summary of the environmental integrity framework for ... · summary of the environmental integrity...

2012Directorate: Sustainable Aquaculture Management

Summary of the

Environmental

Integrity

Framework for

Marine

Aquaculture

Summary of the Environmental Integrity Framework for Marine Aquaculture 2012

Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries 1

SUMMARY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRITY FRAMEWORK FOR MARINE AQUACULTURE

Department of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries 2012

Summary of the

Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries

Summary of the


Summary of the


Summary of the


Summary of the


Summary of the


Summary of the


Summary of the


Summary of the


Summary of the


Summary of the


Summary of the


Summary of the


Summary of the Environmental Integrity Fram


Environmental Integrity Fram






















PREPARED FOR:

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

ORIGINALLY

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

REVIEWED

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

Edited and Reviewed Fisheries and the Department of Environmental Affairs.

Report should be cited as: Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries 2012. Summary of the A report for the Department of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheriesproduced by Enviro



PREPARED FOR:

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

ORIGINALLY

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

REVIEWED

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


Report should be cited as: Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries 2012. Summary of the A report for the Department of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheriesproduced by Enviro



PREPARED FOR:

Department of Agriculture, Forestry and

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

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

ORIGINALLY

Enviro22 Somerset StreetGrahamstown, 6140

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

Contact person: Prof P

REVIEWED

AquaEco

PO Box 76245Lynnwood Ridge, 0401 Tel: +27 (0)12Fax: +27 (0)12Email:

Contact person:Mr E


Report should be cited as:

Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries 2012. Summary of the A report for the Department of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheriesproduced by Enviro



PREPARED FOR:




ORIGINALLY


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


REVIEWED

AquaEco

PO Box 76245Lynnwood Ridge, 0401

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

Contact person:Mr E






PREPARED FOR:




ORIGINALLY


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


REVIEWED

AquaEco


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

Contact person:Mr E






PREPARED FOR:




ORIGINALLY


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


REVIEWED

AquaEco


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

Contact person:Mr E.






PREPARED FOR:




ORIGINALLY


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

Contact person: Prof P.

REVIEWED

AquaEco


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

Contact person: Hinrichsen






PREPARED FOR:




ORIGINALLY

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

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

Contact person: Britz

REVIEWED

AquaEco


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

Contact person:Hinrichsen






PREPARED FOR:




ORIGINALLY

Fish Africa (Pty) Ltd22 Somerset StreetGrahamstown, 6140

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

[email protected]


REVIEWED

AquaEco


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

[email protected]







PREPARED FOR:




ORIGINALLY


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

[email protected]


REVIEWED

AquaEco


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

[email protected]







PREPARED FOR:




ORIGINALLY


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

[email protected]


REVIEWED


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

[email protected]







PREPARED FOR:




ORIGINALLY


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

[email protected]


REVIEWED


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

[email protected]







PREPARED FOR:




ORIGINALLY


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

[email protected]

Contact person:

AND REVISED


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

[email protected]





Environmental Integrity Frame


PREPARED FOR:




ORIGINALLY PREPARED BY:


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

[email protected]

Contact person:

AND REVISED

PO Box 76245 Lynnwood Ridge, 0401

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

[email protected]





ework


PREPARED FOR:




PREPARED BY:


622 8241 622

[email protected]

Contact person:

AND REVISED

Lynnwood Ridge, 0401

807 5190 807 4946

[email protected]

Contact person: Hinrichsen




work


PREPARED FOR:


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


PREPARED BY:


622 8241622

[email protected]

Contact person:

AND REVISED


807 5190807 4946

[email protected]

Hinrichsen



Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries 2012. Summary of the Environmental Integrity FrameworkA report for the Department of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheriesproduced by Enviro

work


PREPARED FOR:


Tel: +27 (0)21 402 3911


PREPARED BY:


622 8241622

[email protected]

AND REVISED


807 5190807 4946

[email protected]



Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries 2012. Environmental Integrity Framework

A report for the Department of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheriesproduced by Enviro

work

PREPARED FOR:


Tel: +27 (0)21 402 3911

Ms F. Samodien / Mr A. Njobeni

PREPARED BY:

Fish Africa (Pty) Ltd22 Somerset Street Grahamstown, 6140

622 8241622

[email protected]

AND REVISED


807 5190807 4946

[email protected]




A report for the Department of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheriesproduced by Enviro-

work for


Tel: +27 (0)21 402 3911


PREPARED BY:

Fish Africa (Pty) Ltd

Grahamstown, 6140

622 8241 7950

[email protected]

AND REVISED


807 5190807 4946

[email protected]




A report for the Department of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries-Fish Africa (Pty.) Ltd. and revi

for


Tel: +27 (0)21 402 3911


PREPARED BY:


622 82417950

[email protected]

AND REVISED


807 5190807 4946

[email protected]




A report for the Department of Agriculture, Forestry, and FisheriesFish Africa (Pty.) Ltd. and revi

for


Tel: +27 (0)21 402 3911


PREPARED BY:


622 82417950

AND REVISED


807 5190807 4946

[email protected]





for Marine Aquaculture


Tel: +27 (0)21 402 3911


PREPARED BY:


622 82417950

AND REVISED


807 5190807 4946

[email protected]





Marine Aquaculture


Tel: +27 (0)21 402 3911


PREPARED BY:


622 8241 7950

AND REVISED

807 5190 807 4946

[email protected]

Edited and Reviewed bFisheries and the Department of Environmental Affairs.




Marine Aquaculture



PREPARED BY:


AND REVISED

[email protected]

byFisheries and the Department of Environmental Affairs.




Marine Aquaculture



PREPARED BY:


AND REVISED

[email protected]

y Fisheries and the Department of Environmental Affairs.



Marine Aquaculture



PREPARED BY:


AND REVISED

[email protected]

Fisheries and the Department of Environmental Affairs.



Marine Aquaculture



PREPARED BY:


BY:

[email protected]

theFisheries and the Department of Environmental Affairs.



Marine Aquaculture



PREPARED BY:

BY:

[email protected]

theFisheries and the Department of Environmental Affairs.



Marine Aquaculture



PREPARED BY:

BY:

[email protected]

the Fisheries and the Department of Environmental Affairs.



Marine Aquaculture



BY:

Fisheries and the Department of Environmental Affairs.



Marine Aquaculture


Department of AgricultureFisheries and the Department of Environmental Affairs.



Marine Aquaculture





Marine Aquaculture





Marine Aquaculture





Marine Aquaculture





Marine Aquaculture





Marine Aquaculture





Marine Aquaculture













Fisheries




Fisheries




Fisheries




Fisheries




Fisheries



A report for the Department of Agriculture, Forestry, and FisheriesFish Africa (Pty.) Ltd. and revised

Fisheries



A report for the Department of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheriessed

Fisheries


Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries 2012. Environmental Integrity Framework for Marine Aquaculture


Fisheries


Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries 2012. for Marine Aquaculture




A report for the Department of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheriessed by AquaEco.



A report for the Department of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheriesby AquaEco.

Department of Agriculture




for Marine Aquaculture



for Marine AquacultureA report for the Department of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries

by AquaEco.



by AquaEco.

Department of Agriculture,


by AquaEco.

,


by AquaEco.

Forestry and


by AquaEco.

Forestry and


by AquaEco.

2012

Forestry and


by AquaEco.

2012

Forestry and


by AquaEco.

