Experts Meeting for the Re-Establishment of the Gfcm Committee on Aquaculture Network on Environment and Aquaculture in the Mediterranean

FAO Fisheries Report No. 791 FIRI/R791 (En)

ISSN 0429-9337

GENERAL FISHERIES COMMISSION FOR THE MEDITERRANEAN

Report of the EXPERTS MEETING FOR THE RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF THE GFCM COMMITTEE ON AQUACULTURE NETWORK ON ENVIRONMENT AND AQUACULTURE IN THE MEDITERRANEAN

Rome, 7–9 December 2005

Copies of FAO publications can be requested from: Sales and Marketing Group Information Division FAO Viale delle Terme di Caracalla 00100 Rome, Italy E-mail: [email protected] Fax: (+39) 06 57053360 FAO Fisheries Report No. 791 FIRI/R791 (En)

GENERAL FISHERIES COMMISSION FOR THE MEDITERRANEAN

Report of the

EXPERTS MEETING FOR THE RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF THE GFCM COMMITTEE ON AQUACULTURE NETWORK ON ENVIRONMENT AND AQUACULTURE IN THE MEDITERRANEAN

Rome, 7–9 December 2005

FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS Rome, 2006 The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

ISBN 92-5-105501-7

All rights reserved. Reproduction and dissemination of material in this information product for educational or other non-commercial purposes are authorized without any prior written permission from the copyright holders provided the source is fully acknowledged. Reproduction of material in this information product for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without written permission of the copyright holders. Applications for such permission should be addressed to the Chief, Publishing Management Service, Information Division, FAO, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, Italy or by e-mail to [email protected]

ISSN 0429-9337

ADVANCE COPY

GENERAL FISHERIES COMMISSION FOR THE MEDITERRANEAN

Report of the EXPERTS MEETING FOR THE RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF THE GFCM COMMITTEE ON AQUACULTURE NETWORK ON ENVIRONMENT AND AQUACULTURE IN THE MEDITERRANEAN

Rome, 7–9 December 2005

GENERAL FISHERIES COMMISSION FOR THE MEDITERRANEAN

Report of the

EXPERTS MEETING FOR THE RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF THE GFCM COMMITTEE ON AQUACULTURE NETWORK ON ENVIRONMENT AND AQUACULTURE IN THE MEDITERRANEAN

Rome, 7–9 December 2005

PREPARATION OF THIS DOCUMENT

This document is the final version of the report approved by the experts attending the meeting for the re-establishment of the GFCM Committee on Aquaculture (CAQ) Network on Environment and Aquaculture in the Mediterranean (EAM) held in Rome, from 7 to 9 December 2005.

Distribution:

Participants in the meeting FAO Fisheries Department FAO Regional and Subregional Fisheries Officers

FAO/General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean. Report of the Experts Meeting for the Re-establishment of the GFCM Committee on Aquaculture Network on Environment and Aquaculture in the Mediterranean. Rome, 7–9 December 2005. FAO Fisheries Report. No. 791. Rome, FAO. 2006. 60p.

ABSTRACT

CONTENTS

Page

OPENING OF THE MEETING ...... 1

ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA AND MEETING OBJECTIVES ...... 1

PRESENTATION AND ROLE OF THE NETWORK ON ENVIRONMENT AND AQUACULTURE IN THE MEDITERRANEAN (EAM) ...... 1

AQUACULTURE AND THE ENVIRONMENT IN THE MEDITERRANEAN: OVERVIEW ON CURRENT POLICIES AND REGULATIONS ...... 2

RESEARCH AND OTHER ACTIVITIES ON ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES IN MEDITERRANEAN AQUACULTURE ...... 3

PRIORITIES TO BE ADDRESSED BY EAM ...... 4

ANY OTHER MATTERS ...... 7

ADOPTION OF THE REPORT ...... 7

APPENDIXES

A Agenda ...... 8 B List of participants ...... 9 C Background paper for the re-establishment of the GFCM-CAQ Network on Environment and Aquaculture in the Mediterranean (EAM) ...... 11 D The environmental situation of aquaculture in the Mediterranean Sea: a review ...... 28 E Summaries of the presentations made by experts attending the meeting ...... 48 F Draft terms of references and estimated budget for the activities proposed under each EAM Working Group...... 57

OPENING OF THE MEETING

1. The Network on Environment and Aquaculture in the Mediterranean (EAM) was created in 1992 by the FAO Mediterranean Regional Aquaculture Project (MEDRAP). The EAM effectively ceased to operate as a network in 1996. The present experts meeting took place as a follow-up of a decision by the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM) during its twenty-ninth session held in Rome, from 21 to 25 February 2005. The meeting was called to discuss and produce terms of reference for the re-establishment of EAM within the framework of the GFCM and in support to the Committee on Aquaculture (CAQ) as well as to propose a new operational structure. Furthermore, the experts worked on identifying a list of priority issues and a timeframe proposal for the activities to be implemented in the short- and medium-term by the network.

2. The meeting was held in FAO headquarters, Rome, from 7 to 9 December 2005 and was attended by 13 experts from eight Member countries of the Commission and representatives from three partner intergovernmental organizations. The list of participants is attached as Appendix B to this report. Following a welcoming address by the Secretariat, Mr Ivan Katavić (Croatia) was nominated as chairperson and Ms Nuria Marba (Spain) was appointed as rapporteur.

ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA AND MEETING OBJECTIVES

3. The Agenda as adopted with minor changes is attached as Appendix A.

4. The Chairperson called for a round of short introductions of the experts and then referred to the draft Terms of Reference (TORs) of the network prepared and circulated by the Secretariat in the background meeting document (see Appendix C). The experts were invited to review the proposal clarifying that one major objective of the meeting was to discuss, agree and finalize such TORs. These would be submitted for further discussion and endorsement at the fifth session of the CAQ scheduled to take place in Spain in early June 2006.

5. The experts fully concurred on the importance to the re-establishment of the EAM as a necessary tool for the regional promotion of sustainable aquaculture development in the Mediterranean under the aegis of the Commission. It was agreed that a functional network would provide an effective mechanism in support of CAQ activities.

6. Furthermore, the experts acknowledged the suggestion that, instead of the re- establishment of EAM as in its original structure, a new and different arrangement should be considered and proposed in view of the increasing importance of the aquaculture sector among the Mediterranean countries and regional interactions.

PRESENTATION AND ROLE OF THE NETWORK ON ENVIRONMENT AND AQUACULTURE IN THE MEDITERRANEAN (EAM)

7. The GFCM Secretariat provided a brief history of the EAM Network since it was first established, clarifying its initial objectives, highlighting some of its major achievements and the reasons for the cessation of activities (see Appendix C). In order to facilitate the discussions at the meeting, the experts were briefed on the modus operandi of the GFCM statutory and its sub-committees, the Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC) and the 2

Committee on Aquaculture (CAQ), as well as on the current structure and relations between all the CAQ networks and the Commission.

8. The present legal relations between these networks and the GFCM was raised and discussed. The Executive Secretary, Mr Alain Bonzon, explained that since CAQ was fully operational and the GFCM endowed with a true Secretariat, there might be no further need for partner institutions to ensure the coordination of these networks. The EAM Network could therefore be formally established as subsidiary body of CAQ with the support from the Secretariat as in the case of the SAC. This would, however, require amending the GFCM Rule of Procedure X (1).

9. The meeting Chairperson, Mr Katavić, provided additional information on the history of EAM. He noted that EAM could have been successful, but due to budget constraints, the most relevant aquaculture environmental issues could not be effectively addressed and more emphasis had been given on technical production matters. The importance of the interactions between aquaculture and the environment has increased and called for careful attention among all GFCM Member countries.

10. Furthermore, it was recalled that EAM, such as the other CAQ aquaculture networks, was established in the framework of the FAO Regional Project MEDRAP (Mediterranean Aquaculture Network). In this regards, the experts requested some background information on the work currently performed by the other networks prior to continue with the discussions on the re-establishment of EAM in order to take advantage of the experiences so far learned.

11. Mr Bernardo Basurco, on behalf of the International Centre for Advanced Mediterranean Agronomic Studies (CIHEAM), Spain, briefed the experts on the current situation with regards to the coordination of the two CAQ networks on Technical Aspects of Mediterranean Aquaculture (TECAM) and Socio-economic and Legal Aspects of Mediterranean Aquaculture (SELAM). The Secretariat, on the other hand, referred to the Information System for the Promotion of Aquaculture in the Mediterranean (SIPAM) network emphasising that the system is undergoing a restructuring process particularly with regards to the collection and display of information through its Web site. The experts were further informed on the importance of active national coordinators for SIPAM to effectively function and meet the demands of the Commission.

AQUACULTURE AND THE ENVIRONMENT IN THE MEDITERRANEAN: OVERVIEW ON CURRENT POLICIES AND REGULATIONS

12. A presentation was made by the Secretariat (Ms Doris Soto) on environmental issues on aquaculture in the Mediterranean. The main purpose of the presentation was to: (a) synthesize the published information on environment and aquaculture interactions in the Mediterranean; and (b) contribute to identifying the main relevant issues which are common to this ecosystem and which can be approached with an integrated management perspective.

13. The presentation highlighted that: (i) the information is only available for certain aquaculture areas; (ii) there is little available information on environmental management to fish farmers; (iii) there is a lack of common harmonized and integrated environmental regulation and standards; and (iv) there is a need for a permanent environmental monitoring programme in the Mediterranean in relation to aquaculture activities. The full paper is attached as Appendix D. 3

14. The experts noted that a large amount of the information available seems to be somewhat biased and the negative effects of aquaculture advertised more systematically than the positive ones such as the local enhancement of fisheries as a result of aquaculture practices. On the other hand, it appeared evident that social (both from tourism and local inhabitants) concerns on aquaculture are increasing particularly as finfish cage farming is expanding. The presentation was well received by the experts who concurred that the Secretariat should make available the information so far collected on environment and aquaculture interactions through SIPAM. The latter network would also be invited to regularly update the information.

15. A second presentation delivered by the Secretariat (Ms Donatella Crosetti) gave an overview of selected and available information on policies and the regulatory aquaculture frameworks in relation to environmental impacts. The Secretariat pointed out that information on legislation dealing with the environment and aquaculture is available in a number of accessible databases including FAOLEX1 and ECOLEX2 and for selected topics in specific FAO reports. In addition, the National Aquaculture Sector Overviews (NASOs) and National Aquaculture Legislation Overviews (NALOs) being prepared by FAO Inland Water Resources and Aquaculture Service (FIRI) provide comprehensive information on regulations related to aquaculture and environmental impact for most of the GFCM Members.

16. Furthermore, the experts acknowledged that the different regulations adopted by each country indicated the necessity of harmonization at the regional level, though countries have recently made a great effort for adopting new regulations, thus responding to the development and intensification of aquaculture activities in the Mediterranean.

17. In the discussions that followed, the relevance of implementing some common processes with effective results, such an environmental impact assessment (EIA) system, was agreed and emphasized. It was noted that the European Union (EU) was already promoting such a process, including in those non-member countries exporting products to the Union. Furthermore, legislations need to be more visible as well as strategic environmental impact assessment at coastal zone scale (rather than at the individual farm level). Another priority would be to properly estimate the holding capacity of farming area.

RESEARCH AND OTHER ACTIVITIES ON ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES IN MEDITERRANEAN AQUACULTURE

18. Short presentations were made by each of the experts attending the meeting. They highlighted their respective institutional and individual activities of relevance to environmental issues and aquaculture in the Mediterranean, for consideration in the framework of potential networking, coordination and future EAM activities. Summaries of the presentation made appear in Appendix E.

19. From the presentations made by the experts it emerged that numerous public and private environmental initiatives related to aquaculture development exist in the

1 FAOLEX is a comprehensive and up-to-date computerized legislative database maintained by FAO, one of the world's largest electronic collection of national laws and regulations on food, agriculture and renewable natural resources (see http://faolex.fao.org/faolex/index.htm). 2 ECOLEX is a database providing the most comprehensive, global source of information on environmental law. ECOLEX is operated jointly by FAO, The World Conservation Union (IUCN), and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (see http://www.ecolex.org/index.php). 4

Mediterranean, implemented through various organizations, networks and projects. The role played by some of these institutions, such as The World Conservation Union (IUCN), the United Nations Environment Programme – Mediterranean Action Plan (UNEP-MAP) and the International Centre for Mediterranean Agronomic Studies (CIHEAM) in organizing focus training activities was commended. Furthermore, a number of research institutions, such as the French Institute for Research on the Exploitation of the Sea (IFREMER), and universities throughout the region are also engaged and/or host activities and networks dealing with aquaculture and environment issues in the Mediterranean, some funded by the EU. Few relevant examples of projects and networks are: MARAQUA, ECASA, SAMI, MedVeg BIOFAQs, SPICOSA, and AQCESS3. National governmental initiatives on coastal zoning are also being implemented by some countries (e.g. Croatia) aiming at an integrated and planned process for the development of the aquaculture sector as a whole.

