sixth framework programme - ecasa.org.uk€¦ · web viewword, j.q., (1990). ... impact of a net...

ECASA 006540 11 October 2005

SIXTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME

PRIORITY [#]

Integrating and Strengthening the European Research Area

Contract for:

SPECIFIC TARGETED RESEARCH OR INNOVATION PROJECT

Annex I - “Description of Work”

Project acronym: ECASAProject full title: Ecosystem Approach for Sustainable AquacultureProposal/Contract no.: 006540Related to other Contract no.: (to be completed by Commission)

ECASA 006540

Date of preparation of Annex I: 18 October 2004

Ammended 11 October 2005 (ICRAM), August 2006 (DCF UNIVE & UoC)

Operative commencement date of contract: (to be completed by Commission)

of 81


Table of Contents

1. Project summary.........................................................................................................32. Project objective(s).....................................................................................................33. Participant list...........................................................................................................174. Relevance to the objectives of the specific programme and/or thematic priority....185. Potential Impact.......................................................................................................215.1 Contributions to standards......................................................................................225.2 The PIP (Policy Implementation Plan)..................................................................225.3 Risk assessment and related communication strategy...........................................226. Project management and exploitation/dissemination plans.....................................236.1 Project management...............................................................................................236.2 Plan for using and disseminating knowledge.........................................................246.3 Raising public participation and awareness...........................................................257.1 Introduction - general description and milestones.................................................267.2 Workplanning and timetable..................................................................................277.3 Graphical presentation of work packages..............................................................287.4 Work package list /overview..................................................................................297.5 Deliverables list......................................................................................................307.6 Work package descriptions....................................................................................328. Project resources and budget overview....................................................................418.1 Efforts for the project (STREP/STIP Efforts Form in Appendix 1)......................418.2 Overall budget for the project (Forms A3.1 & A3.2 from CPFs)..........................428.3 Management level description of resources and budget........................................479. Ethical issues............................................................................................................5110. Other issues............................................................................................................51Appendix A - Consortium description.........................................................................54A.1 Participants and consortium..................................................................................54A.2 Sub-contracting.....................................................................................................79A.3 Third parties..........................................................................................................81A.4 Funding of third country participants....................................................................81

of 81


1. Project summary

We propose an ecosystem approach to the aquaculture sector. We will address this by 1) identifying plausible quantitative indicators of the effects of aquaculture on ecosystems through a process of expert working groups, workshops and meetings, 2) similarly, identifying indicators of the main drivers of ecosystem change affecting aquaculture, including natural and environmental pressures, 3) assessing both sets of indicators using existing datasets (the partners collectively have extensive data archives), considering each in the context of appropriate selection criteria, 4) developing a range of tools, particularly models, that encapsulate best process understanding at a wide range of scales, 5) testing these models and indicators in a wide variety of field locations across Europe (~10) encompassing major culture species and technologies, and covering a wide spectrum of environment types, selected according to criteria developed during the project, and 6) using this data to test and select the final “toolpack” of models and indicators, including appropriate decision support tools to guide users to effective implementation. National annual meetings with stakeholders will be held to allow 2-way interaction ensuring the practical relevance of the work and that the “user community” achieves ownership of the project’s outputs. We will organise a final international conference and workshop where the “toolpack” of indicators and tools for effective environmental impact assessment and site selection will be demonstrated.

2. Project objective(s)

Aquaculture continues to expand both globally and within Europe bringing benefits to society, often in fragile coastal communities where traditional employment opportunities are in decline. However, there are well-documented cases where aquaculture has a negative impact on the environment (Black, 2001). These have focussed on the effects of waste products – dissolved and particulate nutrients, chemicals and medicines - together with transmission of genes, parasites and diseases between wild and cultured species, as well as interactions with both local and oceanic fisheries. There are also well-known conflicts between the aquaculture sector and other coastal users. Although work has been conducted on this subject at Member State and EU levels, and outside the EU, much of the information gathered has yet to be integrated, generalised and disseminated, and there remains a need to develop a quantitative understanding and predictive capability in the diverse European ecosystems where aquaculture is practiced. In particular, the advances that have been made in understanding the ecosystem functioning and resilience of coastal seas through several programmes of oceanographic research (e.g. MAST, ELOISE) have not been adequately integrated with the more applied coastal science that has, in general, been focussed on the local scale.

Similarly, while much has been learned on the environmental requirements of cultured species there are only a few good examples where the ecosystem services that aquaculture requires have been integrated at the wider scale, allowing assessment of optimal resource use to minimise risks to the aquaculture sector from ecosystem degradation. Thus, site selection for aquaculture is often inadequate on a range of

of 81


scales, both with respect to the receiving ecosystem and with respect to ecosystem services to cultured species. In this respect, the concepts of carrying capacity (referring to available resources, particularly food), assimilative capacity (referring to recycling capacity for organic matter) and holding capacity (referring to sustainable production) are important but elusive, and are receiving continuing attention from regulatory bodies.

The “Ecosystem Approach” has several available definitions (e.g. WRI, US EPA). For our purposes, the most appropriate is that described by the Convention on Biological Diversity (UNEP/CBD/COP/5/23 Decision V/6, 103-106). The operational guidance therein for applying the ecosystem approach has as a first step a “Focus on the functional relationships and processes within ecosystems”. Although a " much better knowledge of ecosystem functions and structure, and the roles of the components of biological diversity in ecosystems, is required ....ecosystem management has to be carried out even in the absence of such knowledge.” Thus the thrust of the ecosystem approach is a dynamic “learning by doing” and using best available methodologies which evolve with the incorporation of increasing understanding. It is roughly true that there exists good theoretical understanding of the hydrodynamics of marine coastal waters, moderate theoretical understanding of the biogeochemistry and sediment dynamics of these waters, and rather poor understanding of the community ecology of shallow-water benthic and pelagic ecosystems that are currently stressed by anthropogenic inputs. Nevertheless, empirical approaches to biodiversity are well developed and can be incorporated into ecosystem management tools, either in the form of empirically parameterised, theoretically based, physical-chemical-biological models, or as empirical relationships between indicators of drivers or pressures on ecosystems and indicators of impact on, or response of, those ecosystems.

Anthropogenic impacts on the marine environment can be considered on a range of scales. We can consider local (Zone A) intermediate field (Zone B – delimiting a biogeographically logical feature such as an estuary, bay or loch) and Zone C (delimiting the regional scale seawards to a defined hydrodynamic and ecosystem limit). Most aquaculture environment interaction studies take place within Zone A, as it is mainly here that a strong signal may be observed. However, ecosystem degradation may be only locally important and, provided that effects at Zone B and C are minimal, wider ecosystem damage may be avoided. But this is not the case if the local area affected is so degraded as to compromise some ecosystem service important at wider levels e.g. nursery areas for fish. There is a natural tension between avoiding local degradation and minimising wider impacts and this tension is driven by physical processes that disperse wastes (and diseases). Thus, there is a need for indicators of ecosystem change, and modelling tools that predict these indicators, to be operational in a nested sense, to reflect the fundamental physical processes that determine the degree and extent of interactions. Furthermore, local (Zone A) changes may be aggregated through effects on multiple zones within a (Zone B) region, in such a way that the only possibility for sustainable management at the local level is to begin by evaluating the carrying, assimilative and holding capacities for the region as a whole, both in terms of target species and environmental sustainability.

Several indicators of the effects of aquaculture on the environment have been proposed but some of these are not well developed across different ecosystem types.

of 81


Some, such as the Infaunal Trophic Index used by SEPA amongst others, remain controversial on theoretical grounds and should be improved and made universal by the analysis of historical data. Others, such as the AMBI (Borja et al., 2000), which has been used in the detection of different sources of impact along European coasts (Borja et al., 2003a) including aquaculture, are being developed. These and indicators of environmental change that are being, or have been, developed separately under the FP5 projects MERAMED, BIOFAQs, MEDVEG and AQCESS, and elsewhere (and considered in the CA MARAQUA), require evaluation and integration. In addition, Member States are also currently developing standards and indicators as part of their work towards the Water Framework Directive and these require assessment as to their suitability as aquaculture interaction indicators. Crucially, we will consider the ability of indicators to discriminate between aquaculture and other anthropogenic sources of perturbation in the marine environment.

Our objectives are those specified in the call:

To identify quantitative and qualitative indicators of the effects of aquaculture on the environment and vice-versa, and to assess their applicability

To develop operational tools, including models, to establish and describe the relationship between environmental conditions and aquaculture activities over a range of ecosystems and aquaculture production systems.

To develop effective environmental impact assessment and site selection methods for coastal area management.

We propose to achieve these - delivering aspects of the ecosystem approach to the aquaculture sector - by following the tasks outlined in the call:

Identifying and quantifying the most relevant indicators of the interactions (positive and negative) of aquaculture on ecosystem considering physical, chemical and biological factors, and including socio-economy (such as local fisheries) and secondary impacts;

Identifying and quantifying the main driving forces of ecosystem changes influencing the aquaculture sector and to develop the appropriate environmental indicators;

Assessing the applicability of such indicators (efficiency, cost effectiveness, robustness, practicality, feasibility, accuracy, precision, etc) and developing operational tools, e.g. models establishing the functional relationship between environment and aquaculture activities;

Testing and validating these tools in order to include them in a methodology for Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) and effective site selection.

Each of these will be presented as integrated workpackages themselves integrated at a higher level to ensure consistency of approach and compatibility of deliverables. The background and outline of each workpackage is given below:

WP1 Co-ordination Co-ordination of the proposed project is crucial to its success, particularly with respect to integrating across the wide range of academic disciplines represented within the partnership, but also considering the range of aquaculture – environment interactions and environmental differences requiring study. To that end the leaders of the workpackages, who together will comprise the Scientific Steering Group for the

of 81


project, each have been responsible for co-ordination of large multi-partner, multi-discipline research projects in this area, as detailed in section B4. Acting with the co-ordinator’s secretariat based at SAMS, this experienced group will be responsible for the integration and organisation necessary for achievement of the project’s objectives.

The internal coordination of the project will be closely integrated with WP6, which can be seen as coordination of external relations, particularly in the development and functionality of the internal and public aspects of the project’s website, which will be a key feature of the interaction of the project participants, facilitating the communication of data and documentation. This web site will be hosted by the leader of WP6 (who successfully managed the project web-site for the MERAMED FP5 project) with input from the project co-ordinator.

WP 2 Identifying and quantifying the most relevant indicators of the interactions of aquaculture on ecosystemsThe EEA have carried out a scoping study on indicators for fisheries (EEA Technical Report 87) according with the DPSIR (driving forces-pressure-state-impact-response) assessment framework (EEA, 1999). The aquaculture releveant indicators are given below along with some comment as to their appropriatness:

Need for water resources: this indicator is not very relevant to mariculture systems per se, although clearly water quality issues are of paramount importance to reared stocks.

Trends in aquaculture production in a given area or volume of water: this indicator could be used when the area is hydodynamically defined (eg a loch, fjord or lagoon). However, it is rather difficult to achieve reliable estimates for open coastal bays with variable levels of assimilative capacity.

Food conversion ratio (FCR): it is a meaningful indicator, since it allows calculation of wastes. However, there is a need to consider that decrease in FCR has a limit (imposed by the physiology of the organisms). This index is not expected to change dramatically unless there are changes in management or technology involved for example in minimising food loses through active feedback systems. FCR alone does not directly indicate environmental effects (assimilative capacity is not taken into account) but rather the profitability of the industry, which is interested in achieving low FCR values for financial reasons. The link of this variable to profitability is in part responsible for the difficulty in obtaining information from operators.

Total feed used minus aquaculture production: an alternative form of FCR with similar shortcomings.

Sales of chemicals to aquaculture industry: would be a useful indicator of the total release of chemicals as well as of the overall health condition of the industry thereby reflecting the efficiency of the management. However, some member states (e.g. UK) do not currently collect this information centrally. Residues of contaminants in flesh can be used to infer husbandry history and are of critical importance to human health.

Number of escapees per area or length of coastline: there is a problem of arbitrariness in defining coastal length (a fractal variable) and area unless it is a relatively closed system with natural boundaries. Data availability on quantities and on mobility, dispersion ability and survival of the escapees might also be a problem. However, information on the absolute level of escapes regionally is of value

of 81


considering the issues of genetic interaction that have been shown to have detrimental effects on wild populations (McGinnity et al., 2003). We will establish an explicit link with SSP3 1.3 Task 5 CA “Genetic impact on native populations” to ensure appropriate consideration of such indicators.

Number and total size of fish farms: this is easy to determine but used alone indicates little of environmental impacts since it needs to be complemented with data on site characteristics such as water exchange, depth, management efficiency, etc.

Biodiversity indicators near farms compared with away from farms: there is a reservation on the use of the term "biodiversity" here since it is actually eco-diversity. Reliable monitoring of Biodiversity is still an open issue for research and should involve large spatio-temporal scales, taxconomic capabilities and research effort, unfeasible in the context of monitoring. Disease incidence: is a good indicator since it indirectly provides integrated information on the overall condition of the industry and the potential for sustainability. It is not necessarily linked to the probability of transfer of disease to wild stocks or other marine species. We will establish an explicit link with SSP3 1.3 Task 4 CA “Potential exchange of pathogens between wild and farmed species” to ensure appropriate consideration of this indicator.

Quality of fish: standards need to be adopted in order to assess quality. These are an important set of indicators relevant to human health, and perhaps animal welfare, although they are only weakly related to environmental effects. However, this indicator has a major influence on the economics of farming owing to the interaction between quality and price.

National legislation with specific provision for environmental management of aquaculture: Legislation on Environmental Impact Assessment is in place in all European countries almost invariably covering aquaculture projects. However, the quality of the statements provided, the techniques/models used for prediction of impacts and the monitoring requirements vary enormously between countries. Additionally, regulation requirements are also variable across the countries covered by the EEA.

Our approach to this workpackage will be to research the range of parameters that have been proposed as useful ecosystem indicators of aquaculture interactions and, where appropriate, to propose new indicators. To be useful for management, indicators should be:

1. Relatively easy to understand by non-scientists and other users2. Sensitive to a manageable human activity (e.g. aquaculture)3. Relatively tightly linked in space and time to that activity4. Easily and accurately measured, with a low error rate5. Measurable over the area where they may be used6. Based on existing time-series data to help set objectives7. Cost-effective

Indicators that pass these initial tests will be presented in an integrated draft document to the partners for comment and input followed by an initial workshop (including experts and representatives from international bodies where they are not already represented within the consortium) to finalise the draft. This provisional list of indicators will then be tested against existing datasets in WP4 in order to determine

of 81


their utility to the ecosystem approach prior to being tested at a range of field sites (WP5).

The socio-economic component of this WP will be conducted within the Driving forces – Pressure – State – Impact - Response (DPSIR) framework for assessing sustainability (EEA Technical Report 87). The aim here will be to develop a typology of indicators that characterise the socio-economic performance of aquaculture, and to highlight the relevance of these indicators to policy-makers. Supplementary objectives will be:

(i) to trace the links between anthropogenic factors (e.g. increased market demand for aquaculture products) and consequent socio-economic effects (e.g. output, incomes, employment, externalities).

(ii) to identify trade-offs between the various dimensions of performance (e.g. the direct benefits of increased aquaculture production may entail indirect costs due to declining water quality) and to consider the scope for combining separate indicators into a unified measure of ‘sustainability’.

The methodology will rely on secondary data based on published sources, and will assemble information in the following areas:

(i) Financial and economic performance of aquaculture producers. (ii) Conflicts between aquaculture and other coastal zone activities e.g. local

fisheries. (iii) Regional multipliers for employment and income. (iv) External costs of aquaculture (e.g. pollution impacts).

Though the major socio-economic research is described here, there will be integration with other Work Packages as follows:

WP3 (Ecosystem drivers). Economic driving forces giving rise to increased demand for aquaculture products will be analysed. (e.g. changes in income, prices of other foodstuffs, technological developments affecting costs, etc.). A forecast will be made of how these variables are likely to change, given the emerging trends in national and international seafood markets.

WP4 (Assessment of indicators and models). Cost and earnings data needed to evaluate the performance of commercial fish farms will be used in the construction of a financial impact model. This can be used to make short-run predictions of the impact of policy measures (e.g. a nitrogen penalty tax) or exogenous changes (e.g. price falls) on the performance of the aquaculture sector.

WP 3 Identifying and quantifying the main driving forces of ecosystem changes influencing the aquaculture sector and developing the appropriate environmental indicators.Aquaculture is dependent on ecosystem services such as space, uncontaminated water, oxygen, temperature, etc. Different aquaculture types have differing dependencies. Filter feeding shellfish are consumers of planktonic organisms and particles, while fin-fish culture adds nutrients and organic particles to the ecosystem. The economic and environmental potential for integration of culture types is being further

of 81


investigated. All types of culture are at risk from ecosystem changes caused by natural variability and anthropogenic forcing. Human activity causes ecosystem change at a range of spatial and temporal scales, for example through habitat loss, pollution, ozone damage and greenhouse gas emissions.

Environmental interactions that affect aquaculture performance are best studied in relation to large-scale bivalve production where the demand for pelagic particulate nutrients may outstrip supply (e.g.; Development of an Ecological Model for Mollusc Rearing Areas in Ireland and Greece. FAR AQ2516; Trophic Capacity of Coastal Zones for Culture of Oysters, Mussels and Cockles. CON-AIR32219; Carrying Capacity and Impact of Aquaculture on the Environment in Chinese Bays. INCO-DC ERBIC4-CT98-0291). Additionally, some research has been carried out on feedbacks between environmental impact and fish performance (FAR Aq. 1.121) and on modelling the oxygen supply requirements of cultured fish species (AIR PL94 0855), but the knowledge gained requires integration. Indicators of performance and welfare are the core topic of at least two currently funded EU programs. One is the STREP Wealth (Welfare and health in sustainable aquaculture, G.L. Taranger, NO) and one is an IP (Seafood+, Torger Børresen, DK). In both cases indicators of welfare and health are being determined and we will establish communications between the projects through common partners.

Socio-economic models of the interactions between fisheries and aquaculture and coastal societies have been developed in national programmes and in EU projects such as AQCESS and, in the context of mitigating environmental impacts from aquaculture, in the BIOFAQS project. Other projects at national level are being carried out – for example “Social and technical interactions between fisheries and shellfish culture, in Charentes Bay (Atlantic coast of France)”. The aim of this project is to identify and analyze the interactions between the two activities relating to a technical project for the deep-water cultivation of oysters inside fishing grounds. It will include socio-economic analyses of the different companies, and the way they can react to such innovation.

However, more generally, socio-economic models of the interactions of fisheries and aquaculture in the coastal environment and employment in remote areas are largely undeveloped. For these to be useful they must be developed to contribute to analysis of cost effectiveness and then, via valuation of externalities, to sustainability cost benefit analysis.

The approach to this work package is similar to that of WP2. Through a series of meetings and workshops a draft document presenting the main ecosystem drivers of ecosystem change of relevance to the aquaculture industry, together with an analysis of the most appropriate indicators of such changes, will be delivered for testing in WP4 and measuring, as appropriate, in WP5.

WP 4 Assessing the applicability (efficiency, cost effectiveness, robustness, practicality, feasibility, accuracy, precision, etc) of such indicators and developing operational tools, e.g. models, establishing the functional relationship between environment and aquaculture activities.When aquaculture develops in a new region, the key indicators are those of 'background' environmental conditions (e.g. dissolved oxygen concentrations in the

of 81


case of salmonids, phytoplankton abundance in the case of shellfish) and the performance of the farmed organisms. Subsequently, as farms increase in size, they begin to perturb environmental conditions, thus setting up a feedback loop which impacts on the farms themselves as well as other users of the coastal zone. At this stage, all significant components (farms, the physico-chemical environment, the biological communities, and other users) can be seen as comprising a system described by a set of state variables and subject to significant internal dynamics as well as external forcing by boundary conditions. Most indicators can be dealt with as either state variables themselves (e.g. water transparency, decreased by direct and indirect effects of fish-farms and in turn controlling growth rates for phytoplankton and benthic macrophytes), as the first derivatives of state variables (e.g. primary production, oxygen demand), or as statistics describing these variables (e.g. upper 95%ile of nutrient concentrations). Dynamical mathematical models (and in some cases their equilbrium solutions) are ideal tools for describing, interpreting, predicting and managing such systems.

Such models can represent from few to many state variables, using spatial grids ranging from simple single boxes to a full 3D implementation. Models with a few state variables take account mainly of biogeochemical interactions, whereas multivariable models can address issues of biological diversity. Simple models tend to be cheap and easy to apply, with minimum requirements for local parameterisation over a range of sites. They can be used as tools for screening sites for initial suitability and approximate carrying capacity, identifying environmental impact 'hot-spots' requiring further study, and for low-cost management of low-impact sites. Complex models are expensive to implement but may be needed for management of large sites with multiple inputs and which are deemed to be close to large-scale carrying capacity. Biologically complex models are needed where interactions between numerous types of organisms are important, and physically complex models are needed where patchiness and variable dynamics are issues. They can also be used to improve the parameterisation of simple models. Finally, most model implementations are designed and parameterised for particular spatio-temporal scales: scale A (local to farms); scale B (well-demarcated water bodies with residence time of days to weeks); and scale C (regional). If well-designed and properly validated, models add considerable value to environmental measurement, allowing interpolation and, in some cases, extrapolation.

