Management of Environmental Impacts of Marine Aquaculture in Europe

Management of environmental impacts of
marine aquaculture in Europe

Paul Read
*
, Teresa Fernandes
Department of Biological Sciences, School of Life Sciences, Napier University, 10 Colinton Road,
Edinburgh, EH9 2DT Scotland, UK
Abstract
There are large differences between countries in the rate of growth and development of marine
aquaculture, and also in the sophistication and complexity of its regulation, control and monitoring
procedures. The potentially deleterious impacts of aquaculture are widely documented in the
literature [J. Appl. Ichthyol. 17 (2001) 181; Fernandes, T.F., Eleftheriou, A., Ackefors, H.,
Eleftheriou, M., Ervik, A., Sanchez-Mata, A., Scanlon, T., White, P., Cochrane, S., Pearson, T.H.,
Miller, K.L., Read, P.A., 2002. The Management of the Environmental Impacts of Aquaculture.
Scottish Executive, Aberdeen, UK, 88 pp.]. It is widely accepted that such impacts would be
minimised or negated by the adoption of appropriate culturing procedures and environmental
safeguards including regulatory, control and monitoring procedures [Nature Conservancy Council
(NCC), 1989. Fish Farming and the Safeguard of the Natural Marine Environment of Scotland.
Nature Conservancy Council, Peterborough, England, 136 pp.; Codling, I.D., Doughty, R.,
Henderson, A., Naismith, I., 1995. Strategies for Monitoring Sediments and Fauna Around Cage
Fish Farms. Marlow, UK: Scotland and Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research
(SNIFFER), Report No. SR 4018, 78 pp.; GESAMP (IMO/FAO/UNESCO-IOC/WMO/WHO/IAEA/
UN/UNEP Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection),
1996. Monitoring the ecological effects of coastal aquaculture wastes. Scientific aspects of marine
environmental protection. Rome, Italy: Rep. Stud. GESAMP No. 57, 38 pp.; GESAMP (IMO/FAO/
UNESCO-IOC/WMO/WHO/IAEA/UN/UNEP Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of
Marine Environmental Protection), 2001. Planning and management for sustainable coastal
aquaculture development. Rome, Italy: Rep. Stud. GESAMP No. 68, 90 pp.]. It is essential that
such safeguards are formulated from the best available science and technology and from the best
available experience and expertise. In this context, there are lessons to be learned from the strategy
and regulatory framework for the regulation, control and monitoring of environmental impacts of
marine aquaculture within the European Union (EU).
0044-8486/$ - see front matter D 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0044-8486(03)00474-5
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +44-131-455-2625; fax: +44-131-255-2291.
E-mail address: p.read@napier.ac.UK (P. Read).
www.elsevier.com/locate/aqua-online
Aquaculture 226 (2003) 139163
This paper identifies some of the main issues relevant to the management of environmental
impacts of marine aquaculture; reviews EU and international policy and regulations in this context
and provides one example of a strategy for the management of the environmental impacts of marine
aquaculture by reference to the marine aquaculture industry in Scotland. In conclusion, it examines a
number of current, key environmental concerns pertaining to the impact and regulation of marine
aquaculture, which whilst being the subject of divergent views, are pivotal to the development of the
industry. Recommendations for systems, procedures and research to address these concerns are
identified. The paper is primarily concerned with marine finfish culture, although brief reference is
made to shellfish culture. The control of diseases of finfish and shellfish is outside the scope of the
paper, although brief consideration is given to current concerns relating to sea lice (predominantly
Lepeophtheirus salmonis) infestations in salmonids.
D 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Marine; Aquaculture; Environment; Impact; Control; Regulation
1. Introduction
Marine aquaculture involves a variety of species, rearing techniques and husbandry
methods. Extensive marine aquaculture involves the farming of finfish or shellfish in a
natural habitat with no supplementary food added and with minimum impact on the
environment. Conversely, the intensive farming of marine finfish, commonly practised in
cages or ponds, involves the supply of high quality artificial feeds and medication with
consequent impacts on the environment, mainly due to the release of organic and inorganic
nutrients and the release of chemicals used for medication. These impacts tend to be most
severe in areas with poor water exchange (Midlen and Redding, 1998; Oceanographic
Applications to Eutrophication in Regions of Restricted Exchange (OAERRE), 2001).
Marine aquaculture of finfish has become more intensive over the last 15 years due
mainly to the introduction of new technologies, the expansion of suitable sites, improve-
ments in feed technology, improved understanding of the biology of the farmed species,
increased water quality within farming systems and the increased demand for fish products
(DeVoe, 1994; Ross, 1997). It is now widely acknowledged that this intensive develop-
ment of the industry has been accompanied by an increase in environmental impacts
(Ervik et al., 1997). In this context, the sustainability of intensive marine aquaculture has
been brought into question (Read et al., 2001a).
In addition to considerations of sustainability, the development of marine aquaculture has
led to conflicting demands for coastal resources. In this context, it is widely accepted that
coastal aquaculture should be developed within an Integrated Coastal Zone Management
(ICZM) framework (Fernandes and Read, 2001; GESAMP (IMO/FAO/UNESCO-IOC/
WMO/WHO/IAEA/UN/UNEP Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine
Environmental Protection), 2001). Such proactive management would address potential
conflicts since decisions would be made during the planning stages of any proposed
developments.
The environmental impacts of marine aquaculture within the European Union (EU), are
regulated and managed, at a European level, by a variety of European Commission (EC)
Directives and International Conventions. There are currently eight ECDirectives that relate
P. Read, T. Fernandes / Aquaculture 226 (2003) 139163 140
directly to the management of the environmental impacts of aquaculture, plus Directives
affecting the marketing of medicinal veterinary products, and Resolutions, Decisions and
Communications pertaining to ICZM. The eight Directives are the Dangerous Substances
Directive, the Quality of Shellfish Growing Waters Directive, the Shellfish Directive, the
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive, the Strategic Environmental Assess-
ment Directive (SEA), the Species and Habitats Directive, the Wild Birds Directive and the
Water Framework Directive. There are an additional 50+EC Directives, Decisions and
Regulations, which have an indirect effect on the monitoring and regulation of marine
aquaculture (Read et al., 2001b). EC Directives are ratified by EU Member States through
the implementation of national legislation and regulations, restricting, for example,
aquaculture developments in protected areas and the discharge of aquaculture effluents,
and stipulating, for example, environmental (water) quality standards (e.g. Piedrahita,
1994). The new EC Water Framework Directive (WFD) will supersede the Dangerous
Substances Directive and the Shellfish Growing Waters Directive. As with the Species and
Habitats Directive, it will take an holistic approach to the protection of surface waters and
will aim to maintain the integrity of ecosystem characteristics (Read et al., 2001c).
At an international level, rather than an EU level, there are currently three International
Conventions on marine pollution covering the coastal waters of the EU states, which can
directly influence the management and regulation of marine aquaculture in the EU. These
are the OSPAR Convention, formed by the recent amalgamation of the Olso and Paris
Conventions covering the northeast Atlantic, the Helsinki Convention covering the Baltic
Sea and the Barcelona Convention covering the Mediterranean Sea (Davies, 2001). There
are an additional 30+ international agreements that have an indirect affect on the
monitoring and regulation of marine aquaculture (Read et al., 2001b). As with EU
Directives, International Conventions are ratified by the signatory States through the
implementation of national legislation and regulations.
2. Environmental impacts of marine aquaculture operations
The environmental impacts of aquaculture have been reviewed by Fernandes et al.
(2002). The potential impacts of aquaculture are wide-ranging, from aesthetic aspects to
direct pollution problems (OSullivan, 1992; Garrett et al., 1997; Midlen and Redding,
1998). Marine aquaculture operations and the associated infrastructure can, for example,
impact on scenic rural areas. Fish production can generate considerable amounts of
effluent, such as waste feed and faeces, medications and pesticides, which can have
undesirable impacts on the environment (Gowen and Bradbury, 1987; Ackefors and Enell,
1994; Wu, 1995; Axler et al., 1996; Kelly et al., 1996). There may also be undesirable
effects on wild populations, such as genetic interactions between escaped farmed fish and
wild fish (Youngson et al., 2001), disease transfer by escaped fish or through ingestion of
contaminated waste by wild fish (Heggberget et al., 1993) and effects on the wider
ecosystem. Considerations of the sustainability of aquaculture include, importantly, the
ecological resources required to sustain the industry, namely, fish food for farmed species
and environmental capacity to assimilate waste (Read et al., 2001a). It has been suggested,
nevertheless, that the environmental impacts of aquaculture could be minimised or negated
by the adoption of appropriate environmental safeguards, including regulatory, control and
monitoring procedures (Nature Conservancy Council (NCC), 1989; Codling et al., 1995;
GESAMP (IMO/FAO/UNESCO-IOC/WMO/WHO/IAEA/UN/UNEP Joint Group of
Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection), 1996).
