Consensus Workshop

FP6 COORDINATION ACTION EC contract FOOD-CT-2005-513998
Defining Indicators for Sustainable Aquaculture Development in Europe
A multi-stakeholder workshop held in Oostende, Belgium November 21-23, 2005
Cover concept and document layout: A. Lane and J. Charles Cover Photos: 1 3
1. 2. 3. 4.
2 4
Courtesy of:
Laszlo Varadi, Research Institute for Fisheries, Aquaculture and Irrigation (HAKI), Hungary Franois Ren, Institut Franais de Recherche pour lExploration de la Mer (IFREMER), France David Parfouru, Viviers de France, France Bruno Guillaumie, European Mollusc Producers Association (EMPA AEPM), France
This publication has been carried out with financial support from the Commission of the European Communities, 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 the Commissions future policy in this area.
Content Table
Executive Summary.................................................................................................. 5 1. 2. Introduction and the Workshop process .......................................................... 7 Sustainability themes ..................................................................................... 12 2.1 Economic Viability.......................................................................................... 12 2.2 Public Image................................................................................................. 14
2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3 2.2.4 2.2.5 Animal welfare ......................................................................................................................... 14 Consumer confidence ............................................................................................................... 14 Sustainability............................................................................................................................ 14 Positive benefits of aquaculture ................................................................................................. 15 Better communications ............................................................................................................. 15
2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6
2.6.1 2.6.2 2.6.3
Use of Resources........................................................................................... 16 Health Management and Welfare Issues.......................................................... 18 Environmental Standards ............................................................................... 20 Human Resources ......................................................................................... 22
Employment............................................................................................................................. 22 Workforce composition ............................................................................................................. 22 Education, training & technology transfer................................................................................... 22
2.7 2.8
2.8.1 2.8.2 2.8.3 2.9.1 2.9.2 2.9.3 2.9.4
Biodiversity ................................................................................................... 24 Post-harvest operations ................................................................................. 26

Processing efficiency and environmental impact ......................................................................... 26 Shellfish processing and monitoring ........................................................................................... 26 Packaging ................................................................................................................................ 27 Industry statistics ..................................................................................................................... 29 Increased innovation ................................................................................................................ 29 Improvement of legislative tools and regulation processes .......................................................... 29 A strategic development plan for sustainable shellfish aquaculture .............................................. 29
2.9
Sector Issues ................................................................................................ 29
3.
Towards Sustainability Protocols ................................................................... 30
Annex I. The CONSENSUS Consortium................................................................... 31 I.1 Platform Steering Committee................................................................................. 31 I.2 Protocol Drafting Committee ................................................................................. 31 I.3 Working Group Chairs & Rapporteurs..................................................................... 31 Annex II. The CONSENSUS Indicators ................................................................... 32 II.1 How to read the indicators: the working group template ........................................ 32 II.2 Indicators of economic viability ............................................................................ 34 II.3 Indicators of public image.................................................................................... 49 II.4 Indicators of resource use ................................................................................... 64 II.5 Indicators of health management and welfare ....................................................... 74 II.6 Indicators of environmental standards .................................................................. 83 II.7 Indicators of human resources ............................................................................. 91 II.8 Indicators of biodiversity ..................................................................................... 98 II.9 Indicators of post-harvest Ooperations ............................................................... 103 II.10 Sector Issues .................................................................................................. 108 Annex III. Workshop Participants ....................................................................... 114
Consistent with its title, the two main sections of this document are the sustainability themes and the sustainability indicators themselves, as agreed by the various working groups during the CONSENSUS workshop in Oostende (appearing in Annex II). These sections are the products of a true consensus process among experts. We, as members of the Protocol Drafting Committee, could not therefore fundamentally edit or amend them, and they may provide readers with a challenge, by appearing rather heterogeneous in style. Annex II provides a full compilation of the indicators, grouped by theme. They follow a template, agreed with the Working Groups at the beginning of the workshop. Some explanation 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 the workshop, 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 the path 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
Executive Summary
CONSENSUS is a platform for sustainable aquaculture in Europe. It is a Coordination Action under the EU 6th Framework Programme and acts as A source of balanced information for consumers on the benefits of high quality aquaculture 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 high quality, safe and nutritious farmed fish and shellfish grown in sustainable conditions. This rationale is based on the established demand of the European consumer for seafood which wild fisheries are unable to completely supply. The requirement for safe food is well established but more emphasis has to be given to nutrition and health promoting food, a position for which aquaculture is well positioned. The strategy to achieve this objective is based on the development and implementation of sustainable aquaculture protocols based on production systems having low environmental impact, high competitiveness and being ethically 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 coordinated multidisciplinary action, in order to develop and implement new rational and efficient production systems. It is chaired by the European Consumers Organisation (BEUC) and coordinated 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 aquaculture over the next 5 years, and the specific indicators that can be used to measure progress towards those objectives. European aquaculture was split into five segments that represent its very diverse aquaculture production. These were based on the combination of the driving technical forces and the controlling environmental conditions. A working group specialising in post-harvest operations for the whole European sector, and another on consumer issues, completed the workshop set-up. A document bringing together existing knowledge on each sector was provided to workshop participants. Plenary sessions provided key information, and this was mixed with group work, where participants discussed and agreed on the desired trends and associated indicators. The indicators were classified under the three poles of sustainability economic, environmental and 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 start the task of bringing together the indicators. A matrix system was devised to sort and classify them, identify overlap and inconsistencies and judge completeness.
5
CONSENSUS Sustainable Aquaculture in Europe
This analysis lead to the production of a compilation of 78 indicators for sustainable aquaculture in Europe, organised by theme.
Economic viability Environmental standards Biodiversity Health management Human resources Packaging & transport Public image Resource Use Sector Total
Number of Indicators FISH SHELLFISH 12 3 5 3 4 1 9 0 6 1 2 1 12 3 8 2 2 4 60 18
Total 15 8 5 9 7 3 15 10 6 78
This document brings together a summary of each of the CONSENSUS themes, explaining the scope 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 those measurements, with recommendations at farm, local authority, producer organisation or other organisation level and how the information resulting from the collection of this information can be effectively used for and by the sector. This is currently being finalised as a separate document and will be presented to a wide range of European stakeholders and specific channels will allow feedback and comment to be collected and compiled. During the consultation phase, a specific strategy for consumers will be elaborated and tested. The purpose of this is to show that consumers demands and expectations concerning seafood provision from sustainable aquaculture can be fulfilled. It will be based on the outcomes of the special consumers working group meetings held during the CONSENSUS workshop and will use the production of the protocols as a demonstration of the steps required to measure the path towards sustainability in the sector. These three important elements of CONSENSUS will be completed by the Spring of 2008. It is expected that they will provide the basis for a European aquaculture sustainability standard in aquaculture production. May 2006. www.euraquaculture.info
1. Introduction and the Workshop process

With the increasing demand for seafood in Europe and the declining return from wild fisheries, 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 EU Sixth Framework initiative funded under the Key Action of Food Quality and Safety. It is driven by major European stakeholders representing consumer interests, aquaculture producers, aquatic feed suppliers, environmental, animal health and welfare groups as well as various 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 this industry in terms of the environment, social contribution and economic success into the future.
The platform acts as A source of balanced information for consumers on the benefits of high quality aquaculture 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. A Platform Steering Committee (PSC), chaired by the European Consumers Organisation (BEUC), manages CONSENSUS. The Protocol Drafting Committee (PDC) has experts in various research fields related to sustainable aquaculture. CONSENSUS is coordinated by the European Aquaculture Society (EAS). The full CONSENSUS consortium is given in Annex I.
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 aquaculture over the next 5 years, and the specific indicators that can be used to measure progress towards those objectives. European aquaculture was split into 5 segments that represent its very diverse aquaculture production. These were based on the combination of the driving technical forces and the controlling environmental conditions. The emphasis was placed on the hydrology of the systems. Semi-static water systems ponds, lakestypified by carp culture in Central and Eastern European countries; the culture of other freshwater species in extensive systems; wetland resource management and water use and Valliculture in 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 marine hatcheries; land-based culture of freshwater species catfish, eel and the culture of 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) and marine species, including sea bass, sea bream, cod and tuna.
8
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. Guidelines on the respect of stakeholder representation, geographical coverage and gender ratio were provided to the chairs. The accent was on having tight, well-focussed and well-controlled groups, with fixed objectives and designed to deliver specific and agreed ideas and texts. The industry partners (FEAP, EMPA, FEFAC); the consumer organisations (BEUC and Test Achats) and the environmental partner (EBCD) were all asked to provide names from within their contacts1.
European aquaculture stakeholders at the CONSENSUS workshop
See Annex I for the full CONSENSUS consortium and full organization names.
To assist them in their preparation for the workshop, participants were given a document that brought together existing knowledge on various aspects of that particular segment of the sector, so as to identify status and trends. This had been prepared by the working group chairs (with input from various experts), according to a framework produced by the PDC. The document 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 each day; working group sessions and plenary de-briefing and summary sessions. Social events were also organized to encourage informal discussion between the participants.
Laurent Bochereau (left) and Constantin Vamvakas - two Heads of Unit from the European Commission - at the opening of the CONSENSUS workshop.
During the actual main working sessions, participants were asked to agree on a set of desired status for their (production) system, and to provide indicators that could be used to measure the progress towards those objectives. The first workshop day focused on presentations of the CONSENSUS initiative and its importance to the sector and to the EU Sixth Framework Programme Key Action on Food Quality and Safety. The importance of indicators and the need for stakeholder consensus on their usefulness in measuring sustainability was also explained before the working groups broke out to start discussions. Initial work was summarized at the evening debriefing. Day 2 targeted the completion of an agreed set of objectives and indicators, and to start discussion on how these could actually be implemented by the profession.
Working Group discussions were followed by evening plenary wrap up sessions
The final day addressed how industry could be encouraged to move towards meeting these sustainability indicators, and how the CONSENSUS workshop outcomes fit within the wider context of Integrated Coastal Zone Management and the implications of the Water Framework Directive. The consumers working group focused on bringing together elements of consumer science related to seafood, so as to provide a basis for the consumer strategy to be developed later in CONSENSUS.
10
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.
The workshop wrap-up session indicated that the ambitious targets of the three days had been met to a level that exceeded expectations. During the extra 2 days that the PDC remained in Oostende to start the process of consolidation of the group findings, analyses were made to bring together the lists of indicators and to sort and classify them, identifying overlap and inconsistencies and judging completeness. This consolidation process formed the basis of this document.
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 also characterized. Number of Indicators FISH SHELLFISH 12 3 5 3 4 1 9 0 6 1 2 1 12 3 8 2 2 4 60 18
Economic viability Environmental standards Biodiversity Health management Human resources Packaging & transport Public image Resource Use Sector Total
Total 15 8 5 9 7 3 15 10 6 78
A short summary of the desired trends and associated measurement is provided in the next section. It is supported by the full set of indicators making up the theme, in Annex II.
11
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 agreed a total of 15 economic sustainability indicators (19% of the total), thus reinforcing its importance. Economic viability was expressed by stakeholders as having a national or regional objective such as through an increase in the contribution of aquaculture to national or regional economies or through the profitability of an individual company or group of companies. Company profitability may be directly achieved by the market price, by increased production or productivity. It may also be achieved by more indirect strategies, such as the diversification of the farm activities (multi-functionality), and by decreasing the share of production 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 farm divided 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 and other reasons. Small family farms that do not have bookkeeping systems or programmes would need to invest, but this investment would be beneficial in terms of the higher degree of general cost management that would be obtained. Some sectors of the industry are already reporting collective financial performance, and this could be expanded to all producer organisations at both national and European level. Alternatively, producer organisations should be able to access the information held within local authorities. This element of annual aquaculture statistics would give a clear measure and benchmark for the sector and its development. The challenge here would be the way in which data is collected, so as to preserve the confidentiality of the provider. Many European aquaculture companies have achieved increases in productivity in recent years. There is still scope for improvement, although conflict exists between productivity related to labour cost and the clear objective of the European Institutions that aquaculture provides employment, especially in rural areas. Feed costs still represent a major part of production cost, and productivity gains, easily measured by EFCR, can be monitored individually by companies and collectively by producer or trade organisations. It was also suggested that profitability should not be compromised by arbitrary regulatory scale restrictions that are not justified by considerations of the carrying or production capacity of a particular site. This is measured by the cost per tonne of production, related to the scale of production. Implementation of this indicator does not affect production costs but the improvement 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 determinant of profitability.
12
Regulatory costs should be evaluated on a cost-benefit analysis and harmonised at a regional or even global level. They should only be implemented if they contribute positively to the sustainability of the sector. Measurement of the % of regulatory activities that are subjected to cost-benefit analyses is seen as the logical indicator, although more knowledge is required on the methodology of these analyses, the investment in monitoring and compliance and the legislative 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 of water and wetland of high natural heritage and environmental value, but may also apply to activities (put-and-take, picnic or barbeque areas) on other farms. Although the number of multi-functional farms is increasing, no clear information is available for collecting pooled data on the viability of different activities and services. The return on investment may be long, hence research on the evaluation of these activities (themselves potentially requiring indicators) may be required. All of these initiatives have a direct influence on the economic viability of European aquaculture. 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 accurate and meaningful statistics for the whole sector, and the key towards the ability of European aquaculture producers to invest or absorb potential costs related to the implementation of the environmental and social sustainability indicators that follow.
13
2.2 Public Image

Aquaculture, like any other food producing industry, relies on the good will of its consumers in order to survive. Good will and mutual understanding is essential for aquaculture operations 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 broadcast media who themselves survive on issue-driven stories aimed at generating public interest and concern in order to increase publication sales or viewer ratings. Just as other food production industries have been hit by food scare stories including BSE in beef, salmonella in eggs and mercury in wild-caught tuna, aquaculture has been the target of negative media attention in the past from stories concerning additives in farmed finfish, as well as trace levels of antibiotics and parasite treatments. Consumers are also well informed and increasingly interested in the general sustainability of food production and issues such as pollution 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 stakeholders as 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% of total), a further 16 indicators also have an indirect bearing on public image factors such as sustainability and animal welfare. For the purpose of this analysis, it is convenient to consider the three main categories of indicators concerning public image: animal welfare, consumer confidence and sustainability, as well as those concerning the benefits of aquaculture and recommendations for improved communications as follows: 2.2.1 Animal welfare Identified 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 as well as ways of improving fish welfare in order to optimise farm performance. Disease prevention, indicated by a decrease in the number of treatments over time, could also be seen as an indirect indicator of animal welfare, as can the fallowing of sites. 2.2.2 Consumer confidence Consumer satisfaction was viewed by CONSENSUS stakeholders as an important desired status, as it directly affects the economic viability of the industry. Indicators directly identified included an increased percentage of production involved in quality certification schemes leading to an increased willingness to buy and an increased demand for aquaculture produce. A falling number of customer complaints and rapid alerts were indirectly identified as indicators of consumer confidence. 2.2.3 Sustainability While 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;
14
production of Environmental Impact Assessments to ensure sustainable marine cage 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 aquaculture CONSENSUS stakeholders identified the importance of addressing not only the perceived negative impacts of aquaculture in any communications campaign, but also of promoting the benefits. These included: promotion of fish farms as a destination for tourism, education and public recreation; improved recognition of the public health benefits of seafood in terms of increased media reports and dialogue with food safety and consumer organisations; increased recognition of the environmental and socio-economic benefits of aquaculture, particularly as a source of employment in remote and fisherydependent areas. 2.2.5 Better communications To address the issues listed above, the CONSENSUS stakeholders recognised the need for better communications between the European aquaculture industry and its publics (persons or groups with which it needs to engage in dialogue in order to increase public awareness 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 the media; development of effective, informative labelling and certification as well as practical and useful leaflets of advice for consumers, all leading to a more positive public perception about products from sustainable aquaculture, based on transparent communications between the sector and the public. Classic public relations theory (Jefkins, 19882) calls for a communications approach that analyses the situation as it exists, defines the objectives to be reached, identifies the publics to be communicated to, the media and techniques to be used, the budget required and a means of evaluating the results. The CONSENSUS stakeholders have already identified many of these elements. All that remains for this overall issue to be positively addressed is that a targeted and focussed communications plan, based on the desired status and indicators identified by the CONSENSUS process, be put forward and implemented across Europe.
15
Jefkins, F. (1988) Public Relations Techniques. Butterworth, Heinemann (publishers)
2.3 Use of Resources

It was recognised by all stakeholders that resource allocation and use in aquaculture is a major 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 were considered as being most relevant from an environmental point of view with underlying economic consequences bearing significant importance. The objectives for the industry were identified by CONSENSUS stakeholders as being the optimal use of energy, water or feeds by improving efficiency of production practices, the use of sustainable feed ingredients and the use of biological resources. Despite often major differences in farming systems, there is a common interest for ensuring availability 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 a need for increasing awareness and acceptance of non-consumptive abstraction of water by aquaculture which forms an integral part of human activities involved in the food production sector. Indicators proposed in proper water resource use deal with ensuring appropriate water supply in all production systems even with specific deadlines for optimal use of water for sustaining aquaculture activities. There are identified units of measurement of water needs 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 with existing techniques or extension thereof within a reasonable time span. Measurement of energy use per unit production was considered as an integrative indicator of resource use. Implementation will, however, require standardised procedures and adequate units of measurement. Minimal use of natural resources (land, water, fossil energy and marine resources) is desired and notable progress can be made within a span of five to ten 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 through appropriate collection or production methods was recognised as important for sustainable development 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 from recognised sustainable resources, improved wildlife management plans, breeding techniques and larval culture practices. In the case of shellfish, stabilising seed production from reliable natural resources will require major efforts in terms of development of appropriate tools. For the production of certified hatchery seeds, there is a need for strengthening best management practices as well as for genetic improvement and breeding methods. For finfish production, there was consensus as regards the need for improving the efficiency of production, especially with regard to feed and nutrient utilisation, avoiding excessive discharges of waste products, achievable through improving feeds and feeding practices. At the sector level, there is a strong desire for identification and promotion of 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 which is becoming scarce as well as being liable to anthropogenic contamination. Reducing the use of formulated feed in pond culture systems, measuring feed efficiency, reduction in the level of 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 the farm level. It was considered that its relevance as an indicator of sustainability might vary depending 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 improving sustainability. There was general acceptance that in feed-based intensive farming systems,
16
we must look for significant reduction in the use of feed-grade fishery resources in fish feeds at the EU level and beyond. Measurement of percentage use of fish meal and fish oil can be used as units of measurement with a time-scale of five years in which significant reduction should be achieved without affecting the economic viability of farms and the societal acceptance of products. Summarising, the following indicators and desired trends were agreed upon with regard to Resource Use: Indicator Water availability and quality for aquaculture Natural resources / energy use per unit production Development of feeds from sustainable resources Percentage substitution of marine protein and oil Feed Efficiency Formulated feed use per production unit area Juveniles and recruits from sustainable resources Wild seed (spat) management and monitoring plans; Demand for hatchery seed Demand for seed, new species hatcheries, selection and genetic improvement Desired trend Ensured; external factors (WFD) Reduction Increase Reduction Increase Reduction Increase Increase Increase
17
Water is a precious resource in Hungary. Photo courtesy of Laszlo Varadi, Research Institute for Fisheries, Aquaculture and Irrigation
(HAKI)
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 prevention measures 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 and other ingredients in order to provide adequate nutrient supply. This also relates to other feed ingredients or additives, such as probiotics (micro-organisms and enzymes) and other products that enhance the immune status of the fish. The management of fish includes the health and hygiene programmes, frequently prepared with veterinary support. These programmes are based on classic bio-security measures (hygiene, control of visitors, etc), but also 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 the drastic 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 the veterinarians and/or the kg of medicated feed that is prescribed. It is now generally accepted that fish have sufficient physiological and cognitive complexity to experience suffering, although the exact extent and nature of such suffering remains a matter of dispute. Therefore fish welfare is a legitimate cause for concern. This is certainly the public perception, and there is increasing public awareness and concern for the welfare of farmed fish and in particular, those grown at high density. Legislators and regulators are responding to this public concern.
18
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 on water quality and level of disturbance. For this reason, it is, again, generally accepted that a strategy of identifying conditions that guarantee welfare of a given species and life history stage and legislating accordingly will not guarantee the welfare of farmed fish. The industry needs to develop and keep husbandry systems (specific to species and life history stage) that promote the welfare of farmed fish. This also applies to slaughtering methods. 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 that standards of welfare are indeed acceptable, in general and for any given population of farmed 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 calibrated against accepted scientific measures of welfare (which include health status, biochemical and molecular indices of the physiological stress response and aspects of behaviour). In addition, the indicator range that maps onto acceptable fish welfare 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 reflect aspects 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 fish do not necessarily enjoy good welfare and behaviour is often difficult to monitor in working cages, takes time to measure accurately and is useless as a welfare indicator if measured inaccurately).
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 the natural response to challenge. Any deviations from expected food intake based on natural changes in appetite related to season, temperature, life history stage etc. therefore serve as useful early warnings of impaired welfare. Good fish farmers already use this and farms keep records of feed delivery as a matter of routine. Injury also reflects welfare, both directly (because injury per se may be painful and cause suffering) and indirectly, since unhealed wounds may reflect a poor immune response, which in turn may reflect chronic stress. Also, it is easy to develop schemes whereby levels of injury and 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 individual fish, and at times, the populations concerned.
19
2.5 Environmental Standards

Environmental sustainability is a key issue for viability of aquaculture in the future and important in its exploitation of aquatic resource. Environmental sustainability is often judged in 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 use of environmental goods and services ensures a different emphasis on specifying such indicators. The CONSENSUS stakeholders agreed a total of 8 indicators of sustainability based on environmental standards and their implementation. The indicators for environmental standards given by the stakeholders ranged from application of environmental regulation for measuring impact in relation to environmental capacity, to highlighting advantages of aquaculture on the environment through indicators which measure the 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 environmental monitoring 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 to environmental sustainability but is also a difficult parameter to implement. At present this is achieved largely through environmental impact assessment (EIA), which constitutes a part of the planning process for new sites. The full implementation of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) throughout the EU in 2008 will largely ensure that a full EIA will be required for all new and existing fish farm sites. In many countries within the EU this is already standard practice, though ways of implementing their use are often countrydependent. 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 be considered. Variables such as size and location of the farm are addressed, using different scenarios to investigate the potential for alternative biomass levels and sites. The EIA estimates the risk of the different aspects of the aquaculture system on the environment and its resources. It also suggests monitoring strategies for aquaculture management to prevent impact and degradation of environmental quality. A key part of the EIA 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 to sustain normal function. An indicator of EIA implementation and its effectiveness throughout the EU is suggested; the percentage 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 spatial modelling using Geographic Information Systems (GIS). This allows diverse spatial data to be compared and modelled for environmental, socio-economic, visual, multi-users and conservation information. This not only addresses environmental impacts, but can also clearly specify where conflicts in resource use with other activities can occur. Environmental monitoring is a standard method of environmental regulation of aquaculture where various measurements of physico-chemical and biological parameters are taken to judge short and long term environmental impact. Assessment is made by comparison of measured levels with derived Environmental Quality Standards (EQSs). Standardized implementation of EQSs at European level can be difficult, as governments often 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.
20
Pan-European implementation in 2008 of the Water Framework Directive will have a significant effect on environmental standards.
21
Different forms of aquaculture require different (environmental) quality standards. 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 and antifoulants), or measurable changes within the biological communities in sediments. Environmental sustainability of aquaculture is dependent on the environments ability 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 organism under culture. For example, mussel farming requires knowledge of the potential food source within the water column - too much mussel farming would deplete that source. Equally, fish farming requires the aquatic environment to assimilate nutrient and chemical waste which, if not of a certain level, would lead to environmental degradation. The calculation of carrying capacity is important for aquaculture development as well as environmental health. This is usually estimated through a modelling approach based on information on water flow, volume and chemistry. In the sea and lake conditions sediments may also be taken into consideration. New or existing aquaculture can share calculated capacities by consideration of how 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 regulatory procedures or planning-permission processes of individual countries within the EU. Therefore many of the details highlighted above will be implemented automatically for aquaculture development. In countries where this is not standard practice, implementation of the WFD by 2008 should ensure that this will be the case.
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 scale of production, farm techniques, species grown and social characteristics, as these factors dictate the competences required and hence the human resource needs at a national, regional and farm level. 2.6.1 Employment Increasing direct and indirect employment in aquaculture is a desired trend aquaculture has a major role to play in helping to reverse the decline in coastal communities across Europe by contributing to the local economy, for the maintenance of the social and cultural heritage of these areas and for maintaining the population above 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 production efficiency and maintain competitiveness. Promoting aquaculture as an attractive career and accessibility to appropriate training are identified as strategies to achieve the objective stated above. 2.6.2 Workforce composition Indicators related to composition of the workforce - gender balance, age pyramids, new employment 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 ceasing their activity, and younger people starting out in production. In parallel it has been observed that a career in aquaculture is not always seen as an attractive option for young persons. However, whilst the above are issues in some parts of Europe, they are not consistent across Europe and hence reliable indicators are needed to monitor trends on a regional basis before compiling them into national or European statistics. Workforce composition must also consider the type of workers required as there are many different job roles in the sector. 2.6.3 Education, training & technology transfer Workers in European aquaculture require a high level of knowledge and specialisation at all levels of aquaculture enterprises and the competency of the workforce must be a key element of any sustainability plan. Indicators listed covered issues such as appropriate level of education, accessibility and improvement of technical assistance, effective dissemination of research and technical information, recognition of lifelong learning, and industry input into the design of training so as to meet industry needs and educational 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 of information needs considerable improvement) and the last is possible through feedback mechanisms from industry, the middle area above is the most difficult and yet the most important - as it defines the existing skills of the workforce.
3
22
Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament A strategy for the sustainable development of European Aquaculture Brussels, 19.9.02 (COM (2002) 511 final.
Without a better understanding of this fact, it is difficult to effectively meet the current and future human resource needs of the sector. However, measurement and compilation are complicated given the different education systems across Europe and the fact that each individual has acquired their skills using a different learning pathway (combination of work based learning and/or accredited courses). Currently work is in progress to assess such 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 the European aquaculture in line with priorities identified in the Copenhagen Declaration (Nov., 2002). Such a competency-based approach may provide transparency and thus could allow relevant indicators to be measured and related to workforce skills, which are in turn indicators of sustainability. For that to happen, a lot more work is required.
23
A career in aquaculture production is not an easy option. Photo kindly supplied by Philippe Goulletquer, IFREMER
2.7 Biodiversity
Aquaculture is often seen as potentially having an effect on biodiversity through introduction of exotic species, escapes of selectively bred species or by impact on the wider environment through release of wastes. Both reproductive (genetic) and health (disease and parasites) aspects are associated with these issues. Conversely, carefully managed aquaculture may 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 concerns raised by the press on potential spread of disease and parasites. The CONSENSUS Working Group on coastal and offshore aquaculture firmly agreed an objective to minimize the negative 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) that are 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 information made available by various authorities depending on the country. Farms in some countries already make these measurements. The third is rather more difficult, and more research is required to clarify this interaction. Further suggestions regarding the specific issues of escapes is the development of a Code of Practice (or equivalent) for the prevention of fish escapes and the establishment of a certification programme of technical standards for sea cages. The latter is considered as being especially required as more exposed sites are used for production. Many European pond aquaculture systems in semi-static water have been stocked with commercial exotic species that are increasingly considered as undesirable from the point of view of biodiversity protection. Current legislation (e.g. the Environment Act), as well as the Commission strategy for sustainable aquaculture development supports a reduction in the stocking of exotic species. By measuring the percentage by weight of each species in these multi-species systems, this indicator can reflect the change towards indigenous species. However, research is required to ascertain suitability, as many exotic species are currently used for their high value, and for their role in the system (e.g. exotic herbivorous species that are 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 increase in biodiversity per se is much more difficult. Standardised protocols, trained monitors and data 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 of biodiversity. When the factors of escapes and exotic species are combined, land-based systems using water recirculation systems have the highest potential to achieve zero-escape status, and this was a declared objective of this particular Working Group, within a five-year time frame. Achieving this objective by recording of the number of escapes per year at farm level, would mean that this type of production unit would be most suitable for the production of exotic species, where the market demand exists and where this can be achieved on an economically 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.
24
Biodiversity may also be maintained through several methods of aquaculture, one such is the introduction of integrated aquaculture (IMTA)4. The shellfish working group of CONSENSUS agreed on the encouragement of the use of extractive species in polyculture (integration of multi-species aquaculture). Extractive species mainly algae - use the excess nutrients associated with farming activities as a nutrition source. The algae may then be used as 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 has biodiversity issues associated with it. Indicators for this would be: a revision in the legislation and the number of established IMTA operations. This would require new data collection systems under the auspice of national trade associations, as current legislation and monitoring does not incorporate this type of activity at present.
25
Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture (IMTA) includes different species operating on different trophic levels within the 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.
2.8 Post-harvest operations

