Consensus Workshop

8/4/2019 Consensus Workshop

1/118

FP6 COORDINATION ACTIONEC contract FOOD-CT-2005-513998

Defining Indicators for SustainableAquaculture Development in Europe

A multi-stakeholder workshopheld in Oostende, Belgium

November 21-23, 2005


2/118

Cover concept and document layout: A. Lane and J. Charles

Cover Photos:

1 23 4

Courtesy of:1. Laszlo Varadi, Research Institute for Fisheries, Aquaculture and Irrigation (HAKI), Hungary2. Franois Ren, Institut Franais de Recherche pour lExploration de la Mer (IFREMER), France3. David Parfouru, Viviers de France, France4. Bruno Guillaumie, European Mollusc Producers Association (EMPA AEPM), France

This publication has been carried out with financial support from the Commission of the EuropeanCommunities, under the 6th Framework Programme, 5th Thematic Priority Food Quality and Safety,contract FOOD-CT-2005-513998 CONSENSUS A Multi-Stakeholder Platform for Sustainable Aquaculture in Europe. It does not necessarily reflect its views and in no way anticipates theCommissions future policy in this area.


3/118

Content Table

Executive Summary.................................................................................................. 5

1. Introduction and the Workshop process .......................................................... 7

2. Sustainability themes ..................................................................................... 122.1 Economic Viability.......................................................................................... 122.2 Public Image................................................................................................. 14

2.2.1 Animal welfare ........................ ............................. ............................ ............................ ............ 142.2.2 Consumer confidence ........................... ............................ ............................ ............................ 142.2.3 Sustainability.................. ............................ ............................ ............................. ..................... 142.2.4 Positive benefits of aquaculture........................... ............................ ............................. ............. 152.2.5 Better communications ......................... ............................ ............................ ............................ 15

2.3 Use of Resources........................................................................................... 162.4 Health Management and Welfare Issues.......................................................... 182.5 Environmental Standards ............................................................................... 202.6 Human Resources ......................................................................................... 22

2.6.1 Employment............ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................. 222.6.2 Workforce composition ........................... ............................ ............................ .......................... 222.6.3 Education, training & technology transfer.................. ........................... ............................ .......... 22

2.7 Biodiversity ................................................................................................... 242.8 Post-harvest operations ................................................................................. 26

2.8.1 Processing efficiency and environmental impact .......................... ............................ ................... 262.8.2 Shellfish processing and monitoring......................... ............................. ............................ ......... 262.8.3 Packaging ......................... ............................. ............................ ............................ .................. 27

2.9 Sector Issues ................................................................................................ 292.9.1 Industry statistics ............................. ............................. .............................. ............................. 292.9.2 Increased innovation ........................... ............................ ............................ ............................. 292.9.3 Improvement of legislative tools and regulation processes ........................... ........................... .... 292.9.4 A strategic development plan for sustainable shellfish aquaculture ......................... ..................... 29

3. Towards Sustainability Protocols ................................................................... 30

Annex I. The CONSENSUS Consortium................................................................... 31I.1 Platform Steering Committee................................................................................. 31I.2 Protocol Drafting Committee ................................................................................. 31I.3 Working Group Chairs & Rapporteurs..................................................................... 31

Annex II. The CONSENSUS Indicators ................................................................... 32II.1 How to read the indicators: the working group template ........................................ 32II.2 Indicators of economic viability ............................................................................ 34II.3 Indicators of public image.................................................................................... 49II.4 Indicators of resource use ................................................................................... 64II.5 Indicators of health management and welfare ....................................................... 74II.6 Indicators of environmental standards .................................................................. 83II.7 Indicators of human resources ............................................................................. 91II.8 Indicators of biodiversity ..................................................................................... 98II.9 Indicators of post-harvest Ooperations ............................................................... 103II.10 Sector Issues.................................................................................................. 108

Annex III. Workshop Participants ....................................................................... 114


4/118

4

Consistent with its title, the two main sections of this document are the sustainability themesand the sustainability indicators themselves, as agreed by the various working groups duringthe CONSENSUS workshop in Oostende (appearing in Annex II).

These sections are the products of a true consensus process among experts. We, asmembers of the Protocol Drafting Committee, could not therefore fundamentally edit oramend them, and they may provide readers with a challenge, by appearing ratherheterogeneous in style.

Annex II provides a full compilation of the indicators, grouped by theme. They follow atemplate, agreed with the Working Groups at the beginning of the workshop. Someexplanation is provided on how to read the template at the beginning of the Annex.

Also, since the templates contain raw stakeholder input recorded from the floor during theworkshop, readers may find that certain, specific information is inaccurate or even incorrect.The aim of the CONSENSUS initiative was to bring together stakeholder input to identify thepath to sustainability in the aquaculture sector in Europe and present it unedited.

These inputs, agreed after some debate, have not therefore been changed in this publication,so as to respect the true outcomes of the meeting and not to subsequently edit them out.

John Joyce, chair of the CONSENSUS Protocol Drafting Committee


5/118

CONSENSUS Sustainable Aquaculture in Europe

5

Executive Summary

CONSENSUS is a platform for sustainable aquaculture in Europe. It is a Coordination Actionunder the EU 6th Framework Programme and acts as

A source of balanced information for consumers on the benefits of high qualityaquaculture processes and products. A central point, or hub, bringing together European networks, European initiatives,

and European research and technological development; An interface between the different stakeholders to facilitate and support dialogue

and exchange.

Its strategic objective is to provide and demonstrate to consumers the benefits of highquality, safe and nutritious farmed fish and shellfish grown in sustainable conditions. Thisrationale is based on the established demand of the European consumer for seafood whichwild fisheries are unable to completely supply. The requirement for safe food is wellestablished but more emphasis has to be given to nutrition and health promoting food, aposition for which aquaculture is well positioned. The strategy to achieve this objective isbased on the development and implementation of sustainable aquaculture protocols based onproduction systems having low environmental impact, high competitiveness and beingethically responsible in areas such as biodiversity and animal welfare.

CONSENSUS brings together all relevant stakeholders, including producer associations, NGOs,consumers and scientists from different disciplines from all European regions in a coordinatedmultidisciplinary action, in order to develop and implement new rational and efficientproduction systems. It is chaired by the European Consumers Organisation (BEUC) andcoordinated by the European Aquaculture Society (EAS).

Since March 2005, the consortium has designed and organised a multi-stakeholder workshop,held in Oostende, Belgium, that brought together 110 representatives from 16 countries to

identify and agree on the desired status for each production sector of European aquacultureover the next 5 years, and the specific indicators that can be used to measure progresstowards those objectives.

European aquaculture was split into five segments that represent its very diverse aquacultureproduction. These were based on the combination of the driving technical forces and thecontrolling environmental conditions. A working group specialising in post-harvest operationsfor the whole European sector, and another on consumer issues, completed the workshopset-up.

A document bringing together existing knowledge on each sector was provided to workshopparticipants. Plenary sessions provided key information, and this was mixed with group work,

where participants discussed and agreed on the desired trends and associated indicators. Theindicators were classified under the three poles of sustainability economic, environmentaland social and suggestions on various aspects of their implementation were made.

After the three workshop days, a drafting committee stayed on for two further days to startthe task of bringing together the indicators. A matrix system was devised to sort and classifythem, identify overlap and inconsistencies and judge completeness.


6/118


6

This analysis lead to the production of a compilation of 78 indicators for sustainableaquaculture in Europe, organised by theme.

Number of Indicators

FISH SHELLFISH Total

Economic viability 12 3 15Environmental standards 5 3 8Biodiversity 4 1 5Health management 9 0 9Human resources 6 1 7Packaging & transport 2 1 3Public image 12 3 15Resource Use 8 2 10Sector 2 4 6Total 60 18 78

This document brings together a summary of each of the CONSENSUS themes, explaining thescope of the desired status for each sector under each theme. Full details of each indicator,as agreed by the working groups, are provided in an extensive annex.

