environmental integrity framework for marine aquaculture · aquaculture is planned and operated are...

2012Directorate: Sustainable Aquaculture Management

Environmental

Integrity

Framework

for

Marine

Aquaculture

Environmental Integrity Framework for Marine Aquaculture 2012

Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries 1

ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRITY FRAMEWORK FOR MARINE AQUACULTURE

Department of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries 2012

Environmental Integrity Fram

Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries













































Environmental Integrity Frame


ework


PREPARED FOR:

Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Private Bag X2 Roggebaai, 8001Tel: +27 (0)21 402 3911 Contact persons: Ms F. Samodien / Mr A. Njobeni

ORIGINALLY PREPARED BY:

Enviro22 Somerset StreetGrahamstown, 6140 Tel: +27 (0)46Fax: +27 (0)46Email: Contact person: Prof P. Britz

REVIEWED AND REVISED BY:

AquaEco PO Box 76245Lynnwood Ridge, 0401 Tel: +27 (0)12Fax: +27 (0)12Email: Contact person:Mr E. Hinrichsen

Edited and Reviewed Fisheries and the Department of Environmental Affairs.

Report should be cited as: Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries 2012. Environmental Integrity Framework for Marine Aquaculture. A report for the Department of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries originally produced by Enviro

work


PREPARED FOR:

Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Private Bag X2 Roggebaai, 8001Tel: +27 (0)21 402 3911 Contact persons: Ms F. Samodien / Mr A. Njobeni


Enviro22 Somerset StreetGrahamstown, 6140 Tel: +27 (0)46Fax: +27 (0)46Email: Contact person: Prof P. Britz


AquaEco PO Box 76245Lynnwood Ridge, 0401 Tel: +27 (0)12Fax: +27 (0)12Email: Contact person:Mr E. Hinrichsen


Report should be cited as: Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries 2012. Environmental Integrity Framework for Marine Aquaculture. A report for the Department of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries originally produced by Enviro

work


PREPARED FOR:


Private Bag X2 Roggebaai, 8001Tel: +27 (0)21 402 3911

Contact persons: Ms F. Samodien / Mr A. Njobeni


Enviro22 Somerset StreetGrahamstown, 6140

Tel: +27 (0)46Fax: +27 (0)46Email:

Contact person: Prof P. Britz


AquaEco

PO Box 76245Lynnwood Ridge, 0401

Tel: +27 (0)12Fax: +27 (0)12Email:

Contact person:Mr E. Hinrichsen


Report should be cited as:

Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries 2012. Environmental Integrity Framework for Marine Aquaculture. A report for the Department of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries originally produced by Enviro

work


PREPARED FOR:






Tel: +27 (0)46Fax: +27 (0)46Email:



AquaEco


Tel: +27 (0)12Fax: +27 (0)12Email:





work


PREPARED FOR:






Tel: +27 (0)46Fax: +27 (0)46Email:



AquaEco


Tel: +27 (0)12Fax: +27 (0)12Email:





work for


PREPARED FOR:






Tel: +27 (0)46Fax: +27 (0)46Email:



AquaEco


Tel: +27 (0)12Fax: +27 (0)12Email:





for


PREPARED FOR:






Tel: +27 (0)46Fax: +27 (0)46Email:



AquaEco


Tel: +27 (0)12Fax: +27 (0)12Email:





for Marine Aquaculture


PREPARED FOR:





Enviro-Fish Africa (Pty) Ltd22 Somerset StreetGrahamstown, 6140

Tel: +27 (0)46Fax: +27 (0)46Email: [email protected]



AquaEco


Tel: +27 (0)12Fax: +27 (0)12Email: [email protected]





Marine Aquaculture


PREPARED FOR:





Fish Africa (Pty) Ltd22 Somerset StreetGrahamstown, 6140

Tel: +27 (0)46Fax: +27 (0)46

[email protected]



AquaEco


Tel: +27 (0)12Fax: +27 (0)12

[email protected]





Marine Aquaculture


PREPARED FOR:






Tel: +27 (0)46Fax: +27 (0)46

[email protected]



AquaEco


Tel: +27 (0)12Fax: +27 (0)12

[email protected]





Marine Aquaculture


PREPARED FOR:






Tel: +27 (0)46Fax: +27 (0)46

[email protected]




Tel: +27 (0)12Fax: +27 (0)12

[email protected]





Marine Aquaculture


PREPARED FOR:






Tel: +27 (0)46Fax: +27 (0)46

[email protected]




Tel: +27 (0)12Fax: +27 (0)12

[email protected]





Marine Aquaculture


PREPARED FOR:






Tel: +27 (0)46Fax: +27 (0)46

[email protected]

Contact person:



Tel: +27 (0)12Fax: +27 (0)12

[email protected]





Marine Aquaculture


PREPARED FOR:






Tel: +27 (0)46 622 8241Fax: +27 (0)46

[email protected]

Contact person:


PO Box 76245 Lynnwood Ridge, 0401

Tel: +27 (0)12 807 5190Fax: +27 (0)12

[email protected]





Marine Aquaculture


PREPARED FOR:






622 8241 622 7950

[email protected]

Contact person:


Lynnwood Ridge, 0401

807 5190 807 4946

[email protected]

Contact person: Mr E. Hinrichsen




Marine Aquaculture


PREPARED FOR:


Roggebaai, 8001 Tel: +27 (0)21 402 3911




622 8241622 7950

[email protected]

Contact person:



807 5190807 4946

[email protected]

Mr E. Hinrichsen




Marine Aquaculture


PREPARED FOR:


Tel: +27 (0)21 402 3911




622 8241622 7950

[email protected]



807 5190807 4946

[email protected]




Marine Aquaculture

PREPARED FOR:


Tel: +27 (0)21 402 3911

Ms F. Samodien / Mr A. Njobeni


Fish Africa (Pty) Ltd22 Somerset Street Grahamstown, 6140

622 8241622 7950

[email protected]



807 5190807 4946

[email protected]



Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries 2012. Environmental Integrity Framework for Marine Aquaculture. A report for the Department of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries originally produced by Enviro-

Marine Aquaculture


Tel: +27 (0)21 402 3911



Fish Africa (Pty) Ltd

Grahamstown, 6140

622 8241622 7950

[email protected]



807 5190807 4946

[email protected]



Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries 2012. Environmental Integrity Framework for Marine Aquaculture. A report for the Department of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries originally

-Fish Africa (Pty.) Ltd. and revised by Aqu

Marine Aquaculture


Tel: +27 (0)21 402 3911




622 8241622 7950

[email protected]



807 5190807 4946

[email protected]




Fish Africa (Pty.) Ltd. and revised by Aqu

Marine Aquaculture


Tel: +27 (0)21 402 3911




622 8241622 7950



807 5190807 4946

[email protected]





Marine Aquaculture


Tel: +27 (0)21 402 3911




622 8241622 7950



807 5190807 4946

[email protected]





Marine Aquaculture


Tel: +27 (0)21 402 3911




622 8241 622 7950


807 5190 807 4946

[email protected]

Edited and Reviewed bFisheries and the Department of Environmental Affairs.




Marine Aquaculture






[email protected]

byFisheries and the Department of Environmental Affairs.









[email protected]

y Fisheries and the Department of Environmental Affairs.








[email protected]

Fisheries and the Department of Environmental Affairs.








[email protected]

theFisheries and the Department of Environmental Affairs.







[email protected]

theFisheries and the Department of Environmental Affairs.







[email protected]

the Fisheries and the Department of Environmental Affairs.






Fisheries and the Department of Environmental Affairs.




Department of AgricultureFisheries and the Department of Environmental Affairs.













































































Department of Agriculture




Environmental Integrity Framework for Marine Aquaculture. A report for the Department of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries originally








Department of Agriculture,

A report for the Department of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries originally

Fish Africa (Pty.) Ltd. and revised by AquaEco.

,

A report for the Department of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries originally aEco.

Forestry and


Forestry and


2012

Forestry and


2012

Forestry and


2012

Forestry and


2012

Forestry and


2012

Forestry and


Forestry and


Forestry and


Forestry and


2

Forestry and


2

Forestry and


Forestry and


Forestry and




EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Environmental Integrity Framework (EIF) for Marine Aquaculture is based on principles of

“sustainable development”, requiring the optimisation of human beneficiation and equity from the use of

natural resources, while maintaining biological diversity and protecting ecosystem function. To achieve

this, the EIF provides a framework for setting objectives, indicators, mitigation measures, monitoring

and performance standards, as the starting point for responsible and sustainable sector development.

The EIF provides a decision support tool from project level to sector level, for the planning of marine

aquaculture and for EIA’s, while serving as an information platform for new entrants, government

officials and consumers.

The legal frameworks, conventions and policies that have a direct effect on the manner in which marine

aquaculture is planned and operated are captured in the document with details pertaining to the

specific areas of application or influence.

The environmental management procedures that are typically used in South Africa to meet both the

legislative requirements and to achieve sustainability in the sector are described in detail. These

procedures include:

• Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA)

• Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)

• Biodiversity Risk Assessment

• Norms and Standards

• Marine Aquaculture Guidelines, Programmes and Permits

As the EIF provides a generic baseline for the development of marine aquaculture monitoring

programmes, the document describes the setting of monitoring objectives, how indicators are

determined, quality standards and the approach to monitoring; both at sector and project level.

To determine which aspects require monitoring, it is important to evaluate the environmental impacts

associated with marine aquaculture. The EIF makes use of an assessment methodology in which the

significance of any particular impact is scored based on the temporal scale, spatial scale, severity and

the likelihood of manifestation. This approach has been applied to potential impacts of all of the primary



marine aquaculture groups and/or species that are farmed in South Africa, including abalone, mussels,

oysters, seaweeds and marine finfish.

Grouped with the identification and prioritisation of impacts, information is provided regarding the

quality objectives related to each of these impacts, the mitigatory measures, the approach to monitoring

and the responsible parties. As marine aquaculture also results in positive impacts such as economic

growth, reduced dependence on imported seafood and skills development, these positive impacts are

discussed and must be considered in a balanced manner with potential negative impacts.

As intergovernmental and stakeholder cooperation is key to the successful implementation of the EIF,

the departments involved in marine aquaculture are identified, while a list of other stakeholders is

included. The EIF identifies the roles, responsibilities and mechanisms by which intergovernmental as

well as government-sector cooperation takes place in regards to the sector.

As both the field of environmental management and the marine aquaculture sector is dynamic and

changing, the EIF will remain flexible and will be subject to updating from time to time as further

information becomes available.



CONTENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... 3

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 10

1.1. Need for an Environmental Integrity Framework for Marine Aquaculture ....................... 10

1.2. Scope and Objectives .............................................................................................. 11

1.3. Environmental Management, Impact Evaluation and Prioritisation ................................ 13

2. LEGISLATION, CONVENTIONS AND POLICY ........................................................... 14

2.1. The Constitution (1996) ............................................................................................ 14

2.2. National Environmental Management Act (No. 107 of 1998) ........................................ 14

2.3. National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (No. 10 of 2004)........................ 15

2.4. National Environmental Management: Integrated Coastal Management Act (No. 24 of 2008) 15

2.5. National Environmental Management: Waste Act (No. 59 of 2008) ............................... 17

2.6. Marine Living Resources Act (No. 18 of 1998) ............................................................ 17

2.7. National Water Act (No. 36 of 1998) .......................................................................... 17

2.8. Animal Diseases Act (No. 35 of 1984) ........................................................................ 18

2.9. Fertilizers, Farm Feeds, Agricultural Remedies and Stock Remedies Act (No. 36 of 1947)18

2.10. Public Health Legislation ........................................................................................ 18

2.10.1. South African Health Legislation ..................................................................... 19

2.10.2. Export Standards: HACCP and ISO ................................................................ 19

2.11. Land Use Planning ................................................................................................ 20

2.12. International Obligations ........................................................................................ 20

2.13. Frameworks and Codes Relevant to Marine Aquaculture .......................................... 21

2.13.1. National Aquaculture Strategy Framework ....................................................... 21

2.13.2. South African National Industrial Policy Framework .......................................... 22

2.13.3. Code of Conduct for the Aquaculture Industry in South Africa ............................ 22

3. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES .................................................... 23

3.1. Environmental Management Procedures and Guidelines ............................................. 23

3.1.1. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) ............................................................ 23

3.1.2. Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) ........................................................ 24

3.1.3. Biodiversity Risk Assessment ............................................................................ 25

3.1.4. Norms and Standards ....................................................................................... 25

3.1.5. Marine Aquaculture Guidelines, Programmes and Permits ................................... 25

3.2. Objectives, Indicators, Quality Standards/ Performance Measures ............................... 26

3.2.1. Environmental Quality Objectives ....................................................................... 27

3.2.2. Environmental Indicators ................................................................................... 27

3.2.3. Environmental Quality Standards/ Performance Measures ................................... 27

3.3. Environmental Monitoring ......................................................................................... 29

3.3.1. Principles of Monitoring ..................................................................................... 29

3.3.2. Recommended Environmental Monitoring Procedures ......................................... 31

3.4. Evaluating Environmental Impacts of Marine Aquaculture ............................................ 32

4. CONTEXT OF IMPACTS AND MANAGEMENT ........................................................... 35

4.1. Global Overview ...................................................................................................... 35

4.2. South African Overview ............................................................................................ 36

5. MANAGEMENT APPROACH BY SPECIES / SECTOR ................................................. 38

5.1. Abalone Culture Impacts and Environmental Management .......................................... 38

5.1.1. Sector Profile ................................................................................................... 38

5.1.2. Destruction of indigenous vegetation and habitat loss .......................................... 39

5.1.3. Impact on Public Amenity Value of the Coast ...................................................... 40

5.1.4. Public Safety .................................................................................................... 41



5.1.5. Genetic Impacts – Shore Based Abalone Culture ................................................ 42

5.1.6. Genetic Impacts – Ranching .............................................................................. 43

5.1.7. Effluents .......................................................................................................... 44

5.1.8. Kelp Harvest .................................................................................................... 46

5.1.9. Disease ........................................................................................................... 47

5.2. Mussel Culture Impacts and Environmental Management ............................................ 49

5.2.1. Sector Profile ................................................................................................... 49

5.2.2. Enrichment of Sediments with Organic Matter ..................................................... 49

5.2.3. Reduction of Available Phytoplankton ................................................................. 50

5.2.4. Spread of Exotic Spanish Mussels ..................................................................... 51

5.2.5. Exclusive Spatial Use ........................................................................................ 52

5.3. Oyster Culture Impacts and Environmental Management ............................................ 53

5.3.1. Sector Profile ................................................................................................... 53

5.3.2. Nutrient dynamics ............................................................................................. 54

5.3.3. Spatial Use ...................................................................................................... 54

5.3.4. Establishment of Feral Oyster Populations .......................................................... 55

5.3.5. Introduction of Diseases and Parasites ............................................................... 56

5.3.6. Accidental Introduction of Pest Species .............................................................. 57

5.4. Seaweed Culture Impacts and Environmental Management ........................................ 58

5.4.1. Sector Profile ................................................................................................... 58

5.4.2. Exclusive Spatial Use ........................................................................................ 59

5.4.3. Genetics impacts .............................................................................................. 59

5.4.4. Terrestrial impacts ............................................................................................ 60

5.5. Marine Finfish Impacts and Environmental Management ............................................. 61

5.5.1. Sector Profile ................................................................................................... 61

5.5.2. Feed waste and fish faeces ............................................................................... 62

5.5.3. Anti-fouling products for cages ........................................................................... 68

5.5.4. Medication, antibiotics and pesticide ................................................................... 69

5.5.5. Genetic Impact of Escapees on Wild Populations ................................................ 71

5.5.6. Pathogens and Parasites .................................................................................. 72

5.5.7. Interaction with Large Marine Fauna – Cage culture ............................................ 74

5.5.8. Social and Spatial Conflicts Related to Cages ..................................................... 75

5.5.9. Human Health Issues ........................................................................................ 76

6. POSITIVE IMPACTS OF MARINE AQUACULTURE ..................................................... 78

6.1. Increased Supply of Fish .......................................................................................... 78

6.2. Reduced imports and outflow of currency ................................................................... 78

6.3. Alleviate Pressure on Wild Stocks ............................................................................. 79

6.4. Stock Enhancement, Restocking and Sea Ranching ................................................... 79

6.5. Enhanced Local Productivity ..................................................................................... 79

6.6. Economic Growth .................................................................................................... 80

6.7. Black Economic Empowerment ................................................................................. 80

6.8. Associated Economic Activity .................................................................................... 80

6.9. New Skills and Technology Development ................................................................... 81

7. ORGANISATIONAL ARRANGEMENTS..................................................................... 82

7.1. Key Organisational Structures ................................................................................... 82

7.2. Coordination between Government Departments ........................................................ 83

7.3. Provincial Departments ............................................................................................ 83

7.4. National Departments .............................................................................................. 88

7.5. Key Parastatal and Non-Government Stakeholders .................................................... 90

8. REFERENCES ..................................................................................................... 94



ACRONYMS

AASA Aquaculture Association of Southern Africa

AFASA Abalone Farmers Association of South Africa

AU African Union

AIF Aquaculture Intergovernmental Forum

ASC Aquaculture Stewardship Council

AVCRT Aquaculture Value Chain Roundtable Forum

BCLME Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem

BA Basic Assessment

BEE Black Economic Empowerment

CA Competent Authority

DEA Department of Environmental Affairs

DEAT Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism

DEA&DP Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning

DEDEA Department of Economic Development and Environmental Affairs

DED&T Department of Economic Development and Tourism

DAFF Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries

DoH Department of Health

DST Department of Science and Technology

DTI Department of Trade and Industry

DWAF Department of Water Affairs and Forestry

ECDC Eastern Cape Development Corporation

ECPB Eastern Cape Parks Board

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

EIF Environmental Integrity Framework

EMPr Environmental Management Programme

EU European Union

FAO Food & Agriculture Organization

FPE Fish Processing Establishment

GAA Global Aquaculture Alliance

GAP Global Good Agricultural Practises

GESAMP Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection

HACCP Hazard Analysis & Critical Control Points



ICES International Council for the Exploration of the Sea

ICMA Integrated Coastal Management Act (No. 24 of 2008)

IDP Integrated Development Plan

IDZ Industrial Development Zone

ISEAL International Social and Environmental Accreditation and Labelling Alliance

ISO International Standards Organization

IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature

KZN KwaZulu-Natal

MAIL Marine Aquaculture Industry Liaison

MAWG Marine Aquaculture Working Group

MFFASA Marine Finfish farmers Association of South Africa

MLRA Marine Living Recourses Act (No. 18 of 1998)

MOM Modelling - Ongrowing fish farms - Monitoring

NASF National Aquaculture Strategic Framework

NAMC National Agricultural Marketing Council

NEM:BA National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act (No.10 of 2004)

NEM:WA National Environmental Management: Waste Act (No. 59 of 2008)

NEMA National Environmental Management Act (No. 107 of 1998)

NEPAD New Partnership for Africa's Development

NRCS National Regulator for Compulsory Specifications

NSF National science Foundation

NWA National Water Act (No. 36 of 1998)

OIE Office International des Epizooties

ORI Oceanographic Research Institute

PAIF Provincial Aquaculture Intergovernmental Forum

S&EIR Scoping and Environmental Impact Report

SAAMBR South African Association for Marine Biological Research

SADC Southern African Development Community

SAIAB South African Institute for Aquatic Biodiversity

SANBI South African National Biodiversity Institute

SANPARKS South Africa National Parks

SANCOR South African Network for Coastal and Oceanic Research

SASSI South African Sustainable Seafood Initiative

SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment



SDF Spatial Development Framework

SDP Spatial Development Framework

TNPA Transnet National Ports Authority

WAS World Aquaculture Society

WCADI Western Cape Aquaculture Development Initiative

WCPSDF Western Cape Provincial Spatial Development Framework

WHO World Health Organisation

WTO World Trade Organisation

WWF-SA World Wide Fund for Nature South Africa



1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Need for an Environmental Integrity Framework for Marine Aquaculture

“Sustainable development”1 is now a globally accepted norm which aims to optimise the social and

economic benefits arising from the use of natural resources, while protecting biological diversity and

maintaining ecosystem function. This concept is central to South Africa’s environmental policies, which

inform decision making about the use and management of natural resources. In the context of marine

aquaculture, it informs the National Aquaculture Strategic Framework (DAFF, 2011), which aims to

accelerate environmentally sustainable sector development.