Aquaculture provides fish and shellfish that may be harvested-to-order, thus providing the consumer with the freshest of products. Post-harvest operations (covering processing and packaging 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. The desired status of the post-harvest sector, as identified by the CONSENSUS stakeholders, is to decrease the use of resources, such as energy and water, decrease by-products and waste and make better use of remaining by-products so as to diminish the impact on the environment. These objectives should increase the processing efficiency to maximize the final product value, thus increasing the economic viability and generating more opportunities for employment. The areas addressed are processing efficiency and environmental impact, shellfish processing and monitoring of potential toxins and packaging. 2.8.1 Processing efficiency and environmental impact The main desired trend identified by the CONSENSUS working group was one of increasing efficiency through better yield and better utilization of by-products into direct human 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 of resources per unit of processed fish/shellfish. Although not specifically mentioned in the Strategy for the Sustainable Development of European aquaculture5, the processing of fish and shellfish can also contribute to pollution of water bodies, by release of waste water containing considerable amounts of organic material. It would be desirable to decrease the amount of by-products and waste 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 and water; better utilisation (through characterisation, processing and data management) of by-products; increasing shelf life of products while maintaining microbial levels as low as possible. To measure the path towards the desired trend, primary data should be stored at the facility, preferably within an environmental management system (EMAS). Each facility should establish a database, where these data can be stored and easily retrieved. National Environmental Agencies should establish databases for such information in national language, and with public access. At the Community level, the Commission should establish databases where information can be stored and from where it can be viewed by the public. 2.8.2 Shellfish processing and monitoring Apart from the issues outlined in the above section, more specific processing issues and related objectives may be applied to the shellfish sector. These include specific shellfish cleaning and separation techniques that use less water and enable better treatment of the used water. Better separation of meat and shell during processing and the use of empty shell are also important factors that affect an expanding percentage of shellfish
26
Commission of the European Communities. COM(2002) 511
processing. In this last item, alternative uses by other industries need to be identified and expanded. Legislation regarding food safety, the so-called Hygiene Package, includes provisions for preparing, processing, freezing, storing and packaging of fishery and aquaculture animals, 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 toxins has a rapid and severe effect on producers livelihoods and does not generally improve public 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 arrival at the facility, the raw material should be checked and its result recorded in a database as the % of samples free of toxins. This will be costly but is counterbalanced by securing that the product is safe to be eaten and that costly recall operations and loss of good image to the consumer will be avoided. Research into rapid and cheap identification, as well as into the removal of toxins from shellfish, is needed. 2.8.3 Packaging Packaging is used at all levels of fish handling, for the conservation of fish feeds as well as for processed fish and shellfish. It is required to minimize product loss and protect the product against microbial and other contaminants, at the same time extending its shelf life for commercial and distribution purposes. Moreover, it provides the consumer with valuable product information.
27
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.
Changing consumer attitudes and preferences mean that the consumption of convenience foods is increasing. At the same time, the Packaging Waste Directive (94/62/EC)6 requires the prevention of packaging waste formation and improvement of reuse and recycling of packaging 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 packaging sustainability 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 tolerance levels. In summary, efforts are required through the whole distribution chain to increase yields from fish and shellfish processing of products for direct human consumption. If changes on the production processes are put in place, the own-check system based on the HACCP system should 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 processed outside the EU, processors shall apply the same indicators in their industry, as do processors based in EU Member States.
28
European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC. Official Journal L 365, 31/12/1994 p. 0010-0023
2.9 Sector Issues

Several objectives agreed by the CONSENSUS Working Groups could not be attributed easily to 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 new templates or new strategies at a sector level that are communicated or enacted by the European organisations representing the sectors involved. 2.9.1 Industry statistics Accurate and updated statistics are the key to monitoring any activity. European aquaculture statistics are produced by the FAO, and more recently by the FEAP7 for European finfish aquaculture. These are generally based on production and volume and value by species. However, many of the desired trends described in this document require indicators that are frequently measured (annually, in most cases), compiled and reported. An inventory of the widely diverse data and monitoring systems is required at the European level, so as to be able to define the needs and gaps that exist for valuable and effective monitoring. There is no one clearing house for this information, and that is possibly not desirable. However, statistics need to be available so as to measure the level of success in implementation of a strategy and to provide information to stakeholders.
29
2.9.2 Increased innovation Innovation is seen by many as the key to boost economic growth. The CONSENSUS stakeholders suggest that research and development programmes should be harmonised and better integrated with sector needs, as well as sector investment. Increasing the number of targeted programmes that link research users and providers is seen as a useful indicator of progression towards the research and technology innovations 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 processes This objective was presented by the shellfish Working Group, but is seen as applicable for the whole aquaculture sector. It is, in essence, focused on a clarification of legislation, measured by a reduction in perceived or actual contradictory elements in different directives/regulations, as well as the desire for a one-stop shop for aquaculture production permits and authorisations, measured by a reduction in the number of multiple applications required. 2.9.4 A strategic development plan for sustainable shellfish aquaculture This was also highlighted for the shellfish sector, perceived as absent at present, and as being the basis for a European approach to, including others, production issues, those of conflict with other coastal users, with other partners in the value chain, as well as other sustainability factors. Recently published reports, such as the Review of the Irish Rope Mussel Industry8, are good documents for the basis of this European plan.
7 8
Federation of European Aquaculture Producers. http://www.feap.info Review of the Irish Rope Mussels Industry. March 2006. Pricewaterhouse Coopers.
3. Towards Sustainability Protocols

The 78 indicators produced during the CONSENSUS workshop are not in themselves protocols for sustainable aquaculture. The protocols focus more on the implementation of the required measurements, with recommendations at farm, local authority, producer organisation or other organisation level. They also address how the information resulting from the collection of this information can be effectively used for and by the sector, as well as to demonstrate to consumers the benefits of high quality, safe and nutritious farmed fish and shellfish grown in sustainable conditions. Representatives of the industry partners of CONSENSUS (FEAP, EMPA, FEFAC) and EBCD and Test Achats are providing input and assistance in the drafting of the protocols. They will be produced in a concise format (15-20 pages) and will be very much oriented towards aquaculture producers, especially concerning farm-level implementation requirements. The protocols will be presented to a wide range of European stakeholders, including SMEs involved in the production of goods and services to the industry, companies involved in the distribution of seafood products, consumer groups, environmental NGOs and individuals. Specific channels will allow feedback and comment to be collected and compiled. More specifically, consumer feedback will be provided through the member organisations of the Bureau Europen des Unions de Consommateurs (BEUC) and through the Euroconsumers Network. Environmental organisations will provide feedback through the European Bureau for Conservation Development (EBCD), while consultation of the broader aquaculture sector suppliers of good and services - and the wider research community will be obtained in various ways. The feedback resulting from this consultation phase will be summarised and linked back to specific texts of the proposals. Furthermore, this feedback will be channelled back to the principal stakeholders for their consideration. During the consultation phase, a specific strategy for consumers will be elaborated and tested. The purpose of this is to show that consumers demands and expectations concerning seafood provision from sustainable aquaculture can be fulfilled. It will be based on the outcomes of the special consumers working group meetings held during the CONSENSUS workshop and will use the production of the protocols as a demonstration of the steps required to measure the path towards sustainability in the sector. These CONSENSUS initiatives will all be available for broader consultation at www.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 of aquaculture related topics; links to the EU, related projects in aquaculture and to relevant sites on health benefits of eating seafood and a news feed (RSS), where real time news from other sites, relating to aquaculture and health, is provided. Its principal sections present aquaculture issues - a section which will contain balanced articles on several selected topics, 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 on the articles and the protocols.
30
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 Mario LOPES DOS SANTOS European Commission DG Research (BE) 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 & Rapporteurs WG1 Semi-static freshwater systems Chair Laszlo VARADI Research Institute for Fisheries (HU) Rapporteur John BOSTOCK Stirling University Institute of Aquaculture (UK) WG2 Flow-through systems Chair Benoit FAUCONNEAU Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (FR) Rapporteur Sadasivam KAUSHIK Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (FR) WG3 Recirculation systems Chair Johan VERRETH Wageningen University and Research (NL) Rapporteur Catarina Martins Wageningen University and Research (NL) WG4 Marine systems focusing on shellfish culture Chair Douglas McLEOD Association of Scottish Shellfish Growers (UK) Rapporteur Anamarija FRANKIC UMASS Boston (USA) WG5 Marine systems focusing on finfish in cages Chair Rosa FLOS Technical University of Catalonia (ES) Rapporteur Bari HOWELL Pontcanna Aquaculture Services (UK) WG6 Post harvest operations, including processing and traceability Chair Erling LARSEN Danish Institute for Fisheries Research (DK) Rapporteur Knud FISCHER Danish Institute for Fisheries Research (DK) WG7 Consumer issues Chair Joop LUTEN Norwegian Institute of Fisheries and Aquaculture Research (NO) Rapporteur Filiep VANHONACKER Ghent University (BE)
31
CONSENSUS is coordinated by the European Aquaculture Society (EAS)
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 much information as possible from the working group sessions. Each indicator has been given a short name, which is inserted in the Indicator field. In the Desired Status field, information is provided on where aquaculture is now with regard to the indicator and what the objective for the future is. Following the findings of the working groups, 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. Next to that, the table contains a Level field, telling us if the indicator should be addressed at the Pan-European, the regional, the local or another level. Finally, in the Unit field, a measure unit is proposed by the working groups. In the paragraph on rationale and context it is explained why the indicator is an appropriate benchmark or measure for the working groups and how the indicator contributes to the achievement of sustainable development of aquaculture in Europe. Ease of measurement of the indicator gives answers to questions like How 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, which might be positive or negative. The effect/overlap/compromise paragraph emphasizes possible cumulative positive effects and trade-offs of the indicator on other indicators developed by the working groups. Trend specifies which way the working groups want the indicator to go, how they think it should evolve in the years to come. This could be up or down, depending on the desired status of the indicator. Finally, a number of implementation issues have been addressed, more in particular relating 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.
32
CONSENSUS Working 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? How does this contribute to achieving sustainable development of aquaculture?) Ease of measurement of the indicator: (How easy is the indicator to measure? How often should 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 five years 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
33
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 Env* * Soc* Level: Pan-Euro/Local/etc. Unit (how is it measured): 3 1 2 Local EUR / time unit * 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? How does this contribute to achieving 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 indicator be 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 rate in 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 the improvement 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.
34
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 Env* * Soc* Level: Pan-Euro/Local/etc. Unit (how is it measured): 3 1 2 Local % contribution of income from various services to the total
* 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? How does this contribute to achieving sustainable development of aquaculture?) It reflects the multifunctionality and economic viability of the farm. It contributes to the economic and social sustainability 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 indicator be 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 of these 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 important investments. 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 monitoring income 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 of farming 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 accounting system. 7) Where are the measured indicator data to be stored or archived? At the farms. 8) Other implementation issues: None.
35
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 Env* * Soc* Level: Pan-Euro/Local/etc. Unit (how is it measured): 3 1 2 Local/national Number (suppliers, customers) * 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? How does this contribute to achieving sustainable development of aquaculture?) Most farms in Eastern countries are small and not organised in cooperatives; thus they are exposed to monopolistic distribution. The company independence is increasing with the growing number of business partners. The exposure to 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 indicator be 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 it is difficult to obtain the data. Effect/overlap/compromise with other indicators: (Showing cumulative positive effects or trade offs) It is linked to other economic indicators. Trend: A positive trend (going up) is expected in Eastern Europe, with an increasing role of producer/marketing organisations. Efforts are required however in order to change the rather individualistic attitude of large number of farmers. Implementation issues: 1) How easy is the indicator to implement at sectorial or farm level? a. Information is available at farm level. b. The producers organisations already exist, the implementation requires efforts in convincing the farmers of the benefit of joining them. 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 also include some studies on the multiple vertical and horizontal connections with producers organisations, business partners. 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? Data on memberships are available, but it is difficult to obtain information on the business partners (individual surveying of the farms). 7) Where are the measured indicator data to be stored or archived? At farm level. 8) Other implementation issues: None.
36
II.2.4 Investments (#6) Desired Status: Modernisation/diversification investments to the farm without significantly increasing the production (output). Indicator : Investments done to the farm Env* * Soc* Level: Pan-Euro/Local/etc. Unit (how is it measured): 3 1 2 Local EUR invested / time unit * 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? How does this contribute to achieving sustainable development of aquaculture?) Investments are a measure of the confidence in the future of the operation. Secondarily it could be an indication of current or expected future profitability. Being able to invest in the operation means that the farm is economically viable, it has income to cover modernisation, expansion or diversification. Ease of measurement of the indicator: (How easy is the indicator to measure? How often should the indicator be measured/recorded? Who will be responsible for monitoring (frequency)/recording the indicator?) The investments are well and separately recorded in the farm and national accounting system, including the resources obtained e.g. from grants, funds, etc.. Effect/overlap/compromise with other indicators: (Showing cumulative positive effects or trade offs) This may be connected to the multifunctionality indicator (if investments concern diversification of activities). Modernisation investments can cut operation costs (e.g. energy use). Trend: We expect this indicator to be growing (continuous investments to the farm) but not to increase primary production (output). Implementation issues: 1) How easy is the indicator to implement at sectorial or farm level? It is relatively easy to implement since the necessary data are readily available for investments. 2) Does present legislation incorporate this indicator? Investment finance is a regulated procedure. 3) Is there research required for effective implementation of this indicator? No. 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? Data retrieved from accounting system and relevant authorities. 7) Where are the measured indicator data to be stored or archived? At farms and relevant authorities. 8) Other implementation issues: This is a complex indicator showing the economic viability of the farm (effectiveness of production).
37
II.2.5 Assured supply (#7) Desired Status: Continuous supply of aquaculture products from semi-static systems. Indicator : Production volume Env* * Soc* Level: Pan-Euro/Local/etc. Unit (how is it measured): 3 1 2 Local,/national metric tonnes / time unit metric tonnes / farm
* 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? How does this contribute to achieving sustainable development of aquaculture?) It is easily recorded, available in series (also historical data), is cost effective and easily understandable. It is also acceptable by different stakeholders and it is able to communicate general information on the trend of production. It reflects the capacity of semi-static production systems to guarantee a continuous supply of aquatic products. Ease of measurement of the indicator: (How easy is the indicator to measure? How often should the indicator be measured/recorded? Who will be responsible for monitoring (frequency)/recording the indicator?) Data on production volume (by fish species) are already recorded by fish farmers and producer associations and in some countries processed for analysis. Identification of a public body/association responsible for data collection and elaboration. Effect/overlap/compromise with other indicators: (Showing cumulative positive effects or trade offs) Links with production value. Trend: Its expected to be stable. Implementation issues: 1) How easy is the indicator to implement at sectorial or farm level? The implementation is easy, since data are readily available. 2) Does present legislation incorporate this indicator? Production volume should be reported to national authorities. Producers associations also collect production data from members. 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 the improvement 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? These are the data, which are most readily available at farms, producers associations and national authorities. According to CCRF (1997), national governments should promote collection of aquaculture data and processing. However, production data are mainly available for species, but it is also necessary to collect data by production system (e.g. from semi-static in eastern Europe). In Hungary for example production data from ponds and from intensive systems have been separated only few years ago. 7) Where are the measured indicator data to be stored or archived? Detailed data are available at farm level and also at producers organisations and national authorities. 8) Other implementation issues: Data on production volume should be sensitive to the sudden change of demand due to unexpected events in other sectors or markets. An example of this is the increase in fish consumption following food scares in other food products.
38
II.2.6 Production Costs (#12) Desired Status: Decrease the proportion of production costs (other than feed). Indicator : Pre-tax and interest profit Env* * Soc* Level: Pan-Euro/Local/Etc. Unit (how is it measured): 1 Farm/region/sector EBIT/ton produced Share of production cost due to: - energy - environmental/regulatory cost - staff cost % per ton produced
* 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? How does this contribute to achieving sustainable development of aquaculture?) Reflects the economic viability of the farm and sector. Reflects the relative economic weight of the different production factors. Ease of measurement of the indicator: (How easy is the indicator to measure? How often should the indicator be measured/recorded? Who will be responsible for monitoring (frequency)/recording the indicator?) The ease of application is depending on the availability of data at all levels (farm, sector, country). Effect/overlap/compromise with other indicators: (Showing cumulative effects or trade-offs) Overlaps with the collection of data (statistics). Overlaps with regional economic conditions. Trade off : Indicates the trends and pressures on farm economy. Trend: Increasing EBIT within a 5-year time scale. Implementation issues: 1) How easy is the indicator to implement at sectorial or farm level? Already implemented at farm level. Needs agreement between sector and farm for the use of information on economy of the farm. 2) Does present legislation incorporate this indicator? Share of production cost devoted to environment preservation fits directives on preservation of environment. Present legislation tends however to increase regulatory cost. 3) Is there research required for effective implementation of this indicator? Innovations in energy use, environment preservation, automation. 4) Would further investment and/or new technology be required for implementation? Low cost technologies for effluent treatment, Automation processes and technologies for various activities of farm (feeding, cleaning, sorting). Autonomous production of energy. 5) How will implementation affect production costs ? Decrease production cost. 6) Are data for the indicator already available? If so, where can they be retrieved? Data available at farm level. Needs specific organisation for collection and analysis of this information. 7) Where are the measured indicator data to be stored or archived? At sector level (or government level depending on the member state). 8) Other implementation issues Availability and accuracy of data.
39
II.2.7 Profitability (#25) Desired Status: Sufficient profitability to continuously improve sustainability in 5 years: EBIT > 5 (%) as average within 5 years Indicator: Profitability (EBIT) Env* * Soc* Level: Pan-Euro/Local/etc. Unit (how is it measured): 1 EU per species EBIT = (Earnings before interests + taxes)/turnover 100
* 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? How does this contribute to achieving sustainable development of aquaculture?) Profitability can be influenced either by lowering cost price or creating added value. In the long term, profitability is the most important condition for the farmer to start working on other sustainability indicators, i.e. the farmer will only invest in sustainability if the operation is profitable. Ease of measurement of the indicator: (How easy is the indicator to measure? How often should the indicator be measured/recorded? Who will be responsible for monitoring (frequency)/recording the indicator?) EBIT is a common and easy measure of a companys profitability; it includes all profits before taking into account interest payments and income taxes. By excluding both taxes and interest expenses, the figure hones in on the company's ability to profit and thus makes cross-company comparisons easier. EBIT can be expressed as an absolute figure or as a percentage of total revenue (EBIT margin = earnings before interests and taxes/turnover x100). This indicator should be measured every year and for each company. Effect/overlap/compromise with other indicators: (Showing cumulative positive effects or trade offs) Profitability will be the most important condition for the farmer to be able to focus on other indicators. It is a precondition to fulfil satisfactory results with other indicators and vice-versa, i.e. the other indicators could create added value and therefore profitability. Trend: EBIT from current level to > 5% in 5 years time. Implementation issues: 1) How easy is the indicator to implement at sectorial or farm level? This indicator can be easily implemented at the farm level. Farmers should be informed by local authorities to monitor their annual EBIT margin and to report it. The goal is to increase EBIT from 0 to > 5% in 5 years time and each company should develop a strategy to achieve this goal either by reducing production costs or by increasing the product (added) value. The challenge will be in collecting the information from the farms in an anonymous way so that farmers are willing to share this information. The agency that collects the data must receive the confidence of the farmers. Local authorities or producers organisations or product boards could take up this role. 2) Does present legislation incorporate this indicator? No. 3) Is there research required for effective implementation of this indicator? No. 4) Would further investment and/or new technology be required for implementation? There may be a need for investment at the level of local authorities to retrieve the information. Companies may also have to invest to reduce production costs (e.g. buying new machinery) or to increase the product value (e.g. develop a brand/label). 5) How will implementation affect production costs? Virtually neutral since calculation of EBIT should follow from each common book keeping record analysis. For small scale farmers who currently do not have a book keeping system implemented, they should implement and thus increase their overheads. However it is envisaged that in the long run this improves the professionalisation and competitivity of the. sector. 6) Are data for the indicator already available? If so, where can they be retrieved? Some companies keep already a track of their annual EBIT margins. This information could be retrieved by the local authorities (see also comments under 1). 7) Where are the measured indicator data to be stored or archived? Local authorities should retrieve the information which can then be used at a national and EU level (see also comments under 1). 8) Other implementation issues To lower cost price: Education/training to better use resources and minimise health problems. Stimulation of investments in more rational (bigger) plants for species where we have enough experience (not for new species). To add value: Implementation of a European label supported by proper marketing instruments and governmental support (this includes branding and public awareness on sustainability, cooperation with processing industry on product development and marketing).
40
II.2.8 Annual Turnover (#26) Desired Status: Increase the annual turnover of aquaculture production in regional economies by 5% per year for the next 10 years. Indicator: Regional development Env* * Soc* Level: Pan-Euro/Local/etc. Unit (how is it measured): 2 1 Regional Euro/year * 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? How does this contribute to achieving sustainable development of aquaculture?) Aquaculture can be an important tool for regional development in regions where fisheries and fisheries-related activities are decreasing. Specifically for RAS, aquaculture can also be an alternative for agriculture based areas. The indicator should reflect the intrinsic growth of the (RAS) aquaculture sector and therefore be based on the growth in turnover within a given region and not as a fraction of the overall regional economic growth. Note: this indicator is applicable only for those regions that have potential for aquaculture development. Ease of measurement of the indicator: (How easy is the indicator to measure? How often should the indicator be measured/recorded? Who will be responsible for monitoring (frequency)/recording the indicator?) This indicator can be easily measured by the local/regional authorities by keeping track on the annual growth (Euro) of the RAS companies. Effect/overlap/compromise with other indicators: (Showing cumulative positive effects or trade offs) Education/Training and local organisation. Public awareness. Trend: See Desired Status. Implementation issues: 1) How easy is the indicator to implement at sectorial or farm level? This indicator can be easily implemented at the sector level provided that regional and national authorities stimulate financially the development of RAS. 2) Does present legislation incorporate this indicator? No. 3) Is there research required for effective implementation of this indicator? No. 4) Would further investment and/or new technology be required for implementation? Yes. Regional economic development plans should include a budget designated to facilitate the regional RAS development. 5) How will implementation affect production costs? The facilitation of RAS regional development by the local/regional authorities may be done by financial support to invest in new technologies that may reduce production costs. 6) Are data for the indicator already available? If so, where can they be retrieved? Possibly regional authorities, product boards, and/or National Statistics Agencies may have already a database which can be used to build upon. 7) Where are the measured indicator data to be stored or archived? At the local/regional authorities (see 6). 8) Other implementation issues Aquaculture (in this case, RAS based) should be included as a key element in regional economic development plans. These plans should be based on a comprehensive view on regional development, including the whole value chain, employment opportunities, infrastructure, and so on. As part of the regional development plans, regional and national authorities facilitate the financial environment to stimulate sustainable aquaculture development. Besides government support it is important that the opportunities for aquaculture development are clearly communicated and discussed within the regions.
41
II.2.9 Economically Sustainable Shellfish Production (#33) Desired Status: Economically sustainable shellfish production. Indicator: a) research studies and assessments of market trends and capacity; b) volume, value (EBIT) and unit price. Env* * Soc* Level: Pan-Euro/Local/etc. Unit (how is it measured): 1 2 Local/regional/EU/global # Research studies, tonnage output, total value , unit price
* 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? How does this contribute to achieving sustainable development of aquaculture?) Economically sustainable production maximising the market without driving unit cost down is essential to the future of the industry. Ease of measurement of the indicator: (How easy is the indicator to measure? How often should the indicator be measured/recorded? Who will be responsible for monitoring (frequency)/recording the indicator?) It should be easy to gather existing data and share through the existing organisation (ESA). Twice a year and on all the levels, it should be logical follow up on the basic data from practitioners, so if all the practitioners can provide information into one source, it would be easy for researchers and policy makers to assess and present results on the regional and national levels; the main problem is to make it user friendly and easy for practitioners or a third party to apply data. Effect/overlap/compromise with other indicators: (Showing cumulative positive effects or trade offs) Linked to environmental and social sustainability. Linked to market acceptability. Trend: Stable or gradual increase. In five years time: a more stable market and overall profitability within the sector. Implementation issues: 1) How easy is the indicator to implement at sectorial or farm level? Should be fairly easy with a user friendly established system. 2) Does present legislation incorporate this indicator? No. 3) Is there research required for effective implementation of this indicator? Research need for marketing innovations and new technologies, including: Development of new breeding process in hatchery and the field; Innovation in culture techniques (offshore, polyculture); Development of new processing techniques; Diversification (new species); Development of selected strains; Improvement in creation of polyploids and secure the containment; Identification and conservation of genetic resources; Identification of new shellfish by products and feasibility of commercial applications; Development of traceability techniques; Promote the sustainability concept towards the consumers; Development of new product and/or application; Cost benefit analysis, upgrading the products. 4) Would further investment and/or new technology be required for implementation? Yes. 5) How will implementation affect production costs? It would increase it in the beginning but in overall and long term should be lower. 6) Are data for the indicator already available? If so, where can they be retrieved? No, should be assessed from existing research and few practices. 7) Where are the measured indicator data to be stored or archived? Web site at EAS or ESA (which needs a huge boost and upgrading in importance). 8) Other implementation issues Better cooperation between producers in order to create a stronger market position with big buyers; Need for better spatial planning and integration of shellfish farming with other users and interests in the coastal environment.
42
II.2.10 Shellfish market strengthening/diversification (#36) Desired Status: Strengthen/diversify the market. Indicator: Prices, range of products, consumption. Env* * Soc* Level: Pan-Euro/Local/etc. 2 1 1 Local/regional/EU/global
Unit (how is it measured): /kg (fresh and value added) kg/person/year
* 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? How does this contribute to achieving sustainable development of aquaculture?) To increase profitability, stability and economic security of the sector. Ease of measurement of the indicator: (How easy is the indicator to measure? How often should the indicator be measured/recorded? Who will be responsible for monitoring (frequency)/recording the indicator?) It will require better coordination and data assessment, and should be measured monthly (?); from local level to national level; Effect/overlap/compromise with other indicators: (Showing cumulative positive effects or trade offs) Not Applicable. Trend: Ongoing. Implementation issues: 1) How easy is the indicator to implement at sectorial or farm level? Implementation will require some work and coordination, but data already exist, need better accumulation and analysis as well as sharing. 2) Does present legislation incorporate this indicator? Yes. 3) Is there research required for effective implementation of this indicator? Identification of new (shellfish) by-products and feasibility of commercial applications. Development of new processing techniques. Species diversification. 4) Would further investment and/or new technology be required for implementation? Constant investment in market and product research and innovation. 5) How will implementation affect production costs? Implementation will benefit the production, but should not increase the costs. 6) Are data for the indicator already available? If so, where can they be retrieved? Yes. 7) Where are the measured indicator data to be stored or archived? ESA web site, network clearing house. 8) Other implementation issues Innovation to ensure European (shellfish) sector leads the market. Optimal use of by-products.
43
II.2.11 Best Management Practices (#43) Desired Status: Adoption of best management practices (BMPs) in shellfish aquaculture. Indicator: a) Use of advanced environmentally approved technologies; b) Minimization of waste and contaminants; c) Active Code of Good Practices; d) Maintenance of disease free status; e) Proactive ecosystem management approach. Env* * Soc* Level: Pan-Euro/Local/etc. Unit (how is it measured): 1 1 2 Local/regional/EU # EU incentives # of waste management plans adopted # of species specific BMPs # of incidents/diseases recognition and participation in coastal management decisions
* 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? How does this contribute to achieving sustainable development of aquaculture?) Improve shellfish production. Reduce negative environmental impacts. Minimize the risk of shellfish diseases. Ease of measurement of the indicator: (How easy is the indicator to measure? How often should the indicator be measured/recorded? Who will be responsible for monitoring (frequency)/recording the indicator?) Difficult to measure. Effect/overlap/compromise with other indicators: (Showing cumulative positive effects or trade offs) Overlap with economic and environmental indicators. Trend: Early implementation sought. Implementation issues: 1) How easy is the indicator to implement at sectorial or farm level? Difficult to measure. 2) Does present legislation incorporate this indicator? No. 3) Is there research required for effective implementation of this indicator? Monitoring and database management. Control quarantine procedures. 4) Would further investment and/or new technology be required for implementation? No. 5) How will implementation affect production costs? Potentially reduce unit costs due to improved efficiency. 6) Are data for the indicator already available? If so, where can they be retrieved? New data are required. 7) Where are the measured indicator data to be stored or archived? National trade associations. 8) Other implementation issues.: None.
44
II.2.12 Market Price Level (#49) Desired Status: Market price level that ensures profitability. Indicator : Profitability of the enterprise Env* * Soc* Level: Pan-Euro/Local/Etc. 1 2 Local to pan-European/global
Unit (how is it measured): EBIT at company level (% of profitable companies)
* 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? How does this contribute to achieving sustainable development of aquaculture?) Without positive economic returns farms have no ability to be sustainable/invest in sustainability measures. Ease of measurement of the indicator: (How easy is the indicator to measure? How often should the indicator be measured/recorded? Who will be responsible for monitoring (frequency)/recording the indicator?) Accessibility from management/company accounts. Effect/overlap/compromise with other indicators: (Showing cumulative positive effects or trade offs) Not applicable. Trend: Up. Implementation issues: 1) How easy is the indicator to implement at sectorial or farm level? Use of producers organisations for collective adaptation of supply to demand. 2) Does present legislation incorporate this indicator? Market stabilisation measures by EU to ensure fair trade. 3) Is there research required for effective implementation of this indicator? The new markets require specific research for profitability indicators. Producer organisations or regulators will need to collect and collate data. 4) Would further investment and/or new technology be required for implementation? Not necessarily, but any technologies to improve product presentation to the market will improve price and affect profitability. 5) How will implementation affect production costs? Not significantly, knowing % of profitable companies will not affect production costs. Any positive effect on prices can affect margins. 6) Are data for the indicator already available? If so, where can they be retrieved? From company accounts. Some sectors of the industry are already collating financial performance data e.g. Norwegian, Scottish and Irish salmon industries. 7) Where are the measured indicator data to be stored or archived? At the farms or producer organisations. 8) Other implementation issues Collective marketing and promotion in EU.
45
II.2.13 High Productivity (#50) Desired Status: Ensure high productivity. Indicator : a) Level of production per unit labour b) Efficient use of feed Env* * Soc* Level: Pan-Euro/Local/Etc. 2 1 3 Local (to pan-European)
Unit (how is it measured): a) b) ton/person year EFCR or similar
* 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? How does this contribute to achieving sustainable development of aquaculture?) Essential element if reducing production costs and increasing global competitiveness. Farms have already achieved considerable improvements in productivity, but there is still scope for further improvement. Ease of measurement of the indicator: (How easy is the indicator to measure? How often should the indicator be measured/recorded? Who will be responsible for monitoring (frequency)/recording the indicator?) Measurement will be easy: data can be retrieved from company accounts. Responsibility for monitoring and implementation lies with companies, trade associations and regulators. Effect/overlap/compromise with other indicators: (Showing cumulative positive effects or trade offs) Conflict between increased productivity and employment, but any loss of labour on the farm may be balanced by an increase upstream and downstream. Trend: a) Up. b) Down. Steady, continuous. Implementation issues: 1) How easy is the indicator to implement at sectorial or farm level? It should be easy, assuming adequate records and accounts . 2) Does present legislation incorporate this indicator? No, but there are legislative restrictions on use of inputs such as feeds and medicines. 3) Is there research required for effective implementation of this indicator? Research is not needed to know production per person and EFCR or similar, but it can be needed to improve the value of the indicator, so research is needed on better utilisation of feed, as well as measures to increase productivity. 4) Would further investment and/or new technology be required for implementation? Not to implement but to have better values of the indicators so then there is a need for continuous investment to support development and capital costs. Technological improvements/application of automation. 5) How will implementation affect production costs? Effect on production cost is positive being based on productivity gains. 6) Are data for the indicator already available? If so, where can they be retrieved? Yes, data are available at farm sites/producer organisations. 7) Where are the measured indicator data to be stored or archived? See issue (6). 8) Other implementation issues: None.
46
II.2.14 Regulatory Costs (#51) Desired Status: That regulatory costs are evaluated on a cost-benefit basis and harmonised regionally/globally. Indicator : a) Regulatory costs per ton b) Cost benefit analyses are carried out appropriately c) Comparability regionally/globally Env* * Soc* Level: Pan-Euro/Local/Etc. Unit (how is it measured): 2 1 Regional to pan-European/ global a) cost per ton produced b) % of regulatory activities subjected to cost benefit analysis c) % of successful harmonization initiatives
* 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? How does this contribute to achieving sustainable development of aquaculture?) There is a concern about the imposition of regulatory charges that may differ between regions and that are not matched by demonstrable benefits. Moreover, the recovery of these costs from industry may differ between regions. Regulatory costs should only be implemented if they contribute positively to the sustainable development of the sector. Ease of measurement of the indicator: (How easy is the indicator to measure? How often should the indicator be measured/recorded? Who will be responsible for monitoring (frequency)/recording the indicator?) (a) fairly easy to measure at farm level. (b) and (c) responsibility for monitoring and implementation lies with associations and regulators: not so easy. Effect/overlap/compromise with other indicators: (Showing cumulative positive effects or trade offs) Not applicable. Trend: (a) decreasing. (b) and (c) increasing to achieve comparable costs and benefits across Europe and globally. Implementation issues: 1) How easy is the indicator to implement at sectorial or farm level? Indicator unit (a) is easily assessed but (b) and (c) depend on regulators willingness to carry out cost benefit analyses of their activities. Implementation may be difficult. 2) Does present legislation incorporate this indicator? Not at present. Clear legislative requirement once (b) and (c) have been achieved. 3) Is there research required for effective implementation of this indicator? Research needed on methodology for cost/benefit analysis. 4) Would further investment and/or new technology be required for implementation? Investment cost/benefit monitoring and compliance are critical. 5) How will implementation affect production costs? There is a positive effect on production costs. 6) Are data for the indicator already available? If so, where can they be retrieved? The data for indicator (a) can be retrieved from company accounts. Some administrations may have data for (b) and (c). 7) Where are the measured indicator data to be stored or archived? Producer organisations and regulators. 8) Other implementation issues: None.
47
II.2.15 Profitability (#52) Desired Status: Profitability is not compromised by arbitrary regulatory scale restrictions not justified by considerations of carrying capacity. Indicator : How production cost is related to scale of production Env* * Soc* Level: Pan-Euro/Local/Etc. Unit (how is it measured): 2 1 Global cost () per tonne in relation to scale of production (tonnes)
* 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? How does this contribute to achieving sustainable development of aquaculture?) This is an important element of global competitiveness. Regional comparative advantage is an important factor in the development of the industry. Restrictions not related to carrying capacity can affect competitiveness. Ease of measurement of the indicator: (How easy is the indicator to measure? How often should the indicator be measured/recorded? Who will be responsible for monitoring (frequency)/recording the indicator?) Readily measurable. Effect/overlap/compromise with other indicators: (Showing cumulative positive effects or trade offs) Not applicable. Trend: Down, 5 years. Implementation issues: 1) How easy is the indicator to implement at sectorial or farm level? Responsibility for implementation rests with the regulatory authorities of member states. 2) Does present legislation incorporate this indicator? May require EU legislative/policy change. 3) Is there research required for effective implementation of this indicator? Research on how the indicator relates to profitability. 4) Would further investment and/or new technology be required for implementation? No, apart from data collation costs. 5) How will implementation affect production costs? The implementation does not affect production costs but the improvement 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 determinant of profitability. 6) Are data for the indicator already available? If so, where can they be retrieved? Data has to be collected from company accounts and comparative studies. 7) Where are the measured indicator data to be stored or archived? At association or regulatory level. 8) Other implementation issues: None.
48
II.3 Indicators of Public Image