The actual protocols for sustainable aquaculture focus more on the implementation of thosemeasurements, with recommendations at farm, local authority, producer organisation orother organisation level and how the information resulting from the collection of thisinformation can be effectively used for and by the sector. This is currently being finalised as aseparate document and will be presented to a wide range of European stakeholders andspecific channels will allow feedback and comment to be collected and compiled.

During the consultation phase, a specific strategy for consumers will be elaborated andtested. The purpose of this is to show that consumers demands and expectations concerningseafood provision from sustainable aquaculture can be fulfilled. It will be based on theoutcomes of the special consumers working group meetings held during the CONSENSUSworkshop and will use the production of the protocols as a demonstration of the stepsrequired to measure the path towards sustainability in the sector.

These three important elements of CONSENSUS will be completed by the Spring of 2008. It isexpected that they will provide the basis for a European aquaculture sustainability standard inaquaculture production.

May 2006.

www.euraquaculture.info


7/118


7

1. Introduction and the Workshop process

With the increasing demand for seafood in Europe and the declining return from wildfisheries, aquaculture is seen as the industry that will meet this gap in the future.

CONSENSUS a multi-stakeholder platform for sustainable aquaculture in Europe is an EUSixth Framework initiative funded under the Key Action of Food Quality and Safety. It isdriven by major European stakeholders representing consumer interests, aquacultureproducers, aquatic feed suppliers, environmental, animal health and welfare groups as well asvarious levels of legislative bodies in both the EU and Member States.

The main aim of CONSENSUS is to ensure that sustainability becomes normal practice in thisindustry in terms of the environment, social contribution and economic success into thefuture.

The platform acts as

A source of balanced information for consumers on the benefits of high qualityaquaculture processes and products.

A central point, or hub, bringing together European networks, European initiatives,and European research and technological development.

An interface between the different stakeholders to facilitate and support dialogueand exchange.

A Platform Steering Committee (PSC), chaired by the European Consumers Organisation(BEUC), manages CONSENSUS. The Protocol Drafting Committee (PDC) has experts invarious research fields related to sustainable aquaculture. CONSENSUS is coordinated by theEuropean Aquaculture Society (EAS). The full CONSENSUS consortium is given in Annex I.


8/118


8

Since March 2005, the consortium has designed and organised a multi-stakeholder workshop,held in Oostende, Belgium, that brought together 110 representatives from 16 countries toidentify and agree on the desired status for each production sector of European aquacultureover the next 5 years, and the specific indicators that can be used to measure progresstowards those objectives.

European aquaculture was split into 5 segments that represent its very diverse aquacultureproduction. These were based on the combination of the driving technical forces and thecontrolling environmental conditions.

The emphasis was placed on the hydrology of the systems.

Semi-static water systems ponds, lakestypified by carp culture in Central andEastern European countries; the culture of other freshwater species in extensivesystems; wetland resource management and water use and Valliculturein Italy.

Freshwater flow-through systems, where farms use river or spring water,pumped through the production unit. For example, trout culture in most European

countries and other freshwater species in intensive systems (catfish, pike-perch,sturgeon).

Recirculation aquaculture systems, used in many for freshwater and marinehatcheries; land-based culture of freshwater species catfish, eel and the cultureof marine species such as turbot and sole.

Coastal shellfish systems, producing mussels (bottom culture, stake culture,suspended culture), oysters (suspended culture, coastal lagoons) and clams.

Coastal and offshore finfish systems for salmonids (salmon and trout) andmarine species, including sea bass, sea bream, cod and tuna.

Furthermore, a working group specialising in post-harvest operations for the whole

European sector, and another on consumer issues, completed the workshop set-up.

The building of the working groups was a task given to the working group chairs. Guidelineson the respect of stakeholder representation, geographical coverage and gender ratio wereprovided to the chairs. The accent was on having tight, well-focussed and well-controlledgroups, with fixed objectives and designed to deliver specific and agreed ideas and texts. Theindustry partners (FEAP, EMPA, FEFAC); the consumer organisations (BEUC and Test Achats)and the environmental partner (EBCD) were all asked to provide names from within theircontacts1.

1 See Annex I for the full CONSENSUS consortium and full organization names.

European aquaculture stakeholders at the CONSENSUS workshop


9/118


9

To assist them in their preparation for the workshop, participants were given a document thatbrought together existing knowledge on various aspects of that particular segment of thesector, so as to identify status and trends. This had been prepared by the working groupchairs (with input from various experts), according to a framework produced by the PDC. Thedocument includes information on:

Representative species and countries

An overview of existing technologies and management systems

An overview of markets, distribution and processing

Environmental issues

Consumer & societal issues

Legislative frameworks and issues

Past and current sustainability initiatives

Current research priorities & future research needs

The meeting was carefully planned so as to combine plenary sessions of general

presentations designed to focus thinking; the setting of objectives for each session and eachday; working group sessions and plenary de-briefing and summary sessions. Social eventswere also organized to encourage informal discussion between the participants.

During the actual main working sessions, participants were asked to agree on a set of desiredstatus for their (production) system, and to provide indicators that could be used to measurethe progress towards those objectives.

The first workshop day focused on presentations of the CONSENSUS initiative and itsimportance to the sector and to the EU Sixth Framework Programme Key Action on FoodQuality and Safety. The importance of indicators and the need for stakeholder consensus ontheir usefulness in measuring sustainability was also explained before the working groupsbroke out to start discussions. Initial work was summarized at the evening debriefing. Day 2targeted the completion of an agreed set of objectives and indicators, and to start discussionon how these could actually be implemented by the profession.

Laurent Bochereau (left) and Constantin Vamvakas - two Heads of Unit

from the European Commission - at the opening of the CONSENSUS workshop.


10/118


10

The final day addressed how industry could be encouraged to move towards meeting thesesustainability indicators, and how the CONSENSUS workshop outcomes fit within the widercontext of Integrated Coastal Zone Management and the implications of the WaterFramework Directive.

The consumers working group focused on bringing together elements of consumer sciencerelated to seafood, so as to provide a basis for the consumer strategy to be developed later inCONSENSUS.

The workshop wrap-up session indicated that the ambitious targets of the three days hadbeen met to a level that exceeded expectations. During the extra 2 days that the PDCremained in Oostende to start the process of consolidation of the group findings, analyseswere made to bring together the lists of indicators and to sort and classify them, identifyingoverlap and inconsistencies and judging completeness. This consolidation process formed thebasis of this document.

Working Group discussions were followed by evening plenary wrap up sessions

The Consumers Working Group, listening to a presentation from Ingeborg Brouwer (The

Netherlands) on the benefits of seafood consumption and the health aspects of seafood.


11/118


11

This analysis brought together a total of 78 indicators for sustainable aquaculture in Europe,segmented into 8 themes. Indicators affecting the whole aquaculture sector were alsocharacterized.

Number of Indicators

FISH SHELLFISH Total

Economic viability 12 3 15Environmental standards 5 3 8Biodiversity 4 1 5Health management 9 0 9Human resources 6 1 7Packaging & transport 2 1 3Public image 12 3 15Resource Use 8 2 10Sector 2 4 6Total 60 18 78

A short summary of the desired trends and associated measurement is provided in the nextsection. It is supported by the full set of indicators making up the theme, in Annex II.


12/118


12

2. Sustainability themes

2.1 Economic Viability

The encouragement of economic viability underlines the European Commission strategy for

the sustainable development of European aquaculture. The CONSENSUS stakeholders agreeda total of 15 economic sustainability indicators (19% of the total), thus reinforcing itsimportance. Economic viability was expressed by stakeholders as having a national orregional objective such as through an increase in the contribution of aquaculture to nationalor regional economies or through the profitability of an individual company or group ofcompanies.

Company profitability may be directly achieved by the market price, by increased productionor productivity. It may also be achieved by more indirect strategies, such as thediversification of the farm activities (multi-functionality), and by decreasing the share ofproduction by labour, energy, regulatory cost.