A number of different operational tools for use in an ecosystem approach to management of the aquaculture sector have been developed across Europe, but these are at present only validated and implemented in few member states. The following models are known and available to partners in the project - who were in many cases key contributors to model creation and development. Some were designed to assess particular aspects of environmental impact; others are capable of addressing issues such as food availability for cultivated shellfish, or the potential synergy between finfish farms (injecting nutrient into a water body) and shellfish farms (removing phytoplankton generated by these nutrients).

For particulate organic material and insoluble medicine residues, the DEPOMOD computer model (Cromey et al., 2002a;b) is used operationally by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. This model has also been validated for the Eastern Mediterranean through the MERAMED FP5 project. A hydrodynamic model

of 81


TRIMODENA (Espino et al. 1997, González et al., 1998) has been used with success in several Environmental Impact Studies of Mediterranean Spanish cage culture, (González et al., 2002).

For dissolved components, including nutrients, simple models are available which consider Equilibrium Concentration Enhancements. In addition, for occasional discharges of waste dissolved materials, models have been developed that predict their maximum concentration relative to Environmental Quality Standards derived from ecotoxicity tests. The FP5 OAERRE project applied a number of simple and complex models to 'regions of restricted exchange' such as fjords and lagoons, and used these models to diagnose and investigate trophic status as a function of nutrient enrichment and ecosystem response (Tett et al., 2003). Work has begun on coupling two of OAERRE's 'screening models' - the UK CSTT model and the University of Göteborg's FjordEnv model - into an improved simple model for estimation of assimilative capacity in relation to nutrient and organic loading on the scale of water bodies such as small fjords and bays.

For ecosystem-scale carrying capacity modelling, the EcoWin2000 ecological model has been used in systems in the EU and China, and is currently being applied in southern Africa. Several target organisms have been considered, including mussels, oysters, scallops and shrimp, under different culture conditions (monoculture and polyculture). This modelling approach considers key processes at the ecosystem scale that condition individual scope for growth, and simulates individual growth and population dynamics of cultivated species. Typical outputs include:

Effects of overstocking on exploitation carrying capacity;Yield response to changes in culture practice;Impacts on target species of changes in anthropogenic inputs;Environmental modifications due to changes in aquaculture pressures (e.g. phytoplankton depletion).

Returning now to the tasks to be carried out in this workpackage, we remind the reader that a key aspect of our ecosystem-based philosophy is that indicators of sustainable aquacultural management are embedded in the <farm -- environment -- biological-community -- other users> system, and are thus either implicitly or explicitly parts of dynamic models. WP4 will thus focus on indicators in the context of models as operational tools. It will define and improve indicators and models through an iterative process that commences with the indicators identified in WP2 and WP3 and then interacts with existing and new (WP5) data. For example, if DO is taken as an appropriate indicator, existing or improved models will be used to investigate change in this variable as a function of hydrodynamic conditions, meteorological and boundary forcing scenarios, as well as of farm and other inputs leading directly or indirectly to oxygen production or consumption. Validated against observations, the model simulations will allow estimation of variability of DO levels with and without farm inputs, and thus provide guidance on EcoQSs, system assimilative capacity and farmed organism carrying capacity, and monitoring regime, as well as providing operational tools for farm, ecosystem and coastal zone management.

of 81


Another, more complex example, concerns the use of biological indicators (such as AMBI, see Borja et al., 2000) or the Infaunal Tropic Index (ITI, Word 1990), used as measures of impacts on the soft-bottom benthic community. Incorporation of such indicators into site-scale or water-body-scale models, could simulate the impacts on benthic diversity and the health of the community. However, these indicators are in fact a type of multivariate statistic, and at first glance their simulation would require the use of ecosystem models with many biological variables. Such a study is likely to be beyond the scope of this project, and a more practical method will be to develop a simple parameterisation of the functional relationship between AMBI or ITI and a state variable such as sediment organic content, or a time derivative such as organic sedimentation flux or sediment oxygen demand. Such a parameterisation could then be added to models such as DEPOMOD or FjordEnv.

In summary, indicators of aquaculture-environment interactions determined in WP2 and for ecosystem change WP3 will be tested with a range of pre-existing datasets, held by the partnership for a wide range of culture and environment types, to determine their utility and reliability in the context of the ecosystem approach. The WP comprises the following sequence of tasks:

1. Identification of the most appropriate indicators and models for testing with the available data;2. The allocation of testing tasks to the most appropriate partners or groups of partners;3. The testing of indicators and models against pre-agreed criteria of scientific robustness and practical utility; this will include comparisons of models with similar aims and scales;4. The development of a consensus on which set of indicators and models should be proposed for field validation in WP5; this may include new models synthesised from the best features of models tested in step 4;5. A re-iteration of the testing procedure using newly collected data from WP5;6. Publication of a full report on the merits of the chosen indicator set including best methodologies for collection, analysis and interpretation, and on the recommended set of models, including criteria for choice of models depending on spatial scale and farm size, and guidance on the use of models to estimate site and water body assimilative capacity and sustainable production, and on the reliability of model predictions.

The finally evolved indicators and models will be presented as a “toolpack” of guidelines, indicators and tools for improved EIA and site selection for marine aquaculture. This will include a decision-support tool that will present the knowledge gained in the project to guide industry and regulators to the most useful indicators and tools for determining site suitability for aquaculture activities across varying environmental types.

WP 5 Testing and validating these tools in order to include them in a methodology for Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) and effective site selection.Prediction is the heart of Environmental impact assessment (EIA) since it allows decision making based on knowledge of the consequences for the environment and society. The object of prediction is to identify the magnitude and other dimensions of

of 81


identified change in the environment with a project or action, in comparison with the situation without that project or action (Glasson et al 1999). Prediction involves the identification of potential change in indicators of environment receptors that may be affected by a project.

Prediction should identify;direct and indirect impacts (e.g simple cause-effect diagrams),the geographical extent of impacts (e.g. local, regional, national), whether the impacts are beneficial or adverse, and their duration,impacts during the life of a project (e.g. construction, operational and other stages),"rate of change" of impacts (slow build-up vs rapid changes,the reversibility or otherwise of impacts, and the cumulative and synergistic impacts,

However, in most EIAs the prediction step is rather weak, often vague and rarely based on sound data. A useful prediction can be obtained only by using realistic models, which are based on clearly stated and verified assumptions. The issue of aquaculture-environment interactions can be used for the development of such models since there is a sufficient knowledge base of the nature of the most significant ecological impacts and a substantial scientific and monitoring effort that has produced considerable amounts of data.

We propose (in WP4) to develop a “toolpack” of indicators and predictive models that capture process understanding for the purposes of site selection and EIA. Presently EIA is a requirement for most mariculture developments within the EU as a consequence of the Directive, but there is a wide range of diversity in content and quality in the Environmental Statements that proceed from these. Part of the problem is that there are no agreed methods for assessing the most important features of a site with respect to either commercial potential or environmental interactions. Thus, many Environmental Statements are unwieldy through unnecessary attention to unimportant aspects. Objective tools and methodologies for EIA are required, such that the most critical features of a development can be focussed on to allow more detailed appraisal.

We will concentrate our activities on sites representing the range of aquaculture species and European environments. Thus we propose sites (~10) in the Adriatic, Eastern Mediterranean, Western Mediterranean, Atlantic Coast of mainland Europe and the West coast of Scotland covering the species and culture types predominant in European aquaculture including shellfish extensive bottom cultures and high density mussel culture rafts. Sites will be chosen to allow maximum testing of the tools and indicators that are highlighted in WP4. Field investigations will take place in a short burst of activity appropriate to EIAs, in contrast to process studies where long-time series are the norm. Most of the partners will participate in a sub-set of field studies according to geographical location and expertise. Some partners will participate across all sites to ensure consistency of approach and philosophy between sites. The results of these studies will be reported on together allowing appropriate contrasts to inform WP4, which will take the performance of the tools and indicators under field conditions into account. The results of the sampling activity itself will be synthesised

of 81


to provide improved advice on carrying out the field aspects of EIA relating to aquaculture developments.

WP6 DisseminationThe first 4 Principles of the Ecosystem Approach (UNEP/CBD/COP/5/23 Decision V/6, 103-106) are worth restating:Principle 1: The objectives of management of land, water and living resources are a

matter of societal choice. Principle 2: Management should be decentralized to the lowest appropriate level. Principle 3: Ecosystem managers should consider the effects (actual or potential) of

their activities on adjacent and other ecosystems. Principle 4: Recognizing potential gains from management, there is usually a need to

understand and manage the ecosystem in an economic context. Any such ecosystem-management programme should: (a) Reduce those market distortions that adversely affect biological diversity; (b) Align incentives to promote biodiversity conservation and sustainable use; (c) Internalize costs and benefits in the given ecosystem to the extent feasible.

As part of the activities taking place in the different workpackages, the partners will promote their findings by publishing the scientific results. Initially, dissemination of this type of information about the project will remain limited to the partners but finally the results will be published in scientific journals. In addition, partners will be encouraged to present their work at important international meetings. However, towards the non-scientist stakeholders, there is a need for a more coordinated and integrated dissemination.

Clearly, for the ecosystem approach to be implemented, it is important to involve stakeholders such as regulators, ecosystem managers, developers and operators, and other users of the marine resource. We intend to implement this philosophy into this research project primarily in this WP to ensure the best obtainable deliverables, to ensure their most effective dissemination and to promote them as best available approaches for sustainable development and management. As such the dissemination activities will include educational aspects as well.

Major activities in WP6 include: Stakeholder meetings. Within each of the 14 countries involved in the project,

participants will host meetings of industry (including producer associations), government (and government agencies) and other user (e.g. fisheries, tourism) representatives - a draft list of appropriate stakeholders is included below (B7). In order to minimise costs and maximise possibilities for interaction, stakeholder meetings will be organised at different levels, both locally and internationally.

o Local, annual stakeholder workshops: In each country a group will be formed with the national partner and selected relevant regulators, government, industry and other users. These meetings will aim at learning from each other, not only though interaction between the project participants and stakeholders, but also between the different stakeholders themselves. Results will be actively used in the project.

of 81


o Regional, general stakeholder meeting: Towards the end of the project, the partners will coordinate regional meetings to present suitable approaches to sustainable aquaculture and present a range of aquaculture-environment interactions, and indicators and EIA tools that are available. These meetings will be organised by the partners directly as they have the strongest links with aquaculture organisations, regulators and other local stakeholders. The regional meetings involve minimal travel and hosting costs which will allow also smaller stakeholder to participate. Special care will be taken to invite stakeholders from all member and associated states, also those that are not represented with a project partner.

o Large, international stakeholder meeting: Towards the end of the project a special meeting(s) for international stakeholders (EEA, EC, European trade organisations, etc.) and other stakeholder who have actively participated in the project will be organised, preferably in conjunction with another relevant international event.

Website. We will set up a website (www.ecasa.org.uk) for project dissemination to stakeholders and the general public and a password protected homepage for project coordination and management purposes. In the public web pages, brief technical reports of the findings of the project will be published as well as background information and official project deliverables. Also, users will be able to download and subscribe to project newsletters and meeting announcements. A password protected website for project participants has in previous FP5 projects been proven to be very efficient for discussions and data and information exchange between partners, avoiding confusing email discussions and allowing for version control of data and documents.

Electronic newsletters. Short and generalised reports from the activities taking place in the other work packages will be distributed to a mailing list of selected stakeholders and to those who subscribed to the newsletters though the project web site.

Publications: Apart from the scientific publications and the newsletters, the project will attempt to publish information on it findings in industrially oriented and professional magazines and general news media.

Courses. All partners will disseminate general results obtained during the project in education (master and Ph.D. levels), but it may also be relevant to organize short courses to disseminate the results gained in the project aimed at specific stakeholder groups. These activities will require additional funding.

More detailed plans for dissimilation activities will be discussed and worked out at the first SSG meeting.

ReferencesArnquist G. & Wooster D., 1995. Meta-analysis:synthesizing research findings in ecology and

evolution. Treens Ecol Evol 10:236-240Black, K. D. (ed, 2001). Environmental Impacts of Aquaculture, pp. 214. Sheffield Academic Press,

Sheffield.

of 81


Bongiorni, L., Shafir, S., Angel, D.L. and B. Rinkevich. 2003. Survival, growth and reproduction of hermatypic corals subjected to in situ fish farm nutrient enrichment. Marine Ecology Progress Series 253:137–144

Borja, A., J. Franco and I. Muxika, (in press a). The Biotic Indices and the Water Framework Directive: the required consensus in the new benthic monitoring tools. Marine Pollution Bulletin

Borja, A., J. Franco, V. Valencia, J. Bald, I. Muxika, M.J. Belzunce and O. Solaun (in press b). The implementation of the European Water Framework Directive: a methodological approach for the assessment of the marine ecological status, from the Basque Country (northern Spain) Marine Pollution Bulletin

Borja, A.; I. Muxika and J. Franco, 2003a. The application of a Marine Biotic Index to different impact sources affecting soft-bottom benthic communities along European coasts. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 46: 835-845.

Borja, A.; J. Franco & V. Pérez, 2000. A marine biotic index to establish the ecological quality of soft bottom benthos within European estuarine and coastal environments Marine Pollution Bulletin 40(12): 1100-1114.

Cromey, C. J., Nickell, T. D. & Black, K. D. (2002a). DEPOMOD - modelling the deposition and biological effects of waste solids from marine cage farms. Aquaculture 214, 211-239.

Cromey, C. J., Nickell, T. D., Black, K. D., Provost, P. G. & Griffiths, C. R. (2002b). Validation of a fish farm waste resuspension model by use of a particulate tracer discharged from a point source in a coastal environment. Estuaries 25, 916-929.

Espino, M.; M. González; F. Hermosilla; A. Uriarte; S. Chumbe; M.A. García, A. Borja & A. S.-Arcilla, 1997. HPC Simulations of pollution events at the San Sebastian coast (N Spain). In: Measurements and modelling in environmental pollution. San José & Brebbia Eds. Computational Mechanics Publications, Southampton, pp 3-12.

European Environment Agency (2003). An indicator approach to assessing the environmental performance of European marine fisheries and aquaculture. Technical Report No. 87.

Fernandes, T. F., Eleftheriou, A., Ackefors, H., Eleftheriou, M., Ervik, A., Sanchez-Mata, A., Scanlon, T., White, P., Cochrane, S., Pearson, T. H. and Read, P. A. (2001). The scientific principles underlying the monitoring of the environmental impacts of aquaculture. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 17, 181-193.

Glasson J., Therivel R., Chadwick A. (1999) Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment. University College London, London.

González, M.; A. Uriarte; L. Motos; A. Borja & A. Uriarte, 1998. Validation of a numerical model for the study of anchovy recruitment in the Bay of Biscay. Oceans’98 IEEE-OES, Nice. 3:1313-1318.

González, M.; Gyssels, P. Mader, J.; Borja, A.; Galparsoro, I. and Uriarte, A., 2002. La modelización numérica de la dispersión de productos de deshecho vertidas desde explotaciones de acuicultura: una herramienta para la adecuada gestión medioambiental del sector. AquaTIC: http:/aquatic.unizr.es/N3/art1304/azti2.htm

Hussenot, J. M. E. (2003). Emerging effluent management strategies in marine fish-culture farms located in European coastal wetlands. Aquaculture 226, 113-128.

Leguerrier D., Niquil N., Petiau A., Bodoy A., 2004. Modelling the impact of oyster culture on a mudflat food web in Marennes-Oléron Bay (France). Marine Ecology Progress Series, in press (Manuscript n° 4903)

Mcginnity, P., Prodohl, P., Ferguson, K., Hynes, R., O'maoileidigh, N., Baker, N., Cotter, D., O'hea, B., Cooke, D., Rogan, G., Taggart, J. & Cross, T. (2003). Fitness reduction and potential extinction of wild populations of Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar, as a result of interactions with escaped farm salmon. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B-Biological Sciences 270, 2443-2450.

Solaun, O., J. Bald y A. Borja, (2003). Protocolo para la realización de los Estudios de Impacto Ambiental en el medio marino. Edited by AZTI Foundation, 104 pp.

Word, J.Q., (1990). The infaunal trophic index, a functional approach to benthic community analysis. PhD Thesis, University of Washington, USA.

of 81


3. Participant list

Role No.Participant name Participant

short nameCountry

Date enter

project

Date exit

projectCO 1 Scottish Association for Marine

ScienceSAMS UK 1 36

CR 2 Centre for the Economics and Management of Aquatic Resources

UOP UK 1 36

CR 3 Napier University NNUE UK 1 36CR 4 National Institute of Biology NIB Slovenia 1 36CR 5 Leibniz-Institute of Marine

ScienceIFM-GEOMAR Germany 1 36

CR 6 Akvaplan Niva Akvaplan Norway 1 36CR 7 University of Haifa HAIFA Israel 1 36

CR 8 University of Crete UOC Greece 1 36

CR 9 Plymouth Marine Laboratory PML UK 1 36CR 10 Institute of Marine Research IMAR Portugal 1 36CR 11 Central Institute for Marine

ResearchICRAM Italy 1 36

CR 12 Institut Français de Recherche pour l'Exploitation de la Mer

IFREMER France 1 36

CR 13 Instituto Tecnológico Pesquero y Alimentario

AZTI Spain 1 36

CR 14 University of Venice DCF_UNIVE Italy 1 36CR 15 Rudjer Boskovic Institute RBI Croatia 1 36CR 16 University of Göteborg UGOT Sweden 1 36

of 81


4. Relevance to the objectives of the specific programme and/or thematic priority

We propose to address explicitly and exactly the expected outputs outlined in the call:

“Improved knowledge on the interactions between environment and aquaculture through :

The identification of relevant indicators serving as reference standards for future safe environmental impact assessments ;

The development of operational tools, e.g. models describing the links between aquaculture and the environment.

These new tools will provide the basis for the implementation of specific criteria and guidelines for Aquaculture Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), appropriate monitoring programmes and site selection methods. They wil also contribute to define self-regulation measures facilitating a better integration of aquaculture into coastal zone management as one of the several sectorial users of natural resources.”

We see these as a development of the requirement for improved EIA expressed by the European Commission:

“Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). Thorough EIA procedures governing the location of farming operations should always be applied for intensive fish farms and should be adapted to the type and the scale of the proposed development and to the perceived sensitivity of the receiving water body. The Commission will examine the feasibility of developing specific criteria and guidelines to undertake EIAs for aquaculture. COM(2002) 511 final.”

We will investigate indicators of use at different levels:

- to farmers: simple and easy-to-obtain metrics that can be used for the self-regulation of the farms when used in a monitoring scheme

- to regulators: quantitative relations between impacts and macro-characteristics of the environment (e.g depth, openness, sediment type, currents) for assisting the preliminary site-selection procedure and for setting criteria on local production

- to consultants: for the preparation of reliable EISs and for carrying out meaningful monitoring

- to other users: means for verifying the effects at larger scales

We will examine and develop models of a range of types:

Empirical models: such as those describing the effects of organic enrichment on the benthosMechanistic of mathematical models such as DEPOMOD and MERAMOD providing estimates of the extend and severity of the impacts at different spatial scalesMass balance models: linking production levels of aquaculture to production of wastes for different combinations of environmental factors and farming management options.

of 81


Statistical models: linking environmental variables/descriptors of environmental quality to distance, time, depth and latitude, providing also estimates of uncertaintyField and laboratory experimental methods: aiming at identifying relations between ecological compartments, flux rates and other key processes needed for the calibration of mathematical modelsAnalogue models: making predictions based on analogous situations (e.g. among sites, types of disturbance etc.)

Many previous projects have concentrated on the scientific aspects of aquaculture - environment interactions, and this project will employ those scientific data and conclusions to establish a pan-European ecosystem approach to underpin the sustainability of this commercial activity within the framework provided by the Water Directive. The existing regional and national regulations regarding aquaculture site-selection and environmental impact assessments have many common criteria, but all have different approaches. The challenge that this project will address is the formation of a European scientific consensus on the best approaches (indicators, models, methods) to site selection and EIA from both environmental and socioeconomic perspectives. Evaluation of the environmental impact of aquaculture must always be made in the context of the sum of all activities in the coastal zone, as it is seldom the only ongoing anthropogenic activity. Thus, the assessment of aquaculture impacts must include an evaluation of the relative contribution of aquaculture to environmental deterioration (or enhancement) and the additive impact of aquaculture when considering broader issues such as ICZM and overall carrying capacity.

The socio-economic issues considered have considerable relevance for policy-makers, and specifically to regulators. Examples of this are tabulated below.

Information / Indicator Policy relevance (examples)Financial and economic performance

Cost structures and profit ratios of commercial fish farms can be used to indicate their propensity to remain in the industry in the face of control measures (e.g. effluent charges) or other exogenous events (e.g. price falls).