II.3.1 Public Attention (#10) Desired Status: To increase positive attention by the public. Indicator : Number of visitors to the farm Env* * Soc* Level: Pan-Euro/Local/etc. 3 2 1 Local/Farm * 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?. How does this contribute to achieving sustainable development of aquaculture?) Semi-static pond farms are rather attractive to visitors; however, this potential at moment is not fully exploited. Increasing the number of visitors is a good way to increase social acceptance and, furthermore, can generate additional income (farm shops, restaurants, angling etc.). Due to the importance of local and direct marketing, and the open character of the farm area, it is essential for semistatic farms to maintain positive interactions with the local society. Ease of measurement of the indicator: (How easy is the indicator to measure? How often should the indicator be measured/recorded? Who will be responsible for monitoring (frequency)/recording the indicator?) The recording of the indicator requires certain efforts from the farmer. Records should be done weekly otherwise they will lose their credibility. It might be the farmers (or delegated persons) responsibility. Effect/overlap/compromise with other indicators: (Showing cumulative positive effects or trade offs) Main effect is increase of goodwill and public acceptance. There can be a cumulative positive effect on other economic indicators. A positive effect on the farmers motivation for conservation of biodiversity (birds for birdwatchers etc.) and developing cultural landscape is to be expected. Trend: Increase of number medium-term. Implementation issues : 1) How easy is the indicator to implement at sectorial or farm level? a. Farms have some incomplete data on the number of visitors. Data collection through questionnaires seems to be more feasible. b. Communication/Cooperation should be started (with schools, travel agencies, tour operators, anglers, hunting clubs etc.). 2) Does present legislation incorporate this indicator? No. 3) Is there research required for effective implementation of this indicator? Not necessarily but a socioeconomic study on this topic might be quite useful. 4) Would further investment and/or new technology be required for implementation? a. Methodology and questionnaire should be elaborated. b. Investments are needed to develop the needed facilities. 5) How will implementation affect production costs? No significant effect. 6) Are data for the indicator already available? If so, where can they be retrieved? Available data may be very scarce at the moment. 7) Where are the measured indicator data to be stored or archived? Data can be stored and archived at the farm. 8) Other implementation issues: Support from local administration seems useful.
Unit (how is it measured): # of visitors/year
49
II.3.2 Public Awareness and Acceptance (#11) Desired Status: To make the sector more attractive to and accepted by the society. Indicator : Public awareness and acceptance Env* * Soc* Level: Pan-Euro/Local/etc. Unit (how is it measured): 2 1 Regional/National Standardised questionnaire * 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?. How does this contribute to achieving sustainable development of aquaculture?) Due to the importance of local and direct marketing, and the open character of the farm area, it is essential for semistatic farms to maintain positive interactions with the local society. A wider part of the society should become interested in traditional aquaculture products and production methods, particularly younger generations. At the moment the awareness of importance and knowledge about semi-static systems is strongly decreasing in the majority of EU countries. At present probably there is no such data available, so surveys should be carried out. Ease of measurement of the indicator: (How easy is the indicator to measure? How often should the indicator be measured/recorded? Who will be responsible for monitoring (frequency)/recording the indicator?) Public awareness and acceptance can be measured by standardised questionnaires. The elaboration of a good and comprehensive questionnaire requires efforts due to the novelty of such survey. The frequency of the measurement of the indicator could be 3-5 years. Due to the complexity and novelty of the measurement it should be conducted by relevant R&D institution(s). Effect/overlap/compromise with other indicators: (Showing cumulative positive effects or trade offs) Main effect is increase of goodwill and public acceptance. There can be a cumulative positive effect on other economic indicators. Trend: A mid-term increase of the public acceptance should be achieved. The level of knowledge of the society can be increased in a short-term period. Implementation issues: 1) How easy is the indicator to implement at sectorial or farm level? An initial survey should be carried out to map the present knowledge about, and the acceptance of the sector as a first step. It would be followed by a control survey after 3-5 years. 2) Does present legislation incorporate this indicator? Not applicable. 3) Is there research required for effective implementation of this indicator? Socio-economic research on this topic would be very useful. (A recent study Understanding community perceptions of aquaculture: lessons from Australia could be taken into account during the elaboration of methodologies for the assessment of public awareness and acceptance.) 4) Would further investment and/or new technology be required for implementation? a. The elaboration of methodology and questionnaire is necessary. b. Funds should be available for promoting activities (printing out informational materials, organising events, participation in trade shows, etc.). 5) How will implementation affect production costs? The production costs cannot be affected significantly. 6) Are data for the indicator already available? If so, where can they be retrieved? No data are available at the moment. 7) Where are the measured indicator data to be stored or archived? Indicator data can be stored at relevant public R&D institutions. 8) Other implementation issues: A strong cooperation should be established with producer/consumer organisations as partners for distributing information, doing PR activities, festivals etc. (focusing on young generation).
50
II.3.3 Market Demand (#13) Desired Status: Stimulate market demands. Indicator : Statistics & Targeted Generic Promotion on quality farmed fish on the market. Effective Risk / Benefit communication regarding fish consumption targeting different consumer segments. Env* * Soc* Level: Pan-Euro/Local/Etc. Unit (how is it measured): 1 2 Sector % of farmed / total fish consumed # of communication actions % at sector level
* 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? How does this contribute to achieving sustainable development of aquaculture?) Fish consumption is increasing. Increasing evidence of the health benefits of eating fish. Need for balanced risk/benefit communication. Ease of measurement of the indicator: (How easy is the indicator to measure? How often should the indicator be measured/recorded? Who will be responsible for monitoring (frequency)/recording the indicator?) Measurement requires: a classification of the various promotion and communication actions an organisation for collecting the available information Effect/overlap/compromise with other indicators: (Showing cumulative positive effects or trade offs) Indicator #24: Increase innovation for sustainability of the sector. Trend: Increase market share of farmed fish in the food basket. Increase health status of human through increased consumption of quality fish. Implementation issues: 1) How easy is the indicator to implement at sectorial or farm level? Not easy to implement at farm level except for large industrial groups and when local promotion of fish products is relevant. Balance information (risk/benefit) not easy to implement at sector level as it requires a coordination of governmental or independent institutions in charge of the information on risks. Missing information on the specific impact of these actions on market demands. 2) Does present legislation incorporate this indicator? Fits legislation on safety of products but information on risk depends on the country. 3) Is there research required for effective implementation of this indicator? More information on risk related to farmed fish products. Economical studies on the sensitivity of the fish market to promotion and communication. 4) Would further investment and/or new technology be required for implementation? Database on the various contaminants (nature, content) and on the various components contributing to nutritional quality of fish. 5) How will implementation affect production costs? Cost of balance information higher than positive promotion. 6) Are data for the indicator already available? If so, where can they be retrieved? Data available at sector level. Integration of other data (retailers, fishmongers ) not easy. 7) Where are the measured indicator data to be stored or archived? Sector level. 8) Other implementation issues Generate Statistics. Targeted Generic Promotion on quality farmed fish on the market. Assess consumer concerns about ethical / legal / health / societal issues. Explicitly address these concerns.
51
II.3.4 Consumer Confidence (#18) Desired Status: Improve confidence in farmed fish product. Indicator : Percentage of production involved in quality certification initiatives (labels, certification, traceability) Env* * Soc* Level: Pan-Euro/Local/Etc. Unit (how is it measured): 3 2 1 Farm/sector Yes / No (% of production involved in schemes) type of certification
* 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? How does this contribute to achieving sustainable development of aquaculture?) To improve public awareness of aquaculture operations and increase the acceptance of aquaculture products. Ease of measurement of the indicator: (How easy is the indicator to measure? How often should the indicator be measured/recorded? Who will be responsible for monitoring (frequency)/recording the indicator?) Well established in some sectors, and should be extended. Existing protocols for implementation in some member states. Effect/overlap/compromise with other indicators: (Showing cumulative positive effects or trade offs) Overlaps with codes/guides of practise: improve traceability of the production; improve farming practises. Trend: Increase the proportion of production covered by such schemes. In 5 years: Pan-European quality certification scheme established. Implementation issues: 1) How easy is the indicator to implement at sectorial or farm level? Could be implemented at farm level but the application of some quality certification is very constraining. Implementation at sector level requires the development in all European countries of quality of products and traceability certification. Sector level has to negotiate with retailers that have their own certifications. Implementation at National and European level requires homogeneity in quality certification. 2) Does present legislation incorporate this indicator? Traceability management fits the legislation on safety of products. 3) Is there research required for effective implementation of this indicator? Consumer expectations and needs on quality of products. Knowledge on biological and chemical contamination of fish products. Socio-economical research on certification for quality, traceability 4) Would further investment and/or new technology be required for implementation? Quality assessment at farm level. Low cost analysis of contaminants. 5) How will implementation affect production costs? Increase production cost due to implementation and control of protocols of certification. 6) Are data for the indicator already available? If so, where can they be retrieved? Data are available. 7) Where are the measured indicator data to be stored or archived? Organisations in charge of the control of certification. Sector level after agreement with the different organisations. 8) Other implementation issues Development and implementation of Pan-European quality certification scheme. Segmentation of the market?
52
II.3.5 Local Integration (#19) Desired Status: Improved integration in local society Indicator : Economic and social contribution to local society Env* * Soc* Level: Pan-Euro/Local/Etc. 2 2 1 Local/regional
Unit (how is it measured): # of fish-farmers involved in river basin/coastal zone management initiatives. # of farms concerned with gamefishing and restocking in local area
* 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? How does this contribute to achieving sustainable development of aquaculture?) Provides an indication of the level of integration. Improves the acceptance of aquaculture activities. Reduces conflicts with other stakeholders. Ease of measurement of the indicator: (How easy is the indicator to measure? How often should the indicator be measured/recorded? Who will be responsible for monitoring (frequency)/recording the indicator?) Depending on the local organisation. Depending on the personal investment of the farmers. Effect/overlap/compromise with other indicators: (Showing cumulative positive effects or trade offs) Overlaps with other initiatives to promote the image/acceptability of aquaculture (see #13 and #18). Overlaps with statistics information indicator #23. Partly depends on indicators on accessibility and improvement of technical assistance in the farm (see #17). Trend: Increased integration of aquaculture operations within local communities. Implementation issues: 1) How easy is the indicator to implement at sectorial or farm level? Depends on regional organisations of producers notably their representation and capacity for negotiation at local level. It is also largely dependent on the regional organisation of each country and the degree of application of EU directives, such as the Water Framework Directive, at a regional level. 2) Does present legislation incorporate this indicator? Fish farmers are sometimes considered as relevant stakeholders in local/regional committees. 3) Is there research required for effective implementation of this indicator? Socio-economical research on the management of conflicts between different stakeholders (especially for environment). 4) Would further investment and/or new technology be required for implementation? Not applicable. 5) How will implementation affect production costs? Viability of farms (acceptance of aquaculture activities). 6) Are data for the indicator already available? If so, where can they be retrieved? Data are available at farm level and at regional level (relevant committees). 7) Where are the measured indicator data to be stored or archived? Sector level. 8) Other implementation issues Specific training of fish farmers for negotiation in committees with different stakeholders (as implementation depends on the capacity of fish farmers to promote aquaculture in local society). Need to develop codes of practice for the farms involved in game fishing and restocking.
53
II.3.6 Consumer Complaints (#27) Desired Status: In 5 years time, the number of consumer complaints, including rapid alerts from RAS aquaculture should be reduced to less than 5 per year. Indicator: Product quality and safety Env* * Soc* Level: Pan-Euro/Local/etc. Unit (how is it measured): 3 1 2 EU Nr of complaints and rapid alerts * 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? How does this contribute to achieving sustainable development of aquaculture?) Each farmer and element in the value chain may risk receiving complaints from their customer when the quality differs from expectation. The idea behind this indicator is that the farmer (or any other element in the value chain) monitors and records these complaints in an attempt to reduce their number in 5 years time. Wholesome fish of the farm is the result of a good quality feed combined with good management that does not use illegal drugs and that adheres to the rules about prescribed drugs. In addition, proper management should result in a high quality product. The ambition to produce a safe and high quality product must be high, as reflected by the objective. Ease of measurement of the indicator: (How easy is the indicator to measure? How often should the indicator be measured/recorded? Who will be responsible for monitoring (frequency)/recording the indicator?) Product quality should be measured by sensory analysis. However, the sensory quality is not easy to measure in a cost effective way at farm level and be used as an indicator. The number of consumer complaints is a feasible and effective measure. Monitoring of product quality is done by the farmer who receives the complaints. Monitoring of product safety is done by member state governments and reported to Brussels in a rapid alert system. Effect/overlap/compromise with other indicators: (Showing cumulative positive effects or trade offs) Overlap with indicators on animal health and public awareness is expected. Trend: See Desired Status. Implementation issues: 1) How easy is the indicator to implement at sectorial or farm level? This indicator can be easily implemented at the sectorial and farm level by monitoring the number of rapid alerts and complaints, respectively. Implementation depends on the readiness of the farmer to monitor and record complaints. A double check system may be provided by asking also consumers or retailers QA (quality assessments) to do the same. 2) Does present legislation incorporate this indicator? Legislation regarding animal health conditions and hygiene, which include provisions for preparing, processing, freezing, storing and packaging of fishery and aquaculture animals and products are already available at the EU level. Also, specific Directives exist tackling specific issues like food packaging materials or residue and contaminant control. In the EU, legislation for feeds and environmental safety is in place. 3) Is there research required for effective implementation of this indicator? No. 4) Would further investment and/or new technology be required for implementation? Some investment may be necessary for the development/improvement of a traceability system to link rapid alerts of RAS products and their origin. 5) How will implementation affect production costs? The implementation of this indicator will not affect production costs but may influence the product (added) value as a decrease in the number of complaints and rapid alerts of RAS products favours the consumers image of these products. 6) Are data for the indicator already available? If so, where can they be retrieved? Monitoring of product safety is being done by member state governments and reported to Brussels in a rapid alert system. Implementation of the indicator is therefore relatively easy because these rapid alerts date can be retrieved. A system for data recording and retrieval of product quality should be developed/implemented through a code of practice. 7) Where are the measured indicator data to be stored or archived? For Food Safety: At the European food safety authority (EU level). For Food Quality: Mostly at the selling point (retailer) and farmer. 8) Other implementation issues: None.
54
II.3.7 Public Perception (#30) Desired Status: In 10 years time, the public has a more positive perception about products from RAS based aquaculture, based on transparent communication between sector and public. Indicator: Public Awareness Env* * Soc* Level: Pan-Euro/Local/etc. Unit (how is it measured): 3 2 1 Whole EU Results of consumer polls # of media items divided in positive and negative Sales of fish from aquaculture (turnover value; Euro)
* 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? How does this contribute to achieving sustainable development of aquaculture?) RAS based production has specific advantages which are insufficiently exploited to date, but its characteristics of high intensity and technology entail also potential image risks. Therefore, increasing the awareness of the public for RAS based production through transparent communication is highly needed. Ease of measurement of the indicator: (How easy is the indicator to measure? How often should the indicator be measured/recorded? Who will be responsible for monitoring (frequency)/recording the indicator?) To measure increase in public awareness in time, a reference poll should be made at day 1 and be monitored at regular intervals. The industry will be responsible for monitoring. Effect/overlap/compromise with other indicators: (Showing cumulative positive effects or trade offs) Public awareness has a presumed positive effect on economic indicators. All environmental and health and welfare indicators will have a direct effect on public awareness. Trend: In 10 years time, the public awareness of farming fish in RAS will increase (to be measured in 2015). Implementation issues: 1) How easy is the indicator to implement at sectorial or farm level? Codes of conduct and codes of practise following from the Consensus project have to be implemented. Stakeholders have to be involved during the whole process. The whole chain from farm to fork needs to be involved to make it successful. Effective communication plans have to be developed. This entails communication to the public from day 1 onwards about the efforts of the industry to make aquaculture more sustainable. The public and the press should be involved in the efforts of the industry to improve negative issues whenever they occur. 2) Does present legislation incorporate this indicator? No. 3) Is there research required for effective implementation of this indicator? No. 4) Would further investment and/or new technology be required for implementation? Investment is needed in consumer polls to be done at regular intervals. To improve acceptance, possibly also investments geared to improve the environmental impact and animal friendliness are needed (overlap with other indicators). 5) How will implementation affect production costs? The implementation of this indicator will not affect production costs but may increase the product (added) value. 6) Are data for the indicator already available? If so, where can they be retrieved? In the Netherlands, the results of consumers polls on RAS fish farming are available at the Rathenau Institute which is an independent organisation established and financed by the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science. Furthermore, consumer platforms to better understand the consumers perception and attitudes towards agriculture products, including fish, are organised regularly by the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality (LNV), the Netherlands. In Denmark and most probably in other EU countries there are no such recurring measurements of consumers perception of RAS/aquaculture products. 7) Where are the measured indicator data to be stored or archived? By national authorities. These authorities can then report to the EU. 8) Other implementation issues: Responsibility owners: Codes of conduct/practise: the whole industry Communication plan: by consensus of all stakeholders Monitoring: the industry
55
II.3.8 Public Health Benefits Recognition (#32) Desired Status: Improve recognition of public health benefits. Indicator: Media reports, increase of shellfish consumption, dialog with food safety authorities (FSAs), dialog with consumer organisations. Env* * Soc* Level: Pan-Euro/Local/etc. Unit (how is it measured): 3 2 1 Local, Regional, EU # of reports # of positive consumer feedback kg/capita/year media releases from FSAs media releases from consumer organisations
* 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? How does this contribute to achieving sustainable development of aquaculture?) Multiple indicators reflect multiple stakeholders and complexity of the objective. Its a core issue for sustainability of the shellfish sector. Ease of measurement of the indicator: (How easy is the indicator to measure? How often should the indicator be measured/recorded? Who will be responsible for monitoring (frequency)/recording the indicator?)? It is necessary to establish a clearing house and shellfish aquaculture data networking from local to regional and national levels; e.g. unique web site that will be able to incorporate data (survey type but more consistent and user friendly); monitoring and recording should be possible 2x /year. Effect/overlap/compromise with other indicators: (Showing cumulative positive effects or trade offs) Not applicable. Trend: Increase and improve. Implementation issues: 1) How easy is the indicator to implement at sectorial or farm level? Easy access through the web site and arrangements with local media access and visitor-tourism collaboration. 2) Does present legislation incorporate this indicator? No. 3) Is there research required for effective implementation of this indicator? Research issues: attract new consumers; development of traceability techniques; promote the sustainability concept towards consumers; development of new technologies for early detection and quantification (diagnostic tools). 4) Would further investment and/or new technology be required for implementation? Moderate investment. 5) How will implementation affect production costs? In general, it should benefit the whole production and not effect the costs. 6) Are data for the indicator already available? If so, where can they be retrieved? Data already exist and can be collected easy. 7) Where are the measured indicator data to be stored or archived? A clearing house and unified network should be established on the web. 8) Other implementation issues: None.
56
II.3.9 Communication of Benefits (#44) Desired Status: Communicate environmental and socio-economic benefits of shellfish aquaculture. Indicator: a) Increase of public awareness; b) Reduce negative media coverage; c) Highlight positive contribution to local communities. Env* * Soc* Level: Pan-Euro/Local/etc. Unit (how is it measured): 2 3 1 Local/regional/EU # of information dialog with stakeholders, festivals, events, interpretation and education centres, and curriculum development # of positive media coverage
* 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? How does this contribute to achieving sustainable development of aquaculture?) Essential to create a positive public attitude for sustainable shellfish aquaculture development; increase public knowledge and awareness. Ease of measurement of the indicator: (How easy is the indicator to measure? How often should the indicator be measured/recorded? Who will be responsible for monitoring (frequency)/recording the indicator?) Requires widespread data collection. Effect/overlap/compromise with other indicators: (Showing cumulative positive effects or trade offs) Overlaps with economic market and development. Trend: UP and improving. Implementation issues: 1) How easy is the indicator to implement at sectorial or farm level? Requires collaboration at all levels. 2) Does present legislation incorporate this indicator? No. 3) Is there research required for effective implementation of this indicator? Social and economic assessments; market research. 4) Would further investment and/or new technology be required for implementation? No. 5) How will implementation affect production costs? Not a cost related issue. 6) Are data for the indicator already available? If so, where can they be retrieved? Collection system requires to be put in place. 7) Where are the measured indicator data to be stored or archived? National trade associations. 8) Other implementation issues: None.
57
II.3.10 Consumer Information (#46) Desired Status: Well informed consumers Indicator: a) Development of effective, informative labelling, certification; b) Development of useful and practical leaflets of advice (seasonality, freshness indicators, etc.), recipes, etc.. Env* * Soc* Level: Pan-Euro/Local/etc. Unit (how is it measured): 1 2 Local/regional/EU a) b) * 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? How does this contribute to achieving sustainable development of aquaculture?) Its essential to inform the consumer in order to develop the market (demographics of shellfish consumption older generations); the fear of shellfish preparation needs to be overcome. Ease of measurement of the indicator: (How easy is the indicator to measure? How often should the indicator be measured/recorded? Who will be responsible for monitoring (frequency)/recording the indicator?) New parameter, requiring new data collection system. Effect/overlap/compromise with other indicators: (Showing cumulative positive effects or trade offs) Market development indicators. Trend: Rising number of leaflets, labels, etc.. Ongoing. Implementation issues: 1) How easy is the indicator to implement at sectorial or farm level? Its a sectorial issue, which is relatively easy to implement. 2) Does present legislation incorporate this indicator? No. 3) Is there research required for effective implementation of this indicator? Health issues (oils, trace elements, fat levels, etc.). 4) Would further investment and/or new technology be required for implementation? No. 5) How will implementation affect production costs? Implementation will have an effect on revenue rather than costs (NB increased cost from implementation, more than offset by improved revenues). 6) Are data for the indicator already available? If so, where can they be retrieved? New data collection. 7) Where are the measured indicator data to be stored or archived? National trade associations. 8) Other implementation issues: None. # of labels created, # of products certified # of leaflets
58
II.3.11 Quality Assurance Schemes (#56) Desired Status: To have quality assurance schemes to help develop economically viable production. Indicator : % of production covered by quality assurance Env* * Soc* Level: Pan-Euro/Local/Etc. Unit (how is it measured): 3 1 2 Local to Pan-European % of production covered * 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? How does this contribute to achieving sustainable development of aquaculture?) Quality Assurance Schemes and product traceability are increasingly required by the market. These factors are also integral to verification of sustainability. Ease of measurement of the indicator: (How easy is the indicator to measure? How often should the indicator be measured/recorded? Who will be responsible for monitoring (frequency)/recording the indicator?) Monitoring of schemes is carried out by both producers and buyers. Schemes should be independently audited on a regular basis, so it ought to be easy to know the % of production covered by Q.A. The problem is collecting the data. Effect/overlap/compromise with other indicators: (Showing cumulative positive effects or trade offs) Not applicable. Trend: Quality schemes are increasingly being adopted by industry. Implementation issues: 1) How easy is the indicator to implement at sectorial or farm level? Knowing the % of production covered by Q.A. can be relatively easy but application of quality schemes is moderately difficult and there are also cost implications for the producers. Costs can be minimised through avoidance of excessively comprehensive schemes. 2) Does present legislation incorporate this indicator? No. 3) Is there research required for effective implementation of this indicator? There is a need to define a trans-national minimum standard for quality schemes, in order to ensure validity of the indicator. Some research could be done on the minimum standards needed to guarantee it. Research is needed in order to identify quality indicators that are easily monitored. 4) Would further investment and/or new technology be required for implementation? IT systems for the facilitation of product traceability and documentation need to be improved. 5) How will implementation affect production costs? Knowing the % of production covered by Q.A. does not imply an increase in production cost but introducing quality schemes implies significant costs for producers and they need encouragement in the form of premiums for certified products. 6) Are data for the indicator already available? If so, where can they be retrieved? Trade Associations see (7) below. 7) Where are the measured indicator data to be stored or archived? Collation of data will be carried out by associations and/or regulators. 8) Other implementation issues: None.
59
II.3.12 Consumer Image (#57) Desired Status: To achieve a positive consumer image. Indicator : Demand for products (will depend on positive image) Env* * Soc* Level: Pan-Euro/Local/Etc. 1 2 Local to global
Unit (how is it measured): % change in consumption of aquaculture products
* 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? How does this contribute to achieving sustainable development of aquaculture?) Improved image is an essential factor in market development. Ease of measurement of the indicator: (How easy is the indicator to measure? How often should the indicator be measured/recorded? Who will be responsible for monitoring (frequency)/recording the indicator?) Ease of application: depends on the availability of reliable statistics. Monitoring: trade associations and/or national authorities. Effect/overlap/compromise with other indicators: (Showing cumulative positive effects or trade offs) Not applicable. Trend: Increasing. Implementation issues: 1) How easy is the indicator to implement at sectorial or farm level? The indicator has to be implemented at regional and country level, not at sector or farm level. 2) Does present legislation incorporate this indicator? No. 3) Is there research required for effective implementation of this indicator? Research on consumer behaviour related to aquaculture products and on factors to explain this behaviour. 4) Would further investment and/or new technology be required for implementation? Investment for research. 5) How will implementation affect production costs? It will not directly affect production costs. Indirectly, however, an improvement of the indicator will increase demand without diminishing prices. This increased production could result in a decrease in production costs. 6) Are data for the indicator already available? If so, where can they be retrieved? Available from market research companies in most countries at a cost. Access best achieved through associations. 7) Where are the measured indicator data to be stored or archived? Regulators or regional authorities (depending on funding). 8) Other implementation issues Improving sales growth by effective communication to the public by associations.
60
II.3.13 Local Community Satisfaction (#58) Desired Status: Good integration between aquaculture industry and local community. Indicator : Local community satisfaction Env* * Soc* Level: Pan-Euro/Local/Etc. Unit (how is it measured): 2 1 Local community level % population satisfaction with the local aquaculture farms
* 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? How does this contribute to achieving sustainable development of aquaculture?) Aquaculture ventures are very sensitive to the willingness of local populations to accept them, both in the licensing and normal functioning. Knowledge of population satisfaction through surveys will provide a quantitative measure of this acceptance. This indicator will reflect other issues such as job attractiveness, economic effects, etc. Ease of measurement of the indicator: (How easy is the indicator to measure? How often should the indicator be measured/recorded? Who will be responsible for monitoring (frequency)/recording the indicator?) Easy. Community support is important for acceptance. Effect/overlap/compromise with other indicators: (Showing cumulative positive effects or trade offs) This indicator will overlap with employment. With time community integration, if evolving favourably, will strengthen these liaisons. Trend: Up. Difficult to predict where it will be in five years time. Implementation issues: 1) How easy is the indicator to implement at sectorial or farm level? It is not easy as it implies surveys to determine the satisfaction of population; controlled open days for locals could increase satisfaction. 2) Does present legislation incorporate this indicator? No. 3) Is there research required for effective implementation of this indicator? Social research may be envisaged such as regular surveys of communities with aquaculture industries. 4) Would further investment and/or new technology be required for implementation? Investment by farm into the local economy offer jobs to local workforce. Can increase local satisfaction. It will be positive for aquaculture companies to finance local, cultural and sport related activities. 5) How will implementation affect production costs? Increasing the costs for the presentation of the farm but this will be offset by greater productivity through improved worker pride and will facilitate easier expansion of operations. 6) Are data for the indicator already available? If so, where can they be retrieved? In some regions studies have been done (e.g. in Italy API did), probably FEAD. 7) Where are the measured indicator data to be stored or archived? At producer associations, farms, local authorities. It will depend on who did the surveys. 8) Other implementation issues How is the community consulted? Are they aware of how and who is responsible for decision-making regarding aquaculture? Funding house-hold surveys will be an issue.
61
II.3.14 Consumer Satisfaction (#59) Desired Status: Consumer satisfaction. Indicator : Willingness to buy aquaculture products Env* * Soc* Level: Pan-Euro/Local/Etc. 3 2 1 Global/national
Unit (how is it measured): Consumer loyalty and preference measured by market survey
* 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? How does this contribute to achieving sustainable development of aquaculture?) Consumer satisfaction is essential for repeated purchases. Market surveys are the most reliable indicators to measure consumer behaviour. Consumer satisfaction is related to demand which ideally reflects supply. Ease of measurement of the indicator: (How easy is the indicator to measure? How often should the indicator be measured/recorded? Who will be responsible for monitoring (frequency)/recording the indicator?) Market research is easy because techniques are well established, but the problem is to decide who does this work and who pays for it (see implementation issues). Effect/overlap/compromise with other indicators: (Showing cumulative positive effects or trade offs) Information on consumer attitudes, behaviour and perceptions can aid marketing of products to reflect current priorities and needs of consumers. Trend: The expected trend is that loyalty and preference for aquaculture products will increase in five years time. Implementation issues: 1) How easy is the indicator to implement at sectorial or farm level? Not so easy. Market research is needed on consumer demands. 2) Does present legislation incorporate this indicator? No. 3) Is there research required for effective implementation of this indicator? Consumer loyalty and preference can only be assessed through market studies implying research. Studies at consumer associations level are envisaged. 4) Would further investment and/or new technology be required for implementation? Investment for surveys is needed. Loyalty and confidence can increase if the product is better presented. This would need investment. 5) How will implementation affect production costs? The increase in this indicator will imply a greater demand that would lead to a greater scale of production thereby reducing costs. 6) Are data for the indicator already available? If so, where can they be retrieved? Various consumer studies are already published. Consult Producer Organisations/FEAP. 7) Where are the measured indicator data to be stored or archived? Producer organisations /regulators, depending on who performs the surveys. 8) Other implementation issues Market surveys have to be done for different segments of European consumers (country or region based, age based, psychology based and takes in account different cultures). Problem for implementation is who has to conduct the surveys and with which funds (national or EU funds).
62
II.3.15 Measurement of Society Acceptance (#60) Desired Status: Public image should be built with objective and comprehensive information. Indicator : Measurement of society acceptance Env* * Soc* Level: Pan-Euro/Local/Etc. Unit (how is it measured): 2 1 National % of population with a positive image of aquaculture
* 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? How does this contribute to achieving sustainable development of aquaculture?) The image of aquaculture in society is a key factor for its sustainability. Citizens are consumers that can buy aquaculture products or not, they are voters that influence political/legislative will and they are the workforce that will apply for aquaculture related jobs or not. The image of aquaculture will influence these choices. This indicator is broad enough to give a good measure of this issue. It covers and is affected by other issues such as consumer demands, employment and community integration. Ease of measurement of the indicator: (How easy is the indicator to measure? How often should the indicator be measured/recorded? Who will be responsible for monitoring (frequency)/recording the indicator?) Social survey techniques are well known. Application will be easy. Effect/overlap/compromise with other indicators: (Showing cumulative positive effects or trade offs) This indicator overlaps with consumer demands, employment and community integration. Trend: Up. Implementation issues: 1) How easy is the indicator to implement at sectorial or farm level? Difficulties on who performs the surveys and at which level. Heterogeneity by regions/countries/society. Effort must be placed on communication. 2) Does present legislation incorporate this indicator? No. 3) Is there research required for effective implementation of this indicator? Market surveys. 4) Would further investment and/or new technology be required for implementation? Survey costs. 5) How will implementation affect production costs? Positive image facilitates expansion of production. 6) Are data for the indicator already available? If so, where can they be retrieved? Some surveys carried out in local areas. Producer organisations or bodies that performed the surveys. 7) Where are the measured indicator data to be stored or archived? Producer organisations or regulators depending on who performed the studies. 8) Other implementation issues Scientific facts must be translated into non-specialised easy-to-understand language and effectively communicated. A proactive communication plan must be set-up involving all stakeholders. Biased or inaccurate information must be challenged. Governmental or EU support should be allocated for the assessment.
63
II.4 Indicators of Resource Use