20. Participants concluded that there is a vast pool of scientific expertize in the region and noted that many ongoing activities involved the development of aquaculture impact models all the way from genes to an ecosystem approach for aquaculture management. They further shared the opinion that the issues at stake are of great importance for the future sustainable and integrated development of the sector. The re-establishment of EAM could play an important role in promoting an integration of the above mentioned initiatives. The experts finally recommended that the southern Mediterranean countries should be more involved in regional projects and environmental activities.

PRIORITIES TO BE ADDRESSED BY EAM

21. The experts at the meeting agreed that the Terms of Reference (TORs) for the EAM should include the following:

i) Provide recommendations and advice to the GFCM, through CAQ, following task-oriented and problem-solving approaches. ii) Support existing networks with information and integration of aquaculture environmental issues management outputs throughout the region.

3 AQCESS: Aquaculture and Coastal, Economic and Social Sustainability (www.abdn.ac.uk/~nhy025/aqcess). Project funded by the EU FW5 on aquaculture-environment interactions. BIOFAQS: BIOFiltration and Aquaculture: an evaluation of hard substrate deployment performance within mariculture developments (www.sams.ac.uk/sams/biofaqs/). Project funded by the EU FW5 on aquaculture- environment interactions. ECASA: An “Ecosystem Approach to Sustainable Aquaculture” is an EU funded Framework 6 RTD project with 16 research partners from 13 member states. It is the successor to several 4th and 5th Framework Programme projects which have helped to push forward the understanding of the effects of aquaculture on the environment especially in the Mediterranean (http://www.ecasa.org.uk/index.htm). MARAQUA: “Monitoring and Regulation of Marine Aquaculture” project funded under the EU FAIR programme. A concerted action to review existing information and the establishment of agreed guidelines for the monitoring and regulation of marine aquaculture (http://www.lifesciences.napier.ac.uk/maraqua/). MedVeg: Effects of nutrient release from Mediterranean fish farms on benthic vegetation in coastal ecosystems (http://medveg.biology.sdu.dk/). EU FW5 project on aquaculture-environment interactions. MERAMED: Development of monitoring guidelines and modelling tools for environmental effects from Mediterranean aquaculture (www.meramed.com). EU FW5 project on aquaculture-environment interactions. SAMI: “Synthesis of Aquaculture and Marine Ecosystem Interactions”. EU Specific Support Action Project. SPICOSA: “Systems approach framework to generate decision support tools that should assist European policy in finding sustainable solutions for coastal management”. Project leaded by Eilat University, Israel.

iii) Support and enhance aquaculture within integrated coastal zone management activities (e.g. on site selection and on socio-economic benefit assessment). iv) Improve the image and perception of aquaculture–environment interactions at institutional and public levels through strategic approaches.

22. Following extensive discussions, the experts further agreed that the following were among the relevant issues to be included in the mandate of EAM:

a) harmonization of legal frameworks for aquaculture; b) integrated EIA, monitoring and information management system; c) integrated coastal zoning for aquaculture; d) enhancement of the image of aquaculture.

23. On this basis, experts discussed options for the most effective institutional set-up for EAM, taking into account its role within the framework of the Commission. The following three options were identified:

a) EAM remains within the Commission and is coordinated by CAQ. Under this option there would be no need for an intergovernmental institution to ensure the coordination of EAM activities; this task would be assumed by the GFCM Secretariat. b) EAM is developed as a network and coordinated by an appropriate partner institution. Under this option, the criteria (including the range of financial and organizational support) for identifying such partner would need to be delineated. c) EAM is established as an independent network with its representatives participating in the GFCM and CAQ meetings as observers. Under this option, the fulfilment of the (second) terms of reference of the mandate of CAQ, i.e. the monitoring of interactions between aquaculture development and the environment would not necessary be secured.

24. The review of these options generated considerable debate, especially with regard to technical, scientific and financial backstopping that will be required to support EAM. The Meeting fully agreed that EAM should be re-established as a formal subsidiary body of the GFCM CAQ, either as a working party, sub-committee or else. The experts concurred that this was the best option to ensure an efficient, immediate and realistic functioning of EAM. Furthermore, it was also stressed that EAM should actively cooperate with all stakeholders at large including fish farmers, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and other relevant international and regional organizations. Indeed, it was agreed that EAM should incorporate in its activities existing international and regional agenda issues relevant to Mediterranean aquaculture development.

25. The experts discussed practical, technical and operational aspects related to the activities to be addressed and with the understanding that EAM should be organized around ad hoc working groups focusing on the topics listed in paragraph 22, with issues b) and c) to be dealt together by a single working group. It was felt that this modus operandi and recommended set-up would be more efficient than the previous EAM structure.

26. Following extensive discussions among the experts, the major issues and initial activities to be handled by EAM ad hoc working groups were reviewed and decided. It was further agreed that the timeframe for the activities should not exceed three years, unless otherwise recommended by the Commission. The following, short- and medium-term (1–3 years) activities and outputs were identified:

Topic 1: Harmonization of environmental legislations and standards related to aquaculture

• Activity 1.1 Collection and compilation of relevant texts. • Activity 1.2 Comparative analysis of hard and soft laws, including using the FAO National Aquaculture Legislation Overviews (NALOs) and other studies on aquaculture legislation and regulations.

Main outputs: Formulation of a set of recommendations for common rules and harmonization; production of comparative analysis for main topic at regional level; maintenance and upgrading of a database on environment and aquaculture related legislation, standards and guidelines.

Topic 2: Scaling aquaculture-environmental interactions, including monitoring risk of impacts to biodiversity

• Activity 2.1 Operational synthesis on studies and results from notably transnational research on aquaculture and environment.

Main outputs: Production of Mediterranean common standards for Environmental Impact Assessment/Strategic Environmental Assessment (EIA/SEA) and monitoring (including information listing standards, values, protocols, indicators, etc.); guidelines for monitoring activities; guidelines for best management practices.

Topic 3: Integrating aquaculture within a Coastal Zone Management framework

• Activity 3.1 Zoning of aquaculture. • Activity 3.2 Site selection criteria. • Activity 3.3 Interactions between aquaculture and fisheries.

Main outputs: Production of guidelines for aquaculture site selection; guidelines for best management practices.

Topic 4: Supporting the development of a proper public perception of aquaculture in relation to environment, including product quality and human health aspects

• Activity 4.1 Identification of main issues and criticisms to aquaculture. • Activity 4.2 Devising strategies, in cooperation with private sector organizations, to rehabilitate the image of aquaculture in the Mediterranean.

Main outputs: Provision of relevant scientific information to devise strategy to enhance the image of aquaculture, to policy makers and the public at large.

27. The experts acknowledged the importance that the EAM ad hoc working groups should closely interact with the other CAQ networks, particularly with SELAM on Topic 4 above and SIPAM with respect to maintaining and distributing the products of databases.

28. Other aspects concerning the modus operandi of EAM were reviewed. Experts emphasized the need for national focal points (NFPs) to be nominated by each GFCM Member and that focal points are endowed with proper terms of reference. The NFPs should be identified based on technical competences and institutional backing capacity. It was suggested to invite the CAQ Focal Points to eventually identify EAM National Focal Points.

29. The experts agreed that each working group should have an appointed Coordinator as in the case of the GFCM sub-committees of the Scientific Advisory Committee. The coordinators would act as facilitators to ensure that the best expertise and institutions will participate in the working group’s activities. In this respect, TORs would need to be developed.

30. A call was made for the Commission to earmark seed funding from the autonomous budget for further developing the ad hoc working group proposals bearing in mind that all CAQ activities are implemented over a two-year period, and that a budget for 2006 should be available to launch EAM activities. It was further agreed that TORs of the working groups could be further developed by the Secretariat for reviewing and endorsement by CAQ at its fifth session.

31. The budget and description of the initial activities, along with a time plan, for each of the ad hoc working groups as developed by the experts are detailed in Appendix F. The initial forecast of expenditure for each working group in 2006 was estimated to be between 15 000 to 30 000 Euros.

32. Finally, the experts agreed that the proposal for the re-establishment of EAM be presented to the Commission at its thirtieth session (Istanbul, Turkey, 24–27 January 2006), for consideration and possible endorsement in principle, in order to initiate the activities of the working groups. The report of the present meeting would also be presented and discussed at the fifth session of CAQ.

ANY OTHER MATTERS

33. The Secretariat thanked all participants for their active contribution in the discussions and welcomed their future involvement with the development of EAM and implementation of future activities.

ADOPTION OF THE REPORT

34. The present report was finalized by the Secretariat and circulated to all the experts attending the meeting for their comments and approval.

APPENDIX A

Agenda

1. Opening of the Meeting

2. Adoption of the Agenda and Meeting objectives

3. Presentation and role of the Environment and Aquaculture in the Mediterranean Network (EAM)

4. Aquaculture and the environment in the Mediterranean: overview on current policies and regulations

5. Research and other activities on environmental issues in Mediterranean aquaculture

6. Priorities to be addressed by the Environment and Aquaculture in the Mediterranean Network (EAM)

7. Any other matter

8. Adoption of the Report

APPENDIX B

List of participants

EXPERTS Ioannis KARAKASSIS University of Crete Dror ANGEL Department of Biology Recanati Institute for Maritime Studies PO Box 2208 Haifa University Heraklion 71409, Greece Mt Carmel, Haifa 31905, Israel Tel.: +30 2810 337828 Tel.: +972 4 8288130 Fax: +30 2810 337822 Fax: +972 4 8240493 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Ivan KATAVIĆ Bernardo BASURCO Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and International Centre for Mediterranean Water Management Agronomic Studies (CIHEAM) Ulica Grada Vukovara 78 Mediterranean Agronomic Institute 10000 Zagreb, Croatia of Zaragoza (IAMZ) Tel.: +385 1 610 65 31 Apartado 202, 50080 Zaragoza, Spain Fax: +385 1 610 65 58 Tel.: +34 976 716000 / 716006 E-mail: [email protected] Fax: +34 976 716001 E-mail: [email protected] Denis LACROIX Palavas Station Stefano CATAUDELLA Institut français de recherche pour Dipartimento di Biologia l’exploitation de la mer (IFREMER) Università di Roma “Tor Vergata” 34250 Palavas-les-Flots, France Via della Ricerca Scientifica Tel.: +33 467 504102 00133 Rome, Italy Fax: +33 467 682885 Tel.: +39 06 2026187 E-mail: [email protected] Fax: +39 06 2026189 E-mail: [email protected] Philippe LEMERCIER International Affairs Souha EL ASMI (Ms) Institut français de recherche pour Regional Activity Centre for Specially l’exploitation de la mer (IFREMER) Protected Areas (RAC/SPA) 155, rue Jean-Jacques Rousseau Boulevard du Leader Yasser Arafat 92128 Issy-les-Moulineaux, France BP 337, 1080 Tunis Cedex, Tunisia Tel.: +33 1 46482229 Tel.: +216 71 795760 Fax: +33 1 46482188 Fax: +216 71 797349 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Nuria MARBA (Ms) Abderrahmen GANNOUN Institut Mediterrani d’Estudis Avançats United Nations Environment Programme Miquel Marques 21 Mediterranean Action Plan (MAP) 07190 Esporles Regional Activity Centre for Illes Balears, Spain Specially Protected Areas (RAC/SPA) Tel.: +34 971 611720 Boulevard du Leader Yasser Arafat Fax: +34 971 611720 BP 337, 1080 Tunis Cedex, Tunisia E-mail: [email protected] Tel.: +216 71 847122 Fax: +216 71 848069 E-mail: [email protected]