2012

Forestry and

for Marine Aquaculture originally

2012

Forestry and

for Marine Aquacultureoriginally

2012

Forestry and


Forestry and


Forestry and


Forestry and


2

Forestry and

for Marine Aquaculture. originally

2

Forestry and

. originally

Forestry and

. originally

Forestry and



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This summary of the more comprehensive Environmental Integrity Framework (EIF) for Marine

Aquaculture has been compiled as a tool with which government officials, sector participants and the

public can rapidly access basic information related to the environmental frameworks and approach to

monitoring of marine aquaculture. This summarised version is supported by a more comprehensive EIF

that can be obtained from the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF).

The EIF is based on principles of “sustainable development”, requiring the optimisation of human

beneficiation and equity from the use of natural resources, while maintaining biological diversity and

protecting ecosystem function. To achieve this, it is necessary to identify potential impacts, assess their

potential of occurrence and consequence, and to formulate mitigation and management measures.

The EIF identifies the legislative frameworks within which sustainable marine aquaculture development

can be practiced. This is followed by an identification of the environmental management procedures

that are typically used in South Africa to both meet the legislative requirements and to achieve

sustainability in the sector. These procedures include Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA),

Stategic Environmental Assessments (SEA), Risk Assessments, Norms and Standards, Marine

Aquaculture Guidelines, Programmes and Permits, Objectives, Indicators, Quality Standards /

Performance Measures and Environmental Monitoring.

This summary of the EIF identifies the potential environmental threats risks posed by each of the main

marine aquaculture species, while the more comprehensive EIF contains more in-depth details of

assessment of these impacts, as well as the mitigatory measures that can be taken.

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

environmental integrity framework, the government departments involved in marine aquaculture are

identified, while a list of other stakeholders is included.



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

ACRONYMS ...................................................................................................................... 5

1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 7

2. LEGISLATION, CONVENTIONS AND POLICY ............................................................. 8

3. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES .................................................... 11

3.1. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) ................................................................... 11

3.2. Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) ............................................................... 12

3.3. Risk Assessments ................................................................................................... 12

3.4. Norms and Standards .............................................................................................. 12

3.5. Marine Aquaculture Guidelines, Programmes and Permits .......................................... 13

3.6. Objectives, Indicators, Quality Standards / Performance Measures .............................. 14

3.7. Environmental Monitoring ......................................................................................... 14

4. POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF MARINE AQUACULTURE .................................................. 16

4.1. Abalone Culture ....................................................................................................... 17

4.2. Mussel Culture ........................................................................................................ 18

4.3. Oyster Culture ......................................................................................................... 19

4.4. Seaweed Culture ..................................................................................................... 20

4.5. Marine Finfish .......................................................................................................... 21

5. POSITIVE IMPACTS OF MARINE AQUACULTURE ..................................................... 22

6. ORGANISATIONAL ARRANGEMENTS..................................................................... 23

6.1. Coordination between Government Departments ........................................................ 24

6.2. Provincial Departments ............................................................................................ 24

6.3. National Departments .............................................................................................. 25

6.4. Key Parastatal and Non-Government Stakeholders .................................................... 25

7. CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................... 26



ACRONYMS

AU African Union

AIF Aquaculture Intergovernmental Forum

AVCRF Aquaculture Value Chain Roundtable Forum

PBC’s Polychlorinated Biphenyl

BCLME Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem

CA Competent Authority

DEA Department of Environmental Affairs

DEAT Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism

DEA&DP Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning

DEDEA Department of Economic Development and Environmental Affairs

DED&T Department of Economic Development and Tourism

DAFF Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries

DoH Department of Health

DST Department of Science and Technology

DTI Department of Trade and Industry

DWAF Department of Water Affairs and Forestry

ECDC Eastern Cape Development Corporation

ECPB Eastern Cape Parks Board

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

EIF Environmental Integrity Framework

EMPr Environmental Management Programme

FAO Food & Agriculture Organization

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

HACCP Hazard Analysis & Critical Control Points

ICES International Council for the Exploration of the Sea

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

IDP Integrated Development Plan

ISO International Standards Organization

IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature

KZN KwaZulu-Natal

MAIL Marine Aquaculture Industry Liaison

MAWG Marine Aquaculture Working Group



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

MOM Modelling - Ongrowing fish farms - Monitoring

NASF National Aquaculture Strategic Framework

NAMC National Agricultural Marketing Council

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

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

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

NEPAD New Partnership for Africa's Development

NRCS National Regulator for Compulsory Specifications

NWA National Water Act (No. 36 of 1998)

OIE Office International des Epizooties

ORI Oceanographic Research Institute

PAIF Provincial Aquaculture Intergovernmental Forum

SA South Africa

SAAMBR South African Association for Marine Biological Research

SADC Southern African Development Community

SAIAB South African Institute for Aquatic Biodiversity

SANBI South African National Biodiversity Institute

SANPARKS South Africa National Parks

SANCOR South African Network for Coastal and Oceanic Research

SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment

SDF Spatial Development Framework

SDP Spatial Development Framework

TNPA Transnet National Ports Authority

WCADI Western Cape Aquaculture Development Initiative

WCPSDF Western Cape Provincial Spatial Development Framework

WHO World Health Organisation

WWF-SA World Wide Fund for Nature South Africa



1. INTRODUCTION

“Sustainable development”1 entails the optimal use of natural resources, while protecting biological

diversity and ecosystem function. This is central to South Africa’s environmental policies and in the

context of marine aquaculture, it informs the National Aquaculture Strategic Framework (DAFF, 2011),

which aims to accelerate environmentally sustainable sector development. Furthermore, principals of

equality determine that use of natural resources must be based on the equitable distribution of benefits

and socio-economic upliftment.

Marine aquaculture can impact on the environment, and consumer demands for safe products have

resulted in the determination of production and product standards, which increasingly require

demonstration of environmental sustainability.

This summary of the Environmental Integrity Framework (EIF) for Marine Aquaculture reflects the core

topics related to responsible environmental management and monitoring for marine aquaculture. The

EIF however does not represent either an environmental risk assessment template or a project specific

Environmental Management Programme (EMPr).

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

• As a decision support system for planning marine aquaculture initiatives

• As a tool to assist in the Environmental Impact Assessment process

• As a source of information for new applicants

• As a proactive indicator of certain opportunities and constraints

• As a source of information that can be used by consumers

In the EIF each of the primary marine aquaculture sub-sectors in South Africa is identified in context to

the relevant environmental matters that are important in each case. The EIF is sensitive to

environmental matters at industry (national), regional and project specific level.

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

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

and continued satisfaction of human needs for present and future generations. Such development conserves

land, water, plant and genetic resources, is environmentally non-degrading, technically appropriate, economically

viable and socially acceptable".



2. LEGISLATION, CONVENTIONS AND POLICY

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

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

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

cooperatively with other government authorities whose legislative mandates may affect aquaculture.

The foremost laws and conventions that determine the environmental management requirements in

marine aquaculture are summarised below.

Legislation or Aspect Key content related to marine aquaculture

The Constitution (1996) The Constitution entrenches the right of all South African to an

environment that is not harmful and which is protected.

The National

Environmental

Management Act (No.

107 of 1998) (NEMA)

Among others, the Act deals with the duty of care that each person has

towards maintenance of a sustainable environment. NEMA also outlines

the principles for integrated environmental management, including the

EIA Regulations. A number of marine aquaculture activities trigger the

need for an EIA. More detail related to such EIA’s can be found in the EIA

and Environmental Management Guideline for Aquaculture in South

Africa (Dept. of Environmental Affairs, Pretoria, 2012).