User conflicts Impact matrices are a useful qualitative indicator of the interactions and conflicts between aquaculture and other users of the coastal zone (e.g. local fisheries). This is necessary information for coastal zone planning and management.

Regional multipliers Multiplier effects, which define the total economic activity supported directly and indirectly by aquaculture, may be potentially significant. This implies that changes in the output of aquaculture may induce changes in the output and employment of other sectors, which is clearly a matter of policy concern in regions of high unemployment.

External costs The environmental impacts of aquaculture are generally well known, but very great uncertainty attaches to the economic costs that these impose on society. Monetary estimates of the externalities of aquaculture are necessary for any public measures or policy decisions affecting the industry.

We believe that the project’s objectives, and most importantly the consortium of experts gathered, specifically addresses the scientific, technical, wider societal and policy objectives of the SSP Priority. In terms of understanding of scientific process,

of 81


as mentioned above, we will advance the state of the art by bringing together experts from a spectrum of applied to pure science across a wide range of disciplines, to focus on the evaluation, testing and implementation of the best possible indicator and model set. In technical terms, the development and integration of modelling tools by the interaction of a grouping of Europe’s leading active modellers, with appropriate decision support tools to allow identification of those most appropriate for a particular application, will result in a significant improvement in the state of the art. Societal aspects will be explicitly considered at all stages, co-ordinated by participant 2, where socio-economic expertise will interface directly with participants who already have a strong socio-economic application aspect to their science expertise, as well as those participants who have traditionally been involved in more “pure” science. Thus the combination of these aspects will deliver the policy goal i.e. an ecosystem approach to aquaculture, with an improved and consistent approach to site selection and environmental impact assessment.

A conceptual summary of the project including only the research components is shown below:

of 81


5. Potential Impact

The indicators, models and other information generated by the project are of potential use in policy making and as such can help solve societal problems relating to aquaculture. In strategic terms the knowledge is relevant to the following questions:

1. What is the current status as regards the impact of aquaculture on the marine environment ?

2. How is that status likely to change in the immediate future ?3. What forces are driving the changes, and what is their origin ? (i.e.

anthropogenic or natural)4. What are the implications, either for the environment per se or for society ?5. Can the impacts and their consequences be influenced by appropriately-

designed control measures, and what are the trade-offs ?

A particular strength of the ECASA project is its multidisciplinarity, a feature which is essential given that the problems associated with the aquaculture sector have several dimensions (ecological, socio-economic, etc.) and call for a wide skillbase. Indeed, a fundamental aim of the project is to show how this existing knowledge can be applied in practical situations so as to quantify the effects of aquaculture, both positive (i.e. as benefits) and negative (i.e. as costs).

Through the explicit involvement of relevant stakeholder grouping including SMEs firstly at the national level and then at the international level in a plenary forum, we anticipate a major impact on the planning and regulation of aquaculture in Europe. In addition, we expect that the toolpack adopted will have global relevance as many of the indicators and tools will be generic and adaptable to different environment and culture types.

There are at present considerable differences between planning and regulation across the member states, with different standards relating to the EIA process. Even in member states where there are detailed, publicly available and scientifically sound approaches to aquaculture development (e.g. in Scotland, see www.sepa.org.uk/aquaculture), there is considerable concern that the EIA process is insufficiently rigorous and results in differing standards and interpretations across administrative boundaries. Engaging the regulators, administrators, enterprises and other sector users in a two-way process of exchange of ideas, concepts and practices with the project participants will achieve several objectives:

a substantial contribution to ensuring the socio-economic relevance and applicability of the research, and feedback allowing informed discussion which will be disseminated back to the project steering committee in order for these to influence decisions on the WP trajectory.

a transfer of useable scientific knowledge between scientists and stakeholders at national level

an internationalisation leading to interactions between stakeholders facing common practical problems across the EU and fostering interactions between regulators and extra-national scientific experts

of 81


ownership of the project beyond the research consortium leading to maximum possible involvement and uptake by the user community

consensus between the stakeholders and the participants on the priorities for future research to meet the growing challenge of a growing industry as outlined in the European Aquaculture Strategy essentially informing and defining and developing an Aquaculture Environment Research Strategy.

5.1 Contributions to standards

Although pressures from fisheries and aquaculture are not explicitly considered in the EU Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC), there nevertheless exists a pressing need for the definition of type-specific reference conditions for a number of biological and supporting quality elements in water body types where there are significant pressures from these activities.

This project will contribute to the definition of such standards, by making use of modelling techniques to evaluate changes in quality status in a few transitional and coastal types under different scenarios of aquaculture and using these data (as well as existing historical data) to suggest ranges for key quality elements.

5.2 The PIP (Policy Implementation Plan)

Contractors shall, through the co-ordinator, submit at, or before the end of the project, a Policy Implementation Plan (PIP) detailing how the research group proposes the application of the results at the fishery policy management level.

The specific content of the PIP shall detail the initially expected policy related results from the project to be measured against the obtained results. It shall describe the potential application of the results within EU and national policy frameworks (e.g. legislation, control, economic impacts) on short-, mid- and long-term time scales, and provide overall policy guidance conclusions. The format of the PIP shall be a free-style text document written as an executive summary of maximum 3 A4 pages.

The targeted readers of this deliverable would be policymakers, stakeholders and officials concerned with policy management issues. The document could be designated as confidential, if the consortium requests that this part of the final report is not to be published.

5.3 Risk assessment and related communication strategyThe co-ordinator shall take all measures to assure that the appropriate environmental safety provisions are fulfilled in the course of the project by all contractors, particularly those provisions related to deliberate release of genetically modified organisms into the environment. In addition, the co-ordinator shall take all measures to assure that all contractors, when dealing with biological material, strictly follow safety procedures in compliance with the national and EU regulations on bio-safety. All work must be carried out in compliance with national and EU regulations on safety.

of 81


6. Project management and exploitation/dissemination plans 6.1 Project management

Progress reportsWithout prejudicing the general requirement of Annex II (article II.7) of the contract, the reporting periods for the following scientific reports have been fixed as follows:

• After 12 months an “interim activity report” giving project status and progress overview,

• At mid-term of the project, a “periodic activity report”, a “periodic management report”, a “report on the distribution between contractors made during that period of the Community financial distribution” with the corresponding technical, financial and cost statement report of each contractor. An audit certificate is not required for this first period,

• At the end of the project, a “final activity report covering all the work, objectives achieved and conclusions, including a suitable executive summary”, a “final management report”, a “report on the distribution between contractors made after the end of the project of the Community financial distribution”,

• An audit certificate covering the whole project period is to be delivered with the corresponding financial and final reports at the end of the project.

The work-package leaders will form a scientific steering group (SSG), chaired by the co-ordinator, for the purposes of decision making and scientific management of the project. These will meet on a 3-monthly basis to ensure progress towards the objectives and attainment of deliverables with reference to the project milestones.

There is a danger of overlaps between research activities but this will be rigorously avoided by careful planning within and between workpackages so that all partners benefit scientifically from this collaboration whilst each contribute to the wider success of the project. At each meeting a risk analysis will take place considering key steps that might delay the project such that future problems can be assessed and mitigated. In addition a gap analysis will be completed for each period to ensure that key tasks and commitments are accounted for or remedial action taken if appropriate.

This is a large partnership and we will address the dilemma of effective co-ordination and management versus cost by utilising best possible electronic communication including telephone conferencing, video conferencing, email and, especially, through a well designed and usable web-based facility allowing efficient transfer of ideas (and, on public pages, ensuring that appropriate information regarding the project will be widely accessible to facilitate the dialogue with society within Europe).None-the-less, experience of previous projects has shown that regular meetings at steering group, work-package and project level will be absolutely necessary. We anticipate arranging such meetings to cover multiple objectives thus minimising costs associated with travel and working time.

In addition to the SSG meetings, there will also be WP meetings as appropriate and annual plenary meetings of all the partners to review progress and discuss feedback from the stakeholder groups. It is anticipated that the Project Officer appointed by the EU will attend plenary project meetings.

of 81


In order to reduce risks to the project through multiple-dependencies, participants will where appropriate operate in small groups or singly to deliver components (e.g. agreed indicators or models) while maintaining the multidisciplinarity necessary by regular interactions with complementary disciplines. The detailed breakdown of each workpackage and the allocation of tasks will be accomplished at a plenary workshop prior to commencement of the project. A clear objective of that meeting will be to ensure an integrated approach across the range of indicators and modelling tools such that the ultimate project deliverable - the toolpack – will be comprised of dovetailed concepts and tools.

Financial management and control will be maintained by the co-ordinating body SAMS, an organisation with considerable experience at both co-ordinator and partner level, having professional and dedicated accounting systems and staff.

The project partners will agree and adopt a Consortium Agreement for the efficient management of the project inter alia covering intellectual property issues. We plan to agree this prior to the start of the project.

6.2 Plan for using and disseminating knowledge

New and existing data and knowledge obtained during the project will be made available to the other project partners under the terms of the consortium agreement. Data and information exchange will be managed through the project’s Participant’s Webpages. This will be updated on a regular basis depending on the rate of information flow. This project is likely to have large data management requirements and these will be reviewed periodically by the SAMS data-manager to ensure most efficient storage and access.

All participants will sign a consortium agreement designed to maximise benefits, protect intellectual property, and manage risk. A steering group of the WP leaders will co-ordinate the activities of all participants and ensure maximum integration between WPs and partners.

The development of an implementation plan for the project’s “toolpack”, including maintenance options beyond the project lifetime, are already under consideration within the consortium. In general, research models tend to have relatively limited lifetimes once they have been published and usually never become operational. This can be avoided if the appropriate tools are lodged with the user community – in particular with regulators – who have an interest in maintaining and developing these for long term operational use. This and other options will be discussed from the beginning of the project.

Information from the project will be disseminated via the Newsletter, the Public Webpages, contributions to conferences, through meetings with the User Community (See WP6), through dialogue with other related EU funded Projects (e.g. Sumbaws, Medveg and Wealth with whom correspondence has been initiated at time of writing) and National Projects, and though publications in academic journals.

of 81


6.3 Raising public participation and awareness

Project meetingsThe meetings shall be organised in such a way that travel and subsistence costs are kept at a minimum. A mid-term and final project meeting should be held with participation of all contractors and the Commission.

The European Commission shall be informed about the meetings at least eight weeks in advance.

PublicationsThe involvement of the European Commission in this project will be demonstrated by adding the following sentence to each publication:

This study (report, paper, workshop…) has been carried out with financial support from the Commission of the European Communities, specific RTD programme “Specific Support to Policies”, SSP-200n-xxxxx “Title”. It does not necessarily reflect its views and in no way anticipates the Commission’s future policy in this area.

DisseminationA 2-4 page newsletter, glossy leaflet or flyer will be made by the co-ordinator. This will contain: e.g. general information about the work programme, participants, published results, and exploitation strategy. This leaflet is scheduled to appear 3 times, and will be broadly distributed (EU, participants, industry, scientific meetings, etc).

WebsiteA web-site for the project shall be established to ensure that the appropriate information regarding the project will be widely accessible to facilitate dialogue with society within Europe. The address for the project website will be www.ecasa.org.uk and this will be the portal to both public and consortium information. This website will be regularly updated during the project by the co-ordinator.

of 81


7. Workplan– for whole duration of the project 7.1 Introduction - general description and milestones

In outline, the project workplan consist of:1) identifying plausible quantitative indicators of the effects of aquaculture on

ecosystems through a process of expert working groups, workshops and meetings,

2) similarly, identifying indicators of the main drivers of ecosystem change affecting aquaculture, including natural and environmental pressures,

3) assessing both sets of indicators using existing datasets held by partners, considering each in the context of appropriate selection criteria,

4) developing a range of tools, particularly models, that encapsulate best process understanding at a wide range of scales,

5) testing these models and indicators in a wide variety of field locations across Europe (~10) encompassing major cultivated species and technologies, and covering a wide spectrum of environment types, selected according to criteria developed during the project,

6) using this data to test and select the final “toolpack” of models and indicators, including appropriate decision support tools to guide users to effective implementation.

National annual meetings with stakeholders will be held to allow 2-way interaction ensuring the practical relevance of the work and that the “user community” achieves ownership of the project’s outputs. We will organize a final international conference and workshop where the “toolpack” of indicators and tools for effective environmental impact assessment and site selection will be demonstrated.The remainder of this section shows how the work is organized into workpackages and gives details of timing, deliverables, and effort distribution. In summary:

WP1 concerns project co-ordination, and will run throughout the project;WP2 will identify indicators of aquaculture-environment interaction, and will

receive most effort during the first 6 months of the project;WP3 will identify the main driving forces of ecosystem change that will

impact on aquaculture, and, like WP2, will receive most effort during the first 6 months of the project;

WP4 will commence in month 6 and will draw on the results of WP2 and WP3 to incorporate indicators into models and assess the applicability of both indicators and models to particular cases, using existing data sets in the first instance, and subsequently new datasets acquired in WP5; its key objective and deliverable will be the 'toolpack', available for presentation from month 30 onwards and in final form at the end of the project;

WP5 will commence in month 12 and will interact with WP4; its main business consist of identifying suitable field sites and of making observations to test and validate models and indicators at these sites;

WP6 concerns 'dissemination'; and, because this will be achieved by interaction with the aquacultural stakeholder community, the workpackage will run throughout the project, allowing stakeholders to influence choice of indicators and models.

of 81


7.2 Workplanning and timetable

Work planning, showing the timing of the different WPs Y1 Y2 Y3

Partner 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12WP1 Co-ordinationWP2 Interaction indicatorsWP3 Ecosystem driversWP4 Assessment of Indicators and modelsWP5 Testing Vallidation EIA SSWP6 Dissemination

WP4 has clear dependencies on WPs 2 and 3 for candidate indicators but none-the less will start before the end of these workpackages in order to select the most appropriate range of models for development and assessment.

of 81

Reporting and payments scheduleECASA

Final activity report

Reported cost and Audit certificates

Final paymentBalance payment 1 period + advance 2 period

Work Programme

Initial advance

Months

Reported costs

Interim report

Periodic activity report and mid-term review

0 12 18 36 38


7.3 Graphical presentation of work packages

The dependencies and relationships between the WPs are given in the following figure.

Graphical presentation of the components showing their interdependencies (straight lines) and information flow (additional curved lines)

of 81

WP2 Indicators of aquaculture interaction

WP3Indicators of

ecosystem change

WP4Testing and

developing of indicators and

models

WP5 Field validation of

indicators and models

Primary Deliverable:“Toolpack” of indicators and models

WP6Interaction with stakeholders and the public


7.4 Work package list /overviewWP Table

WPNo

WP title Lead contract

orNo

Person-months

Startmonth

Endmonth

Deliv-erable

No

1 Co-ordination 1 33 0 36 1, 12, 14, 19, 20, 21

2 Identifying and quantifying the most relevant indicators of the interactions of aquaculture on ecosystems

12 69 0 12 5, 7,10

3 Identifying and quantifying the main driving forces of ecosystem changes influencing the aquaculture sector and to develop the appropriate environmental indicators.

8 52.5 0 12 6, 11.

4 Assessing the applicability of such indicators (efficiency, cost effectiveness, robustness, practicality, feasibility, accuracy, precision, etc) and develop operational tools, e.g. models establishing the functional relationship between environment and aquaculture activities.

3 163 6 33 18

5 Testing and validating these tools in order to include them in a methodology for Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) and effective site selection.

7 140 12 27 8, 9, 15

6 Dissemination 6 33.5 0 36 2, 3, 4, 13, 16, 17

TOTAL 491

of 81


7.5 Deliverables list

No Name WP Lead Est. person months

Nature Dissemination level

Delivery date

1 Consortium Agreement 1 1 1 CO 0

2 Public Website 6 6 9 O PU 43 Partner website 6 6 9 O PP 4

4 Publication of Newsletter 1 6 6 3 O PU 6

5 Report on the results of meetings 2 12 15 R PP 6

6 Report of the scoping meeting on pressures and interactions and the methodology to be used

3 8 20 R PU 6

7 Annotated list of indicators, including specific formulae, field of application, and references

2 12 29 R PP 9

8 Selection and description of study sites and preliminary info

5 7 20 R PU 10

9 Handbook of protocols for fieldwork

5 7 20 R PU 10

10 Report on the relevance etc. of indicators to quantify the impacts of aquaculture on ecosystems including socio-economic aspects

2 12 25 R PU 12

11 Results of analyses for interactions and associated costs to specific users

3 8 32.5 R PU 12

12 Interim report 1 1 6 R PP 12

13 Publication of Newsletter 2 6 6 3 O PU 18

14 Periodic activity report and mid-term management review

1 1 9 R PP 18

15 Report, and database of results of field studies

5 7 100 R PP 27

16 Organisation of final international stakeholder meeting

6 6 6 O PU 30

17 Publication of Newsletter 3 6 6 3.5 O PU 36

18 Toolpack of guidelines, indicators and tools for

4 3 163 R PU 36

of 81


improved EIA and site selection for marine aquaculture

19 Policy Implementation Plan 1 1 3 R PU 37

20 Final activity report, 1 1 11 R PP 37

21 Final management report and audit certificate

1 1 3 R PP 37

491

of 81


7.6 Work package descriptions

(WP leader highlighted)WP1 Co-ordinationWP number 1 Start date or starting event: 1Participant id 1 3 6 7 8 12Person-months per participant:27 1.5 1 1.5 1 1

Objectives To ensure effective planning and management of the project and integration between workpackages and partners such that the objectives of each workpackage and thus the project as a whole are achieved.

To review and assess progress in all work packages to ensure that allocated tasks are achieved according the milestone and deliverable timetable in order to take appropriate management action should there be any deviation from the workplan, and to ensure that partners make effective use of the resources allocated to them.

To ensure proper interfacing and information transfer with relevant FP5 and FP6 projects.

To ensure appropriate and timely reporting of the research between the consortium and the EU.

To ensure effective and timely administration of the financial aspects of the project.

To ensure timely co-ordinated delivery of the PIP

Description of work This work will demand effective communication between the co-ordinator, the WP leaders and the consortium. This will be achieved in the most cost-efficient way be utilising modern electronic methods including conference phones, video conferencing and face to face meetings. There will be a strong interaction between WP1 and WP6 relating to both effective internal and external communications. The co-ordinator will establish and chair a Scientific Steering Group from the work package leaders who will be jointly responsible for delivery of the project. This will facilitate effective interfacing between the workpackages, manage dependencies across tasks and increase the coherence of the project.

Deliverables The deliverables for this WP are; D1 the Consortium Agreement, D12 the 12 month Interim Report, D14 the Periodic Activity Report and mid-term management review, D19 the PIP, D20 the Final Activity Report and D21 the Final management report and audited financial report.

Milestones and expected result

of 81


This WP has no specific milestones or research results.

of 81


WP 2 Identifying and quantifying the most relevant indicators of the interactions of aquaculture on ecosystems

WP number 2 Start date or starting event: 1Participant id 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 12Person-months per participant: 4 12 6 4 3 0.5 3.5 1 8Participant id 13 14 15 16Person-months per participant 6 9 6 6

Objectives To retain a workable definition of indicators, to be used in this study. To identify the most relevant indicators of the impacts of aquaculture on ecosystems, including

on other activities (fisheries grounds, sea-ranching) and interactions relating to issues of relevance to the Birds and Habitat Directives.

To identify indicators of socio-economics impact of aquaculture on coastal areas. . To classify the different indicators of positive or negative impact of aquaculture on

ecosystems, with regards to the different types of aquaculture, their location and their environment.

to assess the interactions between aquaculture and other major uses of the coastal zone (fisheries, tourism & recreation, shipping etc)

Description of work 1- To prepare a grid of factors (physical, chemical, biological and economical) and of aquaculture systems (from intensive to extensive), allowing to classify the different indicators

2- To identify and review the available indicators, from the litterature and common practice.

3- If necessary, to identify the need of specific indicators and propose new solutions

4- To prepare an annotated list of indicators, including specific formulae, field of application, and references, for use by WP4

Deliverables Report on the results of meeting on identifying and quantifying the indicators of the impact of aquaculture on environment D5 - Mth 6annotated list of indicators, including specific formulae, field of application, and references. D7 - Mth 12Report on the relevance of indicators to quantify the impacts of aquaculture on ecosystems. D10 – Mth 12.

Milestones and expected result Report on the meetings of participants and experts groups -month 6.

of 81


Preparing an exhaustive list of plausible indicators is the key for a good assessment, which will be performed by the WP4. A document presenting the list will be produced -month 12.

of 81


WP 3 Identifying and quantifying the main driving forces of ecosystem changes influencing the aquaculture sector and developing the appropriate environmental indicators.