Abdellatif ORBI Alessandro LOVATELLI Institut national de recherche CAQ Technical Secretary halieutique (INRH) Fishery Resources Officer 2, Rue Tiznit Inland Water Resources and Casablanca, Morocco Aquaculture Service Tel.: +212 22 298534 FAO Fisheries Department Fax: +212 22 266967 Tel.: +39 06 57056448 E-mail: [email protected] Fax: +39 06 57053020 E-mail: [email protected] Marco SAROGLIA Dipartimento di Biotecnologia e Donatella CROSETTI (Ms) Scienze Molecolari Visiting Scientist Facoltà di Scienze Marine Resources Service Sede di Varese FAO Fisheries Department Via H.J. Dunant, 3 Tel.: +39 06 57056815 21100 Varese, Italy Fax: +39 06 57053020 Tel.: +39 0332 421 332 E-mail: [email protected] Fax: +39 0332 421 500 E-mail: [email protected] AdriaMed and MedsudMed Projects

François SIMARD Fabio MASSA The World Conservation Union (IUCN) Project Coordinator Centre for Mediterranean Cooperation Corso Umberto I, 30 Parque Tecnológico de Andalucía 86039 Termoli (CB), Italy Calle Maria Curie, 35 Tel.: +39 0875 708252 Campanillas Fax: +39 0875 720065 29590 Malaga, Spain E-mail: [email protected] 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]

APPENDIX C

Background paper for the re-establishment of the GFCM–CAQ Network on Environment and Aquaculture in the Mediterranean (EAM)

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:

a) Information aspects for promotion of aquaculture in the Mediterranean (SIPAM). b) Technical aspects for promotion of aquaculture in the Mediterranean (TECAM). c) Economic and legal aspects for promotion of aquaculture in the Mediterranean (SELAM). d) 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:

1) lagoon management; 2) interactions between aquaculture and environment; 3) site evaluation and protection; 4) 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:

(i) Workshop on “Impacts of intensive farming outfalls on the coastal ecosystem” (Jerba, Tunisia, April 1994). (ii) Workshop on “Environmental aspects of shellfish culture in the Mediterranean with special reference to monitoring” (Dubrovnik, Croatia, July 1994). (iii) Two working group meetings on lagoon management (Nador, Morocco, July 1994; Montpellier, France, June 1995). (iv) 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 FAO Fisheries 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:

a) to monitor developments and trends of aquaculture practices in the region; b) to monitor the interaction between aquaculture development and the environment; c) 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; d) 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; e) 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 14 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 30 March 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 brackishwater aquaculture production in the Mediterranean and Black seas has increased steadily since the 1980s and in 2003 reached an estimated 371 000 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 the United Nations Environment/Mediterranean Action Plan (UNEP/MAP) report (2004) and by other 15 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, whereas 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 2003 organized 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,

1 AdriaMed: Scientific Cooperation to Support Responsible Fisheries in the Adriatic Sea (FAO Regional Project); CopeMed: Cooperation Networks to facilitate Coordination to Support Fisheries Management in the Western and Central Mediterranean (FAO Regional Project); EastMed: FAO Regional Project in Eastern Mediterranean; MedsudMed: Assessment and Monitoring of the Fishery Resources and Ecosystems in the Strait of Sicily (FAO Regional Project). 16 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; MedVeg project 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 the GFCM 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.

a) 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 an Environment 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.

b) 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.

2 EC Directive 97/11/EC amending Directive 85/337/EEC. 3 http://modb.oce.ulg.ac.be/modb/welcome.html. 18

c) 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.

d) 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, Shpigel and 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 matter inputs. 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.

e) 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.

f) 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).

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; 19

• 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.

Annex 1

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. 229 pp.

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. 46–48 pp.

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 Mediterranean Region. 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 la région méditerranéenne. 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. 21

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, 25-27 septembre 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. 50 pp.

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. FAO Fisheries Report/FAO Rapport sur le pêches. No. 770. Rome, FAO, 77 pp.

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: 35 pp.

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 December 2001.

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 Action Plan/UNEP/Priority Actions Programme, 6 pp.

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, 80 pp.

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, 102 pp.

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, 25 pp.

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. 35 pp.

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 23

Annex 2

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

4 FAO. Report of the Consultation on the Application of Article 9 of the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries in the Mediterranean Region. Rome, Italy, 19–23 July 1999. FAO Fisheries Report. No. 606. Rome, FAO. 1999. 208p. 24 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 CCRF is 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. 25

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.”

APPENDIX D

The environmental situation of aquaculture in the Mediterranean Sea: a review

Doris Soto and Donatella Crosetti

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this paper is to synthesize the published information on environment and aquaculture interactions in the Mediterranean Sea in order to establish the main relevant issues which are common to this ecosystem and which can be approached with an integrated management perspective. It is relevant to know how much information is available and where is the information. It is also important to know weather there are information gaps and how to access the information for developing management approaches. As a second objective, this paper analyzes the information organized in a data base which can be updated on permanent basis and which can serve as a resource for management and dissemination of information.

METHODOLOGY

A review of the published information on aquaculture environmental issues in the Mediterranean from 1990 to present was carried out. Two searching tools, Google Scholar and ASFA (Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts) were used, and “grey” literature and other documents found in FAO libraries were reviewed. In total 168 relevant publications were found, including those in peer reviewed journals, reports, Web information, etc. The information was classified according to the country where this was produced; whenever the same study included several countries, only the information from the Mediterranean was considered. In the other cases the publication referring to aquaculture environmental impacts in more general terms and which could include the Mediterranean, was therefore classified as “international or global”. Publications were categorized according to their goals, e.g. field studies, normative/guidelines, reviews, etc.

The information obtained from publications was then correlated to the aquaculture production of countries particularly to fish production.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Environmental background conditions of the Mediterranean Sea

The marine condition of the Mediterranean is characterized by relatively warm, salty and nutrient-poor waters. Higher salinity is a result of low precipitation and high irradiance. A unique quality of the Mediterranean is its oligotrophic nature, a consequence of several factors among them being a semi-enclosed basin with a net loss of nutrients through the Gibraltar strait. On the other hand, the Mediterranean has relatively little freshwater inputs (and therefore nutrients), condition which may be even worsening due to the increasing use of freshwater in the upper basins (Duarte et al., 1999). As a consequence, the Mediterranean 29 could also be more sensitive to climatic changes, particularly to increases in temperature along with lower precipitation. Scientific evidence shows some nutrient and phytoplankton increases particularly in the Adriatic Sea (Solic et al., 1997) and in coastal zones of more populated areas or those where agriculture is more intensive.

However, the Mediterranean Sea has a very particular condition which makes it very different from other studied ecosystems, as pointed out by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Mediterranean Action Plan (MAP) report (2004) the major findings of which are described in the following paragraphs. There are high temperatures (annual minimum of 12 oC, with peaks of 25 oC during summer) which will produce high metabolic rates affecting both the production of the farmed fish and the activity of microbial communities possibly enhancing anoxic zones bellow cages. There are very low, micro-tidal regime with tidal range less than 50 cm. Compared to other areas of aquaculture and fish cage farming, in the present case there is a much lower potential for dispersion of solute and particulate wastes, especially in enclosed bays.

Another important characteristic of the Mediterranean is its oligotrophy with low nutrients, low primary production and low phytoplankton biomass. Such conditions are typical of most Mediterranean marine ecosystems, particularly in the eastern basin, additionally low phytoplankton biomass produces high transparency and light penetration deeper in the water column (Duarte et al., 1999)

Primary production is considered to be phosphorus limited (Krom et al., 1991) as opposed to nitrogen limitation in the Atlantic and in most of the world’s oceans. In this context, eutrophication could be expected more often when phosphorus (P) is released in excess. This is an important difference with the environmental impacts well studied from other aquaculture activities such as salmon farming, where mostly nitrogen has been considered. It is also a relevant issue because P tends to remain on the site and could cause faster local effects.

The biotic component of the ecosystems, i.e. the fauna and flora, is highly diverse particularly in the coastal zone and consists of a large proportion of endemic species (Tortonese, 1985) with low abundance and biomass as a result of the prevailing oligotrophic conditions (Karakassis and Eleftheriou, 1997).

Another key characteristic of the Mediterranean Sea is the presence and relevance of sea grasses. Sea grasses are rooted, flowering plants that grow in the marine environment. They form dense and highly productive beds of great importance to invertebrates, fish and some birds, usually producing clusters or increased species richness and diversity. These beds could also provide protection against coastal erosion.

Such sea grass beds (e.g. Posidonia oceanica) constitute one of the most important heterogeneity and bottom sea structure provider, giving home to many species vertebrate and invertebrate species (Hemminga and Duarte, 2000). This is particularly relevant in a low productivity ecosystem such as this. Damage to sea grass beds caused by different anthropogenic effects among which aquaculture could be relevant have been noticed in the Mediterranean (Cancemi, De Falco and Pergent, 2003).

Present aquaculture situation in the Mediterranean Sea

Marine and brackishwater aquaculture production in the Mediterranean and Black seas has increased steadily since the 1980s and in 2003 reached an estimated 371 000 tonnes (FAO, Fishstat, 2005; Figure 1), the largest proportion of which is represented by marine finfish (49 percent; Figure 2). The main finfish species are the gilthead seabream, Sparus aurata, the European seabass (Dicentrarchus labrax) and the flathead grey mullet (Mugil cephalus). Mussels (40 percent), clams (7 percent) and oysters (2 percent) followed. Intensive fish production only started an exponential increase after 1990, Greece, Turkey, Spain and Italy being the largest producers (Figure 2).

400,000

350,000

300,000

250,000

200,000

tons Clams+

Oysters 150,000 Mussels

100,000 Coastal Fish

50,000

0 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Figure 1. Aquaculture production of species groups accounting for 98 percent of total production since 1980 (FAO Fishstat, 2005).

180,000 Slovenia Fish production Tunisia 160,000 Albania Morocco 140,000 Malta

120,000 Cyprus Croatia 100,000 Israel

tons France 80,000 Italy

60,000 Spain Turkey 40,000 Greece

20,000

0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Figure 2. Finfish aquaculture production in the Mediterranean Sea (FAO Fishstat, 2005). 31

Potential environmental impacts of aquaculture

Among the most common and well studied environmental impacts of aquaculture are:

i) excess nutrient loads to aquatic ecosystems; ii) use of chemicals which may accumulate in the ecosystem; iii) diseases transfer from aquaculture to wildlife; iv) interaction with fisheries including the effect of escaped cultured species; and v) interactions with other uses of coastal zones.

Both types of aquaculture, finfish and bivalves produce loads of nutrient to the environment, generally bivalve culture produces proportionally more (by weight) particulate organic matter while intensive aquaculture produces both dissolved and particulate organic matter. However, intensive aquaculture particularly that of carnivorous finfish cage farming produces the largest nutrient loads to aquatic systems (Gowen and Bradbury, 1987). This issue has been well explored by Uriarte and Basurco (2001) in the CIHEAM (International Centre for Advanced Mediterranean Agronomic Studies) special publication on the environmental impact assessment of Mediterranean aquaculture farms.

Furthermore, such loads have been calculated for the Mediterranean finfish aquaculture in the UNEP/MAP (United Nations Environment Programme/Mediterranean Action Plan) report (2004) where they used 110 kg of nitrogen (N) and 12 kg of phosphorus (P) as outputs per ton of fish produced. Considering that finfish (Figure 1) aquaculture production for 2003 in marine and brackish waters reached 182 000 tons (latest FAO statistics), N and P loads could have reached respectively 20 and 2.1 thousands tonnes.

A large proportion of this share is loaded on the Greek coast according to their largest proportion on finfish production, followed by Turkey and Italy. However, according to Izzo (2001) and Karakassis, Pitta and Krom (2005) such loads would be less than 1 percent of the present loads due to the likely impact of agriculture and sewage. As pointed out by the UNEP/MAP (2004) report, mariculture could act as point source and could induce local eutrophication. This could be particularly relevant considering that the Mediterranean Sea is still considered rather oligotrophic.

Nutrient loading has been by far the best studied topic related with intensive fish farming both in the Mediterranean Sea (Karakassis, Pitta and Krom, 2000) and elsewhere, particularly the effects on sediments.