National Environmental

Management:

Biodiversity Act (No.10

of 2004) (NEM:BA)

NEM:BA influences marine aquaculture as it prescribes procedures for

the management and culture of exotic organisms (in terms of the Alien

and Invasive Species Regulations) and the protection and restrictions

pertaining to the farming of endangered or threatened species (in terms

of the Threatened and Protected Species Regulations).

The National

Environmental

Management: Integrated

Coastal Management Act

(No. 24 of 2008) (ICMA)

The ICMA provides for integrated coastal management, including norms,

standards and policies to promote conservation of the coast and to ensure

that development and use of this zone is socially and economically

justifiable and ecologically sustainable.

The ICMA has repealed the Sea Shore Act (No.21 of 1935), although not in

its entirety. Access to sea space (including lease of sea space) is still

dealt with in terms of the Sea Shore Act, with due consideration that

access in port areas is subject to the Transnet National Ports Authority

and the National Ports Act (No. 12 of 2005).




National Environmental

Management: Waste Act

(No. 59 of 2008)

(NEM:WA)

Amongst other aspects, the Act deals with waste minimisation, recovery,

re-use, recycling, treatment, disposal and integrated management. A

number of listed waste management activities have been promulgated

and require authorisation.

The Marine Living

Resources Act (No. 18

of 1998) (MLRA)

The MLRA provides for the granting of a “right” to engage in marine

aquaculture. Permission to exercise such a “right” is granted by means of

a permit.

Comprehensive guidelines, programmes and permit frameworks have

been developed by the DAFF in terms of the MLRA to assist with

compliance in the marine aquaculture sector.

National Water Act (No.

36 of 1998) (NWA)

Although the NWA does not apply to the extraction of water from the sea,

authorisation is necessary for the storage of water (regardless of origin),

discharging waste or water containing waste into a water resource

(including discharge into the sea) and others.

Animal Diseases Act

(No. 35 of 1984)

Marine aquaculture is recognised as an agricultural activity and hence the

State Veterinary Services have a mandate to protect the industry in terms

of the Animal Diseases Act.

The Fertilizers, Farm

Feeds, Agricultural

Remedies and Stock

Remedies Act (No. 36 of

1947)

This Act requires that all processed animal feeds and stock remedies

(therapeutants) meet certain specifications.

South African Health

Legislation

The processing of fishery products and shellfish is governed by:

• The DAFF (under the MLRA)

• The Department of Health (under the National Health Act)

• Local authorities (under the Municipal Structures Act) in cooperation

with the National Regulator of Compulsory Specifications (NRCS),

who is the appointed body for administering the various Compulsory

Standard Specifications for fishery products in South Africa




Export Standards:

HACCP and ISO

The NRCS is accredited as the competent authority to audit the

application of standards (mainly HACCP and ISO) for the export of

products to the European Union and other countries. It also issues health

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

countries.

The NRCS has negotiated an auditable aquaculture CODEX of on-farm

practices acceptable to the European Union, which it applies to HACCP

systems in marine aquaculture.

Land Use Planning Land use planning and zoning is a provincial mandate. The planning and

development of land based marine aquaculture may require authorisation

or rezoning in terms of these provincial laws. The Communal Land Rights

Act (No. 112 of 2004) may also affect coastal aquaculture development in

certain areas where communal land rights exist.

International Obligations The following international codes and conventions have a direct effect on

marine aquaculture in South Africa.

• FAO and related Codes of Conduct, including amongst others

o The FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries

(Aquaculture Development) (1995); and

o The FAO Technical Guideline on Aquaculture

Certification (2011)

• Convention on Biological Diversity (1992)

• The OIE Aquatic Animal Health Code (2010)

• ICES Codes of Practice on the Introduction and Transfer of

Marine Organisms (2004)

• SADC Protocol on Fisheries (2008)



In addition to the legal frameworks indicated in the table above, a number of frameworks and codes are

directly relevant to marine aquaculture.

Framework / Code Key aspects related to marine aquaculture

National Aquaculture

Strategy Framework

(NASF)

The NASF sets out interventions for government and the private sector

towards achieving an enabling environment for an equitable, diverse,

viable, competitive and sustainable aquaculture sector.

South African National

Industrial Policy

Framework

The Department of Trade and Industry’s (DTI) National Industrial Policy

Framework is intended to provide incentives to priority sectors. A new

set of sector specific support measures is being developed for

aquaculture by the DTI in collaboration with the DAFF.

Code of Conduct for the

Aquaculture Industry in

South Africa

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

interests of promoting ecologically and economically sound and

sustainable practices and assurance of product quality.

3. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES

Government departments make use of Integrated Environmental Management to give effect to their

legislative mandates. Such integrated measures should be applied to manage ecological, social or

economic effects of aquaculture - whether positive or negative. This section, briefly describes these

integrated measures, followed by identification of the primary impacts associated with marine

aquaculture.

3.1. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)

South Africa has well developed EIA regulations and procedures. The EIA evaluates the positive and

negative impacts (social, economic and ecological) of a project/development and solicits inputs from

interested and affected parties. It incorporates the consideration of alternatives and the development of

mitigation measures [through an environmental management programme (EMPr)], so that authorities

can take an informed decision regarding the allowance of development. More information related to the

EIA processes for marine aquaculture can be obtained from the EIA and Environmental Management

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



3.2. Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)

While EIA’s focus on individual projects, there are a number of strategic decisions that are typically

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

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

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

development type for a particular area, before development proposals are formulated.

A primary cause of environmental impact and resource conflict is ad hoc development. The use of

SEA’s enables a pro-active, strategic approach to aquaculture development and can predetermine

suitable sites (nodes or zones) in which resource conflicts are likely to be low.

3.3. Risk Assessments

The draft Alien and Invasive Species Regulations (in terms of the NEM:BA), determine the need for

biodiversity risk assessment before exotic species are used in aquaculture. This involves the

determination and prioritisation of impacts and the mitigation measures that will be required.

Information on the standard risk assessment framework can be found in the EIA and Environmental

Management Guideline for Aquaculture in South Africa (Department of Environmental Affairs, Pretoria,

2012).

3.4. Norms and Standards

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

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

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

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

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

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

EIF.



3.5. Marine Aquaculture Guidelines, Programmes and Permits

To promote sustainability, the DAFF has published comprehensive guidelines, programmes and permit

frameworks for the sector (www.nda.agric.za/doaDev/fisheries/03_areasofwork/social.html#AEC).

These are updated regularly and include:

• Guidelines

- Guidelines & Requirements on applying for a Marine Aquaculture Right

- Guidelines for Aquaculture Better Management Practices in South Africa

- Guidelines for Marine Finfish Farming in South Africa

- Guideline for Ornamental Fish Farming in South Africa

- Guidelines for Marine Ranching and Stock Enhancement in South Africa

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

(Haliotis midae) in South Africa

• Food Safety Programmes

- South African Molluscan Shellfish Monitoring and Control Programme

• Permits

- Permit for the local sale of undersized cultured abalone

- Permit to operate a marine aquaculture fish processing establishment

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

ornamentals

- Permit to engage in a marine aquaculture activity

- Permit to collect & possess broodstock for marine aquaculture

- Permit to undertake marine aquaculture scientific investigations & practical

experiments

- Permit to transport marine aquaculture products

- Permit to seed abalone for ranching

- Permit to harvest ranched abalone

The permits above are issued subject to the meeting of a number of site and permit specific conditions.



