2.5. fisheries and aquaculture - european environment · pdf file · 2016-04-20some...

61

2.5. Fisheries and aquaculture

A complex set of driving forces has resulted inoverexploitation of most of the capture fisheries ofEurope, leading in turn to increased catches ofcompensating species. Many stocks are nowconsidered to be outside safe biological limits, andsome are in a critical state. A range of alternativemanagement regimes has been introduced, butmost of these have failed to achieve policyobjectives, primarily because the forces drivingoverexploitation have not been addressed. Indeed,government subsidies to the sector may haveexacerbated the problem.

It is this aspect of persistent chronicoverexploitation that is the greatest currentenvironmental concern. Care is also needed toensure that the current overcapacity in Europe isnot exported to other countries, either through thesale of fishing vessels or through fishingagreements with third-party countries. The newcommon fisheries policy of the EU, which enteredinto force on 1 January 2003, aims to tackle thisas well (European Commission, 2002a).

While fisheries economic production is generally indecline, aquaculture has grown dramatically,especially marine aquaculture in western Europe.The main aquaculture-related environmentalconcerns are associated with intensive cultivation ofsalmon and other marine finfish species and withtrout or carp in freshwater. Also, intensification ofaquaculture increases the demand for fish feed,which then increases fishing pressure on wild stocks.The local effects of aquaculture practices on theaquatic environment are well understood andhighly regulated and monitored in the mainproducing countries. The wider impacts on thenutrient status of receiving waters, and effects onwild populations via escapees and parasites are,however, less well understood and more difficult tomonitor and manage. In the European Union, theseconcerns should be more effectively addressed underthe water framework directive and under theEuropean Union recommendations on integratedcoastal zone management and strategicenvironmental assessment.

2.5.1. Introduction

The Food and Agriculture Organization ofthe United Nations (FAO) code of conductfor responsible fisheries, agreed by all majorcountries of the world, defines a responsiblefisheries policy as follows. It is one which

ensures ‘effective conservation, managementand development of living aquatic resourceswith due respect for the ecosystem and bio-diversity in order to provide, both forpresent and future generations, a vital sourceof food, employment, recreation, trade, andeconomic well-being for people’.

Greater integration of environmentalconcerns, and the application of the‘precautionary principle’ to fisheries andaquaculture management are key elementsof EU fisheries policy and are specificallymentioned in the EU’s plans for the reformof the common fisheries policy (CFP)(European Commission, 2002b). Most ofthese elements are reiterated in othernational, bilateral and regional agreementsand conventions. Commitments areincreasingly being made, at national,international and EU levels to a moreecosystem-based approach to fisheries andaquaculture management.

Management regimes are normally designedto control pressures (e.g. fishing capacity)and impacts through a combination ofquotas, gear controls, closed areas, and vesselrestrictions. Controls on the economicdriving forces (e.g. capping prices, sales orsalaries) are rarely considered - indeed,subsidies are often available which mayundermine other management initiatives.

Membership of international fisheriesorganisations (IFOs) (see Figure 2.5.1) givesa rough indication of a country’scommitment to fisheries management.

Membership of IFOs is high in westernEuropean (WE) and central and easternEuropean (CEE) countries but low amongthe countries of eastern Europe, theCaucasus and central Asia (EECCA). Many ofthe fisheries in EECCA are in largetransboundary inland lakes or seas (e.g.Caspian Sea, Aral Sea, Lake Peipus). It is notnecessary to form an IFO in these situations,but coordinated management is required.This is becoming more common, which isencouraging. The role of IFOs in themanagement of international fisheries isexpected to expand with increasingmonitoring and the application of sanctionsin cases of non-compliance.

Fisheries and aquaculture

kiev_eea_version.pmd 03-04-2003, 12:12 PM61

Europe’s environment: the third assessment62

90

100

110

120

130Index (1994 = 100)

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

Figure 2.5.2. Western European fisheries economicproduction index

Notes: The economic fisheries production index provides a signal of income levels derivedfrom fishing. Under the circumstances of a falling index fishermen and vessel owners are morelikely to seek to increase income from further fishing activity, while others may choose toleave the industry. The reverse is likely in a rising index. The index has been calculated usingthe first-hand value of fish catch expressed in terms of value per full-time fisherman, modifiedby the strength of the local economy, and the technological scale (power) of the local fleet,indexed against a base year of 1994. Includes only Belgium, France, Greece, Netherlands andUnited Kingdom as all required data were only available for these. 1999 data point should beapproached with caution as not all data are available for all countries.Sources: Anon, 2000 and 2001b; FAO, 2002; OECD, 2001; Eurostat New Cronos database,2002; Pacific Exchange Rate Service, no date; Anon, 2001b; World Bank, 2001

