adriamed expert consultation interactions between capture fisheries and aquaculture

AdriaMed Expert Consultation Interactions between capture fisheries and aquaculture

Rome, Italy 5 - 7 November 2003

1st Coordination Committee (2000)•Importance of responsible aquaculture•Organization of an Expert Consultation

FAO Code of Conduct

3rd GFCM - CAQ

28th GFCM


General overview

The general principles - the methodological framework of the Consultation were based on:• CF and A have the objective of producing aquatic products for human consumption (CCRF)•CF and A are part of the same system and specific recommendations must be given within a global approach in which the different dimensions of fisheries (Governance, Ecological, Economic and Social) are taken into consideration .

•The national contributions provided background information of the aquaculture sector in the Adriatic countries and permitted to highlight the more relevant topics on the relationships between CF and A

•The discussion on thematic area (market interaction ; quality and certification of fishery products CF and A; blue fin tuna fishing and farming in the Adriatic sea)permitted the discussion on specific issues on interaction between CF and A using a systemic approach.

AdriaMed Expert Consultation Interactions between capture and fisheries aquaculture

Aims

•to achieve a comprehensive description and analysis of the aquaculture sector in the countries which border the Adriatic Sea

•to acquire the tools to improve the knowledge on the relationships between fisheries and aquaculture in the area

•to explore the main issues dealing with interactions between aquaculture and capture fisheries using the existing knowledge


Set of Indicators

Indicators

Fisheries dimensions

EconomicEcological Governance Social

IV. Dimension: Social

Interaction between aquaculture and capture fisheries


New employment opportunities in tuna farming

VI.a Employmentincome opportunity

VI.b Use of coastal areas

Water surfaces dedicated to aquaculture activities not available for small scale fisheries

Criteria to identify reliable indicators

Number of fishers involved in capture fisheries and aquaculture

Number of hectarer dedicated to aquaculture and number of hactares dedicated to fisheries, in the coastal zone

Action Tools

Development of opportunities of reconversion /income integration of fishers to aquaculture activities

Development of integrated coastal zone management plan




New employment opportunities in tuna farming







Action Tools




Table




New employment opportunities (i.e tuna farming)







Action Tools




Table

Methodological contribution to the identification of the list of reliable indicator to be monitored

Basic element to address research and monitoring programmes towards the study of relationships between capture fisheries and aquaculture

The structural approach and the content of the table proposed is considered as a first step of a work in progress.

Useful check list for further explanation and development

The use of these indicators allow support to be given to the decision-makers in management strategy and in assessing progress towards sustainable development of the sector

The positive and negative interactions between capture fisheries and aquaculture must be considered in the context of integrated coastal zone management by the Countries

The establishment of national programmes and international cooperation for research activities dealing with the interaction between capture fisheries and aquaculture would be useful in both marine and freshwater environments

The implementation and the monitoring of the principles of the CCRF in many cases needs appropriate assessment on the interactions between capture fisheries and aquaculture

In the Adriatic the possibility of developing pilot projects at sub regional level based on the enhancement of interactions between capture fisheries and aquaculture should be considered.

Fishermen and farmers should consider the competitive opportunities that the positive interactions between capture fisheries and aquaculture can offer

In the coastal zone management appropriate planning approaches to allocate resources (space, grants, loans) to capture fisheries and aquaculture especially in the case in which the relationships between capture fisheries and aquaculture contribute to the sustainable use of environmental resources must be followed

Specific cases of interactions between capture fisheries and aquaculture such as tuna farming, wild fry collection, management of coastal lagoons, to be correctly address require a sound knowledge base and a decision making process based on the participation of the different stakeholders


Recommendations

Traffic Light (TL):

• method to display indicator values making the related information available and easy to understand

• provides a way to evaluate temporal variation of indicator series and to compare the relevance of a wide range of inputs to the management process

• proposed as a precautionary management framework incorporating decision rules for management actions based on the current state of multiple indicators

• potentially powerful tool for developing, displaying and integrating technical information for fisheries management planning

INDICATOR 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003Economic sustainability (ROI - Risk_free_rate) (%)

Added value/RevenueGross Operative Margin/RevenueROS (Return on Sale)ROI (Return on investiment) (%)Revenue/Investec Dapital (%)Net Profit per vessel (000 €)