Discharges from aquaculture to the aquatic environment may be categorised as:
continuous discharges from aquaculture production, periodic discharges from farm
activities and periodic discharges of chemicals. Production discharges comprise mainly
dissolved and particulate organic and inorganic nutrients. The various dissolved and
particulate organic compounds, in the form of faeces, waste food and accidental food
spillage, include proteins, carbohydrates, lipids, vitamins and pigments. Some inorganic
excretory products are also released, mainly ammonium and species-dependent trace
quantities of bicarbonate, phosphate and urea. Discharges from farm activities comprise
fish processing waste and regulated dumping of mortalities, usually in silage form.
Inorganic discharges within this category include detergents and effluent from net washing
(antifoulants and heavy metals). Most of the latter discharges are released from farm
activities other than on-growing. The release of chemicals from production sites comprises
mainly medicines and antifoulants.
The behaviour of any type of waste released into the water column depends on the
hydrographic conditions, bottom topography and geography of the area in question.
Dissolved products include ammonia, phosphorus, dissolved organic carbon (which
includes dissolved organic nitrogen and dissolved organic phosphorus) and lipids released
from the diet, which may form a film on the water surface (Black, 2001). The environmental
impact of these dissolved products depends on the rate at which nutrients are diluted before
being assimilated by the pelagic ecosystem. In restricted exchange environments, there is a
risk of high levels of nutrients accumulating in one area (hypernutrification).
In terms of the capacity of restricted exchange environments to assimilate plant
nutrients from cage fish culture, it has been argued that sufficient nutrients have been
added in some areas to accelerate algal growth and to produce an undesirable disturbance
to the balance of organisms and the quality of the water concerned (through the occurrence
of harmful blooms, increased oxygen consumption in deep water, and/or increased
production of toxins by certain algae) (Midlen and Redding, 1998; Oceanographic
Applications to Eutrophication in Regions of Restricted Exchange (OAERRE), 2001).
Others have argued that aquaculture contributes only a fraction of the total nutrients added
to coastal waters and that the system is well below its assimilative capacity (Black, 2001).
One of the principal conclusions in a very recent piece of research by Tett and Edwards
(2002) is that, in Scotland, whilst some coastal waters and sea lochs are enriched with
anthropogenic nutrients from a range of sources, including aquaculture, physical limiting
factors, e.g. light, and biological limiting factors, e.g. grazing, prevent the occurrence of
undesirable disturbance in almost all well-documented cases. This piece of research also
indicates that explanations for the occurrence of algae that produce toxins and cause shellfish
poisoning will probably be intrinsic features of the biology and ecology of these organisms,
e.g. genetic change following sexual reproduction, infection by bacteria or viruses that either
make toxins or make precursors to toxins, rather than the effects of nutrient enrichment.
In shallow waters, with weak currents, particulate waste products from aquaculture
installations will settle to the bottom close to the discharge point. In this case, continued
production can give rise to a rapid local accumulation of waste material on the sea floor
(Fernandes et al., 2002). Deposition of organic matter below cage fish farms and resultant
changes in sediment condition are the most obvious and best studied impacts of marine
fish farming. This is partly due to the fact that these effects differ little from those of any
other forms of organic enrichment (Samuelsen et al., 1988). The environmental factors that
influence how much of this material reaches the sediment directly under sea cages include
tidal flow, supply of waste, depth of site, composition, size and behaviour of particulate
matter ejected, temperature and salinity of sea water, and wind and wave action (Provost,
1996). Effluent released into deeper waters, or where the bottom is well swept by strong
currents, will, in general, be dispersed over a large area.
A range of chemicals is used in European marine aquaculture and these may be
categorised as disinfectants, antifoulants and veterinary medicines. The term medicines
includes antibiotics, anaesthetics, ectoparasiticides, endoparasiticides and vaccines. These
are used to control external and internal parasites, or microbial infections (Costello et al.,
2001). Sea lice are the most common and economically significant parasite in Atlantic
salmon (Salmo salar) farming and a range of veterinary medicines is used to control them.
The environmental concerns over the use of chemicals in the aquatic environment relate
to: the direct toxicity of the compounds to non target organisms; the development of
resistance to compounds by pathogenic organisms; the prophylactic use of therapeutants
and the length of time they remain active in the environment (Costello et al., 2001).
The results of research fishing in the ocean confirm that significant escapes of farmed
salmon stocks have occurred (Youngson et al., 2001). In recent years, for example, the
frequency of occurrence of farmed Atlantic salmon in the Faroese ocean area has been
between 20% and 30% (Hansen et al., 1997, 1999). In a review of interactions between
marine finfish species in European aquaculture and wild conspecifics, Youngson et al.
(2001) state that, for Atlantic salmon and sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax), natural
population structure is at risk from genetic interaction with escaped aquaculture con-
specifics. Furthermore, the locally adaptive features of populations are at risk from
interbreeding with non local aquaculture fish and wild populations, generally, are at risk
from interactions with aquaculture fish that have been subject to artificial selection or
domestication.
Fishmeal and fish oil are key constituents of pelleted diets for intensive production of
carnivorous fish. The effects of aquaculture on world fish supplies have been reviewed by
Naylor et al. (2000) and summarised by Black (2001). Approximately one third of fish meal
product is currently used in aquaculture and this proportion is increasing annually. Feed
conversion ratios are continually improving and approaching 1:1, i.e., 1 kg fish product per
kilogram of feed, but despite these improvements, it still requires 25 kg of wild fish to
produce 1 kg of fishmeal-fed fish. A number of factors, such as the production of fishmeal
from fish unfit for human consumption, mitigate against this wasteful use of fish resource,
but it is nevertheless unsustainable in the long term. Furthermore, aquaculture that is
dependent on this resource is vulnerable to collapse through the loss of profit margins due to
reduction in fishery production and consequent increase in fishmeal feed price.
The environmental impact of marine aquaculture, summarised above, is managed in
the EU through the implementation of legislative and regulatory measures and Codes of
Conduct and Codes of Practice. In practice, compliance with these measures and codes
requires the adoption of Best Practice and Best Available Technology in relation to
matters such as: site selection; management practices that minimise food waste and
chemical usage and synchronised production, fallowing and disease control (Cho et al.,
1994; Ervik et al., 1994).
3. The development of aquaculture policy within the European Union
Aquaculture has grown substantially in a number of EU countries over recent years,
and it is essentially an economic development within small and medium sized enterprises
in remote areas where alternative employment is scarce. This has been particularly evident
in marine aquaculture (Atlantic salmon in Scotland, Norway and Ireland, seabass and
seabream (Sparus aurata) in the Mediterranean and mussel (Mytilus edulis) farming by
line or raft in Ireland, Spain and France). This overall trend has been enhanced by a
general decline in catchable wild fish stocks and an increase in public demand for finfish
and shellfish resources. (Fernandes et al., 2000).
Within the European Union, the regulation of the aquaculture sector comes under the
remit of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). A review of fisheries activities was
undertaken in 1991 by the European Commission and stressed the need for rational,
responsible, and sustainable exploitation of fisheries, a more effective control of the
whole fishing industry, and a broad sharing of responsibilities for managing the CFP. In
line with these conclusions, new regulations in 1992 and 1993 established a Community
system for fisheries and aquaculture and a control system applicable to the common
fisheries policy. These regulations strengthened the controls and extended monitoring
beyond catching of fish to other aspects of the CFP, such as structures, fish marketing
and aquaculture. It is specifically acknowledged in these regulations that it is necessary
to include rules for the monitoring of conservation and resource management, and that
Member States shall adopt provisions to comply with the objectives of regular
monitoring of activities and technical controls, particularly in development of the
aquaculture industry in coastal areas. The submission of statistics on aquaculture
products is also a requirement at a European level. This resulted from an acknowledge-
ment of the impact of aquaculture on regional development and on the environment
(Fernandes et al., 2000).
4. The development of aquaculture regulations within the European Union
The legal and regulatory background to Best Environmental Practice in aquaculture has
been reviewed by Eleftheriou and Eleftheriou (2001). In EU Member States, the legal and
regulatory framework used to manage aquaculture activities has been developed in response
to international requirements as well as national needs. This framework is multi-purpose in
function and capable of broad application, since it impinges on the regulation of matters
such as water, land, public health, sanitation and animal health and disease.
The EU has introduced many Directives over the last 30 years that have led to the
implementation of national legislation relevant to the management of the environmen-
tal impact of marine aquaculture through the establishment of appropriate Environ-
mental Quality Objectives (EQOs) and Environmental Quality Standards (EQSs). The
EU has also introduced environmental provisions into all policy areas in order to
emphasise the importance of environmental protection. In the context of marine
aquaculture, environmental protection measures have been established at three levels:
(i) general policy; (ii) specific measures; and (iii) regulations that control specific local
conditions. Firstly, as a general policy under the terms of the Maastricht Treaty, the
EU is obliged to include environmental protection requirements when formulating its
policies. Secondly, member states are required to ensure that all aquaculture enter-
prises operate within the laws, regulations and rules of the individual country and also
of the EU. Thirdly, legislation aimed at protecting the aquatic environment is also
intended to safeguard aquaculture activities against damage to their resource base by
controlling polluting discharges from other activities (Eleftheriou and Eleftheriou,
2001).
EC Directives relevant to marine aquaculture are not confined to the establishment of
Environmental Quality Objectives and Environmental Quality Standards. They are also
implicated in the integration of aquaculture management within the management of the
whole coastal zone, through Integrated Coastal Zone Management, and in certain
procedural formalities involved in the setting up of aquaculture activities, such as the
requirement for Environmental Impact Assessment in the licensing procedures for
aquaculture developments (Fernandes and Read, 2001).