Environmental concerns from aquaculture: the evidence from the literature

Publications and/or reports more focused on the aquaculture-environment interactions started in 1992 when the MEDRAP (FAO Regional Project “Mediterranean Aquaculture Network”) activities and technical reports started to be published. There was an exponential increase in 2000 and 2001 (Figure 3) and the published information reveals that scientist and other stakeholders started to carry out field evaluations of aquaculture potential impacts after 1995, being Krom et al. (1995) a promising approach to integrated aquaculture. In 1997, the Proceedings of the CIHEAM Workshop of the Network on Technology of Aquaculture in the Mediterranean (TECAM) showed the work done by Molina et al. (1997) on nutrient discharges from a marine cage farm. From 1999 several publications on cage farms appeared, based on field evaluations done in Greece, Italy and France, parallel to the development of 32 cage culture in the Mediterranean. The sharp increase in the number of publications in 2001 is essentially due to a CIHEAM workshop and special publication on environmental impact assessment of Mediterranean aquaculture farms (Uriarte and Basurco, 2001) which includes 20 publications on field studies and normative work (Figure 3).

Who produces these publications and where?

The 168 reviewed publications and 22 abstracts were produced by 69 institutions and 52 publications were produced within activities of 18 networks or integrated projects usually involving more than two countries. Of the 168 publications, only 20 percent deal with the Mediterranean as a whole ecosystem; other 20 percent are based in Italy, follows Greece with 14 percent. Publications with a global scope although dealing with the Mediterranean represent 9 percent (Figure 4).

40 350000 No of publications 35 Production 300000

30 250000 25 200000 20 150000 15

No of publications of No 100000 10 Total Aquaculture prod. (tons) Aquaculture Total 5 50000

0 0

3 5 8 996 001 004 1991 1992 199 1994 199 1 1997 199 1999 2000 2 2002 2003 2 2005

Figure 3. Number of publications referring to aquaculture environmental issues in the Mediterranean Sea and total aquaculture production since 1991.

0.25 Scope of Publications on Environmental issues of Mediterranean Aquaculture, per country/region

0.2

0.15

0.1 Frequency

0.05

Italy Malta

Egypt Israel Spain Grece Global Turkey France Cyprus Europe Croatia Mediterr

Figure 4. Geographical scope of the publications included in this study. 33

o Total Aquaculture Prod and N of publications 250000 35

30 200000 Production Publications 25 150000 20

15 100000 10 Publications of No 50000 Annual Average (tons) 93-03 5

0 0

n t a ly ce el ta p ia ta us y co ni isia pai I oatia e gar S Gre r Isra Mal ypr Eg lbania France Turkey C C lov ul A Tun Moroc S B

Fish Production and No of publications

45000 35

40000 Fish production 30 Publications 35000 25 30000

25000 20

20000 15 15000 10 Publications No 10000 Annual Average (tons) 93-03 5 5000 0 0

s a ly tia ta key ain ta nce a u r I al occo Sp a Israel ypr M Egypt lbani Greece Tu Fr Cro C A Tunisia Mor Slovenia

Figure 5. Mariculture production (annual average) per country, and number of relevant publications. Total production (above) and fish production (below). Aquaculture data from FAO Fishstat 2005.

The relationship between aquaculture and the number of publications is not lineal when the comparison is done with the total aquaculture production of a country. A similar result is obtained when using only fish aquaculture (Figure 5). When using the whole aquaculture figures studies and publications efforts in Italy and Greece seem to be greater than those in other countries. Considering only fish production, Greece and Turkey appear with less published studies (considering total aquaculture or just fish production) than Italy. If we consider only field studies category, publication relevance increases in Greece and Italy. Clearly environmental effects of fish farming have been better studied in Italy and Greece but it is relatively less studied subject in Turkey where the production is quite large. However, it is possible that the available information and studies could provide enough information to extrapolate to other areas at least for the development of guidelines and regulations.

In total, 87 institutions which hold experts producing the publications were found; however, only 15 institutions produced 47 percent of the publications. Among them, the most relevant are: IFREMER (French Institute for the Exploration of the Seas) with several laboratories in France; the Institute of Marine Biology of Crete; FAO Regional Project MEDRAP 34

(Mediterranean Aquaculture Network); the Hellenic Centre for Marine Research in Greece; the Department of Marine Sciences of the University of Ancona in Italy; ICRAM (Central Institute for Marine Research) in Italy; and UNEP/MAP (for more details regarding Institutions see Annex 1). On the other hand, many publications are produced in connection with or in the framework of a special project or network (Figure 7) and more often publications have been fostered by special workshops such as that carried out by CIHEAM in 2001 (Uriarte and Basurco, 2001) and a Sustainable Aquaculture Workshop held in Pontignano, Italy in 2004 (Annex 2).

18 1.8 35 Inst 16 Pub 30 14 25 12 2.7 1.3 10 3.7 20 1.7 8 1.7 15 of Instituttions of 1.5 publications of o 6 o N 16 10 N 4 5 2

0 0 EU UK Italy Med Aust USA Israel Spain Egypt Global Ireland Turkey France Croatia Cyprus Tunisie Greece Norway Portugal countries/regions Figure 6. Number of publications per country and number of institutions involved. The numbers represent publications per institution.

UNEP/MA P PANELLENIC ICHT 2001 MEDV EG JA P/ISRA EL SY MP FA O/A DRIA MED EU/CA GEN AQUA EU 1991 6th/7th HELLENIC SYMP

WAQUA 2001 NSNA W MERA MED EFMS 2002 CZMP/CROA TIA FA O/A DRIA MED MA RA QUA SUST.AQUA WSP 2004 CIHEA M/TECA M

0246810121416 No of Publications

Figure 7. Number of publications produced or fostered by networks/projects/special workshops. The full name of each appears in Annex 2. The white column represent only extended abstract publications.

Geographical coverage of field studies and evaluations in the Mediterranean

The geographical areas covered by the publications are also related to the institutions and scientists involved in the research, and obviously with the number of publications per country as explained before. In total, the references collected in the reviewed publications indicate that 39 sites or farming areas have been studied and some of them have rendered more than one publication (Figure 8).

of Publications 20 o N

0 12349 No of sites

Figure 8. Number of studied sites covered by individual publications.

Most studies only cover one site or aquaculture farm plus a control or reference point. Very few studies cover three or four sites, with one exception of a publication covering nine farms sites (Dempster et al., 2002). There is no published data on more general environmental monitoring of aquaculture activities.

Most studied sites are located in Italy, following Greece and Spain (Figure 9). Specifically the most studied aquaculture sites are in the Gulf of Gaeta in Italy, Cephalonia and Sounion islands in Greece, Gulf of La Spezia in Italy, Thau Lagoon in France and Venice Lagoon in Italy (see Annex 3, Table 2 for a reference to the studied sites). No references were found on aquaculture sites in Turkey.

Number of sites/areas studied in each country 18 16 14 12 10

No 8 6 4 2 0 Italy Greece Spain France Egypt Israel Cyprus

Figure 9. Number of sites studied in each country. 36

Main objective of publications and most relevant results/conclusions of studies

The main objective of publications (Figure 10) focuses on descriptive studies on environmental impacts of aquaculture, while normative/guideline type publications accounted for less than 15 percent. Monitoring for management is practically absent within the goals of publications therefore this kind of information is not available (at least for public access).

The largest proportion of published studies (72 percent) relates to fish farming environmental effects while 13 percent of these publications focus on shellfish aquaculture impacts (Figure 11) despite of the more or less equal production of both types of aquaculture. However, few studies deal with different types of aquaculture in order to compare environmental impacts, indeed most publications start with the objective of evaluating fish farming effects and thus the same evaluation effort for environmental impact effects has not been applied to all types of aquaculture. On the other hand, this approach could be biased since fish farming not likely to have impacts would not be attractive for studies or if studied the absence of effects are less likely to be published. Nevertheless, undoubtedly cage fish farming especially in intensive farming could have more significant effects on the environment which goes from heavy organic matter loads to the impact of escaped fish (Pillay, 1992).

0.9 0.8 Main objective of publication 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4

Frequency 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Descrpt Study Normative Method dev. Monitoring

Figure 10. Distribution of reviewed publications according to major goal of the document.

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1 Frequency of publications Re: publications of Frequency 0 Fish Shellfish All Fish/Shellf

Figure 11. Frequency distribution of publications dealing with environmental effects of different types of aquaculture. 37

In the case of the Mediterranean aquaculture, fish farming is the main focus of environmental concern, yet other form of aquaculture should not be disregarded. Regarding the affecting factors within the aquaculture activity; organic matter addition is the most frequently cited. Almost 70 percent of reviewed publications referred to this as the most relevant factor. Frequency of publications focusing on this and other factors is shown in Figure 12, the introduction of exotic species and impacts of escapees and pathologies being the commonly cited impacts in the global literature on aquaculture environmental effects (Pillay, 1992; Gowen and Bradbury, 1987).“Fish aggregation” was placed as an affecting factor; however, this is rather a result of cage activities. Often this can be seen as a negative factor because it impacts on surrounding fauna or because the aggregation could facilitate the overfishing on them. On the other hand such fish aggregation around farm cages can be seen as a positive effect since fish could use extra nutrients from the feeding process in the cage farm. This remains a very controversial issue of great relevance which has been little explored elsewhere except in the Mediterranean Sea (see Dempster et al., 2002; Machias et al., 2005). Nutrients and organic matter inputs from aquaculture could indeed contribute to increased fish biomass outside the cages, however this type of effect has to be better evaluated and further managed.

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3 Frequency

0.2

0.1

0 OM addition Various Fish Sp Escapees Patologies Seed capture aggregation introductions

Figure 12. Frequency distribution of publications focusing on different affecting factors.

A recent experts consultation on interactions between aquaculture and fisheries in the Mediterranean has focused on markets and potential competition of products as well as on potential competition for space and negative interactions due to the use of wild seeds for aquaculture but the interactions of fish cages with wild fish has not been directly addressed (Cataudella, Massa and Crosetti, 2005). Such interaction between cage aquaculture and fisheries should be addressed in a more systematic way.

Among the most affected factors by fish aquaculture are sediments, water column and fish (fish aggregations) although most significant effects occur in sediments bellow fish cages (Figure 13) which is also a very common pattern in most published studies worldwide on fish cage farming (Karakassis, Pitta and Krom, 2000). A distinct effect is that on seagrasses which has shown to be significant in all reported cases studies in the Mediterranean as early as the study published by Pergent et al., (1999). On the other hand, the most frequently used indicators of impacts in sediments are benthic organisms which has also shown to be the most world wide used tool to evaluate fish cage farming effects, while bacteria and biogeochemical composition of sediments are less used (Figure 14). The use of benthic organisms is also relevant because provides direct information relevant for biodiversity conservation measures. 38

0.4 N Sig

Sign 0.3

0.2 Frequency

0.1

0.0 Sediments Water Fish All Seagrass Shellfish column

Figure 13. Frequency distribution of affected components of the ecosystem according to results and conclusions of reviewed publications. Grey portion of the bar represents the proportion of effects detected as “significant”.

0.6

0.5 Indicators used in sediments

0.4

0.3

Frequency 0.2

0.1

0 Benthos Bacteria CNP Physic-chem

Figure 14. Most frequently used indicators in sediments.

IMPROVING INFORMATION AND COORDINATION FOR THE DECISION MAKING: A POTENTIAL SCOPE FOR EAM

Is aquaculture having a significant impact in the Mediterranean Sea? Karakassis, Pitta and Krom (2005) attempted to answer this question after a comprehensive review of total nutrient loads to the whole basin including that from aquaculture. The later would supply less than 1 percent of the present loads while the larger bulk is apparently coming from agriculture and sewage. Such global balance for the Mediterranean Sea does not preclude the existence of local effects from aquaculture activities. In general, while potential effects of nutrient enrichment at the local level are very well covered the UNEP/MAP report (2004) and by other recent studies (Karakassis, Pitta and Krom, 2005), there is little or no information on ecosystem carrying capacity at regional and subregional levels, for example in the Adriatic Sea or along the coasts of Greece, etc. Such information is very relevant to prevent local eutrophication, hypoxic conditions, outbreak of red tides, toxic outbreaks, and significant damages to Posidonia beds, etc. 39

Other potential impacts are not well studied such as the effect of escaped fish and their interaction with wild species and fisheries or the potential effects of species introductions and transfers. In general there is limited or no information on the use and effects of different chemicals, such as antibiotics, pesticides, vitamins, etc., while effects are well documented elsewhere. We did not find any quantitative evaluation on the later subject in the reviewed publications for the present work even though the subject and risks are highlighted in the UNEP/MAP report (2004).

As mentioned before, there is interesting information on fish communities and population increases around fish farming (Machias et al., 2005) which at some point could be considered a positive effect. However, the evidence is insufficient to proof increased fish production and more information needs to be provided, integrated and analyzed with an ecosystemic perspective.