“Environmental equity” is a guiding principle underpinning the “sustainable development” philosophy,

and means that the quality of life of future generations should not be compromised through

environmental degradation. In the South African context, environmental equity includes an element of

redress for the inequalities of the past. Therefore, decisions regarding the use of natural resources

must be based on equitable distribution of benefits and socio-economic upliftment of disadvantaged

communities. Environmental management is therefore not only about defining and measuring biological

limits or sustainability, but must consider the goals, values and needs of people and society. If scarce

environmental assets such as water and land are to be zoned for aquaculture, the socio-economic

benefit thereof needs to be demonstrated in context to competing uses and the maintenance of

environmental integrity.

In South Africa, the concept of sustainable development is given substance through a suite of

environmental legislation, regulations and guidelines. In the multi-use coastal zone, sustainable

development is achieved by means of integrated coastal management, which forms the basis for South

Africa’s National Environmental Management: Integrated Coastal Management Act (Act No. 24 of

2008).

1 FAO (1988) defines “Sustainable Development” as: "the management and conservation of the natural

resource base and the orientation of technological and institutional change in such a manner as to

ensure the attainment and continued satisfaction of human needs for present and future generations.

Such development conserves land, water, plant and genetic resources, is environmentally non-

degrading, technically appropriate, economically viable and socially acceptable".



Marine aquaculture depends on environmental quality for efficient production and product health and, if

not properly managed, can impact on the environment. Internationally, many examples exist of poorly

planned and unregulated aquaculture practises that have caused negative environmental effects. This

has led to the development of environmental management plans and protocols to ensure that

aquaculture meets the objectives of sustainable development (GESAMP, 1996, Fletcher et al., 2004;

Hambrey et al., 2004; IUCN, 2007, ISEAL Alliance, 2009; WWF, 2009). Furthermore, consumer

demand for safe products has resulted in the determination of production and product standards, which

increasingly require demonstration of tangible environmental sustainability.

In order to give effect to South Africa’s environmental legislation, and to meet the requirements for

product standards, government and industry need to manage aquaculture in a sustainable manner. If

the sustainability of marine aquaculture is to be demonstrated, it is necessary to measure the industry’s

performance. This requires a clear definition of environmental objectives for each context (biological,

social and economic), along with indicators which can be measured using performance standards.

It was within this context that the present EIF was compiled as a comprehensive environmental

management framework for the marine aquaculture sector. The environmental objectives, indicators

and performance standards should be seen as a starting point for the development of practical and

effective protocols.

1.2. Scope and Objectives

The EIF is a framework for managing the environmental aspects of the entire marine aquaculture

sector and does not represent an environmental risk assessment template or a project specific

Environmental Management Programme (EMPr), as defined in the EIA regulations. It is based on an

integrated, practical approach to managing marine aquaculture, fashioned around similar frameworks

developed in countries such as Norway and Australia (GESAMP, 1996; Fletcher et al., 2004).

The EIF aims to be applicable in a number of manners, including:

• As a decision support system for planning marine aquaculture initiatives

• As a tool to assist in the Environmental Impact Assessment process by providing guidance for

the planning of operations and on-going environmental monitoring requirements



• As a source of information for new applicants when compiling their applications to engage in

marine aquaculture

• As a proactive indicator of certain opportunities and constraints for development

• As a source of information that can be used by consumers to determine the marine

aquaculture industry’s environmental footprint

This EIF is sensitive to marine aquaculture related environmental matters at three spatial levels, these

being:

• Industry (national) matters, e.g. wild fish population genetics

• Regional matters, e.g. carrying capacity of bays or the zonation of areas for marine

aquaculture

• Site and project specific matters, e.g. nutrient levels in farm effluents or parasite and pathogen

prevalence

Although the EIF focuses on industry matters, the hierarchical approach above makes it possible to

assess and manage the environmental effects of the sector at the regional and whole industry scale,

while finding use for the framework in the design of on-farm management protocols appropriate to the

location and context of an individual operation.

Increasingly government is obligated to report the extent to which environmental sustainability is being

achieved. This EIF will facilitate the development of such reports, by providing a baseline framework

thereto.

In terms of social wellbeing, the EIF provides a framework by which to promote and assess the social

impacts of marine aquaculture, which include:

• Transformation – particularly how the sector affects and/or benefits previously disadvantaged

communities in coastal areas

• Community wellbeing – particularly the community dependence and community outlook

towards marine aquaculture

• National wellbeing – particularly the manner in which the sector contributes to national issues

such as employment, supply of fish, economic returns, reductions in trade deficit and more



Following on from the identification of management and monitoring of impacts, the EIF identifies the

roles and responsibilities of government authorities at national, provincial and local level, and the

arrangements for cooperative governance in relation to the marine aquaculture sector.

1.3. Environmental Management, Impact Evaluation and Prioritisation

Of paramount importance to the functionality of the EIF is the identification and prioritisation of potential

environmental impacts.

Each of the primary marine aquaculture sub-sectors in South Africa is identified in Section 5 in context

to the relevant environmental matters that are important in each particular case. As there are various

matters of varying management importance associated with each sub-sector, they are categorised and

prioritised using an impact assessment matrix (Section 3.4). Based on the assessed environmental

impacts, a management strategy is recommended. These range from industry level planning initiatives,

such as a strategic environmental assessment, to the identification of optimal sites for cage culture and

to farm level effluent standards and monitoring protocols.

Environmental management is a dynamic and consultative process. Hence, the environmental matters,

potential impacts and management strategies identified in this EIF will evolve as consultation with all

industry stakeholders continues and as new information comes to light.



2. LEGISLATION, CONVENTIONS AND POLICY

South Africa’s marine aquaculture sector is subject to various laws, policies and international

agreements. The Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF) is mandated to formulate

policy, guidelines and protocols related to fisheries and aquaculture. Where necessary, the DAFF

works cooperatively with other government authorities whose legislative mandates may affect

aquaculture. The foremost laws and conventions that determine the environmental management

requirements of the marine aquaculture sector are summarised below.

2.1. The Constitution (1996)

The Constitution of 1996 entrenches the right of all South African to an environment that is not harmful

to their health or well-being, and to have the environment protected for the benefit of present and future

generations. These objectives are given substance by means of the environmental legislation

discussed hereafter.

2.2. National Environmental Management Act (No. 107 of 1998)

The cornerstone of South Africa’s environmental management legislation is the National Environmental

Management Act, (No. 107 of 1998) (NEMA). Among many aspects related to the environment, Section

28 of the Act deals with the duty of care that each person has towards the maintenance of a

sustainable environment. NEMA also outlines the principles for integrated environmental management,

which has led to the development of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations (R543,

R544, R545 and R546 of 2010, with due consideration of subsequent amendments). At present a

number of marine aquaculture related activities trigger the requirement for an environmental

authorisation in terms of NEMA and the EIA Regulations. Greater detail pertaining to these activities

and the EIA process can be found in the EIA and Environmental Management Guideline for

Aquaculture in South Africa (Department of Environmental Affairs, Pretoria, 2012).



2.3. National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (No. 10 of 2004)

The complementary National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (No. 10 of 2004) (NEM:BA),

has a significant influence on marine aquaculture as it prescribes specific procedures for the

management and culture of exotic organisms and the protection and restrictions pertaining to the

farming of endangered or threatened species.

Where the introduction of an exotic species for aquaculture is proposed, NEM:BA (through the Alien

and Invasive Species Regulations – GN No R. 69 of 2008) requires that a risk assessment be

completed to determine the environmental implications of culturing such an exotic species.

Where the introduction of an endangered or threatened species for aquaculture is proposed, NEM:BA

(through the Threatened or Protected Species Regulations) requires that certain authorisation

procedures be followed.

The authorisations in terms of NEM:BA are complementary but independent of the requirement for

environmental authorisation in terms of NEMA.

2.4. National Environmental Management: Integrated Coastal Management Act (No. 24 of 2008)

The Integrated Coastal Management Act (No. 24 of 2008) (ICMA), provides for a system of integrated

coastal and estuarine management in South Africa, including norms, standards and policies to promote

the conservation of the coastal environment and to ensure that the development and use of the coastal

zone is socially and economically justifiable and ecologically sustainable. The Act defines rights and

duties in relation to the coastal zone as well as the responsibilities of organs of state in relation to coastal

areas.



The ICMA has repealed the Sea Shore Act (No. 21 of 1935), although not it its entirety. Access to sea

space (including lease of sea space) is dealt with in terms of Section 3(1) of the Sea Shore Act (No. 21

of 1935) and as mandated to the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA)2.

The ICMA provides for the following pertinent aspects related to marine aquaculture:

• The Minister may declare “special management areas” to promote sustainable livelihoods for a

coastal community. This could be applied to state owned coastal land for aquaculture

development

• The ICMA makes provision for Coastal Zoning Schemes, which define areas in the coastal zone

which may be used exclusively or mainly for specified purposes or activities. Aquaculture could

be declared as such an activity

• Provision for the repair or removal of structures in the coastal zone. This would apply to

aquaculture structures either land- or sea-based

• Provision for the implementation of land use legislation in the coastal zone

• Provision for leases and concessions in coastal public property, including coastal waters. Such a

lease may allow for the exclusive or specific use of water. This effectively allows for the zonation

and lease of coastal land and/or waters for aquaculture (refer above to un-repealed sections of

the Sea Shore Act). Due consideration should also be given to the lease of space for marine

aquaculture in port areas, which is subject to the Transnet National Ports Authority and the

National Ports Act (No. 12 of 2005)

• Provision for the authorisation of discharge of effluent into coastal waters and provision for

consultation with the Minister of Water Affairs related to estuarine discharges

• Provision for various Regulations related to the monitoring of the coastal environment, the

manner in which applications should be made for the lease of coastal public property and the

mandated authorities

• Provision for access to information. The Minister must make sufficient information available to the

public concerning the protection and management of the coastal zone

2 Note that the traversing of pipelines across a shoreline for water intake or outfall, regardless of

whether such pipelines are subterranean, may require authorisation in terms of the ICMA, the Sea

Shore Act (No. 21 of 1935) or provincial ordinances that mandate provincial authorities in this regard.



2.5. National Environmental Management: Waste Act (No. 59 of 2008)

The National Environmental Management: Waste Act, 2008 (No. 59 of 2008) (NEM: WA) governs,

amongst others, waste minimisation, recovery, re-use, recycling, treatment, disposal and integrated

waste management. A number of listed waste management activities have been promulgated in

Government Notice 718 (2009) and require authorisation by means of either a BA or a S&EIR process

as contemplated in the EIA regulations. Although few of these listed waste management activities are

directly applicable to aquaculture, the onus to fully investigate all the waste activities remains that of the

aquaculture proponent. Such a waste authorisation may be required for the treatment and/or on-site

disposal of aquaculture wastes.

2.6. Marine Living Resources Act (No. 18 of 1998)

Section 18 of the Marine Living Resources Act (No. 18 of 1998) (MLRA) provides for the granting of a

compulsory “right” to engage in marine aquaculture. Permission to exercise such a “right” is granted by

means of a permit issued in terms of Section 13 of the MLRA.

As the MLRA was primarily designed to regulate fisheries, it is silent on certain principles and

conditions governing marine aquaculture. Chapter 6 of the Act however covers the requirement for

applications, general permit conditions, environmental impacts, genetically modified organisms, EIA’s,

food safety issues, use of chemicals and notifiable diseases. Access to sea space (including lease) is

however dealt with in terms the Sea Shore Act as indicated above and as mandated to the Department

of Environmental Affairs (DEA).

In response to the MLRA and related legislation, the DAFF have developed comprehensive guidelines,

food safety programmes and permit frameworks to allow, guide and regulate marine aquaculture

projects in compliance related matters. These are contained in Section 3.1.5.

2.7. National Water Act (No. 36 of 1998)

The sea is not recognized as water resource in terms of the National Water Act (No. 36 of 1998) (NWA)

and therefore the extraction of seawater onto land does not require any authorisation in terms of the

NWA. However, once seawater is extracted a number of secondary activities that are identified in the



NWA may be triggered and may require authorisation. These range from the storage of water

(regardless of origin), discharging waste or water containing waste into a water resource (including

discharge into the sea) and others. Any uncertainty regarding the requirement for authorisation in terms

of the NWA should be discussed with the Department of Water Affairs.

2.8. Animal Diseases Act (No. 35 of 1984)

Marine aquaculture is recognised as an agricultural activity and hence the State Veterinary Services have

a mandate to protect the industry in terms of the Animal Diseases Act (No. 35 of 1984)3, as amended by

the Animal Diseases Amendment Act No. 18 of 1991). The Act includes various measures for the

control and management of disease.

2.9. Fertilizers, Farm Feeds, Agricultural Remedies and Stock Remedies Act (No. 36 of 1947)

The Fertilizers, Farm Feeds, Agricultural Remedies and Stock Remedies Act (No. 36 of 1947) requires

that all processed animal feeds and stock remedies (therapeutants) meet certain specifications and are

registered for use in farming. In this regard, fish feeds must meet certain minimum specifications and the

minimum proximal composition must be declared on the packaging.

2.10. Public Health Legislation

Aquaculture products destined for human consumption are subject to South African and international

legislation which is designed to guarantee the safety of marine aquaculture products.

3 Note that the Animal Diseases Act recognises and applies to fish, but does not legally recognise

invertebrate aquaculture organisms. The Animal Health Act, which was not promulgated at the time of

publication for the EIF, specifically recognises invertebrate organisms also.



2.10.1. South African Health Legislation

The processing of fishery products and shellfish is governed by:

• The DAFF (under the Marine Living Resources Act (No. 18 of 1998)

• The Department of Health (under the National Health Act (No. 63 of 1977)

• Local authorities (under the Municipal Structures Act (No. 117 of 1998) in cooperation with the

National Regulator of Compulsory Standards (NRCS), who is the appointed body for

administering the various Compulsory Standard Specifications for fishery products in South

Africa. Moreover the NRCS is the recognised competent authority in health related matter by

certain countries for the trade and export of fisheries products

The transport, depuration and wet storage of shellfish requires authorisation from the DAFF in conjunction

with the local health authority as indicated above. Land-based wet storage facilities and depuration plants

must obtain a Certificate of Acceptability for food premises from the local health authority as per

Regulations 918 under the Health Act (No. 63 of 1977). An establishment that packs or processes

molluscs must also be licensed by the DAFF in cooperation with the NRCS (for canned or frozen

products) and/or the local health authorities (for live and chilled products). Such establishments will be

licensed only when the operator can produce a Certificate of Acceptability for the establishment in terms

of Regulation 918 of the Health Act and which is not older than 3 months.

2.10.2. Export Standards: HACCP and ISO

The NRCS is accredited as the competent authority to audit the application of standards [mainly

HACCP (Hazard Analysis Critical and Control Points) and ISO (International Standards Organization)

standards] for the export of products to the European Union and other countries. It also issues health

certificates for products such as abalone, which are exported to Asian countries.

The NRCS is the responsible agent for monitoring and auditing the application of HACCP standards,

which guarantee the health of food products through the whole production process. In the case of

marine aquaculture, the NRCS certifies live abalone, fresh, frozen and canned products. The HACCP

process includes the entire production process from the live production facilities to the processing

plant. The NRCS has negotiated an auditable aquaculture CODEX of on-farm practices acceptable to

the European Union, which it applies to HACCP systems in marine aquaculture. The NRCS makes use



of complimentary agents such as the DAFF and the state veterinarians to provide guarantees in

respect of specialised analyses in areas such as the monitoring of shellfish toxins and anti-biotic

residues in fish.

ISO standards are currently not widely used in marine aquaculture.

2.11. Land Use Planning

Land use planning and zoning is a provincial mandate that is carried out in terms of the legislation

below. The planning and development of land based marine aquaculture may thus require authorisation

or rezoning in terms of these provincial laws:

• Northern Cape: Northern Cape Planning and Development Act (No. 7 of 1998)

• Western Cape: Western Cape Planning and Development Act (No. 7 of 1999)

(Western Cape Land Use Planning Bill, 2012)

• Eastern Cape: Land Use Management Act, 2005

• KwaZulu-Natal: Kwazulu-Natal Planning and Development Act (No. 6 of 2008)

Take note that the Communal Land Rights Act (No. 112 of 2004) may also affect coastal aquaculture

development in certain areas where communal land rights exist. In addition to this, new National

legislation related to land use planning will be promulgated in due course.

2.12. International Obligations

The following international codes and conventions have a direct effect on marine aquaculture in South

Africa. There is however a number of additional codes, international agreements and more that are not

discussed in this EIF.

• FAO and related Codes of Conduct, including:

o The FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (Aquaculture Development)

(1995)

o The FAO Technical Guideline on Aquaculture Certification (2011)



• Convention on Biological Diversity (1992):

South Africa is a signatory to the Convention on Biological Diversity, known also as the

Biodiversity Convention. South Africa’s National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act

is aligned with the Convention and the Convention influences the international trade of

threatened and protected species such as Abalone (Haliotis midae).

• The OIE Aquatic Animal Health Code (2010):

As a signatory to the World Trade Organisation (WTO), South Africa is bound to the Aquatic

Animal Health Code issued by the Office International des Epizooties (OIE), which includes

standards and conditions related to matters such as biosecurity, certification, reporting and

more. In this regard certain infectious diseases (also referred to as the OIE listed diseases) are

notifiable by law and the nearest State Veterinarian must be informed immediately.

• The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) Codes of Practice on the

Introduction and Transfer of Marine Organisms (2004)

• The Protocol on Fisheries (2008) of the Southern African Development Community (SADC)

2.13. Frameworks and Codes Relevant to Marine Aquaculture

2.13.1. National Aquaculture Strategy Framework

The National Aquaculture Strategy Framework (NASF) sets out to provide a harmonised national

direction and scope for achievable government and private sector interventions, towards achieving

goals that facilitate and lead to the removal of constraints and create a pragmatic, enabling

environment for developing an equitable, diverse, viable, competitive and sustainable aquaculture

sector. In this, the NASF envisions to support the development of a sustainable and competitive

aquaculture sector that meaningfully contributes to transformation, wealth creation and employment

through a diversity of production systems that produces safe, nutritious and affordable food while

ensuring the environmental services required for securing its future.

The NASF identifies aquaculture as a government priority and sets out principles such as the creation

of a pragmatic and harmonised regulatory framework, effective government coordination and the

development of human capacity (amongst others). These principles are expanded upon by clear

strategies and the allocation of responsibilities; both to government and aquaculture sector participants.