II.4.1 Water Flow Rate in Flow-Through Systems (#20) Desired Status: Appropriate water flow rate of suitable quality. Indicator : Water flow for fish farm depending on total flow and General Quality Env* * Soc* Level: Pan-Euro/Local/Etc. Unit (how is it measured): 1 2 2 Farm Abstracted water flow / total flow of river (volume m or m/time) # of controls / year
*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? How does this contribute to achieving sustainable development of aquaculture?) Viability of farms is very dependent of this indicator. Ease of measurement of the indicator: (How easy is the indicator to measure? How often should the indicator be measured/recorded? Who will be responsible for monitoring (frequency)/recording the indicator?) Flow rate is easily measurable. Responsibility for monitoring and implementation (flow and quality) could be at the level farm but not in all the countries and in all the conditions (coastal areas). Effect/overlap/compromise with other indicators: (Showing cumulative positive effects or trade offs) Maintain acceptance of non consumptive abstraction of water by aquaculture and increase quality of water for the future. Trend: Strongly dependent on application of Water Framework Directive (WFD). Implementation issues: 1) How easy is the indicator to implement at sectorial or farm level? Relatively easy to measure at farm but difficult to implement depending on required trends. 2) Does present legislation incorporate this indicator? Legislation: included in WFD. This includes in particular improvement of general quality of water resources: chemical characteristics like alkalinity, eutrophication, biological indices such as Standardized Global Biotic Index. 3) Is there research required for effective implementation of this indicator? Studies on the effects of non consumptive abstraction on natural environment. Studies on the effect of local reduction of flow rate due to the farm on a specific section of the river. 4) Would further investment and/or new technology be required for implementation? Flow through partial recirculation system and oxygenation. 5) How will implementation affect production costs? The investment cost and the cost of monitoring would initially cause production cost to increase. 6) Are data for the indicator already available? If so, where can they be retrieved? Data possible from river basin agencies. 7) Where are the measured indicator data to be stored or archived? At regional level in database managed either by river basin agencies or other regional river basin institution. Available qualitative data are already partially recorded and stored in such database. The aim of WFD is to expand this database. 8) Other implementation issues Degree of representation of producers in River Basin Management. Accessibility for sector level of data collected and stored at Regional level.
64
II.4.2 Production Efficiency (#21) Desired Status: Improve efficiency of production and decreasing solid effluents. Indicator : Feed Conversion Ratio Env* * Soc* Level: Pan-Euro/Local/etc. Unit (how is it measured): 1 2 3 Farm/sector kg of feed / kg produced *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? How does this contribute to achieving sustainable development of aquaculture?) Represents an efficiency of production, can be used to assess solid effluent in the farm discharge. Management tool at the farm levels. Implication in economic viability and environmental impact. Ease of measurement of the indicator: (How easy is the indicator to measure? How often should the indicator be measured/recorded? Who will be responsible for monitoring (frequency)/recording the indicator?) Data already available at the farm level in most European countries. Effect/overlap/compromise with other indicators: (Showing cumulative effects or trade-offs) Overlaps with the source of feed ingredients and the percentage of farm using extruded feed (high lipid content), with the percentage of production cost due to feed. Trends: Reduction in feed conversion. In five years, availability of the information for all the farms and sectors. Implementation issues: 1) How easy is the indicator to implement at sectorial or farm level? Relatively easy to implement at farm level. Could also be assessed at sector level. 2) Does present legislation incorporate this indicator? Taxes for environmental impact are generally based on fish food. 3) Is there research required for effective implementation of this indicator? There is already numerous data on food intake and food digestibility. There is still information missing on feed efficiency ratio depending on food formulation and composition, on environmental conditions and on fish behaviour. 4) Would further investment and/or new technology be required for implementation? Models of food intake to be used by manager Technologies for management of food distribution at farm level Technologies for measurement of waste food at tank level Investment to assess solid effluent at farm level 5) How will implementation affect production costs? No effect on production cost if the gain in feed efficiency is related either to a decrease in food intake (or to an increase in growth performance). 6) Are data for the indicator already available? If so, where can they be retrieved? Data available at farm level. Collection and collation of data for the sector from each farm. 7) Where are the measured indicator data to be stored or archived? At farm and sector level. 8) Other implementation issues Indicator relevant to sustainability if taxes are still based on food input at farm level. Less relevant if taxes change to measurement of solid effluents at farm level and to the degree of equipment for treatment of effluents.
65
II.4.3 Sustainable Fish Feed Ingredients (#22) Desired Status: Promote increased use of sustainable fish feed ingredients. Indicator : Percent substitution of marine protein and oil by sustainable alternatives (aquatic or terrestrial) Env* * Soc* Level: Pan-Euro/Local/Etc. Unit (how is it measured): 1 3 2 Pan-EU/global % substitution of protein % substitution of oil
* 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? How does this contribute to achieving sustainable development of aquaculture?) Decreasing or limited supply of fish oil and to a less extent of fish meal. Increasing transport costs of feed-grade fishery by-products. Increased awareness of consumers (or segments thereof) on sustainability of fisheries. Variability between countries (producers / users). Ease of measurement of the indicator: (How easy is the indicator to measure? How often should the indicator be measured/recorded? Who will be responsible for monitoring (frequency)/recording the indicator?) Not at farm level. Sectorial. Involves feed industry cooperation. Effect/overlap/compromise with other indicators: (Showing cumulative effects or trade-offs) Effect on feed conversion ratio, environmental impacts and conflicts indicators. Compromise with indicators on quality certification process (label, certification, traceability) and promotion on quality farmed fish on the market. Trend: By 2010, desired reduction by 50% of fish meal & fish oil use in aquaculture (EU, FAO). In case of specific problems (El nio), deficiency situation. Geographical differences in contaminant levels consequent costs of decontamination. In five years time, noticeable reduction will become an economic issue. But, changes have to be in conformity to human acceptance and fish quality, human nutrition and food safety. Implementation issues: 1) How easy is the indicator to implement at sectorial or farm level? Dependent on industrial strategy and adaptability of fish feed industry. Could be implemented at sector level with the help of an agreement with fish feed industry. 2) Does present legislation incorporate this indicator? No but could be if contamination of feed ingredients became a limiting factor. Indirectly in the limitation of fishing in some stocks. 3) Is there research required for effective implementation of this indicator? A large number of European projects of the FP5 and FP6 are related to substitution of marine oil but less on substitution of marine protein. Data still required on quality of feed ingredients for partial or total substitution of marine protein. Also research needed on the assessment of the sustainability of feed ingredients. 4) Would further investment and/or new technology be required for implementation? Industry needs to exploit more of by-catch, trimmings of food industry, reworking. Decontamination issues (POPs) 5) How will implementation affect production costs? Implementation will probably increase production cost as : fish meal and fish oil are currently available at relatively low price technologies to improve other feed ingredients for fish consumption will be required 6) Are data for the indicator already available? If so, where can they be retrieved? Strongly dependent on information available from the feed ingredients sector and fish feed industry. Could be retrieved at sector level from feed ingredients importation. 7) Where are the measured indicator data to be stored or archived? Fish food industry or fish production sector depending on the agreement. Alternatively at the level of association of farm involved in a certification process. 8) Other implementation issues Stakeholder (retailers, actors in the food chain) involvement.
66
II.4.4 Spat Supply from Hatcheries (#40) Desired Status: Sufficient hatchery supply of spat. Indicator: Demand for seed, requirements for new species hatcheries, improved genetic base through selected breeding, commercial viability, development of polyploids Env* * Soc* Level: Pan-Euro/Local/etc. Unit (how is it measured): 2 1 3 Local/regional/EU # of mature larvae and seeds sold * 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? How does this contribute to achieving sustainable development of aquaculture?) Stabilizing seed production and avoiding over-fishing natural seed supply. Ease of measurement of the indicator: (How easy is the indicator to measure? How often should the indicator be measured/recorded? Who will be responsible for monitoring (frequency)/recording the indicator?) Measurement will not be simple, but the limited number of commercial scale hatcheries makes it a real possibility. Effect/overlap/compromise with other indicators: (Showing cumulative positive effects or trade offs) Overlap with site selection process. Overlap with introduction of pest species. Trend: This indicator should be implemented as soon as possible. Implementation issues: 1) How easy is the indicator to implement at sectorial or farm level? Theres a need to monitor hatchery developments at national/pan-EU level. 2) Does present legislation incorporate this indicator? No. 3) Is there research required for effective implementation of this indicator? Development of new spat collector techniques. Development of new techniques to increase hatchery production. Development of new breeding process in hatchery and the field. Development of selected strains. Improvement in creation of polyploids and secure the containment. New species spat development. 4) Would further investment and/or new technology be required for implementation? No. 5) How will implementation affect production costs? Potentially reduce unit costs. 6) Are data for the indicator already available? If so, where can they be retrieved? No, a new system of collection will be required. 7) Where are the measured indicator data to be stored or archived? Relevant national/EU institutions (eg. National Reference Laboratory for shellfish interests), possibly national trade associations. 8) Other implementation issues: None.
67
II.4.5 Natural Spat Supply (#41) Desired Status: Sustainable utilization of natural supply of spat. Indicator: Shellfish seed fishing management plans, monitoring spat fall, monitoring of wildlife requirements, demand for hatchery seed Env* * Soc* Level: Pan-Euro/Local/etc. Unit (how is it measured): 1 1 2 Local/regional/EU available quantities # of seed sold ratio between seed selected and crop harvested
* 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? How does this contribute to achieving sustainable development of aquaculture?) Stabilizing seed production and avoiding over-fishing natural seed supply. Ease of measurement of the indicator: (How easy is the indicator to measure? How often should the indicator be measured/recorded? Who will be responsible for monitoring (frequency)/recording the indicator?) Potentially a role for national trade associations. Effect/overlap/compromise with other indicators: (Showing cumulative positive effects or trade offs) Overlaps with hatcheries supply (#40). Trend: Not applicable. Implementation issues: 1) How easy is the indicator to implement at sectorial or farm level? Implementation wont be easy, but could be done. 2) Does present legislation incorporate this indicator? No. 3) Is there research required for effective implementation of this indicator? Development of new spat collector techniques. Identify new resources of wild seed. Management of wild seed. 4) Would further investment and/or new technology be required for implementation? None. 5) How will implementation affect production costs? Implementation potentially could lower unit costs. 6) Are data for the indicator already available? If so, where can they be retrieved? Data are not gathered as yet. 7) Where are the measured indicator data to be stored or archived? National centres (e.g. trade associations or Reference Laboratories). 8) Other implementation issues: None.
68
II.4.6 Formulated Feed Use in Pond Aquaculture (#68) Desired Status: Minimise the use of formulated feed in pond aquaculture. Indicator : Formulated feed use per production unit area Env* * Soc* Level: Pan-Euro/Local/etc. Unit (how is it measured): 1 2 3 Farm/local t/ha/yr * 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?. How does this contribute to achieving sustainable development of aquaculture?) Increased formulated feed use indicates increasing intensification of production and increased use of feed materials from outside the local area/region. Necessary data are easily available from farm accounts and records. Ease of measurement of the indicator: (How easy is the indicator to measure? How often should the indicator be measured/recorded? Who will be responsible for monitoring (frequency)/recording the indicator?) The indicator is easily measurable using the data from records, which are obligatory for each farm management. Effect/overlap/compromise with other indicators: (Showing cumulative positive effects or trade offs) Trade off with economic benefits if production drops. Trend: Trend should be for minimising formulated feed use. Implementation issues: 1) How easy is the indicator to implement at sectorial or farm level? The implementation of the indicator is quite easy. 2) Does present legislation incorporate this indicator? Current legislation supports the effort for reduction of feeds application through hygienic limits of discharged water quality, which are considered as a general precondition for the agreement with this pond farming measure. 3) Is there research required for effective implementation of this indicator? Need to define formulated feed (consider related input measures) and research further implications and benefits of this indicator. 4) Would further investment and/or new technology be required for implementation? a. For immediate implementation: no. b. On the long term: the implementation will require a reconsideration of current feeding technologies in pond farming. 5) How will implementation affect production costs? a. On the short term: insignificantly. b. On the long term: the implementation will considerably reduce the production results (and subsequently costs) in Central and Eastern European pond farms, which are based on supplementary feeding measures in pond management. Organic fish production may offer new opportunities for pond fish farms with reduced formulated feed use. 6) Are data for the indicator already available? If so, where can they be retrieved? Necessary data are already easily available from farming records, which are obligatory for pond farm management. 7) Where are the measured indicator data to be stored or archived? Records maintained at farm level and collated by national agency. 8) Other implementation issues: Would require a reporting procedure to be implemented. Could have economic benefit if analysis identifies current wastage and inefficiency.
69
II.4.7 Energy Use (#69) Desired Status: Minimise the use of energy. Indicator : Energy use per production unit area Env* Soc* Level: Pan-Euro/Local/etc. 1 2 3 Farm/local * Rank indicator type 1 to 3 (1 is most relevant for this indicator)
Unit (how is it measured): J/ha/yr
Rationale and context: (Why the indicator is an appropriate benchmark or measure? How does this contribute to achieving sustainable development of aquaculture?) Increased energy use indicates increasing intensification of production and potentially increased pollution and nonrenewable resource use. Ease of measurement of the indicator: (How easy is the indicator to measure? How often should 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) Environmental benefits can be expected after reduction of energy inputs. Trade off with economic benefits if production drops. Trend: Trend should be for reducing energy consumption although only slow decrease can be expected in the nearest future. Implementation issues: 1) How easy is the indicator to implement at sectorial or farm level? The data on energy use are available in farm account books only. 2) Does present legislation incorporate this indicator? No. 3) Is there research required for effective implementation of this indicator? If only primary energy use is monitored (fuel and electricity) the implementation is relatively simple, although a data collection system or a systematic questionnaire should be elaborated. However if energy consumption is evaluated on a wider basis (e.g. energy of all inputs) intensive research is necessary to specify the methodology. 4) Would further investment and/or new technology be required for implementation? a. On the short term: appropriate methodology should be elaborated. b. On the long term: existing investments and technologies will be simplified. 5) How will implementation affect production costs? a. On the short term: insignificantly. b. On the long term: production costs will be decreased per production surface unit after indicator implementation, however the total profit of the farm will be considerably negatively influenced. 6) Are data for the indicator already available? If so, where can they be retrieved? Necessary data are available (for fuel and electricity) from farm accounts and records. 7) Where are the measured indicator data to be stored or archived? Farm level 8) Other implementation issues: Need to define the energy consumption that would be measured as part of the indicator. Would require a reporting procedure to be implemented. Could have economic benefit if analysis identifies current wastage and inefficiency. There is a need to analyse the share of renewable energy use.
70
II.4.8 Natural Resources Use in Recirculation Systems (#71) Desired Status: To increase with 10% the # of farms that use the best standard practice for minimal use of natural resources in RAS production in a period of 5 years compared to a reference moment. Indicator: Resource use Env* * Soc* Level: Pan-Euro/Local/etc. Unit (how is it measured): 1 EU MJ/kg fish produced (Energy) m3/kg fish produced (Water) m2/kg fish produced (Land) kg fresh fish/kg fish produced (Feed)
* 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? How does this contribute to achieving sustainable development of aquaculture?) Within fish farming, and certainly in RAS, the basic natural resources used are water, energy, land space and the amount of marine resources for fish feeds. Ease of measurement of the indicator: (How easy is the indicator to measure? How often should the indicator be measured/recorded? Who will be responsible for monitoring (frequency)/recording the indicator?) Monitoring and audits to be done by an independent organisation, also responsible for archiving. The indicator related to fish resources in fish feed is not directly controllable by the farmer; however, WG3 feels that it should be a general responsibility of the entire aquaculture industry to enact on this. Effect/overlap/compromise with other indicators: (Showing cumulative positive effects or trade offs) If branding is used as an implementation tool, a positive effect is expected on the EBIT (added value). A risk for an effect on health and welfare by the increased level of plant ingredients in feeds, higher intensity of farming (e.g. stocking density), etc. If the implementation tool of training/information exchange is used, there will be overlap/cross reaction with the indicator on this (social issues). Branding might increase public awareness but if the risk for decreased welfare would appear, the same increased public awareness may induce a negative reaction. Trend: Indicators go down. In five years time: see desired status. Implementation issues: 1) How easy is the indicator to implement at sectorial or farm level? Facilitation and stimulation by the authorities (possibly agreed through a MoU between government and sector) and additional stimulation by linking it to a potential added value through branding/labelling, specific training programmes for fish farmers and/or a system of information exchange between farmers. WG3 believes branding would be the best option to follow. 2) Does present legislation incorporate this indicator? No. 3) Is there research required for effective implementation of this indicator? More research is needed to improve and/or develop system designs that are more efficient in terms of resource use. Furthermore, to reduce the use of fresh fish per kg of fish produced, alternative feed ingredients must be investigated. Large companies have done research in this field already, but results are not generally available. 4) Would further investment and/or new technology be required for implementation? Investments related to implementation of Data Record System, monitoring and auditing system and, when branding is implemented, this will entail additional initial costs. 5) How will implementation affect production costs? Production costs may increase as an investment in new technologies may be necessary. However, this increase costs may be counterbalanced by an increase in the product value if branding or labelling is attained. 6) Are data for the indicator already available? If so, where can they be retrieved? Measurements based on a specific data record system maintained by farmer; no problems expected in implementing this data record system. 7) Where are the measured indicator data to be stored or archived? Each farm should have a data record system which is then collected by national and EU authorities. 8) Other implementation issues: None.
71
II.4.9 Feeds from Sustainable Resources (#76) Desired Status: Feeds based on sustainable resources. Indicator : Feed sourced from sustainable resources Env* * Soc* Level: Pan-Euro/Local/Etc. 1 2 3 Global
Unit (how is it measured): % by weight of each ingredient certified for sustainability
* 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? How does this contribute to achieving sustainable development of aquaculture?) Feed is the major input into fish production and if aquaculture is to be sustainable, inputs have to be. Ease of measurement of the indicator: (How easy is the indicator to measure? How often should the indicator be measured/recorded? Who will be responsible for monitoring (frequency)/recording the indicator?) This may prove to be difficult for the feed manufacturers to accurately identify origin of constituents. The indicator need only be collated annually, and recorded by the farmers quality assurance scheme. Effect/overlap/compromise with other indicators: (Showing cumulative positive effects or trade offs) Not applicable. Trend: Expected to increase to a high level within 5 years. Implementation issues: 1) How easy is the indicator to implement at sectorial or farm level? Will require much effort to encourage manufacturers to change labelling and abide by quality/sustainability scheme, but once introduced, indicator would be simple to implement. 2) Does present legislation incorporate this indicator? Need to promote legislation for sustainable feed. 3) Is there research required for effective implementation of this indicator? Not directly to measure the indicator, but research is needed to increase the availability of sustainable ingredients. This would include: Research needed on suitability of substitutes. Research on wild stock sustainability. 4) Would further investment and/or new technology be required for implementation? Only investment by feed companies to keep records and use only certified ingredients.. 5) How will implementation affect production costs? Will have cost implications as manufacturers are encouraged to find sustainable sources. 6) Are data for the indicator already available? If so, where can they be retrieved? Possibly these data exist with the feed manufacturers. 7) Where are the measured indicator data to be stored or archived? The data may be recorded by the farmers quality assurance scheme, feed companies and stored at associations/regulators. 8) Other implementation issues Certification schemes for wild fish stocks not yet comprehensive. GMO sources may be sustainable and legal but have yet to gain public acceptance. Responsibility for certification lies with feed companies.
72
II.4.10 Sustainable Supply of Juveniles (#77) Desired Status: Juvenile supply based on sustainable resources Indicator : Juveniles and recruits from sustainable resources Env* * Soc* Level: Pan-Euro/Local/Etc. 1 2 3 Global
Unit (how is it measured): % of juveniles and recruits supplied from certified sustainable sources
* 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? How does this contribute to achieving sustainable development of aquaculture?) Juvenile supply is a prime factor in fish production and if aquaculture is to be sustainable, juvenile supply and recruits must also be. Even if the juveniles of the major farmed species are now produced in hatcheries, still some species are recruited from wild populations. Ease of measurement of the indicator: (How easy is the indicator to measure? How often should the indicator be measured/recorded? Who will be responsible for monitoring (frequency)/recording the indicator?) The indicator should be fairly easy to measure, as the hatchery will be able to provide this information. The farmer can maintain it as part of his traceability certification. Effect/overlap/compromise with other indicators: (Showing cumulative positive effects or trade offs) Not applicable. Trend: Expected to increase to a higher level within 5 years. Implementation issues: 1) How easy is the indicator to implement at sectorial or farm level? Hatcheries have responsibilities for the traceability of the genetic origin and the quality of juveniles. 2) Does present legislation incorporate this indicator? No. 3) Is there research required for effective implementation of this indicator? Research is needed to identify the exploited stocks and the quality of juveniles, and to identify sustainable sources for juveniles now caught in the wild. 4) Would further investment and/or new technology be required for implementation? Not in implementing the indicator, but it can be in order to increase it. 5) How will implementation affect production costs? Costs may rise if non-sustainable recruits/juveniles are excluded. 6) Are data for the indicator already available? If so, where can they be retrieved? Not presently available. 7) Where are the measured indicator data to be stored or archived? The farmer can maintain it as part of his traceability certification. But also in hatcheries and associations. 8) Other implementation issues Certification schemes for hatcheries are not yet comprehensive. Information on genetic strains is needed among other things. Wild sources exploitation may be sustainable and legal but the sustainability has yet to be proved.
73
II.5 Indicators of Health Management and Welfare

