Upload
elwin-tucker
View
213
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Aquaculture in ScotlandAquaculture in Scotland the potential effects of the the potential effects of the Water framework DirectiveWater framework Directive
Peter Holmes Marine Science Manager Scottish Environment Protection Agency
Scottish Environment Protection Agency ( SEPA)
Responsible for licensing discharge from Fin
Fish Farms by: Controlling the position of farm in relation to the depth,
flushing rates and proximity to other farms or sensitive sites
Consenting the farm size in terms of peak biomass Consenting the use of chemicals such as drugs,
anti-parasitics, anti-fouling treatment
SEPA is only consulted on the siting of shellfish farms as they are not artificially fed their discharge is considered “natural”
Existing data/monitoring requirements for Cage Farms
Monitoring Benthos self monitoring and audit
Modelling of organic deposition
Hydrographic data and audit
Modelling of nutrient load
Modelling of infeed treatment dispersion and audit
Audit of all chemicals and their fate
Details of SEPA’s Fish Farm Manual are on SEPA’s Web Site
SCOTLAND
Federation of Scottish Aquaculture Producers, 2004
Atlantic Salmon Aquaculture
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
350000
400000
450000
500000
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
Tonn
es UK
Norway
Source: FAO
Fin Fish Farms in Scotland
Characterisation - Risk Assessment
(Pressures & Impacts) Assess the degree of risk of a water body failing
good status For Fish Farms this was done using Scottish
Government Locational Guidelines And SEPA’s coastal classification scheme(not WFD
compliant) If farms were in Guideline Category 1 or were
designated C or D in SEPA’s classification system then they were considered at risk with moderate confidence and therefore subject to Operational Monitoring
Scottish Government Locational Guidelines
Based on sensitivity of sea area in terms of available volume, depth, flushing rate etc
Sensitivity of any Natural History designation
Location of existing farms
Concerns over wild salmon and sea trout populations
Categories in the Locational Guidelines
CATEGORY 1 - No new or expanded farms except in exceptional circumstances
CATEGORY 2 - Limited scope for new sites some room for expansion of existing sites especially where this would reduce environmental effect.
CATEGORY 3 - Where some scope for expansion if all environmental requirements can be met.
Category 1Areas
Creating Water Bodies
Critical that it is remembered these are the management units
They must be of one type
Their size will depend on the pressure they are under
Water Bodies for North West Scotland
Water Bodies and Types
NEA6
NEA7NEA1
NEA1
Typology
Scotland does not have every NE Atlantic Group Type but shares Type NEA7 Fjord/Sealoch with Norway.
Suitable for Intercalibration especially as pressure from fish farming similar
Monitoring of 3 types -Surveillance
-Operational
-Investigative
Surveillance Monitoring
The surveillance monitoring to look at:
A range of sites including impacted ones Validate risk assessment Trends in natural or man induced changes
Sufficient surveillance sites are required to allow an assessment of the overall surface water status.
Thinking behind design of the Scottish Surveillance Monitoring Programme
One site in each of eight coastal sediment transport cells
One site within in each type
Monitoring should cover 5% of water bodies (=25 sites)
all relevant quality elements to be sampled at all sites
Every 3 years for invertebrates and macroalgae
Every 3 years sampling for fish in transitional waters
bi-annual, quarterly or monthly sampling for phytoplankton
bi-annual, quarterly or monthly sampling for water quality
Every six years for hydromorphology
Surveillance Monitoring
Must monitor all Quality Elements
25 surveillance sites, but no lagoon sites identified yet.
8 are in water bodies containing fish farms
Operational Monitoring
The operational monitoring network derived from the risk assessment process in the first instance.
Monitoring Frequency Nationally decided but should be at least as frequent as that given in the Directive
Operational Monitoring
Monitor only those quality elements that are at risk
Investigative Monitoring
Where reasons for exceedances are not known
To examine impacts of accidental pollution
Where operational monitoring has not been put in place
Considering the effect of the WFD an ICES Mariculture Committee
concluded at a workshop in Spain 2003 that:
“Specifically, fish farms will probably be assessed as potentially affecting the quality of the benthic fauna, the phytoplankton and angiosperm communities, and also hydrochemical conditions such as nutrient and dissolved oxygen concentrations.”
I would agree but add “Specific Pollutants”
CHEMICAL MONITORING
Antibiotics, antiparasitics,
antifouling agents are all
“Specific Pollutants”
requiring member state
control with state derived
standards.
Regulation
If any water body fails to reach at least Good Status then a Programme of Measures must be brought in to improve the quality of that water body by 2015
Programme of Measures is subject to national regulation but must be reported through River Basin Management Plan
River Basin Plans must allow participation and consultation with stakeholders such as Aquaculture Industry
WFD Summary for Aquaculture
Plus Clear Universally
applied quality standard and classification
Ensure that water quality in areas that are used for aquaculture are of high quality
Allows wide consultation and consideration of socio-economics
Minus More thorough auditing
of the industry in areas where currently there is little attention
Poor results will be open to public scrutiny
Environmental quality compared with “natural state” not just a local control site
Summary
I believe that for Scotland that the monitoring will be more comprehensive in scope but may be less intensive at any one farm.
Shellfish farming will have to be monitored for the first time by SEPA
The effective regulation will be of a similar nature to the present so the farmer with good environmental credentials has nothing to fear.
For Norway?For Norway?