Contained in the detail of the NASF is the development of a sustainable aquaculture sector that should

incorporate appropriate environmental principals, while maintaining responsible environmental norms.

2.13.2. South African National Industrial Policy Framework

The Department of Trade and Industry’s (DTI) National Industrial Policy Framework is intended to

provide industrial incentives to priority sectors with growth potential. Aquaculture has been identified as

a “priority” sector and a new set of sector specific support measures is being developed by the DTI in

collaboration with the DAFF.

2.13.3. Code of Conduct for the Aquaculture Industry in South Africa

This Code is intended to provide guidance for marine aquaculture development in the interests of

promoting ecologically and economically sound and sustainable practices and assurance of product

quality. It aims to promote the management of a viable South African marine aquaculture sector in

order to assure a high standard of quality for farmed aquatic animals, while remaining sensitive to

environmental considerations and consumer demands. This Code of Conduct is in line with

international best practice and is based on the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (DAFF

2009).



3. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES

Government departments make use of a number of Integrated Environmental Management

tools/procedures to give effect to their respective legislative mandates. South Africa is fortunate in that

its aquaculture sector is a relatively young in global terms, and therefor benefits from effective

environmental management procedures and plans that have been implemented successfully elsewhere

in the world.

In this section, the environmental management tools / procedures applicable to marine aquaculture are

briefly described. This is followed by a recommended approach to marine aquaculture environmental

management, based on international procedures for identifying impacts, defining environmental

management objectives, assessing these environmental impacts and defining the required

environmental management and monitoring requirements.

3.1. Environmental Management Procedures and Guidelines

A range of environmental management procedures are applied in the management of the marine

aquaculture sector. These are based on the integrated environmental management principles that

inform NEMA, and may be applied to manage ecological, social or economic effects of aquaculture -

whether positive or negative.

3.1.1. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)

South Africa has well developed environmental impact assessment regulations and procedures

promulgated in the EIA regulations in terms of NEMA. The EIA process evaluates the positive and

negative environmental impacts (social, economic and ecological) of a specific project/development,

once it has been formulated and solicits inputs from interested and affected parties. It incorporates the

consideration of alternatives and the development of mitigation measures so as to provide adequate

planning and information for authorities to make an informed decision regarding the allowance of

development. Where environmental issues require on-going management, a project specific

environmental management programme (EMPr) is compiled to ensure that the activities are conducted

in a sustainable manner.



In terms of the EIA regulations the assessment for environmental authorisation can be conducted either

by means of a Basic Assessment (BA) process or a full Scoping and Environmental Impact Reporting

(S&EIR) exercise, depending on the scale and potential impact of the proposed operation. For marine

aquaculture, the respective scales that trigger the need for these processes is 20 to 200 tons per

annum (triggering the need for BA) and over 200 tons per annum (triggering the need for S&EIR). The

cut off levels for sea based cage culture is however 50 and 100 tons per annum respectively.

Cognisance must however be given to the fact that a marine aquaculture operation may trigger

additional activities listed in the EIA regulations, for which authorisation may be required. The

expansion of existing facilities also require environmental authorisation.

More information related to the EIA processes for marine aquaculture can be obtained from the EIA and

Environmental Management Guideline for Aquaculture in South Africa (Department of Environmental

Affairs, Pretoria, 2012).

3.1.2. Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)

While the EIA focuses on individual projects, there are a number of strategic decisions that are typically

made at the planning, programming and policy level that influence the nature of development. In this

regard, Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) is used to determine the environmental implications

of policies, plans and programmes. In using SEA, decision makers can proactively determine the most

suitable and sustainable development type for a particular area, before development proposals are

formulated. Moreover, integrated sustainability concepts (in the environmental, social and economic

spheres) can be built into all levels of policy and planning by means of SEA. General SEA guidelines

have been published by the Department of Environmental Affairs.

The SEA is a particularly useful instrument for creating a sustainable marine aquaculture sector in

South Africa given that the sector is young and subject to the development of new regional plans based

on integrated and sustainable development policies.

A primary cause of environmental impact and resource conflict is ad hoc development, resulting in poor

location of aquaculture ventures. The use of SEA enables a pro-active, strategic approach to

aquaculture development and can predetermine suitable sites (nodes or zones) in which resource

conflict is likely to be low and where complimentary benefits from clustered service provision is

possible. This nodal approach has been adopted by the DAFF in its mariculture policies and strategies.



3.1.3. Biodiversity Risk Assessment

The draft Alien and Invasive Species Regulations promulgated in terms of the National Environmental

Management: Biodiversity Act, determines the need for biodiversity risk assessments in the

authorisation for the use of exotic or extralimital species. The risk assessment process involves the

determination of biodiversity and related impacts and the mitigation, management and monitoring

procedures that will be required when new species are considered for marine aquaculture.

3.1.4. Norms and Standards

Section 24(2)(d) of the NEMA includes an enabling provision that allows for the exclusion of activities

requiring environmental authorisation based on norms or standards, while Section 24(10) of the Act

includes an enabling provision for the development of such norms and standards. As South African

aquaculture develops and industry based norms and standards are developed, the opportunity will arise

to have such norms and standards officially recognised, which may lead to less onerous authorisation

processes. Norms and standards for aquaculture were being drafted at the time of publication of the

EIF.

3.1.5. Marine Aquaculture Guidelines, Programmes and Permits

To promote the sustainable development of the marine aquaculture sector and to assist with

compliance to legal frameworks such as the MLRA, the DAFF have published comprehensive

guidelines, food safety programmes and permit frameworks to guide and regulate marine aquaculture

projects (www.nda.agric.za/doaDev/fisheries/03_areasofwork/social.html#AEC). These documents are

updated from time to time and include:

• Guidelines

- Guidelines and Requirements on Applying for a Marine Aquaculture Right

- Guidelines for Aquaculture Better Management Practices in South Africa

- Guidelines for Marine Finfish Farming in South Africa

- Guideline for Ornamental Fish Farming in South Africa

- General Guidelines for Marine Ranching and Stock Enhancement in South Africa

- Guidelines and Potential Areas for Marine Ranching and Stock Enhancement of

Abalone (Haliotis midae) in South Africa



• Food Safety Programmes

- South Africa Molluscan Shellfish Monitoring and Control Programme

• Permits

- Permit for the local sale of undersized cultured abalone

- Permit to operate a marine aquaculture fish processing establishment (FPE)

- Import and export permits for marine aquaculture fish and fish products and marine

ornamentals

- Permit to engage in marine aquaculture activity (e.g. grow out, nursery, hatchery)

- Permit to collect and possess broodstock for the purpose of marine aquaculture

- Permit to undertake marine aquaculture scientific investigations and practical

experiments

- Permit to transport marine aquaculture products

- Permit to seed abalone for ranching

- Permit to harvest ranched abalone

The DAFF achieves direct environmental management through these permit frameworks by means of

setting permit conditions under which each marine aquaculture facility operates. Permits represent the

culmination of the environmental management process where marine aquaculture policy, legislation,

regulations, guidelines, EIA recommendations and EMPr requirements are translated into specific,

legally binding conditions. Importantly, permits are also used to obtain information on performance from

producers, which enable the DAFF to monitor the sector status.

3.2. Objectives, Indicators, Quality Standards/ Performance Measures

In order to demonstrate that marine aquaculture is being carried out in an environmentally sustainable

manner, it is necessary to monitor the performance of the industry against well-defined and measurable

environmental objectives, suitable indicators and quality standards or performance measures

(GESAMP, 1996; Fletcher et. al., 2004). The following sections briefly define these objectives,

standards and measures in terms of the information in GESAMP, 1996 and Fletcher et. al., 2004.



3.2.1. Environmental Quality Objectives

Environmental Quality (or sustainability) Objectives are management instruments used to provide for

the equitable use of the aquatic resource and to safeguard the natural environment. To be effective, the

objective that is chosen needs to have a direct and practical interpretation in the context of the

management of the sector, project or the surrounding environment. Most importantly, performance

against the objective needs to be measurable. The objective should also be consistent with, and clearly

linked to any higher-level objectives that appear in the relevant legislation, policy statements or

management plans.

3.2.2. Environmental Indicators

For each quality objective, an indicator/s needs to be identified. This can be a direct measurement of

performance (e.g. total kg of dissolved solids in outflow water) or a surrogate (e.g. production levels as

a surrogate for measuring economic benefit to local communities). Ultimately, it is not appropriate to

enforce the collection of data that is not used as an indicator for the assessment of an objective.

Similarly, if more than one indicator is collected, the protocols for determining how they will be

integrated into the decision process and monitoring process must also be developed.

3.2.3. Environmental Quality Standards/ Performance Measures

Environmental quality standards or performance measures are the levels of the indicators that ensure

the objectives are not compromised. The setting of these objectives and standards or performance

measures for South African marine aquaculture is an on-going consultative process involving industry,

the relevant environmental management authorities and other stakeholders.

Performance measures may take various forms including:

• Specific value measures:

- Limit reference points – the values which management avoids reaching (either

exceeding or falling below, depending upon the issue)

- Target reference points – the values which management should be directed to

attaining



• A range of values within which performance is considered acceptable, outside of which

performance would not be considered acceptable

• A trend in values, where a positive trend could be good, but a negative trend would be bad (or

the reverse – depending upon the issue and indicator)

• Evidence of application of a procedure, for example, adequate record keeping of chemical use

and other routine farm procedures which indicate good environmental management practice

It is important that the justification for choosing the level / limit / trend for assessing the performance

measure against the objective is recorded and articulated. It is imperative that this justification (and

related assumptions) be definitively based on information such as results from previous studies,

historical trends, results from similar industries elsewhere, scientific references etc.

In all instances the operational objective, indicator and performance measure must remain linked to

remain effective. Indicators by themselves are of little value as the absence of an objective and

performance limit makes correct interpretation impossible.

Table 1: Example of Quality Objectives, Standards or Performance Measures

Environmental Quality Objective Indicator and standard or performance measure

Indicator Standard/ Performance

measure

Maintenance of environmental

quality to protect aquatic life

and dependent non-aquatic

organisms

Faunal benthic composition

Outside of a defined impact

zone, faunal composition shall

not be significantly different

from a control site

Beyond the immediate farm

area, the chemical quality of

the receiving environment will

be indistinguishable from that

of the adjacent marine

environment

Eh (redox potential) Sediment

carbon content

Outside an agreed zone where

impact is accepted as

inevitable, Eh and sediment

carbon content shall not be

significantly different from that

of selected control sites

Dissolved oxygen level in water

column

Should not fall below 60% of

maximum oxygen solubility for

the specific farming conditions



3.3. Environmental Monitoring

The recording of the standards and performance measures indicated in Section 3.2.3 above amounts

to monitoring. Monitoring is a key obligation of the environmental management authority in order to

manage the sector sustainably and to report on its impact. Hambrey et al. (1999) defines environmental

monitoring as “the planned, systematic and repeated collection of environmental data to meet specific

objectives and environmental needs”.

The scope of monitoring can vary from farm/project level to regional level for groups of farms and to

ecosystem or sector level that covers a broader application of monitoring.

3.3.1. Principles of Monitoring

According to Hambrey et al. (1999), monitoring should be focused on the impacts that are significant,

uncertain or not well understood. The collection of information needs to be regularly reviewed to ensure

that sufficient data is collected, while at the same time minimizing redundancy.

From GESAMP (1996) and other resources, the following basic considerations are imperative in the

development of monitoring programmes:

• When formulating programmes due consideration should be given to the type of aquaculture

practices and the environmental settings

• Any monitoring effort should be related to the scale of the perceived impact of a given

aquaculture operation

• Where monitoring programmes are developed for marine aquaculture effluents the use of a

“mixing zone” can be considered. A mixing zone consists of an area of impact in cases where

dilution by receiving waters is necessary before water quality standards are achieved. In

establishing a mixing zone the possibility of environmental degradation within the zone is given

and needs to be weighed up with aspects such as socio-economic benefits

• Reference stations can be used to compare the degree of environmental change in monitoring

programmes

• A monitoring programme must be able to detect ecological change if it is to be of any value

• The intensity of monitoring (e.g., number of stations and variables) should depend upon the

size of the operation and the sensitivity of the receiving environment. More intensive monitoring



should be associated with large facilities and for projects located in particularly sensitive

environments

• Most monitoring of point sources concentrate on effluents, in order to determine compliance

with standards or conditions laid down under discharge licences. However, as the objective is

environmental protection, the receiving waters could be monitored in conjunction with point

source monitoring

• The variables commonly used to monitor the ecological effects of effluent wastes are sediment

chemistry, benthic biota, water chemistry and phytoplankton biomass

• In many cases, particular emphasis will need to be given to simplicity, flexibility and

affordability in order to facilitate acceptance and enforcement. Consultation and participation of

interested and affected parties in the formulation monitoring programmes is important. A

detailed evaluation of financial, manpower and time requirements for any monitoring must

precede implementation to demonstrate cost-effectiveness and feasibility

Hambrey et al. (1999) defines the following monitoring activities:

• Baseline monitoring; which refers to the measurement of environmental parameters during a

pre-project period for the purpose of determining the nature and ranges of natural variation and

to establish, where appropriate, the nature of change

• Effects’ monitoring; which involves the measurement of environmental parameters during

sector development or project implementation so as to detect changes in these parameters,

which can be attributed to the sector or project

• Compliance monitoring; which takes the form of periodic sampling and/or continuous

measurement of environmental parameters, levels of waste discharge or process emissions to

ensure that specific regulatory requirements are observed and standards met

• Surveillance and inspection; which may form a part of compliance monitoring but need not

necessarily involve measurement of a repetitive activity

• Environmental audit; which is closely related to monitoring, though not based on repeated

measurements. The audit is a one-off or regular assessment of environmental performance of

an enterprise and compliance with codes, standards and regulations



3.3.2. Recommended Environmental Monitoring Procedures

The following marine aquaculture monitoring procedures are recommended and should be used as a

guideline for environmental monitoring of the South African marine aquaculture sector. Although the

conditions of authorisations and permits could prescribe specific monitoring requirements, monitoring

procedures recommended for the South African marine aquaculture sector, include:

Site Specific or Farm Level Monitoring

• Incident logging: All farms should maintain an incident register in which all events arising from

the farming activities, or the physical presence of the farm infrastructure, which may have

environmental consequences, are recorded. Farms should record all non-routine events that

may be reasonably regarded as having an environmental impact and report it to the relevant

Competent Authority (CA) where applicable

• Incident reporting: More serious events prescribed by the relevant CA must be reported

immediately

• Farm records: Farms should keep records of the use of substances and therapeutants which

may have an environmental impact

• Farm reports: Routine environmental monitoring should be reported to the relevant CA in the

prescribed reporting form

• Annual farm production returns: In order to quantify sector growth and the net socio-

economic benefit provided by the sector, data on total production, product value and

employment is required

• Databases: The relevant CA should be responsible for setting up and maintaining the

necessary database(s) to record marine aquaculture environmental monitoring data from farms

• Environmental monitoring audits: Performance on farms should be audited against the

prescribed permit conditions, monitoring and reporting requirements by the DAFF, the CA, or a

contracted service provider. If an environmental management programme has been agreed,

this will be used as the reference for the audit by the CA

• Sampling: Marine aquaculture farms may be required or directed to sample, or have

independent sampling undertaken, of farmed animals, imported seed, water, sediments and

associated organisms etc. For regional or industry wide impacts, the CA, the DAFF or a

contracted service providers, may undertake the sampling



• Site specific environmental management programmes (EMPr’s): EMPr’s are prescribed as

part of the EIA process and are the main instrument used to manage the on-going

environmental impacts of a particular facility. The content requirement of EMPr’s is contained

in the EIA Regulations (Government Notice R 543 of 18 June 2010)

• Appointed responsible person: At each marine aquaculture site, a responsible person

should be appointed for environmental monitoring. This person would be responsible for:

- Liaison with environmental authorities or appointed service providers on environmental

matters

- Maintaining incident logs, organising the required sampling, hosting environmental

audits and providing the necessary evidence of environmental performance and

compliance

- Forwarding incident reports and quarterly reports to the CA and/or the DAFF

- Attending environmental management meetings required by the DAFF or other

authorities, or delegating a representative in this regard

Regional or Industry Wide Monitoring:

• Surveys: The CA should conduct the required surveys. These could include the monitoring of

impacts associated with effluent pipelines, baseline surveys of disease prevalence in wild

stocks, environmental carrying capacities, the spread of exotic species, wild population genetic

structure and more

• Routine sampling: The CA will conduct the required sampling in an area associated with a

group of farms. Industry health management programmes will also provide useful data for

determining the disease and health status of a sub-sector

3.4. Evaluating Environmental Impacts of Marine Aquaculture

In this section a rapid assessment or evaluation method is outlined, which can be used to assess the

impacts of the marine aquaculture. This methodology has been adapted from work in the Australian

aquaculture industry (Fletcher et al., 2004) and from a scoring methodology developed by Coastal

Environmental Services in South Africa.

Environmental risk is the likelihood of an occurrence that may have an impact on an environmental

objective. It is imperative to consider this likelihood associated with a particular impact, as this will



determine the level of management or mitigation that will be required. Moreover, it is important to

prioritise high risk environmental issues and weight up low risk matters so that a balanced approach

can be taken to decision making and monitoring.

Impacts and their associated risks may be classified and scored in terms of its temporal scale

(longevity), spatial scale (scope), severity (degree), benefits and the likelihood of occurrence. This

scoring and characterisation is depicted below.

Table 2: Characterization and Scoring of Impacts

EFFE

CT

Temporal Scale Score

Short term Less than 5 years 1

Medium term Between 5 and 20 years 2

Long term Between 20 and 40 years (a generation) and from a human perspective

almost permanent

3

Permanent Over 40 years and resulting in a permanent and lasting change that will

always be there

4

Spatial Scale

Localised At localized scale and a few hectares in extent 1

Study area The proposed site and its immediate environs 2

Regional District and provincial level 3

National Country 3

International Internationally 4

Severity Benefit

Slight / Slightly

Beneficial

Slight impacts on the affected system(s)

or party(ies)

Slightly beneficial to the affected

system(s) or party(ies)

1

Moderate / Moderately

Beneficial

Moderate impacts on the affected


An impact of real benefit to the

affected system(s) or party(ies)

2

Severe / Beneficial Severe impacts on the affected


A very substantial benefit to the


4

Very Severe / Very

Beneficial

Very severe impacts on the affected


A very substantial benefit to the


8

LIK

ELIH

OO

D

Likelihood

Unlikely The likelihood of these impacts occurring is slight 1

May Occur The likelihood of these impacts occurring is possible 2

Probable The likelihood of these impacts occurring is probable 3

Definite The likelihood of these impacts will definitely occur 4



Using the allotted scores in the previous table an overall scoring can be calculated through the sum of

the scores allocated to any one particular factor (i.e. sum of score allocated to temporal scale, spatial

scale, severity, benefits and likelihood). Once determined, this score can be compared to the indicative

scores that follow below.

Table 3: Relative Scale and Significance of Scores

Environmental Significance Positive Negative

Low An acceptable impact for which mitigation is desirable but not essential.

The impact by itself is insufficient even in combination with other low

impacts to prevent development.

These impacts will result in either positive or negative medium to short

term effects on the social and/or natural environment.