Landings per vessel (ton)Landings per GRT (ton)Landings per day (ton)CPUE (kg)Revenue per vessel (000 €)Revenue per GRT (000 €)Revenue per day (000 €)RPUE (€)

Landings per vessel (ton)

Landings per GRT (ton)Landings per day (ton)CPUE (kg)Revenue per vessel (000 €)Revenue per GRT (000 €)

Revenue per day (000 €)RPUE (€)

Average price (€/kg)Fuel cost per vessel (000 €)Fuel cost per day (000 €)Maintenance cost per vessel (000 €)Social sustainability (Salary-Minimum salary

According to the TL approach a judgment codified by a specific colour is assigned to every year in the time series of each indicator

Boundary values can be set according to their percentile value in time series, e.g.

• value > 0.66th percentile (positive judgment, green colour assigned);

• value 0.66th - 0.33rd (intermediate, yellow colour assigned);

• value < 0.33rd percentile (negative judgment, red colour assigned).

Good (positive) year > 0.66th percentile

Intermediate year 0.66th–33rd percentile

Bad (negative) year < 0.33rd percentile

Based on the colours code, the variations of each indicator can be highlighted and the associated information (i.e. good, intermediate or warning state) made available to set objectives and decision rules in a fisheries management framework

1970 1971 ... ... ... ... 2002 2003

Indicator 1

Indicator 2

Indicator 3

...

...

...

Indicator X

INDICATORYEAR

INDICATOR ESTIMATOR 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Occurrence %Geometric mean

75° percentileGeometric mean



75° percentileMean body weight (g) Ratio

Arithmetic meanMedian


Mean body lenght Length

at maturity-1 Ratio

Biomass (kg km-2)

Density (n km-2)

Recruitment index (n km-2)

Spawner index (n km-2)

Mean body length (mm)

Mean body lenght excluding recruits (mm)

INDICATOR ESTIMATOR 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Occurrence %Geometric mean



75° percentileMean body weight (g) Ratio


Mean body lenght Length

at maturity-1 Ratio

Spawner index (n km-2)

Mean body length (mm)

Biomass (kg km-2)

Density (n km-2)

INDICATOR 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003Economic sustainability (ROI-Risk_Free_Rrate) %

Added Value/RevenueGross Operative Margin/RevenueROS (Return on Sale)ROI (Return on Investment) (%)Revenue/Invested Capital (%)Net Profit per vessel (000 €)

Biological and economic indicators for the Adriatic Sea

Zeus Faber

INDICATOR ESTIMATOR 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

OCCURRENCE % 16,90 5,30 11,60 21,40 18,70 14,30 10,00 8,80 18,80

ABUNDANCE (kg/km2) Geometric mean 0,13 0,05 0,11 0,13 0,16 0,08 0,05 0,04 0,06

75° percentile

DENSITY (n/km2) Geometric mean 0,23 0,08 0,16 0,32 0,28 0,21 0,14 0,16 0,30

75° percentile

RECRUITMENT INDEX (n/km2) Geometric mean 0,02 0,03 0,00 0,16 0,03 0,02 0,03 0,04 0,17

75° percentile

SPAWNER INDEX (n/km2) Geometric mean 0,10 0,09 0,08 0,10 0,10

75° percentileMEAN BODY WEIGHT (g) Ratio 521,08 559,13 578,01 171,40 326,13 171,59 189,32 34,11 64,57MEAN BODY LENGTH (mm) Arithmetic mean 275,71 243,81 305,69 149,57 254,13 195,42 178,07 102,35 102,29

Median 270,00 350,00 280,00 70,00 230,00 200,00 120,00 70,00 70,00MEAN BODY LENGTH EXCLUDING THE RECRUITS (mm) Arithmetic mean 294,78 346,85 305,69 240,99 270,31 206,47 178,07 138,10 137,43

Median 280,00 370,00 280,00 240,00 230,00 200,00 120,00 90,00 90,00MEAN BODY LENGTH/LENGTH AT MATURITY Ratio 0,95 0,84 0,50 0,89 0,80

Buffer zone 33-66 percentilesGood zone > 66 percentileBad zone < 33 percentilenot calculated

year zone1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

adriamed expert consultation interactions between capture fisheries and aquaculture

Documents