There is comparatively less information on the effects of bivalve aquaculture on the Mediterranean Sea and such effects should not be underestimated. However, 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). This subject has been addressed in Europe (ICES, 2003) yet, the particular conditions of the Mediterranean may require a more focused approach.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The review of the published information on aquaculture environmental issues in the Mediterranean Sea indicates that the major environmental concerns relate to fish aquaculture mostly in cages or net pens. Although published information shows significant effects of fish farming on sediments, in most cases no effects are detected on the water column or on measurable eutrophication processes.

Published information on environmental issues and environmental effects in the different countries is not proportional to their aquaculture production but is rather related to few institution activities and to specific projects and/or networks which often involve more than one country. Most of the published information is concentrated in European countries while very little is available from Near East and northern Africa countries. Efforts should be made to improve this situation.

Very few studies cover more than one aquaculture site and there are no data (published) on more general monitoring programs of the environmental situation of aquaculture activities. Monitoring for management is practically absent within the goals of publications therefore this kind of information is not available. Consequently, the development of integrated monitoring programs for environmental conditions around aquaculture activities would be most relevant to evaluate both aquaculture effects beyond the local site and general environmental conditions effects on aquaculture.

Furthermore, the review of published information indicates that no carrying capacity models seem to be in place to plan and scale aquaculture growth although some models or carrying capacity approaches may be in current use or may be implemented more recently. Such approach should be strongly recommended along with some integrated coastal zone planning 40 which guidelines appear in general normative type publications. However, this approach seems to have had limited application/implementation in the Mediterranean.

We have shown that many publications are produced in connection with or in the framework of a special project and networks; therefore, an active network connecting all countries with aquaculture production in the Mediterranean should render fruitful results regarding coordinated management of aquaculture in the Mediterranean. Most large projects are funded by the EU and therefore mainly concern European countries, efforts should be made to integrate southern Mediterranean countries in these projects.

The information collected for this publication is stored in a data base which will be available through SIPAM and will be periodically updated to facilitate the use of the information and to be used as well as an evaluation tool of new efforts and activities to improve environmental management of aquaculture in the Mediterranean such as EAM.

REFERENCES

Cancemi, G., De Falco, G. & Pergent, G. 2003. Effects of organic matter input from a fish farming facility on a Posidonia oceanica meadow Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 56: 961–968. Cataudella, S., Massa, F. & Crosetti, D. (Eds). 2005. AdriaMed Expert Consultation “Interactions between Aquaculture and Capture Fisheries”. Studies and Reviews. General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean. No.78. Rome, FAO: 229 pp. De Monbrison. 2004. Mediterranean marine aquaculture and environment: Identification of issues, IUCN document. Dempster, T., Sanchez-Jerez, P., Bayle-Sempere, J.T., Giménez-Casalduero, F., & Valle, C. 2002. Attraction of wild fish to sea cage fish farms in the south-western Mediterranean Sea: spatial and short-term temporal variability. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 242:237–252. Dimech, M., Borg, J.A. & Schembri, J.P. 2002. Changes in the structure of a Posidonia oceanica meadow and in the diversity of associated decapod, mollusc and echinoderm assemblages, resulting from inputs of waste from a marine fish farm (Malta, Central Mediterranean), Bulletin of Marine Science, 71:1309-1321. Duarte, C.M., Agusti, S., Kennedy, H. & Vaquè, 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. EU Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament. 2002. A Strategy For The Sustainable Development of European Aquaculture, Brussels, 19.9.2002 COM (2002) 511 final. FAO. 1999. Report on the consultation on the application of article 9 of the FAO Code of conduct for Responsible Fisheries in the Mediterranean Region. 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 la région méditerranéenne. 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. 41

GESAMP, 1991.Reducing environmental impacts of coastal aquaculture. Reports and Studies No 47, 35 pp. Gowen, R.J. & Bradbury, N.B. 1987. The ecological impact of salmon farming in coastal waters: a review. Oceanography and Marine Biology Reviews, 25:563–575. Hemminga, M. & Duarte, C. 2000. Seagrass Ecology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 320 pp. ICES, 2003. CM 2003/F:05 Report of the Working Group on Marine Shellfish Culture. International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, Conseil International pour l’Exploration de la Mer. Palægade 2–4 DK-1261 Copenhagen K, Denmark. Izzo, G. 2001. Monitoring of Mediterranean marine eutrophication: strategy, parameters and indicators. UNEP(DEC) Report (draft) presented in Review meeting of MED-POL. Karakassis, I. & Eleftheriou A. 1997. The continental shelf of Crete: structure of macrobenthic communities. Marine Ecology Progress series 160:185–196. Karakassis, I., Pitta, P. & Krom, M.D. 2005. Contribution of fish farming to the nutrient loading of the Mediterranean. Scientia Marina 69:313–321. Karakassis, I., Tsapakis, M., Hatziyanni, E., Papadopoulou, K.N. & Plaiti, W. 2000. Impact of cage farming of fish on the seabed in three Mediterranean coastal areas. ICES Journal of Marine Science 57:1462–1471. Krom, M.D., Ellner, S., van Rijn, J. & Neori, A. 1995. Nitrogen and phosphorus cycling and transformations in a prototype “non-polluting” integrated mariculture system, Eilat Israel. Marine ecology progress Series 118:25–36 Krom, M.D., Kress, N., Brenner, S. & Gordon, L.I. 1991. Phosphorus Limitation of Primary Productivity in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea Limnology and Oceanography, 36:424–432. Hemminga, M.A & Duarte, C.M. 2000. Seagrass Ecology. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 298pp. Machias, 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. MED-POL. 2004. Mariculture in the Mediterranean. MAP technical Report Series No140. UNEP- MAP, 80pp. Molina, L., Lopez, G., Vergara M., Robaina, L. & Fernandez-Palacios, H. 1997. Retention and discharge of nutrients from a marine cage farm in the Canary Islands. Preliminary results. Feeding tomorrow's fish. Proceedings of the Workshop of the CIHEAM Network on Technology of Aquaculture in the Mediterranean jointly organized by CIHEAM, FAO and IEO, Mazarron (Spain), 24–26 June 1996. Cahiers Options Mediterraneennes, 22:291–300. PAP/RAC. 1996. Approaches for zoning of coastal areas with reference to Mediterranean aquaculture. PAP-IO/EAM/GL.2 Split. 35p. Pergent, G., Mendez, S., Pergent-Martini, C. & Pasqualini, V. 1999. Preliminary data on the impact of fish farming facilities on Posidonia oceanica meadows in the Mediterranean. Oceanologica Acta, 22:95–107. Pillay, T.V.R. 1992. Aquaculture and the environment. John Wileyand Sons, New York. 189pp. Solic, M., Krstulovic, N., Marasovic, I., Branovic, A., Pucher-Petkovic, T. & Vucetic, T. 1997. Analysis of the time series of planktonic communities in the Adriatic Sea: distinguishing between natural and man-induced changes. Oceanologica Acta 20:131–143. Tortonese, E. 1985. Distribution and ecology of endemic elements in the Mediterranean fauna (Fish and echinoderms). In: Moraitou-Apostolopoulou, M. & Kiortsis V. (eds). Mediterranean Marine ecosystems. Plenum Press, New York, 57–83 pp. 42

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, CIHEAM and FAO. In: Cahiers Options Méditerranéennes, No. 55. 43

Annex 1

Institutions involved in research, training or governance issues related to aquaculture and environmental interactions in the Mediterranean Sea

INSTITUTIONS IFREMER* Institute of Marine Biology of Crete, 71003 Heraklion, Crete, Greece Dipartimento di Biologia Animale, Università di Palermo, Via Archirafi 18, 90123 Palermo, Italy MEDRAP/FAO Hellenic Centre for Marine Research, P.O. Box 2214, Iraklion 71003, Greece Department of Marine Sciences, University of Ancona, Via Brecce Bianche, 60131 Ancona, Italy FAO ICRAM (Central Institute for Marine Research), Via di Casalotti 300, 00191 Roma, Italy UNEP/MAP Departamento de Ecología e Hidrología, Facultad de Biología, Universidad de Murcia, 30100 , Murcia, Spain DIP.TE.RIS, University of Genoa, Corso Europa, Genoa, 26–16132, Italy Dipartimento di Biologia, Università di Roma, Tor Vergata, Rome Italy Directorate for Fisheries, Ministry for Agriculture and Forestry, Vukovarska 78, 10000, Zagreb Croatia ENEA, Centro La Casaccia, S. Maria di Galeria, Roma, Italy National Centre for Mariculture, Israel Oceanographic & Limnological Research Ltd, PO Box 1212, Eilat 88112, Israel Centre for Coastal Resources Management, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William & Mary, PO Box 1346, Gloucester Pt, Virginia 23062, USA Centre for Coastal and Marine Science. Dunstaffnage Marine Laboratory, PO Box 3, Oben, Argyll PA34 4AD, Scotland, UK CNR (Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche) Istituto per l'Ambiente Marino Costiero, Messina, Italy CNRS (Conseil National Recherche Scientifique) Research Unit 6540, Centre d’Océanologie de Marseille, 13288 Marseille, France Department of Environmental Sciences G. Sarfatti, University of Siena, Via Mattioli, 4, 53100 Siena, Italy Institute of Aquaculture, University of Stirling, Stirling FK9 4LA Scotland, UK Instituto Murciano de Investigación y Desarrollo Agrario y Alimentario (IMIDA), Departamento de Ganaderia y Acuicultura, Las Salinas 7, San Pedro del Pinatar, PO Box 65, Murcia, Spain INRA-USARQ (Institut National Recherche Agronomique, Unité Sol Agronomie de Rennes Quimper), 65 rue de Saint-Brieuc, 35042 Rennes Cedex France APROMAR (Asociacion Empresarial de Productores Cultivos Marinos), Spain Aquaculture Consultant, Kibbutz Ein Hamifratz, Fish Farm and hatcheries, D.N. Ashrat 25210 Israel Aquatic Systems Group, Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland Newforge Lane, Belfast UK Arab Aquaculture Consultation Office, Cairo Egypt AZTI Fundación (Food and Fish Technology Research Centre), Isla de Txatxarramendi s/n, 48395 Sukarrieta (Bizkaia) Spain AZTI, Dept. of Oceanography and Marine Environment, Herra Kaia, Portualdea r/g, 20110 Pasaia, Spain CCMS Plymouth Marine Laboratory, Citadel Hill, Plymouth, Devon PL1 2PB, UK CEAC Laboratory, Ca’ Pisani, Contarina (VE), Italy Cemagref Groupement de Bordeaux, Unité des ressources aquatiques continentales 50, Avenue de Verdun, 33612 CESTAS Cedex France Cenmar d.d Trg tri bunara 5, 23000, Zadar, Croatia Centro d`Estudi avancat de Blanes, CSIT S. Barbara s/n 17300, Blanes, Girona, Spain Departamento de Biología Animal, Facultad de Biología, Universidad de Santiago 15706, Santiago de Compostela, Spain Departamento de Biología, Universidad de las Palmas de Gran Canaria (ULPGC), P.O. Box 550, 35017 Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Canary Islands, Spain Department of Applied Hydrobiology, Faculty of Animal Science, Agricultural University of Athens, Athens Greece Department of Biology, Faculty of Marine Sciences, University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, 35017, Las Palmas, Canary Islands, Spain 44