4 – 7 4 – 7

Moderate An important impact which requires mitigation. The impact is insufficient

by itself to prevent the implementation of the project but which, in

conjunction with other impacts may prevent its implementation.

These impacts will usually result in either positive or negative medium to

short term effects on the social and/or natural environment.

8 – 11 8 – 11

High A serious impact which, if not mitigated, may prevent the

implementation of the project.

These impacts would be considered by society as constituting a major

and usually long term change to the natural and/or social environment

and result in severe negative or beneficial effects.

12 – 15 12 – 15

Very High A very serious impact which may be sufficient by itself to prevent the

implementation of the project.

The impact may result in permanent change. Very often these impacts

show low response to mitigation and usually result in very severe effects

or very beneficial effects.

16 - 20 16 - 20



4. CONTEXT OF IMPACTS AND MANAGEMENT

4.1. Global Overview

Aquaculture is increasingly supplementing harvest fisheries as a major source of supply of the world’s

seafood products. The sector is expected to grow substantially over the next two decades (Brugère &

Ridler, 2004). As aquaculture is practiced in the aquatic ecosystem it has certain unavoidable, but

manageable, impacts. Sustainable environmental management has taken centre stage in terms of

policies, consumer demand and aquaculture practises in the twenty first century. This can also be seen

in the numerous international voluntary standards and eco-labelling schemes that have developed,

including Global Good Agricultural Practice (GAP), the Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC), the

Global Aquaculture Alliance (GAA), and more.

In order to design effective and efficient environmental management systems, an understanding of the

impacts of aquaculture is required, followed by an assessment of the likelihood associated with each

impact, and a corresponding prioritisation in terms of the degree of environmental management and

monitoring that is required. The major environmental effects of aquaculture are briefly summarised

below, followed by a description of the environmental management practises that have been developed

to address the goals of sustainable development for the marine aquaculture sector.

During the global boom phase of aquaculture in the 1980’s, it became evident that poorly managed

aquaculture could result in severe environmental impacts. These impacts included;

• The ecological effects of waste discharge (suspended solids, dissolved nutrients and organic

compounds), particularly from salmon farms, resulting in the enrichment of recipient waters,

build-up of anoxic sediments, changes in benthic communities and the eutrophication of lakes

(Barg & Phillips, 1997)

• The physical degradation of coastal habitats, particularly by prawn farms, causing the

destruction of mangrove forests and wetlands, salinization of agricultural and drinking water

supplies and land subsidence due to groundwater abstraction (Barg & Phillips, 1997)

• Misapplication of farming and disease management chemicals

• Ecological effects of escapees from fish farms, causing genetic impacts, disease introductions,

competition, hybridisation and predation on natural stocks



• Environmental interactions between marine aquaculture facilities, causing self-pollution and

transmission of diseases (Barg & Phillips, 1997)

• Social impacts such as changes in traditional livelihood patterns in rural areas, resulting from

the development of commercial aquaculture

• Health impacts related to disease, toxicity and health risks to consumers of aquaculture

products

Not all of the environmental consequences of marine aquaculture are negative and some may be

beneficial. Aquaculture operations may enhance the productivity of local fish populations with resultant

benefits to local fisheries (IUCN, 2007). Similarly, the culture of seaweeds in abalone or fish farm

effluent sequesters carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, reduces anthropogenic nutrient input into the

ecosystem and reduces the consumption of fishmeal, other feed ingredients and the associated energy

costs.

4.2. South African Overview

The South African marine aquaculture sector is a small industry, somewhat limited by the nature of the

South African coastline, but with prospects for growth and expansion. However, in view of the growth

potential of marine aquaculture in the multi-use coastal environment, careful management of these

potential impacts is important.

As the coastal zone is typically subjected to multiple uses, the identification and assessment of impacts

related to marine aquaculture is required in order to determine measures for mitigation, monitoring and

management. This process will facilitate the EIA process for marine aquaculture development, as well

as the compilation of environmental management programmes which assist with sustainability and the

development of environmental monitoring requirements.

Environmental management programmes should be adapted to the specific impacts and requirements

of the various marine aquaculture sub-sectors. The intensity of management and environmental

monitoring requirements will depend on the nature of the envisaged impacts. In Sections 5, the

characteristics of each marine aquaculture sub-sector is summarised and a description of the potential

impacts provided. This is followed by the setting of an environmental quality objective, categorisation of

the environmental impact by scoring, recommended management and mitigation measures and

monitoring requirements.



Table 4: Marine Aquaculture Production in South Africa (2010)

Production (tons) per Species and Province

Species Western Cape Eastern Cape Northern Cape KwaZulu Natal Total

Abalone 923.74 87.82 3.88 0 1015.44

Finfish 0 0 0 0 0

Mussels 700.14 0 0 0 700.14

Oysters 152.46 (26) 124.16 0 (16) 0 276.62

Seaweed - - 0 0 2015.01

Total 1776.34 211.98 3.88 0 4007.21

() Oysters sold or moved to other provinces for grow out to market size

Figure 1: South African marine aquaculture production for human consumption (2010);

0.00

200.00

400.00

600.00

800.00

1000.00

1200.00

Abalone Mussel Oyster Prawn Finfish

Pro

du

ctio

n (

ton

s)

Species Cultured

South Africa's Marine Aquaculture Production Per Sub-sector for 2010



5. MANAGEMENT APPROACH BY SPECIES / SECTOR

In this section, the impacts of marine aquaculture are identified and contextualised for the major

species cultured in South Africa. This is supported by defining the environmental objectives, a

relevance scoring for each impact, a recommended management approach and the monitoring

requirements.

5.1. Abalone Culture Impacts and Environmental Management

5.1.1. Sector Profile

Established in the 1990’s, the Abalone (Haliotis midae) sector is the mainstay of aquaculture in South

Africa. While most farms are located in the Western Cape (between Hermanus and Danger Point and

around Saldanha / St Helena Bay), farms are also located as far north as Port Nolloth (Northern Cape)

and as far east as Haga-Haga (Eastern Cape). Abalone culture is mainly land based, using pump

ashore technology combined with flow-through or recirculation. Research in design, reproduction,

nutrition, disease and more has seen the creation of a mature industry.

Abalone farms use complete pelleted diets, kelp fronds and cultured seaweeds as sources of feed. As

the kelp resource is maximally harvested, there is a growing trend towards the use of more pelleted

feeds and cultured seaweeds.

Abalone ranching is creating new opportunities for growth. Ranching involves the release of hatchery

reared juvenile abalone into the wild for grow out and recollection once they reach a marketable size.

The primary environmental impact of abalone farming relates to the terrestrial or shore based foot print,

the pumping of large water volumes and the effluent stream. Abalone farming is an intensive activity

that typically occupies 1-2ha per 100 tonnes of production. Other potential impacts include genetic and

disease related effects on natural stocks. These impacts are dealt with below.



5.1.2. Destruction of indigenous vegetation and habitat loss

Abalone farm sites are typically cleared, levelled and surfaced into a working platform. This can result

in the loss of rare fynbos and other species. The consequence of site clearing can vary depending on

the site’s ecological sensitivity.

Recommended Management and Mitigation Measures

The ad hoc siting and rezoning of coastal land for abalone farming should be discouraged to prevent

conflict with other activities and the destruction of sensitive coastal habitats. Clustering of farms around

nodes with appropriate environmental characteristics, infrastructure and social needs should be

encouraged. This will promote the optimisation of environmental, economic and socially benefits. The

DAFF has initiated a policy of promoting aquaculture development nodes, which will create

opportunities for expansion of the abalone sector in a nodal and sustainable manner.

POTENTIAL IMPACT OBJECTIVE

Loss of indigenous vegetation and habitat Minimize impact on terrestrial habitat. Rehabilitate or

mitigate where possible

SC

OR

E Temporal scale Spatial scale Severity Likelihood

Long term (3) Localised (1) Severe (4) Definite (4)

SIGNIFICANCE 12 (High)

MIT

IGA

TE

• EIA procedure to determine suitability of the site and provide alternatives

• EMPr for on-going monitoring and mitigation

• Competent authority to verify compliance with EIA conditions and EMPr

MO

NIT

OR

Objective Requirement Indicator Standard/ Frequency

• Minimize impact on

terrestrial habitat

• Rehabilitate or

mitigate where

possible

• Site specific

procedures as per

EIA and EMPr

• May involve

monitoring of

rehabilitation and

recovery of disturbed

areas

• As prescribed EIA

conditions and EMPr

• As prescribed EIA

conditions and EMPr

RESPONSIBILITY • Farmer to meet conditions of authorisations

• The CA to verify compliance

• The DAFF could facilitate SEA’s



5.1.3. Impact on Public Amenity Value of the Coast

Due to the “industrial” appearance of abalone farms, the perceived public amenity and aesthetic value

of an area may be diminished. This is mainly due to the perception that abalone farms are

incompatible, or detracting from the value associated with recreational and residential coastal use.


• Avoid new abalone farm developments in pristine coastal sites or near coastal real estate

development

• Zone land and plan for abalone aquaculture to be compatible with other coastal use by means

of aquaculture development nodes or zones

• Mitigate visual impacts by sensitive farm location, cryptic layout of pipes and infrastructure,

screening by means of walls, planting of indigenous vegetation, architectural aesthetics and

the avoidance of floodlighting


Impact on public amenity value of the coast Abalone farms should have minimal impact on the public

amenity value of the coast

SC

OR


Long term (3) Study area (2) Moderate (2) May occur (2)

SIGNIFICANCE 9 (Moderate)

MIT

IGA

TE

• The DAFF to facilitate Strategic Environmental Assessments to zone sufficient land for abalone farms in

appropriate areas

• EIA process to recommend mitigation / alternatives

• Screening of activities by trees / walls or topography

MO

NIT

OR


• Abalone farms

should have minimal

impact on the public

amenity value of the

coast

• Monitoring is limited

as the process to site

and mitigate amenity

value impacts take

place in the planning

stage

• Public complaints

and inputs

• Keep register of

complaints and inputs






5.1.4. Public Safety

The presence of pipelines across the shoreline and the discharge of large volumes of water can be a

potential hazard to public use of coastal areas. The intake suction poses a potential threat to divers or

swimmers.


With suitable mitigation measures, the public safety threat posed by abalone farm pipelines and

effluent discharge into beach and intertidal zones can be minimised. Mitigation measures include;

• The use of subterranean pipelines

• The use of walkways / footbridges over effluent streams if it across beaches

• The use of grids over suction intakes

• The use of adequate public warning signs


Public safety No danger to public safety as a result of abalone farm

infrastructure or operations

SC

OR


Long term (3) Localised (1) Moderate (2) May occur (2)


MIT

IGA

TE

• Use of best practises by the farmer

MO

NIT

OR


• Insignificant danger

to public safety as a

result of abalone

farm infrastructure or

operations

• Incidence reporting

and annual safety

inspection

• Details of any

incidents reported

with actions taken

• Safety of conditions

• Adequate

documentation of

incident in farm

incident log

• Results of annual

safety audit

RESPONSIBILITY • Farmer to meet public safety measures

• Coastal authorities could verify safety



5.1.5. Genetic Impacts – Shore Based Abalone Culture

As abalone is selected for favourable production characteristics and as limited broodstock numbers are

used, the genetic profile of farmed abalone may differ from that of wild populations. Typically, the

genetic diversity of farmed abalone is reduced and selected alleles (traits) may have a higher

frequency. If farmed / hatchery reared abalone are released into the wild, either for ranching or

accidentally, the genetic profile of wild abalone stocks could be affected. This effect could be

exacerbated if abalone from different regions is used as broodstock, as it has been shown that there is

geographic variation in the genetic profile of abalone (Sweijd et al., 1998).


Effective and simple techniques exist to prevent escape. A small number of escapees will have an

insignificant genetic effect on wild populations given background genetic variability. As farms are

designed to prevent escape and due to the sedentary nature of abalone, monitoring of population

genetics at the outfall of farms and in the surrounding areas would confirm the extent of gene flow and

the requirement for intervention. Incident reporting of mass escape would be necessary.


Genetic impacts – shore based culture Farmed abalone should not measurably alter the genetic

profile of natural stocks

SC

OR


Permanent (4) Study area (2) Slight (1) Unlikely (1)

*Assuming mitigation is in place SIGNIFICANCE 8 (Moderate)

MIT

IGA

TE

• Use of best practises by the farmer

MO

NIT

OR


• Farmed abalone

should not alter the

genetic profile of

natural stocks

• Incident report in the

event of a mass

escape

• Escape events

• Estimate number

and size of escaped

abalone

• Adequate

documentation of

escape incidents in

farm incident log



• The DAFF could be involved in nationally important research



5.1.6. Genetic Impacts – Ranching

The genetic makeup of ranched abalone requires management as hatchery reared spat may not be

genetically different from natural receiving populations. Hatchery rearing can lead to genetic effects that

include loss of heterozygosity, loss of rare alleles (traits) and selection pressures that are absent in the

wild and which may result in altered gene frequencies. It is possible to quantify the genetic profiles of

wild and cultured stocks and design suitable broodstock management programmes4.


To maintain the genetic profile of wild stocks, a management protocol is required for ranching in terms

of the Abalone Ranching Guidelines. This involves the use of high broodstock numbers from a local

population in a non-selective and rotational breeding programme that ensures the retention of traits

representative of the wild stocks. Monitoring should focus on management programme implementation

and verification that seed genetics do not differ significantly from that of wild stocks.


Genetic impacts - ranching Genetic profile of seeded abalone should not differ

significantly from receiving population

SC

OR


Permanent (4) Regional (3) Moderate (2) May occur (2)


MIT

IGA

TE

• Service providers- the DAFF to formulate Abalone broodstock management programmes in terms of the

Abalone Ranching Guidelines and conditions of allocated ranching rights

• Management and inspection capacity to administer requirements of broodstock programme

MO

NIT

OR


• Genetic profile of

seeded abalone

should not differ

significantly from

receiving population

• Due diligence

inspection (DAFF) to

verify broodstock

were drawn from the

receiving population

• A genetic

management and

monitoring

• Broodstock

collection, housing

and records

• Evidence that

broodstock and spat

are kept separate

• Compliance with

genetic management

• As required in the

broodstock

management

programme and

conditions of the

ranching right

4 Note the approach to genetic management in abalone ranching differs from the East and the West

Coast. Certain West Coast ranching areas also fall outside of the natural distribution area for abalone.



programme must be

approved by the

DAFF

• Responsibility: The

abalone rancher with

assistance from the

DAFF

programme.

• Baseline genetic

profile of wild

population. Two

additional samples of

seed and wild stock

at 5 year intervals

• Similarity between

wild stock and seed

using known

haplotypes

RESPONSIBILITY • Abalone rancher to meet conditions of a ranching right with assistance from

DAFF

• The DEA (Oceans and Coast Branch) responsible for ICMA matters

• The DAFF could be involved in nationally important research

5.1.7. Effluents

Abalone farms produce a diluted effluent containing low levels of waste feed, faeces and dissolved

nutrients (Yearsley, 2007: Samsukal P., 2004). As farms are generally located in high energy coastal

zones with significant water displacement and agitation, mixing and dispersal of these nutrients is

rapid. Effluents are unlikely to exceed the DWAF (now Department of Water Affairs) water quality

criteria5 for coastal marine waters beyond the mixing zone. However, at the outfall point local impacts

may be observed, including sediment blanketing with particulate organic matter, excess algal growth

and reduced intertidal species diversity. These effects typically occur within metres of the outfall and

are undetectable at 50 m (Britz & Godfrey, 2008). Although existing farms employ few measures to

reduce the waste concentration in effluents, the minor impact at the outfall is generally acceptable. The

Integrated Coastal Management Act (ICMA) however requires that the organ of state issuing a permit

for effluent discharge must report every 3 years to the National Coastal Committee on the status of

each pipeline that discharges effluent into coastal waters and its impact on the coastal environment.

5 DWAF (1995) water quality targets for coastal marine waters state that: “Waters should not contain

concentrations of dissolved nutrients that are capable of causing excessive or nuisance growth of algae

or other aquatic plants or reducing dissolved oxygen concentrations below the target range indicated

for dissolved oxygen” and that total suspended solids should be less than a 10% increase above

ambient levels.




Seaweed ponds and culture of filter feeders or detritivorous worms (e.g. bloodworm, Arenicola loveni)

can reduce the nutrient content of effluent as well as providing added value. Partial recirculation can be

employed to reduce the nutrient load in effluents, with the added benefit of enhancing production

efficiency by causing higher water temperatures, more stable water quality and reduced energy costs.

As the impacts from effluents are low and confined to organic sedimentation in the vicinity of the outfall,

qualitative visual inspection of the benthic community combined with water quality measurements is

sufficient to determine the degree of assimilation of nutrients by the environment. A report on the

status of discharges into the marine environment is required by the ICMA every 3 years.


Effluent Farm effluents should not cause detectable ecological

change beyond the mixing zone and aim to reduce the

footprint of the mixing zone

SC

OR




MIT

IGA

TE

• Survey the impact of effluents based on discharge permit requirements

• Environmental management capacity to administer an effluent monitoring programme

MO

NIT

OR


• Farm effluents

should not cause

detectable ecological

change beyond the

mixing zone

• Survey of effluent

characteristics and

impacts on receiving

waters

• Report on status of

effluent pipelines

every 3 years (ICMA)

• Intertidal and sub

tidal benthos

• Sedimentation

• Dissolved organic

nutrients (ammonia,

nitrate, nitrite and

phosphate), total

suspended solids

and biological

oxygen demand in

effluent and

receiving waters

• Compliance with

DWAF water quality

targets for coastal

marine waters. Initial

survey then every 3

years


• The DEA (Oceans and Coasts Branch) and other CA’s to verify compliance




5.1.8. Kelp Harvest

Fresh kelp fronds (Ecklonia maxima and Laminaria pallida) are harvested to feed abalone. Despite

growing abalone production, the annual harvest of kelp has levelled off.


Harvesting is controlled by means of permits. Research conducted by the DAFF indicates that it is

sustainable with a low impact on the kelp bed ecosystem (Anderson et al. 2003). Current frond-

harvesting methods (lethal and non-lethal) does not affect the growth (stipe elongation) rate of sub-

canopy E. maxima plants, the density or recruitment of juveniles in a shallow-water, dense kelp bed

(Rothman et al., 2006). “No-harvest” areas are identified to preserve pristine kelp beds and the

associated biota and farms are encouraged to use alternatives such as dried kelp and cultured

seaweed to supplement fresh kelp.

Continuation of the existing research by the DAFF into the effects of kelp harvesting is important

towards determining long term monitoring and management measures.


Kelp harvest Sustainable kelp harvest that does not compromise kelp

bed ecology

SC

OR


Short term (1) Study area (2) Slight (1) Probable (3)

*Assuming mitigation is in place SIGNIFICANCE 7 (Low)

MIT

IGA

TE

• Research on ecological effects on kelp beds

• Recommendations on level of sustainable harvest

• Administration of kelp concessions and permits

MO

NIT

OR


• Sustainable kelp

harvest that does not

compromise kelp bed

ecology

• On-going kelp bed

surveys and

research by the

DAFF scientists

• Recovery of kelp

after harvest and

effects on associated

fauna and flora using

comparative

methods

• To be determined



• The DAFF involved in kelp bed ecology and harvest research



5.1.9. Disease

Abalone farming and stock translocation can increase the threat of disease transmission – both

between farms and from farm to wild stocks.


