinarity in science in the area of Thermaikos gulf and particularly in the field of mussel-farming activity. More specifically, the paper will provide an overview of (a) the way mussel farming activity is organised in Thermaikos gulf, occupationally, institutionally and legally, (b) the problems that have been encountered, (c) the ways in which the interrelationships of the stakeholders have been affected and (d) the role of scientists and their interrelationships in the overall situation. Those elements were initially

1 identified during the implementation of the System Approach Framework (Hopkins et al.2011) in the framework of the EU project SPICOSA, and are still under study. 2. Overview 2.1 THE ACTIVITY The issue of sustainable management of the mussel farming activity in the area of Thermaikos gulf, Northern Greece, have been raised more than 10 years ago. The activity is taking place in 7 different areas in the gulf: 2 major sites in the areas of Chalastra and Loudias, at NW Thermaikos, responsible for approximately the 60% of the national mussel production, 3 slightly smaller sites in the areas of Kitros and Klidi, W Thermaikos, and 2 minor sites with few farming units in the areas of Aggelochori and Nea Michaniona, E Thermaikos. The mussel farming activity of the area is responsible for approximately the 90% of the overall national mussel production (NCMR,2001). The cultivated organism is the Mediterranean mussel Mytilus galloprovincialis that due to the climatologic conditions presents very good quality (high condition index) and two production cycles annually (NCMR,2001;Galinou-Mitsoudi et al.2006).

Fig. 1: Thermaikos gulf & the mussel farming areas. The importance of the activity is multiple: the two major cultivation sites are inside the zones of Axios – Loudias – Aliakmonas, areas protected under the Ramsar convention, yet mussel farming is one of the few activities compatible to the protection status as it is non invasive and can

2 actually enhance the water quality as it have been proved from several studies (indicatively Lindahl et al.2005). The activity provides employment to a sufficient number of people from the contiguous communities, both directly and indirectly. Additionally, most of the mussel production is exported to Europe, contributing to the GDP of Greece. Although the activity was highly promising in the past and thus attracted many investments from the local communities, the last ten years a number of unresolved issues have occurred transforming the socio-economic profile of mussel farming. Under a more careful observation one realises that these issues existed from the beginning, but were only revealed when the mussel production started to decline. Further explanation will follow.

2.2 THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK The internal structure of the Greek Laws and legislations is very complicated and dysfunctional. For one issue, different legislations are applied, with multiple authorities sharing responsibility. This causes organizational problems, like overlaps or vacancies of responsibility, discomfort to the citizens, and great delay referring to the processes that are related to the public sector. In Table 1 are indicatively presented some selected legal acts referring to aquaculture in Greece. Most of the times the new legal acts are modifying certain parts of the previous ones creating confusion to the responsible authorities as well. Table 1: Indicative legal framework applied for Greek mussel-farming

Legal Act Description M.D. 46399/1352/1986 Required water quality for bivalve cultivation G.G. 207/1999 L.2742 Spatial planning and sustainable development G.G. 1784B/2005 Water use license categories EU D. 2006/113/EU On the quality required of shellfish waters P.D. 79/2007 Hygiene regulations for animal deriving food J.M.D. 121570/1866/2009 Regulation of issues regarding aquaculture units G.G. 374/2009 License regulation of aquaculture units P.D. 28/2009 Sanitary controls for aquaculture products G.G. 210/2011 Legal framework for the operation of producers associations G.G. 1440B/2011 Presuppositions for the granting of water use licenses G.G. 31722/2011 Special framework of spatial planning for aquaculture development

2.3 THE STAKEHOLDERS The stakeholders implicated to the management of the mussel farming activity belong to three major categories: • The people working at the sector of mussel farming. This category incorporates the owners of the mussel farms, the employees in the sector, the employees in related activities (mussel processing, etc) and the mussel dealers. • The representatives of the public institutions. These institutions were separated until recently into central, regional, prefectional and municipal levels, but other sub-categories also existed inside these levels. Changes in the legal framework regarding the prefectional and regional administrative management of the country have altered the authorities and responsibilities of several public institutions in ways that are not yet sufficiently defined.