WP number 3 Start date or starting event: 1Participant id 1 2 3 4 6 7 8Person-months per participant:4 8 6 3 0.5 1 8Participant id 10 12 13 14 15 16Person-months per participant:3 2 2 3 6 6

Objectives To identify and quantitatively assess the role and the relative importance of the different forcing factors: (aquaculture, fisheries, pollution, eutrophication, habitat destruction etc.) and environmental variations affecting the water quality in aquaculture zones and the major ecosystem services providedTo suggest the best methods for obtaining reference levels and associated indicators useful to monitor the impact of anthropogenic factors on aquacultureTo assess indicators of the interactions between aquaculture and other major uses of the coastal zone (fisheries, tourism & recreation, shipping etc)To identify potential ways for measuring the additional cost caused by external environmental change.To identify indicators of incompatibilities between uses and/or minimal distances required to avoid conflicts over environmental issues

Description of work The proposed project will review the existing published information on water quality of marine coastal areas. It will compile information from existing sources and models to address the relative importance of different sources of pressure in a series of typical coastal environments. The areas of concern will be identified in a scoping workshop and subsequent effort will be targeted on issues of major importance. Additional data will be gathered to document interactions using time-series analysis, as well as economic valuation techniques.

Deliverables Report of the scoping meeting on pressures and interactions and the methodology to be used. D6 – Mth 6Results of analyses for interactions and associated costs to specific users. D11 Mth – 12.

Milestones and expected result Preliminary report on indicators for testing, and analysis in WP4 –Mth 6.

of 81


WP 4 Assessing the applicability (efficiency, cost effectiveness, robustness, practicality, feasibility, accuracy, precision, etc) of selected indicators and developing operational tools, e.g. models, establishing the functional relationship between environment and aquaculture activities.

WP number 4 Start date or starting event: Month 6Participant id 1 2 3 5 6 7 8Person-months per participant:11 7 22 6 2 13 9Participant id 9 10 12 13 14 15 16Person-months per participant:8 12 2 8 24 11 28

Objectives 1. Assess the efficiency, cost effectiveness, robustness, reliability, practicality, feasibility, accuracy, and precision of aquaculture-environment interaction indicators identified in WP2 and WP3.2. Develop operational tools, especially models, which capture the functional relationship between environment and aquacultural activities, and which embody the chosen indicators. The chosen model set will include stand-alone tools currently fit for purpose, developments of existing models to increase applicability and robustness and hybridisations of existing models to enhance predictive power.

Description of work 1. Identification of the most appropriate indicators (taken from WP2 and WP3) and models for testing with the available data;2. Allocation of testing tasks to the most appropriate partners or groups of partners;3. Testing of indicators and models against pre-agreed criteria of scientific robustness and practical utility; this will include comparisons of models with similar aims and scales;4. Development of a consensus on which set of indicators and models should be proposed for field validation in WP5; this will include new and hybrid models developed from those tested in step 3;5. A re-iteration of the testing procedure using newly collected data from WP5;6. Publication of a full report on the sets of best indicators and best models.

Deliverables "Toolpack" report on the merits of the chosen indicator set including best methodologies for collection, analysis and interpretation, and on the recommended set of models, including criteria for choice of models depending on spatial scale and farm size, and guidance on the use of models to estimate site and water body assimilative capacity and sustainable production, and on the reliability of model predictions. D18 – mth 36

Milestones and expected result 1. Identification of first-stage set of indicators and models (month 12 from WPs 2 and 3);2. Completion of first-stage testing of indicators and models and identification of set to be proposed for field validation (month 18);3. Reporting of conclusions concerning the best indicators and models (month 32);

of 81


4. Completion of the “toolpack” for implementation of the ecosystem approach to aquaculture (month 36).

of 81


WP 5 Testing and validating these tools in order to include them in a methodology for Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) and effective site selection.

WP number 5 Start date or starting event: 12Participant id 1 3 4 5 6 7 8Person-months per participant:13 2 12 13 3 12 6Participant id 9 10 11 12 13 14 15Person-months per participant:18 17 10 6 9 9 10

Objectives To establish robust site selection criteria to maximise the utility of the work package.To select suitable study sites for testing of the tools and indicators that are chosen in WP4To carry out a series of field sampling campaigns that will generate a database of information that will enable evaluation of the tools and indicators by means of appropriate predictive models.

Description of work Brief (< 1 week), yet intense, field investigations will be undertaken by most of the partners to allow testing of selected tools and indicators at sites (~10) in the Adriatic, eastern Mediterranean, western Mediterranean, Atlantic coast of mainland Europe and west coast of Scotland covering a wide range of aquaculture types including shellfish extensive bottom cultures and high density mussel culture rafts. Results of these studies will be utilized in WP4 to test the predictive models and to evaluate the choice of indicators and tools.

Deliverables Selection and Description of study sites with existing background information D8 Mth 15Handbook of protocols for field studies. D9 – Mth 15.Report on results of field studies. D15 – Mth 27.

Milestones and expected result There are 3 milestones to be attained in this work package. The first is the delivery of a report describing each of the study sites, including all necessary information needed for predictive modelling and for indicator selection. The second milestone will be the delivery of a handbook of methods (for quality assurance) to be employed in the field. The third milestone will be the web-based publication of data sets from the field studies. These will be available to all of the project participants and will enable data analyses, decision support system development, model testing and evaluation of indicators. The expected results will be based on the satisfactory attainment of the work package milestones. This work package will result in the preparation of a report on the study sites, a handbook of field methodology, data sets summarizing the field studies and a field-validated revision of existing EIA and site selection protocols. Results will also be measurable through the publication of related information (academic papers and technical reports).

of 81


WP 6 DisseminationWP number 6 Start date or starting event: 1Participant id 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Person-months per participant:5 1 2 2 2 3 2Participant id 8 9 10 11 12 13 14Person-months per participant:2 .5 1 1 3 1 3Participant id 15 16Person-months per participant:3 2

Objectives To ensure effective dissemination of the project through producing effective public and private web-interfaces.To ensure co-ordination of national meetings between stakeholders and participants and the 2 way flow of information.To organise a final international meeting of the project between participants and stakeholders including organisations from outside the partner’s countries and appropriate international bodies. To co-ordinate the production of effective dissemination materials including newsletters

Description of workThis WP will work closely with WP1 – co-ordination to ensure effective external relations but will also host the internal web-site that will be developed as a key information medium for the participants.Each participant will be involved in organising and participating in national stakeholder meetings to ensure maximum uptake by the user community and to ensure that appropriate bodies including regulators and producer representative organisation have the opportunity to influence the research trajectory. Therefore, the outputs of these meetings will be disseminated both internally and externally, and internally will be discussed at Steering Group and WP levels.Near the end of the project an international meeting will be organised, involving all participants represented at the national meetings together with as wide a group as possible of other interested parties, either as a stand-alone meeting or in concert with an existing meeting, to ensure that there is interaction between stakeholders across countries with the objective of transmitting agreed best practices from the “toolpack” as widely across the EU and beyond as possible.

Deliverables Commissioned, functional Public Website, D2 – Mth 4.Commissioned, functional Partner Website D3 – Mth 4Publication of Newsletters 1, 2 and 3 (D4, D13, D17)Organisation of International meeting D16 – Mth 30.

Milestones and expected result There are no specific milestones for this WP although the level of activity of the web site will be recorded and reported in order to assess the level of impact. The expected results are simply that the project becomes interactive between the researchers and the stakeholder community at a range of scales and that each is able to influence the other by their differing perspectives. Clearly this WP acts partly as a service to research partners, and by interacting with these, it is expected that the activity iterates towards increased efficiency in doing this.

of 81


8. Project resources and budget overview 8.1 Efforts for the project (STREP/STIP Efforts Form in Appendix 1)

Partn

er 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

shor

t nam

e

SAM

S

UO

P

NU

E

NIB

IFM

-GEO

MA

R

Akv

apla

n

OR

T

UO

C

PML

IMA

R

ICR

AM

IFR

EMER

AZT

I

DC

F_U

NIV

E

RB

I

UG

OT

TOTA

L

Research/innovation activitiesWP1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0WP2 3.0 12.0 6.0 4.0 3.0 0.5 3.5 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 6.0 9.0 6.0 6.0 66.0WP3 3.0 8.0 6.0 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 6.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 6.0 6.0 49.5WP4 10.0 7.0 20.0 0.0 6.0 2.0 13.0 9.0 8.0 12.0 0.0 2.0 8.0 24.0 11.0 28.0 160.0WP5 12.0 0.0 2.0 12.0 13.0 3.0 10.0 6.0 18.0 17.0 10.0 6.0 9.0 9.0 10.0 0.0 137.0WP6 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.5 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 27.5

Tota

l re

sear

ch

30.0 28.0 36.0 21.0 24.0 6.0 29.5 24.0 26.5 33.0 11.0 19.0 26.0 48.0 36.0 42.0 440.0

ManagementWP1 27.0 1.5 1.0 1.5 1.0 1.0 33.0WP2 1.0 2.0 3.0WP3 1.0 2.0 3.0WP4 1.0 2.0 3.0WP5 1.0 2.0 3.0WP6 3.0 3.0 6.0Total manageme

nt

34.0 0.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 4.0 3.5 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 51.0

TOTAL

ACTIVITIES

64.0 28.0 39.5 21.0 24.0 10.0 33.0 27.0 26.5 33.0 11.0 22.0 26.0 48.0 36.0 42.0 491.0

of 81


8.2 Overall budget for the project (Forms A3.1 & A3.2 from CPFs)

of 81


of 81


8.3 Management level description of resources and budget.

The table below shows the distribution of staff effort between partners and across the 6 workpackages. Partners are identified as Workpackage leaders, Principal contributor, Contributors and non-contributors (blank) to each Workpackage. Staff effort for co-ordination activities has been allocated only to Workpackage leaders and, together eith the project co-ordinator (Partner 1) these partners will be responsible for co-ordination of their individual workpackages and, when acting together as the Steering Group, for the whole project.

The table below shows a distribution over time. At this stage, time has simply been allocated evenly across workpackages. This will be refined prior to the start of the project at plenary meeting of participants where detailed planning of tasks within workpackages including integration of tasks between partners will be co-ordinated and documented.

(MM = man-months)

The distribution of other resources is best seen by an examination of the summary budget breakdown between the partners separated into research and co-ordination

of 81


activities, which is presented on the following 2 pages.

During the field component of the project, each partner will bring resources to bear for the common effort and there will be no unnecessary duplication of financial spend between partners engaged in common tasks (monitored by the SSG). The particular resources required on specific field studies will necessarily vary depending on the sites selected, the aquaculture activity and the models and indicators chosen for evaluation thus, at present, it is not possible to specify these in detail. However, resource use will be co-ordinated within the project by the WP leader and the Steering Group to ensure that appropriate resources available across the project partners are brought into action for particular tasks.

of 81


Allocation of budget between Partners for Research Activities

of 81


Allocation of budget between Partners for Co-ordination Activities

of 81


9. Ethical issues

The co-ordinator shall implement the research project in full respect of the legal and ethical national requirements and code of practise. Wherever authorisations have to be obtained from national bodies these authorisations shall be considered as documents relevant to the project.

10. Other issues

Gender Issues. There are no specific gender based issues relating to the proposed research. However, this proposal contains socio-economic issues including indicators and we undertake to include relevant gender-based issues when considering socio-economic issues relating to the aquaculture industry and its management. An example of where this may be important is in employment-related indicators where in many member states the % of female employees in aquaculture related activities is higher than in some other marine use industries such as fisheries.

With regards to the scientific consortium, no specific consideration has been given as to the gender balance of participants.

EU Policy issues are both implicitly and explicitly addressed in the proposal.

Several of the participants are actively engaged in education and developing educational tools and programmes. The consortium will explore the interface with education at each level from individual participant to the Scientific Steering Group.

A key component of this proposal is its engagement with external actors. Following is a table of external participants who will be invited to engage with the project as described in the descriptions of WP6 above. While some of the bodies listed have already been contacted, for the most part this table is indicative rather than definitive and we will add National and International Industry Representative bodies where these are not already listed. In addition, we will explore mechanism of involving such stakeholders from countries not represented amongst the partners, including those from outside the EU, and with relevant bodies such as the EEA and FAO. Several of the partners have existing links into such bodies as ICES and these will be pursued.

of 81


Organisations that will be invited to contribute to the stakeholder interaction and dissemination by country

Country Stakeholder bodyCroatia Croatian ministry for environmental protection

Kali Tuna - tuna farms consortiumZanchi-Sub - mariculture consortiumKarlsen Riba - fish farmsSibenik County for the consortium of mariculture in the Krka EstuaryZadar County - the county with the highest density of fish farmsDubrovnik County for the consortium of mariculture in Mali Ston BayInstitute of Oceanography and Fisheries, Split.

France French Ministry for Ecology and sustainable developmentFrench Ministry for agriculture, Forestry and FisheriesNational Committee for Shellfish Culture - CNCNational syndicate of marine aquaculturists – SFAMFrench Federation for aquaculture

Germany Landesamt fuer Umwelt und Naturschutz (State Agency for Nature and Environment), suggested contact person: Joachim Voss, Hamburger Chaussee 25D-24220 Flintbek, Phone: +49-4347-704-444, email: [email protected]

Amt für ländliche Räume Kiel - Fischerei-Außenstelle Husum (State Agency for Rural Areas), suggested contact person: Marten Ruth, several outposts, e.g.: Außenhafen, D-25813 Husum, Phone: +49-4841-3423

Landesamt für den Nationalpark Schleswig-Holsteinisches Wattenmeer (Agency for the National Park), Chief officer: Helmut Grimm, Schloßgarten 1, D-25832 Tönning, Phone: +49-04861-6160, email: [email protected]

Greece Hellenic Ministry of Agriculture, Directorate of Aquaculture and inland waters (regulators). Contact officer: Mrs Eleftheria Iordanidou, Acharnon 381, AthensHellenic Ministry of Environment, Directorate of Planning(regulators). Contact officer: Mr. Athanasios Economou, Patision Str 147, Fax: +30 210-8662024Federation for Greek Mariculture (FGM) (producers’ association). Director A. Ventiris, Tel. +30 210-9531030Galaxidi Fish Farm SA (producers). Tel. +30 22650 41840LAMANS Management Services SA (consultants involved in EIA). Contact person Dr. George Triantaphyllidis e-mail: [email protected]

Israel Israel Ministry of EnvironmentIsraeli Aquaculture AssociationIsraeli Society for the Protection of NatureFish farmers - SME's.

of 81


Country Stakeholder bodyItaly Italian Ministry of the Environment;

Italian Ministry of Agricultural and Forest Politics;Regional ARPA (Regional Agency for environmental protection);API (Italian Aquaculture Farmer Association);FAO-SIPAM;Italian Coast Guard

Norway Norwegian Aquaculture Federation (NFF, industryDirectorate of Fisheries (Fiskeridirektoratet), regulator

Slovenia Fisheries Research Institute of SloveniaMinistry of Environment, Energy and Spatial PlanningMinistry of Agriculture, Forestry and FisheriesUniversity of Ljubljana, Biotechnical FacultyCoastal Communities

Veterinary Institute of R SloveniaSpain José Carlos Macías - From the Fisheries Services of the

Department of Agriculture and Fisheries- Junta of AndaluciaRafael Barba - Technical Adviser of Conservation - Junta of AndaluciaAcuinova (Pescanova)Apromar (Spanish Association of Aquaculture)

UK Association of Scottish Shellfish GrowersThe Shellfish Association of Great BritainScottish Quality SalmonBritish Marine Finfish AssociationEuropean Aquaculture SocietyScottish Natural HeritageScottish Environment Protection AgencyScottish ExecutiveDEFRAEnvironment AgencyEnglish Nature

of 81


Appendix A - Consortium description A.1 Participants and consortium

The proposed project brings together a large number of scientists that have participated in all major projects as well as EU and other international initiatives addressing the issue of aquaculture-environment interactions, thereby ensuring that all major approaches and findings will be taken into account and that the results will reach and be relevant to the widest possible audience (scientists, producers and regulators) with an interest in this issue. More specifically:

- Participants in this proposal have also participated in TROPHEE project and MARAQUA concerted action (EU FP4), the research projects AQCESS, BIOFAQs, MERAMED, MEDVEG and OAERRE (EU FP5), the ICES working groups on Environmental impacts of Mariculture, the IOC benthic indicators group (IOC-BIG), and a large number of national research projects in their parent states.

- The consortium is interdisciplinary, comprising expertise in biogeochemistry, benthic and plankton ecology, biodiversity, fish nutrition and animal husbandry , economics and. modelling.

- The consortium has strong working links with producers’ associations (e.g. FEAP, FGM, SQS) and with regulating bodies.

- The members of the consortium have produced substantial contributions to the scientific literature on this issue some of which have pioneered the subject globally, and introduced widely-accepted methodological innovation.

- Members of the consortium have a strong expertise in a variety of aquaculture systems in different marine habitats not only in Europe but also in North and South America and Asia.

A key philosophy is that of using and sharing existing datasets, already collected and archived by the participants, to develop and test our indicators and models. The collection of new data will be limited to that required by the project. Thus research will focus entirely on collecting new data where insufficient or inadequate data exists for our purposes. A requirement is not only integration across modelling tools and indicators but co-ordinated progress in developing these to better address societal needs.

The proposed consortium consists of a wide range of types of organisation including Government Institutes, Independent Institues, Universities and SMEs. Following is a brief description of each of the participants and the expertise they bring to the partnership.

Participant 1 Scottish Association for Marine ScienceSAMS is a learned association based at Dunstaffnage Marine Laboratory near Oban on the west coast of Scotland. SAMS is one of the oldest marine research institutions in the world (established 1884, formerly the Scottish Marine Biological Association) and is a centre of excellence for the study, education and promotion of marine science. SAMS research has contributed to the societal understanding of the marine environment in subjects as diverse as, biological oceanography, coastal and fjordic marine environments, physics, biogeochemistry and, within the last decade, through significant contributions to fisheries and aquaculture policy and research.

of 81


Dr Kenny Black has co-ordinated 3 previous EU RTD projects under AIR, FAR and FP5 QoL (BIOFAQs) and participated in FP5 MERAMED. In addition, he is currently co-ordinating a major UK government funded, multi-partner project on the “Ecological effects of sealice treatment medicines” finishing in August 2004. In addition to 25 peer-reviewed research papers, he has edited or co-edited 4 major review volumes on Aquaculture, Aquaculture-environment interactions and Biogeochemistry. In 2002 he lead a review team reporting to the Scottish Parliament and Executive on the state of knowledge regarding the Ecological effects of aquaculture in Scottish waters (Black et al., 2002) and currently serves as an academic “stakeholder” on government working groups on relocation of fish farms and on assimilative capacity for aquaculture.

Black, K. D. and Mac Dougall, N., (2002). Hydrography of four Mediterranean marine cage sites. Journal of Applied Ichthyology, 18, 1-5

Black, K.D. (2001) Sustainability of Aquaculture, in Environmental Impacts of Aquaculture (ed. K.D. Black), Sheffield Academic Press, 199-212.

Black, K.D. and Shimmield, G.B., eds., (2003) Biogeochemistry of Marine Systems, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford. 372 pages.

Black, K.D., Blackstock, J., Gillibrand, P., Moffat, C., Needham, H., Nickell, T.D., Pearson, T.H., Powell, H., Sammes, P., Somerfield, P. and Willis, K. (2003) The Ecological Effects of Sealice Medicines, Interim Public Report, www.sams.ac.uk/ 25pages.

Black, K.D., Cook, E.J., Jones, K.J., Kelly, M.S., Leakey, R.J., Nickell, T.D., Sayer, M.D.J., Tett, P. and Willis, K. (2002). Review and synthesis of the environmental impacts of aquaculture. Report for the Scottish Executive Central Research Unit, 80pp. (http://www.scotland.gov.uk/cru/kd01/green/reia.pdf).

Cromey, C. J., Nickell, T. D. & Black, K. D. (2002). DEPOMOD - modelling the deposition and biological effects of waste solids from marine cage farms. Aquaculture 214, 211-239.

Cromey, C. J., Nickell, T. D., Black, K. D., Provost, P. G. and Griffiths, C. R. (2002). Validation of a fish farm waste resuspension model by use of a particulate tracer discharged from a point source in a coastal environment. Estuaries 25, 916-929.

Davenport, J., Black, K.D., Burnell, G., Cross, T., Culloty, S., Ekaratne, S., Furness, B., Mulcahy, M. & Thetmeyer, H. (2003). Aquaculture: the ecological issues. Blackwell Science, Oxford.

Nickell, L. A., K. D. Black, D. J. Hughes, J. Overnell, T. Brand, T. D. Nickell, E. Breuer and S. M. Harvey (2003). Bioturbation, sediment fluxes and benthic community structure around a salmon cage farm in Loch Creran, Scotland. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 285: 221-233.

Pantazis, P. A., Kelly, M. S., Connolly, J. G. and Black, K. D. (2000) Effect of artificial diets on growth, lipid utilization, and gonad biochemistry in the adult sea urchin Psammechinus miliaris. Journal of Shellfish Research, 19 995-1001.

Pearson, T.H. and Black, K.D. (2001) The environmental impact of marine fish cage culture, in Environmental Impacts of Aquaculture (ed. K.D. Black), Sheffield Academic Press, pp 1-31

Pereira, P. M. F., Black, K. D., Mclusky, D. S. & Nickell, T. D. (2004). Recovery of sediments after cessation of marine fish farm production. Aquaculture.