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

IBSFC

NASCO

NEAFC

GFCM

ICCAT

EIFAC

Number of members

Possible membership Membership

Figure 2.5.1. European membership of international fisheriesorganisations with a European area of operation 2002

Notes: EIFAC: European Inland Fisheries Advisory Commission. ICCAT: International Conventionfor the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna. GFCM: General Fisheries Commission for theMediterranean (responsible for the Mediterranean Sea, Black Sea and connecting waters).Georgia, the Russian Federation and Ukraine are not members of GFCM, but expertsparticipate at GFCM meetings concerning the Black Sea. NEAFC: North East Atlantic FisheriesCommission. NASCO: North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization. IBSFC: InternationalBaltic Sea Fishery Commission. Possible membership: the number of countries with fisheriesrelevant to the international fisheries organisations’ area of operation. Membership: the numberof countries that are members of the international organisation. Some EU countries are notrepresented on international organisations individually but by the European Union. Countriesrepresented by the EU are included in the number of countries counted as being ‘members’.Some countries are also members of other international fisheries organisations, which have aremit for fisheries in other areas of the world, e.g. the North West Atlantic, the Antarctic.Sources: EIFAC, GFCM, IBSFC, NEAFC, NASCO, ICCAT

2.5.2. Fisheries

2.5.2.1. Economic drivers and pressuresMost of the fisheries in Europe areoverexploited and declining catches have notreduced fishing pressures. In some cases, theprofitability of fisheries has decreased andthose with significant committed investmenthave had little choice but to fish harder to payoff their investment. This type of influence isrepresented in the fisheries economicproduction index shown in Figure 2.5.2,which suggests that income has declined inrecent years following a peak in the mid-1990s. This may elicit a variety of responsesfrom fishermen: to fish harder in order tomaintain income; to circumvent legalconstraints on fishing activity; to leave theindustry if suitable alternatives exist; or toshift to other fisheries, such as shellfisheries.Subsidies, and especially capital subsidies,have exacerbated the problem.

On a more positive note, technical advancesand improved labour productivity have, tosome extent, compensated for decliningcatches. Further, rising prices associated withdeclining catches have tended to stabiliseearnings, but these same factors can alsofacilitate and encourage substantial increasesin effort and levels of exploitation.Profitability, tradition and, in some places,lack of alternatives remain the mainincentives to invest in fishing enterprises andcontinue fishing.

The decline in the fisherieseconomic production index for the

third year running indicates theworsening economics of marine fishingin western European countries at ageneral level, and signals risingincentives to increase fishing effort andwork round control regulations in orderto maintain economic benefits atprevious levels, or to leave the industry.

One of the most commonly used indicators offishing pressure — fishing capacity measuredin terms of the combined main engine powerof the fleet — has decreased since 1990(Figure 2.5.3.). The largest reductions havebeen in the EU fleet, driven by EU fisheriespolicy and financial assistance fordecommissioning. The EECCA fleet size hasalso decreased following the collapse of manypreviously state-operated fishing enterprises.

Although some fleet capacity reductions interms of engine power have been achieved


63

0

1 000

2 000

3 000

4 000

5 000

6 000

7 000

8 000

9 000

EECCA

CEE

EFTA

EU

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

'000 kW

Figure 2.5.3.European fishing fleet power

Notes: EU includes all coastal countries. EFTA is represented in these figures by Norway andIceland only. Of the CEE countries, figures were only available for Croatia, Cyprus, Estonia,Latvia, Romania and Slovenia. EECCA includes Azerbaijan and the Russian Federation. Othercountries not included due to lack of data or absence of fishing fleet. FAO data on CEE andEECCA countries’ fleets only include information on decked vessels.

Sources: Eurostat; Anon, 2001b; Norwegian Directorate of Fisheries; FAO, 2002

in the EU, this positive influence may beneutralised by increases in fishing efficiencyor effort (for example days at sea). Muchlarger reductions are needed as a matter ofurgency to reduce overfishing. The currentprocess of reform of the CFP indicates that afurther reduction of around 40 % is stillrequired (European Commission, 2001;2002b). This will require strong political willand some measures to reduce the adverseshort-term socio-economic impacts.