Specific ways in which indicators of economic availability are measured are as follows: Contribution (/year) of the aquaculture sector to regional or national economies;

Earnings Before Interests and Taxes (EBIT / turnover x 100);

% income from each farm activity to the total farm income;

% of labour, energy and regulatory costs to total production cost;

Cost /tonne produced in relation to the scale of production (tonnes);

Tonnes produced per person per year;

Economic Feed Conversion Ratio - EFCR (the amount of feed supplied to a farmdivided by the round dressed weight of fish produced for market).

Basic measures of profitability at the farm level are already made through company

bookkeeping systems, and are part of mandatory reporting to local authorities for tax andother reasons. Small family farms that do not have bookkeeping systems or programmeswould need to invest, but this investment would be beneficial in terms of the higher degree ofgeneral cost management that would be obtained.

Some sectors of the industry are already reporting collective financial performance, and thiscould be expanded to all producer organisations at both national and European level.

Alternatively, producer organisations should be able to access the information held withinlocal authorities. This element of annual aquaculture statistics would give a clear measureand benchmark for the sector and its development. The challenge here would be the way inwhich data is collected, so as to preserve the confidentiality of the provider.

Many European aquaculture companies have achieved increases in productivity in recentyears. There is still scope for improvement, although conflict exists between productivityrelated to labour cost and the clear objective of the European Institutions that aquacultureprovides employment, especially in rural areas. Feed costs still represent a major part ofproduction cost, and productivity gains, easily measured by EFCR, can be monitoredindividually by companies and collectively by producer or trade organisations.

It was also suggested that profitability should not be compromised by arbitrary regulatoryscale restrictions that are not justified by considerations of the carrying or production capacityof a particular site. This is measured by the cost per tonne of production, related to the scaleof production. Implementation of this indicator does not affect production costs but theimprovement of the indicator, i.e. the elimination of restrictions not related to carrying

capacities, could have a positive effect and in some countries could be a critical determinantof profitability.


13/118


13

Regulatory costs should be evaluated on a cost-benefit analysis and harmonised at a regionalor even global level. They should only be implemented if they contribute positively to thesustainability of the sector. Measurement of the % of regulatory activities that are subjectedto cost-benefit analyses is seen as the logical indicator, although more knowledge is requiredon the methodology of these analyses, the investment in monitoring and compliance and thelegislative implications in implementation.

The multi-functionality of aquaculture farms was specifically identified for semi-static systems,such as pond aquaculture in Central and Eastern Europe, generally covering large areas ofwater and wetland of high natural heritage and environmental value, but may also apply toactivities (put-and-take, picnic or barbeque areas) on other farms. Although the number ofmulti-functional farms is increasing, no clear information is available for collecting pooled dataon the viability of different activities and services. The return on investment may be long,hence research on the evaluation of these activities (themselves potentially requiringindicators) may be required.

All of these initiatives have a direct influence on the economic viability of Europeanaquaculture. The adoption of common indicators that are relatively easy to measure at

company level and compare at national and European level, are a key element of accurateand meaningful statistics for the whole sector, and the key towards the ability of Europeanaquaculture producers to invest or absorb potential costs related to the implementation of theenvironmental and social sustainability indicators that follow.


14/118


14

2.2 Public Image

Aquaculture, like any other food producing industry, relies on the good will of its consumersin order to survive. Good will and mutual understanding is essential for aquacultureoperations to obtain planning permission and licences, to attract good quality employees and

to sell their product. Aquaculture also operates in a world served by press and broadcastmedia who themselves survive on issue-driven stories aimed at generating public interest andconcern in order to increase publication sales or viewer ratings.

Just as other food production industries have been hit by food scare stories including BSE inbeef, salmonella in eggs and mercury in wild-caught tuna, aquaculture has been the target ofnegative media attention in the past from stories concerning additives in farmed finfish, aswell as trace levels of antibiotics and parasite treatments. Consumers are also well informedand increasingly interested in the general sustainability of food production and issues such aspollution from on-growing units, the unsustainable use of fish meal in farmed fish diets,effects on wild fish stocks and in particular, animal welfare can give rise to public concern.Little wonder then, that public image was clearly identified by the CONSENSUS stakeholdersas a category for which indicators should be developed in order to support the sustainable

expansion of the European aquaculture industry.

While the CONSENSUS stakeholders directly identified 15 public image indicators (19% oftotal), a further 16 indicators also have an indirect bearing on public image factors such assustainability and animal welfare. For the purpose of this analysis, it is convenient to considerthe three main categories of indicators concerning public image: animal welfare, consumerconfidence and sustainability, as well as those concerning the benefits of aquaculture andrecommendations for improved communications as follows:

2.2.1 Animal welfareIdentified indicators included the introduction of an overall welfare index, including(patho-) behavioural traits and stress indicators such as deviation from expected levels of

feed intake and mortality, the introduction of approved and humane killing methods aswell as ways of improving fish welfare in order to optimise farm performance. Diseaseprevention, indicated by a decrease in the number of treatments over time, could also beseen as an indirect indicator of animal welfare, as can the fallowing of sites.

2.2.2 Consumer confidenceConsumer satisfaction was viewed by CONSENSUS stakeholders as an important desiredstatus, as it directly affects the economic viability of the industry. Indicators directlyidentified included an increased percentage of production involved in quality certificationschemes leading to an increased willingness to buy and an increased demand foraquaculture produce. A falling number of customer complaints and rapid alerts wereindirectly identified as indicators of consumer confidence.

2.2.3 SustainabilityWhile not classified directly by the CONSENSUS stakeholders as a public image indicator,sustainability is undoubtedly a major issue contributing to public image and, as such,deserves consideration in any proposed communications strategy for the industry.Sustainability issues identified included:

minimisation of energy use on farms;

reduction of nutrient emissions to the environment;

minimisation of formulated feed;.

increase in the use of sustainable fish feed ingredients;

minimisation of natural resource use;

minimisation of escapees, disease outbreaks and parasite infestations;


15/118


15

production of Environmental Impact Assessments to ensure sustainable marinecage culture;

operation of marine cage culture in accordance with environmental standards,including maintenance of biodiversity;

supply of juveniles and recruits from sustainable resources.

2.2.4 Benefits of aquacultureCONSENSUS stakeholders identified the importance of addressing not only the perceivednegative impacts of aquaculture in any communications campaign, but also of promotingthe benefits. These included:

promotion of fish farms as a destination for tourism, education and publicrecreation;

improved recognition of the public health benefits of seafood in terms ofincreased media reports and dialogue with food safety and consumerorganisations;

increased recognition of the environmental and socio-economic benefits ofaquaculture, particularly as a source of employment in remote and fishery-

dependent areas.

2.2.5 Better communicationsTo address the issues listed above, the CONSENSUS stakeholders recognised the need forbetter communications between the European aquaculture industry and its publics(persons or groups with which it needs to engage in dialogue in order to increase publicawareness and acceptance). Identified indicators included:

increased public awareness and acceptance by society;

improved integration into local society;

development of objective and comprehensive information for the public and themedia;

development of effective, informative labelling and certification as well as

practical and useful leaflets of advice for consumers, all leading to a morepositive public perception about products from sustainable aquaculture, basedon transparent communications between the sector and the public.

Classic public relations theory (Jefkins, 19882) calls for a communications approach thatanalyses the situation as it exists, defines the objectives to be reached, identifies the publicsto be communicated to, the media and techniques to be used, the budget required and ameans of evaluating the results.

The CONSENSUS stakeholders have already identified many of these elements. All thatremains for this overall issue to be positively addressed is that a targeted and focussedcommunications plan, based on the desired status and indicators identified by the

CONSENSUS process, be put forward and implemented across Europe.

2 Jefkins, F. (1988) Public Relations Techniques. Butterworth, Heinemann (publishers)


16/118


16

2.3 Use of Resources

It was recognised by all stakeholders that resource allocation and use in aquaculture is amajor issue. Optimisation of resource use is and should be applicable at all levels: farm, local,regional, national, European or global. Different categories of resources (physical /

environmental / biological) were identified within a set of ten indicators, most of which wereconsidered as being most relevant from an environmental point of view with underlyingeconomic consequences bearing significant importance.