3.6. Objectives, Indicators, Quality Standards / Performance Measures

To demonstrate that aquaculture is environmentally sustainable, it is necessary to monitor performance

against well-defined and measurable objectives, suitable indicators and quality standards or

performance measures (GESAMP, 1996; Fletcher et. al., 2004). The following briefly defines these:

• Environmental Quality Objectives; are measurable management instruments used to

provide for the equitable use of the aquatic resource and to safeguard the natural environment

• Environmental Indicators; for each objective, an indicator/s needs to be identified. This can

be a direct measurement of performance or a surrogate (e.g. production levels as surrogate for

measuring economic benefit)

• Environmental Quality Standards / Performance Measures; are the levels of the indicators

that ensure the objectives are not compromised

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

remain effective.

3.7. Environmental Monitoring

Monitoring is the recording of the standards and performance measures indicated above. Monitoring

should focus on impacts that are significant, uncertain or not well understood. The following should be

considered in all aquaculture monitoring programmes:

• Consideration must be given to aquaculture type and the environmental setting, farm locality

and receiving environment

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

• Where aquaculture effluents are monitored, consideration must be given to the “mixing zone”.

A mixing zone consists of an area of impact in cases where dilution is necessary before water

quality standards are achieved

• Reference stations can be used to compare levels of environmental change

• A monitoring programme must be able to detect ecological change

• Monitoring intensity must depend on operation size and environmental sensitivity



• Monitoring of effluent concentrates on point source. However, as the objective is environmental

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

• Particular emphasis must be given to simplicity, flexibility and affordability in order to facilitate

acceptance and enforcement

• Consultation and participation of interested and affected parties in the formulation of monitoring

programmes is important

Although the conditions of authorisations and permits may prescribe specific monitoring requirements,

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

Site Specific or Farm Level Monitoring

• Incident logging: Farms should maintain an incident register for recording all events arising

from the farming activities or the presence of the farm

• Incident reporting: More serious events must be reported immediately

• Farm records: All substances that may have an impact must be recorded. These include

substances such as antibiotics, potentially harmful cleaning agents and hydrocarbon fuels

• Farm reports: Routine monitoring should be reported to the relevant competent authority (CA)

• Annual farm production returns: In order to quantify sector growth, data on production,

product value and employment is required

• Databases: The relevant CA should set up the necessary database(s) to record marine

aquaculture environmental monitoring data

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

conditions, monitoring and reporting requirements

• Sampling: Marine aquaculture farms may be required to undertake sampling of farmed

animals, health status, imported seed, water, sediments etc.

• Environmental Management Programmes (EMPr’s): EMPr’s are prescribed as part of the

EIA process and used to manage environmental impacts. The content of EMPr’s is contained

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



Regional or Industry Wide Monitoring:

• Surveys: The CA should conduct surveys, which could include effluent pipeline surveys,

baseline surveys of disease, environmental carrying capacity studies, spread of exotic species,

wild population genetics etc.

• Routine sampling: The CA will conduct sampling in an area associated with a group of farms

4. POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF MARINE AQUACULTURE

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

products. However, aquaculture has certain unavoidable, but manageable impacts. In order to manage

impacts, an understanding of these impacts is required, including an evaluation of the threats caused

by the impacts and a corresponding prioritisation in monitoring. To prioritise the environmental impacts

of marine aquaculture, an assessment methodology was adapted from work in Australia (Fletcher et al.,

2004) and from work by Coastal Environmental Services in South Africa. In this, relative scores were

allotted to the temporal nature, spatial nature, degree (severity) and likelihood (probability) of each

potential impact. By taking the sum of these scores the relative threat associated with each impact was

determined to provide guidance on the degree of management, mitigation and monitoring. This overall

scoring is depicted in the appended tables by species and shown in greater detail in the more

comprehensive EIF document.

The South African marine aquaculture sector is a small sector, but with prospects for expansion.

However, in view of the growth potential of aquaculture in the multi-use coastal environment, careful

management of these potential impacts is important.

The following sections highlight the nature of the primary impacts per species (with reference to the

main species that are cultured in marine aquaculture). The appended tables provide more detail

pertaining to the evaluations that were done for each impact, while the comprehensive EIF contains in-

depth details in this regard.



4.1. Abalone Culture

Abalone is the mainstay of aquaculture in South Africa. The primary environmental threats related to

abalone culture are indicated below with further details in Appendix A.

Environmental Threat Explanatory Notes

Destruction of indigenous

vegetation and habitat

loss

Abalone farm sites are typically cleared, levelled and surfaced to a

working platform. This can result in loss of rare fynbos and other species.

Consequence of clearing can vary depending on the ecological sensitivity.

Impact on public amenity

value

Due to the “industrial” appearance of abalone farms, the perceived public

amenity and aesthetic value of an area may be diminished.

Public safety Pipelines across the shoreline and the discharge of large volumes of

water can be a potential hazard to public use of coastal areas. The intake

suction poses a potential threat to divers or swimmers.

Genetic impacts – shore

based abalone culture

As abalone is selected for favourable production characteristics and as

limited broodstock numbers are used, the genetic profile of farmed

abalone may differ from that of wild populations.

Genetic impacts -

ranching

The genetics of ranched abalone requires management as hatchery

reared spat may not be genetically different from natural populations2.

Effluents Farms produce diluted effluent containing low levels of waste feed, faeces

and nutrients. As farms are generally located in high energy coastal zones

with high water displacement, mixing and dispersal of nutrients is rapid.

Effluents are unlikely to exceed the DWAF water quality criteria3 for

coastal marine waters beyond the mixing zone.

Kelp Harvest Fresh kelp fronds are harvested to feed abalone. Despite growing abalone

production, the annual harvest of kelp has levelled off.

Disease Abalone farming and stock translocation can increase the risk of disease

transmission – both between farms and from farm to wild stocks.

2 Note that the approach to genetic management in abalone ranching differs from the East and the West Coast.

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

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

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

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

oxygen” and that total suspended solids should be less than a 10% increase above ambient levels.



4.2. Mussel Culture

The primary environmental threats related to mussel culture are indicated below with further details in

Appendix B.


Enrichment of sediments

with organic matter

Mussel culture results in the deposition of faecal matter on the sediment

below mussel raft or long-line cultures. Studies in Saldanha Bay showed

that this caused a localised change in the benthic community, but did not

compromise ecosystem function or the health of the mussels (Stenton-

Dozey et al., 1998).

Reduction of available

phytoplankton

Mussels remove plankton and particulate matter from the water, to the

extent that the growth of naturally occurring filter feeders may be

depressed due to limited food availability. As it has been established that

the capacity of areas such as Saldanha Bay is much higher than the

culture biomass, no monitoring is required.

Spread of exotic Spanish

mussels

The raft structures provide an artificial habitat for the already present

exotic Spanish mussel, potentially increasing the population’s reproductive

and recruitment potential. However, fluctuations in the abundance of the

Spanish and indigenous mussels indicate that environmental factors

determine which species is dominant at any point in time.

Exclusive spatial use Mussel culture requires the zoning of public waters for exclusive use. The

industrial appearance of mussel rafts may negatively affect coastal real

estate development, recreational activities and aesthetic perception.



4.3. Oyster Culture

Both estuarine and marine environments are utilised for oyster culture, while spat is generally imported.

The primary environmental threats related to oyster culture are indicated below with further details in

Appendix C.


Nutrient dynamics Although oysters filter feed, the production of faecal matter is relatively low

and therefor potential benthic enrichment is limited.

Spatial use Oysters grown in multi-use estuaries or bays and require exclusive areas

that could preclude other activities. While it is an industrial type activity,

which may be regarded as having a negative aesthetic appearance, the

activity may also contribute to tourism.