5. EC Directives directly relevant to the environmental impacts of marine
aquaculture
The most relevant EC Directives in relation to the management of the environmental
impacts of marine aquaculture have been reviewed by Henderson and Davies (2000) and
by Read et al. (2001c).
5.1. EC dangerous substances directive
Some chemicals used within marine fish farming fall within the List II definition
(deleterious effects upon the aquatic environment) of the EC Directive on Dangerous
Substances (76/464/EEC). Member states are required to introduce programmes to reduce
pollution by list II substances and only authorise their release on the basis of Emission
Limit Values (ELVs) to ensure compliance with Environmental Quality Objectives
(EQOs). This may involve product substitution (requiring the use of a less hazardous
chemical) and shall take into account the latest economically feasible technical develop-
ments, i.e., Best Environmental Practice (BEP).
5.2. EC quality of shellfish growing waters directive
This Directive (79/923/EEC) concerns the quality of shellfish waters in areas desig-
nated by the Member States as needing protection or improvement in order to contribute to
the high quality of shellfish products directly edible by man. It defines guideline and
imperative values for shellfish flesh and shellfish waters. Member States must establish
programmes for reducing pollution to ensure that designated waters comply with the
defined standards. Concerns over biocides are already covered by the EC Dangerous
Substances Directive, to which the EC Shellfish Growing Waters Directive makes
reference.
5.3. EC Shellfish Directive
The Shellfish Directive (91/492/EEC) concerns the quality of shellfish waters and
lays down the health conditions for the commercial production and the placing on the
market of live bivalve molluscs (such as oysters (Crassostrea gigas and Ostrea edulis),
mussels and scallops (Pecten maximus and Aequipecten opercularis). It requires the
establishment of the location and boundaries of production areas and on the basis of
bacteriological criteria, requires the classification of these production areas according to
the degree of contamination by faecal indicator bacteria present in samples of mollusc
flesh.
5.4. EC Environmental Impact Assessment Directives
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of aquaculture, as part of the application and
licensing procedures for development, is the subject of European Union Directives:
Council Directive 85/337/EEC as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EEC. These
Directives are concerned with the assessment of the effects of certain public and private
projects on the environment, which includes aquaculture in Annex II, reinforcing the need
for certain projects to undergo compulsory EIA, mostly depending upon scale, intensity
and local conditions.
5.5. EC Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive
The Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive (SEA) (2001/42/EC) was adopted
in 2001. The Directive ensures that environmental consequences of certain plans and
programmes are identified and assessed during their preparation and before their adoption.
SEA will contribute to more transparent planning by involving the public and by
integrating environmental considerations. This will help to achieve the goal of sustainable
development. SEA may be an incremental development of EIA, but it is without prejudice
to any requirements under the EIA Directives. The Directive requires that environmental
assessment be carried out for projects listed in the Directive, including fisheries, which are
likely to have significant environmental effects.
5.6. EC Species and Habitats Directive and Wild Birds Directive
The Species and Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) and the Wild Birds Directive (79/
409/EEC) concern the protection and conservation of natural habitats. Special Areas of
Conservation (SACs) and Special Protection Areas (SPAs), are designated to protect
habitats and species of conservation importance. Both Directives take an holistic
approach and are concerned with the integrity of ecosystem characteristics and the
protection of natural biodiversity. Both Directives will lead to the development of Natura
2000 sites and thus the protection of habitat integrity. A single management scheme for
each site may be necessary. This is drawn up by the competent or relevant authority and
will ensure that habitat integrity and favourable conservation status of species and
habitats are not compromised. The Directives include a consideration of assimilative
capacity, i.e., they acknowledge that receiving areas can accept activities without undue
effects. Thus aquaculture, along with other activities, will be permitted on the condition
that it does not compromise the integrity and status of designated areas. However, where
aquaculture activities are within these protected sites or adjacent to and thus likely to
affect such sites, then additional restrictions on environmental impacts are anticipated
(Elliott et al., 1999).
5.7. EC Water Framework Directive
The Water Framework Directive (WFD) (2000/60/EC), like the Species and Habitats
Directive, takes an holistic approach, which is aimed at the maintenance of the integrity of
the ecosystem characteristics. The WFD requires the development of Catchment Man-
agement Plans as means of integrated management. These will contain defined environ-
mental objectives to promote good status within the catchments. The WFD places
emphasis on ecological status, which is defined as the quality of the structure and
functioning of aquatic ecosystems associated with surface waters. Good status is the
second of five quality classes and is the minimum requirement for all waters by 2010.
Such quality will be achieved through the control of water contaminants from human
activities. In the context of marine aquaculture, the Shellfish Growing Waters Directive
and the Dangerous Substances Directive will be integrated into the WFD and, in regulating
marine aquaculture, Member States will be required to ensure compliance with these
Directives in coastal and territorial waters. Compliance will be achieved through a
combined approach including Emission Limit Values, Environmental Quality Standards
and the application of a Best Available Technology approach. In terms of biological
contaminants, such as genetically modified or selected individuals from farmed stock, the
WFD has a similar approach to the Habitats Directive, which aims to protect natural
biodiversity (Read et al., 2001c). In fact, state that the WFD no deterioration provisions
should prove beneficial Foster and Griffiths (2000)for existing sites of high conservation
value. In this context, areas can be designated as protected areas in order to allow a
higher level of protection for waters requiring a special level of attention. As with the
Species and Habitats Directive, the WFD includes a consideration of assimilation capacity
of water bodies.
5.8. EC Directives affecting the marketing of veterinary medicinal products
EC Directives and Regulations pertaining to the marketing of veterinary medicinal
products establish Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) and Marketing Authorisations
(MAs) for chemicals administered to fish.
5.9. EC ICZM Resolutions and Communications
EC Resolutions, Communications and Decisions pertaining to Integrated Coastal Zone
Management (ICZM) will establish a series of recommendations that would improve the
management and integration of aquaculture within the management of the whole coastal
zone. It is still too early to predict what the exact regulatory mechanisms for the
management of coastal zones will be at European level, although recent progress has
been made. Nevertheless, it is clear that some kind of management model (voluntary or
statutory) is likely to be implemented sooner or later in coastal areas where different
demands on the coast exist (Fernandes and Read, 2001).
5.10. International Conventions directly relevant to the environmental impact of marine
aquaculture
International Conventions directly relevant to the environmental impact of aquaculture
have been reviewed by Davies (2001). These conventions comprise: the OSPAR
Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North East Atlantic;
the Helsinki Convention (HELCOM) for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the
Baltic Sea Area and The Barcelona Convention for the Protection of the Mediterranean
Sea against Pollution.
The most important outcome from the OSPAR system affecting marine aquaculture is
known as PARCOM Recommendation 94/6 on Best Environmental Practice for the
Reduction of Inputs of Potentially Toxic Chemicals from Aquaculture Use. The
formulation of this Recommendation was stimulated by the perception that chemicals
used in mariculture, such as antimicrobial agents, parasiticides (sea lice control chemicals)
and antifoulants, posed a threat to the quality of the marine environment. The clauses are
generally targeted at measures to maintain good fish health (thereby reducing the need for
medicines), to reduce the use of toxic substances, to establish approval systems for fish
medicines and monitoring of residues of chemicals in fish at market, and to limit the
release of toxic antifoulants to the sea.
The Helsinki Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic
Sea Area also recommends a structure of Best Available Technology (BAT) and Best
Environmental Practice (BEP) designed to limit the pollution from fish farms in the Baltic
Sea and in adjacent coastal areas where discharges enter the Baltic Sea. It is probable that
The Barcelona Convention for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against Pollution
will, in due course, also address marine aquaculture as has happened with OSPAR and
HELCOM.
6. Codes of conduct and codes of best practice
Linked to legislative and regulatory measures, institutional measures such as Codes of
Conduct and Codes of Practice have been and are being established at international,
national and Aquaculture Producer Association level as mechanisms of self-regulation. At
an international level, The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations
(FAO) adopted a Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries in 1995 and this code was
expanded in 1997 to include aquaculture development. The detailed articles of the code
that specifically concern aquaculture invoke responsibility through control and regulatory
actions (Hough, 2001). The creation of Codes of Conduct and Practice has also been
actively pursued on a worldwide scale, in keeping with the regulatory recommendations of
PARCOM Recommendation 94/6. It is recognised that these voluntary measures, if used
responsibly by Producers Associations, can exercise restraints that lead to significant
quality control. This is a powerful motivational force linked to necessity to gain
competitive advantage, one form of which resides in product quality assurance. Codes
of Conduct comprise a set of general rules and principles that should lead to the
responsible and sustained development of the industry. Codes of Practice provide practical
guidelines for aquaculture to avoid causing pollution and give recommendations on
practices that optimise the environmental management of the operations. They take into
account best available methods, techniques, strains, optimal feeding regimes, environ-
mental sustainability, welfare of the animals and other issues related to aquaculture
At a European level, the Federation of European Aquaculture Producers (FEAP), an
international body composed of the national aquaculture associations responsible for fish
farming in Europe, believes firmly in the need for strong self-regulation of the industry. To
this end, FEAP has established a voluntary code of conduct. The prime goal for this is to
establish a common base for sectoral responsibility within society as a whole, by means of
self-regulation. The Code also demonstrates the attitudes of its members towards the fish
they rear, towards the environment and the consumer. The Code of Conduct is, importantly,
accompanied by proactive actions within the sector such as Codes of Practice, Manage-
ment Schemes, Quality Schemes, and labelling and certification schemes (Hough, 2001).