The objectives for the industry were identified by CONSENSUS stakeholders as being theoptimal use of energy, water or feeds by improving efficiency of production practices, the useof sustainable feed ingredients and the use of biological resources.

Despite often major differences in farming systems, there is a common interest for ensuringavailability of good quality water in sufficient amounts for the viability of aquaculture.Given the competition and increasing demand for water by different end-users, there is aneed for increasing awareness and acceptance of non-consumptive abstraction of water byaquaculture which forms an integral part of human activities involved in the food production

sector. Indicators proposed in proper water resource use deal with ensuring appropriatewater supply in all production systems even with specific deadlines for optimal use of waterfor sustaining aquaculture activities. There are identified units of measurement of waterneeds and use and there are legislative aspects such as the Water Framework Directive,which will play a major role in proper implementation. Reduction of wastes is achievable withexisting techniques or extension thereof within a reasonable time span.

Measurement of energy use per unit production was considered as an integrativeindicator of resource use. Implementation will, however, require standardised procedures andadequate units of measurement. Minimal use of natural resources (land, water, fossil energyand marine resources) is desired and notable progress can be made within a span of five toten years by putting efforts towards alternative farming systems and technologies.

As regards biological resources inherent to a given farming system, be it finfish or shellfish,ensuring the supply of good quality spat (shellfish), eggs and juveniles throughappropriate collection or production methods was recognised as important for sustainabledevelopment of aquaculture. For some species, reliance on wild seed (larvae, fry or juveniles)is still practiced. The indicators proposed include quantified data on recruitment of seed fromrecognised sustainable resources, improved wildlife management plans, breeding techniquesand larval culture practices. In the case of shellfish, stabilising seed production from reliablenatural resources will require major efforts in terms of development of appropriate tools. Forthe production of certified hatchery seeds, there is a need for strengthening bestmanagement practices as well as for genetic improvement and breeding methods.

For finfish production, there was consensus as regards the need for improving theefficiency of production, especially with regard to feed and nutrient utilisation,avoiding excessive discharges of waste products, achievable through improving feeds andfeeding practices. At the sector level, there is a strong desire for identification and promotionof the use of sustainable feed ingredients of aquatic or terrestrial origin for use in fish feeds,with a specific focus on alternatives to fish meal and especially for fish oil, a commodity whichis becoming scarce as well as being liable to anthropogenic contamination. Reducing the useof formulated feed in pond culture systems, measuring feed efficiency, reduction in the levelof marine proteins and lipids in feeds were proposed as indicators in this area.

Feed conversion ratio is easily monitored and is already used as a management tool at thefarm level. It was considered that its relevance as an indicator of sustainability might varydepending upon its use as a legislative tool or not. In static water or pond systems,minimising the use of formulated feeds was considered as an expected trend for improvingsustainability. There was general acceptance that in feed-based intensive farming systems,


17/118


17

we must look for significant reduction in the use of feed-grade fishery resources in fish feedsat the EU level and beyond. Measurement of percentage use of fish meal and fish oil can beused as units of measurement with a time-scale of five years in which significant reductionshould be achieved without affecting the economic viability of farms and the societalacceptance of products.

Summarising, the following indicators and desired trends were agreed upon with regard toResource Use:

Indicator Desired trend

Water availability and quality for aquaculture Ensured; external factors (WFD)Natural resources / energy use per unit production ReductionDevelopment of feeds from sustainable resources IncreasePercentage substitution of marine protein and oil ReductionFeed Efficiency IncreaseFormulated feed use per production unit area ReductionJuveniles and recruits from sustainable resources IncreaseWild seed (spat) management and monitoring plans;

Demand for hatchery seed

Increase

Demand for seed, new species hatcheries, selectionand genetic improvement

Increase

Water is a precious resource in Hungary.

Photo courtesy of Laszlo Varadi, Research Institute for Fisheries, Aquaculture and Irrigation(HAKI)


18/118


18

2.4 Health Management and Welfare Issues

Health management in fish production is basically the same as in any animal production,whereby the desired trend is one of management that is oriented to preventionmeasures and not only to the use of medicines. Prevention measures refer to adequate

feeding programmes: adequate levels of proteins/fats and also of minerals, vitamins andother ingredients in order to provide adequate nutrient supply. This also relates to other feedingredients or additives, such as probiotics (micro-organisms and enzymes) and otherproducts that enhance the immune status of the fish. The management of fish includes thehealth and hygiene programmes, frequently prepared with veterinary support. Theseprogrammes are based on classic bio-security measures (hygiene, control of visitors, etc), butalso on specific measures including the monitoring of water supply and quality.

The development of appropriate vaccines of good quality in recent years has allowed for thedrastic reduction in the use of antibiotics and other chemotherapeutics in aquaculture.

CONSENSUS stakeholders identified indicators for health management in two basic groups -the outbreak of diseases and mortality rate. Related to those indicators, other measurements

of health status can be recorded, such as the presence or not of a preventive health scheme(including vaccination programmes) adapted to the site, the number of visits by theveterinarians and/or the kg of medicated feed that is prescribed.

It is now generally accepted that fish have sufficient physiological and cognitive complexity toexperience suffering, although the exact extent and nature of such suffering remains a matterof dispute. Therefore fish welfare is a legitimate cause for concern. This is certainly thepublic perception, and there is increasing public awareness and concern for the welfare offarmed fish and in particular, those grown at high density. Legislators and regulators areresponding to this public concern.

The causes of poor welfare in farmed fish are many, complex and interacting; for example, a

given stocking density can produce fish with very good or very bad welfare, depending onwater quality and level of disturbance. For this reason, it is, again, generally accepted that astrategy of identifying conditions that guarantee welfare of a given species and life historystage and legislating accordingly will not guarantee the welfare of farmed fish. The industryneeds to develop and keep husbandry systems (specific to species and life historystage) that promote the welfare of farmed fish. This also applies to slaughteringmethods.

However, there is also a pressing need for monitoring systems that allow all stakeholders(farmers, regulators, retailers, consumers and the general public) to be assured thatstandards of welfare are indeed acceptable, in general and for any given population offarmed fish. Such monitoring systems need to be transparent, objective and easily collected

on working farms (at reasonable cost). They also need to be clearly validated and calibratedagainst accepted scientific measures of welfare (which include health status,biochemical and molecular indices of the physiological stress response andaspects of behaviour). In addition, the indicator range that maps onto acceptable fishwelfare must be clearly identified.

There are many candidates for such indicators, including growth, body and fin condition,general patterns of swimming, behaviour during meals and food intake, all of which reflectaspects of fish welfare and could potentially be collected on working farms. All have problems(for example, slow rates of growth may be a natural part of a species life history, plump fishdo not necessarily enjoy good welfare and behaviour is often difficult to monitor in workingcages, takes time to measure accurately and is useless as a welfare indicator if measuredinaccurately).


19/118


19

Three indicators are therefore proposed for monitoring welfare issues:

Deviation from expected feed intake

Injury

Mortality

Short-term reductions in food intake and longer-term suppression of appetite are part of thenatural response to challenge. Any deviations from expected food intake based on naturalchanges in appetite related to season, temperature, life history stage etc. therefore serve asuseful early warnings of impaired welfare. Good fish farmers already use this and farms keeprecords of feed delivery as a matter of routine.

Injury also reflects welfare, both directly (because injury per semay be painful and causesuffering) and indirectly, since unhealed wounds may reflect a poor immune response, whichin turn may reflect chronic stress. Also, it is easy to develop schemes whereby levels of injuryand damage can be quickly and accurately scored, for example at harvest.

Rate and patterns of mortality are valuable as a bottom-line indicator of welfare, since this

integrates the effects of all negative welfare factors. Causes of mortality are variable (e.g.disease, injury, poor osmoregulation), but will generally reflect poor welfare for the individualfish, and at times, the populations concerned.