Mitigation measures should always consider proactive prevention of disease by means of effective

husbandry, sanitary farming conditions and equipment, a balanced diet, the limitation of stress causing

factors and more.

Most abalone farms participate in a collective health management programme that continuously

monitors and manages the health status of the sector. Voluntary participation and compliance with

recommended health measures (i.e. an industry biosecurity standard) is an essential strategy in

detecting and limiting the threat of serious disease, albeit that surveillance alone will not necessarily

reduce the likelihood of an outbreak. The emphasis of health management is good husbandry and

water quality management. However, the risk of introducing new primary pathogens is ever present and

there remains a need for clear regulatory means to quarantine and destroy stock infected with serious

disease.

The threat of disease transmission from farms to wild stocks requires monitoring and active health

management. Farms should all be obligated to participate in a health management programme

accredited by the DAFF, in which quarterly reporting of disease occurrence and treatment is

prescribed. In addition to this, baseline monitoring of potential disease causing organisms and

parasites in wild stocks should be carried out so that an understanding of the health status of wild

abalone is developed.




Disease Minimise the effect of pathogens from farms impacting

measurably on natural populations

SC

OR

E6 Temporal scale Spatial scale Severity Likelihood

Long term (3) Regional (3) Moderate (2) May occur (2)


MIT

IGA

TE

• Abalone industry health management programme. Responsibility: Farmers and the DAFF

• Incidence reporting to the DAFF of new disease outbreaks and abnormal mortalities. Responsibility: Farmers

• Database of disease and farm health status. Responsibility: The DAFF or Veterinary Authority

• Research on priority disease issues. Responsibility: The DAFF and Universities

• Recognition of abalone under the Animal Health Act to enable quarantine/ destruction of diseased abalone.

Responsibility: The DAFF

• Implementation of biosecurity measures: Farmers

• Regulations governing the movement of abalone between farms. Responsibility: The DAFF

MO

NIT

OR


• Minimise the effect of

pathogens from

farms impacting

measurably on

natural populations

• Minimise the

likelihood and

consequence of

pathogens from

farms impacting

measurably on

natural stocks and

between farms

On farm:

• Obligatory

participation in

industry health

programme


to the DAFF on new

disease outbreaks

and abnormal

mortalities in

quarterly reporting

Natural population:

• Database of disease

and abalone farm

health status

• Research on the

status of priority

disease issues

• Baseline monitoring

• On farm parasite and

disease prevalence

and intensity

• Treatment of

diseased abalone

• Natural population

parasite and

pathogen prevalence

6 Note that the provision of a representative score for temporal scale, spatial scale, severity and likelihood of disease is not possible as various disease types can be significantly different in their characterisation. The scoring is further complicated by whether consideration is given to the risk of outbreak or to the effects of an outbreak, whether mitigation can be applied and the effect of such mitigation.



of the disease status

of wild abalone,

particularly in vicinity

of farms and

ranching projects

RESPONSIBILITY • Farmer to meet conditions of authorisations and implement on farm measures (1,

2)

• The DAFF (State Veterinarian) to verify compliance

• The DAFF monitors and researches disease in natural populations (3, 4, 5)

5.2. Mussel Culture Impacts and Environmental Management


Mussel culture was initiated in the Langebaan (1975), but commercial culture of the exotic Spanish

mussel Mytilus galloprovincialis began in Saldanha Bay and Port Elizabeth in 1984 with the Port

Elizabeth operation closing in 1988. The industry expanded rapidly, producing 1 800 tons in 1988 by

means of long line and Spanish raft culture in Saldanha Bay. Due to limited local markets and

competition from imports, production dropped to 700 tons (2010). The exotic Spanish mussel (M.

galloprovincialis) and the indigenous Black and Brown mussels (Choromytilus meridionalis and Perna

perna) are cultured in Saldanha Bay by means of Spanish rafts, consisting of floating rafts beneath

which culture ropes are suspended. Natural settlement onto the ropes provides the seed-stock.

The impact of disease has not been assessed for mussels given that mussel production currently relies

on natural settlement and due to the fact that management of mussel disease is largely impractical

given the prevalence of mussels in the surrounding environment.

5.2.2. Enrichment of Sediments with Organic Matter

Mussels are filter feeders, feeding on phytoplankton and particulate organic matter, resulting in the

deposition of faecal matter on the sediment below mussel raft or long-line cultures. Studies in Saldanha

Bay showed that this caused a localised change in the benthic community, but did not compromise

ecosystem function or the health of the mussels (Stenton-Dozey et al., 1998). Monitoring should be

based on a repeat of this study.




Enrichment of sediments with organic matter Organic sedimentation below mussel rafts should not

compromise ecosystem function

SC

OR


Medium term (2) Localised (1) Slight (1) Probable (3)

SIGNIFICANCE 7 (Low)

MIT

IGA

TE

• Research to provide advice on current impacts

• Moving or rotation of rafts

MO

NIT

OR


• Organic

sedimentation below

mussel rafts should

not compromise

ecosystem function

• Once off benthic

survey to update

earlier data collected

by the DAFF

• Benthic and

sediment analysis

• Method must allow

comparison with

previous work

• Once off (re) survey

to assess objectives

• Future monitoring to

be determined by

results of survey



5.2.3. Reduction of Available Phytoplankton

Mussels remove plankton and particulate matter from the water, to the extent that the growth of

naturally occurring filter feeders may be depressed due to limited food availability. This has been

observed in areas of heavy shellfish cultivation. Based on carbon and nitrogen inputs, it was calculated

that the capacity for mussel culture in Saldanha Bay is approximately 90,000 tons (Grant, et al., 1998),

well above the projected farming capacities. It was estimated that up to 1000 Ha of water could be

used sustainably for mussel farming, this being significantly more than that allocated to marine

aquaculture by the National Ports Authority. As it has been established that the capacity is much higher

than the culture biomass, no monitoring is required.




Reduction of available phytoplankton The carrying capacity of Saldanha Bay for mussel raft

culture should not be exceeded

SC

OR


Short term (1) Localised (1) Slight (1) Unlikely (1)


MIT

IGA

TE

• None

MO

NIT

OR


• The carrying capacity

of Saldanha Bay for

mussel raft culture

should not be

exceeded

• Not required • Not applicable • Not applicable

RESPONSIBILITY • The DAFF could facilitate research into carrying capacities

5.2.4. Spread of Exotic Spanish Mussels

The raft structures provide an artificial habitat for the already present exotic Spanish mussel, potentially

increasing the population’s reproductive and recruitment potential. However, fluctuations in the

abundance of the Spanish and indigenous mussels indicate that environmental factors determine which

species is dominant at any point in time. Thus the raft structures are unlikely to contribute to the

prevalence of this exotic mussel in Saldanha Bay. The mussel biomass on the rafts is also likely to be a

small proportion of the total feral mussel population.

As the Spanish mussel is well established along the South African coast and its population dynamics

are determined by environmental conditions, no monitoring is recommended.




Spread of exotic Spanish mussels Mussel farming should not promote the further spread of

exotic mussels

SC

OR


Permanent (4) Regional (3) Slight (1) Unlikely (1)


MIT

IGA

TE

• None

MO

NIT

OR


• Mussel farming

should not promote

the further spread of

exotic mussels

• Not required • Not applicable • Not applicable

RESPONSIBILITY • The DAFF could facilitate research spread of mussels

5.2.5. Exclusive Spatial Use

Mussel culture requires the zoning of public waters for exclusive use. Therefore, activities such as

recreational boating, shipping and trawling are precluded in the zoned area. The industrial appearance

of mussel rafts may negatively affect coastal real estate development, recreational activities and

aesthetic perception.


User conflicts and optimal use of sea space for mussel culture is readily controlled by means of

appropriate zoning of waters for mussel culture based on an assessment of optimal socio-economic

returns from competing activities in multi-use systems such as Saldanha Bay. Water zoned for marine

aquaculture by the Transnet National Ports Authority (TNPA) supports a vibrant local industry, which is

a significant local employer.

The socio-economic benefits and any conflicts with other users arising from the mussel culture

activities should be monitored to demonstrate that the objectives of social and economic sustainability

are being achieved.




Exclusive spatial use Equitable allotment of mussel culture in Saldanha and

other suitable areas, promoting socio-economic benefits

SC

OR




MIT

IGA

TE

• Equitable zoning system for mussel culture

MO

NIT

OR


• Equitable allotment

of mussel culture in

Saldanha and other

suitable areas,

promoting socio-

economic benefits

• Socio-economic

benefits

• Social conflicts

around marine

aquaculture

• Employment, wage

and salary income,

production tonnage,

turnover

• Incident reporting

• Data can be extracted

from annual farm

returns to the DAFF

• Incident reports of

conflicts arising

• Press reports

Frequency: on-going

RESPONSIBILITY • The TNPA to see to equitable allotment in port areas

• The DEA (Oceans and Coasts Branch) to see to equitable allotment in other

coastal areas consultation with the DAFF

• The DAFF to report on equitability based on data from farmers

5.3. Oyster Culture Impacts and Environmental Management


The Knysna Oyster Company initiated oyster production (1948), but initial attempts to farm indigenous

Coastal oysters (Striostrea margaritacea) failed, resulting in import of Pacific oysters (Crassostrea

gigas) in the 1970’s. In 2010, 276 tons were produced, exclusively for the local market. Both estuarine

and marine environment are utilised, spat is generally imported, while a number of grow-out systems

have been used, including racks, long lines, pond culture (in trays) and onshore tanks.



5.3.2. Nutrient dynamics

Although oysters filter feed, the production of faecal matter is lower than in the case of mussels

production and therefor the related benthic enrichment is less. While phytoplankton depletion can

cause productivity decline, given the industry’s scale, this is not anticipated. Provided oyster production

is within the carrying capacity of the water in which they are grown, no monitoring is required.


Nutrient dynamics Sustainable phytoplankton use to the extent that

ecosystem function is unhindered

SC

OR


Short term (1) Localised (1) Slight (1) Unlikely (1)


MIT

IGA

TE

• Not required

MO

NIT

OR


• Sustainable

phytoplankton use to

the extent that

ecosystem function

is unhindered

• None • Not applicable • Not applicable

RESPONSIBILITY • The DAFF could facilitate research into nutrient dynamics

5.3.3. Spatial Use

Oysters grown in multi-use estuaries or bays and require exclusive areas that precludes other activities

such as recreational boating and fishing. Zoning for oyster culture thus requires a decision around

which activity will yield greater socio-economic benefits. While it is an industrial type activity which may

be regarded as having a negative aesthetic appearance, the activity may also contribute to tourism.


To reduce conflicts and optimise socio-economic returns, planning of location and zoning is required.

Although potential is limited in certain areas, the activity is suited to small-scale enterprise and is

relatively labour intensive. Existing and potential culture areas must be incorporated in coastal



management plans. Although zoning is preceded by a SEA or EIA in which environmental matters are

identified, socio-economic benefits and user conflicts must be monitored to demonstrate sustainability.


Spatial use Equitable allotment of oyster culture in bays, promoting

socio-economic benefits

SC

OR


Long term (3) Study area (2) Slight (1) Probable (3)


MIT

IGA

TE

• Coordinated planning between the DAFF and the TNPA, relevant provincial, port and municipal authorities

MO

NIT

OR


• Equitable allotment

of oyster culture in

bays, promoting

socio-economic

benefits

• Socio-economic

benefits

• Social conflicts

around aquaculture


and salaries,

production tonnage,

turnover



from annual farm

returns to the DAFF

• Incident reports of

conflicts arising

• Press reports

Frequency: on-going

RESPONSIBILITY • The TNPA to see to equitable allotment in port areas

• The DEA (Oceans and Coasts Branch) to see to equitable allotment in other

coastal areas consultation with the DAFF


5.3.4. Establishment of Feral Oyster Populations

Oysters are highly fecund broadcast spawners and often spawn spontaneously under culture

conditions. With the widespread culture of exotic Pacific oysters (Crassostrea gigas) in southern Africa,

some self-perpetuating wild populations have become established (Robinson, 2005), demonstrating its

potential to established in a feral population.


Research and a risk assessment to understand the factors determining successful settlement and

breeding are required. The monitoring of the spread of feral Pacific oysters (C gigas) is necessary to

understand and manage their spread and impact on the indigenous marine ecosystems and biota.




Establishment of feral oyster populations Minimise the possibility of cultured oysters establishing

feral populations.

SC

OR


Permanent (4) Localised (1) Moderate (2) May occur (2)


MIT

IGA

TE

• Research into locality and spread of feral oyster populations and possible mitigation measures to be developed

MO

NIT

OR


• Minimise the

possibility of cultured

oysters establishing

feral populations.

• Monitor the status

and distribution of

feral populations

• Recommendations

on monitoring and

management

• Identify localities

where C. gigas has

established

• Determine

approximate extent

of habitat occupied

• Initial distribution

survey

• Future mitigation

needs to be

determined by results

of the initial survey

RESPONSIBILITY • The DAFF could facilitate research into feral establishment and advise the DEA

5.3.5. Introduction of Diseases and Parasites

Oyster spat and fresh (live) cultured oysters are routinely imported from across the world. Therefore

there is a threat in that new Molluscan pathogens and parasites could be imported with such stocks.


All imported oysters should be sourced from certified pathogen free sources and certified disease free

by a competent authority following the required pathogen risk assessments. The robustness of the

protocols used to obtain disease free certification should be evaluated by DAFF. The local production

of spat should be encouraged to minimise the risk of importing disease and parasites. Monitoring is

essential to detect the level of occurrence of disease and parasites associated with imported stock.




Introduction of disease and parasites Zero incidence of disease and parasites with imports or

translocation of live oysters

SC

OR


Long term (3) Regional (3) Severe (4) May occur (2)


MIT

IGA

TE

• Capacity for routine screening of imported oysters

• Compulsory to source spat from disease free sources

• Institute quarantine measures for imported oysters

MO

NIT

OR


• Zero incidence of

disease and

parasites with

imports or

translocation of live

oysters

• Routine screening of

spat and standing

stock

• The DAFF to compile

list of acceptable

disease free sources

in consultation with

countries

• Incidence and

prevalence of

parasites and other

possible disease

causing organisms

• OIE screening

standard that has

90% probability of

detecting diseases

and parasites

• Sampling frequency

to be determined

following initial

screening and advice

from an aquatic

health professional

RESPONSIBILITY • Farmer to meet conditions of authorisations, import conditions and on farm

measures

• The DAFF (State Veterinarian) to inspect imports and verify compliance

• The DAFF to compile list of disease free sources in consultation with countries

5.3.6. Accidental Introduction of Pest Species

The import of oyster spat introduces the possibility of the accidental import of other organisms which

could potentially become established as feral and invasive species. Species such as the Chilean

scallop have been found mixed with oyster spat (Haupt, 2010).


Imported spat must be inspected for other species. Any other species associated with oyster spat

should be destroyed and the incident reported to the DAFF. Certification protocols for imported oysters

should be reviewed and improved where necessary. Monitoring is essential to detect the level of

occurrence of associated organisms.




Accidental introduction of pest species Import of oysters shall not cause introduction of

associated species

SC

OR




MIT

IGA

TE

• Capacity for routine screening of imported oysters

MO

NIT

OR


• Import of oysters

shall not cause

introduction of

associated species

• Routine screening of

each batch of

imported live oysters

• Incidence of live

non-target

organisms

• OIE screening

standard that has

90% probability of

detecting non-target

species


to be determined

following initial

screening

RESPONSIBILITY • Farmer to meet conditions of authorisations, import conditions and on farm

measures

• The DAFF to inspect imports and verify compliance

5.4. Seaweed Culture Impacts and Environmental Management


There is growing interest in seaweed culture (Gracilaria and Ulva). Several farms culture seaweed in

effluent water, which strips nutrients and provides abalone feed. The nutritional quality of this seaweed

is superior to that of harvested kelp and supplemental feeding of seaweed boosts abalone growth

(Troell, et al., 2005). This stripping of nutrients and the use of seaweed as a supplemental feed or

sellable product is regarded as contributing significantly to the positive impacts of seaweed culture.



5.4.2. Exclusive Spatial Use

Although not common, rope or raft culture of seaweed can only be carried out in sheltered or semi-

sheltered bays, placing it in competition with many other activities.


Although the demand for open water to culture seaweed is likely to remain low, this culture should be

included in SEA’s before zoning. Such SEA’s or EIA’s will identify environmental aspects prior to

commencement, hence no monitoring is needed.


Exclusive spatial use Seaweed culture should not detract from the beneficial

use of marine waters

SC

OR


Long term (3) Study area (2) Moderate (2) May occur (2)


MIT

IGA

TE

• Planning and zoning for marine aquaculture should include the possibility of seaweed culture

MO

NIT

OR


• Seaweed culture

should not detract

from the beneficial

use of marine waters

• None • Not applicable • Not applicable

RESPONSIBILITY • The DEA (Oceans and Coasts Branch) to see to equitable allotment in

consultation with the DAFF


5.4.3. Genetics impacts

Gracilaria and Ulva are ubiquitous seaweeds of the South African coast. The genetic characteristics of

these species are largely unknown, however there is evidence of regional variation (Kandjengo, 2002);

hence the importance to understand the impact that seaweed culture could have on wild stocks. When

seaweed is farmed there is a selection for production characteristics suited to the culture environment,

which may result in genetic changes. The transfer of seaweed between farms also increases the risk of

regional varieties being introduced into different areas.




While indications are that seaweed culture will have insignificants impact on wild stocks, research is

required to gain insight into the genetic implication of seaweed culture and to ensure wild stock

genetics are not compromised. Baseline genetic and taxonomic information on regional characteristics

and an assessment of the genetic risks of seaweed culture is required. As knowledge is currently

limited and research is required, it would be premature to prescribe a monitoring programme.


Genetic impacts Seaweed culture should not measurably alter the genetic

profile of natural seaweed stocks

SC

OR




MIT

IGA

TE

• Research on seaweed genetics

MO

NIT

OR


• Seaweed culture

should not

measurably alter the

genetic profile of

natural seaweed

stocks

• Not at present • Not applicable • Not applicable

RESPONSIBILITY • The DAFF could facilitate research into seaweed genetics

5.4.4. Terrestrial impacts

Shore based culture of seaweed is conducted in large shallow ponds, typically D-ended raceways.

Therefore, the culture of seaweed requires land, primarily in the coastal zone. This may require the

destruction of sensitive and/or indigenous fauna and flora. As shore based seaweed culture is often

associated with abalone farming, the comments on the terrestrial impacts of abalone farming (Section

5.2.1) apply here also.




Clustering of seaweed culture activities, around development nodes with appropriate environmental

characteristics, infrastructure and social needs should be encouraged. The EIA process will identify

mitigation measures, alternatives and monitoring requirements, which will be incorporated into the

conditions of an environmental authorisation and the EMPr.