INSTITUTIONS Department of Biology, University of Malta, Msida, Malta Department of Economics, University of Macedonia Thessaloniki, Greece Department of Environmental Sciences, Parma University, Viale delle Scienze, 43100 Parma, Italy Department of Evolution, Systematics and Ecology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel Department of Geology, George Washington University, 20052 Washington, DC, USA Department of Physics, INFM, National Institute for the Physics of Matter-DIFI, Department of Physics, University of Genova, Via Dodecaneso 33, 16132 , Genova, Italy Dept of Animal Biology and Marine Ecology, University of Messina, Salita Sperone 31, 98166 Messina , Italy Dipartimento di Biologia Animale, Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia, Via Universitá 4, 41100 Modena, Italy Dipartimento di Biologia Strutturale e Funzionale, Universitá dell’Insubria, 3 Via J.H. Dunant, 21100, Varese, Italy Dipartimento di Scienze e Tecnologie Biologiche ed Ambientali, Università di Lecce, Centro Ecotekne, 73100 Lecce, Italy Dipartimento di Scienze Zootecniche, Università di Sassari, Via E. De Nicola, 9, 07100 Sassari, Italy Dunstaffnage Marine Laboratory, PO Box 3, Oban, PA34 4AD, UK EIFAC/ICES Environ. Sci. Unit, Trinity Coll., Dublin 2, Ireland EU Ewos Technology Centre, Unit 1, Kingsthorne Park, Houstoun Industrial Estate, Livingston, West Lothian, Scotland EH54 5DB, UK Faculty of Science, University of Corsica, BP 20, 20250 Corte, France Fisheries Department, General Directorate of Agricultural Production and Development, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Ankara, Turkey Fishing and Food Technological Institute, Department of Oceanography and Marine Environment, Herrera Kaia, Portualdea z/g, 20110 Pasaia, Spain GESAMP IMR, Bergen, Norway INRA, Paris Institut National de la Recherche Halieutique (INRH) Casablanca Morocco Institute of Geological and Mineral Exploration, Messogion 70, 115 27 Athens, Greece Institute of Marine Science, ISMAR-CNR, Castello 1363/a, Venice, Italy, Institute of Oceanography and Fisheries, PO Box 500, 21000 Split, Croatia Instituto para la Política Ambiental Europea, c/ Moreto 7, 5ª, 28014 Madrid, Spain Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale dell'Umbria e delle Marche, Via Salvemini 1, 06126 Perugia, Italy IUCN Laboratoire de biologie et parasitologie marines, Faculté des sciences de Tunis, Campus universitaire, 2092 Tunis, Tunisie M.A.R.E. Soc. Coop. A.r.l., Via E. Toti, 2, Cattolica (RN), Italy Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environment, Fisheries Department 13 Aeolou Str., Nicosia Cyprus N.AG.RE.F. (National Agricultural Research Foundation), Fisheries Research Institute, 64007 Nea Peramos, Kavala, Greece Napier University, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK National Authority for Remote Sensing and Space Sciences (NARSS), Cairo, Egypt National Centre for Marine Research, Aghios Cosmas, 16604 Athens , Greece School of Biological Sciences, The University of Sydney, New South Wales 2006, Australia, School of Life Sciences, Napier University, Edinburgh, Scotland Scientific and Techn. Res. Counc. Turkey, Ankara, Turkey Scottish Environment Protection Agency, Glasgow, Scotland Spanish Oceanic Institute, Oceanic Centre of Murcia, Apdo 22, 30470 Pablo del Pignatar, Spain Tethys Research Institute, Acquario Civico, V.le Gadio 22, 20121 Milano, Italy Unidad de Biología Marina, Dpto. Ciencas Ambientales y Recursos Naturales, Universidad de Alicante, Campus S. Vicente de Raspeig, Apto. 99, 03080 Alicante, Spain University of Athens, Department of Chemistry, Laboratory of Environmental Chemistry, Panepistimiopolis, 15771 Athens, Greece 45

INSTITUTIONS University of Corsica University of Crete, Dept of Biology, Heraklion, Crete, Greece University of Wales Swansea, UK VENETO AGRICOLTURA. Centro Ittico Sperimentale "Bonello" Via della Sacca, 9, 45010 Porto Tolle (RO), Italy CIHEAM (International Centre for Advanced Mediterranean Agronomic Studies)

*Chemin de Maguelone, 34250, Palavas-les-Flots *Laboratoire Conchylicole de Méditerrannée, Bld J. Monnet, BP 171, 34203 Sète Cedex *Centre de Brest, BP 70, 29280 Plouzane, France

Annex 2

Workshops, networks and projects which have fostered research and/or dissemination of information

CIHEAM (International Centre for Advanced Mediterranean Agronomic Studies) seminar 2001 International workshop on ”Sustainable Aquaculture: animal welfare, human health and interactions with the environment”, Pontignano (Siena, Italy), March 31–April 1, 2004 MARAQUA project (Monitoring and Regulation of Marine Aquaculture in Europe) FAO/ADRIAMED Expert Consultation on Interactions between aquaculture and capture fisheries: a methodological perspective. Rome, Italy, 5–7 November 2003 Third International Symposia on Nutritional Strategies and Management of Aquaculture Waste (NSNAW), Vila Real (Portugal), 1–4 October 1997 Feeding tomorrow's fish. Proceedings of the Workshop of the CIHEAM Network on Technology of Aquaculture in the Mediterranean (TECAM) Workshop of the CIHEAM Network on Socio-economic and Legal Aspects of Aquaculture in the Mediterranean (SELAM). Actes de l’Atelier du Réseau CIHEAM sur les aspects socio-économiques et juridiques de l'aquaculture en Méditerranée (SELAM). Tangiers (Morocco) Tenth Pan Hellenic Congress of Ichthyologists, Chania, Greece, 18–20 October 2001. Proceedings First Scientific Conference of EFMS: Oceanographical Aspects for a Sustainable Mediterranean, Athens, 27–29 September 2002 Aquaculture 2001, Lake Buena Vista, Florida (USA), 21–25 January 2001: World Aquaculture Society. Book of Abstracts Environmental issues of marine fish farming in the Mediterranean. Workshop in Barcelona 20 October 2004. Twenty abstracts on the site. MedVeg – Effects of nutrient release from Mediterranean fish farms on benthic vegetation in coastal ecosystems – EU funded project EU CA project, started in Nov 2005, Genetic impacts of Aquaculture activities MERAMED Japanese-Israeli Symposia on Aquaculture, Haifa/Eilat (Israel), 2–8 November 1992 Project “Coastal zone management plan for Croatia” The Integrated Coastal Zone Management for Croatia with special focus on aquaculture’, administered by the Ministry for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, the Government of Croatia UNEP/MAP

Annex 3

Studied sites in the Mediterranean and number of studies (publications) on each site

SITE FREQUENCY

Gaeta Gulf, Latium, Italy 7 Cephalonia, Greece 6 La Spezia Gulf, Italy 4 Thau Lagoon, France 4 Sounion, Greece 3 Venice Lagoon, Italy 3 Cape Tiñoso, Spain 2 Cattolica (Adriatic Sea), Italy 2 Golfo di Castellamare, Italy 2 Hornillo Bay, Murcia, Spain 2 Ithaki, Greece 2 Mazara del Vallo, Sicily, Italy 2 Aegean Sea, Greece 1 Alberoni, Lio Grande, Crevan sites in the Venice Lagoon, Italy 1 Astakos Gulf, Greece 1 Bay of Figari, Corsica, France 1 Burullus Lagoon, Tunisia 1 Calich Lagoon, Sardinia, Italy 1 Canary Islands, Spain 1 Corsica, France 1 Levantine Sea, Cyprus 1 Fornells Bay, Minorca (Balearic Islands), Spain 1 Gran Canaria Island, Spain 1 Gulf of Aqaba, Red Sea, Israel 1 Ligurian Sea, Italy 1 Manzalah Lagoon, Egypt 1 Mar Piccolo, Taranto, Italy 1 Mediterranean Sea 1 Murcia, Spain 1 Orbetello Lagoon, Italy 1 Perpignan, France 1 Petalioi Bay, Evoikos Gulf, Greece 1 Adriatic Sea, Italy 1 Port of Ashdod, Israel 1 Porto Ercole, Italy 1 Sacca di Goro, Italy 1 San Pedro del Pinatar, Murcia, Spain 1 Tyrrenian Sea, Italy 1

APPENDIX E

Summaries of presentations made by experts attending the meeting

Integrated aquaculture projects in the Mediterranean Dror Angel, University of Haifa, Israel

The group headed by Dr Angel has focused on studies related to aquaculture-environment interactions in a variety of settings, including the Red Sea, the eastern Mediterranean Sea and coastal areas in northern America. Relevant past and present research projects include:

• BARD (Bi-national Agricultural Research Development, USA/Israel): Use of macroalgae to solve water quality problems in intensively cultured marine fishponds.

• Israeli Agricultural Research and Development: Microbial interactions and their influence on water quality in intensively managed seawater fish ponds.

• GKSS (Forschunszentrum Geesthacht Germany/Israel): Examination of environmental effects of net cage fish farming in the Gulf of Eilat (Aqaba).

• Israeli Ministry of Environment: Examining the potential of artificial reefs to reduce organic enrichment caused by commercial marine net cage fish farming in the Gulf of Aqaba.

• European Union FP4 (Fourth Framework Programme): Modelling benthic disturbance and recovery in warm water mariculture.

• European Union FP5 (Fifth Framework Programme): BIOFAQ: BIOFiltration and AQuaculture: an evaluation of hard substrate deployment performance within mariculture developments.

• CICEET-US NOAA (Cooperative Institute for Coastal and Estuarine Environmental Technology and United States National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration): Mitigating the effects of excess nutrients in coastal waters through bivalve aquaculture and harvesting.

• National Marine Institution-US NOAA: Environmental and technical assessment of alternative shellfish production methods.

• European Union FP6 (Sixth Framework Programme): ECASA (Ecosystem Approach for Sustainable Aquaculture).

The early research related to fluctuations in water quality in intensive fishponds illustrated the speed at which the environment responds to nutrient effluents. Subsequent work, in the early and mid-1990s, on the impact of net cage farms in the Gulf of Aqaba, indicated that oligotrophic, warm water environments respond differently to organic and inorganic nutrient inputs than do colder, mesotrophic water bodies. On the basis of these findings, research was initiated on the development of various strategies to mitigate the enrichment effects associated with the fish farms, including the use of detritivorous fish, macroalgae, benthic artificial reefs and hard substrates in the water column. Concurrently with the academic research, environmental impact assessments of the fish farms were conducted by the researchers, at the request of the local regulatory agencies. 49

In addition to the above, Dr Angel's team has been involved in several consulting projects commissioned by a number of local and international institutions on aquaculture-environment issues. On the basis of his experience with finfish aquaculture, Dr Angel became involved in two North American shellfish aquaculture projects and specifically investigating how bivalves can be used to deal with some coastal problems, such as the removal of excess nitrogen (estuarine eutrophication), and seagrass bed recovery.

The ongoing ECASA project encapsulates many of the lessons learned from European research activities on aquaculture-environment interactions and uses these to formulate a set of tools that should assist stakeholders and policy makers with respect to existing and future aquaculture developments.

CIHEAM and its role for aquaculture in the Mediterranean Bernardo Basurco, CIHEAM, Spain

The mission of the International Centre for Advanced Mediterranean Agronomic Studies (CIHEAM) is to “develop cooperation between Mediterranean countries through post- graduate training and promotion of cooperative research in the field of agriculture and natural resources”. This is achieved by providing supplementary education (economic as well as technical) and developing a spirit of international cooperation among private/public sector executive, academic-researchers and officials.

The Centre was founded at the joint initiative of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the Council of Europe on 21 May 1962 and now has thirteen member countries: Albania, Algeria, Egypt, France, Greece, Italy, Lebanon, Malta, Morocco, Portugal, Spain, Tunisia and Turkey. Other countries are in the process of joining soon.

Main CIHEAM activities are:

• organization of advanced courses for professionals, post-graduate specialization courses and Master of Science programmes; • promotion and coordination of cooperative research programmes; • organization of other cooperation activities (workshops, technical meetings, etc.); and

• preparation and distribution of technical publications.

One of the five functional areas is fisheries and aquaculture. It offers a Master programme in aquaculture and one in fisheries economics and management. Furthermore, CIHEAM has coordinated the TECAM (Technical Aspects of Mediterranean Aquaculture) and SELAM (Socio-economic and Legal Aspects of Mediterranean Aquaculture) networks in the Mediterranean under the umbrella of the FAO General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean/Committee of Aquaculture (GFCM/CAQ). Some of the relevant seminars and courses offered have been related to environmental impact assessment of aquaculture and aquaculture management.

The MAP role in the Mediterranean environment Abderrahmen Gannoun, MAP-RAC/SPA, Tunisia

In 1975, the Mediterranean countries and the EC adopted the Mediterranean Action Plan (MAP) and in 1976 the Convention for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against Pollution (Barcelona Convention). It was amended by the Contracting Parties in 1995 and recorded as the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment and the Coastal Region of the Mediterranean. It entered into force on 9 July 2004. The Convention and six Protocols constitute what is known as the Barcelona System, the MAP's Legal Framework.