Establishment of feral

oyster populations

With the widespread culture of exotic Pacific oysters (Crassostrea gigas)

in southern Africa, some self-perpetuating wild populations have become

established.

Introduction of diseases

and parasites

Oyster spat and fresh oysters are routinely imported. Therefore there is a

threat in that new Molluscan pathogens and parasites could be imported

with such stocks, which should be mitigated by imports from pathogen

free sources.

Accidental introduction of

pest species

The import of oyster spat introduces the possibility of the accidental import

of other organisms which could potentially become established as feral

and invasive species.



4.4. Seaweed Culture

There is growing interest in seaweed culture (Gracilaria and Ulva). The primary environmental threats

related to seaweed culture are indicated below with further details in Appendix D.


Exclusive Spatial Use Although not common, rope or raft culture of seaweed can only be carried

out in sheltered or semi-sheltered bays, placing it in competition with

many other activities.

Genetic Impacts The genetic characteristics of Gracilaria and Ulva species are largely

unknown, however there is evidence of regional variation (Kandjengo,

2002); hence the importance to understand the impact that seaweed

culture could have on wild stocks.

Terrestrial Impacts Shore based culture of seaweed is conducted in shallow ponds.

Therefore, the culture of seaweed requires land in the coastal zone. This

may require the destruction of sensitive and/or indigenous flora. As

seaweed culture is often associated with abalone farming, the comments

on the terrestrial impacts of abalone farming (Section 5.2.1) apply here

also.



4.5. Marine Finfish

Finfish production systems are mainly pump-ashore and re-circulatory technologies, while interest has

been shown in sea based cage culture. The Guidelines for Marine Finfish Farming (DAFF, 2012)

recommend procedures for mitigating and managing potential impacts. The primary environmental

threats related to finfish farming are indicated below with further details in Appendix E.

Environmental Threats Explanatory Notes

Feed waste and fish

faeces

Finfish feeding results in nutrient input in the environment. In cage culture

nutrients enter the ecosystem without treatment, while in-land based

facilities a portion of the nutrients may be stripped. South African coastal

waters are well-mixed with high light penetration, and are less sensitive

than most northern hemisphere aquaculture sites.

Anti-fouling products for

cages

In marine cages anti-fouling products are required to prevent or minimise

bio-fouling.

Medication, antibiotics

and pesticides

Medicines and therapeutants are necessary in aquaculture, but generally

have a low potential for negative impacts if correctly applied.

Genetic impact of

escapees on wild

populations

Captive breeding is required in production and to alleviate pressure on

wild stocks. Escape could lead to a change in the genetic makeup of wild

stocks given that farmed fish may be genetically different.

Pathogens and parasites Pathogens from farms may be transferred to wild fish. The greatest threat

lies in the introduction of new pathogens, or existing pathogens that have

mutated. For naturally occurring parasites and pathogens the potential of

farming causing disease impacts in wild stocks, is low.

Interaction with large

marine fauna – cage

culture

Large fauna may be attracted to cages and cage debris may be ingested

and can prove fatal. Due to improvements, little threat is posed in terms of

entanglement (Nash et al., 2005).

Social and spatial

conflicts related to cages

Cage farms exclude other users (recreational boating, fishing, shipping)

from farm sites. This may impact on tourism, aesthetics and limit

investment potential.

Human health issues Product quality may be affected by toxins, the prevalence of certain

diseases, the handling of aquaculture products, contamination or through

the presence of chemical residues.



5. POSITIVE IMPACTS OF MARINE AQUACULTURE

Sustainable development requires aquaculture to be practised within the capacity of the environment

and to generate a net social and economic benefit. In light of the decline in global fish supply, the

potential benefits of aquaculture are substantial. The EIA process must identify and quantify both the

positive and negative impacts of aquaculture, so that decision makers have a rational basis for

approving or declining marine aquaculture developments. Therefor the following positive impacts

should be integrated into the evaluation, assessment and determination of management and

monitoring requirements.

The primary positive impacts of marine aquaculture are:

• Increased Supplied of Fish

National and global wild fish supplies have effectively levelled off. It is generally accepted that

the only manner to maintain the per capita supply of fish in the face of population growth is

through aquaculture. Against this backdrop there is an economic and political imperative to

increase the supply of fish from marine aquaculture, provided this can be done in a socially,

economically and environmentally sustainable manner.

• Economic Growth

A key reason for promoting aquaculture is its potential to promote economic development.

Marine aquaculture has the potential to contribute both to local and national economies and

could be particularly beneficial in stimulating economic activities in rural coastal communities.

• Black Economic Empowerment

As aquaculture is a growth industry, it provides opportunities for the promotion of equity

through black economic empowerment and transformation.

• Reduced imports and outflow of currency

Aquaculture has the ability to reduce the reliance on imports of seafood, reducing the outflow

of currency and promoting local economic growth and skills development.

• Alleviate pressure on wild stocks

The potential of aquaculture to alleviate fishing pressure exists and could be used if natural

fisheries resources are concurrently well managed.



• Stock enhancement, restocking and sea ranching

Aquaculture provides a means to augment wild fish populations using hatchery reared seed for

restocking. Stock enhancement, restocking and ranching are increasingly practised as a

means of increasing production and rehabilitating wild populations. The DAFF has published

guidelines for marine ranching and stock enhancement (DEAT, 2008b)4.

• Enhances local productivity

The nutrients and structures provided by aquaculture operations can enhance local productivity

that could result in ecological and social benefits.

• Associated economic activity

Aquaculture generates significant associated economic activities in the form of various supply

and service enterprises, including tourism.

• New Skills and Technology Development

Aquaculture development often leads to the establishment of new human skills and innovative

technologies.

6. ORGANISATIONAL ARRANGEMENTS

The following key structures will be used to coordinate implementation of the EIF:

• The Marine Aquaculture Working Group (MAWG) for matters requiring coordination within the

DAFF and between the DAFF, the DEA and industry

• The Aquaculture Intergovernmental Forum (AIF) for higher level policy issues or inter-

departmental matters

• The Provincial Aquaculture Intergovernmental Forum (PAIF) for coordination and alignment of

aquaculture activities between the DAFF and provinces

• The Aquaculture Value Chain Roundtable Forum (AVCRT) for value chain issues

• Industry liaison and other matters requiring interaction with industry will be raised through the

Marine Aquaculture Industry Liaison (MAIL) forum and Aquaculture SA (the national producer

organisation)

4 Note that these and other guidelines are references as DEAT documents as marine aquaculture was

previously mandated under the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT). This

mandate has been taken over by the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF).



6.1. Coordination between Government Departments

Implementation of the EIF will require intergovernmental coordination amongst government

departments which are responsible for various aspects of aquaculture development. As the principle of

“sustainable development” requires optimisation of the social benefits of aquaculture in an

environmentally sustainable manner, joint coordination and planning between the DAFF and

departments responsible for economic development and environmental management is essential.

6.2. Provincial Departments

The EIF must remain sensitive and used in support of provincial policies and plans in each of the

coastal provinces. In this regard, linkages must be established between the EIF and all Provincial (and

Municipal) Spatial Development Frameworks (SDF’s), Integrated Development Plans (IDP’s) and

Spatial Development Plans (SDP’s), so that marine aquaculture planning, zoning and investment, can

be done in a coordinated manner. The following key matters pertain to each of the coastal provinces.

