Management of Environmental Impacts of Marine Aquaculture in Europe

8/11/2019 Management of Environmental Impacts of Marine Aquaculture in Europe

1/25

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 marineenvironmental 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 matterD 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:[email protected] (P. Read).

www.elsevier.com/locate/aqua-online

Aquaculture 226 (2003) 139163


2/25

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 anumber 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 inorganicnutrients 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 hasbeen 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), areregulated and managed, at a European level, by a variety of European Commission (EC)

Directives and International Conventions. There are currently eight EC Directives that relate

P. Read, T. Fernandes / Aquaculture 226 (2003) 139163140


3/25

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, theEnvironmental 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 themonitoring 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 speciesand 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

P. Read, T. Fernandes / Aquaculture 226 (2003) 139163 141


4/25

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 beforebeing 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 addedto 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 byTett 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



5/25

production can give riseto 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 anyother 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 pa rticulate

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 beenbetween 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 byNaylor et al. (2000)and summarised byBlack (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 inthe 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



6/25

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 commonfisheries 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 byEleftheriou 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-



7/25

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 marineaquaculture, 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 byHenderson and Davies (2000)and

byRead 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



8/25

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 DangerousSubstances 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. TheseDirectives 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



9/25

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 foreach 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 thesecond 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 naturalbiodiversity(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 medicinalproducts establish Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) and Marketing Authorisations

(MAs) for chemicals administered to fish.



10/25

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 themanagement 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. Theformulation 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 BalticSea 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



11/25

(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 beenactively 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.



12/25

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 theapplication 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 LocalAuthorities a stronger rolein 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 excessof 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 afirst 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 betterprospects of satisfying environmental requirements, although the detailed circumstances

will always need to be examined carefully.



13/25

7.2. Environmental and consumer protection

Regulation and monitoring of aquaculture in Scotland has been reviewed by Hender-

son and Davies (2000). Detailed accountsof marine environmentalmonitoring inrelationto 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, natureconservation) 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 Consentto 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



14/25

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 andcontrolling 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 resultsof 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-operationaldevelopment 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



15/25

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 ProductsRegulations 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 aMarketing 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 thetoxins and for the presence of the causative organisms. The Food Standards Agency

(Scotland) (FSA) is the competent authority for compliance with the EC Shellfish



16/25

Directive, for biotoxins and for end product quality, although themonitoring 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 shellfishwhere 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 implementationof 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, maybe 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-



17/25

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 themanagement 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 thatprovision 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 genusPseudo-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



18/25

Gyrodinium-like dinoflagellatesseem to have become lesscommon 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



19/25

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 finfish 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, Consentshave 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 theScottish 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) forconsideration 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 isevidence 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



20/25

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 treatmentwill 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 aregulatory 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 thecompulsory 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



21/25

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 fishon 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 inrelation 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 implementthe guidelines given in the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries in the field of

aquaculture, in particular on the reduction of environmental impact.



22/25

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, 20 21 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, 20 22 March 2000, Institute of Marine Biology, Crete. Scottish Executive, Aberdeen, UK,

pp. 75 83.

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



23/25

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 farmsMonitoring). 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, 20 22 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), 181 193.

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.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 aqua-

culture 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 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 salarL) of fish

farm origin at West Greenland. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 54, 152 155.

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), 163 171.

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.



24/25

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

Documents

Management of Environmental Impacts of Marine Aquaculture in Europe