II.5.1 Fish Health Control (#15) Desired Status: Improve health status of farms. Indicator : Fish health control program Env* * Soc* Level: Pan-Euro/Local/Etc. 3 1 1 Farm/sector/national
Unit (how is it measured): % registered farms to control program % antibiotics used per tonne produced mortality rate
* 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? How does this contribute to achieving sustainable development of aquaculture?) The indicator is an appropriate benchmark or measure to improve the sanitary condition of the farm, the quality of product, trade exchanges and food safety. Very important; requires strong efforts to comply with demands and/or regulations. Huge pay-off in economic terms. Increases performances and fish welfare. Ease of measurement of the indicator: (How easy is the indicator to measure? How often should the indicator be measured/recorded? Who will be responsible for monitoring (frequency)/recording the indicator?) Requires professional approach and encouragements. Effect/overlap/compromise with other indicators: (Showing cumulative effects or trade-offs) Increases performances and fish welfare. Dependent on the health status of wild fish populations of the river basin. Trend: The health program upwards, antibiotic use down and mortality down. In five years: potential for fish healthy certification of farms. Implementation issues: 1) How easy is the indicator to implement at sectorial or farm level? Easily implemented at farm level (data already recorded according to fish health directives). For some criteria such as use of antibiotics, less easy to collect at sector level. 2) Does present legislation incorporate this indicator? Fits well fish health directives. 3) Is there research required for effective implementation of this indicator? Alternatives to the use of antibiotics: vaccine development genetic breeding program on resistance to main pathologies Research on new emerging pathologies. 4) Would further investment and/or new technology be required for implementation? Development of vaccination technologies Water treatment? 5) How will implementation affect production costs? Decrease production cost. 6) Are data for the indicator already available? If so, where can they be retrieved? At farm and sector level except for antibiotics use which require cooperation with pharmaceutical industry and organisation in charge of sanitary protection. 7) Where are the measured indicator data to be stored or archived? In sector database. 8) Other implementation issues Need for alternative methods of control (vaccines, diseases and welfare management).
74
II.5.2 Guides of Practice (#16) Desired Status: Improve farm performance & fish welfare. Indicator : Go from code of practice to guide(s) of practice (incl. welfare) Env* * Soc* Level: Pan-Euro/Local/Etc. Unit (how is it measured): 3 1 1 Farm/Sector Yes/No (Farm) % of farms involved (Sector) Mortality rate (%) Rejection of products (# of cases)
* 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? How does this contribute to achieving sustainable development of aquaculture?) Consumers (other stakeholders, NGOs) are sensitive to welfare issues. Increased societal demand for transparent/traceable production systems. Importance of preventive/prophylactic measures in the absence of adequate therapy (Minor Use, Minor Species MUMS) as against ease of application. Decrease production costs. Ease of measurement of the indicator: (How easy is the indicator to measure? How often should the indicator be measured/recorded? Who will be responsible for monitoring (frequency)/recording the indicator?) Easy to measure at farm level except for rejection of products which has to be recorded. Effect/overlap/compromise with other indicators: (Showing cumulative positive effects or trade offs) Overlaps with indicator #15 (Improve health status of the farm). Overlaps with indicator #23 (Statistics information). Facilitate common trans-national communication strategies/policy harmonisations. Trend: Step 1: codes of practise (in the next 2 years). Step 2: develop/propose a common guide (5 years). Implementation issues: 1) How easy is the indicator to implement at sectorial or farm level? Could be implemented at farm level but the application of the codes of practice always requires profound changes in farm habits. There are limitations at sector level: organisations of producers which help to promote codes of practice are not active or efficient in all member states; codes of practice are not yet available in all the member states. 2) Does present legislation incorporate this indicator? Recommendations on fish welfare will probably be integrated in a European directive. 3) Is there research required for effective implementation of this indicator? Research needs: Welfare indicator(s) 4) Would further investment and/or new technology be required for implementation? Technologies for increase of welfare (new setup design for rearing, feeding & handling). 5) How will implementation affect production costs? Implementation will decrease production costs. However there will be new costs related to implementation and control of code of practice. Cost of negotiation and agreement between producer/stakeholder . 6) Are data for the indicator already available? If so, where can they be retrieved? Most of the information is already available at farm level except for rejection of products. Data on mortality rate and rejection of products are less easy to collect at sector level. 7) Where are the measured indicator data to be stored or archived? At sector level (or organisation in charge of the control of codes of practice). 8) Other implementation issues Producer/stakeholder consultation: negotiation, agreement.
75
II.5.3 Animal Health in Recirculation Systems (#28) Desired Status: To improve the animal health status in the RAS sector by an optimised disease prevention, which is attained by an improved Animal Health System, measured by a 10% decrease in number of treatments over a period of 5 years. Indicator: Animal Health in RAS Env* * Soc* Level: Pan-Euro/Local/etc. Unit (how is it measured): 3 2 1 Farm plus EU # of treatments/farm per year # of specialised vets/100 farms
* 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? How does this contribute to achieving sustainable development of aquaculture?) RAS offers a high biosecurity reducing thereby the risk for disease spreading. In RAS the major health problem is related to parasite infestation. When an infectious disease outbreak occurs, medicine use may interfere with the dynamics of the biological purification system. In addition, the closed character of RAS entails risks for accumulation of these chemicals, whereby the effects on fish are unclear. Special care should be taken when introducing fish from uncontrolled sources (wild fingerlings). Ease of measurement of the indicator: (How easy is the indicator to measure? How often should the indicator be measured/recorded? Who will be responsible for monitoring (frequency)/recording the indicator?) The indicator units were selected primarily for their easiness and transparency in use. Unit 1 basically measures the number of disease incidences and Unit 2 provides a measure for the maturity of the veterinary infrastructure in place. Effect/overlap/compromise with other indicators: (Showing cumulative positive effects or trade offs) Overlap with education and trading. Trend: See Desired Status. Implementation issues: 1) How easy is the indicator to implement at sectorial or farm level? The high controllability of the water quality and husbandry conditions in RAS provides unique management tools for disease prevention and control, such as: changing water conductivity, temperature, salinity, pH, UV and ozone installations. Farmers should contribute to the objective by an improved on-farm health management. Farmers should actively search cooperation with veterinarians willing to specialize in fish diseases. 2) Does present legislation incorporate this indicator? Legislation regarding animal health conditions and hygiene, which includes provisions for preparing, processing, freezing, storing and packaging of fishery and aquaculture animals and products is already available at the EU level. A framework of (EU) legislation is needed to enable the establishment of a comprehensive animal health care system, that includes control of fish imports and transportation, and that enables the prescription of essential medicines by veterinarians. Part of this legislation is already in place yet, prescription of medicines is not well regulated throughout the EU. 3) Is there research required for effective implementation of this indicator? More vaccines should be made available for farmed fish, hence research activities in this field should be intensified. Furthermore, more research is needed on the RAS production of fingerlings of some species to avoid the use of wild fingerlings from uncontrolled sources. 4) Would further investment and/or new technology be required for implementation? EU and national authorities should invest in the development of specialised (fish) veterinary infrastructures. 5) How will implementation affect production costs? Implementation of this indicator will decrease production costs as less money needs to be spent in treatments and higher survival rates are achieved. 6) Are data for the indicator already available? If so, where can they be retrieved? The data on the indicators mentioned above are already available for most RAS farms. However this information is not yet centrally retrieved. 7) Where are the measured indicator data to be stored or archived? Every RAS farm should provide the information concerning the 2 indicators to a national authority in a yearly basis who is then responsible to transfer the information to an EU authority. 8) Other implementation issues: None.
76
II.5.4 Welfare Index (#31) Desired Status: All the fish farms are to be on an agreed acceptable level of fish welfare in 5-10 years. Indicator: Welfare index Env* * Soc* Level: Pan-Euro/Local/etc. Unit (how is it measured): 2 3 1 EU % mortality % injuries
* 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? How does this contribute to achieving sustainable development of aquaculture?) The intensive RAS needs standards and codes of conduct in order to be accepted by society and public opinion. Stress hormones and behavioural parameters were considered as potential indicators but because of practical and cost implementations they were not considered feasible for the time being. The indicator should cater for each species and life stage in production, transport and slaughter. Ideally, one overall welfare index, combining different (patho)behavioural traits and stress indicators should be developed. Ease of measurement of the indicator: (How easy is the indicator to measure? How often should the indicator be measured/recorded? Who will be responsible for monitoring (frequency)/recording the indicator?) For reasons of practicality, easiness of use and transparency, %mortality and %injuries (counted at harvest) are used as units. Effect/overlap/compromise with other indicators: (Showing cumulative positive effects or trade offs) Profitability: cost price gets up, but added value may get up (calls for branding). Environment: emissions and resources may be affected. Social Issues: animal health may be improved, public awareness will increase. Trend: See Desired Status. Implementation issues: 1) How easy is the indicator to implement at sectorial or farm level? Until more reliable and more precise and sensitive welfare indicators are developed, the percentage of mortality and injuries are the easiest and simplest welfare indicators that can be used in RAS fish farming. Each sound farm management will keep track of this information. 2) Does present legislation incorporate this indicator? At the moment there is no EU legislation for minimum standards of welfare of farmed fish. In December 2005 the Standing Committee of the European Convention for the Protection of Animals kept for farming purposes (T-AP) of the Council of Europe adopted a Recommendation concerning farmed fish. Guidelines for housing, management and on farm (emergency) killing are included. In the long term these standards may become the basis of EU legislation. 3) Is there research required for effective implementation of this indicator? Mortality and % injuries are a too rough measure to be maintained in the long run. More precise and sensitive indicators are needed, which may also be species specific. Research on all fish species to develop an overall welfare index (including e.g. mortality, general performance, behaviour, stress, injuries, general health) is barely needed. More research on slaughtering methods and on welfare friendly housing types will follow from the above. 4) Would further investment and/or new technology be required for implementation? Further investment on new tank designs that optimize the welfare of RAS fish species may be necessary. Also investments on equipment for on farm (emergency) killing may be helpful. 5) How will implementation affect production costs? Production costs may increase as investment in new technologies may be necessary such as new tank designs and equipment for on farm (emergency) killing. However the increase in production costs may be followed by an increase in the product (added) value by the development of branding/labels concerning animal welfare. 6) Are data for the indicator already available? If so, where can they be retrieved? To date, scientific data are insufficient to support such an index. 7) Where are the measured indicator data to be stored or archived? Every farm should keep the information concerning the percentage of mortality and injuries. This information should then be collected, stored and archived by national and EU authorities. 8) Other implementation issues Develop a code of conduct for fish welfare by the stakeholders. Branding/labelling for sustainable production and added value (e.g. a Marine Stewardship Council type of certificate). Training and information of/for farmers, since many proper welfare levels may not be implemented simply by lack of awareness or knowledge. Dialog and interaction between stakeholders. The issue of humane (animal friendly) killing methods during slaughter is very important as a specific welfare indicator. However, this aspect was not dealt with within this welfare indicator since it is assumed that is being dealt with in the processing working group (WG6). However it should be noted that this issue is of prime importance in coming legislation and may be enforced even before other welfare measures.
77
II.5.5 Fish Welfare (#61) Desired Status: To optimise fish welfare Indicator : a) deviation from expected feed intake b) mortality Env* * Soc* Level: Pan-Euro/Local/Etc. 1 2 3 Local
Unit (how is it measured): a) b) Percentage of feed intake compared with expected Mortality %
* 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? How does this contribute to achieving sustainable development of aquaculture?) There is intrinsic value in animal welfare, also due to the public perception of the industry. Therefore, the important performance benefits as well as fish performance benefit from good welfare status are well perceived by stakeholders. It should be noted that these indicators could also reflect a health problem (see WG5.18). Ensuring good fish welfare represents a cost, therefore the correct balance with the revenue should be considered. Ease of measurement of the indicator: (How easy is the indicator to measure? How often should the indicator be measured/recorded? Who will be responsible for monitoring (frequency)/recording the indicator?) Easy to measure. Effect/overlap/compromise with other indicators: (Showing cumulative positive effects or trade offs) Not applicable. Trend: (a) to increase, (b) to decrease. More and more farmers are expected to introduce welfare issues in protocols in the near future. Implementation issues: 1) How easy is the indicator to implement at sectorial or farm level? These data are available at farm level. The difficulty is to collect them. In order to improve the indicator, methodologies for the early assessment of fish welfare should be implemented and the conventional indicators should be calibrated. A molecular approach may be utilized with this purpose. 2) Does present legislation incorporate this indicator? EU legislation on fish welfare is under approval but species-specific indicators will be annexed in the future. 3) Is there research required for effective implementation of this indicator? Not directly, as data are available even if difficult to collect, but research should be encouraged on the new approaches to welfare studies including the molecular and genomic approach in order to improve the indicator. 4) Would further investment and/or new technology be required for implementation? No. 5) How will implementation affect production costs? Any costs of increased monitoring will be offset by improved production quality and lower mortality. 6) Are data for the indicator already available? If so, where can they be retrieved? These data are already known by farms. The challenge is to collect and collate them. 7) Where are the measured indicator data to be stored or archived? The farmers associations and those responsible for quality schemes could hold these data. 8) Other implementation issues There may be some farmers concerns about confidentiality regarding production data such as these, therefore the suggestion above that data could be held by associations.
78
II.5.6 Fish Slaughter 1 (#62) Desired Status: Killing (for any reason, e.g. harvesting, diseases) is done according to approved methods. Indicator : Approved methods are applied Env* * Soc* Level: Pan-Euro/Local/Etc. Unit (how is it measured): 2 3 1 Local Percentage farm sites using approved methods (survey)
* 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? How does this contribute to achieving sustainable development of aquaculture?) The need to incorporate good fish welfare practices into production procedures is now widely accepted and is an important element of improving the public perception of the industry. Killing is a component in this process and must be covered by codes of practice and clearly implemented. Ease of measurement of the indicator: (How easy is the indicator to measure? How often should the indicator be measured/recorded? Who will be responsible for monitoring (frequency)/recording the indicator?) Survey may be problematic; requires honest reporting. Effect/overlap/compromise with other indicators: (Showing cumulative positive effects or trade offs) Some overlap with indicator #61. Trend: Increase short/medium term (2-3 years). Implementation issues: 1) How easy is the indicator to implement at sectorial or farm level? May be difficult to implement, especially because there is a difficulty to establish suitable and acceptable methods for killing different species. 2) Does present legislation incorporate this indicator? Killing methods still need to be approved. 3) Is there research required for effective implementation of this indicator? To implement and improve the indicator there is a need for research for suitable and acceptable methods to kill different species. See (2) above. 4) Would further investment and/or new technology be required for implementation? There may be some small cost implications if new killing methods are required. 5) How will implementation affect production costs? See (4) above. 6) Are data for the indicator already available? If so, where can they be retrieved? No. 7) Where are the measured indicator data to be stored or archived? These could be stored with either the farm associations or quality schemes. 8) Other implementation issues Codes of practice to be developed Enforcement Potential cost
79
II.5.7 Fish Slaughter 2 (#66) Desired Status: To use approved method for the slaughter of fish. Method of slaughter minimizes stress to fish and meets welfare ideals. Harvesting includes all operations capture, stunning and bleeding. Indicator: Harvest losses (by value, quality or quantity) Env* * Soc* Level: Pan-Euro/Local/etc. Unit (how is it measured): 3 2 1 At farm/first processor level Losses of fish which are not suitable for normal sale (%) Water used (l/kg) Chemicals used for disinfection (l/kg) Energy (kW/kg) Waste water (l/kg) BOD (O2 used for removing biological material)
* 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? How does this contribute to achieving sustainable development of aquaculture?) Harvesting is the first step of the processing chain and as such has an inherent relationship to quality and value of the end product. Harvesting has to consider fish welfare and minimise stress to achieve optimal quality and value. Fish welfare has a direct impact on consumer perceptions of the aquaculture industry. Ease of measurement of the indicator: (How easy is the indicator to measure? How often should the indicator be measured/recorded? Who will be responsible for monitoring (frequency)/recording the indicator?) Responsibility for monitoring and implementation individual operators and EU regulators. Ease of measurement at operator level good. Effect/overlap/compromise with other indicators: (Showing cumulative positive effects or trade offs) Harvesting interacts with perceptions and potential marketing advantages within the distribution chain. Trend: Indicators should decrease technological development can enhance operating efficiencies. Most parameters already exist should be EU wide in next five years. Implementation issues: 1) How easy is the indicator to implement at sectorial or farm level? Depending on species, stunning and slaughtering methods, which can be accepted by most consumer organizations exist. A major obstacle to implement these to the farm can be caused by lack of information of the issue or economical considerations. For handling of blood most countries have national legislation giving rules of how to handle the blood. 2) Does present legislation incorporate this indicator? Legislation with regard to fish welfare is needed. 3) Is there research required for effective implementation of this indicator? Development of low cost methods easily adapted to different species and aimed at smaller operators which ensure all harvesting meets required standards. 4) Would further investment and/or new technology be required for implementation? Technology: development of cost efficient systems. 5) How will implementation affect production costs? Effect on production cost and quality positive and good opportunities to promote marketing by demonstrating responsibility to consumer concerns. 6) Is data for the indicator already available? If so, where can it be retrieved? All operators have detailed records of harvesting data and operational information. The data can be retrieved from internally; where is it collated centrally by EU. 7) Where is the measured indicator data to be stored or archived? Primary data should be stored at the facility either in a paper version or electronically. An environmental management system should be used, EMAS. Preferably each facility should be advised to establish a database, where these data can be stored and easily retrieved. For each member country, databases on environmental impact of the industry should include data on animal welfare and data on environmental impact by slaughtering of the animals. On Community level the EU Commission should establish databases where information can be stored and from where it can be retrieved by the public. 8) Other implementation issues Efforts are needed to fully assess harvesting and slaughtering systems available, in particular with respect to SMEs and their needs to be able to adopt and use technology that incorporates the ethical and quality issues of harvesting.
80
II.5.8 Fish Health (#78) Desired Status: To optimise fish health Indicator : a) number of treatments b) mortality Env* * Soc* Level: Pan-Euro/Local/Etc. 1 3 2 Local
Unit (how is it measured): a) #/production cycle b) %/production cycle
* 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? How does this contribute to achieving sustainable development of aquaculture?) See indicator #61. Ease of measurement of the indicator: (How easy is the indicator to measure? How often should the indicator be measured/recorded? Who will be responsible for monitoring (frequency)/recording the indicator?) Easy. Effect/overlap/compromise with other indicators: (Showing cumulative positive effects or trade offs) Some overlaps with indicator #62. Trend: Decrease in the short term. Implementation issues: 1) How easy is the indicator to implement at sectorial or farm level? Data are available at farm level, but the difficulty is to collect and collate them as they are company data. To improve the indicator, vaccine and vaccination technique should be implemented/harmonized. 2) Does present legislation incorporate this indicator? No. 3) Is there research required for effective implementation of this indicator? Not to implement but to improve the indicator, research on new vaccines and early environmental diagnosis methodologies is needed. 4) Would further investment and/or new technology be required for implementation? Yes, to improve the indicator investments on fish welfare and on vaccination. 5) How will implementation affect production costs? The improvement of the indicator will lead to reduction of costs of vets and drugs. 6) Are data for the indicator already available? If so, where can they be retrieved? In some cases, data are held by the regulators, but farms have the information. 7) Where are the measured indicator data to be stored or archived? The farmers associations could hold these data or the regulators or the quality schemes associations. 8) Other implementation issues There may be some farmers concerns about confidentiality regarding production data such as these, therefore the suggestion above that data could be held by associations.
81
II.5.9 Health Management (#79) Desired Status: To improve health management using fallowing. Indicator : a) Active sites that are fallowed with recommended regularity b) Farms that are in Area Management Agreements (AMA) Env* * Soc* Level: Pan-Euro/Local/Etc. Unit (how is it measured): 1 2 3 Local Percentage active sites that are a) fallowed / b) in AMA
* 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? How does this contribute to achieving sustainable development of aquaculture?) The practice of fallowing is important in order to re-establish natural ecosystems close to the cage sites (there is some controversy on this point), and to break the transfer of diseases between year-classes. Water bodies/areas that are contiguous are best managed if all farms on the same area reach an agreement to take common measures (area management agreements, AMAs). Ease of measurement of the indicator: (How easy is the indicator to measure? How often should the indicator be measured/recorded? Who will be responsible for monitoring (frequency)/recording the indicator?) Easy to measure, could be collated annually. Effect/overlap/compromise with other indicators: (Showing cumulative positive effects or trade offs) See also indicator #78. Trend: Increase in the short/medium term. Implementation issues: 1) How easy is the indicator to implement at sectorial or farm level? Some member states do not allow fallowing, so this is a large problem. 2) Does present legislation incorporate this indicator? Fallowing is not allowed in some countries (e.g. Spain). The practice is strongly recommended. AMAs are not implemented in all member states. The practice is strongly recommended. 3) Is there research required for effective implementation of this indicator? To improve this indicator, development of a site specific model to estimate necessary regularity to achieve the objectives of fallowing is required. 4) Would further investment and/or new technology be required for implementation? No, only for research to improve the indicator (see point 3). 5) How will implementation affect production costs? It should not affect costs as long as there is adequate area available to allow fallowing. Fallowing and AMAs should have a positive economic benefit. 6) Are data for the indicator already available? If so, where can they be retrieved? Possibly exist with the regulator already. 7) Where are the measured indicator data to be stored or archived? These data could be held by the regulator, and made publicly available. 8) Other implementation issues It is claimed that fallowing may also have a positive effect on ecosystem health, but this is often disputed.
82
II.6 Indicators of Environmental Standards