The increases in the capacity of theNorwegian and Icelandic fleets suggest aworsening of the situation, but it should benoted that these changes are taking place inthe context of national managementregimes and practices that are the mostadvanced in Europe in supporting andencouraging responsible and sustainablefisheries.

Compared with the indicative policyobjectives, only modest reductions

in the capacity of the European fleet as awhole have been achieved over the pastdecade.

In the past, some of the overcapacity of theEuropean fleet, and in particular the EUfleet, has been ‘exported’ to third-partycountries, either through fishing agreements(the EU has concluded around 20 suchagreements) or through the sale of fishingvessels. This has undoubtedly increasedfishing pressure in some other parts of theworld, and may have had knock-on socio-economic effects.

2.5.2.2. Impacts of fishingThe most direct impact of fishing is theremoval of a significant proportion of targetfish populations — the catch (see Box2.5.1.). Since 1990, total landings of marinecatch have increased by 25 % (Figure 2.5.4),although longer time-series data showcatches may be returning to pre-1990 levels.This increase has occurred throughoutEurope and for most major types of fish andshellfish. Landings of many key stocks, e.g.Atlantic cod, Atlantic mackerel and blue-fintuna, have declined significantly in recentyears and alternative species have beencaught e.g. Alaskan pollock as a substitutefor cod. The overall increase in landings isdue to fishing fleets catching species thatwere not caught previously, such as industrialand deep-water species, some of which areused to underpin the growth of aquaculture(see Section 2.5.3).

Box 2.5.1. Discards and by-catch

The catch is composed not only of fish that are landed and sold, but fish thatare discarded and subsequently die, as most do, and non-targeted speciessuch as starfish, marine mammals and seabirds. These discards form a sourceof food for many scavenging sea creatures and seabirds. In fact, discards offish form a large proportion of the diet of many seabirds in the North Sea.

The level of discarding is very variable and depends on the interaction of arange of factors. High levels of discarding may occur if there are lots ofjuvenile fish in the sea. This may be due to natural fluctuations in breeding.

Discarding is affected by the net mesh size and minimum landing size (MLS)allowed. If mesh sizes are such that large numbers of fish just below the legalminimum landing size are caught, then discarding will be high. Ensuring thatregulations are complementary and do not undermine or contradict eachother can alleviate this problem.

Quotas can also affect discard rates. Low quotas mean that fishermen have todiscard all fish of a particular species once their quota for that species hasbeen fulfilled. Low quotas can also lead to ‘high grading’, whereby low-value(e.g. small or damaged) fish are discarded in the hope that higher-valueexamples can be caught in the future, in order to gain the most income from agiven quota. Other management regimes, such as that in Norway, prohibitany discarding.

Economics and market conditions can also affect the level of discards. If apreviously discarded species becomes marketable, then discards willdecrease, but overall the amount of fish caught will remain the same sincethat species is now being caught and sold instead of caught and discarded.

Illegal landings of sturgeon in the Caspian Seaare many times greater than legal landings andillegal trade in sturgeon products, especiallycaviar, continues to fuel illegal fishing. Officiallandings of sturgeon have fallen dramaticallysince 1992 (see Box 2.5.2).

The indirect and less easily observableimpacts of fishing are those on the wider




12 000 000

0

2 000 000

4 000 000

6 000 000

8 000 000

10 000 000

14 000 000 EECCACEEWETonnes

2000

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

Notes: All catches of all species in North East Atlantic Ocean (includes Baltic Sea),Mediterranean Sea and Black Sea (including the Azov Sea) and Arctic Ocean . Caspian Seaand Aral Sea not included, as these are considered to be ‘inland waters’ by FAO. WE:Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Monaco,Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom. CEE: Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania,Slovenia, Turkey, Serbia and Montenegro. EECCA: Georgia, Russian Federation, Ukraine.Other European countries not included due to either a lack of fishing activity or a lack of data.

Source: FAO Fishstat Plus, no date

Figure 2.5.4. Total landings of catch in Europe, 1990–2000 Overall, total European marinelandings have increased by 25 %

(2.4 million tonnes) since 1990.Landings of Atlantic cod, Atlanticmackerel and blue-fin tuna havedeclined in recent years, which has beencompensated for by increased catches ofAlaskan pollock, industrial and deep-water species.