Tett, P., Edwards, V. and Black, K. (2002) The Scientific Basis of Regulation of Fish Farms in Scotland, review for SEPA. 40 page.

Tett, P., Edwards, V. and Black, K. (2003) The Scientific Basis of Regulation of Fish Farms in Scotland, review for SEPA. Part A2: comments on the Fish Farm Manual, some Annexes and Policy 40, 103 pages.

Participant 2 Centre for the Economics and Management of Aquatic Resources CEMARE

The Centre for the Economics and Management of Aquatic Resources (CEMARE) is a specialist research group within the Department of Economics at the University of Portsmouth. Since its establishment in the early 1960s to promote multi-disciplinary research into marine resources, it has developed into a substantial centre

of 81


for advanced study and teaching in the economics of fisheries, aquaculture and coastal zone management. The Centre has its own library with an extensive collection of specialist books and journals, and has active collaborative links at the international and European levels with a wide range of organisations and research networks. CEMARE staff have a range of skills and backgrounds, typically in economics, mathematics, geography, fisheries science and aquaculture.

CEMARE will take charge of the socio-economic component of the project, under the direction of David Whitmarsh. Within WP2 (interaction indicators) this will involve the collection and analysis of data relating principally to the performance of aquaculture producers, user conflicts, regional economic impacts and externalities. Socio-economics also has a role in WP3 (ecosystem drivers) and WP4 (indicators and models), and CEMARE will accordingly have an active input into both these other areas. Specifically, in WP3 through an analysis of economic driving forces and within WP4 in the development of a financial impact model.

David Whitmarsh (BA, MA, PhD) is a Reader in Marine Resource Management at the University of Portsmouth. His specialist expertise is in the economics of fisheries and aquaculture, and over the past 30 years has undertaken both theoretical and applied research in this area. Dr Whitmarsh has participated a number of European research initiatives, the most relevant in the present context being the BIOFAQs project funded through the 5th Framework Quality of Life programme.

Recent publications include:Collins, A., Stapleton, M. and Whitmarsh, D. (1998). Fishery-pollution interactions: a modelling

approach to explore the nature and incidence of economic damages. Marine Pollution Bulletin 36(3): 211-221

Neiland, A., Soley, N., Varley, J.B. and Whitmarsh, D. (2001). Shrimp aquaculture: economic perspectives for policy development. Marine Policy 25(4): 265-279

Pickering, H., Jensen, A. and Whitmarsh, D. (1999). Artificial reefs as a tool to aid rehabilitation of coastal ecosystems: investigating the potential. Marine Pollution Bulletin 37(8-12): 505-514

Whitmarsh, D. (1998). The fisheries treadmill. Land Economics 74(3): 422-427Whitmarsh, D., Northen, J. and Jaffry, S. (1999). Recreational benefits of coastal protection: a case study.

Marine Policy 23(4-5): 453-463 Whitmarsh, D., James, C., Pickering, H. and Neiland, S. (2000). The profitability of marine commercial

fisheries: a review of economic information needs with particular reference to the U.K. Marine Policy 24(3): 257-263

Whitmarsh, D., James, C., Pickering, H., Pipitone, C., Badalamenti, F. and D’Anna, G. (2002). Economic effects of fisheries exclusion zones: a Sicilian case study. Marine Resource Economics 17(3) : 239-250

Whitmarsh, D., Pipitone, C., Badalamenti, F. and D’Anna, G. (2003). The economic sustainability of artisanal fisheries: the case of the trawl ban in the Gulf of Castellammare, NW Sicily. Marine Policy 27(6): 489-497

Participant 3 Napier UniversityThe Environmental Biology Research Group in the School of Life Sciences at Napier University, Edinburgh (NUE), has a long record of applied research in aquatic ecology. Members have advised the UK government, the devolved Scottish parliament and administration, and UK Environment Agencies, about policy in relation to aquaculture and eutrophication.

Professor Paul Tett is head of the group and an expert in ecosystem modelling and eutrophication. He recently co-ordinated the FP5 project OAERRE (2000-2003), which dealt with 'Oceanographic Applications to Eutrophication in Regions of Restricted Exchange', and before that contributed to successful MAST projects

of 81


dealing with the oceanography and modelling of NW European shelf seas. He recently advised the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency about links between mariculture and Harmful Algal Blooms.

Dr Teresa Fernandes is a Reader in Environmental Biology and has been working in marine ecology for 15 years. Most of her work has focussed on the effects of anthropogenic impacts on marine species and ecosystems, and the recovery process. She was recently joint co-ordinator of the Concerted Action MARAQUA (1999-2000), which concerned the 'Monitoring and Regulation of Marine Aquaculture', and reviewed shell- and finfish culture in Europe, and its environmental impact, in order to produce guidelines for best management practices .

NUE will contribute mainly, to WP4 (Indicators & Models) and to model validation in WP5. The scientific contribution to these WPs will include:

* further development and testing of the CSTT water-body-scale screening model in the aquacultural context;

* working towards a synthesis of the CSTT model and the FjordEnv model of Göteborg University (partner 16) which will help implement the results of the OAERRE project;

* more, generally, contributing to the development of state variable theory as a basis for indicators of aquaculture-environment interaction.

In WP1, and WP2, NUE's contribution will build on, and link with, presently funded work aimed at developing assimilative capacity models for Scottish sea-lochs in relation to aquaculture, and at improving indicators and monitoring methods for eutrophication in relation to UK implementation of the Water Framework Directive and OSPAR's Strategy to Combat Eutrophication.

In addition, NUE will co-ordinate WP4 and will contribute towards project co-ordination in WP1.

Some recent relevant publicationsBolam, S.G. and T.F. Fernandes. (2003) Dense aggregations of Pygospio elegans (Claparède):

Ecological significance and a possible mechanism for their demise. Journal of Sea Research, 49, 171-185.

Bolam, S.G., T.F. Fernandes and M. Huxham. (2002) Diversity, biomass and ecosystem processes in the marine benthos. Ecological Monographs, 72, 599-615.

Bowers, D. G., Kratzer, S., Morrison, J. R., Smith, P. S. D., Tett, P., Walne, A. W. & Wild-Allen, K. (2001). On the calibration and use of in situ ocean colour measurements for monitoring algal blooms. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 22, 359-368.

Edwards, V. R., Tett, P. & Jones, K.J. (2003). Changes in the yield of chlorophyll a from dissolved available inorganic nitrogen after an enrichment event - applications for predicting eutrophication in coastal waters. Continental Shelf Research, 23, 1771-1785.

Elliott, J. A., Reynolds, C. S., Irish, A. E. & Tett, P. (2000). Exploring the potential of the PROTECH model to investigate phytoplankton community theory. Hydrobiologia, 414, 37-43.

Fernandes, T.F., A. Eleftheriou, H. Ackefors, M. Eleftheriou, A. Ervik, A. Sanchez-Mata, T. Scanlon, P. White, S. Cochrane, T. H. Pearson and P. A. Read (2001) The scientific principles underlying the monitoring of the environmental impacts of aquaculture. Journal of Applied Ichthyology, 17, 181-193.

Fernandes, T.F., M. Huxham and S. Piper. (1999) Predator caging experiments: a test of the importance of scale. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 241, 137-154.

of 81


Fernandes, T.F., K.L. Miller and P.A. Read. (2000) The Monitoring and Regulation of Marine Aquaculture in Europe. Journal of Applied Ichthyology, 16, 138-143.

Kratzer, S., Bowers, D. & Tett, P. B. (2000). Seasonal changes in colour ratios and optically active constituents in the optical Case-2 waters of the Menai Strait, North Wales. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 21, 2225-2246.

Lee, J.-Y., Tett, P., Jones, K., Jones, S., Luyten, P., Smith, C. & Wild-Allen, K. (2002). The PROWQM physical-biological model with benthic-pelagic coupling applied to the northern North Sea. Journal of Sea Research, 48, 287-331.

Lee, J.-Y., Tett, P. & Kim, K.-R. (2003). Parameterising a microplankton model. Journal of the Korean Society of Oceanography, 38, 185-210.

Proctor, R., Chen, F. & Tett, P. B. (2003). Carbon and nitrogen fluxes across the Hebridean shelf break, estimated by a 2D coupled physical-microbiological model. Science of the Total Environment, 314-316, 787-800.

Read, P. and T.F. Fernandes. (2003) Management of Environmental Impacts of Marine Aquaculture in Europe. Aquaculture, 226, 139-163.

Read, P.A., T.F. Fernandes and K. L. Miller (2001) The derivation of scientific guidelines for best environmental practice for the monitoring and regulation of marine aquaculture in Europe. Journal of Applied Ichthyology. 17, 146-152.

Tett, P. & Edwards, V. (2003). Review of Harmful Algal Blooms in Scottish coastal waters. Scottish Environmental Protection Agency, Stirling, Report, 124 pp.

Tett, P., Kennaway, G. M., Boon, D., Mills, D. K., O'Connor, G. T., Walne, A. W. & Wilton, R. (2001). Optical monitoring of phytoplankton blooms in Loch Striven, a eutrophic fjord. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 22, 339-358.

Tett, P., Gilpin, L., Svendsen, H., Erlandsson, C. P., Larsson, U., Kratzer, S., Fouilland, E., Janzen, C., Lee, J.-Y., Grenz, C., Newton, A., Ferreira, J. G., Fernandes, T. & Scory, S. (2003) Eutrophication and some European waters of restricted exchange. Continental Shelf Research, 23, 1635-1671.

Participant 4 Marine Biology Station Piran, National Institute of Biology, SloveniaMarine Biology Station (MBS, www.mbss.org) established in 1969 and located in Piran (on the northern Adriatic coast) is affiliated to the National Institute of Biology (NIB) in Ljubljana. The main research activities of the MBS are focused on characteristics and problems of coastal waters especially on the impact of pollution from land-based sources, coastal dynamics and modelling, biogeochemical processes and cycling of substances. Particular attention has been given to eutrophication problems and effects of nutrient over enrichment from different sources (municipal waste waters, riverine and atmospheric inputs, inputs from fish cages). MBS is national focal point for MED POL activities (Barcelona Convention) and is responsible for National Marine Monitoring Programme including assessment of the state of marine environment, marine biodiversity monitoring and conservation of coastal areas. MBS is data provider for Transitional, Coastal and Marine Waters within EIONET (European Environment Information and Observation Network).

MBS NIB has experience in plankton and benthic ecology, eutrophication studies and indicators, changes in sediment biogeochemistry related to pollution. MBS NIB will therefore contribute to WP 2 and 3 (identification and testing most relevant indicators using DPSIR approach), to WP 5 hosting field study in the northern Adriatic and to WP 6 organising national meetings with different stakeholders (regulators, academic community, farmers, local community, wider public).

Prof. Alenka Malej, (f) (Head of the Marine Biology Station) – expertise on plankton ecology, eutrophication, gelatinous zooplankton, links with international organisations (National Coordinator for MED POL / MAP – Mediterranean Action Plan, and

of 81


Chairperson of the NC IOC - National Committee for Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission)Dr. Branko Čermelj (m) – experise in geochemistry of lacustrine and coastal marine watersDr. Vesna Flander Putrle, (f) – experise in phytoplankton pigments in relation to pollutionDr. NIves Kovač, (f) – expertise in biogeochemical cycles in coastal watersDr. Vlado Malacic, Assistant prof. (m) – expertise on coastal hydrodynamics and modelling, water column stratificationDr. Patricija Mozetic (f) – expertise on phytoplankton taxonomy, primary production measurements by 14Cmethod, nuisance phenomena including red tides, toxic, dinoflagellate and mucus aggregates,PI of National Marine Monitoring Programme Dr. Valentina Turk (f) – expertise on microbial ecology and trophic relations in the microbial food web, PI of the Monitoring Programme.Dr. Borut Vriser (m) – expertise on meiofaunal ecology

Recent publicationsCantoni C, Cozzi S, Pecchiar I, Cabrini M, Mozetic P, Catalano F, Fonda Umani S (2003) Short-term

variability of primary production and inorganic nitrogen uptake related to the environmental conditions in a shallow coastal area (Gulf of Trieste, N Adriatic Sea). Oceanol. Acta, 26: 565-575

Čermelj B, Bertuzzi, A, Faganeli J (1997) Modelling of pore water nutrient distribution and benthic fluxes in shallow coastal waters (Gulf of Trieste, Northern Adriatic). Water air soil pollut., 99: 435-444.

Čermelj B, Faganeli J (2003) Anoxic degradation of biogenic debris in sediments of eutrophic subalpine Lake Bled (Slovenia). Hydrobiologia (Den Haag), 494: 193-199.

Flander Putrle V, Malej A (2004) The trophic state of coastal waters under the influence of anthropogenic sources of nutrients (fish farm, sewage outfalls). Period. Biolog. (in press)

Kozar Logar J, Malej A, Franko M (2003) Hyphenated high performance liquid chromatography-thermal lens spectrometry technique as a tool for investigations of xanthophylls cycle pigments in different taxonomic groups of marine phytoplankton. Review of Scientific Instruments 74: 776-778

Kovač,N., Čermelj, B., Lojen, S. (2003) Sedimentation and composition of particulate matter in a marine fish farm (Gulf of Trieste, northern Adriatic); Preliminary results. Annales, Ser. hist. nat. 13 (Supplement), 13-16.

Kovač, N., Vrišer, B., Čermelj, B. 2001. Impacts of net cage fish farm on sedimentary biogeochemical and meiofaunal properties of the Gulf of Trieste. Annales, Ser. hist. nat. 11, 65-74.

Kovač N, Bajt O, Faganeli J, Šket B, Orel B (2002) Study of macroaggregate composition using FT-IR and 1H-NMR spectroscopy. Mar Chem 78: 205-215

Kozar Logar J, Sikovec M, Malej A, Franko M (2002) The effect of eluent mixing on TLS detection and gradient elution HPLC. Anal. Bioanal. Chem 374: 323-328

Malej A, Mozetic P, Turk V, Terzic S, Ahel M, Cauwet G (2003) Changes in particulate and dissolved organic matter in nutrient-enriched enclosures from an area influenced by mucilage: the northern Adriatic Sea. J. Plankton Res. 25 (8): 949-966

Moncheva S, Dontcheva V, Shtereva G, Kamburska L, Malej A, Gorinstein S (2002) Application of eutrophication indices for assessment of Bulgarian Black Sea coastal ecosystem ecological quality. Wat Sci Technol 46: 19-28

Mozetic P, Turk V, Flander Putrle V (2001) Ecological characteristics of seawater in the vicinity of submarine outfalls. In: BREBBIA, C.A. (ed.). 6th International Conference on Water Pollution, Rhodes, Greece, Water Pollution VI: Modelling, Measuring and Prediction. WIT Press, Southampton, 2001, p. 259-268

Turk V & Malej A (2003) The influence of fish cage aquaculture on bacterioplankton in the Bay of Piran (Gulf of Trieste, Adriatic Sea). Annales Ser. Hist. nat. 13: 37-42

Participant 5 Leibniz-Institute of Marine Science IFM-GEOMAR

of 81


The Institute of Marine Research at the University of Kiel (IfM) and the Research Center for Marine Geoscience at the University of Kiel (GEOMAR) merged on January 1st, 2004 into the new Leibniz-Institute of Marine Science (IFM-GEOMAR). The new multidisciplinary institute comprises physical, chemical, biological, and geological disciplines of marine science. In close cooperation with the University of Kiel, IFM-GEOMAR offers programmes in marine fields of study. The Fishery Biology Department of the former IfM has an excellent track record of research on population dynamics, aquaculture, and experimental studies on physiology and behaviour of fishes. The aquaculture working group has a long-standing experience in environmental studies, particularly focussing on impact assessment and mitigation strategies of marine cage finfish farms. Recent EU-projects most relevant to the proposal are: Interactions between hydrodynamics and dissolved oxygen in respect to fish health in mariculture of sea bass and salmon (AIR PL94 0855); Modelling benthic disturbance and recovery in warm water mariculture (AVICENNE, CT93AV12-123); Aquaculture management and ecological interactions of noxious phytoplankton developments in the south of Latin America (AQUATOXAL, ERBIC18-CT97-0157); Development of monitoring guidelines and modelling tools for environmental effects from Mediterranean aquaculture (MERAMED, Q5RS-2000-31779).

IFM-GEOMAR will contribute to the Work Packages 2, 4, 5, and 6.

WP2: (a) Review the impacts of aquaculture on marine vertebrates (fish, seabirds, turtles and mammals) and select possible indicators and suggest methods and strategies for quantification, with an emphasis on assessing the impact of aquaculture on wild fish communities. (b) The quality of model predictions depend on a variety of basic data which are not available for many types of aquacultural activities, e.g. sinking speed, size, and density of faeces of fish or pseudofaeces of mussels; release point and time of faeces, decomposition, leaching, consumption of pellets by wild fish. IFM-GEOMAR will, in close collaboration with the modellers of the ECASA project, identify a minimum parameters set which must be available in order to retain modelling results at a level of accuracy adequate for making decisions in environmental impact studies with potentially severe consequences for the sustainable use of a coastal zone.

WP4: (a) Assess the applicability of methods and strategies for quantification of indicators suggested in WP2 (describing the impact of aquaculture on vertebrates) with existing data sets and newly collected data from WP5. (b) Compare available methods and strategies for the assessment of suitable indicators and select methods in the area of conflict between (financial, technological and temporal) feasibility and needed accuracy. Include representatives of regional authorities and aquaculturists in the selection process, consider their needs and limitations. (c) Develop and standardise methods for measuring basic input parameters identified as crucial in WP2.

WP5: (a) Applying methods and strategies, selected in WP4, to quantify indicators for the impact of mariculture on marine vertebrates at the proposed sites. (b) Provide data for testing and validating models as defined in WP2 with methods developed and

of 81


standardised in WP4 at the proposed sites. (c) deliver guidelines describing methods and strategies to quantify the aforementioned indicators and crucial model parameters; discuss these guidelines with representatives of responsible authorities and aquaculturists and adapting the guidelines to their needs and capabilities.

WP6: (a) Translation of guidelines relevant to stakeholder in Germany into German language and making them available for download in the internet; (b) host a meeting for stakeholders; (c) publication of scientific results.

Dr. H. Thetmeyer started to work in aquaculture science in the EU project AIR PL94 0855, where he studied the impact of oscillating oxygen conditions on physiology and behaviour of farmed fish. Thereafter he worked for the State Agency for Nature and Environment of Schleswig-Holstein in monitoring programmes on fish and vegetation at the coast of the Baltic Sea off northern Germany and conducted an environmental impact assessment for the expansion of a facility of the German navy and the dumping of dredged material in Kiel Bay. In the EU project MERAMED, which ended in November 2003, he was responsible for a work package on the interactions between farmed and cultured fish. He used a stereo-video system for assessing abundance and size of wild fish around net-cages, measured the particle flux of wasted feed pellets and faeces, and estimated the consumption of wasted feed pellets by wild fish. In the book “Aquaculture: the ecological issues” he was responsible for the chapter on interaction between aquaculture and wildlife.

Relevant Publications:Davenport, J., Black, K.D., Burnell, G., Cross, T., Culloty, S., Ekaratne, S., Furness, B., Mulcahy, M.

& Thetmeyer, H. (2003). Aquaculture: the ecological issues. Blackwell Science, Oxford.Thetmeyer, H., Waller, U., Black, K. D., Inselmann, S. & Rosenthal, H. (1999) Growth of European

sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax L.) under hypoxic and oscillating oxygen conditions. Aquaculture 174:355-367.

Thetmeyer, H. (1997). Diel rhythms of swimming activity and oxygen consumption in Gobiusculus flavescens (Fabricius) and Pomatoschistus minutus (Pallas) (Teleostei : Gobiidae). Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 218, 187-198.

Thetmeyer, H. & Kils, U. (1995). To See and Not Be Seen - the Visibility of Predator and Prey with Respect to Feeding-Behavior. Marine Ecology-Progress Series 126, 1-8.

Participant 6 Akvaplan NivaAkvaplan-niva is aN SME providing consultancy and research services in the fields of aquaculture and the marine environments. As such the company is centrally positioned in a network between regulator, ecosystem mangers, farm operators and other stakeholders in the marine environment. The scope of services provided by Akvaplan-niva ranges from design of aquaculture facilities and production management to environmental monitoring, guidelines development, research and EIAs for the aquaculture and offshore petroleum industry. The company employs approx. 40 specialists in these fields and is based in Norway and has regional offices and representations in Iceland, Greece, Spain, Russia, Malaysia, Canada and Qatar. Akvaplan-niva works word wide but it main markets are in Northern Europe, the Balkans (Adriatic coast), South East Asia, South Africa and the Middle East. Akvaplan-niva is affiliated with NIVA, the Norwegian Institute for Water Research. Together they represent the largest and most comprehensive group of water related

of 81


expertise in Scandinavia. A more comprehensive overview of Akvaplan-niva’s services and resources can be found at www.akvaplan.com.