II.6.1 Environmental Impacts (#14) Desired Status: Reduce environmental impacts & minimize related conflicts Indicator : Reduction in Eutrophication potential Conflicts Env* * Soc* Level: Pan-Euro/Local/Etc. Unit (how is it measured): 1 2 1 Local/sector kg dissolved N / kg fish kg dissolved P / kg fish kg BOD / kg fish # of cases where local or national interpretation of WFD affect the viability of farms
* 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? How does this contribute to achieving sustainable development of aquaculture?) There is a constant and recurrent complaint against fish farming, potentially resulting from a greater focus on environment & quality in aquatic compared to terrestrial systems. There is also a potential re-use of by-products (fertilizers). Ease of measurement of the indicator: (How easy is the indicator to measure? How often should the indicator be measured/recorded? Who will be responsible for monitoring (frequency)/recording the indicator?) Required specific equipment and expertise in each farm for measurement of water quality (or a collective organisation). Effect/overlap/compromise with other indicators: (Showing cumulative positive effects or trade offs) Links with: Improve efficiency of production and decreasing solid effluents (#21) Improve farm performance and fish welfare (#16) Satisfactory data at the sectorial level (#23) Trend: WFD will be a major landmark. In 5 years: necessity for a common tool of integrated management. Implementation issues: 1) How easy is the indicator to implement at sectorial or farm level? Characteristics of effluents could be easily assessed but less easily measured at farm level. This will give a common basis for negotiation. Environmental impact of the discharges from farm is however largely dependent on the characteristics of the site and the river. 2) Does present legislation incorporate this indicator? Integrated in legislation for installation of farm and in WFD. 3) Is there research required for effective implementation of this indicator? Assessment of impact of fish farm. Relevant Indicators, models. Basis for a common tool of integrated management of environmental impact. 4) Would further investment and/or new technology be required for implementation? Investment in effluent treatment technologies. 5) How will implementation affect production costs? Viability of farm/Increase production costs 6) Are data for the indicator already available? If so, where can they be retrieved? Data should be available at farm level (but not always recorded). 7) Where are the measured indicator data to be stored or archived? At sector level: communication on the effective impact of farm; negotiation for the harmonization in the schedule of environmental impact assessment; development of a common tool of integrated management of environmental impact. 8) Other implementation issues Improve communication/mutual exchanges between partners having apparent conflicts of interest. 83
II.6.2 Environmental Resources Protection (#38) Desired Status: Protect and improve environmental resources used by producers. Indicator: Environmental and public health risk monitoring Env* * Soc* Level: Pan-Euro/Local/etc. Unit (how is it measured): 1 2 3 Local/regional/EU See Shellfish directives criteria. Enforcement of EU directives.
* 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? How does this contribute to achieving sustainable development of aquaculture?) Protection and maintenance of water quality and other environmental factors is essential to the future of the industry. Ease of measurement of the indicator: (How easy is the indicator to measure? How often should the indicator be measured/recorded? Who will be responsible for monitoring (frequency)/recording the indicator?) Based on the established monitoring plans in national and EU directives; monitoring as often as those plans require. Effect/overlap/compromise with other indicators: (Showing cumulative positive effects or trade offs) Links to seed management (#41). Links to strategic and spatial planning (#42). Links to carrying capacity/ biodiversity (#39). Trend: Within 5 years ensure full implementation and compliance with EU Shellfish Directives. Implementation issues: 1) How easy is the indicator to implement at sectorial or farm level? The indicator maybe isnt always easy to implement but is essential for success on the long term. 2) Does present legislation incorporate this indicator? YES but it needs better implementation; and watershed application as well as the control of the land use-base pollution sources. 3) Is there research required for effective implementation of this indicator? Monitoring and database management. Identification and estimation of new pollutant sources. Target Bioassays (shellfish product): development of species specific test. Phytotoxin: improvement of the knowledge of the species involved and their related toxicity. Bioaccumulation process and species-specific dynamic process. Development of new technologies for early detection (probes..) and quantification (chemical analysis). 4) Would further investment and/or new technology be required for implementation? YES, better and faster monitoring (e.g. rapid assessments) of pollutants; remote monitoring and cumulative assessments as well as bioaccumulation assessments. 5) How will implementation affect production costs? It might increase it, but in the long run it would be beneficial and improve the production. 6) Are data for the indicator already available? If so, where can they be retrieved? Yes but not analysed as cumulative effects and assessments. 7) Where are the measured indicator data to be stored or archived? One web site, specially addressing environmental forecasting of the shellfish aquaculture sites! Important for human risk assessments as well as environmental assessments; this type of forecasting should develop rapid risk assessments tools. 8) Other implementation issues Priority and effectiveness of implementation and enforcement by competent authorities under the EU Directives. Common standards of implementation across EU.
84
II.6.3 Carrying Capacity (#39) Desired Status: Keep shellfish culture within carrying capacity of the ecosystem. Indicator: Environmental capacity for both shellfish cultivation and wildlife. Env* * Soc* Level: Pan-Euro/Local/etc. Unit (how is it measured): 1 2 3 Local/regional condition index, quantity #phytoplankton #wild fishery production benthic changes
* 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? How does this contribute to achieving sustainable development of aquaculture?) Maintain economic production capacity of desired quality. Minimise negative impact on wildlife. Ease of measurement of the indicator: (How easy is the indicator to measure? How often should the indicator be measured/recorded? Who will be responsible for monitoring (frequency)/recording the indicator?) Established monitoring and environmental assessments that are performed by the third party (objectivity), research studies. Monitoring assessments should be seasonal. Effect/overlap/compromise with other indicators: (Showing cumulative positive effects or trade offs) Links to seed management (#41). Links to strategic and spatial planning (#42). Trend: Compliance with EU Shellfish Directives, Water Directive, spatial planning, Habitat Directive, Bird Directive. Implementation issues: 1) How easy is the indicator to implement at sectorial or farm level? Implementation should be easy if there is a monitoring plan and people to do it. Otherwise its left to the practitioners which should not be the case; the third party and research should be established as the monitoring of the cumulative impacts and environmental assessments that include aquaculture sites and the whole area. 2) Does present legislation incorporate this indicator? NO. 3) Is there research required for effective implementation of this indicator? Sufficient place: site selection process using an ecosystem approach Carrying capacity assessment tools. Conflict resolution for space allocation (social science). Coupling modelling with geomatics (GIS). Integrated use of watershed and coastal zone. 4) Would further investment and/or new technology be required for implementation? YES. 5) How will implementation affect production costs? Implementation should not affect the costs if performed by the third party; and long term results should improve the production and lower the costs. 6) Are data for the indicator already available? If so, where can they be retrieved? Yes, data are available and can be retrieved from research institutes and local practitioners. 7) Where are the measured indicator data to be stored or archived? Web site EAS and ESA. 8) Other implementation issues Adaptive management to respond to environmental changes. Common standards of implementation across EU.
85
II.6.4 Site Selection (#42) Desired Status: Transparent site selection process for (shell)fish production. Indicator: a) Selection of best appropriate sites b) Monitoring suitable environmental indicators Env* * Soc* Level: Pan-Euro/Local/etc. Unit (how is it measured): 1 3 2 Local/regional/EU total hectares # of complaints # implemented standardised environmental monitoring
* 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? How does this contribute to achieving sustainable development of aquaculture?) Fundamental base of the aquaculture activity. Ease of measurement of the indicator: (How easy is the indicator to measure? How often should the indicator be measured/recorded? Who will be responsible for monitoring (frequency)/recording the indicator?) Relatively easy, as the data exists in leasing organisation files. Effect/overlap/compromise with other indicators: (Showing cumulative positive effects or trade offs) Overlaps with pollution, disease, user conflicts, carrying capacity. Trend: Improvement of selection process. Implementation issues: 1) How easy is the indicator to implement at sectorial or farm level? Sectorial; relatively easy. 2) Does present legislation incorporate this indicator? No. 3) Is there research required for effective implementation of this indicator? Site selection process using an ecosystem approach. Conflict resolution for space allocation (social science). Coupling modelling with geomatics (GIS). Integrated use of watershed and coastal zone. 4) Would further investment and/or new technology be required for implementation? No. 5) How will implementation affect production costs? Potentially improve efficiency of site selection and ultimately reduce unit costs. 6) Are data for the indicator already available? If so, where can they be retrieved? See above (Ease of measurement). 7) Where are the measured indicator data to be stored or archived? National trade associations or National Reference laboratories with (shell)fish interests. 8) Other implementation issues Consultation and collaboration process that will include participation of all stakeholders.
86
II.6.5 Impact of fish ponds on water quality (#67) Desired Status: Nil or beneficial impact on discharge water quality compared with inflow water quality. Indicator : Change in water quality between inflow and outflow Env* * Soc* Level: Pan-Euro/Local/Etc. Unit (how is it measured): 1 3 2 Farm/local Percentage change in BOD, SS, N, P (mg/l total) (use factor showing greatest change)?
* 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?. How does this contribute to achieving sustainable development of aquaculture?) Semi-static systems can have potentially polluting discharges, although mainly associated with the final water draining/release during harvest operations. They may also have a beneficial (treatment) effect, improving the quality of outflow over inflow water. Ease of measurement of the indicator: (How easy is the indicator to measure? How often should the indicator be measured/recorded? Who will be responsible for monitoring (frequency)/recording the indicator?) These parameters are fairly commonly measured (standard in many regulatory frameworks) and easily understandable and checked. Raised levels are generally understood to have environmental impacts (eutrophication and habitat degradation). Effect/overlap/compromise with other indicators: (Showing cumulative positive effects or trade offs) Trade off with economic benefits if spend more on monitoring and water treatment or if it resulted in a reduction in production. Links with energy use (less intensive farming) and biodiversity. Trend: Trend should be for reducing or beneficial impact. Measured values should show improvement, although many systems are already at an acceptable and stable level. Implementation issues : 1) How easy is the indicator to implement at sectorial or farm level? To reach the status indicator, crucial criteria must be adopted. These criteria must be set very cautiously with respect to inflow water quality, which in case of low trophic status (oligo- to mesotrophy) will be degraded just by simple effect of water retainment without any influence of fish farming measures. 2) Does present legislation incorporate this indicator? There are (increasingly stringent) regulations on water quality, which is also checked by Environment and Water Authorities. However, usually the difference between inflow and outflow water quality is not measured. 3) Is there research required for effective implementation of this indicator? The implementation of this indicator requires an exhaustive and sophisticated research as its settings must reflect various situations, which may come into account. Inappropriate setting as a simple definition corresponding to the indicator might lead to confusing conclusions. 4) Would further investment and/or new technology be required for implementation? Farmers may need training and equipment if they are responsible for monitoring. 5) How will implementation affect production costs? a. The cost of monitoring at farm level will increase production cost. b. Production costs will be affected negatively due to reduced possibilities of application of appropriate farming measures, necessity of lower stocking densities, decreased stocking biomass of planktivorous and benthivorous fish. 6) Are data for the indicator already available? If so, where can they be retrieved? Data may already be recorded due to environmental compliance regulations. Held by farms and to some extent by regulatory agencies. Additional data collection may be required in many cases. 7) Where are the measured indicator data to be stored or archived? Environment and water management authorities (and also health authorities in some cases) are already collecting necessary data, which are available upon request. 8) Other implementation issues: Need to define acceptable and fair monitoring schedule (linked with farm type and size) and assign responsibilities. There is a need to recognise the positive effects of semi-static systems to the environment in legislation.
87
II.6.6 Eutrophication Potential (#70) Desired Status: To increase in a period of 5 years the number of farms that use the best known standard practice for minimal emission of nutrients to the environment with 10% compared to a reference moment. Indicator: Eutrophication potential Env* * Soc* Level: Pan-Euro/Local/etc. Unit (how is it measured): 1 EU kg N/kg fish produced kg P/kg fish produced kg BOD/ kg fish produced
* 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? How does this contribute to achieving sustainable development of aquaculture?) In recirculation systems (RAS), waste from the fish tanks is being treated on-farm. Rest products of these treatments are discharged to the outside environment. Typically for RAS, the solid phase of the waste is concentrated and dried, upon which it can be used as a fertilizer on agricultural land. Therefore, this phase is not considered for the present indicator. The present indicator refers to nutrients released through the effluents of a farm to (natural) water bodies, where they add to the (natural) nutrient levels in that water body. However, the average carrying capacity of the receiving water body may hide the local and temporary effects of the (highly concentrated) point emissions of a RAS farm. Therefore, the amount of discharged nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus, organic matter) is potentially a source of eutrophication. The composition and quantity of the released farm waste depends on fish species, feed and system characteristics, and this should be taken into account in implementing the indicator. Furthermore, through the Water Framework Directive certain minimum water quality levels will be established in each member country of the EU. It is envisaged that this will lead to legally imposed reference levels for the indicator units in each member country. The objective of this indicator is to stimulate the industry to go beyond these reference levels through economic incentives. Ease of measurement of the indicator: (How easy is the indicator to measure? How often should the indicator be measured/recorded? Who will be responsible for monitoring (frequency)/recording the indicator?) Monitoring and audits will have to be done by an independent organisation. Effect/overlap/compromise with other indicators: (Showing cumulative positive effects or trade offs) A positive effect is expected on the EBIT (added value). An overlap is to foresee with feed and water use (resource use indicators). If the implementation tool of training/information exchange is used, there will be overlap/cross reaction with the indicator on this (social issues). Branding (kind of blue label) might increase public awareness. Trend: Indicator units will go down, according to the desired status, with 10% in 5 years time. Implementation issues: 1) How easy is the indicator to implement at sectorial or farm level? This indicator can easily be implemented at the farm level as most farmers already collect data concerning nutrient emissions as part of their routine control procedures. 2) Does present legislation incorporate this indicator? EU legislation for minimum standards of water quality in receiving water bodies, determining the emission levels at social scale. The Danish legislation limits the amount of feed used per year on each farm. 3) Is there research required for effective implementation of this indicator? Need for research on waste treatment and valorisation. 4) Would further investment and/or new technology be required for implementation? Investments are needed for: the implementation of a EU-uniform Data Record System and of a Monitoring and Auditing system; the starting costs to introduce a specific label. In the Netherlands, Stichting Milieukeur offers a label for environmentally friendly produced fish. Criteria to be obtained from www.milieukeur.nl. Further, in the Netherlands, retailers and producers of A-brands are considering to establish a label for fish and meat. 5) How will implementation affect production costs? Production costs may increase as an investment in new technologies may be necessary. However, this increase costs may be counterbalanced by an increase in the product value if branding or labelling is attained. 6) Are data for the indicator already available? If so, where can they be retrieved? Most of the farms using RAS already have the data concerning the units mentioned above. 7) Where are the measured indicator data to be stored or archived? Farmers will need to maintain a specific data record system (book-keeping) of emission levels. Since most farmers will do this anyway as their normal control procedures, no problems are expected in the implementation of this data record system. 8) Other implementation issues Branding/labelling for sustainable production and added value. Need for staff training on waste treatment and valorisation.
88
II.6.7 Site Selection for Cage Culture (#73) Desired Status: The selection of suitable sites for sustainable marine cage culture. Indicator : a) Production of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) b) Local/regional support Env* * Soc* Level: Pan-Euro/Local/Etc. Unit (how is it measured): 1 2 3 Local a) % of farm sites in a country that undertook an EIA before the beginning of their farm, or alternatively, if they were established before the directive requiring an EIA, an environmental statement b) % of farm sites that were supported by a public local/regional plan to facilitate site selection
* 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? How does this contribute to achieving sustainable development of aquaculture?) The principle of establishing the carrying capacity of the receiving water body is a central to the best practice for selecting suitable sites for farming. The use of EIAs as a tool for enabling the site selection is a basic part of this process. To integrate coastal aquaculture more completely in the ICZM framework, farmers should be supported by the local or regional authority as a stakeholder in the local/regional planning process. Ease of measurement of the indicator: (How easy is the indicator to measure? How often should the indicator be measured/recorded? Who will be responsible for monitoring (frequency)/recording the indicator?) Easy to measure the farmer will know if he has had to perform an EIA. Equally, the farmer will be aware of whether or not he has received support from the planning process. These data could be returned annually to the regulator and maintained publicly. Effect/overlap/compromise with other indicators: (Showing cumulative positive effects or trade offs) The EIA has some overlaps with the monitoring objectives in the environmental indicator #74. Trend: (a) and (b) up. Short term. Implementation issues: 1) How easy is the indicator to implement at sectorial or farm level? Easy but surveys of industry to measure levels of compliance would be required. 2) Does present legislation incorporate this indicator? The Water Framework Directive will require environmental impact assessment (EIA) on new sites. Legislation needed to implement EU directives locally. 3) Is there research required for effective implementation of this indicator? No. 4) Would further investment and/or new technology be required for implementation? Not applicable. 5) How will implementation affect production costs? An improvement of the indicator will mean more compliance on performing EIA or a better support of public bodies. There will be a cost of performing EIA but environmental sustainability will minimise production costs in the longterm. 6) Are data for the indicator already available? If so, where can they be retrieved? Yes. regulators and producer organisations. 7) Where are the measured indicator data to be stored or archived? These data could be returned annually to the regulator and maintained publicly. 8) Other implementation issues Carrying capacity models must be agreed and performed for farming areas. These should be made available. Implementation of ICZM in the planning processes. Support from public authorities. Availability of accredited consultancies to perform EIAs. Compliance with EIA provisions.
89
II.6.8 Environmental Impact Monitoring of marine cage culture (#74) Desired Status: Marine cage culture is conducted in accordance with environmental standards, including maintaining biodiversity. Indicator : a) Practice of environmental monitoring, including biodiversity assessment b) Mitigation Env* * Soc* Level: Pan-Euro/Local/Etc. Unit (how is it measured): 1 2 3 Local a) % of farms where environmental monitoring is regularly done by approved methods (evolving in response to current research) b) % of farms that did not have to mitigate their environmental impact in response to an adverse report (but not including routine fallowing)
* 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? How does this contribute to achieving sustainable development of aquaculture?) Biodiversity should be maintained in farmed areas; farming is receiving benefits from the ecosystem (i.e. ecosystems services) and has to contribute to ecosystem maintenance. A key component in achieving sustainability will be to minimize discharges and to monitor their impacts on the receiving environment. Ease of measurement of the indicator: (How easy is the indicator to measure? How often should the indicator be measured/recorded? Who will be responsible for monitoring (frequency)/recording the indicator?) Easy. Effect/overlap/compromise with other indicators: (Showing cumulative positive effects or trade offs) See #73. Trend: (a) & (b) up. Very short term. Implementation issues: 1) How easy is the indicator to implement at sectorial or farm level? Easy. 2) Does present legislation incorporate this indicator? Present legislation requires varying standards of monitoring, not standardised across the EU. No legislation requires the indicator to be maintained. Mitigation is also not standardised or universally applied across member states, and the indicator is not currently mandated. 3) Is there research required for effective implementation of this indicator? No. 4) Would further investment and/or new technology be required for implementation? No, only to collect data. 5) How will implementation affect production costs? Not the phase of collecting data, but the improvement of this indicator will mean more farms monitoring or with a better management, and that will increase short term costs but decrease long term costs because of the positive effect on sustainability. 6) Are data for the indicator already available? If so, where can they be retrieved? The data are not currently available, although the regulator will know if the farmer has had to perform monitoring. Equally, the regulator will be aware of whether or not the farmer has had to perform mitigation. Farms have this information. 7) Where are the measured indicator data to be stored or archived? These data should be held by the regulator. 8) Other implementation issues Cost for the companies. Support from public authorities. Availability of accredited consultancies to perform monitoring. Standardization of methods and tools across the EU Use of feedback systems. Participation in quality schemes such as EMAS, ISO 14000. Use of low impact feeds. Carrying capacity models need to be accepted by all parties. Some of the earlier models have proven to be wildly conservative. There will need to be acceptance of significantly reduced biodiversity in the vicinity of production units the cage footprint.
90
II.7 Indicators of Human Resources