7. A strategy for the management of marine aquaculture
Strategies for the management of marine aquaculture within EU Member States are
expressed through legal and regulatory frameworks and through voluntary Codes of
Conduct and Practice. These regulations and codes address planning and site licensing
issues, environmental and product quality standards and monitoring and auditing regimes.
Such frameworks and codes are built up in response to EU and international requirements
as well as in response to national needs, and they aim to protect the consumer and the
environment whilst facilitating the maintenance and development of the aquaculture
industry. In order to illustrate the approach of EU Member States to the development of
strategies for the management of marine aquaculture, the regulation and monitoring of
marine aquaculture in Scotland is reviewed here and critically evaluated in relation to its
future development.
7.1. Licensing procedures for siting and planning
Marine fish farming in Scotland is currently not subject to planning control because the
geographical limits to planning control do not currently extend below the low water mark.
The key form of regulation over the siting of these developments is currently the process
associated with an application for a site lease from the Crown Estate Commission (CEC),
whose role is to maintain and enhance the value of the Crown Estate, including the
territorial seabed (Crown Estate, 2002). This regulation of aquaculture sites involves the
application Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) as appropriate (see below) and the
application of Locational Guidelines (see below).
It is the intention of the Scottish Executive to extend planning controls below the low
water mark to take account of marine finfish and shellfish farming developments, with the
planning powers implemented by Local Authorities. Until this is achieved, an interim
arrangement is in operation that gives Local Authorities a stronger role in the consideration
of development applications by the CEC (Scottish Executive, 2002). Different arrange-
ments apply in Orkney and in Shetland, where the respective Councils exercise controls
over marine fish farms in their capacity as Harbour Authorities (Shetland Salmon Farmers
Association, 2002).
Although there are no planning controls at present, Environmental Impact Assessment
is an integral part of the process for considering applications for marine fish farm leases.
The EC Directives on EIA seek to ensure that where a development is likely to have
significant effects on the environment, the potential effects are systematically addressed in
a formal environmental statement. Compliance with EC EIA Directives in Scotland is
achieved through The Environmental Impact Assessment (Fish Farming in Marine Waters)
Regulations 1999 (Crown Estate, 2002). These apply in respect of proposed new
developments and in respect of renewal or modifications of existing leases: in sensitive
areas, those designed to hold a biomass of 100 tons or more, or that cover an area in excess
of 0.1 ha of the surface area of marine waters, including structures or excavations (Scottish
Executive, 1999). The Regulations do not apply to shellfish developments. The relevant
authorities for the purposes of these EIA Regulations are the Crown Estate Commis-
sioners, Shetland Islands Council or Orkney Islands Council.
The interim arrangements for regulating the siting of fish farm developments are
accompanied by non-statutory interim procedures in the form of Locational Guidelines
(Scottish Executive, 1999). These provide guidance on the factors to be taken into account
when considering proposals for new fish farms or modifications to existing operations and
for establishing the national context for the preparation of non-statutory marine fish
farming framework plans for guiding the location of future marine fish farms. They are a
first attempt at applying a precautionary approach to fish farming in coastal areas
considered to be at risk from nutrient release and the impact of organic matter on the
seabed, and requiring protection on the basis of natural heritage resource. The guidelines
currently provide criteria for categorising coastal areas in terms of their relative suitability
for further fish farming development. The guidelines establish three categories: where the
development of new or the expansion of existing marine fish farms will only be acceptable
in exceptional circumstances; where the prospects for further substantial developments are
likely to be limited although there may be potential for modifications of existing
operations or limited expansion of existing sites particularly where proposals will result
in an overall reduction in environmental effect; and where there appear to be better
prospects of satisfying environmental requirements, although the detailed circumstances
will always need to be examined carefully.
7.2. Environmental and consumer protection
Regulation and monitoring of aquaculture in Scotland has been reviewed by Hender-
son and Davies (2000). Detailed accounts of marine environmental monitoring in relation
to aquaculture are also presented in Fernandes et al. (2001, 2002) and Scottish
Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) (1998). Compliance with International Conven-
tions, e.g. OSPAR, European Commission Directives, e.g. The Dangerous Substance
Directive, and national requirements for the protection of the environment from marine
aquaculture operations is achieved in Scotland primarily through three Acts of Parliament.
Cage fish farming came under pollution regulation in 1989 by virtue of the Water Act
1989 primarily functioning under, and by virtue of, The Control of Pollution Act 1974.
The Environment Act 1995 promotes the cleanliness of tidal waters, the conservation and
enhancement of the natural beauty and amenity of coastal waters, and the conservation of
aquatic flora and fauna. It specifically defines the effluent from fish farming as trade
effluent and creates an offence to cause or knowingly permit any trade effluent to be
discharged into controlled waters. A Consent to Discharge (licence) is issued by the
Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) in respect of cage fish farming
(Henderson and Davies, 2000).
The Consent, which may be numeric or descriptive, provides three stages of environ-
mental protection: limits risk of unacceptable environmental impact, encourages Best
Environmental Practice (BEP), and it is linked to flexible monitoring programmes. The
consent setting process takes account of site suitability and environmental usage, i.e. other
activities in the water body (e.g. fishery interests, water sports, aesthetics, nature
conservation) plus environmental status (e.g. hydrographic character, existing biological,
sedimentary and water quality) (Henderson and Davies, 2000). Setting Consent limits
takes account of an Allowable Zone of Effects (AZE) close to the cages where separate
conditions may apply. Typically, a consent will include details of the quantities of
therapeutants permissible, maximum biomass, location, size and type of cages and species
to be farmed (Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA), 1998). To date, Consents
have not addressed husbandry or management techniques.
In setting a Consent to Discharge, statutory consultees of SEPA include the Scottish
Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department (SEERAD) and Scottish Natural
Heritage (SNH), who provide comment on issues relevant to the application for Consent
to Discharge. These include the dispersive character of each site, water quality issues, the
proximity of farms to each other in terms of risk of usage of chemicals and medicines,
fisheries issues, conservation issues and fish processing operations. Consideration by
SNH of the protection and conservation of natural habitats and species, through the
designation of SACs, SPAs and certain other site protections, provides for compliance
with the EC Species and Habitats Directive and the EC Wild Birds Directive (Henderson
and Davies, 2000).
In many countries, including Scotland, Environmental Quality Objectives (EQOs) are
determined and established (e.g. consumer protection, protection of aquatic life) so that the
environment can be managed in such a way that these objectives would be achieved.
Environmental Quality Standards (EQSs) are then set for specific parameters in order that
the objectives are attained. These standards are applied by the competent authority in
regulation. EQSs may be set nationally (European Directives), for example, List I and List
II of the Dangerous Substances Directive, or they may be locally derived from available
data (e.g. sediment quality) to provide operational guidelines. Consent to Discharge limits
are set such that EQSs are not breached (Fernandes et al., 2002). For consenting and
controlling the discharge of chemicals and medicines SEPA, has adopted a mathematical
modelling approach that ensures the amount of medicine consented does not exceed the
EQS at a site. This modelling builds on previous work by SEERAD Fisheries Research
Services (Henderson et al., 2001). Therefore, quality standards are now implicit within any
process of regulation, enforcement and quality control. They are believed to be necessary
to protect the consumer, the environment and also the product (finfish or shellfish).
In many countries, effective monitoring programmes require standards against which to
measure quality, success, or effectiveness (Fernandes et al., 2002). Inherent within the
EQO/EQS approach is the concept of a mixing zone where standards may be expected to
be breached. In relation to cage fish farming, SEPA uses an AZE for both sediments and
the water column, where background standards or criteria may be expected to be breached.
For salmon cages, SEPA has defined the extent of this zone and criteria to be achieved
within it and uses it operationally in reviewing monitoring data and determining action
Monitoring programmes are in place to ensure effective regulation. Shellfish farms are
not monitored for environmental impact under existing legislation, but are monitored in
other respects. Monitoring by SEPA is routinely carried out at cage fish farms to ensure
compliance with Consent to Discharge, ensure EQSs and other standards are being met,
measure effects on the environment, determine any action to be taken and audit the results
of self monitoring (Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA), 1998). For logistic
reasons, there is a substantial reliance on self-monitoring by the operators, with planned
and random site inspections to audit the process. In this context, there is an urgent need for
increased monitoring to assess environmental impact, validate predictive models and
standards, and determine illegal use of chemicals, and for increased auditing of self-
monitoring by operators.
Environmental monitoring strategies are usually aimed at localised and midfield
effects. Far field issues are the subject of much debate and research development. The
results form part of consent compliance testing. Strategies vary but usually involve the
acquisition or provision of chemical, biological and/or physical data for pre-operational
development assessment, post development impact or assessing site recovery (Henderson
and Davies, 2000).