Akvaplan-niva has carried out more than 1000 environmental surveys and EIA’s for the aquaculture industry facilities in Northern Europe and elsewhere. The company has been involved in formatting standards and regulations for the industry (ISO standards, Norwegian regulations) and is actively involved in a number of national and FP5 and FP6 projects (RTD, CRAFT, NoE) related to aquaculture production improvement and marine environments. It has many contacts with the industry and has representations in a number of member states.

Akvaplan-niva will be the leader for WP6 (dissemination). Also Akvaplan-niva will provide data for use in WP2 and WP3 from the following geographic regions: Norway, Iceland, Faeroes and Northwest Russia. Apart from taking active part in these meetings and discussions and the provision of data, Akvaplan-niva will not be a major active participant in these workpackages. In WP4 Akvaplan-niva will bring in its experience with aquaculture management and environmental monitoring and assessment in order to assess the applicability of indicators and tools in operational activities. For WP5, Akvaplan-niva may make available data and contacts for test sites in the Adriatic and the north Atlantic coast and may participate in field work at a site yet to be selected.

Drs Jos Kögeler, deputy director at Akvaplan-niva, will be the responsible for WP6 and the contributions of Akvaplan-niva to the other workpackages. Kögeler has worked aquaculture consultancy in a large number of countries since 1985 and was coordinator for FP5 project MERAMED. As WP-leader, he will participate in all project steering group meetings and relevant meetings arranges for the other work packages.

Participant 7 Haifa UniversityThe University of Haifa (HAIFA) is the only liberal arts university in northern Israel. It serves a student body of almost 13,000 undergraduate and graduate students. Research at the university is fostered by a variety of centers, institutes, and laboratories, which ponder vital questions of life and society and offer both academic and practical solutions. The Leon Recanati Institute for Maritime Studies at the University of Haifa was established in 1972. Guided by an interdisciplinary attitude, the Institute promotes and conducts research projects which encompass man's activities relating to the sea, bringing to light what was known in the past, man's involvement in the present and what man can accomplish in the future. By combining disciplines, such as history, archaeology, earth sciences and marine resources, the Institute has found a way of bridging between Humanities, Science and Technology. The Institute has a wide array of facilities available to this project, including analytical laboratories, microbiology facilities, a maritime workshop geared toward fieldwork-support, a computer laboratory for data analyses, etc. The university has a modern library with access to many electronic journals and works in close collaboration with other academic institutes throughout Israel and abroad.

HAIFA will be the leader for WP5 (field testing and validating tools and indicators). In addition, HAIFA will contribute to WP2 in the development of a suite of indicators

of 81


for consideration and in the formation of a decision support system to aid in the selection of appropriate indicators. The contribution of HAIFA to WP3 will be limited to participation in project discussion fora regarding the effects of ecosystem change on aquaculture. In the context of evaluating and selecting the tools and indicators to best indicate environmental impacts, HAIFA will play a significant role in both WP4, and WP5. There is a tight coupling between these two workpackages since WP4 focuses on the modification and development of models to predict and assess impacts, while WP5 focuses on the provision of the data that will be tested. In addition to coordinating the fieldwork in WP5 (D. Angel has had ample experience in this area), HAIFA will collate all of the field data and make it available to the project participants via a commonly accessible website. HAIFA will also work directly in the development of a specific predictive model. With regard to dissemination (WP6), HAIFA will assist in the development of a stakeholder-friendly format, both for interest groups at the general EU level and internally, within Israel.

Dr. Dror Angel was a research scientist at the National Center for Mariculture, Israel Oceanographic and Limnological Research, Ltd for 13 years and is currently in transition to the Leon Recanati Institute for Maritime Studies at the University of Haifa. Dr. Angel has been studying the environmental impacts associated with warm-water finfish mariculture since 1990 and has coordinated and taken part in 7 national and 6 international projects dealing with aquaculture-environment interactions. Recent EU-projects relevant to this proposal are: Modelling benthic disturbance and recovery in warm water mariculture (AVICENNE, CT93AV12-123), BIOFiltration and AQuaculture: an evaluation of hard substrate deployment performance within mariculture developments (BIOFAQs, Q5RS2000-30305), where he served as joint scientific coordinator. During recent years, Dr. Angel has focused on the means to reduce aquaculture impacts, i.e. to make fish farming a more sustainable activity. He is currently in the process of organizing a series of bi-national USA-Canada workshops on enhancing aquaculture sustainability by incorporation of integrated aquaculture methods into the industry. His research interests include marine microbial ecology, development of means to measure and improve coastal water quality, coastal zone management, recirculating aquaculture systems and he has studied various aspects associated with the biology of seagrasses, macroalgae, shellfish and finfish. Dr. Angel has authored/co-authored more than 20 papers in internationally-refereed scientific journals and has coordinated several workshops and seminars on aquaculture-environment topics.

Relevant recent publicationsAngel, D.L. and Spanier, E. 2002. An application of artificial reefs reduce to organic enrichment

caused by net cage fish farming: preliminary results. ICES Journal of Marine Science 59:1-6Angel, D.L., Eden, N., Breitstein, S., Yurman, A., Katz, T., and E. Spanier. 2002. In situ biofiltration: a

means to limit the dispersal of effluents from marine finfish cage aquaculture. Hydrobiologia 469:1-10

Angel, D.L., Eden, N., Katz, T., and E. Spanier. 2003. Mariculture-environment interactions and biofiltration in oligotrophic Red Sea waters. Annales Ser Hist Nat 13: 33-36

Angel, D.L., Krost, P. and W. Silvert. 1998. Describing benthic impacts of fish farming with fuzzy sets: Theoretical background and analytic methods. Journal of Applied Icthyology 14: 1-8

Angel, D.L., U. Fiedler, U., Eden, N., Kress, N., Adelung, D. and B. Herut. 1999. Catalase activity in macro and micro organisms as an indicator of biotic stress in coastal waters of the eastern Mediterranean Sea. Helgoland Marine Research 53: 209-218

Angel, D.L., Verghese, S., Lee, J.J., Saleh, A.M., Zuber, D., Lindell, D. and A. Symons. 2000. Impact of a net cage fish farm on the distribution of benthic foraminifera in the northern Gulf of Eilat (Aqaba, Red Sea). Journal of Foraminiferal Research 30: 54-65

of 81


Bongiorni, L., Shafir, S., Angel, D.L. and B. Rinkevich. 2003. Survival, growth and reproduction of hermatypic corals subjected to in situ fish farm nutrient enrichment. Marine Ecology Progress Series 253:137–144

Eden, N., Katz, T. and D.L. Angel. 2003. The impact of net cage fish farms on Nassarius (Niotha) sinusigerus distribution in the Gulf of Eilat (Aqaba), Red Sea. Marine Ecology Progress Series 263:139-147

Gordon, N., Angel, D.L., Neori, A., Kress, N. and B. Kimor. 1994. Heterotrophic dinoflagellates with symbiotic cyanobacteria and nitrogen limitation in the Gulf of Aqaba. Marine Ecology Progress Series 107: 83-88

Herut, B., Shoham-Frider, E., Kress, N., Fiedler, U. and D.L. Angel. 1998. Hydrogen peroxide production rates in clean and polluted coastal marine waters of the Mediterranean, Red and Baltic Seas. Marine Pollution Bulletin 36:994-1003

Katz, T., Herut, B., Genin, A. and D.L. Angel. 2002. Grey mullets ameliorate organically-enriched sediments below a fish farm in the oligotrophic Gulf of Aqaba (Red Sea). Marine Ecology Progress Series 234:205-214

Lupatsch, I., Katz, T. and D.L. Angel. 2003. Removal of fish farm effluents by grey mullets: a nutritional approach. Aquatic Living Resources 34:1367-1377

Neori, A., Krom, M.D., Ellner, S.P., Boyd, C.E., Popper, D., Rabinovitch, R., Davison, P.J., Dvir, O., Zuber, D., Ucko, M., Angel, D.L. and H. Gordin. 1996. Seaweed biofilters dependably maintain quality of recirculated water in integrated fish-seaweed culture units. Aquaculture 141: 183-199

Porter, C.P., Krost, P., Gordin, H. and D.L. Angel. 1996. Grey mullet (Mugil cephalus) as a forager of organically enriched sediments below marine fish farms. The Israel Journal of Aquaculture - Bamidgeh 48: 47-55

Spanier, E., Tsemel, A., Lubinevski, H., Roitemberg, A., Yurman, A., Breitstein, S., Angel, D., Eden, N. and T. Katz. 2003. Can open water bio-filters be used for the reduction of the environmental impact of finfish net cage aquaculture in the coastal waters of Israel? Annales Ser Hist Nat 13: 25-28

Zohary, T., Brenner, S., Krom, M.D., Angel, D.L., Kress, N., Li, W.K.W., Neori, A. and T.Z. Yacobi. 1998. Buildup of microbial biomass during deep winter mixing in a Mediterranean warm-core eddy. Marine Ecology Progress Series 167:47-57

Participant 8 University of CreteThe Department of Biology of the University of Crete (www.biology.uoc.gr) was founded in 1981, and soon gained the leading role in Greek biological research and education and a conspicuous role in European research. Members of the Department stuff has been involved in more than 100 research projects during the last decade covering a wide range of disciplines such as molecular biology, genetics, plant biology, ecology, systematics, marine ecology, fisheries and aquaculture. The Marine Biology Lab (UoC-MBL), founded in 1985 by the recently retired Prof. A. Eleftheriou, has carried out numerous national, EU and other international projects, focusing on marine ecosystems of the Eastern Mediterranean. The lab has state-of-the-art equipment and access to research facilities of collaborating institutes at FORTH and IMBC.

The UoC-MBL will participate in the steering group and will provide links to the Mediterranean groups of end-users. The director of the Lab has strong working links with the Greek Ministry of Agriculture, and a long history of successful cooperation with fishfarmers’ association (FGM) and consultants’ firms. The UoC-MBL team will coordinate the WP3 using the experience gained in relevant projects (AQCESS and BIOFAQs) which to our knowledge are unique on a global scale. The team will also take part in WPs 2, 4, 5 and 6 where it can contribute with data and know-how from the Eastern Mediterranean.

of 81


WP 2 UoC has extensive list of aquaculture impacts with particular reference to major sources of pressure (e,g. physical structure, predator control systems, escapement, release of nutrients and organic material, antibiotics, chemicals etc). For each source of pressure, description of the (known or potential) effects on biota (such as direct mortality through entaglement, behavioural changes of wild life, loss of biodiversity, changes in productivity etc.). For each type of the aforementioned potential effects there will be a tentative description of the following attributes:o Level of scientific documentation (number of articles, geographic coverage,

quantification etc)o Biotic Communities affected (e.g. vertebrates, macrofauna, plankton, seagrass)o Expected or relevant spatial scale of the effect (local, intermediate, large)o Type of impact (negative, positive, unidentified)o Estimated time scale for recoveryo Relevance to different types of aquaculture (fish cages, mussel culture etc)o Expected severity depending on site characteristics (e.g land-based, inshore,

offshore, deep, sallow, exposed, enclosed)

The above table (effects x attributes) will be used to prioritise the need for knowledge on the nature and severity of impacts as a prerequisite for a reliable EIA. To this end the impacts will be categorised into:Level A: severe impacts well documented that need to be described by specific metricsLevel B: severe impacts poorly documented that need to be described by indirect measuresLevel C: impacts that are of insignificant severity (local, rapidly recovering) that need to be described only in the case of extremely sensitive environments.

The table will be completed using a bibliographic investigation by the ECASA group complemented by the use of the Delhpi method

WP4 Definition of holding capacity in different marine systems. Particularly the use of holding capacity in the case of fish farming (as opposed to carrying capacity in the case of farmed bivalves). Definition of “openness” of the system as an approximation to flushing rate for microtidal systems.

Meta-analysis of existing data to detect similarities and dissimilarities between patterns obtained through biological sampling and measurement of geochemical variables. Most of these data are already available to the team whereas for others data-owners have agreed to provide them for the needs of the present study. Development of simple statistical models linking biological and geochemical variables to simple environmental and production parameters (depth, sediment type, distance from farm, geographic zone, farm size etc.). This analysis will provide a means for assessing the severity of the impacts in different combinations of habitat types and production systems. It will also allow for assessing the needs for setting specific standards in different areas (e.g. Mediterranean, North Sea) or different types of aquaculture.Cost-effectiveness of different indicators balancing cost and time needed against information loss.

WP5 Sampling and analyses in Greek coastal waters

of 81


WP6 Meeting with stakeholders in Greece.

Dr. Ioannis (Yannis) Karakassis is Associate Professor at the Biology Department of the University of Crete, director of the Marine Ecology Laboratory. He holds a BSc in Biology (Univ. of Athens) and a PhD in Marine Ecology (UoC). From 1991 to 2003 he has been research scientist and team leader at the Institute of Marine Biology of Crete, in charge of the benthic ecology lab involved in research of anthropogenic effects on coastal marine ecosystems. He has coordinated or participated in 15 national and 7 EU funded projects 5 of which are relevant to Aquaculture-environment interactions (AQUAENV-GR, MARAQUA, AQCESS, BIOFAQs, MERAMED and MedVeg). Member of the Benthic Indicators Group (BIG) of the IOC-UNESCO, member of the feasibility study group established by the European Science Foundation (ESF) for the research agenda on marine biodiversity. Research interests include anthropogenic effects on marine ecosystems, development of uni- and multivariate mathematical techniques for the analysis of ecological data, development of indicators for the assessment of biodiversity and level of health/disturbance of ecosystems, optimization of monitoring methods and methodology improvement for the assessment of anthropogenic effects on ecosystems, and integrated coastal zone management. He is the author and co-author of more than 30 peer-reviewed scientific papers.

Selection of recent relevant papers:Karakassis I., Tsapakis M., Hatziyanni E. (1998) Seasonal variability in sediment profiles beneath fish

farm cages in the Mediterranean. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 162: 243-252.Karakassis I. (1998) Aquaculture and coastal marine biodiversity. Oceanis 24: 271-286.Pitta P., Karakassis I., Tsapakis M., Zivanovic S. (1999) Natural vs. mariculture induced variability in

nutrients and plankton in the Eastern Mediterranean. Hydrobiologia 391: 181-194.Karakassis I., Hatziyanni E., Tsapakis M., Plaiti W. (1999) Benthic recovery following cessation of

fish farming: a series of successes and catastrophes. Marine Ecology Progress Series 184: 205-218.

Karakassis I., Tsapakis M., Hatziyanni E., Papadopoulou K.-N., Plaiti W. (2000) Impact of cage farming of fish on the seabed in three Mediterranean coastal areas. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 57:1462-1471

Karakassis I., Hatziyanni E. (2000) Benthic disturbance due to fish farming analyzed under different levels of taxonomic resolution. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 203: 247-253

Rumohr H., Karakassis I. Jensen J.N. (2001) Estimating species richness, abundance and diversity with 70 macrobenthic replicates in the Western Baltic. Marine Ecology Progress Series 214: 103-110

Karakassis I., Tsapakis M., Hatziyanni E., Pitta P. (2001) Diel variation of nutrients and chlorophyll in sea bream and sea bass cages in the Mediterranean. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin 10: 278-283

Henderson A., Gamito S., Karakassis I., Pederson P., Smaal A. (2001) Use of Hydrodynamic and Benthic Models for Managing Environmental Impacts. J. Appl. Ichthyol. 17:163-172

Karakassis I. (2001) Ecological effects of fish farming in the Mediterranean. Cahiers Options Méditerranéenes 55: 15-22.

Karakassis I., Tsapakis M., Smith C.J., Rumohr H. (2002) Fish farming impacts in the Mediterranean studied through sediment profiling imagery. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 227: 125-133.

Smith C., Rumohr H., Karakassis, I., Papadopoulou, K-N (2003) Analysing the impact of bottom trawls on sedimentary seabeds with sediment profile imagery. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 285-286: 479-496..

Tsapakis M., Stephanou E., Karakassis I. (2003) Evaluation of atmospheric transport as a non-point source of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in marine sediments of the Eastern Mediterranean. Marine Chemistry, 80: 283-298.

of 81


Participant 9 Plymouth Marine LaboratoryThe Plymouth Marine Laboratory (PML) is an independent and impartial collaborative centre of the U. K. Natural Environment Research Council. The Laboratory has a staff of approximately 130, together with a large number of research students and visitors. Its main strategic science and technology research interests include mans impact on the sea, sustainable development and exploitation of marine resources, coastal zone management, marine biodiversity, health of the oceans and global change. With respect to the present proposal, PML has helped to pioneer modern approaches in the study and modelling of feeding behaviour, metabolism and growth in marine animals, especially shellfish, together with large scale modelling of ecosystem processes (e.g. ERSEM: European Regional Seas Ecosystem Model)

To both WP4 and 5, PML will contribute dynamic models of feeding, biodeposition, metabolism, excretion, growth and population dynamics in each main cultured shellfish species. These models will be based upon a common set of functional relations that simulate rapid and sensitive physiological adjustments to environmental change. Novel elements recently pioneered in other species (Hawkins et al., 2003) will include resolving significant adjustments in the relative processing of living chlorophyll-rich phytoplankton organics, non-phytoplankton organics and the remaining inorganic matter during both differential retention on the gill and selective pre-ingestive rejection within pseudofaeces. We will also include a facility to predict the energy content of non-phytoplankton organics. This is significant, for living phytoplankton may represent less than 20% of suspended particulate organic matter. Further, the energy content of non-phytoplankton organics may be very much more variable than for phytoplankton organics. Using this approach, resolution of the relative processing of different particle types will allow simulation of how the rates, organic compositions and energy contents of filtered, ingested and deposited matter change in response to differences in seawater temperature, seston availability and seston composition. Dependent relations will predict rates of energy absorption, energy expenditure and excretion. By these means, our models will replicate dynamic physiological adjustments across full natural ranges of temporal and spatial environmental variability. Compared with simpler models that do not simulate responsive adjustments, this is an important advance within the context of an ecosystem-based approach, affording better and more adaptable simulation for different temporal and spatial scenarios of culture, including the complex feedbacks, both positive and negative, whereby suspension feeding shellfish interact with ecosystem processes.

At appropriate sites, PML will calibrate and validate the above shellfish models, collaborating with others in coupled modeling that integrates hydrodynamic, biogeochemical, biological, social and economic objects, all the while with a view to identifying and focusing upon key processes and interactions, towards simple indices and screening models as practical diagnostic tools for both local and system-scale decision making.

Dr. A. J. S. (Tony) Hawkins is Head of Science for the theme of Functional Biodiversity at Plymouth Marine Laboratory, where he is employed by the U. K. Natural Environment Research Council. He holds a B.Sc. Hons. (First Class) in Zoology from the University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand (1979), and a Ph.D. in Zoology from Exeter University (1983). Current research interests include

of 81


resolving subtle but significant differences in filter-feeding behaviour and growth under varying natural environmental conditions in separate species of bivalve shellfish (i.e. mussels, oysters, scallops, clams), using findings to help model environmental carrying capacities for mariculture, including the effects of species composition, culture practise and stocking levels on key ecosystem processes. He has co-ordinated or participated in 5 European research projects, and worked overseas within the context of shellfish aquaculture in America, Australia, Canada, China, France, Malaysia, New Zealand, Spain and Thailand, publishing more than 60 peer-reviewed scientific papers within international journals.

Selection of recent relevant papers:Bacher, C., Grant, J., Hawkins, A.J.S., Fang, J., Zhu, M., Besnard, M. (2003) Modelling the effect of

food depletion on scallop growth in Sungo Bay (China). Aquatic Living Resources 16: 10-24Duarte, P., Meneses, R., Hawkins, A.J.S., Zhu, M., Fang, J., Grant, J. (2003) Mathematical modelling

to assess the carrying capacity for multi-species culture within coastal waters. Ecological Modelling. 168: 109-143.

Hawkins, A. J. S., Bayne, B. L., Bougrier, S., Héral, M., Iglesias, J. I. P., Navarro, E., Smith, R. F. M. & Urrutia, M. B. (1998) Some general relationships in comparing the feeding physiology of suspension-feeding bivalve molluscs. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 219: 87-103.

Hawkins, A. J. S., Duarte, P., Fang, J. G., Pascoe, P. L., Zhang, J. H., Zhang, X. L., Zhu, M. (2002) A functional simulation of responsive filter-feeding and growth in bivalve shellfish, configured and validated for the scallop Chlamys farreri during culture in China. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 281, 13-40.

Hawkins, A. J. S., Fang, J. G., Pascoe, P. L., Zhang, J. H. Zhang, X. L., Zhu, M. Y. (2001) Modelling short-term responsive adjustments in particle clearance rate among bivalve suspension-feeders: separate unimodal effects of seston volume and composition in the scallop Chlamys farreri. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 262: 61-73.