II.7.1 Age Pyramid and Education Level (#8) Desired Status: To achieve a good age pyramid for people involved in aquaculture with equilibrated gender ratio and an appropriate level of education. Indicator : Age, gender and education level Env* * Soc* Level: Pan-Euro/Local/Etc. Unit (how is it measured): 2 1 National Age, gender and education level of people involved in aquaculture and related activities
* 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? How does this contribute to achieving sustainable development of aquaculture?) At present the sector is less attractive for future generations, especially for women. There is a tendency of overqualification and misfit in the labour market. Providing stable and proper employment is a major criterion for the sustainability of a sector. Semi-static farms (e.g. multifunctional farms) provide opportunities for diversification of rural employment. Ease of measurement of the indicator: (How easy is the indicator to measure? How often should the indicator be measured/recorded? Who will be responsible for monitoring (frequency)/recording the indicator?) Information on age, gender and education level generally is available on farm level. The challenge is how to compile these information/data into a national database. Recording and monitoring could be a joint exercise of producers associations and a relevant R&D institution. The indicator is proposed to be measured annually. That could be for example one of the basic facts in the annual report of producer associations. Effect/overlap/compromise with other indicators: (Showing cumulative positive effects or trade offs) There can be a cumulative positive effect on all economic and social indicators. Trend: A good balance should be reached. Data are compiled from national sources, strategies are developed, measures are started (training courses, farm exercises, cooperations). Implementation issues: 1) How easy is the indicator to implement at sectorial or farm level? Even if information on age, gender and education level may be available on farm level, these should be compiled into a system, which require the willingness and interest of individual associations, companies, and farms. 2) Does present legislation incorporate this indicator? Obligatory statistical reports for aquaculture farms generally do not contain data on age, gender and educational level. 3) Is there research required for effective implementation of this indicator? No. 4) Would further investment and/or new technology be required for implementation? The implementation requires efforts only in data collection and processing. 5) How will implementation affect production costs? Production costs are not supposed to be influenced. 6) Are data for the indicator already available? If so, where can they be retrieved? Data on age, gender and education level generally may be available on farm level. The data can be retrieved through producers associations. 7) Where are the measured indicator data to be stored or archived? The measured indicator data can be stored (as a national database) either at producers associations or at relevant public R&D institutions. 8) Other implementation issues: None.
91
II.7.2 Employment (#9) Desired Status: To increase direct and indirect employment. Indicator : Number of personnel on semi-static farms and related activities. Env* * Soc* Level: Pan-Euro/Local/etc. Unit (how is it measured): 3 2 1 National/Regional # of personnel * 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? How does this contribute to achieving sustainable development of aquaculture?) Semi-static pond farms together with their related activities (processing plants, multifunctional farms etc) provide employment, particularly in otherwise less favoured areas. Therefore, stable employment in aquaculture can be critical for the economical and social stability of the region. Ease of measurement of the indicator: (How easy is the indicator to measure? How often should the indicator be measured/recorded? Who will be responsible for monitoring (frequency)/recording the indicator?) Information on number of personnel generally are available on farm level. It could be difficult however to measure the effective involvement of the personnel in various activities (e.g. the share of a fisherman work in fish production and angling services). It is also a challenge how to compile these information/data into a national database. Recording and monitoring could be a joint exercise of producers associations and a relevant R&D institution. The indicator is proposed to be measured annually. That could be for example one of the basic facts in the annual report of producer associations. Effect/overlap/compromise with other indicators: (Showing cumulative positive effects or trade offs) There is a direct relation to other indicators like age, gender and education issues etc. This indicator (Indicator #9) should be used together with Indicator #8. Trend: Increase of number long-term, particularly in related businesses (limited in fish farming itself). Implementation issues : 1) How easy is the indicator to implement at sectorial or farm level? Even if information on age, gender and education level are available on farm level, these should be compiled into a system, which require the willingness and interest of individual associations, companies, and farms. 2) Does present legislation incorporate this indicator? The number of personnel should be reported to authorities by law. 3) Is there research required for effective implementation of this indicator? No. 4) Would further investment and/or new technology be required for implementation? The implementation requires efforts only in data collection and processing. 5) How will implementation affect production costs? Production costs are not supposed to be influenced. 6) Are data for the indicator already available? If so, where can they be retrieved? Data on the number of personnel generally are available on farm level. The data can be retrieved also through producers associations. 7) Where are the measured indicator data to be stored or archived? The measured indicator data can be stored (as a national database) either at producers associations or at relevant public R&D institutions. 8) Other implementation issues: Learning from positive/negative experiences from multifunctional agricultural farms (already more developed). Developing strategies for increasing value of aquaculture products. Illegal employment (which is difficult to control in fish farms) may have a distorting effect in some cases.
92
II.7.3 Access to Technical Assistance (#17) Desired Status: Accessibility and improvement of technical assistance. Indicator : a) Qualified staff in the farm; b) Technical assistance to the farm Env* * Soc* Level: Pan-Euro/Local/Etc. Unit (how is it measured): 3 1 2 Farm/region/sector a) Education level of the manager b) Yes / no
* 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? How does this contribute to achieving sustainable development of aquaculture?) The indicator is a good benchmark of increased professional approach to aquaculture and meets the vision of CONSENSUS. Ease of measurement of the indicator: (How easy is the indicator to measure? How often should the indicator be measured/recorded? Who will be responsible for monitoring (frequency)/recording the indicator?) Depends on efforts and time. Effect/overlap/compromise with other indicators: (Showing cumulative positive effects or trade offs) Integral with entire CONSENSUS program, with long-term economic, welfare and environmental benefit. Trend: Short-term through to generation changes. In five years it could only be partially achieved. Implementation issues: 1) How easy is the indicator to implement at sectorial or farm level? Through ongoing dissemination of research and technical information. 2) Does present legislation incorporate this indicator? Agreement for installation of a new farm requires a minimum education level of the manager. Sanitary plan requires technical assistance to the farm. 3) Is there research required for effective implementation of this indicator? Sociological research on fish farm manager population. Socio-economical research on condition for generation changes in management of farm. 4) Would further investment and/or new technology be required for implementation? Information plan specifically designed for fish farm manager. Education plans, Education retraining. 5) How will implementation affect production costs? Implementation will affect viability of farm. 6) Are data for the indicator already available? If so, where can they be retrieved? Data on technical assistance to the farm are not available: need contacts with other sectors and organisation which offered technical assistance (fish feed industry, veterinarian associations, genetic breeding association ). Data on education level of manager available in governmental statistics? 7) Where are the measured indicator data to be stored or archived? At sector level. 8) Other implementation issues Long-term education plans availability. Life-long education and (re)training.
93
II.6.4 Education/Training (#29) Desired Status: Increase professional skills of RAS farmers in 5 years time with 10% per year. All new entrants should avail of the proper training from day 1. Indicator: Education/Training Env* * Soc* Level: Pan-Euro/Local/etc. Unit (how is it measured): 3 2 1 EU, National % farmers with specific training * 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? How does this contribute to achieving sustainable development of aquaculture?) The high technological approach of RAS calls for specific knowledge and skills. Ease of measurement of the indicator: (How easy is the indicator to measure? How often should the indicator be measured/recorded? Who will be responsible for monitoring (frequency)/recording the indicator?) This indicator can be easily measured by national authorities provided that a national survey is done on a yearly basis focussing on the professional skills of the RAS farmers. Effect/overlap/compromise with other indicators: (Showing cumulative positive effects or trade offs) This indicator has positive cumulative effects on all other indicators since well trained farmers will apply the best management practices resulting in improved welfare and health of the fish and economic (e.g. lower # of complaints), environmental (e.g. better resource use) and social (e.g. higher regional development) benefits. Trend: Indicator should increase to 100% in 10 years time. Implementation issues: 1) How easy is the indicator to implement at sectorial or farm level? This indicator can be easily implemented at the farm level if there is stimulation from the government to increase professional skills of RAS farmers, for instance by subsidising specialised courses. 2) Does present legislation incorporate this indicator? No. 3) Is there research required for effective implementation of this indicator? No. 4) Would further investment and/or new technology be required for implementation? Investment: development of specific training courses. Governments may facilitate, the industry and/or vocational schools can implement. 5) How will implementation affect production costs? By increasing the professional skills of farmers, it is expected that the management skills will also increase and the production costs decrease. 6) Are data for the indicator already available? If so, where can they be retrieved? There are no data available but it can be obtained by a national survey to the RAS farms. 7) Where are the measured indicator data to be stored or archived? National authorities . 8) Other implementation issues Licenses for new farms will be granted only when the applicant has a proven and specific training. Responsibility: legislator. Additional training for existing farmers can be realized through a proper paragraph in the Codes of Conduct.
94
II.7.5 Work Force (#35) Desired Status: Ensure the availability of a skilled work force. Indicator: - Employment ratio (retirement/new entrant). - Age structure and gender balance. - Availability and range of training. Env* * Soc* Level: Pan-Euro/Local/etc. 1 1 Local/regional/EU/global
Unit (how is it measured): Ratio Age/gender structure Number of courses and % uptake % of trained staff at a local and regional scale
* 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? How does this contribute to achieving sustainable development of aquaculture?) The sustainable future of the (shellfish) sector relies on a skilled work force to operate effectively minimising impacts. Maintaining skills base encourages high quality and environmental standards. Historic, local knowledge to be retained in the industry must not get lost through generational change. Good skills, age structure, gender balance encourages entrepreneurship and new business starts. Ease of measurement of the indicator: (How easy is the indicator to measure? How often should the indicator be measured/recorded? Who will be responsible for monitoring (frequency)/recording the indicator?) It should be planned and addressed on the national level and measured on the yearly bases by the ESA (need for more people at ESA and more funding directed to address all the monitoring and management of data). Effect/overlap/compromise with other indicators: (Showing cumulative positive effects or trade offs) Not Applicable. Trend: Ongoing. Implementation issues: 1) How easy is the indicator to implement at sectorial or farm level? It will be addressed on the national level (research assessment and needs for education and training); while local farms will provide data on any educational and training participation as well as their specific needs and requirements. 2) Does present legislation incorporate this indicator? No. 3) Is there research required for effective implementation of this indicator? Research issues: Recruitment for (shellfish) industry Identify the required professional skills; Identify the acceptable labour conditions; Identify the needs for education. 4) Would further investment and/or new technology be required for implementation? YES investment for education and training required. 5) How will implementation affect production costs? Cost, support and requirement for training of staff. 6) Are data for the indicator already available? If so, where can they be retrieved? No. 7) Where are the measured indicator data to be stored or archived? Web site ESA. 8) Other implementation issues Initiatives to promote industry as an attractive career.
95
II.7.6 Attractiveness of a job in aquaculture (#53) Desired Status: Aquaculture as an attractive source of employment. Indicator : Composition of the workforce (age, education and gender) Env* * Soc* Level: Pan-Euro/Local/Etc. Unit (how is it measured): 2 1 Pan-European/local Age pyramid, gender ratio and education (measure the total number of years in education plus the highest qualification and/or age left school). Years of relevant experience.
* 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? How does this contribute to achieving sustainable development of aquaculture?) It is important that aquaculture related employment takes account of age, education, and gender in matching suitability of employees experiences with their allocated tasks. This can help to promote motivation among employees and to know whether aquaculture is an attractive employment sector. Ease of measurement of the indicator: (How easy is the indicator to measure? How often should the indicator be measured/recorded? Who will be responsible for monitoring (frequency)/recording the indicator?) Easier at company level where these data can be collected as part of standard human resource practice and data collection. Responsibility for monitoring needs to be taken at the individual source of employment activity (e.g. farm, processing unit) level, national level (e.g. co-ordinated through national aquaculture associations) and then fed into a PanEuropean database. Maybe the costs could be partly met by the industry and partly by national governments who need this information to conduct comparative analyses with national census data exercises, etc. Effect/overlap/compromise with other indicators: (Showing cumulative positive effects or trade offs) Improved communication between industry and training bodies will allow trainers to deliver more focussed training that better reflects the needs of the industry at different times links well with education and training. There can be a cumulative and positive effect on communities that are socio-economically dependent on aquaculture and its related activities. Trade-offs will be matching supply of trained individuals to demands of the aquaculture industry particularly during high and low periods of productivity (implications for seasonal, part-time workers). Trend: Difficult to determine, would be different for each item of the indicator. Implementation issues: 1) How easy is the indicator to implement at sectorial or farm level? It could be easy if farms wanted to give such information and the sector (associations) collected it. 2) Does present legislation incorporate this indicator? Legal requirement is needed, if it does not already exist via employment law for companies (all scales and related activities) to provide data on age, experience and education. 3) Is there research required for effective implementation of this indicator? Social research relating this indicator with profitability and sustainability of the industry. This will need regular communication between trainers and industry to keep up-to-date. 4) Would further investment and/or new technology be required for implementation? Investments to produce the data, and investments to improve the indicator. Technology: two-way process to keep trainers and industry up-to-date with knowledge and level of skills needed and on how best to achieve required levels of knowledge and associated skills to fulfil particular tasks. 5) How will implementation affect production costs? A better workforce composition will reduce production costs. It can allow competitive salaries and associated benefits. 6) Are data for the indicator already available? If so, where can they be retrieved? In some countries data are available at the employment offices. In other countries it has to be produced. 7) Where are the measured indicator data to be stored or archived? Standardised protocols need to be set-up so that data can be collated at the farm level and national level (via national associations) and easily aggregated into a Pan-European database through national associations or regulators (depending on who is funding). 8) Other implementation issues Personal, professional fulfilment job satisfaction. Gender equality and consideration of different ethnic backgrounds. On-site specialised training.
96
II.7.7 Industry Advice on Training and Education (#54) Desired Status: Education & training should target industry needs. Indicator : Percentage of education and training courses for which industry advice is established. Env* * Soc* Level: Pan-Euro/Local/Etc. Unit (how is it measured): 2 1 All % * 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? How does this contribute to achieving sustainable development of aquaculture?) Education and training should reflect industry needs. Ease of measurement of the indicator: (How easy is the indicator to measure? How often should the indicator be measured/recorded? Who will be responsible for monitoring (frequency)/recording the indicator?) Need to record all courses and many education bodies, it is an indicator that can change quite quickly in the present context of education. Time consuming. Effect/overlap/compromise with other indicators: (Showing cumulative positive effects or trade offs) Not applicable. Trend: Trend to increase. Implementation issues: 1) How easy is the indicator to implement at sectorial or farm level? It is difficult but one can take advantage of the European trend to have stakeholders more involved in educational bodies. Need for clear communication between educational bodies and the industry. Educational networks (European, national) can help in the implementation of the process and in collecting the data. 2) Does present legislation incorporate this indicator? Need to facilitate the incorporation of educational bodies into the networks and at all levels of educational needs. Where contents or programmes are designed by public bodies there is a need for legislative changes. 3) Is there research required for effective implementation of this indicator? A study on education programmes at EU level is envisaged. 4) Would further investment and/or new technology be required for implementation? Survey costs and possible public investments in schools to facilitate contacts education/industry. 5) How will implementation affect production costs? An increase in the indicator will mean an increase in availability of adequately trained employees that will reduce production costs. At least a part of training costs should be publicly funded. 6) Are data for the indicator already available? If so, where can they be retrieved? Probably not. 7) Where are the measured indicator data to be stored or archived? Education authorities / government agencies. 8) Other implementation issues To guarantee that the content of educational and training programmes meets the needs of industry it is important that the latter participates in the design of the content.
97
II.8 Indicators of Biodiversity