3

• The scientists that are working in aspects of the mussel farming activity. These are almost exclusively experts of different environmental fields, i.e. biologists, ichthyologists, geochemists, environmentalists, veterinarians, engineers, etc. The fields of economic and social sciences are underrepresented in this category and there was little research activity carried out in these sectors until now. The people working at the mussel farming sector are not a homogenous group. First of all every mussel farming area in Thermaikos gulf has its own association of mussel farmers. Until today this was rather necessary as every area belongs to different municipality and it was probably facilitating several issues connected to bureaucracy. In some cases, for reasons that will be presented below, the mussel farmers retain more than one association per area, i.e. Chalasta has four (4) different associations (totally 200 members). The employees in the sector are seasonal, most of the times low paid immigrants that are working without receiving health insurance and working benefits. They are not represented in any way in any of the areas of mussel farming. The mussel-dealers in most of the cases are mussel farmers that retain large industrialized farm units and process centers. They are very few, but they have a lot of power, as they basically merchandise all the production of Thermaikos to foreign markets. The core of the management issues of the mussel farming activity in Thermaikos gulf lays in the complication around the institutional management of the area. The 7 mussel farming areas until recently belonged to three (3) prefectures1 and to five (5) municipalities2. The procedure of management is very complicated as it implicates twelve to fourteen institutional entities, as listed below: • Local Municipality. • Authority for the Management of the Protection Area of Axios – Loudias – Aliakmonas estuaries (for Chalastra and Loudias). • Regional Directorate of Environment and Land Planning. • Regional Directorate of Agricultural Development. • Organization for the Protection and Management of Thermaikos Gulf – General Secretariat of Macedonia and Thrace. • Organisation of Master Planning and Environmental Protection of Thessaloniki (for Chalastra, Loudias. Aggelochori and Nea Michaniona). • Prefectional Directorate of Fisheries – Department of Ostracea. • Prefectional Directorate of Veterinarian - Department of Ostracea. • Prefectional Directorate of Environment Protection. • Prefectional Directorate of Management Planning. • Prefectional Directorate of Development. • General Navy Staff. • Local Lighthouse Directorate. • National Tourism Organization.

1 Former prefectures of Thessaloniki, Imathia & Pieria, now transformed in regional unities of region . 2 Municipalities of Chalastra, Axios, Nea Michaniona, Pidna, Plati.

4

As mentioned earlier there was a recent change in the administrative structure of the local Greek governance. The result of this action was the transfer of authority between public institutional bodies aiming at minimizing the size of local governance and reducing bureaucracy. Yet, as the legal framework is build on the old administrative structure and the alterations happened in a short time without proper management planning, at the moment the occurred gaps and overlaps in authority are multiplying and the representatives of the public authorities are claiming ignorance and push responsibility in the higher authority level. During the last 15 years the area of Thermaikos gulf has been the objective of intense scientific activity. There is a remarkable number of publications for the sea area and coastal zone of Thermaikos gulf, many of them focusing on mussels. There are also studies for the circulation of the gulf (Krestenitis,2003; Kourafalou et al. 2004), the phytoplanktonic blooms (Koukaras and Nikolaidis,2004), the geochemistry of the area (Price et al.2005), and also some more integrated attempts of ecological modelling (Nikolaidis et al.2006), DPSIR approaches (Karageorgis et al.2005), nutrient emissions management (Nikolaidis et al.2009) etc. During these years there were at least two studies focused on a management attempt of parts of the mussel farming area (NCMR,2001;ATEITH,2007).