Participant 10 IMARThe Institute of Marine Research (www.imar.pt) was created in 1991, as a non-profit private organisation, with the general objective of development of Marine Science and Technology. The Centre for Ecological Modelling at the New University of Lisbon has been carrying out research in Coastal Management and Modelling for over a decade, and its members have worked extensively in ecological modelling of estuaries and coastal systems, data management, GIS and remote sensing. The U. Algarve is an active member of IMAR, with expertise across a broad range of disciplines in marine science and technology

IMAR has a proven track-record in environmental databases, GIS, remote sensing and ecosystem modelling, as well as in innovative approaches in information technologies, such as the ASSETS web-based eutrophication screening model. It has additionally been actively involved in supporting regulatory activity, e.g. by participating in the EU COAST group as part of the Common Implementation Strategy of the EU Water Framework Directive, and in working groups set up by NOAA to address eutrophication issues in the US.

IMAR’s role in the project involves biogeochemical modelling at the ecosystem scale, supported by appropriate field and laboratory studies, data handling and GIS. It additionally includes the application of screening models, testing and validation. We will participate in the following workpackages:

of 81


WP3: Identification of driving forces of ecosystem change, based on previous and ongoing work across a range of systems focusing on exploitation carrying capacity and environmental interactions;

WP4: Development of indicators and models, by (a) linking different models (biogeochemistry, individual-based models, population dynamics and socio-economic models) and addressing scaling issues, and (b) using complex models to drive simpler, management-oriented screening models, such as ASSETS, LOICZ budgeting or simple dynamic simulations;

WP5: Testing and validation for EIA and site selection, with particular emphasis for a site on the Atlantic Coast of mainland Europe with important aquaculture production of clams (~8000 ton y-1), in cooperation with other partners;

Joao Gomes Ferreira is a Professor at the Faculty of Sciences and Technology of the New University of Lisbon (UNL), and currently IMAR Vice-President. He holds a B.Sc. in Biology with Oceanography from U. Southampton and a Ph.D. in Environmental Sciences from UNL. He has coordinated the modelling component of 7 European research projects over the last 10 years. He has published 30 papers in peer-reviewed international journals, and is the author of the EcoWin2000 ecological modelling package. A detailed C.V. may be found at http://tejo.dcea.fct.unl.pt/ecomod/people/fo/

Alice Newton is a Professor at the Faculty of Sciences and Technology of the University of the Algarve, with an M.Sc. in Biological Oceanography and a Ph.D. in Chemical Oceanography from the U. Wales, Bangor. She has extensive experience in water quality and ecological studies in coastal ecosystems, including land-ocean interactions and eutrophication. She has participated in several European research projects and is the coordinator of the European Joint Masters Programme in Water and Coastal Management.

Key publicationsBettencourt, A., Bricker, S.B., Ferreira, J.G., Franco, A., Marques, J.C., Melo, J.J., Nobre, A., Ramos,

L., Reis, C.S., Salas, F., Silva, M.C., Simas, T., & Wolff, W.J., 2004. Typology and Reference Conditions for Portuguese Transitional and Coastal Waters. Development of guidelines for the application of the European Union Water Framework Directive. INAG/IMAR, 2003.

Alvera-Azcarate, A., Ferreira, J.G., & Nunes, J.P., 2003. Modelling eutrophication in mesotidal and macrotidal estuaries. The role of intertidal seaweeds. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 57(4), 715-724.

Nunes, J.P, Ferreira, J.G., Gazeau, F., Lencart-Silva, J., Zhang, X.L, Zhu M.Y. & Fang J.G., 2003. A model for sustainable management of shellfish polyculture in coastal bays. Aquaculture, 219(1-4): 257-277.

Bricker, S.B., Ferreira, J.G., & Simas, T., 2003. An Integrated Methodology for Assessment of Estuarine Trophic Status. Ecological Modelling, 169 (1), 39-60.

Simas, T., Nunes, J.P., & Ferreira, J.G., 2001. Effects of global climate change on coastal salt marshes. Ecological Modelling, 139 (1), 1-15.

Ferreira, J.G., 2000. Development of an estuarine quality index based on key physical and biogeochemical features. Ocean & Coastal Management, 43 (1), 99-122.

Tett, P., Gilpin, L., Svendsen, H., Erlandsson, C.P., Larsson, U., Kratzer, S., Fouilland, E., Janzen, C., Lee, J., Grenz, C., Newton, A., Ferreira, J.G., Fernandes, T., Scory, S., 2003. Eutrophication and some European waters of restricted exchange. Continental Shelf Research, 23, 1635-1671.

Newton, A., Icely, J.D., Falcão, M., Nobre, A., Nunes, J.P., Ferreira, J.G., & Vale, C., 2003. Evaluation of Eutrophication in the Ria Formosa coastal lagoon, Portugal. Continental Shelf Research, 23, 1945-1961.

Newton, A and S. M. Mudge, 2003. Temperature and Salinity Regimes in a Shallow, Mesotidal Lagoon, the Ria Formosa, Portugal. Esturarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 56, 1-13.

of 81


Participant 11 ICRAM Central Institute for Marine ResearchICRAM (Central Institute for Marine Research) is a non-profit making Italian government research institute. It provides support for the policies of the competent central authorities, as well as suggestions, indications and support for local authorities in the coordination of local activities. ICRAM is divided in 4 departments: Monitoring of environmental quality; Prevention and mitigation of impacts; Protection of habitats and biodiversity; Sustainable use of resources. The Department “Sustainable Use of Marine Resources” has worked for several years on assessment impact of aquaculture activities in coastal water and lagoons. The indicators used are both chemical and biological. The chemical parameters considered are nutrients in water column and organic carbon, total nitrogen, phosphorus, sulphur and sulphide in sediment. The study of biological interactions concern the analysis of benthic community (macrobenthos and meiobenthos). In the network, ICRAM is the national referent appointed by the Italian Ministry of Agricultural and Forest Politics FAO-SIPAM (Information System for the Promotion of Aquaculture in the Mediterranean). Further information may be found at www.icram.org.WP5: applying methods and strategies, selected in WP4, to quantify indicators for the impact of mariculture on sediment and benthic assemblages at the proposed sites; evaluate the hydrodynamic characteristics at the sites (ADCP…); set up of guidelines for monitoring marine fish farm with local and national public authorities and farmers.

Salvatore Porrello has been a scientist researcher at ICRAM since 1987. Current research interests include environmental impact assessment of aquaculture activities in coastal water and lagoons. He supports the Italian Ministry of the Environment in regulation and implementation of sustainable development of aquaculture activities. He is the supervisor for seven national research projects on rearing of red porgy and Mediterranean yellowtail and environmental impact of aquaculture activities and of “Nutrient analysis in marine and lagoon ecosystem laboratory”.

Paolo Tomassetti, taxonomist, benthic ecology, data processing, oceanographic instruments (ADCP, multi-parameter probes…).

Key publications.Salvatore Porrello, Paolo Tomassetti, Jessica Bianchi, Emma Persia (2002) Preliminary data on

environmental impacts of marine fish cage culture in a mediterranean area (italy). The Annual international conference and Exposition of the world Aquaculture Society. Beijing (China), 2002. World aquaculture Society, eds, pp 612.

Salvatore Porrello, Mauro Lenzi, Emma Persia, Fabio Savelli, Maria Grazia Finoia, Paolo Tomassetti (2002) Nitrogen flux in phytodepuration ponds of land-based fish farm wastewater. The Annual international conference and Exposition of the world Aquaculture Society. Beijing (China), 2002. World aquaculture Society, eds, pp 611.

Salvatore Porrello, Mauro Lenzi, Emma Persia, Paolo Tomassetti, Maria Grazia Finoia (2003) – Reduction of aquaculture wastewater eutrophication by phyto-treatment ponds system. I: Dissolved and particulate nitrogen and phosphorus. Aquaculture, 219: 515-529.

Salvatore Porrello, Mauro Lenzi, Emma Persia, Paolo Tomassetti, Maria Grazia Finoia, Isabel Mercatali (2003) – Reduction of aquaculture wastewater eutrophication by phyto-treatment ponds system. II. Nitrogen and phosphorus content macroalgae and sediment. Aquaculture, 219: 531-544.

Salvatore Porrello, Giuseppe Ferrari, Mauro Lenzi, Emma Persia. (2003) – Ammonia variations in phytotreatment ponds of land-based fish farm wastewater (2003) – Aquaculture 219: 485-494.

of 81


Mauro Lenzi, Roberto Palmieri, Salvatore Porrello (2004) – Restoration of the eutrophic Orbetello lagoon (Tyrrhenian Sea, Italy): water quality management. In press Marine Pollution Bulletin 2003.

Tomassetti P. and Porrello S. (2004) - Polychaetes as indicators of marine fish farm organic enrichment. Aquaculture International, in press.

Participant 12 Institut Français de Recherche pour l'Exploitation de la Mer -IFREMERIFREMER was founded in 1984, as a public research institute, depending on the French ministries of Higher Education and Research, Environment, and Sea (www.ifremer.fr). It relies on five centres, and 18 coastal research stations, hosting around 1400 peoples. The main research divisions are the coastal environment division, the living resources division, the ocean research division and the marine technology and information systems division. Among the main programs, those of interest are on - Modelling the ecosystems, - Monitoring and supervising the environment, - Fisheries resources, - Aquaculture production and - Resource economy. To date, IFREMER is participant in 12 European research programmes. From the Aquaculture department, scientists of IFREMER are currently involved in several European research projects: WEALTH (welfare and health in Sustainable aquaculture), SEAFOOD PLUS (Seafood for Consumers health and well-being), GENESIS and GAMBAS. We should also be involve in the project AQUAETREAT, a Collective Research Project aiming at promoting innovations of aquaculture effluent treatment technology. Together with INRA, IFREMER intends to participate to the priority 5, on sustainable aquaculture.

Among different sites, IFREMER has conducted several studies on environmental impact of aquaculture both on the Atlantic and the Mediterranean. It has a fair experience in the study of marine environments, including biogeochemical processes and benthic communities. Several models of carrying capacity were developed for shellfish production. A global study on the potential sites for aquaculture has been conducted along the French coast, using GIS. Interaction between fisheries and shellfish production is another research theme that is currently conducted on the Atlantic coasts.

WP2: As ECASA focuses on the ecosystem approach to the interactions between aquaculture and environment, IFREMER intends to contribute to this WP by sharing experience on the structure and characteristics of the ecosystems concerned by aquaculture. Five different environment will be considered : open sea, semi-closed bay, closed bays and fjords, estuaries and land-based marine ecosystems (salt marshes). Among the potential indicators, we intend to concentrate on those related to the fluxes of masses (Carbon, Nitrogen, organic matter), being agreed that the common work which is conducted in the WP would allow to cover the whole range of the effects of aquaculture. The different indicators proposed by the partners, could then be confronted to the functioning of these ecosystems, in order to identify the modification into their structural (communities) and functional characteristics. This relies on the availability of sufficient knowledge of these ecosystems. WP3: input in Carbon from differents trophic compartments to OystersWP4: Assessing the indicators for very intensive aquaculture (closed systems) and potentially to integrated aquaculture,through the findings of the EU programme GENESIS

of 81


WP5: benthic impact of oyster culture. Biodegradation of faeces and pseudofaces from oyster culture.Shellfish grounds and nurseries of flatfishes.WP6: a) translation of guidelines . b) preliminary contacts at the beginning of the contracts with representatives of stackholders and potentially NGO, to explain the goals of ECASA and their intented inputs. c) national meetings with them to comments on the findings, d) publications of scientific results

Alain Bodoy, PhD, is working on shellfish ecology for 25 years, in temperate and tropical environment. He has gained a very good experience on Oyster culture. He was head of the Aquaculture Department at IFREMER (15 laboratories), where he conducted large research programmes and managed 220 people and corresponding budgets. He is presently responsible for the management of a programme on the interaction between shellfish culture and environment, including fisheries). Its research activity is based on ecosystem impact of shellfish culture and on the analytical study of carbon fluxes in exploited salt marshes (aquaculture of fish and shellfish, salt production, conservation and tourism).

Jean Louis Martin, PhD, has worked for 15 years on the interactions between aquaculture and environment, mainly in tropical countries. Its main interest is on the impact of organic matter and aquacultural practices on the surrounding environnement, by determining ecological indicators allowing to classify intensive and extensive aquaculture within ecosystemes. One its research theme consists in analysing the relationships between the management rules for aquaculture ponds and the ponds ecology and production. He was and still is scientific coordonnator of several european research programmes in cooperation with developping ( STD3, INCO-DC). He published around 120 scientific contributions, among them 50 were published in peer-reviewed journals.

Chim L., Bouveret R., Lemaire P., Martin J.L.M. (2003). Tolerance of the shrimp Litopenaeus stylirostris, Stimpson 1984, to environmental stress : inter-individual variability and selection potential for stress-resistant individuals. Aquacult. Res., 34, 629-632.

Frid C., Hammer C, Robin Law R, Loeng H, Pawlak J.F., Reid P.C., Tasker M, Carlberg S, Jakobsen T., Rice J., Skjoldal H.R., Andrulewicz E., Bodoy A., Calabrese A., Caspersen O., Daan N., Dahlin H., Ehrich S., Gentien P., Keizer P., Leppänen J.-M., Lima C., Margonski P., Noji T., Nunes T., Rugg D., Sköld M., Vinther M., Wilson S., Yurkovskis A., 2003. Environmental status of European Seas. Federal ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, Germany (ICES report), 75 p

Fuchs J. , Martin J.L.M., Nguyen T.A., 1999. Impact of tropical shrimp aquaculture on the environment in Asia and the Pacific. E.C. Fisheries Cooperation Bulletin, 12 (4), 9-17.Garen P., Martin J.L. M, (2002). Could a seasonal-like reduction in light radiation intensity affect cultured shrimp (Penaeus stylirostris Stimpson) yield ? Aquacult. Internat., 10, 43-55

Hussenot, J. M. E. (2003). Emerging effluent management strategies in marine fish-culture farms located in European coastal wetlands. Aquaculture 226, 113-128.

Leguerrier D., Niquil N., Petiau A., Bodoy A., 2003. Modelling the impact of oyster culture on a mudflat food web in Marennes-Oléron Bay (France). Marine Ecology Progress Series (in press, ms n°4903)

Lemmonier H., Martin J.L.M., Brizard R., Herlin J., 2003. Effect of water exchange rate on waste production in semi-intensive ponds during the cold season in New Caledonia. J. World Aquac., 34, 40-49.

Martin J.L M., Fuchs J., Populus J., Guelorget O., Bailly D., 1999. Methodology for improving site selection and preventing over-exploitation of shrimp culture production sites in asia. The Annual international conference and Exposition of the world Aquaculture Society. Sydney, 26 april - 6+ May 1999. World aquaculture Society, eds, pp 496.

Martin J.L. M. (2002). Selection of environmental indicators for shrimp aquaculture selection. In : Shrimp farming sustainability in the Mekong Delta Environmental and technical approaches.

of 81


Proceedings of the workshop held in Travinh (Vietnam), 5-8 March 2002. Populus J., Martin J.L.M., Tac An N. (eds), pp 3-6.

Martin J.L.M., Veran Y., Guelorget O., Pham D., 1998. Shrimp rearing: stocking density, impact on sediment, waste output; their relationships studied through the nitrogen budget in rearing ponds. Aquaculture, 164, 135-149

Paquotte P., Chim L., Martin J.L.M., Lemos E., Stern M., Tosta G., 1998. Intensive culture of shrimps Penaeus vannamei in floating cages: zootechnical, economical and environnemental aspects. Aquaculture, 151-166.

Participant 13 Instituto Tecnológico Pesquero y Alimentario (AZTI)AZTI Foundation is a non-profit foundation, funded by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries of the Autonomous Basque Government (Spain). It has two centres and the staff consists of more than 125 people allocated into three research departments: Fisheries Resources, Oceanography and Environment and Food Technology (http://www.azti.es). The Department of Fisheries Resources is involved in fish stock assessment, and fishing gear technology. AZTI has been co-ordinator of European research projects and active participant in various EU-funded projects on the anchovy and hake, species relevant to this project, and particularly in the implementation of egg surveys for the direct assessment of anchovy by the DEPM, mackerel and other species and with projects related with methodological improvements for direct surveys, such as: DEPM application on anchovy (DG XIV Contract No. MA-1-151, 96/ 034, 99/011, 00 / 013), Triennial egg surveys and associated indices (Study Contracts No. 00/038 & 97/017), Improvements in direct surveys (DG XIV Contracts MA-2.495 EF, 99/010 (PELASSES), surveys on juveniles-JUVESU- FAIR CT97/ 3374), Implementation of GAMs (99/080), Estimations of F and M from direct surveys (95/C 76/15), Tagging on mackerel (DG XIV Contract No. 96 / 035), etc.

The Department of Oceanography is involved in studies relating fisheries and environment, in environmental impact studies (such as aquaculture, engineering works, etc.) and monitoring networks (including water, sediment, biomonitors, benthos, fishes, plankton, etc.). Hydrodynamical modelling is currently being used for EIA, oceanography studies, etc. (see references below). One of the most important themes of research in the last times is the implementation of several Directives, such as the Water Framework Directive (see references below). The staff of this department have broad experience in developing biological indicator indices based on benthic and other communities.

Contribution to the project:

WP 2. We will contribute our broad experience in indicators and indices, mainly in benthiccommunities, but also in fishes, macroalgae and phytoplankton. Our experience in EIA of aquaculture is based upon 40 different studies in the Spanish Mediterranean (private enterprises, not published)., including physical, chemical and biological studies, and we will use this data to develop, study and compare different indicators.

WP 4 We are able to contribute to this WP with our TRIMODENA model, making comparisons with the DEPOMOD approach, modelling the transport of pollutants and determining the impacts on the substrata and communities. We will incorporate the AMBI, and other indicators as determined in WP2 to the model, simulating the impacts on the soft-bottom communities, in order to predict the future changes in the community composition and the future health of the community.

of 81


WP 5 We will participate in physical, chemical and biological measurements at a sub-set of the chosen sites.

Key personnel:Dr. Ángel Borja has a very broad experience in managing both research and advice projects, in national and European frameworks. He has worked over the last 22 years in benthic ecology, fisheries-environment relationships, marine resources exploitation, environmental impact, marine monitoring, etc. He has published more than 100 contributions. He has developed a benthic index for the assessment of the benthic community health and several papers about the WFD implementation. He is the author of the Protocol used in Spain in the assessment of potential areas for aquaculture.Juan Bald has a wide experience in monitoring networks and EIA, using conceptual models (such as VENSIM) in the management of ecosystems.Manuel González has a very broad experience in marine dynamic studies. He has been working in the creation of hydrodynamic models (such as TRIMODENA), used in the study of transport, environmental impact, cage aquaculture, etc.Iñigo Muxika is a Ph.D student, working in the development of biological indicators.

Recent important publications of this team include:Borja, A., 2002. Los impactos ambientales de la acuicultura y la sostenibilidad de esta actividad.

Boletín del I.E.O. 18(1-4): 41-49.Borja, A. & J. Bald, 2000. Modelling the management of clam (Ruditapes decussatus) exploitation in

the Basque Country (Northern Spain). Periodicum Biologorum 102(1): 395-406.Borja, A. & J. Bald, 2002. Proposal for a management model for clam (Ruditapes decussatus)

exploitation in the Basque Country (Northern Spain). Proceedings of the International Conference on Sustainable Management of Coastal Ecosystems, Porto, 129-140.

Borja, Á., J. Franco and V. Pérez, 2000. A Marine Biotic Index to establish the Ecological Quality of soft-bottom benthos within European estuarine and coastal environments. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 40 (12): 1100-1114.

Borja, A., J. Franco and I. Muxika, 2003. The Biotic Indices and the Water Framework Directive: the required consensus in the new benthic monitoring tools. Marine Pollution Bulletin.

Borja, Á., I. Muxika and J. Franco, 2003. The application of a Marine Biotic Index to different impact sources affecting soft-bottom benthic communities along European coasts. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 46: 835-845.

Borja, Á., Franco, J. and Muxika, I., 2003. Classification tools for marine ecological quality assessment: the usefulness of macrobenthic communities in an area affected by a submarine outfall. ICES CM 2003/Session J-02, Tallinn (Estonia), 24-28 September, 2003.

Borja, A. and Collins, M. (Eds.) 2004. Oceanography and Marine Environment of the Basque Country, Elsevier Oceanography Series, 70: 636 pp, Elsevier, Amsterdam.

Borja, A., J. Franco, V. Valencia, J. Bald, I. Muxika, M.J. Belzunce and O. Solaun (in press). The implementation of the European Water Framework Directive: a methodological approach for the assessment of the marine ecological status, from the Basque Country (northern Spain) Marine Pollution Bulletin

Espino, M.; M. González; F. Hermosilla; A. Uriarte; S. Chumbe; M.A. García, A. Borja & A. S.-Arcilla, 1997. HPC Simulations of pollution events at the San Sebastian coast (N Spain). In: Measurements and modelling in environmental pollution. San José & Brebbia Eds. Computational Mechanics Publications, Southampton, pp 3-12.

González, M.; A. Uriarte; L. Motos; A. Borja & A. Uriarte, 1998. Validation of a numerical model for the study of anchovy recruitment in the Bay of Biscay. Oceans’98 IEEE-OES, Nice. 3:1313-1318.