Box 2.5.3. The spawning stock biomass indicator

The total biomass of spawning stock (SSB) is one of the indicators used byICES, the International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna(ICCAT) and other fisheries organisations to assess the status of fish stocks.The level of fishing mortality (F) is used in conjunction with SSB. Referencepoints for SSB and F have been established, which indicate whether a stock ishealthy or at risk of collapse.

Stocks are assessed in terms of the level that is considered to be sustainable.If SSB is too low, the stock is more likely to collapse. If fishing mortality is toohigh (i.e. too much of the stock is being removed by fishing activity), then thestock may also be more likely to collapse. The precautionary level of SSB(SSBpa) is the size of spawning stock below which management measuresshould be taken. Every effort should be made to ensure that SSB does not fallbelow this limit level (SSBlim). When SSB is below SSBlim, recruitment is likelyto be affected and the risk of stock collapse is increased.

SSBpa and SSBlim do not take fisheries economics into account. They arepurely biological reference points for sustainability against which the currentstate of the stock can be compared.

marine ecosystem, such as the effects ofremoving large quantities of fish that formthe food for other species (e.g. sand eels),removing predators (e.g. cod) or causingdisturbance to the seabed and its animalcommunities. These ecosystem impacts arepoorly understood, but may have knock-oneffects on other commercial fish species,marine mammals and seabirds. These issuesare now being intensively researched.

A recent International Council for theExploration of the Sea (ICES) workinggroup on the ecosystem effects of fishingactivity (WGECO) states that the level ofbeam trawling activity in some areas of theNorth Sea (10 or more trawls per year) maybe comparable to the effect of dredging formarine aggregate (ICES, 2002). Deep seatrawling operations off the west coasts ofScotland and Ireland are causing concerndue to their potential to damage the fragiledeep-sea coral beds in these areas. Otherenvironmental problems that may affect thesector, such as the effects of climate change,pollution and habitat destruction on fishstocks, are poorly understood. Nonetheless,it is now well established that certain organicpollutants contaminate fish to a level whereit is no longer suitable for humanconsumption.

2.5.2.3. Status of fish stocksICES considers all European stocks ofAtlantic cod and Atlantic mackerel to be atrisk, either because the spawning stockbiomass is too low (see Box 2.5.3 and Figure2.5.6), or because fishing mortality is toohigh. Stocks of eastern North Atlantic blue-fin tuna are also a cause for concern. Untilnow, more fishing has been allowed than isrecommended by scientific advice due to thelobbying influence of the fishing industry ongovernments. Only some commerciallyimportant fish stocks are monitored. ICESonly monitors stocks in the North EastAtlantic Ocean and adjacent seas such as theArctic Ocean, Baltic Sea and North Sea.Stocks in other areas such as theMediterranean Sea and Black Sea are notclosely monitored, although this isimproving. The General Fisheries Councilfor the Mediterranean (GFCM) does,however, report annually on the state of keystocks although the spatial coverage of theseassessments is limited — hake and red mulletare considered overfished whilst sardine andanchovy are within safe limits. Biologicalreference points have only been set for a fewcommercially exploited species.


65Fisheries and aquaculture

Persian sturgeon

Stellate sturgeon

Russian sturgeon

Beluga sturgeon

0

2 000

4 000

6 000

8 000

10 000

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

200

120

00

Tonnes

Sturgeon is the most valuable fish in the worldand forms an important economic component ofthe catch in the eastern Europe, the Caucasusand central Asia. The Convention on InternationalTrade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna andFlora (CITES) lists 25 of the 27 species ofsturgeon and paddlefish (‘cousins’ of sturgeon) inAppendix II of the convention, meaning thatinternational trade requires specialdocumentation. The remaining two species -including the Baltic or common sturgeon(Acipenser sturio) — are listed in Appendix I ofthe convention, which bans all international tradein these species or products derived from them(CITES, 2000).

Somewhere between 60 % and 90 % of theworld’s caviar production comes from the CaspianSea. The Caspian sturgeon fishery is split betweenfive coastal countries — the Russian Federation,Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and theIslamic Republic of Iran. The northern part of theCaspian Sea supports the major commercialstocks and it is the northernmost countries thatcatch most of the sturgeon.