The main objectives of MAP were to assist the Mediterranean governments to assess and control marine pollution, to formulate their national environment policies, to improve the ability of governments to identify better options for alternative patterns of development and to make better rational choices for allocation of resources. The focus of MAP has gradually shifted from a sectorial approach to pollution control to integrated coastal zone planning and management as the key tool through which solutions are being sought.

It is important to make predictions on what is going to happen with aquaculture and projections of impacts for the next decade therefore is most relevant to define a strategy for the Mediterranean including clear national level planning and strategies.

The international actions to conserve the Mediterranean have also led to some innovative regional efforts, including the formation of a network of MPAs known as Specially Protected Areas of Mediterranean Importance (SPAMIs). The SPAMI List is being designed under the auspices of the Regional Activity Centre for Specially Protected Areas – RAC/SPA (of the Barcelona Convention), located in Tunis and responsible of the implementation of the Protocol concerning Specially Protected Areas and Biological Diversity in the Mediterranean (Barcelona, 1995).

The RAC/SPA is also responsible of the implementation of an action plan concerning species introductions and invasive species in the Mediterranean Sea adopted by the Contracting Parties to the Barcelona Convention in 2003. This action plan deals with aquaculture as one of the most important factors of introduction of alien species into the region.

Growth of aquaculture in the Mediterranean is compatible with sustainable management of the marine ecosystem, but only if public policy and technology encourage sound practices. Guidelines for controlling the vectors of introduction into the Mediterranean of non- indigenous species and invasive marine species (via shipping and aquaculture) are being elaborated. The goal of these guidelines is to prevent further loss of biological diversity due to the deleterious effects of the intentional and unintentional introductions of alien invasive species, while encouraging environmentally sound and responsible use of the Mediterranean marine environment for aquaculture.

Coastal Zone Management in Croatia Ivan Katavic, Directorate of Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Croatia

A coastal management plan including aquaculture is being developed in Croatia. Such plan has been developed to enhance sustainable aquaculture and also to improve public acceptance 51 of the activity. Proper coastal zone management requires: a) data, b) cooperation, c) administrative structure, and d) infrastructural support. Natural social and economic processes have to be involved.

Many aquaculture activities have been previously located in wrong places which have caused a negative perception of the sector and reactions from the society as a whole. Such negative perception of aquaculture must be changed, particularly in those areas where tourism is an important source of development and economic income. Inadequate aquaculture siting can potentially cause environmental problems. For example, it has been a mistake to place tuna farming in sheltered areas, like for seabass and seabream; this farming practice should moved further offshore to avoid both visual effects and real environmental impacts.

To include aquaculture in a coastal management plan it is important to have an effective administrative network in place, as well as an international network with a good scientific support. As Croatian islands need more employment, it is very important to integrate aquaculture in planning and development to allow social growth without negative impacts. Extensive work has been carried out in two pilot areas and site selection criteria have been defined for different species and technologies. At the administrative level, planning and development has been carried out taking into account the requirements and relationships among coastal stakeholders and users.

The use of a zoning flowchart has been instrumental to decide suitability of sites for aquaculture with criteria such as exclusive zones or priority areas for aquaculture and/or mixed use zones. Most stakeholders participated in the definition of decision criteria for such zoning process.

As a part of the Mediterranean, the Adriatic Sea is a promising aquaculture area and its development potentials have not been fully explored and realized. A Coastal Management Plan (CMP) could be the most proper tool for such development.

Aquaculture and environment interactions Ioannis Karakassis, University of Crete, Greece

The research group headed by Mr Karakassis has been involved in several projects on aquaculture-environment interactions in the Mediterranean.

• AQUAENV: Aquatic Environments (National Sciences Greece project).

• AQCESS: Aquaculture and Coastal, Economic and Social Sustainability. Project funded by the European Union FW5 (Fifth Framework Programme) on aquaculture- environment interactions.

• BIOFAQS: BIOFiltration and AQuaculture: an evaluation of hard substrate deployment performance within mariculture developments. Project funded by the European Union FW5 (Fifth Framework Programme) on aquaculture-environment interactions.

• ECASA: An “Ecosystem Approach to Sustainable Aquaculture” is a European Union research and technology development project funded under the Sixth Framework Programme. It is the successor to several Fourth and Fifth Framework Programme 52

projects which have helped to push forward the understanding of the effects of aquaculture on the environment especially in the Mediterranean.

• MARAQUA: “Monitoring and Regulation of Marine Aquaculture” is a project funded under the European Union FAIR Programme. A concerted action to review existing information and the establishment of agreed guidelines for the monitoring and regulation of marine aquaculture.

• MedVeg: Effects of nutrient release from Mediterranean fish farms on benthic vegetation in coastal ecosystems. This is a European Union FW5 (Fifth Framework Programme) project on aquaculture-environment interactions.

• MERAMED: Development of monitoring guidelines and modelling tools for environmental effects from Mediterranean aquaculture. European Union FW5 (Fifth Framework Programme) project on aquaculture-environment interactions.

• SAMI: Synthesis of Aquaculture and Marine Ecosystem Interactions. This is an European Union Specific Support Action Project.

• Holding capacity: A new national (Greece) project/contract on defining ways to improve regulation on aquaculture taking environment into account.

• Contracts with local authorities.

• Contract with the Government of Cyprus to evaluate their strategy on aquaculture expansion.

The research group has also produced and published comprehensive reviews on the effects of fish cage culture on sediments. Study approaches have used comparative analysis among sites regarding sediment state and benthic organisms. A modification of the DEPOMOD model (a model used to predict solids deposition and associated benthic impact from marine cage farms) called MEROMOD, was produced for the Mediterranean under the framework of MERAMED project. Other studies have provided information on effects at different scales and have addressed complementary aspects of the environmental interactions of aquaculture.

The AQCESS project has shown that fish biomass is indeed enhanced around cages, probably as a consequence of increase in primary production stimulated by nutrient discharges. This is a very relevant issue which should be taken in consideration in both aquaculture site selection and fisheries monitoring. On the other hand, the MedVeg project has shown that there is a decline of Posidonia meadows in the vicinity of fish farms although the environmental degradation is not readily detectable by means of standard benthic monitoring.

The more recent ECASA project involves 16 research facilities from 13 countries in Europe, many from the Mediterranean. Such a large research network could be very useful for EAM. None of these studies involved countries of northern Africa and this issue should be solved in follow-up initiatives.

Monitoring programmes for environmental conditions potentially affecting aquaculture Denis Lacroix, IFREMER, France

One of the activities of IFREMER relates with aquaculture production and development. Regarding the production of safe aquaculture the Institute is carrying out research on the 53 threats to marine ecosystems and to human health such as: anoxia, waste waters, bacterial contamination and toxic algae. The increase of algal blooms has been an obvious occurrence in the past decade and clearly there is a need for a better management of the Mediterranean.

The future of shellfish aquaculture depends on the proper management of such threats. One possible management tool is an improved monitoring and early warning system. IFREMER has implemented a sophisticated monitoring programme for some coastal lagoons and coastal areas where bivalve aquaculture takes place (www.ifremer.fr/envlit). Such monitoring programme includes surveillance of bacteria, phytoplankton, phytotoxins, water quality and some pollutants, parameters associated with the aquaculture of molluscs. Periodical reports are produced on these results for several coastal areas of France. The information also provides the possibility for time series analysis and therefore increasing the capability for early warning on events such as harmful algal blooms. It would be useful to have a project to address a wider monitoring programme covering other areas in the Mediterranean and this could be one task for the EAM.

Several bottlenecks for the development of aquaculture in the region exist ranging from competition for markets, the implementation of common standards, access to proper sites and technologies, standardization of laws and regulations, education and training. Environmental issues and impacts from aquaculture are of great concern and the potential interaction with non-government organizations (NGOs). All of these issues are being somewhat addressed by individual institutions such as IFREMER, but they should be addressed in a more regional way within the Mediterranean. However, the final challenge is not only scientific but rather the image of the sector. It is important to adequately deal with the image of farmed products among the consumers. Indeed, the fact that fish is raised by man should entail in a perception of healthy food, controlled process of rearing, welfare for animal and security for the consumer. As markets are more and more international, it is a collective responsibility for all producers to manage together such image.

Impacts of fish farming effluents on Mediterranean coast Nuria Marbà, Institut Mediterrani d’Estudis Avançats (CSIC-UIB), Mallorca, Spain

The Institute of Advance Mediterranean Studies is carrying out several research programmes in the Mediterranean Sea, however one of the most relevant for aquaculture is the one related to sea grasses. Impacts of fish farming effluents on the Mediterranean coast are usually monitored using nutrient and chlorophyll concentrations in the water column as indicators. However, fish farms are often located in open waters where farming effluents are rapidly diluted and water column indicators remain unaffected. Conversely, particulate from fish farm effluents are deposited to the benthic sediments surrounding the cages. The shallow (0–40 m) sandy bottoms of the Mediterranean coast are often colonized by the slow growing seagrass Posidonia oceanica. This seagrass is highly vulnerable to inputs of organic matter and nutrients from farming activities to the sediments it colonizes, as demonstrated by the EU funded project MedVeg. P. oceanica shoot mortality was the highest next to the fish farms and declined rapidly to reach values close to background values around 200 m away from the farms. The drivers of P. oceanica shoot mortality in fish farming areas were total sediment, organic matter and phosphorous deposition rate. P. oceanica shoot mortality rapidly increased above thresholds deposition rates of 6g DW total sediment m-2d-1, 1.5g DW organic matter m-2d-1 and 0.05g P m-2d-1. P. oceanica growth, in addition, revealed impacts of fish farming effluents within a radius of 800 m from the cages. 54

These results demonstrate that to preserve the integrity of Mediterranean coasts it is essential to regulate the inputs of organic matter and nutrients from fish farms to seagrass sediments. Regulation of inputs from farming effluents to Mediterranean sediments should be based on (1) thresholds for maximum organic matter and nutrient inputs P. oceanica could support, (2) definition a security distance between fish farms and P. oceanica meadow (i.e. 800 m), and (3) development of a model to predict seagrass decline from measured or estimated (from fish farm production and water depth) sedimentation rates below the cages. MedVeg project has provided these scientific tools to regulate farming practices in the Mediterranean, and they should be incorporated into management protocols and norms (e.g. MED-POL; Mediterranean Policies Barcelona Convention). In addition, Mediterranean aquaculture monitoring and impact assessment programmes should focus on sediments instead of water column impacts.

Interactions between aquaculture and capture fisheries Fabio Massa, FAO AdriaMed Project, Italy

The FAO AdriaMed “Expert Consultation on the Interactions between Aquaculture and Capture Fisheries” was held in Rome (Italy), from 5 to 7 November 20031. The principal objective of the Expert Consultation was to explore the main issues dealing with interactions between aquaculture and capture fisheries by using the existing knowledge available at the Adriatic basin level. This initiative would represent a contribution at sub-regional level towards the establishment and implementation of the principles of the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (CCRF) concerning aquaculture activities.

A preliminary matrix for the identification of indicators emerged and was drafted from comments made by Adriatic experts present at the meeting. This matrix represents a first step towards the definition of a set of indicators, in order to monitor the relationships between aquaculture and capture fisheries in the Adriatic region following sustainability criteria. Moreover the Expert Consultation adopted a series of recommendations that could be directed to the Adriatic countries indicating that positive and negative interactions between aquaculture and capture fisheries must be considered in the context of integrated Coastal Zone Management (CZM). Using such approach they could facilitate better assessment and better interactions between these two sub-sectors. Likewise, national and international research cooperation programmes dealing with the interactions between aquaculture and capture fisheries both in marine and freshwater environments can be facilitated. Reports on the situation of the aquaculture sector for each participating country (Albania, Croatia, Italy, Montenegro and Slovenia) were discussed and are included in the document. They include general information (history, tradition, evolution); the characteristics of the aquaculture sector (historical statistics, species reared, methodologies and technologies applied, production data and seed availability); national policy (national plans, legislative framework, environmental impact assessment, economical feasibility) and production market (general economic indicators, export/import; national policy concerning quality control and labelling policy).

1 Cataudella S., Massa, F.; Crosetti D. (eds). AdriaMed Expert Consultation “Interactions between Aquaculture and Capture Fisheries”. Studies and Reviews General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean. No.78. Rome, FAO. 2005: 229 pp.

Interactions with the national capture fisheries are also detailed. Thematic lectures with specific reference to the Adriatic Sea regarding the market of fish products, their quality and certification systems in both cultured and captured products were illustrated and discussed. Three case studies on the interactions between aquaculture and capture fisheries were also presented: bluefin tuna, eel and shellfish culture.