González, M.; Gyssels, P. Mader, J.; Borja, A.; Galparsoro, I. and Uriarte, A., 2002. La modelización numérica de la dispersión de productos de deshecho vertidas desde explotaciones de

of 81


acuicultura: una herramienta para la adecuada gestión medioambiental del sector. AquaTIC: http:/aquatic.unizr.es/N3/art1304/azti2.htm

Muxika, I., Borja, Á. and Franco, J., 2003. The use of a biotic index (AMBI) to identify spatial and temporal impact gradients on benthic communities in an estuarine area. ICES CM 2003/Session J-01, Tallinn (Estonia), 24-28 September, 2003.

Solaun, O., J. Bald y A. Borja, (in press). Protocolo para la realización de los Estudios de Impacto Ambiental en el medio marino. Edited by AZTI Foundation, 104 pp.

Participant 14 University of VeniceThe Shallow Water Ecology group of the University of Venice is a multidisciplinary research group, which merges expertises in both modelling and field investigations, concerning the impact of the fishing activites on coastal marine ecosystems. These issues have been the subject of a number of research projects which were carried out in collaboration with ICRAM.

The group will contribute to WP4 and WP3, by modelling the interactions/competition between wild Chamela gallina, and farmed mussel in the Northern Adriatic sea, western coast, in order to evaluate the economic profitability of different management strategies, in collaboration with participant 2. Since clam and mussel belong to the same trophic level, they compete for the same resources, i.e. phytoplankton and dissolved non-phytoplanktonic organics, which, in turn, are strictly related to the nutrient availability. Standing stock Chamela gallina can then be affected by human activities both directly, through the fishery, and indirectly, by the setting up of large-size mussel farms. Therefore, the assessment of the carrying, assimilative and holding capacity of this highly productive regional area are extremely important for s sustainable management of mussel farming and clam fishery. Existing ODE growth models concerning both species will be calibrated against site-specific data. Subsequentely, a 1D model for the simulation of the seasonal dynamics of both species, in relation to the physical forcings, and to the DIN and DIP concentrations and computation of the indicators identified by WP3 will be developed. The group will also contribute to WP5, by testing the 1D model against a set of field data which will be collected in the framework of this project, in collaboration with participant 11.

Dr. Roberto Pastres, Univ. of Venice, has a wide experience in the modelling of eutrophication and ecosystem dynamics in coastal waterbodies, including the modelling of fish and bivalve growth. The assessment of the uncertainty in model output in relation of the uncertainty in model input, which is of paramount importance for putting models into good use, has been one of his main research topics in the last ten years.Fabio Pranovi ,Univ. of Venice, is the leading ecologist of the group. He is an expert in macrobenthic communities and in the analysis of the trophic structure of coastal lagoon ecosystems.Otello Giovanardi, ICRAM, is a fishery ecologist. As the head of the ICRAM SST unit of Chioggia, he has a considerable experience in the estimation of marine resources and of fishery impacts in the Northern Adriatic, as well as in dealing with local stakeholders.

Giomi F., Raicevich S., Di Muro P., Pranovi F., Beltramini M. Comparative analysis of structural properties of Portunid Crab Hemocyanin. Micron, in press.

of 81


Giovanardi O., Pranovi F., Franceschini G., 1998. “Rapido” trawl-fishing in the Northern Adriatic: preliminary observations on effects on macrobenthic communities. Acta Adriatica 39 (1): 37-52.

Granzotto A., Libralato S., Pranovi F., Raicevich S., Giovanardi O. Comparison between artisanal and industrial fisheries by using ecosystem indicators. Chemistry and Ecology, in press.

Libralato S., Pastres R., Pranovi F., Raicevich S., Granzotto A., Giovanardi O., Torricelli P. 2002. Comparison between the energy flow networks of two habitats in the Venice Lagoon. Marine Ecology PSZN, 23: 228-236.

Mattiello S., Raicevich S., Giomi F., Botter L., Di Muro P., Pranovi F., Beltramini M. Resistance to stress and Hc functional modulation in Liocarcinus sp. Micron, in press.

Pastres, R., C. Solidoro, G. Cossarini, D. Melaku Canu, C. Dejak. 2001. Managing the rearing of Tapes philippinarum in the lagoon of Venice: a decision support system. Ecological Modelling, Vol. 138: 231-245. Elsevier.

Pastres R., Pranovi F., Libralato S., Malavasi S., Torricelli P., 2002. ‘Birthday effect’ on the adoption of alternative mating tactics in Zosterisessor ophiocephalus: evidence from a growth model. Journal of Marine Biology Association UK, 82: 333-337.

Pastres R., S. Ciavatta, G. Cossarini, C. Solidoro. 2003. Sensitivity analysis as a tool for the implementation of a water quality regulation based on the Maximum Permissible Loads policy. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 79:239-244. Elsevier.

Pastres, R. S. Ciavatta, C. Solidoro 2003. The Extended Kalman Filter as a tool for the assimilation of high frequency water quality data. Ecological Modelling, Vol 170: 227-235.

Pranovi F. Giovanardi O., 1994. The impact of hydraulic dredging for short-necked clams, Tapes spp., on an infaunal community in the Venice Lagoon. Scientia Marina 58 (4): 345-353.

Pranovi F., Curiel D., Rismondo A., Marzocchi M., Scattolin M., 2000. Variations of the macrobenthic community in a seagrass transplanted area of the Venice lagoon. Scientia Marina 64(3): 303-310.

Pranovi F., Da Ponte F., Raicevich S., Giovanardi O. A synoptic-multidisciplinary study of the immediate effects of mechanical clam-harvesting in the Venice Lagoon. ICES Journal of Marine Science, in press.

Pranovi F., Giovanardi O., Franceschini G., 1998. Recolonization dynamics in areas disturbed by bottom fishing-gears. Hydrobiologia, 375/376: 125-135.

Pranovi F., Libralato S., Raicevich S., Granzotto A., Pastres R., Giovanardi O., 2003. Mechanical clam dredging in Venice Lagoon: effects on ecosystem stability evaluated with a trophic mass-balance model. Marine Biology 143: 393-403.

Pranovi F., Raicevich S., Franceschini G., Farrace M.G., Giovanardi O., 2000. “Rapido” trawling in the Northern Adriatic Sea: effects on benthic communities in an experimental area. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 57: 517-524.

Pranovi F., Raicevich S., Franceschini G., Torricelli P., Giovanardi O., 2001. Discard analysis and damage to non-target species in the “Rapido” trawl fishery. Marine Biology, 139: 863-875.

Solidoro C., R. Pastres, D. Melaku Canu, M. Pellizzato, R. Rossi. 2000. Modelling the growth of Tapes philippinarum in Northern Adriatic lagoons. Marine Ecology Progress Series, Vol 199: 137-148. Inter Research, Germany.

Sorokin Y., Giovanardi O., Pranovi F., Sorokin P., 1999. Restrictions needed in the farming of bivalve culture in the southern basin of the Lagoon of Venice. Hydrobiologia 400: 141-148.

Participant 15 Rudjer Boskovic InstituteRBI has been established in 1950 as an independent interdisciplinary research institute in Zagreb, the capital of Croatia. In 1976 Centre for Marine and Environmental Research has been formed, presently with over 100 research staff. In 2003, Prof. dr. Tarzan Legovic has been elected the centre's head. The department consists of 12 laboratories including physics, satellite oceanography, physical-chemistry, electrochemistry, nuclear chemistry, trace metals, ecotoxicology, ecological modelling and data-base group. Apart from research, which is its main activity, the centre holds three post-graduate schools: nature protection (with Univ. of Osijek), oceanography and environmental management ( both with Univ. of Zagreb).

RBI role in the project will be to contribute in identifying and quantifying indicators of impact of fish and shellfish mariculture on marine ecosystems along eastern

of 81


Adriatic Sea. This is because a large number of maricultures exist presently and their number is planned to double in five years (furthermore, number of granted concessions for 2003 indicate that, this plan will be exceeded). RBI will also contribute to the assessment of applicability of operational tools that attempt to predict impact on phytoplankton blooms, growth of fouling organisms on mariculture and of hypoxia, however the accent will be given to models that predict direct impact of mariculture to the water column and benthos. Models testing and specification of appropriate monitoring programmes in order to select a reliable toolset for EIA is also of high interest and RBI will significantly contribute to this activity.

Engagement in WP2, WP3, WP4, WP5 and will contribute to WP6 within Croatia.

Key participants:Tarzan Legovic - ecological modellingSuncana Gecek - benthic transport modellingIvica Janekovic - water column transport modellingDonat Petricioli - benthic ecology, indicators, monitoring

Prof. Legovic is the vice-president of the International Society for Ecological Modelling and CEO of the European Chapter. He organized the last three European Ecological Modelling Conferences (Legovic, 2003). He constructed specific eutrophication, phytoplankton bloom and food-web models needed to evaluate impact of coastal sources on marine ecosystems and identify optimum control. In the last several years his interest turned to models for predicting impact of maricultue to the water column, benthos and marine ecosystems starting with lower trophic levels. During 2003 he worked as a member of the Steering Committee to the Norwegian/ Croatian project on Integrated Coastal Zone Management of the Adriatic Sea with reference to Aquaculture. The work has been done in parallel to six EIA's of tuna, trout and shelfish cultures, each of which required prediction of a range of impacts an a design of a specific monitoring programme. He is presently a regular member of the Croatian interministerial committee evaluating EIA's and updating SEA standards. For detailed CV: http://www.irb.hr/~legovic

Recent publications:Bayraktaroglu E., Velasquez Z. R., Cruzado A. and Legović T. (2003) Thalassiosira weissflogii in

oligotrophic versus eutrophic culture. Ecological Modelling, 170, , 237-243.Gecek S. and Legovic T. (2001) Nutrients and grazing in modelling the deep chlorophyll maximum,

Ecological Modelling, 138, 143-152.Legovic T. (2002) Eutrophication of the sea: Is the dillution a solution ? Proc. Tourism, Water

Management and Marine Protection. Opatija, 19-22.03.2002, 93-96.Legovic T. (2002) Natural Characteristics of the Velebit Channel Proc. of the Workshon on CZMP on

Aquaculture. Stubicke Toplice, 6-8. June, 2002, 15 pp.Legovic T. (2002) Tools for coastal sea management with an emphasis on aquaculture. Proc. of the

Workshon on CZMP: Aquaculture in Croatia. Stubicke Toplice, 6-8. June, 2002, 6 pp.Legovic T. (2003) Prediction of seawater quality around island Rab, Adriatic Sea. Ecological

Modelling, 160, 131-143. Legovic T. (2004), Eutrophication in the Krka estuary: Effect of an abrupt nutrient input reduction in

1991. UNEP/MAP Tech. Reports Series, UNEP, Athens (in press), 23ppLegovic T. (Editor) 2003 Proc. of the Third European Ecological Modelling Conference, Ecological

Modelling, 170 (Elsevier).Legovic T. et al (2003), Environmental Impact Assesment Study of Tuna Farm - Drvenik. (Zanchi-

Sub), Oikon, Zagreb, 128 pp.

of 81


Legovic T. et al. (2003), Environmental Impact Assessment Study of Rainbow Trout Mariculture. Jablanac. Vol. 1. 147 pp.; Jurjevo Vol. 2., 145 pp. Lukovo Sugarje, Vol 3, 173 pp. (Karlsen-Riba),. Oikon, Zagreb.

Legovic T. et al. (2003) Environmental impact assessment study of tuna farm in the middle channel under Mrdjina (Kali Tuna), Oikon, Zagreb, 132 pp.

Legovic T. et al. (2004). Strategic environmental impact assessment of aquaculture in the Krka estuary. Center for Marine and Environmental Research, R. Bošković Institute, (in progress)

Legovic T., (2000) Inverse problems for estimating balance of a nutrient in a coastal sea. GLOBEC Workshop: Assimilation of biological data in coupled physical/ecosystem models, (A.R. Robinson and P.F.J. Lermusiaux, eds.), Harvard University, 2000, 125-129.

Legovic T., (2003) Toward sustainable management of marine ecosystems. Croatian International Relations Review, 9), No.32, Dossier, 35-39.

Legovic T., Janekovic I., Vilicic D., Petricioli D. and Smoljan Z. (2003) Effects of freshwater release to a marine bay. Journal of Environmental Science and Health, A38, 1411-1420.

Morkoc E, Okay OS, Tolun L, Tufekci V, Tufekci H, Legovic T. (2001) Towards a clean Izmit bay, Environment International, 26, 157-161.Benz. J., Hoch R. and Legovic T, (2001) ECOBAS - modelling and documentation, Ecological Modelling, 138, 3-16.

Participant 16 University of Göteborg UGOTDepartment of Oceanography at Earth Sciences Centre, Göteborg university, carries out research in inshore and coastal waters as well as in the open ocean. The research group in marine systems analysis works wioth both theoretical and experimental process studies and development of holistic models of comples marine systems. The group has a lot of experinence of modelling environmental effects of outlets of nutrients and organic matter, e.g. from fish farming (www.oce.gu.se/marsys).

UGOTs’ main role in the project will be to couple our ’screening model’ FjordEnv and the UK CSTT model (participant 3) to create an improved simple model for estimation of carrying capacity in relation to nutrient and organic loading on the scale of water bodies such as small fjords and bays. FjordEnv is based on basic physical principles and estimates the mean water exchange in different strata in such water bodies. It also computes changes in oxygen consumption in deeper strata and changes in Secchi depth as a result of changes in inputs of organic matter and nutrients from e.g. fish farming. It was tested on fjords and bays in OAERRE and has been applied to numerous Norwegian and Swedish fjords and other inshore waters. The work to couple FjordEnv and the UK CSTT model will be done together with participant 3. UGOT will also take part in the testing of both FjordEnv and the coupled model at chosen sites and investigate the sensitivity of the coupled model to variations in the hydrodynamic forcing and the loading of organic matter and nutrients. One of the main benefits with a coupled physical-biological model is that the overall importance of processes of various kinds can be compared in an objective way. The coupled model is an ideal tool for testing of sub-models (to coupled models) developed by other participants for various biological processes. UGOT may take the responsibility for making a user friendly PC-version of the model.

Anders Stigebrandt is a professor of oceanography and leader of the research group in marine systems analysis. He has 35 years of experience in studies of physical processes and modelling of integrated physical-biogeochemical marine systems. He has developed circulation models and water quality models for fjords and the Baltic that have been much used for both research and practical applications. He has played a central role in the development of the Norwegian model system for control of environmental effects of industrial fish farming and computations of the holding

of 81


capacity of inshore and local areas. The computer models developed for this are named FjordEnv and MOM. See also http://www.oce.gu.se/marsys

Key publications from research groupArneborg, L., C.P. Erlandsson, B. Liljebladh, A. Stigebrandt, 2004: The rate of inflow and mixing

during deepwater renewal in a sill fjord. Limnol. Oceanogr. (accepted) Ervik, A., Kupka-Hansen, P., Aure, J., Stigebrandt, A., Johannessen, P. and Jahnsen, T., 1997:

Regulating the local environmental impact of intensive marine fish farming. I. The concept of the MOM system (Modelling-Ongrowing fish farms-Monitoring). Aquaculture, 158, 85-94.

Green, J.A.M. and Stigebrandt, A., 2003: Statistical models and distributions of ocean current velocities with application to the prediction of extreme events. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 58, 601-609.

Hansen, P.K., Ervik, A., Schaaning, M. Johannessen, P., Aure, J., Jahnsen, T. and Stigebrandt, A., 2001, Regulating the local environmental impact of intensive marine fish farming. II. The monitoring programme of the MOM system (Monitoring – Ongrowing fish farms – Modelling). Aquaculture, 194, 75-92.

Stigebrandt, A., Aure, J., Ervik, A and Hansen, P.K., 2004: Regulating the local environmental impact of intensive marine fish farming. III. A model for estimation of the holding capacity in the MOM system (Modelling – Ongrowing fish farm – Monitoring). Aquaculture (in press)

Stigebrandt, A. and Gustafsson, B., 2003: The response of the Baltic Sea to Climate

A.2 Sub-contracting

To Partner 1Dr. William Silvert will contribute to the project through association with SAMS. He has been studying the environmental impacts of finfish aquaculture since the early 1990’s and has been a leader in the development of models for assessing these impacts. He is also concerned with how these models are used and has worked on the development of decision support systems and other means for applying modelling effectively to the management of aquaculture. In addition, he has looked at new mathematical approaches to characterising the complex effects of aquaculture and other environmental influences, particularly the use of fuzzy logic both in the analysis of aquaculture impacts and in the presentation of these analysis to managers and stakeholders. His background includes work on risk assessment and the role of uncertainty in coastal zone management, as well as bioeconomic aspects of fisheries.

Dr Silvert will provide systems analysis and software development skills to Partner 1’s contribution to WPs 2 and 4. He will additionally bring his background knowledge of aquaculture impacts modelling to augment that present within SAMS. He will provide these services through his consultancy company Ciência Silvert registered in Portugal - Ciência Silvert: Consultoria de Investigação Científica, Sociedade Unipessoal Lda, N° 506004376.

Silvert, W. 1994. Modelling benthic deposition and impacts of organic matter loading. p. 1-18. In Modelling benthic impacts of organic enrichment from marine aquaculture. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 1949. xi+125 p. B. T. Hargrave, Ed.

Silvert, W. In Press Modelling the Environmental Impacts of Marine Aquaculture. In: Proc. NATO ASI on Strategic Management of Marine Ecosystems in Sophia Antipolis, France, in October, 2003 (submitted to Hydrobiologia).

Silvert, William, and Chris Cromey. 2001. Modelling Impacts. In: Environmental Impacts of Aquaculture, K. D. Black (ed.), Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield, p. 154-181.

Silvert, William. 1992. Assessing environmental impacts of finfish aquaculture in marine waters. Aquaculture 107:67-71.

of 81


Silvert, William. 1994. A decision support system for regulating finfish aquaculture. Ecological Modelling 75/76:609-615.

Silvert, William. 1994. Decision support systems for aquaculture licensing. J. Appl. Ichthyol. 10:307-311.

Silvert, William. 1994. Putting management models on the manager’s desktop. J. Biol. Systems 2:519-527.

Silvert, William. 1994. Simulation models of finfish farms. J. Appl. Ichthyol. 10:349-352.Silvert, William. 1997. Ecological impact classification with fuzzy sets. Ecological Modelling 96:1-10.Silvert, William. 2000. Fuzzy indices of environmental conditions. Ecological Modelling 130/1-3: 111-

119.Silvert, William. 2001. Impact on habitats: determining what is acceptable. In: Marine Aquaculture and

the Environment: A Meeting for Stakeholders in the Northeast, M. F. Tlusty, D. A. Bengston, H. O. Halvorson, S. D. Oktay, J. B. Pearce and R. B. Rheault (eds.), Cape Cod Press, Falmouth, Massachusetts, p. 16-40.

Silvert, William. 2001. Scientific Overview of the ESSA Project. In: Hargrave, B.T. and G. A. Phillips (Editors). Environmental Studies for Sustainable Aquaculture (ESSA): 2001 Workshop Report. Can Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2352: viii + 73 pp. P. 60-68.

To Partner 11Due to internal staff restructuring ICRAM will not subcontract out the work as originally intended but shall assign salaried staff to carry out the work. For Sediment and water chemistry this will be Dr Isabel Meratali, Dr Paola Gennaro and Mrs Emma Persia The sediment chemistry specialists will be involved in:

sampling surveys;chemical analysis;data statistical analysis;reports.

For benthic fauna this will be Dr Paolo Tomassetti and Dr Danilo Vani The benthic fauna specialists will be involved in:

sampling surveys;species identification;data statistical analysis;reports.

As such the contract has been amended to reallocate the monies from the sub-contracting budget to salaries.

To Partner 13

Subcontracts will cover external analysis of samples and will be awarded on a competitive basis using the standard tendering procedure employed based on quality, cost and value-for-money.

To Partner 15

This partner will let a sub-contract for collection and processing of data for input to modelling where this is necessary to delivery of the models and where such data do not already exist or cannot be provided by other project partners.

The tender will be public using the database of consultants licensed by the Ministry of Environmental Protection of Croatia for provision of such services.

of 81


A.3 Third parties

The field component of this project will be carried out at commercially active aquaculture operations. One of the criteria for site selection will be the willingness of the operating company to host the project partners during field work and provide historical husbandry records e.g. of feed inputs, biomass, stocking density. It is not possible to determine the value of this in-kind contribution in advance. In addition, key to the project’s success will be our ability to engage with regulators and industry etc to optimise the flow of information to and from the project. It is anticipated that the level of involvement will be considerable in some cases but it is likely to vary from country to country and is not possible to predict. An attempt will be made to record the time contribution of external actors to allow a post hoc assessment.

A.4 Funding of third country participants

No funding is requested from the EU for the participation of third party countries. However, the co-ordinator actively seeking additional funding to allow experts from third countries to contribute to the project but this is still at an early stage of discussion.

of 80

sixth framework programme - ecasa.org.uk€¦ · web viewword, j.q., (1990). ... impact of a net...

Documents