2.4 MAIN ISSUES The area of Chalastra, the most important area in terms of production –as it represents 40% of the national production– is at the same time the area facing the most severe problems, both environmentally and institutionally. The specific area, no more than 15 years ago represented an ideal field for the development of mussel culture. The characteristics of the area created ideal conditions for mussel growth. The area presented the unique phenomenon of two reproductive cycles and the quality of the mussels was superb, with a condition index that was above 50% in all the periods of the year (ATEITH,2007). All the above attracted many private investments in the mussel farming area. In a short time the farming units were doubled. Additionally the mussel farmers, in order to maximise their profit, neglected the farming characteristics that were imposed by the legal framework and cultivated in denser formations (Savvidis et al.2007;Moriki et al.2008). The excessive cultivation along with several modifications in the natural environment i.e. as the possible change in the river outflow and the operation of the WWTP of Thessaloniki, have contributed to the decline of the production. Yet, when the mussel farmers faced this decline, they used even more excessive techniques in order to gain back their licking profits, creating even bigger degradation of the production (ATEITH,2007). During that time the Greek government decided to adjudicate a new law (2742/207Α/07-10- 1999 for Land Planning) in order to create Areas of Organised Development of Productive Activities. Following an initiative of a private consulting company, the prefecture of Thessaloniki decided to associate with three (3) of its municipalities in order to create the Area of Organised Development of Aquaculture (AODA) of the Prefecture of Thessaloniki. The goal was that this would bring the responsibility of management to a single authority that would then regulate and control the activity. Although most of the necessary actions were taken during 2000, until today the final legal degree is not signed. In the middle time many of the licenses of the existing farming units expired and when the owners applied to renew them, they were committed to the new

5 authority that would be established after the declaration of the legal degree, in order to receive licenses in agreement to the new land-plan. The result of this situation is that at the moment, approximately 55% of the farming units are deprived from legal license and are constantly subjected to fines from the local port authority. Additionally the owners of these units, as “illegal” farmers cannot claim any development grants through financing opportunities from the EU or the government. As the aforementioned situation created severe assertion to the mussel farmers the local authorities, used multiple semi-legal shortcuts in order to temporarily confront the problem. Although some of the temporary solutions contribute into the legalization of the production, create other kind of problems as the “illegal” farmers are deprived of their legal rights and are subjected to mistreatment from the more powerful mussel-farmers or, even worse, from mussel dealers, that are taking advantage of the situation in order to buy the product in lower prices. Additionally the “illegal” farmers are not obliged to pay proper taxes and rent for the sea area they occupy. This very complicated situation is, fortunately not expanded in all the areas of mussel farming of Thermaikos gulf. The two other prefectures waited for the results of the first effort regarding the establishment of the AODA, before applying their own proposals, thus avoiding the aforementioned issues. Yet these areas are also facing similar problems, mainly related to the excessive practices used from the mussel farmers and the constant demand for more mussel farms licences.

3. Results The institutional separation of the area and the lack of central government initiatives for coastal management have as a result fragmented approaches in the level of stakeholder collaboration. Every ones in a while, when there is a scientific project running in Thermaikos gulf, the stakeholders of the area are called to participate in a meeting regarding the environmental problems of the area. During the first approaches the stakeholders, specially the mussel farmers, where interested in participating, as they believed that these actions could contribute in the solution of their problems. But during that time they were reluctant to admit their amount of responsibility to the issues. The scientific community on the other hand was focussing on the environmental issues, neglecting the socio-economic parameters and the institutional failures. The representatives of the public authorities cannot be affronted as a solid entity. As every authority is in charge of a different aspect of the activity and have to interpret different laws, there are several cases where different authorities could not come to agreement regarding management issues. In these situations, as no one takes the responsibility, the issue is transferred to the higher level of authority. At the same time, there were cases in the past where certain public employees favoured the privileged mussel-farmers or dealers against the weakest ones. Although these were isolated events, created a certain amount of suspicion and mistrust between the majority of mussel farmers and the authorities, which is difficult to be altered. As the years came buy, there were certain attempts for a more integrated approach of management in the area. There were also approaches that indicated towards a more participative stakeholder approach, were the mussel farmers were called to participate by exposing their