20/118


20

2.5 Environmental Standards

Environmental sustainability is a key issue for viability of aquaculture in the future andimportant in its exploitation of aquatic resource. Environmental sustainability is often judgedin terms of impact of aquaculture on the receiving environment, which are often measured or

quantified against environmental standards. The difference in aquaculture practices in the useof environmental goods and services ensures a different emphasis on specifying suchindicators. The CONSENSUS stakeholders agreed a total of 8 indicators of sustainability basedon environmental standards and their implementation.

The indicators for environmental standards given by the stakeholders ranged from applicationof environmental regulation for measuring impact in relation to environmental capacity, tohighlighting advantages of aquaculture on the environment through indicators which measurethe improvement of water quality parameters.

They can be broken down into a few areas of investigation:

effective site selection for new sites;

reduction of impacts through minimisation of waste through use of environmentalmonitoring and implementation of best practice;

use of carrying capacity in management of aquaculture.

Effective selection of suitable sites for any type of aquaculture is crucial toenvironmental sustainability but is also a difficult parameter to implement. Atpresent this is achieved largely through environmental impact assessment (EIA), whichconstitutes a part of the planning process for new sites. The full implementation of the WaterFramework Directive (WFD) throughout the EU in 2008 will largely ensure that a full EIA willbe required for all new and existing fish farm sites. In many countries within the EU this isalready standard practice, though ways of implementing their use are often country-dependent. An EIA requires that the potential physico-chemical, conservation and visual

impacts of the fish farm site be addressed and the implications on other resource users beconsidered. Variables such as size and location of the farm are addressed, using differentscenarios to investigate the potential for alternative biomass levels and sites.

The EIA estimates the risk of the different aspects of the aquaculture system on theenvironment and its resources. It also suggests monitoring strategies for aquaculturemanagement to prevent impact and degradation of environmental quality. A key part of theEIA process is to model utilization of environmental goods (e.g. food for molluscs) or services(e.g. assimilation potential of the local environment) on the capacity of the environment tosustain normal function.

An indicator of EIA implementation and its effectiveness throughout the EU is suggested; thepercentage of new and existing sites that have undergone the process of EIA. In addition,site selection may also be achieved through comparison with existing information and spatialmodelling using Geographic Information Systems (GIS). This allows diverse spatial data to becompared and modelled for environmental, socio-economic, visual, multi-users andconservation information. This not only addresses environmental impacts, but can also clearlyspecify where conflicts in resource use with other activities can occur.

Environmental monitoring is a standard method of environmental regulation ofaquaculture where various measurements of physico-chemical and biological parameters aretaken to judge short and long term environmental impact. Assessment is made bycomparison of measured levels with derived Environmental Quality Standards (EQSs).Standardized implementation of EQSs at European level can be difficult, as governmentsoften set different levels for their standards. Implementation of the WFD should help, though

it is likely that different levels of WFD implementation may still lead to problems.


21/118


21Different forms of aquaculture require different (environmental) qualitystandards. Quality standards are normally based on fixed levels for nutrient inputs (i.e.nitrogen and phosphorus), amount of chemicals (i.e. anti-lice treatments, antibacterials andantifoulants), or measurable changes within the biological communities in sediments.

Environmental sustainability of aquaculture is dependent on the environmentsability to provide goods (such as food) and services (such as assimilating waste).These goods and services vary depending on the method of production or the organismunder culture. For example, mussel farming requires knowledge of the potential food sourcewithin the water column - too much mussel farming would deplete that source. Equally, fishfarming requires the aquatic environment to assimilate nutrient and chemical waste which, ifnot of a certain level, would lead to environmental degradation. The calculation of carryingcapacity is important for aquaculture development as well as environmental health. This is

usually estimated through a modelling approach based on information on water flow, volumeand chemistry. In the sea and lake conditions sediments may also be taken intoconsideration. New or existing aquaculture can share calculated capacities by consideration ofhow much of this capacity will be used up by individual or groups of aquaculture activities.

Methods for assessing environmental standards are part of the standard regulatoryprocedures or planning-permission processes of individual countries within the EU.Therefore many of the details highlighted above will be implemented automatically foraquaculture development. In countries where this is not standard practice, implementation ofthe WFD by 2008 should ensure that this will be the case.

Pan-European implementation in 2008 of the Water Framework Directive

will have a significant effect on environmental standards.


22/118


22

2.6 Human Resources

The CONSENSUS stakeholders listed a total of 7 human resource sustainability indicators,although these indicators listed a wide range of inter-related factors covering employment,education, training and technology transfer. The indicators are pan European but the

interpretation of any data collected would need to be done taking into consideration the scaleof production, farm techniques, species grown and social characteristics, as these factorsdictate the competences required and hence the human resource needs at a national,regional and farm level.

2.6.1 EmploymentIncreasing direct and indirect employment in aquaculture is a desired trend -aquaculture has a major role to play in helping to reverse the decline in coastalcommunities across Europe by contributing to the local economy, for the maintenanceof the social and cultural heritage of these areas and for maintaining the populationabove critical levels3. However, it should also be considered that in some sub-sectors,there is a move to a smaller, less costly workforce in order to increase productionefficiency and maintain competitiveness.

Promoting aquaculture as an attractive career and accessibility to appropriate training areidentified as strategies to achieve the objective stated above.

2.6.2 Workforce compositionIndicators related to composition of the workforce - gender balance, age pyramids, newemployment ratios (retirement: new entrant), ethnicity and workforce competence were agreed by stakeholders as being important sustainability factors of the sector.It is recognised that a generation change is now underway, with producers ceasingtheir activity, and younger people starting out in production. In parallel it has beenobserved that a career in aquaculture is not always seen as an attractive option for youngpersons. However, whilst the above are issues in some parts of Europe, they are notconsistent across Europe and hence reliable indicators are needed to monitor trends on a

regional basis before compiling them into national or European statistics. Workforcecomposition must also consider the type of workers required as there are many different

job roles in the sector.

2.6.3 Education, training & technology transferWorkers in European aquaculture require a high level of knowledge and specialisation atall levels of aquaculture enterprises and the competency of the workforce must be akey element of any sustainability plan. Indicators listed covered issues such asappropriate level of education, accessibility and improvement of technical assistance,effective dissemination of research and technical information, recognition of lifelonglearning, and industry input into the design of training so as to meet industry needs andeducational networks. Overall there was a clear view that appropriate training/transfer of

technology will lead to a more competent workforce and in turn, to a sustainable sector.

The proposed human resources indicators covered and interlinked 3 areas for measurement:

data on the composition of the workforce;

the skills competence of the workforce;

the needs of the industry.

Whilst the first is feasible to measure using existing data collection (although the quality ofinformation needs considerable improvement) and the last is possible through feedbackmechanisms from industry, the middle area above is the most difficult and yet the mostimportant - as it defines the existing skills of the workforce.

3 Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament A strategy for the sustainabledevelopment of European Aquaculture Brussels, 19.9.02 (COM (2002) 511 final.


23/118


23

Without a better understanding of this fact, it is difficult to effectively meet the currentand future human resource needs of the sector. However, measurement andcompilation are complicated given the different education systems across Europe and the factthat each individual has acquired their skills using a different learning pathway (combinationof work based learning and/or accredited courses). Currently work is in progress to assesssuch learning pathways and a trans national EC project (WAVE, www.waveproject.com) is

using an industry-led approach to define a master list of work-based competencies for theEuropean aquaculture in line with priorities identified in the Copenhagen Declaration (Nov.,2002). Such a competency-based approach may provide transparency and thus could allowrelevant indicators to be measured and related to workforce skills, which are in turn indicatorsof sustainability. For that to happen, a lot more work is required.

A career in aquaculture production is not an easy option.