The Scottish Environment Protection Agencys key areas of concern are increased
nutrients that may result in increased phytoplankton populations in certain high risk areas
of poor flushing characteristics, dissolved oxygen (DO) depletion in deep basins in lochs
that are naturally low in DO, medicines and chemicals that may accumulate in sediments
or be transported into the far field, antifoulant treatments that may result in excessive
levels of copper and zinc in localised sediments and receiving waters from net washers,
and organic waste deposition causing gross biological and sediment degradation (Hen-
derson and Davies, 2000).
In addition to the legislation referred to above, and its implementation for the
management of the environmental impact of marine aquaculture through a system of
EQOs, EQSs and Consents to Discharge, there are a number of Acts and regulations that
ensure compliance with other specific international, European and national requirements.
Chemicals administered to fish as medicines, in feed or bath treatments, are regulated
under the Medicines Act 1968 and the Marketing Authorisations for Medicinal Products
Regulations 1994, which facilitate compliance with a series of EC Directives and
Regulations that affect the marketing of veterinary medicinal products. Before a medicine
is used on food fish in the EU it should have a Maximum Residue Limit (MRL) issued by
the European Medicines Evaluation Agency and a Marketing Authorisation (MA) for use
on fish issued by the appropriate national authority (Costello et al., 2001). In Scotland and
the rest of the UK, the Government is advised by the Veterinary Products Committee with
support from the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD). Medicines that are not
authorised for use on farmed fish can be prescribed by a veterinary surgeon where
treatment is found to be necessary on welfare grounds and all other authorised alternatives
are either not effective or unavailable. Under the appropriate legislation, the illegal use of
unauthorised medicines and substances is regulated by the VMD. The monitoring of
residues of chemicals in tissues is an important element in the detection of illegal usage
and concentrations are compared against MRLs (Costello et al., 2001).
Antifoulant cage chemicals are classified as pesticides. All pesticides sold, supplied,
stored, used or advertised in the UK, including Scotland, must be approved under the
Control of Pesticide Regulations, 1986. The registration process is undertaken by
Government Departments. The Health and Safety Executive has responsibility for the
approval of antifouling products. In terms of environmental standards, the application of
an EQS approach to antifouling agents used on fish cages is still under development
(Costello et al., 2001). However, copper is a list II substance under the terms of the EC
Dangerous Substances Directive and its concentration in waters out with the AZE must
comply with the national EQS for this metal (Henderson and Davies, 2000; Costello et
al., 2001).
Under the terms of the EU Shellfish Growing Waters Directive, Member States are
required to monitor for a suite of contaminants in shellfish flesh and shellfish growing
waters in locations that have been designated as needing protection or improvement in
order to contribute to the high quality of shellfish products directly edible by man.
Compliance with defined standards in terms of persistent substances, trace metals and
faecal indicator organisms is required. In Scotland, the Surface Waters (Shellfish) (Scot-
land) Regulations, 1997 ensure compliance with the Directive. The monitoring and
reporting is carried out by SEPA (Henderson and Davies, 2000).
The EC Shellfish Directive concerns the regulation of the quality of waters where
shellfish are grown for commercial harvesting, and it lays down health conditions for
marketing live bivalve molluscs. The location and boundaries of production areas must be
fixed and classified according to the degree of contamination with faecal indicator
bacteria. In the UK, including Scotland, The Food Safety (Fishery Products and Live
Shellfish) (Hygiene) Regulations, 1998 ensure compliance with the Directive. The Food
Safety Regulations also stipulate the levels of algal toxins permitted in products placed on
the market for human consumption, and also requires monitoring of the occurrence of the
toxins and for the presence of the causative organisms. The Food Standards Agency
(Scotland) (FSA) is the competent authority for compliance with the EC Shellfish
Directive, for biotoxins and for end product quality, although the monitoring is undertaken
on behalf of FSA by SEERAD Fisheries Research Services (Henderson and Davies,
2000). The FSA has extensive powers under the legislation including the closure of
fisheries where biotoxin levels exceed standards and to prohibit harvesting of shellfish
where microbiological standards are exceeded.
7.3. Voluntary codes of practice, management agreements and quality schemes
Scottish Quality Salmon is a quality led membership organisation established to offer
whole chain assurance from fish feed company to salmon farmer to smoker and
producer. Membership is strictly dependent on adherence to independently inspected
and internationally accredited quality standards encompassing fish health and welfare,
production processes, product quality and environmental consideration (Scottish Quality
Salmon, 2002).
Scottish Quality Salmon Codes of Practice are mandatory for all members in respect of
the following issues: avoidance and minimisation of infectious salmon anaemia; national
strategy for the control of sea lice; environmental management systems; containment of
farmed fish; and predatory wildlife (Scottish Quality Salmon, 2002).
Scottish Quality Salmon, together with the Scottish Executive and organisations
concerned with the maintenance of healthy wild fish stocks, have also been instrumental
in the development of Area Management Agreements and Area Management Groups.
These voluntary groups provide a forum in which information can be exchanged and ideas
developed. They are concerned with three key areas: the development and implementation
of measures for the restoration and maintenance of healthy fish stocks of wild and farmed
fish by addressing issues such as environmental standards, husbandry practices, disease
treatments, fallowing and rotation, and locational issues; the development of ideas for the
regeneration of depleted wild salmon and sea-trout stocks by addressing such issues as
prioritising river systems in most trouble, designing procedures to develop restoration, and
preparation of brood stock programmes; and examination of how these ideas could be
incorporated into planning guidelines, framework plans and consent procedures (Associ-
ation of Salmon Fisheries Boards, 2002).
8. Key environmental concerns pertaining to the impact and regulation of marine
aquaculture in Scotland
The regulation and monitoring of marine aquaculture in Scotland has adapted and
grown with the industry through a period of ever increasing debate about the impact that
the development of the industry has had on the environment. In broad terms the areas of
debate can be summarised as follows: the impact of salmon farming on the marine
environment, in particular, the effects of nutrient release on marine ecosystems and the
environmental impacts of medicinal chemicals used to treat sea lice; the possibility that
salmon farming, through its contribution to the nutrient enrichment of coastal waters, may
be a causative factor in the occurrence of toxic algal blooms and, therefore, associated with
amnesic, diuretic and paralytic shellfish poison toxins in the shellfish that have accumu-
lated toxic algae; and the impact of salmon farming on wild fish stocks, in particular, the
transfer of diseases (most notably parasitic sea lice) and the genetic interaction between
escaped farmed fish and wild fish.
8.1. The capacity of the environment to assimilate aquaculture
Assimilative Capacity is defined as the ability of an area to maintain a healthy
environment and accommodate wastes (GESAMP (IMO/FAO/UNESCO-IOC/WMO/
WHO/IAEA/UN/UNEP Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine
Environmental Protection), 1986). A considerable amount of research has been carried out
nationally and internationally into the assimilative capacity of coastal waters in relation to
aquaculture. Mathematical modelling approaches have been used in an effort to determine
assimilative capacity and some of the models are currently in use in Scotland by SEPA for
establishing and setting discharge consents in respect of chemicals, medicines and
nutrients, and for predicting environmental concentrations of substances in relation to
the establishment of EQSs (Henderson et al., 2001). However, considerably more
modelling research needs to be undertaken on a region by region basis in order to achieve
a more complete evaluation of the assimilative capacity of Scottish coastal waters (Black,
2002a). There is also an urgent need for increased monitoring of concentrations of
nutrients, chemicals and medicines in order to validate predictive models. The issue of
defining assimilative capacity for aquaculture in terms of nutrients is complicated by the
fact that it is difficult to distinguish inputs of nutrients from cage fish farming from diffuse
inputs like forestry and agriculture. Thus there is a need for an holistic approach to the
management of coastal pollution, particularly with regard to modelling nutrients and
defining assimilative capacity (SEPA, 2002).
It is now considered that the strategy for the management of the environmental impact
of aquaculture in Scotland and the regulatory framework in support of that strategy should
incorporate the determination of the assimilative capacity of sea lochs and coastal waters
(Scottish Parliament, 2002a,c). The determination of assimilative capacity should be
restricted to chemical and biological parameters such that a scientific modelling approach
can be applied to its determination. Such parameters should include chemicals, medicines
and nutrients and also sea lice. Furthermore, the concept of assimilative capacity should be
used in setting consents for aquaculture operations. To this end it is proposed that
provision be made for more and better research into the assimilative capacity of coastal
waters and for SEPA to take an holistic approach to the regulation of coastal waters and a
broader approach to setting of discharge consents (Scottish Parliament, 2002a,c).
As stated previously, it has been argued that, in terms of nutrients, the assimilative
capacity of some Scottish sea lochs and coastal areas has been exceeded with consequent
occurrence of harmful blooms and increased production of toxins by certain algae. The
history of Scottish harmful algal blooms has been reviewed by Tett and Edwards (2002).