Northern Cape:

• The Department of Finance, economic development and tourism is responsible for sector proportion

• The Department of Environmental Affairs and Nature Conservation is the mandated EIA authority

Western Cape:

• The Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (DEA&DP) is responsible for

environmental development planning and administration of the EIA process

• The Department of Economic Development and Tourism (DED&T), who integrate aquaculture into

the province’s economic strategy

• The Western Cape Aquaculture Development Initiative (WCADI) is an aquaculture development

agency in the Western Cape comprising business, labor, civil society and government

• The Department of Agriculture, who is active in support to small farmer development initiatives and

veterinary services

• Cape Nature is a public institution with a statutory responsibility for biodiversity conservation

• Other Western Cape policies linked to aquaculture include the Western Cape Provincial Spatial

Development Framework (WCPSDF) and the The Western Cape Provincial Aquaculture

Development Strategy



Eastern Cape:

• The Department of Economic Development and Environmental Affairs (DEDEA) is responsible for

administration of the EIA process

• The promotion of aquaculture development is undertaken by the Eastern Cape Development

Corporation (ECDC), which is a parastatal body

• Eastern Cape Parks Board (ECPB) is responsible for best practice management as well as to

promote the sustainable utilization of natural resources

KwaZulu-Natal

• The Department of Agriculture and Environmental Affairs is responsible for aquaculture development

in KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) and act as the mandated provincial custodians of the EIA process

• Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife is assigned the responsibility of ensuring the long-term conservation of

biodiversity and the province’s natural resources

6.3. National Departments

The following national departments have mandates which include aspects of marine aquaculture

development or management:

• The Department of Science and Technology (DST)

• The Department of Trade and Industry (DTI)

• The Department of Environmental Affairs

• The Department of Health (DoH): Directorate: Environmental Health

• The Department of Transport who oversees Transnet (Portnet)

• The Department of Water Affairs

• The Department of Public Works

6.4. Key Parastatal and Non-Government Stakeholders

Key non-government stakeholders that play a role in the implementation of the EIF include:

• The NEPAD Secretariat for Fisheries and Aquaculture

• The National Agricultural Marketing Council (NAMC)

• The National Regulator for Compulsory Specifications (NRCS)



• Tertiary institutions, including:

o University of Stellenbosch, Aquaculture Division

o Rhodes University, Department of Ichthyology and Fisheries Science

o The University of Cape Town

o The University of the Western Cape, Botany Department

o The University of KwaZulu-Natal

o The Elsenburg Agricultural College

• Aquaculture SA (previously the Aquaculture Association of Southern Africa)

• The World Wildlife Fund South Africa (WWF-SA)

• Other stakeholders in the marine aquaculture sphere include:

o The international Office International des Epizooties (OIE)

o The Southern African Development Community (SADC)

o The Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem (BCLME)

o The African Union (AU)

o The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN)

o The South African National Parks Board (SANPARKS)

o The South African Network for Coastal and Oceanic Research (SANCOR)

o The Oceanographic Research Institute (ORI) (a division of the South African

Association for Marine Biological Research (SAAMBR))

o The South African Institute of Aquatic Biodiversity (SAIAB) (a division of the South

African National Biodiversity Institute / SANBI)

7. CONCLUSION

This summary version of the EIF serves as a point of access to the more comprehensive EIF, which

should be consulted and used as a reference tool in designing environmental management and

monitoring frameworks for individual projects, regional marine aquaculture development and to assist

with the expansion of an environmentally sustainable sector.

Appendix A: Abalone Aspect Relative Score Objective Mitigation Monitoring

Requirement Indicator Standard / Frequency Responsibility

• Destruction

of

indigenous

vegetation

and habitat

loss

• 12 (High) • Minimize impact

on terrestrial

habitat

• Rehabilitate or

mitigate where

possible

• EIA procedure to determine suitability of

the site and provide alternatives

• EMPr for on-going monitoring and

mitigation

• Competent authority to verify compliance

with EIA conditions and EMPr

• Site specific

procedures as per EIA

and EMPr

• May involve monitoring

of rehabilitation and

recovery of disturbed

areas

• As prescribed EIA

conditions and EMPr

• As prescribed EIA

conditions and

EMPr

• Farmer to meet conditions of

authorisations

• The CA to verify compliance

• The DAFF could facilitate

SEA’s

• Impact on

Public

Amenity

Value of

the Coast

• 9 (Moderate) • Abalone farms

should have

minimal impact on

the public amenity

value of the coast

• The DAFF to facilitate Strategic

Environmental Assessments to zone

sufficient land for abalone farms in

appropriate areas

• EIA process to recommend mitigation /

alternatives

• Screening of activities by trees / walls or

topography

• Monitoring is limited as

the process to site and

mitigate amenity value

impacts take place in

the planning stage

• Public complaints and

inputs

• Keep register of

complaints and

inputs


authorisations



SEA’s

• Public

Safety

• 8 (Moderate) • No danger to

public safety as a

result of abalone

farm infrastructure

or operations

• Use of best practises by the farmer • Incidence reporting and

annual safety

inspection

• Details of any incidents

reported with actions

taken

• Safety of conditions

• Adequate

documentation of

incident in farm

incident log

• Results of annual

safety audit

• Farmer to meet public safety

measures

• Coastal authorities could

verify safety

• Genetic

Impact –

Shore

Based

Culture

• 8 (Moderate) • Farmed abalone

should not

measurably alter

the genetic profile

of natural stocks

• Use of best practises by the farmer • Incident report in the

event of a mass

escape.

• Escape events

• Estimate number and size

of escaped abalone

• Adequate

documentation of

escape incidents

in farm incident log


authorisations


• The DAFF could be involved

in nationally important

research

Aspect Relative Score Objective Mitigation Monitoring


• Genetic

Impact -

Ranching

• 11 (Moderate) • Genetic profile of

seeded abalone

should not differ

significantly from

receiving

population

• Service providers/the DAFF to formulate

Abalone broodstock management

programmes in terms of the Abalone

Ranching Guidelines and conditions of

allocated ranching rights

• Management and inspection capacity to

administer requirements of broodstock

programme

• Due diligence

inspection (DAFF) to

verify broodstock were

drawn from the

receiving population

• A genetic management

and monitoring

programme must be

approved by the DAFF.

Responsibility: The

abalone rancher with

assistance from the

DAFF

• Broodstock collection,

housing and records

• Evidence that broodstock

and spat are kept separate

• Compliance with genetic

management programme

• Baseline genetic profile of

wild population

• Two additional samples of

seed and wild stock at 5

year intervals

• Similarity between wild stock

and seed using known

haplotypes

• As required in the

broodstock

management

programme and

conditions of the

ranching right

• Abalone rancher to meet

conditions of a ranching

right with assistance from

DAFF

• The DEA (Oceans and

Coast Branch) responsible

for ICMA matters

• The DAFF could be

involved in nationally

important research

• Effluents • 8 (Moderate) • Farm effluents

should not cause

detectable

ecological change

beyond the mixing

zone and aim to

reduce the

footprint of the

mixing zone

• Survey the impact of effluents based on

discharge permit requirements

• Environmental management capacity to

administer an effluent monitoring

programme

• Survey of effluent

characteristics and

impacts on receiving

waters

• Report on status of

effluent pipelines every

3 years (ICMA)