Photo kindly supplied by Philippe Goulletquer, IFREMER


24/118


24

2.7 Biodiversity

Aquaculture is often seen as potentially having an effect on biodiversity through introductionof exotic species, escapes of selectively bred species or by impact on the wider environmentthrough release of wastes. Both reproductive (genetic) and health (disease and parasites)

aspects are associated with these issues. Conversely, carefully managed aquaculturemay enable an increase in biodiversity of a particular area or ecosystem.

One aspect of interaction is the escaping of fish from net cages in the sea and the concernsraised by the press on potential spread of disease and parasites. The CONSENSUS WorkingGroup on coastal and offshore aquaculture firmly agreed an objective to minimize thenegative impact of aquaculture on wild fish populations.

They propose three indicators:

measurement and reporting of the number and % of escapes;

measuring the number of farms (that are growing species with parasite issues) thatare subject to monitoring and control programmes;

recording the number of disease outbreaks in wild fish attributed to farming activities.

The first two are easy to measure at a farm level, and can be consolidated and informationmade available by various authorities depending on the country. Farms in some countriesalready make these measurements. The third is rather more difficult, and more research isrequired to clarify this interaction.

Further suggestions regarding the specific issues of escapes is the development of a Codeof Practice (or equivalent) for the prevention of fish escapes and theestablishment of a certification programme of technical standards for sea cages.The latter is considered as being especially required as more exposed sites are used forproduction.

Many European pond aquaculture systems in semi-static water have been stocked withcommercial exotic species that are increasingly considered as undesirable from the point ofview of biodiversity protection. Current legislation (e.g. the Environment Act), as well as theCommission strategy for sustainable aquaculture development supports a reduction in thestocking of exotic species. By measuring the percentage by weight of each species inthese multi-species systems, this indicator can reflect the change towards indigenous species.However, research is required to ascertain suitability, as many exotic species are currentlyused for their high value, and for their role in the system (e.g. exotic herbivorous species thatare an essential supplementary species in this type of polyculture system).

While the number and proportion of species is easy to measure at the farm level, the increasein biodiversity per seis much more difficult. Standardised protocols, trained monitors anddata collection systems are required if this is going to be measured in a meaningful way.Compensatory schemes may also need to be envisaged in relation to the protection ofbiodiversity.

When the factors of escapes and exotic species are combined, land-based systems usingwater recirculation systems have the highest potential to achieve zero-escapestatus, and this was a declared objective of this particular Working Group, within a five-yeartime frame. Achieving this objective by recording of the number of escapes per year at farmlevel, would mean that this type of production unit would be most suitable for the productionof exotic species, where the market demand exists and where this can be achieved on aneconomically viable basis. Reduction of disease outbreaks in recirculation aquaculture systems(focussed on the spread of disease by birds, fish, people) was also identified as a parallel

objective accompanying the above, and of importance also in exotic species production.


25/118


25

Biodiversity may also be maintained through several methods of aquaculture, one such is theintroduction of integrated aquaculture (IMTA)4. The shellfish working group ofCONSENSUS agreed on the encouragement of the use of extractive species in polyculture(integration of multi-species aquaculture). Extractive species mainly algae - use the excessnutrients associated with farming activities as a nutrition source. The algae may then be usedas a food source for herbivorous grazing animals, such as urchins. The combination of species

optimises the flow of nutrients. While predominantly an environmental objective, it also hasbiodiversity issues associated with it.

Indicators for this would be: a revision in the legislation and the number of established IMTAoperations. This would require new data collection systems under the auspice of nationaltrade associations, as current legislation and monitoring does not incorporate this type ofactivity at present.

4Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture (IMTA) includes different species operating on different trophic levels withinthe same system. In that way, it is not the same as polyculture, where several species of the same trophic level (e.g.several fish species) are grown together.


26/118


26

2.8 Post-harvest operations

Aquaculture provides fish and shellfish that may be harvested-to-order, thus providing theconsumer with the freshest of products. Post-harvest operations (covering processing andpackaging in this document) therefore play an important role in the presentation of product

to the consumer, and hence towards its public image.

Guaranteeing food safety is the underlying principle of the aquaculture sector. Thedesired status of the post-harvest sector, as identified by the CONSENSUS stakeholders, is todecrease the use of resources, such as energy and water, decrease by-products and wasteand make better use of remaining by-products so as to diminish the impact on theenvironment. These objectives should increase the processing efficiency to maximize the finalproduct value, thus increasing the economic viability and generating more opportunities foremployment.

The areas addressed are processing efficiency and environmental impact, shellfish processingand monitoring of potential toxins and packaging.

2.8.1 Processing efficiency and environmental impactThe main desired trend identified by the CONSENSUS working group was one ofincreasing efficiency through better yield and better utilization of by-products into directhuman consumption products or other value added products for use in other industries(health products, etc). Indicators of this efficiency increase can be measured in terms ofresources per unit of processed fish/shellfish.

Although not specifically mentioned in the Strategy for the Sustainable Development ofEuropean aquaculture5, the processing of fish and shellfish can also contribute topollution of water bodies, by release of waste water containing considerable amountsof organic material. It would be desirable to decrease the amount of by-products andwaste and to make better use of by-products that are generated.

Research is needed in several key areas:

more effective cleaning and separation techniques, using less energy andwater;

better utilisation (through characterisation, processing and data management)of by-products;

increasing shelf life of products while maintaining microbial levels as low aspossible.

To measure the path towards the desired trend, primary data should be stored at thefacility, preferably within an environmental management system (EMAS). Each facilityshould establish a database, where these data can be stored and easily retrieved.National Environmental Agencies should establish databases for such information innational language, and with public access. At the Community level, the Commissionshould establish databases where information can be stored and from where it can beviewed by the public.

2.8.2 Shellfish processing and monitoringApart from the issues outlined in the above section, more specific processing issues andrelated objectives may be applied to the shellfish sector. These include specific shellfishcleaning and separation techniques that use less water and enable better treatment ofthe used water. Better separation of meat and shell during processing and the use ofempty shell are also important factors that affect an expanding percentage of shellfish

5 Commission of the European Communities. COM(2002) 511


27/118


27

processing. In this last item, alternative uses by other industries need to be identified andexpanded.

Legislation regarding food safety, the so-called Hygiene Package, includes provisions forpreparing, processing, freezing, storing and packaging of fishery and aquacultureanimals, and is already in place at European level. Within this legislation, the

responsibility for monitoring the classified area for toxin-producing plankton lies with the(local or regional) authorities. Closure of production areas due to the presence of toxinshas a rapid and severe effect on producers livelihoods and does not generally improvepublic perception of raw shellfish products.

CONSENSUS stakeholders agreed that each shellfish processor (or group of processors)should, due to the geographical and seasonal variation of plankton producing biotoxins,have their own monitoring system to mitigate food safety risks. At the moment of arrivalat the facility, the raw material should be checked and its result recorded in a databaseas the % of samples free of toxins. This will be costly but is counterbalanced by securingthat the product is safe to be eaten and that costly recall operations and loss of goodimage to the consumer will be avoided.

Research into rapid and cheap identification, as well as into the removal of toxins fromshellfish, is needed.

2.8.3 PackagingPackaging is used at all levels of fish handling, for the conservation of fish feeds as wellas for processed fish and shellfish. It is required to minimize product loss and protect theproduct against microbial and other contaminants, at the same time extending its shelflife for commercial and distribution purposes. Moreover, it provides the consumer withvaluable product information.

A balance needs to be found between packaging weight for a certain product weight, as

well as for the recycling of packaging materials.

Photo courtesy of Benoit Caillart, Oceanic Dveloppement, France.


28/118


28

Changing consumer attitudes and preferences mean that the consumption of conveniencefoods is increasing. At the same time, the Packaging Waste Directive (94/62/EC)6 requiresthe prevention of packaging waste formation and improvement of reuse and recycling ofpackaging material, thus making the packaging process more complex and expensive.

Research is needed to develop better packaging systems that meet essential

requirements. Measurements that can be used to show success in packagingsustainability are identified as:

the % of gross weight versus packaging weight;

the % of packaging that is recyclable;

the % of hazardous materials in packaging that are higher than tolerancelevels.