Their assessment is that the greatest recent concern relates to Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning,
caused by the diatom of the genus Pseudo-nitzchia. Diarrhetic Shellfish Poisoning, caused
mainly by dinoflagellates of the genus Dinophysis, and Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning,
caused by dinoflagellates of the genus Alexandrium, are also endemic. All these have
resulted in the closure of shellfisheries. Toxic Red Tides and similar blooms of
Gyrodinium-like dinoflagellates seem to have become less common but remain a hazard to
fish farms. As stated previously, Tett and Edwards (2002) indicate that explanations for the
occurrence of organisms causing shellfish poisoning will probably be intrinsic features of
the biology and ecology of these organisms rather than the effect of nutrient enrichment.
Nevertheless, the Scottish Parliamentary Inquiry into Aquaculture (Scottish Parliament,
2002a,c) considers that there is not, as yet, a body of evidence which can fully explain the
occurrence of organisms causing shellfish poisoning. Accordingly, it is concluded that
there is a need for further research in this area.
8.2. Licensing, planning and siting
It is recognised that the current interim licensing arrangements for planning and siting
of fish farm developments are unsatisfactory (Scottish Parliament, 2002a,c). It is agreed
that planning control will be extended below the low water mark, and the planning
arrangements for fish farming will mirror land based planning with modifications to tailor
the planning regime to the marine environment. Concurrently, planning powers for
aquaculture developments will be transferred to Local Government Authorities in line
with other planning powers, for which there will be appropriate provision of expertise,
resources and training. Associated with this transfer will be the development of National
Planning Policy Guidelines for aquaculture in order to ensure both national consistency
and local flexibility (Scottish Executive, 2002). It is also proposed that existing fish farm
leases will be brought within the new planning regime through a combination of natural
expiry lease dates together with final cut off dates, and that inappropriately sited farms,
e.g. farms exceeding the assimilative capacity or in proximity to estuaries important for
migration of wild fish, will be relocated (Scottish Parliament, 2002a,c).
Most fish farming developments currently trigger the Environmental Impact Assess-
ment (Fish Farming in Marine Waters) Regulations 1999. However, it is proposed that
Environmental Statements will, in future, be appropriate for both the planning authorities
(Local Government Authorities) and the environment regulatory authorities (SEPA) and
will be submitted to both authorities simultaneously at the time of application for
development, extension or modification. Furthermore, it is anticipated that the EIA
process for aquaculture will be standardised and made more rigorous by requiring
mandatory screening and scoping, consideration of the cumulative and wider environ-
mental impacts of aquaculture and in respect of the information required by SEPA for
decisions relating to environmental consent (Scottish Parliament, 2002a,c).
Locational Guidelines were a first attempt at applying a precautionary approach to
licensing, planning and siting for fish farming in coastal areas in Scotland. They address
coastal areas considered to be at risk of nutrient enrichment and requiring protection on the
basis of natural heritage resource. The guidelines currently provide criteria for categorising
coastal areas in terms of their relative suitability for further fish farming development
(Scottish Executive, 1999). It is now recognised that there is considerable scope for
widening and strengthening the Locational Guidelines and they will be reviewed in their
entirety in 2002 (Scottish Executive, 2002; Scottish Parliament, 2002a,c).
It is anticipated that the review of Locational Guidelines will address a need for
increased transparency in terms of criteria and categorisation. Furthermore, it is anticipated
the revised guidelines will take account of: the assimilative capacity of sea lochs and other
coastal waters; the potential for the re-location of inappropriately sited fish farms (see
above); the impacts of fish farming on other users of coastal waters; the need for
differentiation between the impacts of, and scientific risks associated with, differing fin
fish species; the relatively benign nature of shellfish farming; the need for better
integration of shellfish farming and fin fish farming; and the relationship between the
guidelines and the planning system. There are compelling arguments for the locational
guidelines to be consistent with the principles and practice of Integrated Coastal Zone
Management (Scottish Parliament, 2002a,c). An ICZM approach would encourage the
bringing together of various interests within the coastal zone, in order to set out consistent
planning arrangements and common objectives, which can be used to resolve conflicts
between conflicting resource users. The European Commission is still considering what
detailed form any proposals for ICZM might take. However, it is likely that the move
towards ICZM will require some type of management model to be established in coastal
areas where there are conflicting demands on natural resources (Fernandes and Read,
2001). Once firm proposals are established, the longer term objective for Locational
Guidelines should be full implementation of ICZM (Scottish Parliament, 2002a,c).
8.3. Best environmental practice
Typically, Discharge Consents, issued by SEPA, include details of quantities of
medicines permissible, maximum biomass, location, size and type of cages and species
to be farmed (Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA), 1998). To date, Consents
have not addressed husbandry or management techniques. It is proposed that in the future
SEPA be given more flexibility in the way it regulates the environmental impacts of fish
farming. Specifically, it is proposed that SEPA be empowered to regulate the process of
fish farming rather than just the end of process discharge (Scottish Executive, 2002).
Furthermore, it is stated by the Scottish Parliament (2002a,c) that there should be statutory
provision for enforcing environmental management practices and requirements to comply
with Best Available Technology. By adopting this approach, Best Environmental Practice
would be promoted through licence conditions and general regulations rather than leaving
the application of BAT to the industry through its own Codes of Conduct and Practice.
Other issues which have been identified by the Scottish Parliament (2002a,c) for
consideration in relation to the adoption of BEP are: more robust monitoring and auditing
of compliance with planning conditions, consent licences and quality standards; promotion
of BAT in order to minimise escapes; and the legal underpinning of Area Management
Agreements and Area Management Groups for the collective management of marine
aquaculture.
8.4. Synchronised management regimes and the control of salmonid sea lice
Sea lice are crustacean parasites of salmonid fish causing disease in both wild and
farmed stocks. High levels of sea lice infection can occur in farmed stocks, and there is
evidence to suggest that these reservoirs of infection can give rise to high levels of sea
lice larvae within sea lochs and coastal waters thereby leading to high levels of infection
in wild stocks. Whilst acknowledging that the global decline in the abundance of salmon
and sea trout (Salmo trutta) is driven in part by changes in world climate, the view has
been expressed that the unprecedented changes in the abundance and structure of
salmonid stocks in northwest Scotland are a consequence of sea lice infection (Shelton,
2002).
It is widely recognised that sea lice are not easily controlled, partly due to the need to
control sea lice by way of medicines, which must in themselves be regulated due the
impact of these chemicals on the environment. Salmon farmers monitor sea lice numbers
on farmed fish in order to determine when chemical treatments for their control should be
applied. However, the level of lice that can be tolerated on farmed fish is considerably
higher than the level that would represent a danger to wild fish (Shelton, 2002). The view
has been expressed that lice infection in farmed fish should be regulated and controlled at a
level that would reduce infection in wild stocks (Scottish Parliament, 2002b). This would
require an understanding of the relationship between sea lice infection in farmed stocks
and sea lice infection in wild stocks and the establishment of maximum levels of sea lice
infection, or maximum sea lice burdens, for farmed fish. Such maximum sea lice burdens
would then require enforcement through surveillance by the regulatory authority. A
maximum burden for sea lice has been set in countries such as Norway and Ireland.
Ireland currently utilises trigger levels for lice levels (Scottish Parliament, 2002a,b). This
ensures that when triggers levels are reached, treatment is carried out. However, while it is
easy to establish trigger levels for the protection of farmed fish, there is insufficient
scientific knowledge to establish trigger levels to protect wild stocks (Scottish Parliament,
2002a,b). Furthermore, the implicit increase in the use of medicines for sea lice treatment
will have an environmental impact. The use of in-feed lice treatments is environmentally
less harmful, but at the present time, these are not a complete substitute for bath treatments
(Black, 2002b). The benefits of imposing sea lice burdens remain unclear and it is
suggested that, in Scotland, regulators be empowered to set sea lice burdens, but that these
should not be utilised until such time as epidemiological modelling demonstrates that the
establishment of meaningful burdens would be possible and beneficial (Scottish Parlia-
ment, 2002a,c).
Additional to the use of medicines, there are management regimes that assist in the
control of sea lice and other diseases. These include synchronised production, fallowing
and disease treatment. In this context, consideration is being given to phasing in a
regulatory requirement for synchronised management in all Scottish sea lochs and coastal
waters (Scottish Parliament, 2002a).
8.5. Prevention or reduction of the interaction between farmed and wild fish
As stated previously, the locally adaptive features of populations are at risk from
interbreeding with non local aquaculture fish, and wild populations, generally, are at risk
from interactions with aquaculture fish that have been subject to artificial selection or
domestication (Youngson et al., 2001).
In order to reduce this problem in Scotland, there will be a requirement for the
compulsory notification of escaped fish, although it is not the intention, at the present time,
to impose penalties on farmers for escapes (Scottish Executive, 2002). However, the
Scottish Parliamentary Inquiry into Aquaculture (Scottish Parliament, 2002a,c) considered
that there should be a more proactive approach to this problem by the Scottish Executive.
This should include promotion of the use and development of BAT to minimise the
problem. Furthermore, alternative measures for reducing the impact of escaped farmed fish
on wild stocks should be examined. These measures should include tagging farmed fish to
enable sources of escapes to be traced with associated penalties, reproductive sterility of
farmed fish to eliminate the genetic potential of escaped fish and measures for the recovery
of escaped stock.
8.6. The development of alternative fish feed diets
As stated previously, in terms of fish food provision, the sustainability of farming some
marine species is in doubt given the current approaches to the feeding of farmed stocks.