Aquaculture and environment situation in Morocco Abdellatif Orbi, Institut national de recherche halieutique, Morocco

Aquaculture production in Morocco increased from 1 463 tonnes in 1994 to 2 793 tonnes in 1999, and then decreased to 1 538 and 1 698 tonnes in 2003 and 2004, respectively. As this production represents only 0.19 percent of the total fisheries production of about 1 million tonnes per year, this activity remains a marginal one within the rich fisheries sector.

In marine finfish culture, the only rearing system practiced is the intensive system. Holding facilities vary from land-based culture units to sea cages (sea water depth 20–30 m; protected areas, lagoons and estuaries). Seabass and seabream are both reared in cages placed either in lagoons or in coastal waters along the Mediterranean coast. Land-based systems are not very common except for rainbow trout and carp. The culture of shellfish is still very traditional, and the culture system is dominated by bags suspended on iron structures in the intertidal zone. Some trials have been undertaken lately using long-lines in the Atlantic.

Marine aquaculture has recently received considerable attention from the Government, which aims at developing the sector by producing a quality product whilst ensuring the conservation of the environment. Such approach would allow the production of commercial value species, as well as to contribute to the recovery of some over-fished populations. This could also contribute to the conservation of coastal zones and to generate revenues and employment.

One of the main missions of the National Research Institute of Fisheries (Institut national de recherche halieutique – INRH) is to carry out research activities with the objective of contributing to the promotion of sustainable development of aquaculture. In this respect, INRH elaborates and periodically readjusts its research and development programmes in marine aquaculture depending on the needs of professionals and the administration.

The programmes achieved by INRH, in cooperation with nationals and foreign public and private institutions, deal with different aspects of applied and fundamental research. The principal themes of aquaculture research concern essentially the identification of potential sites for aquaculture, the study of their ecological aspects and rearing trials and the production of some aquaculture species, survey and monitoring of marine fish and molluscs pathologies and adequate feeding and nutrition. Research activities also include studies on the impact of aquaculture activities to the environment.

Aquaculture environment interactions: from genes to ecosystems Marco Saroglia, Insubria University, Italy

The Department of Biotechnologies and Molecular Sciences (DBSM) of the Insubria University is rather active in the aquaculture field (www.dbsm.uninsubria.it/acqua/) and is 56 currently conducting a series of studies on Mediterranean coastal aquaculture, on fish welfare molecular descriptors and on nutrient dynamics.

The research approach on coastal Mediterranean aquaculture includes land-based coastal facilities as well as on cages farms. As an example of a land-based facility, the DBSM has been conducting studies at the Castiglione della Pescaia seabass farm (Grosseto Province) which is located close to a brackishwater coastal lagoon. Bio-depuration studies are in progress and important results have been obtained regarding phyto-depuration and microbiological-environmental manipulation of the sediments in the depuration canals.

As marine cage farming is concerned, studies have been carried out in the Gulf of Gaeta, located north of Naples, where mathematic models as DEPOMOD-MERAMOD have been applied with success to forecast organic matter deposition on the seabed. The model outputs also include forecast information on the benthic organisms. This model appears to be more affordable for Mediterranean coastal applications.

The results of the molecular studies carried out at DBSM include protocols than may be applied at any fish farm in order to minimize the impacts on the receiving water bodies, through an improved fish-welfare conditions as well as feeding and nutrition strategies.

IUCN and its role for sustainable aquaculture in the Mediterranean Francois Simard, IUCN, Spain

The mission of IUCN is “to influence, encourage, and assist societies throughout the world to conserve the integrity and diversity of nature and to ensure that any use of natural resources is equitable and ecologically sustainable”. IUCN plays a role as a global bridge between private sector, scientists, governments and NGOs. Considering its global role, there is one office in the Mediterranean (Centro de cooperación del Mediterraneo) located in Malaga, and funded by Spain. This office mostly deals with terrestrial activities, although an agreement between UICN and the Federation of European Aquaculture Producers (FEAP) has been signed regarding aquaculture production. The objectives of this agreement are:

• identification of environmental issues for the communication with public and organizations;

• promotion of concepts for sustainable development of aquaculture (criteria and indicators) and development and the management of aquaculture;

• definition of best practices of sustainable development in aquaculture (guidelines);

• development of communication strategy between environment and aquaculture sectors, with focus on the Mediterranean region.

APPENDIX F

Draft terms of references and estimated budget for the activities proposed under each EAM Working Group

WORKING GROUP 1. Harmonization of environmental regulation and standards related to aquaculture

• Activity 1.1 NALO-type studies on legislation and regulation on aquaculture. • Activity 1.2 Formulation of a set of recommendations for the harmonization of Mediterranean aquaculture legislation.

Budget:

€500–850 per NALO. Estimated total: €12 500.

WORKING GROUP 2. Scaling aquaculture-environmental interactions

Note: Activity 2.1 described below could start in 2006, under the framework of existing GFCM project. Activities 2.2 and 2.3 should be components of a specific project, for which a project proposal should be written, and financial support identified.

• Activity 2.1 Identification of information sources.

- Review of global progress on aquaculture-environmental interactions and identification of key issues. - Inventory of existing and past national and regional research/ monitoring projects on aquaculture-environmental interactions in the Mediterranean. - Bibliographic list including published papers and reports on aquaculture-environment interactions throughout the Mediterranean. - Classification of information on the above in terms of variables/processes addressed, spatial-temporal scales examined. - Gap analysis

Budget:

Note: Time not considered in the project budget (3 months) Labour: 6 person months @ €1 500/month (€9 000) Meeting: 8 experts/3 days. €14 000 (Scope: Report drafting, planning year 2 activities, and preparation of project proposal) Report: €3 000 General costs: 10% Estimated total: €29 000

Duration: 12 months Deliverables: One report; electronic database; planning year-2 activities; project proposal. 58

• Activity 2.2 Synthesis (based on achievements of Activity 2.1).

- Extraction of data from the above (2.1). - Meta-analysis of existing information to identify common patterns in response to different driving forces. - Comparison of observed change in environmental variables due to aquaculture, at different scales, to other existing standards in environmental quality indicators (e.g. WFD). - Selection of most relevant indicators of environmental change and evaluation of their cost-benefit ratio, feasibility and applicability.

Budget:

Note: Time not considered in the project budget (6 months) Labour: 12 person months @ €1 500/month (€18 000) Meeting: 16 experts/3 days. €28 000 General costs: 10% Estimated total: €51 000

Duration: 12 months Note: Workshop with external participants (35 people) €60 000 (extra funds will be required)

• Activity 2.3 Formulation of guidelines (draft guidelines for uniform methods/ standards/protocols in the Mediterranean on monitoring, management, EIA, etc.; evaluation by stakeholders; identification of training/ infrastructure needs to implement the above).

- Identification of issues needing guidelines at Mediterranean level - Inventory of existing guidelines - Types of aquaculture - Types of environments - Spatial scales involved

Budget:

Note: Time not considered in the project budget (6 months) Labour: 3 person months @ €1 500/month (€4 500) Meeting: 25 experts/3 days. €35 000 Final Meeting: 8 experts/3 days. €14 000 General costs: 10% Estimated total: €60 000

Duration: 12 months Deliverables: Database; workshops; documents; Web site.

WORKING GROUP 3. Integrating aquaculture within a coastal zone management framework

Site selection in aquaculture is a key issue to be addressed by EAM. It must be recognized that site selection decisions must be viewed in an integrated context such as ICZM, zoning or ecosystem approach. Site selection is a continuously evolving process which must take into 59 account the growth of the aquaculture sector, the evolution of production techniques, interaction with captured fisheries and other human activities, etc. Furthermore, it should also consider the present knowledge on environmental conditions and should thereby be considered as an open book and therefore be revisited periodically.

• Activity 3.1 Site selection criteria.

Develop practical guidelines for aquaculture site selection. Procedures to be used in site selection according to technology and species (e.g. GIS analysis, viewing environmental data over space and time, etc.). Identify main environmental conditions and defined for each specific zone holding capacity.

• Activity 3.2 Zoning for aquaculture.

Provide administration with suitability criteria for the zoning and site selection, licensing and administrative management of zones and sites.

• Activity 3.3 Interactions between aquaculture and capture fisheries.

Identify the main interactions between aquaculture and capture fisheries and human activities, develop indicators and propose guidelines to reduce conflicts, promote synergies that can ensure a sustainable development of aquaculture within the coastal zone (including for best management practices).

Budget:

1st Meeting (2nd semester 2006): €20 000 (to be covered by GFCM) Definition of objectives for each workshop Definition of methodology and work plan Identification of consultants, experts and coordinators Fine tuning of budget and projects for donors

Three workshops (one per action) in 2007 and 2008. Estimated cost per workshop (including preparatory consultation, organization of meeting, reports & publications): €50 000/workshop/3: €150 000. GFCM to cover 30% (€25 000/year).

Duration: 3 years

WORKING GROUP 4. Public perception of aquaculture in relation to environment (Aquaculture as an activity and as a product – including human health issues)

• Activity 4.1 To prepare adapted and homogeneous questionnaires to be disseminated to all Mediterranean countries at four levels: consumers, fishermen, administration, and media. The objective is to identify the components of the perception of aquaculture and aquaculture products.

• Activity 4.2 To undertake the survey in each country at the four levels.

• Activity 4.3 To synthesize the results at the national level.

• Activity 4.4 To synthesize the results at the regional level and consequently to identify the major issues and criticisms addressed to aquaculture in the Mediterranean countries.

• Activity 4.5 To propose concrete actions to evaluate and counteract the possible negative image of aquaculture as well as to build on the existing positive image (to provide notably supports to national implementation. e.g. information leaflets, specific adverts, feature articles in specialised or wide public magazines, public debates).

Budget:

Note: Time not considered in the project budget (6 months) Consultants: €5 700 (coordinate, select experts, prepare a draft document) Meeting: 8 Mediterranean plus a representative from the Federation of European Aquaculture Producers (Skills required: socio-economics; aquaculture, communication). Preparation of a project proposal. €14 000. Travel costs: €500/person + DSA (Estimated total: €8 500)

Deliverables: Questionnaires; national reports on the surveys; regional report on the general survey; proposal for a regional programme of actions to be adapted to the national specific characteristics; national outputs of the above mentioned programme: leaflets, features articles.

The Experts Meeting for the Re-establishment of the [General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean] GFCM Committee on Aquaculture [CAQ] Network on Environment and Aquaculture in the Mediterranean [EAM] was held in Rome, from 7 to 9 December 2005. The meeting was attended by 13 experts from the region. The EAM Network, created in 1992 following the Mediterranean Regional Aquaculture Project (MEDRAP), ceased to operate as an effective network in 1996. The present experts meeting took place following a decision by the GFCM at its twenty-ninth session. The meeting was called to update the terms of reference of EAM and identify short- and medium-term activities. The experts suggested that EAM be re-established as a subsidiary body of GFCM-CAQ. It was envisaged that the restructured EAM would work through the following four working groups dealing with: (i) harmonization of environmental regulation and standards for aquaculture; (ii) scaling aquaculture- environmental interactions; (iii) integrating aquaculture within a coastal zone management framework; and (iv) public perception of aquaculture in relation to environment. The Experts Meeting for the Re-establishment of the [General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean] GFCM Committee on Aquaculture [CAQ] Network on Environment and Aquaculture in the Mediterranean [EAM] was held in Rome, from 7 to 9 December 2005. The meeting was attended by 13 experts from the region. The EAM Network, created in 1992 following the Mediterranean Regional Aquaculture Project (MEDRAP), ceased to operate as an effective network in 1996. The present experts meeting took place following a decision by the GFCM at its twenty-ninth session. The meeting was called to update the terms of reference of EAM and identify short- and medium-term activities. The experts suggested that EAM be re-established as a subsidiary body of GFCM-CAQ. It was envisaged that the restructured EAM would work through the following four working groups dealing with: (i) harmonization of environmental regulation and standards for aquaculture; (ii) scaling aquaculture- environmental interactions; (iii) integrating aquaculture within a coastal zone management framework; and (iv) public perception of aquaculture in relation to environment.

ISBN 92-5-105501-7 ISSN 0429-9337

978 9 2 5 1 0 5 5 0 1 4 TR/M/A0466E/1/04.06/1100