6 problems and positions and not only as audience (Zanou et al.2005;Karageorgis et al.2005). Yet, although these approaches presented certain benefits, new problems were now detected. The mussel farmers were now less eager to participate, as they were reluctant both against the scientists and the public authorities and there were not any funds available in order for any actions to be organised. At the moment a new approach in stakeholder participation is taking place, isolated in Chalastra, but targeting in the entire gulf in the future. The goal is to create a communication group of stakeholders that will meet in regular bases in order to exchange information and to deliberate in crucial issues. Efforts are being invested in order all the categories of stakeholders to be represented, although the mussel dealers are until now not interested in participating and there is not any organised association for the representation of the employees of mussel farming. The highlight points of this approach is to demonstrate the benefits that can be harvested from interaction, deliberation and communication and also to point out that this kind of networking does not necessarily require any sufficient funds (Konstantinou et al., 2012). Concerning the interaction between the scientific communities active to the area, three main points must be highlighted: . all the scientific attempts until now had limited funding, mainly deriving from European projects or smaller governmental and private development actions, thus being centralized either to a limited period of time or to a very specific research objective. Additionally the limited funds create competition between the scientific teams, minimizing the collaboration opportunities. . although a significant amount of money and time has been invested in research related to Thermaikos gulf, there wasn’t and there still isn’t any organised attempt for continuous monitoring of the basic characteristics, pressures and impacts in the coastal and marine areas. . the environmental orientated scientists feel that their expertise is enough to address the management issues of the area, thus economists and sociologists are rarely implicated in the implemented projects and when they are they participate in a rather superficial manner, more supporting the environmental findings than contributing in an integrated study. The above resulted in: a) sufficient deficiencies regarding the available data for the area. There are long periods of time for which there is complete lack of data and information and when the data exist there are covering periods shorter than a year, the time intervals between variables are inconsistent and the determination methods used are differentiated according to the institute in charge. b) significant competition between scientists, that leads to a very limited commutation of data and information. No one really knows the full extent of data and information that are available for the area. c) an almost complete lack of social and economic data for the area and the activity. The above elements create serious obstacles in any ICZM attempt in the area, on the one hand because of the inadequate data and on the other hand –most importantly– because of lack of organised collaborative efforts between the scientists of different disciplines and orientations.

7

4. Discussion The case of Thermaikos gulf regarding the sustainable management of the mussel farming activity is indicative of the rather immature level of ICZM in Greece and also the defective interaction between interdisciplinary stakeholders. Although the efforts implemented until today are remarkable, they present distinctive drawbacks as listed above, the most important of them being that in every new attempt the stakeholders of the area directly related to the activity are more and more reluctant to participate and their trust in the process is deducted. A sufficient improvement can be provided through the central level of management. When the efforts for participatory management approaches derive from the higher level of governance the stakeholders can regain trust in the process, appreciating the organised effort. At the same time the experts engaged to the ICZM process are facing obstacles. Mono- disciplinary science can go so far, but in order to produce solutions has to become interdisciplinary, incorporating the system as a whole. It is of high importance that the scientists must learn to function in a collaborative manner, participating with their knowledge in their field of expertise but also respecting the interdisciplinarity. It is only logical that only when scientists of all disciplines –understanding the system in a more complete way– succeed to substantially communicate and exchange knowledge and information, they would be able to support and direct stakeholders and administrators towards integrated and sustainable solutions.

5. References Alexander Technological Educational Institution of Thessaloniki (ATEITH) 2007. Water circulation in Organized Areas of Aquaculture Development and land-planning and environmental management interventions. Final Technical Report (in Greek). Archimed II. Scientific coordinator A. Moriki. 344 pages. Galinou-Mitsoudi, S., Savvidis Y., and Dimitriadis X. 2006. “Interaction between mussel culture and hydrodynamics: a preliminary study in the gulfs of Thessaloniki and Thermaikos, Greece”. Journal of Biological Research vol.6, pp.139-145. Hopkins, T. S., D. Bailly, and J. G. Støttrup, 2011a. The Systems Approach Framework adapted to Coastal Zones. Ecology and Society vol.16, no.4:25. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-04553-160425. Karageorgis, A.P., Skourtos M.S., Kapsimalis V., Kontogianni A.D., Skoulikidis N.Th., Pagou K., Nikolaidis N.P., Drakopoulou P., Zanou B., Karamanos H., Levkov Z., Anagnostou Ch. 2005. “An integrated approach to watershed management within the DPSIR framework: Axios River catchment and Thermaikos Gulf”. Regional Environmental Change, vol.5, no.2-3, pp.138-160. Konstantinou Z.I., Krestenitis Y.N., Latinopoulos D., Pagou K., Galinou-Mitsoudi S., Savvivis Y. 2012. “Aspects of the mussel farming activity in Chalastra, Thermaikos Gulf, Greece: an effort to untie a management Gordian knot”, Ecology and Society vol.17, no.1:1. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-04455-170101. Koukaras K. and Nikolaidis G., 2004. Dinophysis blooms in Greek coastal waters (Thermaikos gulf, NW Aegean Sea). Journal of plankton research, vol.26, no.4, pp.445-457. Kourafalou V. H., Y. G. Savvidis, Y. N. Krestenitis and C. G. Koutitas, "Modelling studies on the processes that influence matter transfer on the Gulf of Thermaikos (NW Aegean Sea)", Continental Shelf Research, vol. 24, no.2, pp. 203-222, 2004.