Despite the general trend of increased landingsin most European fisheries, official sturgeonlandings from the Caspian Sea have fallendramatically since 1992. This decline is not dueto reduced fishing, but to a lack of available fishand to illegal landings not being included in thedata. Illegal and unrecorded landings areestimated to be approximately 10 times the legallandings. The former USSR closely controlledsturgeon fishing, banning fishing at sea andattempting to rebuild stocks with extensivehatchery and restocking programmes, but itsdissolution led to fishing restrictions being lifted

Box 2.5.2. Caspian Sea sturgeon

or not properly enforced and hatcheries beingabandoned due to lack of funding. CaspianSea sturgeon have not only been affected byfishing but have suffered greatly from pollutionand access to spawning grounds beingreduced or blocked by the construction ofhydroelectric dams across the rivers that formtheir main migratory pathways.

To tackle these problems, Azerbaijan,Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and the RussianFederation set up the Commission on CaspianAquatic Bioresources in 1992 to control thesturgeon fishery. The commission assessesstocks and sets fishing quotas, and the IslamicRepublic of Iran, where illegal fishing and tradein sturgeon is tightly monitored, undertakes asimilar process. In June 2001, the five countriesbordering the Caspian Sea agreed to build amanagement system for sturgeon stocks andto implement a commercial ban on fishing untilthe end of 2001. The authorities have alsoundertaken intensive enforcement operationsagainst poachers, seizing illegally caughtsturgeon and caviar.

Similar problems of overfishing, illegal fishing,and loss of habitat are found in the othermajor sturgeon fishing areas of the Black Sea(fished by Romanian, Bulgarian and Ukrainianfishermen) and the Azov Sea (fished byUkrainian and Russian fishermen). However,increased enforcement, cooperation withCITES, intensive scientific research, restockingprogrammes and habitat improvementprogrammes are all under way in these areas,and international cooperation among thesturgeon fishing nations and the internationalcommunity is continually improving.

Figure 2.5.5.Catch of Caspian Sea sturgeon

Notes: Data from the Russian Federation and the Islamic Republic of Iran have been combined to give sturgeon landingsfor the Caspian Sea. Landings from other countries are not included due to lack of reliable and comprehensive data.Landings of sterlet sturgeon (Acipenser ruthenus) and ship sturgeon (Acipenser nudiventris) have not been included asthey are caught in only small amounts (<2 tonnes and < 25 tonnes in any one year respectively). All landings of Persiansturgeon (Acipenser persicus) are made by the Islamic Republic of Iran. Landings do not take into account illegal/unrecorded landings.

Source: The Management Authority for Sturgeon of the Russian Federation, 2000



Figure 2.5.6. Spawning stock biomass of European Atlantic cod stocks

Source: ICES


67

Intensification of aquaculture andthe related increase in demand for

fish feed affect the fishing pressure onwild stocks. Fishing for food becomesfishing for feed.

Most European cod stocks havedeclined significantly since 1980

and most are considered to be at risk ofcollapse.

2.5.2.4. Inland fisheriesInland fisheries provide an important sourceof fish for consumption and trade, andrecreational fisheries are becomingincreasingly important economically. Inlandwaters are subject to many pressures —fishing, abstraction, pollution, aquaculture,damming, irrigation, climate change andland-use change (see Chapter 8). Althoughoverfishing may be a problem in some areas,FAO considers environmental degradation,not overexploitation of fish stocks, to be thegreatest threat to inland fisheries (FAO,1999), as in the case of the Caspian Seasturgeon (see Box 2.5.2). This reinforces theview that more integrated environmentalmanagement of watersheds is requiredespecially as demand for the utilisation ofinland waters is expected to increase.

Commercial inland fisheries catcheshave fallen by 32 % (258 000

tonnes) since 1990 while recreationalfishing is increasing. Data relating to thescale of these fisheries are very limited.

2.5.3 Aquaculture

2.5.3.1. Economic drivers and pressuresThe rapid increase in the production offarmed fish is driven by strong marketdemand, and made possible throughtechnical advances. Strong market demand isdue mainly to:

• population growth and increasedincome;

• the worldwide popularity of seafood as ahealthy food and as a luxury food;

• declining wild catches of high-value fishspecies;

• cheaper and easier international trade,transport and communications.

Total production in 2000 was just over 2million tonnes (Figure 2.5.7.). Most of theincrease during the 1990s was from marinesalmon culture in northwest Europe, and toa lesser extent trout culture (throughout WEand Turkey), sea bass and sea bream cageculture (mainly Greece and Turkey), andmussel and clam cultivation (throughoutWE). Inland aquaculture of carp (mainlycommon and silver carp) declined

0

100 000

200 000

300 000

400 000

500 000

600 000

700 000

800 000

900 000

Common, silver and bighead carps

Mussels, clams and oysters

Trout (rainbow and nei)

Salmon, seabass, seabream

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Total production (tonnes)

Figure 2.5.7.European production of major commercialaquaculture species, 1990–2000

Note: Includes all countries and production environments for which data are availableSource: FAO Fishstat Plus, no date

significantly throughout CEE, resultingpartly from political and economic changes.