In summary, efforts are required through the whole distribution chain to increase yields fromfish and shellfish processing of products for direct human consumption. If changes on theproduction processes are put in place, the own-check system based on the HACCP systemshould be updated with new procedures in order to carefully monitor the processes so as to

avoid food risks.

Where aquaculture products, having been farmed within the Community, are processedoutside the EU, processors shall apply the same indicators in their industry, as do processorsbased in EU Member States.

6 European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC. Official Journal L 365, 31/12/1994 p. 0010-0023


29/118


29

2.9 Sector Issues

Several objectives agreed by the CONSENSUS Working Groups could not be attributed easilyto one particular theme. They are:

improvement in the quality of industry statistics;

increased innovation for sustainability of the sector; improvement of legislative tools and regulation processes;

requirement of a strategic development plan for sustainable shellfish aquaculture.

These desired trends and their associated indicators require the development of newtemplates or new strategies at a sector level that are communicated or enacted by theEuropean organisations representing the sectors involved.

2.9.1 Industry statistics Accurate and updated statistics are the key to monitoring any activity. Europeanaquaculture statistics are produced by the FAO, and more recently by the FEAP7 forEuropean finfish aquaculture. These are generally based on production and volume and

value by species.

However, many of the desired trends described in this document requireindicators that are frequently measured (annually, in most cases), compiledand reported.

An inventory of the widely diverse data and monitoring systems is required at theEuropean level, so as to be able to define the needs and gaps that exist for valuable andeffective monitoring. There is no one clearing house for this information, and that ispossibly not desirable. However, statistics need to be available so as to measure the levelof success in implementation of a strategy and to provide information to stakeholders.

2.9.2 Increased innovation

Innovation is seen by many as the key to boost economic growth. The CONSENSUSstakeholders suggest that research and development programmes should beharmonised and better integrated with sector needs, as well as sector investment.Increasing the number of targeted programmes that link research users and providers isseen as a useful indicator of progression towards the research and technologyinnovations that are required to further develop sustainable European aquaculture.Implementation issues would include the inclusion of other research areas (social,consumer), as well as the networks for communication and dissemination of results.

2.9.3 Improvement of legislative tools and regulation processesThis objective was presented by the shellfish Working Group, but is seen as applicable forthe whole aquaculture sector. It is, in essence, focused on a clarification of

legislation, measured by a reduction in perceived or actual contradictory elements indifferentdirectives/regulations, as well as the desire for a one-stop shop for aquacultureproduction permits and authorisations, measured by a reduction in the number ofmultiple applications required.

2.9.4 A strategic development plan for sustainable shellfish aquacultureThis was also highlighted for the shellfish sector, perceived as absent at present, and asbeing the basis for a European approach to, including others, production issues, those ofconflict with other coastal users, with other partners in the value chain, as well as othersustainability factors. Recently published reports, such as the Review of the Irish RopeMussel Industry8, are good documents for the basis of this European plan.

7 Federation of European Aquaculture Producers. http://www.feap.info8 Review of the Irish Rope Mussels Industry. March 2006. Pricewaterhouse Coopers.


30/118


30

3. Towards Sustainability Protocols

The 78 indicators produced during the CONSENSUS workshop are not in themselves protocolsfor sustainable aquaculture.

The protocols focus more on the implementation of the required measurements, withrecommendations at farm, local authority, producer organisation or other organisation level.They also address how the information resulting from the collection of this information can beeffectively used for and by the sector, as well as to demonstrate to consumers the benefits ofhigh quality, safe and nutritious farmed fish and shellfish grown in sustainable conditions.

Representatives of the industry partners of CONSENSUS (FEAP, EMPA, FEFAC) and EBCD andTest Achats are providing input and assistance in the drafting of the protocols. They will beproduced in a concise format (15-20 pages) and will be very much oriented towardsaquaculture producers, especially concerning farm-level implementation requirements.

The protocols will be presented to a wide range of European stakeholders, includingSMEs involved in the production of goods and services to the industry, companies involved inthe distribution of seafood products, consumer groups, environmental NGOs and individuals.Specific channels will allow feedback and comment to be collected and compiled. Morespecifically, consumer feedback will be provided through the member organisations of theBureau Europen des Unions de Consommateurs (BEUC) and through the EuroconsumersNetwork.

Environmental organisations will provide feedback through the European Bureau forConservation Development (EBCD), while consultation of the broader aquaculture sector -suppliers of good and services - and the wider research community will be obtained in variousways. The feedback resulting from this consultation phase will be summarised and linkedback to specific texts of the proposals. Furthermore, this feedback will be channelled back tothe principal stakeholders for their consideration.

During the consultation phase, a specific strategy for consumers will be elaboratedand tested. The purpose of this is to show that consumers demands and expectationsconcerning seafood provision from sustainable aquaculture can be fulfilled. It will be based onthe outcomes of the special consumers working group meetings held during the CONSENSUSworkshop and will use the production of the protocols as a demonstration of the stepsrequired to measure the path towards sustainability in the sector.

These CONSENSUS initiatives will all be available for broader consultation atwww.euraquaculture.info

The site provides general information on the CONSENSUS project, background info on all

partners of the consortium, a media library, containing photos of the workshop and ofaquaculture related topics; links to the EU, related projects in aquaculture and to relevantsites on health benefits of eating seafood and a news feed (RSS), where real time news fromother sites, relating to aquaculture and health, is provided. Its principal sections presentaquaculture issues - a section which will contain balanced articles on several selectedtopics, to be written by journalists in the year to come and the sustainability protocols,where all protocols and indicators are published in chapters. The site has contact information,and all content has a have your say box, providing visitors the possibility to comment onthe articles and the protocols.


31/118


31

Annex I. The CONSENSUS Consortium

I.1 Platform Steering Committee

John GODFREY (Chair) The European Consumers Organisation BEUC (UK) Alberto ALLODI The European Feed Manufacturers' Federation (BE)

Astrid MEESTERS The European Feed Manufacturers' Federation (BE)Torger BRRESEN Danish Institute for Fisheries Research / SEAFOODplus (DK)Bruno GUILLAUMIE European Mollusc Producers Association (FR)Courtney HOUGH Federation of European Aquaculture Producers (BE)Robert REMY TEST ACHATS / EUROCONSUMERS (BE)Patrick SORGELOOS Ghent University / Asia Europe Meeting Aquaculture Platform

(BE)Despina SYMONS European Bureau for Conservation Development (BE)Eva VALLE European Bureau for Conservation Development (BE)

Ciaran MANGAN European Commission DG Research (BE)Mario LOPES DOS SANTOS European Commission DG Fisheries and Maritime Affairs (BE)

I.2 Protocol Drafting Committee

John JOYCE (Chair) Marine Institute (IE)Felicity HUNTINGFORD University of Glasgow (UK)Sunil KADRI University of Glasgow (UK)Matthias KAISER The National Committee for Research Ethics in Science and

Technology (NO)Sadasivam KAUSHIK Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (FR)David MURPHY Aquaculture Technology and Training Network (IE)Trevor TELFER Stirling University Institute of Aquaculture (UK)Bill VANDAELE BVD Consultants SA (BE)

I.3 Working Group Chairs & RapporteursWG1 Semi-static freshwater systemsChair Laszlo VARADI Research Institute for Fisheries (HU)Rapporteur John BOSTOCK Stirling University Institute of Aquaculture (UK)WG2 Flow-through systemsChair Benoit FAUCONNEAU Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (FR)Rapporteur Sadasivam KAUSHIK Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (FR)WG3 Recirculation systemsChair Johan VERRETH Wageningen University and Research (NL)Rapporteur Catarina Martins Wageningen University and Research (NL)WG4 Marine systems focusing on shellfish cultureChair Douglas McLEOD Association of Scottish Shellfish Growers (UK)Rapporteur Anamarija FRANKIC UMASS Boston (USA)WG5 Marine systems focusing on finfish in cagesChair Rosa FLOS Technical University of Catalonia (ES)Rapporteur Bari HOWELL Pontcanna Aquaculture Services (UK)WG6 Post harvest operations, including processing and traceabilityChair Erling LARSEN Danish Institute for Fisheries Research (DK)Rapporteur Knud FISCHER Danish Institute for Fisheries Research (DK)WG7 Consumer issuesChair Joop LUTEN Norwegian Institute of Fisheries and Aquaculture

Research (NO)Rapporteur Filiep VANHONACKER Ghent University (BE)

CONSENSUS is coordinated by the European Aquaculture Society (EAS)


32/118


32

Annex II. The CONSENSUS Indicators by Theme

II.1 How to read the indicators: the working group template

The working group template has been designed in such a way as to extract as muchinformation as possible from the working group sessions.