8

Krestenitis, Y., 2003. Elements of hydrodynamic circulation. In National Center of Marine Research (NCMR). 2003. Monitoring of the quality of marine environment of the gulf of Thessaloniki (Thermaikos). Final Technical Report. Scientific coordinator K. Pagou:pp.11-57. Lindahl O., Hart R., Hernroth B., Kollberg S., Loo L., Olrog L., Rehnstam-Holm A.,Svensson J., Svensson S. and Syversen U. 2005. “Improving Marine Water Quality by Mussel Farming: A Profitable Solution for Swedish Society”. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment vol.34, no.2, pp.131-138. Moriki, A., Galinou – Mitsoudi S., Petridis D., Kosti D., Savvidis Y., Dimitriadis X., Koutitas C., and Alvanou L. 2008. “Environmental impacts of intense mussel culture in the coastal waters of the Gulf of Thessaloniki (N. Greece)”. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin, vol.17, no.11b, pp.1945-1955. National Center for Marine Research (NCMR) 2001. Management study of the mussel production zones of the Thessaloniki and Thermaikos gulfs. Final Technical report (in Greek). National Center of Marine Research on behalf of the Prefecture of Thessaloniki. Scientific coordinator Anagnostou Ch. Nikolaidis, N.P., Karageorgis, A.P., Kapsimalis, V., Marconis, G., Drakopoulou, P., Kontoyiannis, H., Krasakopoulou, E., Pavlidou, A., Pagou, K., 2006. Circulation and nutrient modeling of Thermaikos Gulf, Greece. Journal of Marine Systems, vol.60, pp.51- 62.

Nikolaidis, N.P., Karageorgis, A.P., Kapsimalis, V., Drakopoulou, P., Skoulikidis, N., Behrendt, H., Levkov, Z., 2009. Management of nutrient emissions of Axios River catchment: Their effect in the coastal zone of Thermaikos Gulf, Greece. Ecological Modelling, vol. 220, pp.383-396. doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2008.10.003.

Price, N.B., Karageorgis, A.P., Kaberi, H., Zeri, C., Krasakopoulou, E., Voutsinou-Taliadouri, F., Lindsay, F., Assimakopoulou, G., Pagou, K., 2005. Temporal and spatial variations in the geochemistry of major and minor particulate and selected dissolved elements of Thermaikos Gulf, Northwestern Aegean Sea. Continental Shelf Research, vol.25, pp.2428-2455. doi:10.1016/j.csr.2005.08.007.

Savvidis, Y., Antoniou A., Dimitriadis X., Moriki A., Galinou – Mitsoudi S., Alvanou L., Petridis D., and Koutitas C. 2007. “Hydrodynamics in a mussel culture area in Thermaikos gulf”. Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on the Mediterranean Coastal Environment, MEDCOAST 07. Alexandria, Egypt, pp.1263-1274. Tett, P., Mongruel, R., Levrel, H., Hopkins, T., Sandberg, A., Hadley, D.,Fernandes, T., Hendrick, V., Mette, A., Vermaat, J., Gilbert, A., McFadden, L., Priest, S., Green, C., and d’Alconà, M.R. 2011. Guide to System Design, v.3.07, SPICOSA Project Report, Scottish Association for Marine Science, Oban. Zanou B., Anagnostou Ch. and Papathanasiou E. 2005. “Seeking the factors to stimulate the users in coastal zone planning. Case study: Open discussion with mussel farmers in Axios river (GR)”. Mediterranean Marine Science, vol.6, no.1, pp.107-115.

9