Aquaculture has also been promoted inmany parts of Europe as an alternative tofisheries where these are in decline or whereother development options are limited inremote regions.

Intensive aquaculture currently depends onhigh quality pelleted feeds containing asignificant proportion of fish meal. This isboosting demand for fish meal andgenerating strong incentives to increasefishing pressure on wild stocks throughoutthe world. This pressure should beunderstood in the context of global demandand trends for fish meal and oil for animalfeeds generally.

The price of farmed marine finfish hasdeclined significantly over the past decade asproduction has increased rapidly. This hasstimulated substantial rationalisation of theindustry. The bulk of production is nowproduced by a few major multinationalenterprises. Small-scale producers find itincreasingly difficult to survive.




0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Norway

(North

and

Norweg

ian S

eas)

Scotti

sh (A

tlant

ic-

exclu

ding O

rkne

y

and S

helan

d)Iri

sh

(Atla

ntic)

Finlan

d

(Balt

ic)

Span

ish

(Atla

ntic)

Portugal

(Atla

ntic)

Mariculture nutrient discharge (% of total coastal nutrient discharge)

Total PTotal N

Figure 2.5.8.Contribution of marine and brackish water finfishculture to total anthropogenic coastal discharges inselected countries

Notes: The data on ‘other coastal nutrient discharges’ comprise riverine inputs and directdischarges as reported for 1999 in the OSPAR Study on Riverine Inputs and Direct Discharges(RID). Nutrient discharge from mariculture is estimated from production using the mid-rangeof values stated in the OSPAR report (Ospar Commission, 2000) (55g N/kg production and7.5g P/kg production). The figures for Finland are based upon the HELCOM 1998 data.Nitrogen limited to riverine discharge only (no data on direct inputs). Phosphorus discharge:average of lower and upper estimates. Total N for riverine discharge estimated as NH3-N+NO3-N. This will overestimate the relative N discharge from aquaculture. Nutrientdischarge applicable to sea areas in which the bulk of marine and/or brackish water finfishaquaculture takes place have been used. These figures do not include N and P dischargesfrom inland aquaculture production. Production figures relate to marine species only, exceptFinland, which refer to brackish water production.

Sources: FAO Fishstat Plus, no date; Jonsson and Alanara, 1998; Ospar Commission, 2000;Haugen and Englestad, 2001; Beveridge, pers. comm.; HELCOM, 1998

Marine finfish culture (mainlyAtlantic salmon) now makes a

significant contribution to nutrientdischarge in some coastal waters, butthere is no clear evidence that this hasresulted in significant undesirablechanges in the wider coastal environment.

Recent negative publicity relating tointensive farming of marine species may leadto some fall in demand and prices unless theindustry demonstrates better environmentaland product-quality management.

2.5.3.2. Environmental impactsDifferent types of aquaculture generatedifferent pressures on the environment.Intensive finfish production in marine watersand freshwater where production hasincreased most rapidly in recent yearsgenerates the greatest environmentalpressure.

For intensive finfish aquaculture in marineand brackish waters and freshwater, pressuresinclude discharge of organic matter,nutrients, chemicals and the escape ofcultured organisms, and possibly increaseddensity of pathogens. Inland pondaquaculture of carp usually requires lessintensive feeding, and in most cases a greaterproportion of the nutrients discharged are

assimilated locally. In the case of bivalvemolluscs, pressures include removal ofplankton, and local concentration andaccumulation of organic matter andmetabolites.

Nutrients, organic matter, and chemicalsdischarged from intensive cultivation offinfish have well-understood effects in theimmediate vicinity of cages or ponddischarges, but also contribute to the overallload on the inland and coastal environmentfrom agriculture, forestry, industry anddomestic waste. Wider impacts on waterquality and ecology can only be consideredin the context of this wider pressure (seeBox 2.5.4.). Figure 2.5.8 shows the relativesignificance of nutrient discharges frommarine cage culture in some importantproducing countries. Although the figuresshould be treated as indicative only, it is clearthat where aquaculture is a major industry inotherwise relatively undeveloped coastalareas, it can become the majoranthropogenic source of nutrients. This isparticularly the case within those aquaticsystems (such as fjords, sea lochs,archipelagos) most suited to aquaculture.However, this does not necessarily imply aproblem if well managed; for instanceHELCOM (Helsinki Commission) hasrecently removed the major Finnish fishfarming areas (archipelago and Åland Sea)from its list of ‘hot spots’.