Each indicator has been given a short name, which is inserted in the Indicator field. In theDesired Status field, information is provided on where aquaculture is now with regard tothe indicator and what the objective for the future is. Following the findings of the workinggroups, each indicator has been ranked according to its relevance for the environment,economy and society, ranging from 1 being most relevant to 3 being (almost) irrelevant. Nextto that, the table contains a Level field, telling us if the indicator should be addressed at thePan-European, the regional, the local or another level. Finally, in the Unit field, a measureunit is proposed by the working groups.

In the paragraph on rationale and context it is explained why the indicator is anappropriate benchmark or measure for the working groups and how the indicator contributesto the achievement of sustainable development of aquaculture in Europe.

Ease of measurement of the indicator gives answers to questions likeHow easy is the indicator to measure?How often should the indicator be measured/recorded? (frequency)Who will be responsible for monitoring/recording the indicator?

A lot of indicators will, to a lower or a higher extent, have an effect on other indicators, whichmight be positive or negative. The effect/overlap/compromise paragraph emphasizespossible cumulative positive effects and trade-offs of the indicator on other indicatorsdeveloped by the working groups.

Trend specifies which way the working groups want the indicator to go, how they think itshould evolve in the years to come. This could be up or down, depending on the desiredstatus of the indicator.

Finally, a number of implementation issues have been addressed, more in particularrelating to:

1) ease of implementation at the farm/sector level;2) legislation;3) research requirements;4) investment/new technology needs;5) effect on production costs;

6) data availability and retrieval;7) data storage;8) other implementation issues, to allow working groups to make additional comments

on the implementation of the indicators.


33/118


33

CONSENSUSWorking Group Template

Desired Status: (Where we want aquaculture to be (status / objective))Indicator: (Short name of the indicator)

Env* * Soc* Level: Pan-Euro/Local/etc. Unit (how is it measured):

* Rank indicator type 1 to 3 (1 is most relevant for this indicator)

Rationale and context: (Why the indicator is an appropriate benchmark or measure? Howdoes this contribute to achieving sustainable development of aquaculture?)

Ease of measurement of the indicator: (How easy is the indicator to measure? How oftenshould the indicator be measured/recorded? Who will be responsible for monitoring(frequency)/recording the indicator?)

Effect/overlap/compromise with other indicators: (Showing cumulative positive effects or

trade offs)

Trend: (Which way do we want the indicator to go (up or down)? Where will it be in fiveyears time?)

Implementation issues:

1) How easy is the indicator to implement at sectorial or farm level?

2) Does present legislation incorporate this indicator?

3) Is there research required for effective implementation of this indicator?

4) Would further investment and/or new technology be required for implementation?

5) How will implementation affect production costs?

6) Are data for the indicator already available? If so, where can they be retrieved?

7) Where are the measured indicator data to be stored or archived?

8) Other implementation issues


34/118


34

II.2 Indicators of Economic Viability

II.2.1 Farm Revenue (#3)

Desired Status: Maintenance of farm revenue at sustainable level for semi-static production systems(being competitive).

Indicator: Production values


3 1 2 Local EUR / time unit


Rationale and context:(Why the indicator is an appropriate benchmark or measure? How does this contribute toachieving sustainable development of aquaculture?)It characterises the effectiveness of the operation and the economic situation (competition) in the region/country.It reflects the economic viability of the production.

Ease of measurement of the indicator: (How easy is the indicator to measure? How often should the indicatorbe measured/recorded? Who will be responsible for monitoring (frequency)/recording the indicator?)Data on production values are available at farm level.Effect/overlap/compromise with other indicators: (Showing cumulative positive effects or trade offs) It is influenced by production volume on the market, and by the level of organisation of farmers.Trend:

The trend is expected to exceed inflation ratein the medium run.

Implementation issues:

1) How easy is the indicator to implement at sectorial or farm level?No special requirements in the implementation.2) Does present legislation incorporate this indicator?

No.3) Is there research required for effective implementation of this indicator?a. On the short term: no.b. On the long term: research on the acceptability of products from semi-static systems can contribute to theimprovement of the continuity of supplies from semi-static aquaculture systems.4) Would further investment and/or new technology be required for implementation?

No.5) How will implementation affect production costs?

Insignificantly.6) Are data for the indicator already available? If so, where can they be retrieved?

The data can be collected from the farm accounting system.7) Where are the measured indicator data to be stored or archived?

At the farms.8) Other implementation issues:None.


35/118


35

II.2.2 Multifunctionality (#4)

Desired Status: The level of multifunctionality would increase together with the economic viability, the

income of the farm is also generated from sources other than fish production.

Indicator: Income from various services


3 1 2 Local % contribution of income fromvarious services to the total


Rationale and context:(Why the indicator is an appropriate benchmark or measure? How does this contribute toachieving sustainable development of aquaculture?)It reflects the multifunctionality and economic viability of the farm. It contributes to the economic and socialsustainability without significantly affecting the production and the environment.

Ease of measurement of the indicator: (How easy is the indicator to measure? How often should the indicatorbe measured/recorded? Who will be responsible for monitoring (frequency)/recording the indicator?)It forms the part of the farm income, thus it is available if the farm has developed a system for the collection ofthese data separately.Effect/overlap/compromise with other indicators: (Showing cumulative positive effects or trade offs) It can affect (increase) the value of social indicators because of the diversified activities: it requires investments,more labour, more visitors at the farm, etc.Trend:

% contribution expected to rise.It is expected to have an effect on the long term, due to the fact that it requires decisions and importantinvestments.

Implementation issues:1) How easy is the indicator to implement at sectorial or farm level? Although the number of multifunctional farms is increasing, no system is available for recording and monitoringincome from various services. Some basic data are available in the accounting books at farm level.2) Does present legislation incorporate this indicator?

No.3) Is there research required for effective implementation of this indicator?a. On the short term: no.b. On the long term: research on multifunctional fish farming would be important to better understand this type offarming and to elaborate methodologies for their evaluation, including the use of some indicators.4) Would further investment and/or new technology be required for implementation?No.5) How will implementation affect production costs?

Insignificantly.6) Are data for the indicator already available? If so, where can they be retrieved?This requires a data recording system for each type of activity. The data can be collected from the farm accountingsystem.7) Where are the measured indicator data to be stored or archived?At the farms.8) Other implementation issues:

None.


36/118


36

II.2.3 Business partners (#5)

Desired Status: The farm has multiple vertical and horizontal connections with producers

organisations, business partners.

Indicator : Number of partners


3 1 2 Local/national Number (suppliers, customers)


Rationale and context:(Why the indicator is an appropriate benchmark or measure? How does this contribute toachieving sustainable development of aquaculture?)Most farms in Eastern countries are small and not organised in cooperatives; thus they are exposed to monopolisticdistribution. The company independence is increasing with the growing number of business partners. The exposureto a limited number of suppliers/customers that can exploit this situation would decrease the economic sustainability.

Ease of measurement of the indicator: (How easy is the indicator to measure? How often should the indicatorbe measured/recorded? Who will be responsible for monitoring (frequency)/recording the indicator?)The number of regular business partners, and the memberships of the farm in professional bodies is available, but itis difficult to obtain the data.Effect/overlap/compromise with other indi

Documents

Consensus Workshop