However, there are, currently, a number of initiatives aimed at reducing this problem.
These include: the use of sustainably managed fisheries for fish feed supply, substitution of
a proportion of fish oils with vegetable oils, selection of broodstock more capable of
converting less beneficial oils found in plants to more desirable fish oils, and the use of
discards and black fish from traditional capture fisheries for fish meal (Richards,
2002).
9. Conclusion
The EU and EU Member States that have a significant aquaculture industry have
developed policies and sophisticated and complex regulatory and voluntary frameworks
for the management and control of the environmental impacts of aquaculture. Neverthe-
less, it is widely recognised that a number of significant environmental issues remain to be
resolved. This can best be achieved through the application of the best available science
and technology, the application of the best available experience and expertise and the
harmonisation of regulatory, control and monitoring efforts through the adoption of Codes
of Best Environmental Practice. A number of collaborative projects and programmes of
work have been directed at this goal and there has been some success, e.g. ICES,
MARAQUA and OAERRE. However, more still needs to be achieved, particularly in
relation to nutrient enrichment of coastal waters and assimilative capacity, the occurrence
of toxic algal blooms, genetic interaction between farmed and wild stocks, the discharge of
medicinal chemicals and the sustainability of fish food.
It is significant that the recent ministerial declaration of the fifth international
conference on the protection of the North Sea identifies environmental issues relating to
marine aquaculture (Bergen Declaration, 2002). The declaration notes that the aquaculture
sector will require specific actions in order to ensure full integration of environmental
protection requirements. It acknowledges the guidelines developed by the North Atlantic
Salmon Organisation to minimise escapes and the Organisations plan of action for habitat
protection and restoration. It also invites competent authorities to develop and implement
the guidelines given in the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries in the field of
aquaculture, in particular on the reduction of environmental impact.
Acknowledgements
Aspects of this critical review were funded as part of a Concerted Action project
during 1999 and 2000 under the European Union FAIR (aquaculture) research programme.
The Concerted Action was entitled MARAQUA and was concerned with the Monitoring
and Regulation of Marine Aquaculture in Europe (contract number FAIR PL98-4300).
The authors of this report acknowledge the contribution made to this work by the
membership of MARAQUA and the funding and support provided by the European Union
FAIR Programme.
References
Ackefors, H., Enell, M., 1994. The release of nutrients and organic matter from aquaculture systems in Nordic
countries. J. Appl. Ichthyol. 10 (4), 225241.
Association of Salmon Fisheries Boards, 2002. Evidence to the Scottish Parliamentary inquiry into aquaculture.
Scottish Parliament, 2002b. Transport and Environment Committee 5th Report 2002. Report on Phase 1 of the
Inquiry into Aquaculture. Evidence, SP Paper 542, Scotland, vol. 2. The Stationary Office, Edinburgh,
Scotland, p. 168.
Axler, R., Larsen, C., Tikkanen, C., McDonald, M., Yokom, S., Aas, P., 1996. Water quality issues associated
with aquaculture: a case study in mine pit lakes. Water Environ. Res. 68 (6), 9951011.
Bergen Declaration, 2002. Ministerial Declaration of the Fifth International Conference on the Protection of the
North Sea. Bergen, Norway, 2021 March 2002, p. 35.
Black, K.D. (Ed.), 2001. Environmental Impacts of Aquaculture. Academic Press, Sheffield, UK, p. 214.
Black, K.D., 2002a. Evidence to the Scottish parliamentary inquiry into aquaculture. Scottish Parliament, 2002b.
Transport and Environment Committee 5th Report 2002. Report on Phase 1 of the Inquiry into Aquaculture.
Evidence, SP Paper 542, Scotland, vol. 2. The Stationary Office, Edinburgh, Scotland, p. 168.
Black, K.D., 2002b. Scottish Parliament Official Report, 2002. Transport and Environment Committee 10th
Meeting, Monday 25th March. Aquaculture Inquiry. The Stationary Office, Edinburgh, Scotland.
Codling, I.D., Doughty, R., Henderson, A., Naismith, I., 1995. Strategies for Monitoring Sediments and Fauna
Around Cage Fish Farms. Marlow, UK: Scotland and Northern Ireland Forum For Environmental Research
(SNIFFER), Report No. SR 4018. 78 pp.
Cho, C.Y., Hynes, J.D., Wood, K.R., Yoshida, H.K., 1994. Development of high-nutrient-dense, low-pollution
diets and prediction of aquaculture wastes using biological approaches. Aquaculture 124, 293305.
Costello, M.J., Grant, A., Davies, I.M., Cecchini, S., Papoutsoglou, S., Quigley, D., Saroglia, M., 2001. The
control of chemicals used in aquaculture in Europe. J. Appl. Ichthyol. 17 (4), 173180.
Crown Estate, 2002. Evidence to the Scottish Parliamentary inquiry into aquaculture. Scottish Parliament,
2002b. Transport and Environment Committee 5th Report 2002. Report on Phase 1 of the Inquiry
into Aquaculture. Evidence, SP Paper 542, Scotland, vol. 2. The Stationary Office, Edinburgh, Scotland,
p. 168.
Davies, I.M., 2001. The influences of international conventions for the prevention of marine pollution on mar-
iculture in European countries. In: Read, P.A., Fernandes, T.F., Miller, K.L., Eleftheriou, A., Eleftheriou, M.,
Davies, I.M., Rodger, G.K. (Eds.), The Implications of Directives, Conventions and Codes of Practice on the
Monitoring and Regulation of Marine Aquaculture in Europe. Proceedings of the Second MARAQUA
Workshop, 2022 March 2000, Institute of Marine Biology, Crete. Scottish Executive, Aberdeen, UK,
pp. 7583.
DeVoe, M.R., 1994. Aquaculture and the marine environment: policy and management issues and opportunities
in the United States. Bull. Natl. Res. Inst. Aquacult. Supp. 1, 111123.
Eleftheriou, A., Eleftheriou, M., 2001. Legal and regulatory background to best environmental practice. In: Read,
P.A., Fernandes, T.F., Miller, K.L., Eleftheriou, A., Eleftheriou, M., Davies, I.M., Rodger, G.K. (Eds.), The
Implications of Directives, Conventions and Codes of Practice on the Monitoring and Regulation of Marine
Aquaculture in Europe. Proceedings of the Second MARAQUA Workshop, 2022 March 2000, Institute of
Marine Biology, Crete. Scottish Executive, Aberdeen, UK, pp. 7583.
Elliott, M., Fernandes, T.F., De Jonge, V.N., 1999. The impact of European Directives on estuarine and coastal
science management. Aquat. Ecol. 33, 321331.
Ervik, A., Samuelsen, O.B., Juell, J.E., Sveier, H., 1994. Reduced environmental impact of antibacterial agents
applied in fish farms using the liftup feed collector system or a hydroacoustic feed detector. Dis. Aquat. Org.
19 (2), 101104.
Ervik, A., Hansen, P.A., Aure, J., Stigebrandt, A., Johannessen, P., Jahnsen, T., 1997. Regulating the local
environmental impact of intensive marine fish farming I. The concept of the MOM system (Modelling
Ongrowing fish farms Monitoring). Aquaculture 158, 8594.
Fernandes, T.F., Read, P.A., 2001. Aquaculture and the management of coastal zones. In: Read, P.A., Fernandes,
T.F., Miller, K.L., Eleftheriou, A., Davies, I.M., Rodger, G.K. (Eds.), The Implications of Directives, Con-
ventions and Codes of Practice on the Monitoring and Regulation of Marine Aquaculture in Europe. Proceed-
ings of the Second MARAQUA Workshop, 2022 March 2000, Institute of Marine Biology, Crete. Scottish
Executive, Aberdeen, UK, pp. 7583.
Fernandes, T.F., Miller, K.L., Read, P.A., 2000. Monitoring and regulation of marine aquaculture in Europe.
J. Appl. Ichthyol. 16 (45), 138143.
Fernandes, T.F., Eleftheriou, A., Ackefors, H., Eleftheriou, M., Ervik, A., Sanchez-Mata, A., Scanlon, T., White,
P., Cochrane, S., Pearson, T.H., Read, P.A., 2001. The scientific principles underlying the monitoring of the
environmental impacts of aquaculture. J. Appl. Ichthyol. 17 (4), 181193.
Fernandes, T.F., Eleftheriou, A., Ackefors, H., Eleftheriou, M., Ervik, A., Sanchez-Mata, A., Scanlon, T., White,
P., Cochrane, S., Pearson, T.H., Miller, K.L., Read, P.A., 2002. The Management of the Environmental
Impacts of Aquaculture. Scottish Executive, Aberdeen, UK. 88 pp.
Garrett, E., Spencer dos Santos, C.L., Jahncke, M.L., 1997. Public, animal, and environmental health implica-
tions of aquaculture. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 3, 453457.
GESAMP (IMO/FAO/UNESCO-IOC/WMO/WHO/IAEA/UN/UNEP Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific
Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection), 1986. Environmental capacity: an approach to marine pollution
prevention. Rome, Italy. Rep. Stud. GESAMP No. 30. 49 pp.
Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection), 1996. Monitoring the ecological effects of coastal aqua-
culture wastes. Scientific aspects of marine environmental protection. Rome, Italy: Rep. Stud. GESAMP
No. 57. 38 pp.
Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection), 2001. Planning and management for sustainable coastal aqua-
culture development. Rome, Italy: Rep. Stud. GESAMP No. 68. 90 pp.
Gowen, R., Bradbury, N.B., 1987. The ecological impact of salmonid farming in coastal waters: a review.
Oceanogr. Mar. Biol. Ann. Rev. 25, 563575.
Hansen, L.P., Reddin, D.G., Lund, R.A., 1997. The incidence of reared Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L) of fish
farm origin at West Greenland. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 54, 152155.
Hansen, L.P., Jacobsen, J.A., Lund, R.A., 1999. The incidence of escaped farmed Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar,
in the Faroese fishery and estimates of catches of wild salmon. ICES J. Mar. 56, 200206.
Heggberget, T.G., Johnsen, B.O., Hindar, K., Jonsson, B., Hansen, L.P., Hvidsten, N.A., Jensen, A.J., 1993.
Interactions between wild and cultured Atlantic Salmona review of the Norwegian experience. Fish. Res.
18 (12), 123146.
Henderson, A.R., Davies, I.M., 2000. Review of aquaculture, its regulation and monitoring in Scotland. J. Appl.
Ichthyol. 16 (45), 200208.
Henderson, A.R., Gamito, S., Karakassis, I., Pedersen, P.B., Smaal, A.C., 2001. Use of hydrodynamic and benthic
models for managing environmental impacts of marine aquaculture. J. Appl. Ichthyol. 17 (4), 163171.
Hough, C., 2001. Codes of conduct and aquaculture. In: Read, P.A., Fernandes, T.F., Miller, K.L., Eleftheriou, A.,
Eleftheriou, Davies, I.M., Rodger, G.K. (Eds.), The Implications of Directives, Conventions and Codes of
Practice on the Monitoring and Regulation of Marine Aquaculture in Europe. Proceedings of the Second
MARAQUA Workshop, 2022 March 2000, Institute of Marine Biology, Crete. Scottish Executive, Aber-
deen, UK, pp. 1223.
Kelly, L.A., Stellwagen, J., Bergheim, A., 1996. Waste loadings from a fresh-water Atlantic Salmon farm in
Scotland. Water Res. Bull. 32 (N5), 10171025.
Midlen, A., Redding, T., 1998. Environmental Management for Aquaculture. Chapman & Hall, London. 223 pp.
Nature Conservancy Council (NCC), 1989. Fish Farming and the Safeguard of the Natural Marine Environment
of Scotland. Nature Conservancy Council, Peterborough, England. 136 pp.
Naylor, R.L., Goldberg, R.J., Primavera, J.H., Kautsky, N., Beveridge, M.C.M., Clay, J., Folke, C., Lubcheno, J.,
Mooney, H., Troell, M., 2000. Effects of aquaculture on world fish supplies. Nature 405, 10171024.
Oceanographic Applications to Eutrophication in Regions of Restricted Exchange (OAERRE), 2001. Oceano-
graphic Applications to Eutrophication in Regions of Restricted Exchange [On-line]. Available: http://
www.oaerre.napier.ac.uk, accessed in January 2002.
OSullivan, A.J., 1992. Aquaculture and user conflicts. Aquaculture and the environment. Spec. Publ. Eur.
Aquacult. Soc. 16, 405412.
Piedrahita, R.H., 1994. Managing environmental impacts in aquaculture. Bull. Natl. Res. Inst. Aquacult.
(Supp. 1), 1320.
Provost, P.G., 1996. The persistence and effects of antibacterial agents in marine fish farm sediments. PhD thesis,
Napier University, Edinburgh. 313 pp.
Read, P.A., Fernandes, T.F., Miller, K.L., 2001a. The derivation of scientific guidelines for best environ-
mental practice for the monitoring and regulation of marine aquaculture in Europe. J. Appl. Ichthyol. 17
(4), 146152.
Read, P.A., Fernandes, T.F., Miller, K.L., Eleftheriou, A., Eleftheriou, M., Davies, I.M., Rodger, G.K. (Eds.),
2001b. The Implications of Directives, Conventions and Codes of Practice on the Monitoring and Regulation
of Marine Aquaculture in Europe. Proceedings of the Second MARAQUA Workshop, 2022 March 2000,
Institute of Marine Biology, Crete. Scottish Executive, Aberdeen, UK. 114 pp.
Read, S., Elliott, M., Fernandes, T.F., 2001c. The possible implications of the Water Framework Directive and the
Species and Habitats Directive on the management of marine aquaculture. In: Read, P.A., Fernandes, T.F.,
Miller, K.L., Eleftheriou, A., Eleftheriou, Davies, I.M., Rodger, G.K. (Eds.), The Implications of Directives,
Conventions and Codes of Practice on the Monitoring and Regulation of Marine Aquaculture in Europe.
Proceedings of the Second MARAQUA Workshop, 2022 March 2000, Institute of Marine Biology, Crete.
Scottish Executive, Aberdeen, UK, pp. 5874.
Richards, R., 2002. Scottish Parliament Official Report, 2002. Transport and Environment Committee 10th
meeting, Monday 25th March 2002. Aquaculture Inquiry. The Stationary Office, Edinburgh, Scotland.
Ross, A., 1997. Leaping in the Dark: A Review of the Environmental Impacts of Marine Salmon Farming in
Scotland and Proposals for Change. Scottish Environment Link, Perth, Scotland. 92 pp.
Samuelsen, O.B., Torsvik, V., Kupka-Hansen, P., Pittman, K., Ervik, A., 1988. Organic waste and antibiotics
from aquaculture. ICES, 14 (CM-1988/F:14).
Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA), 1998. Regulation and Monitoring of Marine Cage Fish
Farming in Scotland. A Procedures Manual. Scottish Environment Protection Agency, Stirling, Scotland.
1.111.2.
SEPA, 2002. Evidence to the Scottish Parliamentary inquiry into aquaculture. Scottish Parliament, 2002b. Trans-
port and Environment Committee 5th Report 2002. Report on phase 1 of the inquiry into aquaculture.
Scottish Executive, 1999. Locational guidelines for the authorisation of marine fish farms in Scottish waters.
Policy Guidance Note: Marine Fish Farming. Scottish Executive, Edinburgh, Scotland, p. 15.
Scottish Executive, 2002. Evidence to the Scottish Parliamentary inquiry into aquaculture. Scottish Parlia-
ment, 2002b. Transport and Environment Committee 5th Report 2002. Report on Phase 1 of the Inquiry
into Aquaculture. Evidence, SP Paper 542, Scotland, vol. 2. The Stationary Office, Edinburgh, Scotland,
p. 168.
Scottish Parliament, 2002a. Transport and Environment Committee 5th Report 2002. Report on Phase 1 of the
Inquiry into Aquaculture. Report, SP Paper 542, Scotland, vol. 1. The Stationary Office, Edinburgh, Scotland,
p. 38.
Inquiry into Aquaculture. Evidence, SP Paper 542, Scotland, vol. 2. The Stationary Office, Edinburgh,
Scotland, p. 168.
Scottish Parliament, 2002c. Transport and Environment Committee 11th Report 2002. Report on Phase 2 of the
Inquiry into Aquaculture. Report, SP Paper 611, Scotland, vol. 1. The Stationary Office, Edinburgh, Scotland,
p. 29.
Scottish Quality Salmon, 2002. Evidence to the Scottish Parliamentary inquiry into aquaculture. Scottish Parlia-
ment, 2002b. Transport and Environment Committee 5th Report 2002. Report on Phase 1 of the Inquiry into
Aquaculture. Evidence, SP Paper 542, Scotland, vol. 2. The Stationary Office, Edinburgh, Scotland, p. 168.
Shelton, R., 2002. Evidence to the Scottish Parliamentary inquiry into aquaculture. Scottish Parliament, 2002b.
Transport and Environment Committee 5th Report 2002. Report on Phase 1 of the Inquiry into Aquaculture.
Shetland Salmon Farmers Association, 2002. Evidence to the Scottish Parliamentary inquiry into aquaculture.
Inquiry into Aquaculture. Evidence, SP Paper 542, Scotland, vol 2. The Stationary Office, Edinburgh,
Scotland, p. 168.
Tett, P., Edwards, V., 2002. Review of Harmful Algal Blooms in Scottish Coastal Waters: Direct Effects of
Nutrients on Phytoplankton. Scottish Environment Protection Agency, Stirling, Scotland. 99 pp. In press.
Wu, R.S.S., 1995. The environmental impact of marine fish culture: towards a sustainable future. Mar. Pollut.
Bull. 31 (412), 159166.
Youngson, A.F., Dosdat, A., Saroglia, M., Jordan, W.C., 2001. Genetic interactions between marine finfish
species in European aquaculture and wild conspecies. J. Appl. Ichthyol. 17 (4), 153162.

Management of Environmental Impacts of Marine Aquaculture in Europe

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Management of Environmental Impacts of Marine Aquaculture in Europe

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Management of environmental impacts of

marine aquaculture in Europe

Potrebbero piacerti anche