• Intertidal and sub tidal

benthos

• Sedimentation

• Dissolved organic nutrients

(ammonia, nitrate, nitrite

and phosphate), total

suspended solids and

biological oxygen demand in

effluent and receiving

waters

• Compliance with

DWAF water

quality targets for

coastal marine

waters

• Initial survey then

every 3 years

• Farmer to meet conditions

of authorisations

• The DEA (Oceans and

Coasts Branch) and other

CA’s to verify compliance


SEA’s



• Kelp

Harvest

• 7 (Low) • Sustainable kelp

harvest that does

not compromise

kelp bed ecology

• Research on ecological effects on kelp

beds

• Recommendations on level of sustainable

harvest

• Administration of kelp concessions and

permits

• On-going kelp bed

surveys and research

by the DAFF scientists

• Recovery of kelp after

harvest and effects on

associated fauna and

flora using comparative

methods

• To be determined • Farmer to meet conditions of

authorisations

• The DEA (Oceans and Coasts

Branch) and other CA’s to

verify compliance

• The DAFF involved in kelp bed

ecology and harvest research

• Disease • 10 (Moderate) • Minimise the effect

of pathogens from

farms impacting

measurably on

natural

populations

• Abalone industry health management

programme. Responsibility: Farmers and

the DAFF

• Incidence reporting to the DAFF of new

disease outbreaks and abnormal

mortalities. Responsibility: Farmers

• Database of disease and farm health

status. Responsibility: The DAFF or

Veterinary Authority

• Research on priority disease issues

Responsibility: The DAFF and Universities

• Recognition of abalone under the Animal

Health Act to enable quarantine/

destruction of diseased abalone.

Responsibility: The DAFF

• Implementation of biosecurity measures:

Farmers

• Regulations governing the movement of

abalone between farms. Responsibility:

The DAFF

• Minimise the likelihood

and consequence of

pathogens from farms

impacting measurably

on natural stocks and

between farms

On farm:

• Obligatory participation

in industry health

programme

• Incidence reporting to

the DAFF on new

disease outbreaks and

abnormal mortalities in

quarterly reporting

Natural population:

• Database of disease

and abalone farm

health status

• Research on the status

of priority disease

issues

• Baseline monitoring of

the disease status of

wild abalone,

particularly in vicinity of

farms and ranching

projects.

• On farm parasite

and disease

prevalence and

intensity

• Treatment of

diseased abalone

• Natural population

parasite and

pathogen

prevalence


authorisations and implement

on farm measures (1, 2)

• The DAFF (State Veterinarian)

to verify compliance

• The DAFF monitors and

researches disease in natural

populations (3, 4, 5)

Appendix B: Mussels Aspect Relative Score Objective Mitigation Monitoring


• Enrichment of Sediments with Organic Matter

• 7 (Low) • Organic

sedimentation

below mussel rafts

should not

compromise

ecosystem

function

• Research to provide advice on current

impacts

• Moving or rotation of rafts

• Once off benthic survey

to update earlier data

collected by the DAFF

• Benthic and sediment

analysis

• Method must allow

comparison with

previous work

• Once off (re)

survey to assess

objectives

• Future monitoring

to be determined

by results of

survey


authorisations



verify compliance

• Reduction of Available Phytoplank-ton

• 4 (Low) • The carrying

capacity of

Saldanha Bay for

mussel raft culture

should not be

exceeded

• None • Not required • Not applicable • Not applicable • The DAFF could facilitate

research into carrying

capacities

• Spread of

Exotic

Spanish

Mussels

• 9 (Moderate) • Mussel farming

should not

promote the

further spread of

exotic mussels

• None • Not required • Not applicable • Not applicable • The DAFF could facilitate

research spread of mussels

• Exclusive Spatial Use

• 10 (Moderate) • Equitable allotment

of mussel culture

in Saldanha and

other suitable

areas, promoting

socio-economic

benefits

• Equitable zoning system for mussel culture • Socio-economic

benefits

• Social conflicts around

marine aquaculture

• Employment, wage and

salary income,

production tonnage,

turnover

• Incident reporting

• Data can be

extracted from

annual farm

returns to the

DAFF

• Incident reports of

conflicts arising

• Press reports

• Frequency: on-

going

• The TNPA to see to equitable

allotment in port areas


Branch) to see to equitable

allotment in other coastal areas

consultation with the DAFF

• The DAFF to report on

equitability based on data from

farmers

Appendix C: Oysters Aspect Relative Score Objective Mitigation Monitoring


• Nutrient dynamics

• 4 (Low) • Sustainable

phytoplankton use

to the extent that

ecosystem

function is

unhindered

• Not required • None • Not applicable • Not applicable • The DAFF could facilitate

research into nutrient

dynamics

• Spatial Use • 9 (Moderate) • Equitable

allotment of oyster

culture in bays,

promoting socio-

economic benefits

• Coordinated planning between the DAFF

and the TNPA, relevant provincial, port and

municipal authorities

• Socio-economic

benefits

• Social conflicts around

aquaculture

• Employment, wage and

salaries, production

tonnage, turnover


• Data can be

extracted from

annual farm

returns to the

DAFF

• Incident reports of

conflicts arising.

Press reports.

• Frequency: on-

going

• The TNPA to see to equitable

allotment in port areas



allotment in other coastal areas

consultation with the DAFF



farmers

• Establishment of Feral Oyster Populations

• 9 (Moderate) • Minimise the

possibility of

cultured oysters

establishing feral

populations

• Research into locality and spread of feral

oyster populations and possible mitigation

measures to be developed

• Monitor the status and

distribution of feral

populations

• Recommendations on

monitoring and

management

• Identify localities where

C. gigas has

established

• Determine approximate

extent of habitat

occupied

• Initial distribution

survey

• Future mitigation

needs to be

determined by

results of the initial

survey


research into feral

establishment and advise the

DEA



• Introduction of Diseases and Parasites

• 12 (High) • Zero incidence of

disease and

parasites with

imports or

translocation of

live oysters

• Capacity for routine screening of imported

oysters

• Compulsory to source spat from disease

free sources

• Institute quarantine measures for imported

oysters

• Routine screening of spat

and standing stock

• The DAFF to compile list

of acceptable disease

free sources in

consultation with

countries

• Incidence and

prevalence of

parasites and other

possible disease

causing organisms

• OIE screening

standard that has

90% probability of

detecting diseases

and parasites

• Sampling

frequency to be

determined

following initial

screening and

advice from an

aquatic health

professional


authorisations, import

conditions and on farm

measures


to inspect imports and verify

compliance

• The DAFF to compile list of

disease free sources in

consultation with countries

• Accidental Introduction of Pest Species

• 10 (Moderate) • Import of oysters

shall not cause

introduction of

associated

species

• Capacity for routine screening of imported

oysters

• Routine screening of each

batch of imported live

oysters

• Incidence of live non-

target organisms

• OIE screening

standard that has

90% probability of

detecting non-

target species

• Sampling

frequency to be

determined

following initial

screening


authorisations, import

conditions and on farm

measures

• The DAFF to inspect imports

and verify compliance

Appendix D: Seaweed Aspect Relative Score Objective Mitigation Monitoring


• Exclusive Spatial Use

• 9 (Moderate) • Seaweed culture

should not detract

from the beneficial

use of marine

waters

• Planning and zoning for marine aquaculture

should include the possibility of seaweed

culture

• None • Not applicable • Not applicable • The DEA (Oceans and Coasts


allotment in consultation with

the DAFF



farmers

• Genetics impacts

• 10 (Moderate) • Seaweed culture

should not

measurably alter

the genetic profile

of natural

seaweed stocks

• Research on seaweed genetics

• Not at present • Not applicable • Not applicable • The DAFF could facilitate

research into seaweed

genetics

• Terrestrial impacts

• 12 (High) • Minimal impact on

the terrestrial

habitat

• Rehabilitation and

mitigation where

possible

• EIA procedure to determine if impact to the

site is acceptable

• EMPr for on-going monitoring/ mitigation of

matters identified in the EIA

• Competent authority to verify compliance

with EMPr

• Site specific procedures

as per EIA and EMPr

• May involve monitoring of

rehabilitation and

recovery of disturbed

areas

• As prescribed by the

conditions of the

environmental

authorisation and the

EMPr

• As prescribed by

the conditions of

the environmental

authorisation and

the EMPr


authorisations



SEA’s

Appendix E: Marine Finfish Aspect Relative Score Objective Mitigation Monitoring


• Feed waste and fish faeces (CAGES)