Terrestrial impacts Minimal impact on the terrestrial habitat. Rehabilitation

and mitigation where possible

SC

OR


Long term (3) Localised (1) Severe (4) Definite (4)


MIT

IGA

TE

• EIA procedure to determine if impact to the site is acceptable

• EMPr for on-going monitoring/ mitigation of matters identified in the EIA

• Competent authority to verify compliance with EMPr

MO

NIT

OR


• Minimal impact on

the terrestrial habitat

• Rehabilitation and

mitigation where

possible

• Site specific

procedures as per

EIA and EMPr

• May involve

monitoring of

rehabilitation and

recovery of disturbed

areas

• As prescribed by the

conditions of the

environmental

authorisation and the

EMPr

• As prescribed by the

conditions of the

environmental

authorisation and the

EMPr




5.5. Marine Finfish Impacts and Environmental Management


Finfish culture is set to become the next key area of marine aquaculture growth in South Africa. Rising

fish prices and supply shortages in traditional fishery products is supporting marine finfish viability. If

the current pilot projects are successful, the way will be open for production to grow to the order of tens



of thousands of tons. For the finfish sector to develop to its full potential as a sustainable activity

supplying safe products, an efficient environmental management framework is required.

The culture technology and pilot infrastructure for the production of marine finfish species has been

established and commercial production is set to take off. The focal species at the present moment are

Dusky kob (Argyrosomus japonicus), but interest is also being shown in Silver kob (Argyrosomus

inodorous), Yellowtail (Seriola lalandii), White-margined sole (Dagetichthys marginatus), Spotted

grunter (Pomadasys commersonni), White stumpnose (Rhabdosargus globiceps) and more.

Most of the development around new production systems is related to land based pump ashore and re-

circulatory technologies, while interest has also been shown in sea based cage culture.

Globally, a number of environmental management initiatives have been undertaken and published for

marine finfish culture. Guidelines for Marine Finfish Farming in South Africa have been published,

which recommend procedures for mitigating and managing the potential impacts of marine finfish

farming. A detailed environmental monitoring plan was developed for the first pilot cage culture

operation in Port Elizabeth (Schoonbee and Bok, 2008). This plan was based on the Norwegian MOM

(Modelling – Ongrowing fish farms – Monitoring) system (Hansen et al, 1997). The Eastern Cape

Development Corporation (ECDC) and the DAFF have completed SEA’s, which identify the most

suitable sea based areas for marine cage culture. A draft Fish Hatchery Management Protocol has

been developed by the DAFF in consultation with the finfish farmers (DEAT, 2008).

5.5.2. Feed waste and fish faeces

Cultured marine fish are fed nutritionally complete, pelleted diets manufactured from fishmeal and other

compounds. This results in a significant nutrient input into the environment, originating mainly from

faeces and metabolic excretions. In cage aquaculture nutrients enter the ecosystem without prior

treatment, whereas in land based facilities a portion of the nutrients may be stripped prior to discharge

so as to reduce the impacts associated therewith. If the environment is unable to assimilate these

compounds, impacts such as eutrophication, oxygen depletion and alteration of local biodiversity may

occur in the water column and in the substrate.

The effects of nutrients from marine aquaculture are well understood and they have been extensively

documented (Nash et al, 2005). The magnitude of the ecological impact depends on the physical and

oceanographic conditions of the site, the assimilative capacity of the environment, farm management



(husbandry), farm size, stocking density, duration of operations and digestibility of the feed (IUCN,

2007). The assimilative ability of the environment varies widely, depending on factors such as rate of

water displacement, temperature and the natural organic nutrient flux. South African coastal waters are

typically well-mixed and fast-flushing with high levels of light penetration, and as such will be less

sensitive than most northern hemisphere aquaculture sites that are vertically stratified and poorly

flushed, often close to shore and depleted of nitrogen at the surface (Nash et. al., 2005).

Two general types of waste are produced by marine finfish farming:

• Particulate matter, including settleable and suspended solids which may include faeces,

uneaten feed, organic matter and nitrogen and/or phosphorous containing compounds

• Soluble material, mainly nitrogen and phosphorous, released as metabolic excretions (such as

ammonia, urine) and from the breakdown of solid wastes

The impacts of solid waste on the benthos and sediments are typically detectable in a range of 50 –

150 metres from a cage operation, depending of the sea conditions. Exceeding the assimilative

capacity of the benthos leads to physico-chemical changes in the sediment that include increased

biological oxygen demand and a decreased redox potential. Biological changes include a reduction in

benthic species diversity and a shift to anaerobic microbial communities, resulting in increased

concentrations of free sulphide and ammonia (Nash et al, 2005; IUCN, 2007). The effluent from shore

based fish farms could carry high nutrient loads, which may affect the local environment. These effects

include the blanketing of substrate with particulate organic matter, excessive algal growth, a reduction

of benthic biodiversity and changes in the benthic community structure.

Dissolved nutrients from finfish operations may result in increased production of attached macro algae.

Eutrophication associated with marine aquaculture is however not an independent effect, but a

cumulative effect caused by the total input of nutrients from all sources, including sewage effluents and

other discharges into a restricted coastal area such as a bay or estuary (Nash et al., 2005). It is unlikely

that a single aquaculture operation will release a sufficient quantity of nutrients to affect phytoplankton

production adversely in open coastal waters (Nash et al., 2005).




The benthic effects related to marine finfish culture are largely local and reversible and well established

procedures for managing organic waste from fish farms have been developed elsewhere in the world.

These effects can be minimized by careful site selection and site operation, and by observing best

management practices. Specific mitigation measures include;

• Proper siting in areas where wastes do not accumulate

• Avoiding sensitive and valuable ecosystems

• Maintaining appropriate stocking densities

• Daily removal of mortalities daily

• Collecting all harvest wastes

• Monitoring feed regimens to reduce feed losses

• In cage culture the regular cleaning of nets of bio-fouling organisms and the transferring of

debris to approved landfill sites

• For cage culture, the rotation of farm sites to enable bioremediation

Performance standards for marine finfish wastes could be prescriptive, yet such standards should only

be applied where there is a risk that the magnitude of waste production could exceed the assimilative

capacity of the local environment. Thus, the primary management objective in the South African marine

finfish sector should be to perform research to determine whether nutrients from cage or shore based

aquaculture will have any significant negative impact, specifically through including;

• Characterization of potential sites in terms of sensitivity and existing levels of regional

anthropogenic nutrient inputs

• Determination of potential for buildup of organic wastes and anoxic sediments below cages

• Determination of measurable ecological effects or changes outside the mixing zone

• Determination of the dynamics of dissolved and solid waste assimilation

Monitoring in developing finfish operations will yield the information required to formulate management

procedures. To this end a hypothesis can be developed to address specific issues, which will form a

rational basis for any prescribed procedures. If initial research shows that wastes are rapidly

assimilated and do not result in measurable changes beyond the mixing zone, performance standards

and an intensive monitoring and management programme would not be required.



Well established techniques for measuring and monitoring the effects of organic and inorganic fish farm

wastes have been established. These include the widely used Norwegian MOM (Modeling – On

growing – Monitoring) system used for sea based cage waste management (GESAMP, 1996; Hansen

et al., 1997). Computer based dispersion models are available to predict the deposition rate of organic

matter around aquaculture facilities, provided that appropriate information is available to describe

bathymetry and hydrodynamics of the particular site and the necessary inputs regarding the physiology

of the cultured fish species (Nash et al., 2005).

It is possible to minimize the organic solids and dissolved nutrients from shore based fish farms by

means of biological and other filters, sedimentation, flocculation, or by using integrated culture methods

with filter feeders and seaweed.

Recommended Management and Mitigation Measures: Cage Based Finfish Farming

Monitoring programmes typically emanate from EIA or SEA processes. Such programmes must collect

sufficient data to evaluate the extent to which environmental objectives are met. As such, its design

should be appropriate to the site characteristics (depth, flushing rate and ecological sensitivity), existing

scientific knowledge and project scale (tonnage of production, size of cages etc.). For a small (<50

tonne production) project, simple benthic video observation and sediment quality measurement may be

sufficient. For large scale operations with a proportionally greater organic waste output, more intensive

impact monitoring will be required. Standardized methods for waste monitoring are available, for

example, GESAMP (1996) and Hansen et al. (1997). A local example of a cage monitoring programme

is provided by Nel and Winter (2008). As knowledge of the impact of cages in South African develops,

the DAFF may develop performance standards for specific parameters to ensure that thresholds for

impacts are not exceeded. In this regard, the DAFF has already commissioned SEA’s for certain sea-

based marine aquaculture areas. However, while cage culture is still in development, site specific

EMPr’s must be developed in consultation with the DAFF.

The frequency of monitoring must be documented in a site specific EMPr. In Norway the prescribed

monitoring frequency ranges from 6 months to 2 years (NSF, 2000), depending on site conditions. Nel

and Winter (2008) used intervals of 2 months in Algoa Bay, however, as the initial biomass and impact

from a developing project may be low, a six monthly interval would yield adequate data to detect

ecological change. Once production biomass has stabilized and the results from six monthly monitoring

are consistent, consideration should be given to scale monitoring back to a 1 or 2 yearly interval, as

this would detect any meaningful ecological change.



Recommended Management and Mitigation Measures: Shore Based Finfish Farming

Shore based farms generally use some manner of nutrient stripping such as mechanical and/or

biological filtration. The nutrient discharge from shore based farms is likely to be lower than an

equivalently sized cage operation. The high energy wave zone facilitates rapid mixing and dispersal of

nutrients and therefore impacts are expected to be lower. Qualitative visual inspection of the benthic

community, combined with water quality measurements will be sufficient to determine the effective

assimilation of nutrients.


Feed waste and fish faeces Fish farm effluent must be managed so as to limit the

scale and scope of benthic impacts

SC

OR




MIT

IGA

TE

• An environmental management programme that will emanate for an EIA and be contained in an approved

EMPr

• Environmental compliance inspection capacity

Cage Based Finfish Farming

MO

NIT

OR


• Fish farm effluent

must be managed so

as to limit the scale

and scope of beatific

impacts

• Benthic impact

assessment as part

of the EIA or SEA

• Water quality impact

assessment as part

of the EIA or SEA

Indicators of

environmental change:

• Epi-benthic macro

fauna and substrate

appearance (video

and visual

inspection)

• Benthic infauna and

meiofauna

• Sediment organic

content and redox

potential

• Water quality:

oxygen, N, P, redox

potential and

chlorophyll

• Further indicators

• Performance

standard using MOM

guidelines

• Sampling protocol

must have statistical

power to detect and

quantify the effects in

space and time

• For new operations in

new sites,

recommend baseline

assessment before

farming starts, every

six months until full

production reached,

then every one to two

years depending on



may be prescribed

by authorities

depending on the

site characteristics,

tonnage and degree

of change expected

or observed

the sensitivity of the

site and scale of

operation




Shore Based Finfish Farming

MO

NIT

OR


• Fish farm effluent

must be managed so

as to limit the scale

and scope of beatific

impacts

• Inter-tidal and sub

tidal benthic impact

assessment

• Water quality impact

assessment

• Recommend video

transect and visual

assessment of

benthos from the

outfall outward and

along the coast to

determine

qualitative nature

• Comparative

analysis to

equivalent adjacent

pristine areas

• Transect samples of

water quality from

point of discharge:

pH, total

phosphorous,

nitrogen, particulate

organic matter in

influent and effluent

• Sampling protocol

must have statistical

power to detect and

quantify effects in

space and time

• Level of survey to be

determined based on

initial survey findings






5.5.3. Anti-fouling products for cages

Marine cages provide a substrate for the settlement of sessile invertebrates and algae and anti-fouling

products are required to prevent or minimise bio-fouling. However, anti-foulants based on leaching of

toxins may harm non-targeted organisms. In the past anti-foulants were based on heavy metals that

are highly toxic, but modern copper-based, anti-foulants cause lower impacts due to optimisation in the

quantities used and due to more efficient targeting of fouling species. Nonetheless, studies have shown

the detrimental effects of copper on marine organisms (IUCN, 2007), and internationally cage farmers

have started using more environmentally benign procedures (IUCN, 2007). A number of eco-friendly

anti-foulants that discourage settlement are now available, including products that work by coating net

surfaces with silicone, wax and polyurethanes.


The use of antifouling products based on heavy metals must be prohibited. Environmentally compatible

products and procedures for preventing or eliminating bio-fouling should be encouraged, including

appropriate management such as washing nets, or taking the life cycles of the bio-fouling organisms

into consideration when changing nets. Other management procedures include the use of high

pressure water or the drying out of nets and new technologies such as bio-control through the

utilisation of natural grazers (IUCN, 2007).

Copper based anti-foulants are still used on marine vessel hulls, making it difficult to demonstrate the

effect of copper (or other toxicity based anti-foulants) from fish farms. As this is an industry level issue,

as opposed to a farm specific impact, a register of all anti-foulants is required for reporting purposes.


Anti-fouling products for cages Anti-fouling products should have no detectable effect on

non-target organisms

SC

OR


Short term (1) Study area (1) Moderate (2) May occur (2)


MIT

IGA

TE

• Promotion in the environmentally responsible use of anti-foulants, which should also be elaborated in the EMPr

• On-farm record of the use of all anti-fouling agents and anti-fouling methods



MO

NIT

OR


• Anti-fouling products

should have no

detectable effect on

non-target organisms

• On-farm record of

the use (amount and

frequency) of all anti-

fouling agents

• Type and amount of

anti-foulants used

• Adequate

documentation

indicating use of anti-

fouling products



• The DAFF could list acceptable anti-foulants

5.5.4. Medication, antibiotics and pesticide

Medicines and therapeutants are necessary in aquaculture health management, but most, if properly

used, have a low potential for causing environmental impacts. However, excessive dosage, incorrect

use and failure to provide for neutralisation or dilution prior to discharge could cause ecosystem

disruptions.

Therapeutants used in finfish culture include a range of antibiotics, vaccines, pesticides, disinfectants

and anaesthetics. They are used to control microbial infections, external and internal parasites and to

facilitate handling. Few drugs and chemicals have been approved for use in aquaculture because the

licensing of pharmaceutical products is expensive and the market for these products in aquaculture is

small in comparison to human or other livestock needs.

Issues of concern regarding the potential negative impacts of these products include the formation of

chemical residues in wild fauna and soil, the toxic effects on non-target species and the development of

bacterial resistance that can threaten aquaculture operations and that could potentially be transferred

to the human food chain (IUCN, 2007).

The stress caused by intensive farming practices can compromise the natural immune response and

often leads to disease prevalence. Bacterial disease outbreaks occur mainly when farms are not

properly managed, causing stress that results in disease and the associated need for therapeutants.

The residues of certain pesticides used to remove parasites can also be highly toxic and persistent in

the water and sediments, killing non-target organisms and affecting the ecosystem.

Guide G




The dependence on therapeutants can be greatly reduced by;

• Good management practices that promote fish health and stress reduction

• Employing a preventative approach to disease to reduce the requirement for costly post-effect

treatment. To this end a health management programme with routine health checks is essential

• The use of approved medications that are prescribed by a veterinarian

• Preventing the disposal of toxic or persistent substances in the environment

• Encouragement in the use of environmentally benign and biodegradable therapeutants

• Preventing the use of antibiotics as a prophylactic or preventative treatment

When therapeutants are used responsibly and together with preventative health management, these

chemicals pose a low environmental risk and monitoring is not required. Record keeping of the use

and disposal of therapeutants and chemicals is sufficient to demonstrate responsible use.


Medication, antibiotics and pesticide Use of therapeutants may not cause detrimental effects

on the natural environment

SC

OR


Short term (1) Study area (1) Moderate (2) May occur (2)


MIT

IGA

TE

• Record the use of medications and therapeutants (farmer)

• Implementation of a health management programme (farmer and the DAFF)

• Database on disease occurrence and use of therapeutants by industry (the DAFF)

MO

NIT

OR


• Use of therapeutants

may not cause

detrimental effects

on the natural

environment

• Record of use of

medications and

therapeutants

• Record stock and

usage of

medications and

chemicals as per the

DAFF requirement

• Record withdrawal

periods

• Record when

therapeutants and

chemicals are used

• Report to the DAFF in

monthly return

RESPONSIBILITY • Farmer to meet conditions of authorisations and implement on farm measures in

terms of health management programme recognised by DAFF


• The DAFF could compile list of acceptable substances



5.5.5. Genetic Impact of Escapees on Wild Populations

Captive breeding is required for effective production and to alleviate pressure on wild stocks. Escape

could lead to genetic impacts on wild stocks given that farmed fish may be genetically different. This

impact depends on the number of escapees and degree of genetic difference between the stocks. Fish

are unlikely to escape from land based facilities, but the potential for escape from cages is high.


The potential genetic impacts can be mitigated by means of;

• The use of wild broodstock and avoiding trait selection

• Conducting research into the production of sterile offspring

• Conducting research into the population genetics of wild stocks to facilitate broodstock

management and the prediction of genetic impacts

• Optimizing mooring and cage systems so that risk of escape through cage failure is reduced

With wild broodstock, the effect of escaped fish is likely to be undetectable. In the future the monitoring

requirement could be reviewed if trait selected fish are used.


Genetic impact of escapees on wild populations Finfish culture should not measurably alter the genetic

profile of natural stocks.

SC

OR


Long term (3) Regional (3) Slight (1) May occur (2)


MIT

IGA

TE

Research on population genetics of wild fish populations (the DAFF)

Research into the production of sterile offspring (the DAFF)

Incidence reports of fish escapes (Farmer)

Optimise cage and mooring systems to minimise escapes (Farmer)

MO

NIT

OR


Finfish culture should not

measurably alter genetic

profile of natural stocks.

Escaped fish should not

affect wild stock genetics

in a detectable manner.

No genetic monitoring

required at present.

Incidence reporting.

Description of event and

cause of escape

documented.

RESPONSIBILITY Farmer to meet conditions of authorisations

The DEA (Oceans and Coasts Branch) and other CA’s to verify compliance

The DAFF could monitor disease in natural populations

The DAFF could facilitate SEA’s



5.5.6. Pathogens and Parasites

Pathogens and parasites from farmed marine fish may be transferred to wild fish populations in three

ways (Blazer & La Patra, 2002):

• Introduction of new pathogens via importation of alien organisms for culture

• Introduction of new pathogens or strains via movement of cultured organisms

• Amplification of pathogens that exist in wild populations and their transmission between wild

and cultured populations via intensive culture

The greatest threat to wild stocks is the introduction of new pathogens, or existing pathogens that have

mutated or adapted to new conditions and for which no natural defense has evolved. In terms of

naturally occurring parasites and pathogens the potential of farming activities causing disease related

impacts in wild stocks, is low.


The threat of disease related impacts on wild stocks can be reduced by:

• The implementation of broodstock health management protocols designed to ensure that new

pathogens are excluded from the marine environment through offspring. Broodstock originating

from the geographic region in which the fish are being farmed should be used by preference so

as to reduce the likelihood that new pathogens or parasites are introduced to the wild stocks

• Using on-farm health management that can provide baseline information on the disease and

health status of the farmed fish. Regular treatment for parasites will reduce the shedding of

parasites that could be transferred to wild stocks. Incidences of disease and mortality should

be recorded and reported to the DAFF, who will prescribe appropriate management

interventions

• Conducting an annual scan of wild fish diseases and parasites will provide useful baseline data

and an indication of the prevalence and effects of farm related diseases and parasites

• Having the seed stock of any exotic culture species certified disease free and subject to strict

quarantine and health monitoring

Monitoring of on farm fish health and preventative treatment is the key to minimising the threat related

to the transfer of pathogens and parasites to wild stocks.