The point at which the pressure from organicmatter, nutrients or chemicals triggersundesirable changes in the wider coastalenvironment, such as harmful algal blooms orother changes in ecology, is not wellunderstood. In this process, there is no clearevidence that aquaculture has contributed tosuch problems (Scottish Association forMarine Science and Napier University, 2002).Indeed, aquaculture (especially of salmonids)generally takes place in relatively pristinewaters, in which water quality historically hasremained well within environmental qualitystandards. In most cases, however, monitoringprogrammes do not sample coastal waterssystematically in relation to existing pressures.


69

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Turk

ey

Croat

ia

Bulgar

ia

Roman

ia

Cypru

s

Malt

aIta

ly

Germ

any

Portugal

Swed

en

Fran

ce

Greec

eSp

ain

Norway

Finlan

d

Irelan

d

Denm

ark

Icelan

d

Scotla

nd (U

K)

% uptake of aquaculture regulations

Box 2.5.4. Escaped fish from fish farms

Significant numbers of farmed fish escape from fish cages and may affect wildpopulations through competition, genetic change and disease transmission.The largest producer of salmon, Norway, recorded 276 000 escapes in 2000(NDF, 2000), corresponding to just under one escape per tonne produced —a ratio significantly lower than that achieved in the early 1990s. This should beseen in relation to the wild stocks numbering about 1 million wild salmon. InScotland, total recorded escapes from cages varied between 67 000 in 1998and 420 000 in 2000 (SERAD, 2002); these have been released into an areathat probably supports about 60 000 wild salmon. Salmon farming could becontributing, along with other important pressures, to the current poor stateof wild salmon and sea trout stocks. Direct indicators of competition, geneticchange or disease incidence in wild stocks are currently not available orreliable enough to illuminate these issues.

Notes: The regulations, policy and monitoring requirements for which data are available arecapacity limits, environmental quality standards, food standards, medicinal and pesticideregulation, self-testing of food and environmental quality, authority testing of food andenvironmental quality, specific aquaculture policy, national aquaculture plans, centralisedadministrative framework, established aquaculture zones, environmental impact assessmentand genetically modified organism (GMO) legislation. The percentage score refers to thepercentage of these 15 key regulatory tools that have been reported as implemented by eachcountry. The percentage is based only on those tools for which information is available foreach country. The relative figure provides an indicative value only and should therefore betreated with caution.

Source: Adapted from Fernandes et al., 2000; Christofilogiannis, 2000

Figure 2.5.9.Levels of aquaculture regulation, monitoring andpolicy in selected European countries

2.5.3.3. Environmental managementAquaculture is relatively highly regulated inWE and less well regulated elsewhere (Figure2.5.9.). Regulation is strongest in thosecountries where the growth of aquaculturehas been most rapid, suggesting thatgovernments have taken a precautionaryapproach.

However, assessment, regulation andmonitoring have been concerned mainlywith the micro-impacts of organic matter inthe immediate vicinity of farms and have notaddressed the potentially more seriousimpacts on wild fish populations and thewider environment (see Box 2.5.4.). Thesecan only be addressed throughcomprehensive monitoring and integratedmanagement of aquatic systems, takingaccount of the pressures from aquacultureand other economic activities.

Aquaculture is highly regulated inmany major producing countries,

but generally at the individual farm levelwith little attention to diffuse andcumulative impacts and few links betweenmonitoring and regulatory response.

The industry itself has responded withtechnical and management measures toreduce waste and other environmentalpressures. The efficiency of nutrientutilisation in intensive salmonid aquaculturehas increased steadily. Industry sourcessuggest that the quantity of nitrogendischarged per tonne of production hasdecreased from almost 180 kg/tonne ofproduction in the late 1970s to less than40 kg/tonne in the mid-1990s. While theseimprovements have come mainly fromimproved feed quality, future progress ismore likely to come from improved feedmanagement systems.

Intensive work is continuing to reducenutrient loads from aquaculture as inagriculture. In several European countries,closed system fish farms are in operation.While these do not directly pollute aquaticsystems, they still generate waste thatrequires careful management. Some sectorsof the industry have also responded toconsumer concern by initiating codes ofpractice and joining quality managementand organic certification schemes.