• 8 (Moderate) • Fish farm effluent

must be managed

so as to limit the

scale and scope of

beatific impacts

• An environmental management programme

that will emanate for an EIA and be

contained in an approved EMPr

• Environmental compliance inspection

capacity

• Benthic impact

assessment as part of the

EIA or SEA

• Water quality impact

assessment as part of the

EIA or SEA

Indicators of environmental

change;

• Epi-benthic macro

fauna and substrate

appearance (video

and visual

inspection)

• Benthic infauna and

meiofauna

• Sediment organic

content and redox

potential

• Water quality:

oxygen, N, P, redox

potential and

chlorophyll

• Further indicators

may be prescribed

by authorities

depending on the

site characteristics,

tonnage and degree

of change expected

or observed

• Performance

standard using

MOM guidelines

• Sampling protocol

must have

statistical power to

detect and

quantify the effects

in space and time

• For new

operations in new

sites, recommend

baseline

assessment

before farming

starts, every six

months until full

production

reached, then

every one to two

years depending

on the sensitivity

of the site and

scale of operation


authorisations



verify compliance


SEA’s



• Feed waste and fish faeces (SHORE BASED)

• 8 (Moderate) • Fish farm effluent

must be managed

so as to limit the

scale and scope of

beatific impacts

• An environmental management programme

that will emanate for an EIA and be

contained in an approved EMPr

• Environmental compliance inspection

capacity

• Inter-tidal and sub tidal

benthic impact

assessment

• Water quality impact

assessment

• Recommend video

transect and visual

assessment of

benthos from the

outfall outward and

along the coast to

determine qualitative

nature

• Comparative

analysis to

equivalent adjacent

pristine areas

• Transect samples of

water quality from

point of discharge:

pH, total

phosphorous,

nitrogen, particulate

organic matter in

influent and effluent

• Sampling protocol

must have

statistical power to

detect and

quantify effects in

space and time

• Level of survey to

be determined

based on initial

survey findings


authorisations



verify compliance


SEA’s

• Anti-fouling products for cages

• 6 (Low) • Anti-fouling

products should

have no

detectable effect

on non-target

organisms

• Promotion in the environmentally

responsible use of anti-foulants, which

should also be elaborated in the EMPr

• On-farm record of the use of all anti-fouling

agents and anti-fouling methods

• On-farm record of the use

(amount and frequency)

of all anti-fouling agents

• Type and amount of

anti-foulants used

• Adequate

documentation

indicating use of

anti-fouling

products


authorisations



verify compliance

• The DAFF could list

acceptable anti-foulants



• Medication, antibiotics and pesticide

• 6 (Low) • Use of

therapeutants may

not cause

detrimental effects

on the natural

environment

• Record the use of medications and

therapeutants (farmer)

• Implementation of a health management

programme (farmer and the DAFF)

• Database on disease occurrence and use

of therapeutants by industry (the DAFF)

• Record of use of

medications and

therapeutants

• Record stock and

usage of medications

and chemicals as per

the DAFF

requirement. Record

withdrawal periods

• Record when

therapeutants and

chemicals are

used

• Report to the

DAFF in monthly

return



on farm measures in terms of

health management

programme recognised by

DAFF



verify compliance

• The DAFF could compile list of

acceptable substances

• Genetic Impact of Escapees on Wild Populations

• 9 (Moderate) • Finfish culture

should not

measurably alter

the genetic profile

of natural stocks

• Research on population genetics of wild

fish populations (the DAFF)

• Research into the production of sterile

offspring (the DAFF)

• Incidence reports of fish escapes (Farmer)

• Optimise cage and mooring systems to

minimise escapes (Farmer)

• Escaped fish should not

affect wild stock genetics

in a detectable manner

• No genetic

monitoring required

at present

• Incidence reports of

escapes

• Description of

event and cause

of escape

documented


authorisations



verify compliance

• The DAFF could monitor

disease in natural populations


SEA’s



• Pathogens and Parasites

• 12 (High) • The risk of

pathogen transfer

between farmed

and wild stocks

should be

minimised

• Broodstock health management

programme (Farmer)

• On-going on-farm health monitoring

(Farmer)

• Broodstock health

management programme

• Farm health monitoring

• Report on parasite

incidence and

treatment

• Report any rapid

increases in mortality

rates

• Parasite incidence

and intensity, fish

internal and external

condition, tissue

samples for histology

to detect pathogens

of concern

• Sampling

frequency and

protocol as

prescribed in

broodstock health

management

programme or by

veterinarian

• Monthly or as

prescribed in

broodstock farm

management

programme or by

veterinarian

• Annual sampling

number and

location to be

determined by

aquatic health

expert




health management


DAFF


to verify compliance and

receive quarterly health status

reports from farmers

• The DAFF could research

disease matters and maintain

database of disease and

therapeutants

• The DAFF could monitor

disease in natural populations

• Interaction with Large Marine Fauna – Cage culture

• 8 (Moderate) • Negative impacts

of interaction

between cage

culture operations

and fauna should

be avoided

• Incidence reporting. Responsibility: the

farmer

• Incidence reporting of

interactions when this

becomes a problem

• Record event,

frequency,

circumstances,

duration, actions

taken and outcomes

• Adequate

documentation of

the event when it

occurs


authorisations



verify compliance


SEA’s



• Social and Spatial Conflicts Related to Cages

• 10 (Moderate) • The zonation of

areas for sea

based aquaculture

should result in

socio-economic

benefits

• Capacity to undertake a strategic

environmental assessment (SEA)

• Socio-economic benefits

• Resolve social conflicts

around aquaculture

• Employment, wage

and salary income,

production tonnage

and turnover


• Data can be

extracted from

annual farm

production returns

to the DAFF

• Documentation of

incidents around

conflicts arising

• Press reports



allotment in consultation with

the DAFF


SEA’s



farmers

• Human Health Issues

• 12 (High) • Aquaculture fish

and shellfish

products should

pose a minimal

health risk to

consumers

• Shellfish monitoring and control

programme

• Fish product health monitoring and

certification

• Shellfish: Safety of both

the culture environment

and harvested shellfish

• Fish: Safety of processed

fresh fish Work towards

including monitoring to

meet WHO/FAO CODEX

standard

• Environmental and

product safety

including: HAB

occurrence and

toxicity tests, heavy

metals and

microbiological

agents, pesticides,

PCB’s and

radionuclides

• Product safety of

fresh fish as per

NRCS compulsory

standard for finfish

• No environmental

monitoring at present

but objective for

future

• As per South

African Molluscan

Shellfish

Monitoring and

Control

Programme

• As per NRCS

compulsory

standard for finfish




health management


DAFF

• Farmers (assisted by DAFF)

must meet the standards of the

National Regulator of

Compulsory Standards

(NRCS)

summary of the environmental integrity framework for ... · summary of the environmental integrity...

Documents