Pathogens and parasites The risk of pathogen transfer between farmed and wild

stocks should be minimised

SC

OR




MIT

IGA

TE

• Broodstock health management programme (Farmer)

• On-going on-farm health monitoring (Farmer)

MO

NIT

OR


• The risk of pathogen

transfer between

farmed and wild

stocks should be

minimised

• Broodstock health

management

programme

• Farm health

monitoring

• Report on parasite

incidence and

treatment

• Report any rapid

increases in mortality

rates

• Parasite incidence

and intensity, fish

internal and external

condition, tissue

samples for histology

to detect pathogens

of concern


and protocol as

prescribed in

broodstock health

management

programme or by

veterinarian

• Monthly or as

prescribed in

broodstock farm

management

programme or by

veterinarian

• Annual sampling

number and location

to be determined by

aquatic health expert



• The DAFF (State Veterinarian) to verify compliance and receive quarterly health

status reports from farmers

• The DAFF could research disease matters and maintain database of disease and

therapeutants

• The DAFF could monitor disease in natural populations



5.5.7. Interaction with Large Marine Fauna – Cage culture

Large fauna (fish, whales, dolphins, seals, birds, sharks and turtles) may be attracted to cages and

cage debris may be ingested and can prove fatal. Due to improvements little threat is posed in terms of

entanglement (Nash et al., 2005).


Site specific research and monitoring should be used to determine potential problems with fauna. If

required, exclusion barriers or other means of exclusion (e.g. sound or bird scaring devices) should be

used, provided the impact thereof on non-target fauna is acceptable. Feed management to prevent

feed loses and the removal of mortalities will contribute to mitigation of faunal interactions. If ongoing

problems arise, more detailed observation may be required by the DAFF in order to facilitate

appropriate management actions. Farm designs and the EIA process should provide sufficient

measures to minimize and mitigate impacts. The goal of monitoring should be to provide evidence that

objectives are met and to detect occurrences. Incident reporting is thus recommended under normal

conditions.


Interaction with large marine fauna (cages) Negative impacts of interaction between cage culture

operations and fauna should be avoided

SC

OR




MIT

IGA

TE

• Incidence reporting. Responsibility: the farmer

MO

NIT

OR


• Negative impacts of

interaction between

cage culture

operation and fauna

should be avoided


of interactions when

this becomes a

problem

• Record event,

frequency,

circumstances,

duration, actions

taken and outcomes

• Adequate

documentation of the

event when it occurs






5.5.8. Social and Spatial Conflicts Related to Cages

Cage farms exclude other users (recreational boating, fishing, shipping) from farm sites. This may

impact on tourism, aesthetics and limit investment potential in alternatives to aquaculture.


Government must pro-actively conduct SEA’s to zone for cage farming and select sites that could offer

optimal social, economic and environmental outcomes. The SEA (with public participation) should

include a social and economic assessment that quantifies the benefits and potential losses associated

with the establishment of cage farming. The SEA and EIA process should be sufficient to resolve social

and spatial conflict issues associated with cage farming. The socio-economic benefits which accrue

from farming should be monitored to demonstrate that the environmental objective is achieved.


Social and spatial conflicts The zonation of areas for sea based aquaculture should

result in socio-economic benefits

SC

OR




MIT

IGA

TE

• Capacity to undertake a strategic environmental assessment (SEA)

MO

NIT

OR


• The zonation of

areas for sea based

aquaculture should

result in socio-

economic benefits

• Socio-economic

benefits

• Resolve social

conflicts around

aquaculture


and salary income,

production tonnage

and turnover



from annual farm

production returns to

the DAFF

• Documentation of

incidents around

conflicts arising

• Press reports

RESPONSIBILITY • The DEA (Oceans and Coasts Branch) to see to equitable allotment in

consultation with the DAFF





5.5.9. Human Health Issues

As aquaculture products are grown in the marine environment, the condition of the environment may

affect product quality and therefor human health. Product quality may be affected by toxins or the

prevalence of certain diseases. In addition to this, the handling of aquaculture products may pose

human health risks caused by contamination or through the presence of chemical and therapeutic

residues.


Monitoring and management is required to limit health risks. Internationally such protocols are

established for monitoring health of fish and shellfish products as well as the waters they are grown in.

The European Union (EU) requires a certified water quality monitoring programme before it will allow

imports of shellfish. In an attempt to comply with EU requirements, the DAFF established the South

African Molluscan Shellfish Monitoring and Control Programme (DAFF, 2006), encompassing;

• The classification of shellfish production areas in terms of toxicity risks

• The monitoring of shellfish production areas

• The requirements for the harvesting and transport of live shellfish

• The requirements for relaying shellfish

• The depuration procedures

• The wet storage procedures

• The requirements for despatch centres

• The canning or cooking or freezing procedures

The National Regulator for Compulsory Standards (NRCS) is responsible for certification of the health

of cultured fish products. It is implementing the FAO/WHO Code of Practise for Fish and Fishery

Products, produced for aquaculture (CODEX Alimentarius Commission, 2005). This CODEX identifies

potential hazards to human health and provides technical guidelines for ensuring product safety

through the production, transport and processing phases. At present, the health of cultured fish in

South Africa is certified according to the compulsory standards used for wild caught fish. Health issues

specific to aquaculture (e.g. water quality and drug residues) are not currently addressed. If South

Africa is to export cultured fish to the EU, an EU certified environmental monitoring programme will be

required.




Human health issues Aquaculture fish and shellfish products should pose a

minimal health risk to consumers

SC

OR




MIT

IGA

TE

• Shellfish monitoring and control programme

• Fish product health monitoring and certification

MO

NIT

OR


• Aquaculture fish and

shellfish products

should pose a

minimal health risk to

consumers

• Shellfish: Safety of

both the culture

environment and

harvested shellfish.

• Fish: Safety of

processed fresh fish

Work towards

including monitoring

to meet WHO/FAO

CODEX standard

• Environmental and

product safety

including: HAB

occurrence and

toxicity tests, heavy

metals and

microbiological

agents, pesticides,

PCB’s and

radionuclides

• Product safety of

fresh fish as per

NRCS compulsory

standard for finfish.

No environmental

monitoring at present

but objective for

future

• As per South African

Molluscan Shellfish

Monitoring and

Control Programme

• As per NRCS

compulsory standard

for finfish



• Farmers (assisted by DAFF) must meet the standards of the National Regulator

of Compulsory Standards (NRCS)



6. POSITIVE IMPACTS OF MARINE AQUACULTURE

The principle of sustainable development requires aquaculture to be practised within the capacity of the

environment and to generate a net social and economic benefit. In light of the decline in fish supply the

potential benefits of developing marine aquaculture are substantial. The EIA process needs to identify

and quantify both the positive and negative impacts of marine aquaculture, so that decision makers

have a rational basis for approving or declining marine aquaculture developments. The main positive

impacts of aquaculture are summarised below, with suggestions on monitoring these.

6.1. Increased Supply of Fish

National and global wild fish supplies have peaked and effectively levelled off. It is generally accepted

that the only manner to maintain the per capita supply of fish in the face of population growth is through

aquaculture. It is projected that fishery production and the per capita fish consumption in Africa will

decrease over the next decade (Delgado et al., 2003) if the supply of fish does not grow with demand.

In addition to this, the price of fish will rise, imports will increase and eventually the per capita

consumption of fish will also fall in South Africa, hampering food security needs. Against this backdrop

there is an economic and political imperative to increase the supply of fish from marine aquaculture,

provided this can be done in a socially, economically and environmentally sustainable manner.

MO

NIT

OR


• Aquaculture should

increase the national

production of

seafood products

• Annual production • Production by weight

or unit

• Value of raw product

• Completion of the

DAFF annual report

by farmers

RESPONSIBILITY • Farmers to provide production data

6.2. Reduced imports and outflow of currency

Aquaculture has the potential to reduce the reliance on imports of high value seafood products. This in

turn can reduce the outflow of currency and promote local economic growth and skills development.

Shipton and Britz (2007) identified a number of import substitution products which could be supplied

from aquaculture, including salmon, trout, mussels, sushi grade fish, linefish and ornamental fish. At

present no monitoring of this aspect is recommended as it would be difficult to measure import

substitution directly.



6.3. Alleviate Pressure on Wild Stocks

It has been suggested that farming over-fished species can alleviate pressure on wild stocks (IUCN,

2007). However, there is little evidence to support this argument. In the face of a dramatically rising

global demands the pressures from fishing have continued to increase with the growth of aquaculture.

Aquaculture would however be expected to alleviate fishing pressure once fish supply exceeds

demand and once the cost of producing a certain product by aquaculture is lower than the cost of

obtaining an equivalent product by means of fishing. The link between fishing and aquaculture is not

necessarily direct, as fisheries and farmed products may be directed to different markets in certain

instances. In the absence of an enhanced fishery management and compliance arrangement, it is thus

not a given that increased production of a particular species through aquaculture will alleviate fishing

pressure on wild stocks. Nevertheless, the potential of aquaculture to alleviate fishing pressure exists

and could be used if natural fisheries resources are well managed. At present no monitoring of this

aspect is required.

6.4. Stock Enhancement, Restocking and Sea Ranching

Aquaculture provides a means to augment wild fish populations using hatchery reared seed for

restocking in planned stock release as opposed to release through escape. Stock enhancement,

restocking and ranching are increasingly practised as a means of increasing production and

rehabilitating recruitment-limited wild populations (Bell et al., 2008). In South Africa, experimental

abalone ranching has shown promising results (Sweijd et al., 1998) and the feasibility of kob stock

enhancement has been investigated (Palmer, 2007). The DAFF has published guidelines for marine

ranching and stock enhancement (DEAT, 2008b) as stock enhancement must be coupled to on-going

management and monitoring. At present no monitoring of this aspect is required.

6.5. Enhanced Local Productivity

The nutrients and structures provided by aquaculture operations can enhance local productivity that

could result in ecological and social benefits, particularly where fish populations are overexploited

(IUCN, 2007). Higher densities of fish are observed in the vicinity of cages. At present no monitoring of

this aspect is required.



6.6. Economic Growth

A key reason for promoting aquaculture is its potential to promote economic development (Bailly &

Willmann, 2001). Aquaculture has been successfully promoted in several countries for economic

growth and employment in depressed rural areas (World Bank, 2006). South African aquaculture has

made a significant contribution to local economies in areas such as Hermanus and Saldanha.

MO

NIT

OR


• Aquaculture

stimulates local

economic growth

• Economic impact of

aquaculture

• Socio-economic

indicators:

employment,

production, product

value

• Completion of DAFF

annual report

RESPONSIBILITY • Farmers to provide data in annual returns. DAFF to report

6.7. Black Economic Empowerment

As aquaculture is a growing industry, it provides opportunities for the promotion of equity through black

economic empowerment and transformation. To date, this has included both BEE shareholding in

established commercial ventures and also the promotion of small scale aquaculture ventures with

participation from local communities.

MO

NIT

OR


• Aquaculture

development

promotes BEE

• BEE status of

aquaculture

companies

• Government BEE

rating

• Bi-annual report on

BEE status of

industry

RESPONSIBILITY • Farmers to provide BEE score in annual production returns

6.8. Associated Economic Activity

Aquaculture generates significant associated economic activities in the form of various supply and

service enterprises such as feed supply, manufacture of tanks and equipment, security, engineering

and other technical services. As aquaculture is a new and interesting coastal activity which is often

located in popular tourist areas, it can also provide opportunities for tourism.



As there are no suitable indicators for measuring economic activity associated with aquaculture, there

is no current monitoring requirement. A dedicated research survey of the economic multiplier effect of

aquaculture would be useful.

6.9. New Skills and Technology Development

Modern day aquaculture requires specific human skills and as the development of these skills is

associated with new marine aquaculture projects; this skills base contributes to the socio-economic

fabric of coastal communities who may have limited opportunities to develop new and economically

valuable skills. As with skills, marine aquaculture is technologically advanced and often leads to the

development of innovative technologies that can be applied to other areas of development.



7. ORGANISATIONAL ARRANGEMENTS

The implementation of the Marine Aquaculture EIF requires;

• Dedicated management, monitoring and inspection capacity within the DAFF

• Cooperative governance arrangements with other government agencies with a responsibility

over aspects of marine aquaculture

• A forum for interacting with representatives of the marine aquaculture industry

In this section, areas of coordination between governmental departments and key stakeholders are

identified and their respective roles and responsibilities defined.

7.1. Key Organisational Structures

The following structures will be used to coordinate implementation of the EIF;

• The Marine Aquaculture Working Group (MAWG). Issues arising from the EIF requiring

coordination within the DAFF and between the DAFF, the DEA and industry, will be dealt with

through the MAWG. This is primarily an operational platform within the DAFF that is able to

consult with other stakeholders as required

• The Aquaculture Intergovernmental Forum (AIF). Higher level policy issues or inter-

departmental issues will be dealt with by the AIF. Examples of such matters include;

o The institution of state veterinary services for aquaculture by the DAFF

o The funding of research in consultation with the Department of Science and

Technology

o Customised industrial incentives for aquaculture with the Department Trade and

Industry (DTI) as the lead agent

• The Provincial Aquaculture Intergovernmental Forum (PAIF). Coordination and alignment of

aquaculture activities between the DAFF and the provinces will be dealt with through the PAIF

• The Aquaculture Value Chain Roundtable Forum (AVCRT). Value chain issues for the

aquaculture sector will be dealt with through the AVCRT Forum

• Industry liaison and other issues requiring interaction with industry will be raised through the

Marine Aquaculture Industry Liaison (MAIL) forum and with the executive of Aquaculture SA

(the national producer organisation)



7.2. Coordination between Government Departments

Implementation of the EIF will require intergovernmental coordination amongst government

departments which are responsible for various aspects of aquaculture development. The DAFF will

ensure that there is coordination and alignment of aquaculture activities on the national, provincial and

local levels. This will be done through existing forums as indicated above.

There is a need to establish linkages between the local government activities and national government

activities related to marine aquaculture development. Coordination and alignment of aquaculture

activities is required at all spheres of government to ensure sustainable management of the

aquaculture sector through joint planning, facilitation, resource mobilization, monitoring and evaluation.

As the principle of “sustainable development” requires optimisation of the social benefits of aquaculture

in an environmentally sustainable manner, joint coordination and planning between the DAFF and the

departments responsible for economic development and environmental management is essential.

7.3. Provincial Departments

Provincial departments with a mandate over aspects of marine aquaculture development have been

identified and their roles and responsibilities summarised. The EIF must remain sensitive and used in

support of Provincial policies and plans in each of the coastal provinces. In this regard, linkages must

be established between the EIF and all Provincial (and Municipal) Spatial Development Frameworks

(SDF’s), Integrated Development Plans (IDP’s) and Spatial Development Plans (SDP’s) so that marine

aquaculture planning, zoning, investment, can be done in a coordinated and effective manner.

Northern Cape

In the Northern Cape Province the department responsible for promoting marine aquaculture is

the Department of Finance, Economic Development and Tourism, who facilitate;

• The Northern Cape Provincial Fishing and Mariculture Sector Development Strategy

• The Namaqualand Aquaculture Park as a site zoned for shore based aquaculture at Port

Nolloth with infrastructure and services

The Department of Environmental Affairs and Nature Conservation are the mandated authority

over EIA’s.



Northern Cape Contacts:

Organisation Address Telephone

Fax

Web

Department of Environmental

Affairs and Nature

Conservation

Metlife Towers Building

4th Floor

Private Bag X6010

Kimberley,8301

053 8321022

053 8321026

www.denc.ncpg.gov.za

Western Cape

The Western Cape Departments responsible for aquaculture development planning, promotion

and regulation operate as a well-integrated cluster. Good progress has been made to integrate

the economic and environmental aspects of aquaculture into a sustainable development

planning framework.

The Primary Western Cape Departments are:

The Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (DEA&DP), who are

responsible for environmental development planning. This department has both a regulatory

function and a facilitative responsibility in terms of equitable, sustainable and responsible

development planning around aquaculture, both at a macro (provincial) and micro (project)

scale. As such, it is essential that there is close liaison between the DAFF and the DEA&DP

around planning the development of marine aquaculture in a manner which gives substance to

the principles of “sustainable development”. The DEA&DP’s responsibilities include

administration of the EIA process, issuing environmental authorisations and facilitation of the

environmental aspects of the Western Cape’s Provincial Spatial Development Framework

(WCPSDF).

The Department of Economic Development and Tourism (DED&T), who integrate

aquaculture into the province’s economic strategy. Initiatives facilitated by the DED&T include;

• The economic aspects of the WCPSDF

• Processes to promote aquaculture development nodes

• The Western Cape’s aquaculture policy

• Supporting the Western Cape Aquaculture Development Initiative (WCADI)



The Department of Agriculture, who is active in support to small farmer development

initiatives and veterinary services.

Cape Nature is a public institution with the statutory responsibility for biodiversity conservation

in the Western Cape. Its responsibilities in respect of marine aquaculture include;

• Permitting for the import and export of fish and other organisms

• Investigating environmental crime

• Managing and conserving fauna and flora biodiversity

• Implementation of the Western Cape Nature Conservation Ordinance

The Western Cape Aquaculture Development Initiative (WCADI), which operates as an

aquaculture development agency in the Western Cape comprising business, labor, civil society and

government.

Western Cape policies and processes linked to aquaculture include;

• The Western Cape Province Spatial Development Framework (WCPSDF)

• The Western Cape Provincial Aquaculture Development Strategy, which covers aspects

such as:

o The establishment of marine aquaculture zones and the required SEA’s

o Streamlining permitting and the EIA processes

o Access arrangement to project development sites in which many EIA aspects have

been covered

o The development of a water quality management programme

o An animal welfare, product quality and consumer safety system, which includes a

NRCS accredited health management programme and which is informed by

international good practice

o A traceability and certification programme

o Capacity creation within state veterinary services to collaborate with industry

around the implementation of monitoring, health management, quarantine and

health certification

o Disease surveillance and monitoring to support reporting to the OIE

o An aquatic animal health laboratory to act as the national lead centre for aquatic

animal health



Western Cape Contacts:


Fax

Web


Affairs and Development

Planning

8th Floor

No. 1 Dorp Street

Cape Town

Private Bag X9086

Cape Town, 8000

021 4834091

021 4833016

www.capegateway.gov.za

Department of Economic

Development and Tourism

11th Floor

NBS Waldorf Building

80 St George's Mall

Cape Town, 8001

021 4835065

021 4833409


Department of Agriculture Muldersvlei Road

Elsenburg Building Private Bag

X1 Elsenburg, 7607

021 8085005

021 8085000


CapeNature PGWC Services Centre

Cnr Bosduif & Volstruis St

Bridgetown

Private Bag X29

Gatesville, 7766

021 4830000 www.capenature.org.za

Eastern Cape

The department mandated with the regulation of marine aquaculture in terms of NEMA in the

Eastern Cape is the Department of Economic Development and Environmental Affairs

(DEDEA).

The promotion of aquaculture development is undertaken by the Eastern Cape Development

Corporation (ECDC). The ECDC is a parastatal mandated to promote economic development

in the province and have undertaken various initiatives to promote aquaculture development,

including;

• The development of a SEA to identify suitable sea cage farming sites

• Aquaculture development planning and investment at sites including the Coega and East-

London IDZ’s (Industrial Development Zones)

The Eastern Cape Parks Board (ECPB) is committed to undertake best practice conservation

management as well as to promote the sustainable utilization of natural resources in the

Eastern Cape Parks, in partnership with communities and other stakeholders.