2.5.4. References

Anon, 2000. Economic performance of selectedEuropean fishing fleets annual report 2000. EUConcerted Action (FAIR PL97-3541)Promotion of Common Methods forEconomic Assessment of EU Fisheries.

Anon, 2001a. Economic and biological keyfigures from the Norwegian fisheries.Directorate of Fisheries, Norway. http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/10/05/fiskeoppdrett_en/tab-2001-08-22-02-en.html




Anon, 2001b. Icelandic fisheries in figures.Ministry of Fisheries, Iceland.

Beveridge, M., pers. comm. University ofStirling, Institute of Aquaculture.

CITES, 2000. Implementation of ResolutionConf. 8.9 (Rev.) — Acipenseriformes.Sixteenth meeting of the CITES AnimalsCommittee, USA, 11–15 December 2000.

European Commission, 2001. Green Paper onthe future of the common fisheries policy. COM(2001) 135 final.

European Commission, 2002a. Outcome ofthe Fisheries Council of 16-20 December2002. http://europa.eu.int/comm/fisheries/news_corner/press/inf02_61_en.htm

European Commission, 2002b.Communication from the Commission onthe reform of the common fisheries policy(‘roadmap’). COM(2002) 181 final. Brussels.

Eurostat New Cronos database, 2002.Agriculture and fisheries, theme 5,employment in the fishery sector. Lastupdate available: 29/01/2002.

FAO FISHSTAT Plus, no date. As available inEEA data service.

FAO, 2002. FAO Fishery Country Profiles.http://www.fao.org/fi/fcp/fcp.asp

FAO, 1999. Review of the state of world fisheryresources: Inland fisheries. FAO FisheriesCircular No 942, FIRI / C942. FAO, Rome.

Fernandes, T. F., et al., 2000. Monitoring andregulation of marine aquaculture in Europe.J. Appl. Ichthyol. 16: 138–143.

Christofilogiannis, P., 2000. Codes of practice insouthern Europe. http://www.lifesciences.napier.ac.uk/maraqua/christo.htm

Haugen, A. S. and Englestad, M., 2001. Fishfarming in tune with the environment. EwosPerspective n° 3, Norway

HELCOM (Helsinki Commission), 1998. Thethird Baltic Sea pollution compilation. Baltic SeaEnvironment Proceedings. Baltic MarineEnvironmental Protection Commission

ICES, 2002. Report of the working group onecosystem effects of fishing activities. AdvisoryCommittee on Ecosystems. ICES CM 2002/

ACE:03 Ref D,E,G. ICES Headquarters.

Jonsson, B. and Alanara, A., 1998. Svenskfiskodlings närsaltsbelastning.Vattenbruksinstitutionen. SLU Report 18. 26pages.

NDF, 2002. Key Figures from the NorwegianAquaculture Industry 2000. NorwegianDirectorate of Fisheries. Norway.http://www.fiskedir.no/english/pages/statistics/key_aqua/keyfigures_aqua_00.pdf

OECD, 2001. Review of fisheries in OECDcountries: Policies and summary statistics.OECD, Paris.

Ospar Commission, 2000. Nutrientdischarges from fish farming in the OSPARConvention area.

Pacific Exchange Rate Service, no date.http://pacific.commerce.ubc.ca/xr/

Scottish Association for Marine Science andNapier University, 2002. Review and synthesisof the environmental impacts of aquaculture.Prepared for the Scottish Executive CentralResearch Unit.

SERAD, 2001. Scottish Fish Farm AnnualProduction Survey, Scottish ExecutiveEnvironment and Rural DevelopmentDepartment. Official Aquaculture Statistics.Scotland. http://www.marlab.uk/PDFs/ProdSurvey/survey2001.pdf

The Management Authority for Sturgeon ofthe Russian Federation, 2000. Total allowablecatch (TAC) estimation for sturgeon species in theCaspian Sea. Sixteenth Meeting of the CITESAnimals Committee, Shepherdstown (UnitedStates of America) 11–15 December 2000. http://www.cites.org/eng/cttee/animals/16/16-07-2.pdf

World Bank, Economy and Finance, 2001.Theme 2: National accounts - aggregates;GDP and main aggregates; GDP and maincomponents. Last update available: 09/11/2001.


2.5. fisheries and aquaculture - european environment · pdf file · 2016-04-20some...

Documents