Eastern Cape Contacts:


Fax

Web

Department of Economic

Development and

Environmental Affairs

Indwe House

2nd & 3rd Floors

Bhisho

Private Bag X0054

Bhisho, 5605

040 6093234

040 6093211

www.dedea.gov.za

East Cape Development

Corporation

Ocean Terrace Park, Moore

Street

Quigney

East London

043 7045710

043 7436036

www.ecdc.co.za

Eastern Cape Parks Board PO Box 11235

Southernwood

East London, 5200

043 7054400

086 6111623

www.ecparks.co.za

KwaZulu-Natal

The Department of Agriculture and Environmental Affairs is responsible for aquaculture

development in KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) and act as the mandated provincial custodians of the EIA

process. Initiatives to promote aquaculture in the province include the development of an

aquaculture strategy.

Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife is assigned the responsibility of ensuring the long-term conservation of

biodiversity and the province’s natural resources. They also deal with;

• Permits for the import and export of fish and other organisms

• Investigating environmental crime

• Managing and conserving fauna and flora biodiversity

KwaZulu-Natal Contacts:


Fax

Web

Department of Agriculture and

Environmental Affairs

Private Bag X9059

Pietermaritzburg, 3200

033 3559100

033 3559122

www.kzndae.gov.za

Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife PO Box 13069

Cascades, 3202

033 8451000

033 8451002

www.kznwildlife.com



7.4. National Departments

The following national departments have mandates which include aspects of marine aquaculture

development or management;

• The Department of Science and Technology (DST) who plays an active role in promoting

research and the development and transfer of aquaculture technology

• The Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) who are responsible for implementing policies and

programmes to promote micro-economic development. This includes the disbursement of

incentives to promote the development of priority sectors such as aquaculture

• The Department of Environmental Affairs who are mandated in the implementation of the

Integrated Coastal Management Act. This includes overseeing and regulating all discharge into

the marine environment. This Department is also responsible for overseeing the EIA and SEA

processes related to national assets (marine environments and National Protected Areas)

• The Department of Health (DoH): Directorate: Environmental Health is mandated in the

provision of a sustainable, safe and healthy environment for all South Africans. This

department works closely with the National Department of Environmental Affairs & Tourism on

International environmental multilateral agreements. Municipal Health authorities administer

aspects of the Health Act under the mandate of the National Department of Health. In terms of

marine aquaculture, this includes regulation over aspects such as the transport, depuration and

wet storage of shellfish. Land-based wet storage facilities and depuration plants must also obtain

a Certificate of Acceptability for food premises from the local health authority as required by

regulations

• The Department of Transport oversees Transnet (Portnet) and therefor its role in terms of

lease of space and use of infrastructure in ports

• The Department of Water Affairs are mandated over certain listed water use activities

• The Department of Public Works who are the custodian of public infrastructure such as

harbours



National Departmental Contacts:


Fax

Web

Department of Science and

Technology

DST Building

CSIR Campus

Meiring Naude Rd

Private Bag X894

Pretoria, 0001

012 8436300

www.dst.gov.za

Department of Trade and

Industry

Private Bag X84

Pretoria, 0001

Block A, 3rd Floor

77 Meintjies Street

Sunnyside, Pretoria

0861 843 384

0861 843 888

www.thedti.gov.za


Affairs

Private Bag X447

Pretoria, 0001

Fedsure Forum Building

North Tower

315 Crn Pretorius & Van der

Walt Str

Pretoria

012 310 3911

012 322 2682

www.environment.gov.za

Department of Health

Private Bag X828

Pretoria, 0001

012 395 8000

012 395 9019

www.doh.gov.za

Department of Transport

(Transnet / Portnet)

Private Bag X193

Pretoria, 0001

Forum Building

159 Struben St, Pretoria

012 309 3841

012 328 3194

www.transport.gov.za

Department of Water Affairs Private Bag X 313

Pretoria, 0001

Sedibeng Building

185 Schoeman St

Pretoria

012 309 3000

012 328 3370

www.dwaf.gov.za

Department of Public Works Cnr Bosman & Vermeulen

Pretoria

Private Bag X65

Pretoria, 0001

012 406 1974

086 276 8530

www.publicworks.gov.za



7.5. Key Parastatal and Non-Government Stakeholders

Key non-government stakeholders that play a role in the implementation of the EIF include;

• The NEPAD Secretariat for Fisheries and Aquaculture, who are tasked with promoting regional

fishery and aquaculture development in Africa

• The National Agricultural Marketing Council (NAMC), who are a statutory body established in

terms of the Agricultural Products Act (Act No. 47 of 1996) to advise the Minister of Agriculture

and the South African Agriculture Industry on matters relating to the marketing of agricultural

products

• The National Regulator for Compulsory Standards (NRCS), which is the entity responsible for

the administration of technical regulations including compulsory specifications based on

standards that protect human health, safety and the environment. This includes certification of

the health of aquaculture products to meet EU and other standards

• Tertiary institutions, including;

o University of Stellenbosch, Aquaculture Division

o Rhodes University, Department of Ichthyology and Fisheries Science

o The University of Cape Town

o The University of the Western Cape, Botany Department

o The University of KwaZulu-Natal

o The Elsenburg Agricultural College

• Aquaculture SA (previously the Aquaculture Association of Southern Africa / AASA), who

represent participants in the aquaculture sector as a producer organisation and which is

affiliated to World Aquaculture Society (WAS). The executive of Aquaculture SA is made up of

representatives from various subsectors, including the following marine groups and

associations;

o The Abalone Farmers Association of South Africa (AFASA)

o The Marine Finfish Farmers Association of South Africa (MFFASA)

o The Shellfish Forum

• The World Wildlife Fund South Africa (WWF-SA), who have an active marine programme to

promote the sustainable use of marine resources and ecosystems. The WWF has initiated a

series of “Aquaculture Dialogues” to develop sustainable aquaculture industries and oversee

the Southern African Sustainable Seafood Initiative (SASSI)

• Other stakeholders in the marine aquaculture sphere include;



o The international Office International des Epizooties (OIE) being the organisation that

deals with identifiable aquatic diseases

o The Southern African Development Community (SADC) who have protocols related to

fisheries and aquaculture

o The Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem (BCLME) that has a joint policy

covering marine aquaculture matters in South Africa, Namibia and Angola

o The African Union (AU)

o The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN)

o The South African National Parks Board (SANPARKS) who are mandated in the

environmental conservation of National Parks and related areas, which are often in

proximity to marine aquaculture ventures

o The South African Network for Coastal and Oceanic Research (SANCOR) generates

and communicates knowledge and advice in order to promote the wise and informed

use and management of marine and coastal resources and environments

o The Oceanographic Research Institute (ORI) [a division of the South African

Association for Marine Biological Research (SAAMBR)], who strive to stimulate

community awareness of the marine environment through education and who promote

wise, sustainable use of marine resources through scientific investigation

o The South African Institute of Aquatic Biodiversity (SAIAB) (a division of the South

African National Biodiversity Institute / SANBI), who strive to explore and research

aquatic biodiversity South Africa

Key Non-Government Contacts:


Fax

Web

NEPAD PO Box 1234

Halfway House

Midrand, 1685

011 256 3600

011 206 3762

www.nepad.org

National Agricultural Marketing

Council

Private Bag X935

Pretoria, 0001

012 341 1115

012 341 1811

www.namc.co.za

National Regulator for

Compulsory Standards

SABS Campus 1

Dr Lategan Road Groenkloof

Pretoria

Private Bag X25

012 428 5000

012 428 5199

www.nrcs.org.za



Brooklyn, 0075

University of Stellenbosch:

Aquaculture Division

Private Bag X1

Matieland, 7602

021 808 5838

021 808 5833

www.sun.ac.za

Rhodes University, Department

of Ichthyology and Fisheries

Science

P O Box 94, Grahamstown,

6140

021 603 8415

021 622 4827

www.ru.ac.za/ichthyology

The University of Cape Town

(UCT)

University of Cape Town Private Bag X3 Rondebosch, 7701

021 650 9111

www.uct.ac.za

The University of the Western

Cape

Private Bag X17

Bellville, 7535

021 959 3891 www.uwc.ac.za

University KZN / Zululand University of KwaZulu-Natal

Durban, 4041

031 260 1111 www.ukzn.ac.za

Elsenburg Agricultural College Private Bag X1

Elsenburg, 7607

021 808 5111

www.elsenburg.com

Aquaculture SA

PO Box 71894

The Willows

Pretoria, 0041

012 803 5208

086 232 9677

www.aasa-aqua.co.za

Abalone Farmers Association of

South Africa

PO Box 22428

Fish Hoek, 7974

021 785 1477

021 785 1477

None

The Marine Finfish Farmers

Association of South Africa

(MFFASA)

PO Box 8110

Nahoon

East London, 5210

083 489 8124 None

The Shellfish Forum PO Box 558

Saldanha Bay, 7395

082 558 9789 None

The World Wildlife Fund South

Africa (WWF-SA)

P O Box 23273

Claremont, 7735

021 657 6600

086 535 9433

www.wwf.org.za

The international Office

International des Epizooties

(OIE)

12 Rue Prony, 75017 Paris,

France

+33 (0) 144 151

888

www.oie.int

The Southern African

Development Community

(SADC)

PO Box 0095

Gaborone, Botswana

+267 395 1863 +267 397 2848

www.sadc.int

The Benguela Current Large

Marine Ecosystem (BCLME)

Private Bag 5031

Swakopmund

Namibia

+264 64 406901 +264 64 406902

www.bclme.org

The African Union (AU) PO Box 3243 +25 111551 7700 www.africa-union.org



W21K19

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

+25 111551 7884

The International Union for the

Conservation of Nature (IUCN)

IUCN Conservation Centre

Rue Mauverney 28

1196, Gland, Switzerland

+41 (22) 999-

0000

+41 (22) 999-

0002

www.iucn.org

The South African National

Parks Board (SANPARKS)

PO Box 787

Pretoria, 0001

012 428 9111

012 426 5500

www.sanparks.org

South African Network for

Coastal and Oceanic Research

(SANCOR)

Private Bag X2

Roggerbaai, 8012

021 402 3536 www.sancor.nrf.ac.za

The Oceanographic Research

Institute (ORI)

PO Box 10712

Marine Parade

Durban, 4056

031 328 8222

031 328 8188

www.ori.org.za

South African Association for

Marine Biological Research

(SAAMBR)

PO Box 10712

Marine Parade

Durban, 4056

031 328 8222

031 328 8188

www.saambr.org.za

South African Institute of

Aquatic Biodiversity (SAIAB)

Private Bag 1015

Grahamstown, 6140

046 603 5800

046 622 2403

www.saiab.ac.za

South African National

Biodiversity Institute (SANBI)

Private Bag X101

Pretoria, 0001

012 843 5000

012 804 3211

www.sanbi.org



8. REFERENCES Anderson, RJ Bolton, JJ, Molloy, FJ, Rottman, KWG. 2003. Commercial Seaweeds in Southern Africa. Proceedings of the

Seventh International Seaweed Symposium. Oxford University Press. pp 1-12.

Bailly, D. & Willmann, R. 2001. Promoting sustainable aquaculture through economic and other incentives. In R.P. Subasinghe, M.J. Phillips, P. Bueno, C. Hough, S.E. McGladdery & J.R. Arthur, eds. Aquaculture in the Third Millennium. Technical Proceedings of the Conference on Aquaculture in the Third Millennium, Bangkok, Thailand, 20-25 February 2000. pp.95-101. NACA, Bangkok and FAO, Rome.

Barg, U. and Phillips, M.J.,1997. Review of the state of world aquaculture. FAO Fisheries Circular. Rome 886: 55-66. Bell, J. D., Leber, K.M. ; Lee, H., Lee Blankenship, H., Loneragan, N.R. And Masuda, R. 2008. A new era for restocking,

stock enhancement and sea ranching. Reviews in Fisheries Science 16: 1-3.

Brink, D. 2003. Overview of aquaculture in South Africa: 2003. Report. Division of Aquaculture, University of Stellenbosch. Britz. P.J. 2005, Oellermann, L, Davies, JA, Shipton, TA, and Perkins, D.W. 2005. A Mariculture Sector Plan for South

Africa. Volume 2. Industry Status and Diagnostic Analysis. Report prepared by Rhodes University for Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism: Marine and Coastal Management. 36p.

Blazer, V.S. and La Patra, S.E., 2002. Pathogens of cultured fishes: potential risks to wild fish populations. Pages 197-224.

In: J. Tomasso, ed. Aquaculture and the Environment in the United States. U.S. Aquaculture Society, A Chapter of the World Aquaculture Society, Baton Rouge, LA.

Britz, P.J. and Godfrey, B., 2008. Specialist Report on the Impact of the Expansion of the Wild Coast Abalone Farm on the

Marine Environment. EnvirofishAfrica. 208p. Brugère, C. and Ridler, N. 2004. Global aquaculture outlook in the next decades: an analysis of national aquaculture

production forecasts to 2030. FAO Fisheries Circular No 1001. Rome, FAO. 47p. CODEX Alimentarius Commission, 2005. Code of practise for fish and fishery products. Draft section on aquaculture.

ALINORM 05/28/18. Available at: www.CODEXalimentarius.net/download/report/633/al28_18e.pdf. DEA, 2012. EIA and Environmental Management Guideline for Aquaculture in South Africa. Department of Environmental

Affairs, Pretoria. DEAT, 2008a. Initial Genetic Best Management Practice Guidelines for Marine Finfish Hatcheries in South Africa.

Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism: Branch Marine and Coastal Management. 3p. DEAT, 2008b. Draft Guidelines For Marine Ranching In South Africa. Government Notice 657. Government Gazette 615:

No 31143. 32p. Delgado, C.L., Wada, N., Rosegrant, M.W., Meijer, S., Ahmed, M. 2003. Outlook for fish to 2020: meeting global demand.

International Food Policy Research Institute, 2020 Vision Food Policy Report. DWAF, 1995. South African Water Quality Guidelines for Coastal Marine Waters. Volume 4: Mariculture. Department of

Water Affairs and Forestry. Fletcher, W.J., Chesson, J., Fisher M., Sainsbury, K.J., and Hundloe, T.J. (2004) National ESD Reporting Framework: The

‘How To’ Guide for Aquaculture. Version 1.1 FRDC, Canberra, Australia 88 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. Rep.Stud.GESAMP, (57):38p.

Grant, J., Stenton Dozey, J., Monteiro, P.M.S., Pitcher, G, and Heasman, K.. 1999. Shellfish mariculture in the Benguela

system: A carbon budget of Saldanha Bay for raft culture of Mytilus galloprovinicialis. Journal of Shellfish Research 17: 41-49.



Hambrey, J., Phillips, M., Chowdhury, M.A.K., Shivappa, R.B. 1999. Composite Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Coastal Aquaculture Development. Prepared for the Secretariat for Eastern Africa Coastal Area Management (SEACAM). 148p.

Haupt, T.M., Griffiths, C.L., Robinson, T.B., Tonin, A.F.G. 2010. Oysters as vectors of marine aliens, with notes on four

introduced species associated with oyster farming in South Africa. African Zoology 45(1): 52-62. Hansen, P.K.; Ervik, A.; Aure, J.; Johannessen, P.; Jahnsen, T.; Stigebrandt, A.; and Schaanning, A. 1997. MOM (Modelling

- ongrowing fish farms - monitoring) Concept and revised edition of Monitoring Programme 1997. Fisken Og Havet Nr 7 – 1997. Institute of Marine Research, Bergen. 51p.

IUCN, 2007. Guide for the Sustainable Development of Mediterranean Aquaculture. Interaction between Aquaculture and

the Environment. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Malaga, Spain. 107p. ISEAL Alliance 2009. ISEAL Code of Good Practise for Setting Social and Environmental Standards. www.isealalliance.org.

6p. Kandjengo, L. 2002. The molecular systematics of Ulva linnaeus and enteromorpha link (ulvales, chlorophyta) from the

South Western Cape, South Africa: 1-82. M.Sc. dissertation: University of Cape Town. DAFF, 2006. South African Molluscan Monitoring and Control Programme. Issue 2 March 2006. 44p. Nash, C.E., P.R. Burbridge, and J.K. Volkman (editors). 2005. Guidelines for ecological risk assessment of marine fish

aquaculture. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFSNWFSC-71, 90 p. Nel, R. and Winter, D. 2008. Environmental Monitoring Programme: Pilot of Finfish in Sea-cages near the Port Elizabeth

Harbour. Half-Year Report No 2: December 2008. Prepared for Department Of Environmental Affairs And Tourism, Directorate Marine and Coastal Management and Irvin and Johnson Limited. 31p.

NSF, 2000. Environmental monitoring of marine fish farms (Corrigendum AC:2000 incorporated). English translation of

Norwegian Standard NS9410.E. NSF – Norwegian Standards Authority. www.standard.no . Palmer, R.M., 2007. The feasibility of stock enhancement as a management tool for dusky kob (argyrosomus japonicus) in

South Africa. MSc Thesis, Department of Ichthyologty and Fisheries Science, Rhodes University. 179p. Robinson, T. B., C. L. Griffiths, A. Tonin, P.Bloomer & M. P. Hare. 2005. Naturalized populations of oysters, Crassostrea gigas along the South African coast: distribution, abundance and population structure. J. Shelfish Res. 24 (2) 443- 450. Rothman, M.D. Anderson, R.J & Smit, A.J., 2006. The effects of harvesting of the South African kelp (Ecklonia maxima) on

kelp population structure, growth rate and recruitment. Journal of Applied Phycology 18: 335–341. Samsukal P. (2004) A preliminary study of effluent water quality of land-based abalone farms in South Africa. M.Sc. Thesis,

University of Tromsø, Tromsø, 169 pp. Schoonbee, W. and Bok, A., 2006. Experimental Sea Cage Monitoring Plan. Irvin and Johnson (Pty.) Ltd. 13p. Shipton, T. and Britz, P.J. 2007. A Study on the Status of Aquaculture Production and Trade in South Africa. Volume 1:

Industry Status and Diagnostic Report. A report for the Department of Trade and Industry produced by Enviro-Fish Africa (Pty.) Ltd. 90p.

Stenton-Dozey. J.M.E., Jackson, L.F. and Buzby, A.J. 1998. Impact of mussel culture on macrobenthic community structure

in Saldana Bay. Marine Pollution Bulletin 39: 357 – 366. Sweijd, N. A., Snethlage, Q., Harvey, D., and Cook, P. A. 1998. Experimental abalone (Haliotis midae) seeding in South

Africa. Journal of Shellfish Research. 17: 897-904.

Troell, M., Robertson-Andersson, D, Anderson, P.J., Bolton, J.J., Maneveldt, G., Halling, C. and Probyn, T. 2006. Abalone farming in South Africa: An overview with perspectives on kelp resources, abalone feed, potential for on-farm seaweed production and socio-economic importance. Aquaculture 257, 266-281.



Yearsley, R.D. 2007. Water quality, abalone growth and the potential for integrated mariculture on a South African abalone

haliotis midae l. farm. MSc Thesis, Department of Ichthyology and Fisheries Science. 84p. WWF, 2009. Aquaculture Dialogues Process Guidance Document.

http://www.worldwildlife.org/what/globalmarkets/aquaculture/WWFBinaryitem9674.pdf. 11p. World Bank, 2006. Aquaculture: Changing the Face of the Waters Meeting the Promise and Challenge of Sustainable

Aquaculture. Report No. 36622 – GLB. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTARD/Resources/Aquaculture_ESW_vGDP.pdf

environmental integrity framework for marine aquaculture · aquaculture is planned and operated are...

Documents