II.8.1 Use of Exotic Species (#1) Desired Status: No or minimal use of exotic species and increased range of domestic species (and strains) Indicator : Percentage of production comprised of exotic and different native species Env* * Soc* Level: Pan-Euro/Local/Etc. Unit (how is it measured): 1 3 2 Farm/local or national Percent by weight of each species * 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?. How does this contribute to achieving sustainable development of aquaculture?) Many semi-static systems have been regularly stocked with commercial exotic species. However, these may be considered as undesirable from the point of view of biodiversity protection. Increased use of local species is desirable for biodiversity and ecosystem health perspectives. Ease of measurement of the indicator: (How easy is the indicator to measure? How often should the indicator be measured/recorded? Who will be responsible for monitoring (frequency)/recording the indicator?) The indicator is easily measurable using the data from pond stocking records, which are obligatory for each farm. Effect/overlap/compromise with other indicators: (Showing cumulative positive effects or trade offs) Trade off with economic benefits if production quantity or value reduced. Links with biodiversity indicators, production quantity and environmental determinants. Trend: Trend should be for reducing use of exotic species and increasing variety and biomass of indigenous species. Implementation issues : 1) How easy is the indicator to implement at sectorial or farm level? The implementation of the indicator is quite easy. 2) Does present legislation incorporate this indicator? Current legislation (e.g. Environment Act) supports the effort for reduced stocking of exotic species. 3) Is there research required for effective implementation of this indicator? a. For direct/immediate implementation: no. b. For implementation on the long term: further research needed on indigenous species suitability and stocking densities in polyculture systems. 4) Would further investment and/or new technology be required for implementation? a. For direct/immediate implementation: no b. Implementation on the long term will require a reconsideration of current polyculture technologies of pond farming. 5) How will implementation affect production costs? a. There is no immediate effect. b. Implementation will on the long term considerably reduce the production results (and subsequently costs) in Central and Eastern European pond farms, which are based on polyculture means of management. Exotic herbivorous species are an essential supplementary fish species in this type of polycultures. 6) Are data for the indicator already available? If so, where can they be retrieved? Necessary data are already easy available from pond stocking records, which are obligatory for pond farm management. 7) Where are the measured indicator data to be stored or archived? Records maintained at farm level and collated by national agency. 8) Other implementation issues: Need to define acceptable strategy for reducing use of exotic fish species without negative impacts on production results and environmental characteristics.
98
II.8.2 Increase of Biodiversity (#2) Desired Status: Increase biodiversity. Indicator : Number of plant and animal species on the farm area Env* * Soc* Level: Pan-Euro/Local/etc. 1 3 2 Farm/local * Rank indicator type 1 to 3 (1 is most relevant for this indicator)
Unit (how is it measured): # counted by standardised methods
Rationale and context: (Why the indicator is an appropriate benchmark or measure? How does this contribute to achieving sustainable development of aquaculture?) Maintaining or improving biodiversity is an important aspect of sustainability. Semi-static pond/lagoon farms are important habitats that should be preserved for future generations. Many pond/lagoon systems are important sites of nature protection (e.g. under RAMSAR, Nature 2000, National Reserves, Wetland Convention etc). Ease of measurement of the indicator: (How easy is the indicator to measure? How often should the indicator be measured/recorded? Who will be responsible for monitoring (frequency)/recording the indicator?) The measurement requires an experienced approach of trained biologists/ecologists, which makes it rather arduous. It might be recorded in periods of several years (3-5?) by the environment agencies, which will also guarantee the objectivity of figures obtained. Effect/overlap/compromise with other indicators: (Showing cumulative positive effects or trade offs) Increasing biodiversity likely to be linked with decreasing production of the target species (economic indicator), e.g. due to increase in predatory animals. Trend: Trend should be for increasing biodiversity. Timescale is long-term. Implementation issues: 1) How easy is the indicator to implement at sectorial or farm level? The indicator is not easy to be implemented. Farms dont have the required skills. 2) Does present legislation incorporate this indicator? Many legislative instruments already include similar indicators. In the Czech Republic for example ponds are considered as landscape components of particular importance by law. 3) Is there research required for effective implementation of this indicator? Research required to validate survey method. 4) Would further investment and/or new technology be required for implementation? Standard method, skilled personnel and nation-wide organizing work is required for the successful implementation of this indicator. 5) How will implementation affect production costs? a. On the short term: insignificantly. b. On the long term: production costs will be decreased per production surface unit after indicator implementation, however the total profit of the farm will be considerably negatively influenced. 6) Are data for the indicator already available? If so, where can they be retrieved? Existing data may be with regional environmental agencies, NGOs, Universities, etc. 7) Where are the measured indicator data to be stored or archived? Environmental agencies are most suited to maintain data archives. 8) Other implementation issues: Requires national/international standards/validation of surveyors. Mechanisms for compensation schemes need to be defined in relation to factors arising from protection of the biodiversity (recommend harmonisation at EU level). Anticipate funding for monitoring would have to come from EU and government sources.
99
II.8.3 Polyculture (#45) Desired Status: Encourage use of extractive species in polyculture (integration of multi species aquaculture). Indicator: a) revised legislation in place; b) establishment of polyculture operations Env* * Soc* Level: Pan-Euro/Local/etc. Unit (how is it measured): 1 2 3 Local/regional/EU # of changes in legislation # of polyculture operations
* 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? How does this contribute to achieving sustainable development of aquaculture?) Optimization and sustainable use of natural habitats and resources; Its a new type of operation in European shellfish culture, although Chinese have been doing it for 4000 years, and Hawaiians 1500 years. Ease of measurement of the indicator: (How easy is the indicator to measure? How often should the indicator be measured/recorded? Who will be responsible for monitoring (frequency)/recording the indicator?) The indicator is not difficult to measure, but a new system of data collection is required. Effect/overlap/compromise with other indicators: (Showing cumulative positive effects or trade offs) Many, if not all. Trend: Increase in operations. Implementation issues: 1) How easy is the indicator to implement at sectorial or farm level? A new data collection system is required for implementation. 2) Does present legislation incorporate this indicator? No. 3) Is there research required for effective implementation of this indicator? More examples are needed, including pilot projects and large scale feasibility assessments and projects. 4) Would further investment and/or new technology be required for implementation? No. 5) How will implementation affect production costs? Implementation should lower unit costs. 6) Are data for the indicator already available? If so, where can they be retrieved? Not yet available. 7) Where are the measured indicator data to be stored or archived? National trade associations. 8) Other implementation issues: None.
100
II.8.4 Bio-security (#72) Desired Status: In 5 years time, the number of escapees from RAS farms should be reduced to zero, and the number of disease outbreaks by 10%. Indicator: Bio-security Env* * Soc* Level: Pan-Euro/Local/etc. Unit (how is it measured): 1 3 2 EU, regional, farm # of escapees/year # of disease outbreaks
* 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? How does this contribute to achieving sustainable development of aquaculture?) The RAS, from its conception, is already the most bio-secure system and therefore minimizes the risk of escapees and the demand for disease treatment. Maybe because of this characteristic, RAS are very suitable to farm exotic species and thus entail a risk for introduction of exotics to the environment. Therefore, it is considered as very important that even the small risk for escapees is reduced to zero. Spreading of diseases from the farm to the environment and vice versa by birds, fish, people and so on should belong to the general objectives of a code of conduct and that is the reason why it is being included in the present indicator. Ease of measurement of the indicator: (How easy is the indicator to measure? How often should the indicator be measured/recorded? Who will be responsible for monitoring (frequency)/recording the indicator?) The indicator mentioned above can be easily measured as the number of disease outbreaks is already part of the routine control procedures of RAS farming. The number of escapees per year in RAS is not yet measured as it generally assumed to be negligible. However, this parameter can be easily measured if nets are placed at the outlet pipes and regular checks are made. This indicator should be checked every year at the farm level. Effect/overlap/compromise with other indicators: (Showing cumulative positive effects or trade offs) Positive interaction with the indicators on animal health and welfare. Positive effect on public awareness and image of RAS aquaculture. Trend: Indicators go down. Implementation issues: 1) How easy is the indicator to implement at sectorial or farm level? Escapees control is easy to realise and to be certified by the farm construction. 2) Does present legislation incorporate this indicator? Biosecurity is addressed in numerous legislations ranging from a global level (e.g. World organization for animal health), regional (numerous directives from the EU) to a national level. However, there is a lack of specific legislation concerning biosecurity in fish produced in RAS. 3) Is there research required for effective implementation of this indicator? Need for research on determining feasibility of sterilization/disinfection treatments of in- and out-going waters and on the microbial ecology within a RAS, in order to prevent disease outbreaks. Furthermore, more research is needed to fully understand what practices decrease or increase the risk of a disease outbreak.. 4) Would further investment and/or new technology be required for implementation? New sterilization/disinfection treatment technologies may be necessary. 5) How will implementation affect production costs? On one hand the need to use sterilization/disinfection treatment units may impose an increase in production costs. On the other hand the consequent reduction of disease outbreaks may reduce the need to use expensive pharmaceuticals and decrease mortality resulting in decreased production costs. 6) Are data for the indicator already available? If so, where can they be retrieved? This data on disease outbreaks are kept at the farm level. 7) Where are the measured indicator data to be stored or archived? Each farm should have a data record system that is then collected, stored and archived by national and EU authorities. 8) Other implementation issues Outbreaks of diseases can be minimized by improved management procedures and equipments. Responsibilities are at the individual farmers level (management, equipment) and at the national authorities level (veterinary health system). The number of disease outbreaks can be collected from the veterinary health system.
101
II.8.5 Bio-security 2 (#75) Desired Status: Minimizing the negative impact of aquaculture on wild fish populations. Indicator : a) Number and % of escapees b) Number of disease outbreaks in wild fish c) Amount of farms with parasite monitoring and control programmes Env* * Soc* Level: Pan-Euro/Local/Etc. Unit (how is it measured): 1 2 3 Local a) reported escapes b) number of disease outbreaks in wild fish attributed to farming activities c) for species with parasite issues, % of farm sites subject to monitoring and control programmes
* 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? How does this contribute to achieving sustainable development of aquaculture?) Aquaculture may have both positive (through reduction of exploitation and the artificial reef effect) and negative effects on wild fish populations. Escapees, spreading of diseases and parasites transfer may severely affect wild fish. The question about genetic impact of farmed fish is an important issue for public perception of farmed fish. However, there are indications that increasing domestication of farmed species may make them less fit for survival and reproduction in the wild. Ease of measurement of the indicator: (How easy is the indicator to measure? How often should the indicator be measured/recorded? Who will be responsible for monitoring (frequency)/recording the indicator?) (a) and (c) easy to measure; (b) slightly more difficult to obtain validated published reports (but these are extremely scarce in any case). Effect/overlap/compromise with other indicators: (Showing cumulative positive effects or trade offs) N/A. Trend: (a) & (b) down, (c) up. Short term time scale. Implementation issues: 1) How easy is the indicator to implement at sectorial or farm level? Very easy for the farmer to implement he has these data to hand. 2) Does present legislation incorporate this indicator? Not entirely, but in some cases. 3) Is there research required for effective implementation of this indicator? For (b) research focus on interaction between aquaculture and wild fish assemblages. 4) Would further investment and/or new technology be required for implementation? Technology: (a): development of technical farming concepts minimising potential escapes from cages; (b) development of effective disease and parasite vaccines and new medications. 5) How will implementation affect production costs? Reduction of escapes should reduce production costs. 6) Are data for the indicator already available? If so, where can they be retrieved? The data reside with the farmer, who will have a good record of escapes, parasite control and disease outbreaks. It would have to be retrieved on a farm-by-farm basis. 7) Where are the measured indicator data to be stored or archived? These data should be held as a public record by the regulator. 8) Other implementation issues Develop code of practice (or equivalent) for prevention of fish escapes. Establishment of a certification program of technical standards for sea cages.
102
II.9 Indicators of Post-harvest Operations

II.9.1 Processing Efficiency (#63) Desired Status: Increase processing efficiency in order to maximise final product value, taking into account consumers attitudes. Indicator: a) Energy b) Water c) Waste produced d) Employment e) Innovation in products & processes Env* * Soc* Level: Pan-Euro/Local/etc. Unit (how is it measured): 2 1 3 All levels a) b) c) d) e) kW or kJ/kg fish m3/ton processed fish kg waste/kg processed fish earning ()/employee # of innovations/year
* 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? How does this contribute to achieving sustainable development of aquaculture?) The use of energy and water can be rationalised. Transformation of raw material into direct human consumption products should be increased, by means of increasing yields and decreasing by-products and wastes. Better utilization of by-products has the potential of minimizing environmental impact and increase economical revenues, either by direct human consumption or for other uses (e.g.: health products, uses). R&D in products and processes should be promoted in order to generate innovation in the sector, considering continuous changes in the different food markets and consumers behaviour. Maintaining and attracting employment must be based on maximising final product value. Ease of measurement of the indicator: (How easy is the indicator to measure? How often should the indicator be measured/recorded? Who will be responsible for monitoring (frequency)/recording the indicator?) Ease of measurement at operator level: good. Responsibility for monitoring and implementation lies with individual operators and sectorial actions. Effect/overlap/compromise with other indicators: (Showing cumulative positive effects or trade offs) Difficult compromise between economics and social issues in maintaining/attracting employment. Trend: Energy, water used and waste should go down. Innovation in products and processes should increase. Employment should be maintained based on increasing industrial earnings/employee. Five years time is the timescale recommended to significantly improve the selected indicators. Implementation issues: 1) How easy is the indicator to implement at sectorial or farm level? Technically it is considered rather easily to implement, but the management of the facilities should be convinced that it can be economical feasible to invest in Cleaner Technology and improved processing technology. The management should be convinced that documentation of the environmental policy to the public will improve the image of the company in the view of the consumers, and thereby facilitate the marketing of there products. 2) Does present legislation incorporate this indicator? None at present until research completed. 3) Is there research required for effective implementation of this indicator? Alternatives for better utilisation (characterisation, processing and management) of by-products depending on fish species Databases with information about by-products generated by each sub-sector, Studies on dimensions and logistics to make processes for added value products more economically sustainable. Development of new added value products and innovative processes. 4) Would further investment and/or new technology be required for implementation? Investment: Better resource management. R&D in new products, processes and technologies. Technology: Minimisation techniques and Clean Technologies. New processing technologies able to increase products shelf life while maintaining microbiological levels as low as possible. 5) How will implementation affect production costs? Positive. 6) Are data for the indicator already available? If so, where can they be retrieved? Data can be retrieved internally from each processing plant and are collated at regional, national and EU level.
103
7) Where are the measured indicator data to be stored or archived? Primary data should be stored at the facility either in a paper version or electronically, and a environmental management system should be used, EMAS. Preferably each facility should be advised to establish a database, where these data can be stored and easily retrieved. Sector wise for each member country, National Environmental Agencies should establish databases for such information in national language, with public access. On Community level the EU Commission should establish databases where information can be stored and from where it can be retrieved by the public. 8) Other implementation issues Efforts should be made in increasing yields for direct human consumption products, through the whole distribution chain. If changes on the production processes are put in place, the own check system based on the HACCP system should 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 processed outside the EU, processors shall apply the same indicators in theirs industry as shall EU processors.
104
II.9.2 Shellfish Processing (#64) Desired Status: Shellfish processing is a generator of employment in fishery dependent areas. Indicator: (measured as) a) Energy: harvesting, depuration, boiling, pasteurisation, freezing (kWatt or kJ/kg shellfish) b) Seawater used c) Freshwater used d) Quantity of sludge e) Wastewater f) Disposal of empty Shells, (% of empty shells disposed for other purpose) g) Brine h) Food safety (% of samples free of toxins) i) Number of employees (# of employees per unit of production) j) Economical viability (/kg of products) Env* * Soc* Level: Pan-Euro/Local/etc. Unit (how is it measured): 1 2 3 All levels See above, for this indicator
* 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? How does this contribute to achieving sustainable development of aquaculture?) The processing of shellfish is rather energy consuming (washing, cleaning, grading, boiling, canning). Energy used in shellfish processing is non renewable, unless energy produced on basis of bio-fuel is applied. During processing of shellfish large amounts of empty shells are being produced. The disposal of these shells should be in a way not to harm the environment by use for alternative purpose. Also large amounts of water, both seawater and freshwater, are used. Food Safety: Although the responsibility of monitoring the classified area for toxin-producing plankton will be by the authorities by the January 1. 2006, due to variation in geographical variation of plankton producing toxins, the processor is recommended to put into place their own monitoring system, to secure the product to be delivered from the facility. In order to secure an economical viable industry the economical revenue should be monitored by association in order to organize assistance program before crises show up. Ease of measurement of the indicator: (How easy is the indicator to measure? How often should the indicator be measured/recorded? Who will be responsible for monitoring (frequency)/recording the indicator?) Responsibility for monitoring and implementation: Regarding environmental impact it is recommended to put in place an environmental management system to document the sustainable approach in the processing of shellfish. Regarding food safety, the processor will put in place a detailed monitoring system to control the raw material by reception in the processing facility in order to reduce the risk of supply ready product with toxins to the consumer. Ease of measurement at processing plant: good. Effect/overlap/compromise with other indicators: (Showing cumulative positive effects or trade offs) Applying waste and waste water treatment systems will increase the operation costs, thereby reducing the economical viability. By documentation of environmental friendly processing it is expected that the costs of water and waste treatment will be counterbalanced by increased willingness by the consumers to buy the product at a higher price. Trend: Indicator for energy and fresh water consumption should decrease. Indicator on waste from shell will grow as production increases. Indicator for alternative use of empty shells for other purposes should increase. Number of employees is linked to economic viability. Implementation issues: 1) How easy is the indicator to implement at sectorial or farm level? See ease of measurement. 2) Does present legislation incorporate this indicator? Concerning environmental impact legislation from the EU Directive of Water Policy is in place, and will be further developed. Concerning food safety legislation is already in place, and new and more detailed legislation will be in place by January1. 2006. 3) Is there research required for effective implementation of this indicator? Development of more effective separation and cleaning equipment and techniques for treatment of raw mussels. This will enhance the reduction of water consumption and will secure proper collection of sludge and empty shells. Within the processing of mussels, development of more efficient equipment for separation of meat and shells should be addressed, in order to reduce consumption of fresh water. Also work should be done in developing technology to separate empty shells, byssus and the like from the waste water in order the treatment of the waste water to be facilitated. Research in the risk of moving raw material between production areas and processing centres is needed, due to closure of harvesting areas. Research in removal of toxins from shellfish is needed. 4) Would further investment and/or new technology be required for implementation? Database establishment and policy drafting.
105
5) How will implementation affect production costs? Monitoring food safety is costly but this is counter balanced by securing that the product is safe to be eaten and to avoid costly recall operation and loss of good image to the consumer. 6) Are data for the indicator already available? If so, where can they be retrieved? Data can be retrieved internally in the company: from the environmental management system. On a voluntary basis data should be provided to the public by producing Green Account Reports and the like, and supply of data to appropriate authorities. 7) Where are the measured indicator data to be stored or archived? Primary data should be stored at the facility either in a paper version or electronically. An environmental management system should be used, EMAS. Preferably each facility should be advised to establish a database, where these data can be stored and easily retrieved. Sector wise for each member country, National Environmental Agencies should establish databases for such information in national language, with public access. On Community level the EU Commission should establish databases where information can be stored and from where it can be retrieved by the public. 8) Other implementation issues Efforts should aim at establishing processing facilities near to production areas to enhance employment opportunities within the regions of the EU. In order to provide documentation on the sustainability of the industry it is recommended to introduce environmental management systems in the industries, such as the EMAS-system.
106
II.9.3 Packaging (#65) Desired Status: All packaging materials to meet EC94/62 essential requirements. Packagings main purpose is to protect the product while minimising risks to product loss or contamination. Indicator: Packaging efficiencies Env* * Soc* Level: Pan-Euro/Local/etc. Unit (how is it measured): 2 1 3 All levels % of gross weight vs. packaging weight % of packaging that is recyclable % of hazardous materials in packaging > agreed heavy metal tolerances
* 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? How does this contribute to achieving sustainable development of aquaculture?) Packaging is used at all levels of fish handling (feed delivery, plastic bags to intelligent MAPS). Packaging is required to protect the product, and provide consumers at all levels with product information. Packaging in developed markets is becoming more complex and expensive. It will become increasingly important to minimise losses and wastage in packaging to limit energy consumption and use of non-renewable resources. Ease of measurement of the indicator: (How easy is the indicator to measure? How often should the indicator be measured/recorded? Who will be responsible for monitoring (frequency)/recording the indicator?) Ease of measurement at operator level is complex and will need training. Responsibility for monitoring and implementation: individual operators and EU regulators. Effect/overlap/compromise with other indicators: (Showing cumulative positive effects or trade offs) Packaging has an energy budget which contributes to the overall use of energy. Trend: EU packaging regulation exists - trends for convenience foods are increasing hence requirements for packaging are also increasing. In the next five years packing consumption will increase and will become more costly due to advances in packaging requirements driven by consumer demand. Implementation issues: 1) How easy is the indicator to implement at sectorial or farm level? The first priority of the directive is to prevent formation of packaging waste; procedures should be developed in the facility to assist staff in prevention of waste formation. Development of such procedures will not be costly and should be reasonable easy to introduce in the facility. Second priority of the directive is to improve reuse and recycling of packaging material. As this action is more dependent on suppliers of packaging material and suppliers of raw material wrapped in various packaging material, this indicator will require cooperation across the sector to improve this indicator. 2) Does present legislation incorporate this indicator? None in existence. 3) Is there research required for effective implementation of this indicator? To develop better packaging systems which protect products and extend shelf-life to enhance commercial development. 4) Would further investment and/or new technology be required for implementation? Investment technology and systems. Technology development of cost efficient systems. 5) How will implementation affect production costs? Effect on production cost and quality will be positive and good opportunities to promote marketing by demonstrating responsibility to consumer concerns and food safety. 6) Is data for the indicator already available? If so, where can it be retrieved? Data can be retrieved: internally; where they are collated; centrally by EU. 7) Where is the measured indicator data to be stored or archived? Primary data should be stored at the facility either in a paper version or electronically. An environmental management system should be used, EMAS. Preferably each facility should be advised to establish a database, where these data can be stored and easily retrieved. For each member country, according to Article 12 in the directive, member states shall take the necessary measures to ensure that databases on packaging and packaging waste are established. On Community level the EU Commission should establish databases where information can be stored and from where it can be retrieved by the public. 8) Other implementation issues Packaging usage and development needs to reflect product development driven by consumer trends, but encapsulate the indicators that ensure minimum waste of non-renewable resources. A major issue in preventing waste of packaging material is the polystyrene boxes used for transportation of fresh salmon. These boxes are costly and recycling is more ore less a problem. Several types of machinery have been developed in order to recycle the boxes, but efforts should be made to develop new types of packaging material for large amounts of fresh fish and shellfish.
107
II.10 Sector Issues

II.10.1 Statistics Information (#23) Desired Status: Satisfactory data at farm and sector level Indicator : Statistics information Env* * Soc* Level: Pan-Euro/Local/Etc. 2 1 2 Farm/sector/national/pan-European * 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? How does this contribute to achieving sustainable development of aquaculture?) Essential economic data. How it fits into the whole programme: integral. Ease of measurement of the indicator: (How easy is the indicator to measure? How often should the indicator be measured/recorded? Who will be responsible for monitoring (frequency)/recording the indicator?) Easy application, basic farm management. Effect/overlap/compromise with other indicators: (Showing cumulative positive effects or trade offs) Important for measurement of other indicators. Improved business viability. May be used to support communication. Trend: Steady improvement in data availability. In 5 years: database established and operational. Implementation issues: 1) How easy is the indicator to implement at sectorial or farm level? Improve reliability of data at farm level. Requires sector organisation for the collection of the data (there are already few market observatories which collect information from farm at sector level). 2) Does present legislation incorporate this indicator? No. However, the existence of a producers organisation could be required, depending on the country. 3) Is there research required for effective implementation of this indicator? Not applicable. 4) Would further investment and/or new technology be required for implementation? Investment in information technology. 5) How will implementation affect production costs? The farm may have many benefits: can make comparison with other farms of the sector, gain useful information for the strategy of the farm. 6) Are data for the indicator already available? If so, where can they be retrieved? Data are available at farm level. 7) Where are the measured indicator data to be stored or archived? At sector level if : - appropriate database is designed; - specific organisation is found for data collection. 8) Other implementation issues Attitude changes by farmers: encourage farmers to modernize.
Unit (how is it measured): Appropriate farm management data
108
II.10.2 Innovation (#24) Desired Status: Increase innovation for sustainability of the sector Indicator : Innovative research programs and projects in relationship with the protocols Env* * Soc* Level: Pan-Euro/Local/Etc. Unit (how is it measured): 1 1 1 Sector/Europe # of research initiatives at national and European scale Investment in research and development # of licenses # of dissemination networks
* 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? How does this contribute to achieving sustainable development of aquaculture?) Innovation as a boost for economic growth. Adaptability of farm and sector to challenges of sustainability. The indicator fits integrally into the whole program. Applicable if it is specifically identified as a priority in National and European framework programs. Ease of measurement of the indicator: (How easy is the indicator to measure? How often should the indicator be measured/recorded? Who will be responsible for monitoring (frequency)/recording the indicator?) Easily measurable at European level, less at national level. Effect/overlap/compromise with other indicators: (Showing cumulative positive effects or trade offs) Effect on most of the indicators. Mostly cumulative positive effects. But effort in this field will affect basic technical research and development. Trend: Increase the number of research initiatives in this field (% of projects in national (research councils) and European program (FP7)) and the investment in this field, increase (% of industry investment). Within the next five years flow through systems will be the most innovative sector. Implementation issues: 1) How easy is the indicator to implement at sectorial or farm level? Implementation requires identification of all research initiatives that have integrated specifically the objective of sustainability in aquaculture and the relevant indicators. 2) Does present legislation incorporate this indicator? No, it doesnt, although both at national (government) and European level (UE) innovation for sustainability of aquaculture sector is being promoted. 3) Is there research required for effective implementation of this indicator? Prospective analysis on the needs for research on sustainability: priorities in research areas, identify the gap. Develop tools and methods to assess progress and changes in sustainability. Coordination of research potential. 4) Would further investment and/or new technology be required for implementation? Industry involvement and commitment. 5) How will implementation affect production costs? Innovations related to efficiency of production will probably decrease the cost of production, others related to fish feed, fish health and welfare, effluents treatments could certainly increase production costs. 6) Are data for the indicator already available? If so, where can they be retrieved? Data are easily available at European level. They have to be collected and organised at national level. 7) Where are the measured indicator data to be stored or archived? At sector level (agreement with Universities and Research institutes for availability of data). 8) Other implementation issues Cover all the components of sustainability not only technical ones but also social and economical (acceptability, consumers).
109
II.10.3 Industry Statistics (#34) Desired Status: Improved quality of industry statistics. Indicator: Acceptance of trade associations, independent validation. Env* * Soc* Level: Pan-Euro/Local/etc. Unit (how is it measured): 3 1 2 Local/regional/EU/global Complaints from trade associations, and producers More species and area specific information
* 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? How does this contribute to achieving sustainable development of aquaculture?) Good reliable information required to plan and manage industry at local and regional scales. Ease of measurement of the indicator: (How easy is the indicator to measure? How often should the indicator be measured/recorded? Who will be responsible for monitoring (frequency)/recording the indicator?) The indicator should be measured twice a year. Measurement should be based on the previous two indicators and present continuous results and progress of shellfish aquaculture. Effect/overlap/compromise with other indicators: (Showing cumulative positive effects or trade offs) Linked to carrying capacity and most economic and social objectives. Good information underpins all long term strategies. Trend: Better quality of information. In five years time: a more accurate and comprehensive unified statistical information base. Implementation issues: 1) How easy is the indicator to implement at sectorial or farm level? Plug in numbers on the user friendly web site. 2) Does present legislation incorporate this indicator? Not known 3) Is there research required for effective implementation of this indicator? Not known 4) Would further investment and/or new technology be required for implementation? Investment in harmonised data gathering, collation and presentation system, led by FAO. 5) How will implementation affect production costs? No negative effects. 6) Are data for the indicator already available? If so, where can they be retrieved? Yes, data are available and can be retrieved from researchers, and local practitioners. 7) Where are the measured indicator data to be stored or archived? The measured data should be stored in one place, (one web site). 8) Other implementation issues Single standard for data gathering, EMPA. Need to protect individual farm commercial confidentiality.
110
II.10.4 Strategic Development Plan (#37) Desired Status: Requirement to have a strategic development plan for sustainable shellfish aquaculture (SSA). Indicator: Regions/Countries with plan. Env* * Soc* Level: Pan-Euro/Local/etc. Unit (how is it measured): 2 1 1 Regional/EU # of countries with a plan; # of countries with implementation
* 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? How does this contribute to achieving sustainable development of aquaculture?) In order to have equal opportunities to share the resources, there is a need to develop a strategic plan for SSA, which would help minimize user conflict issues. Ease of measurement of the indicator: (How easy is the indicator to measure? How often should the indicator be measured/recorded? Who will be responsible for monitoring (frequency)/recording the indicator?) Indicator should be measured after 5 years, 10 years. After development of the plan (give or take 2-3 years), it should address one year, 5 year and 10 year development, and the indicator should thus be measured like that. Effect/overlap/compromise with other indicators: (Showing cumulative positive effects or trade offs) Overlap with all indicators. Trend: Number rising. Plans should address 10 years of SSA. Implementation issues: 1) How easy is the indicator to implement at sectorial or farm level? Implementation wont be easy, but before implementation can take place a plan has to be developed and there should be looked at what each farm has to change to fit into the implementation of the plan. 2) Does present legislation incorporate this indicator? No. 3) Is there research required for effective implementation of this indicator? Research issues: all. 4) Would further investment and/or new technology be required for implementation? Yes, but it should summarize existing knowledge and technologies world wide and foresee the vision of the ideal sustainable shellfish aquaculture production. 5) How will implementation affect production costs? It should lower the costs in the long run. 6) Are data for the indicator already available? If so, where can they be retrieved? Yes, data are available all over the research programs and institutes. A team for assessment and strategic planning is needed. 7) Where are the measured indicator data to be stored or archived? At a European organisation level (EAS or EMPA). 8) Other implementation issues: None.
111
II.10.5 Legislation (#47) Desired Status: Improvement of legislative tools and regulation process. Indicator: a) Clarification of legislation; b) One stop shop for establishment of shellfish aquaculture permits/authorisations. Env* * Soc* Level: Pan-Euro/Local/etc. Unit (how is it measured): 2 1 2 Local/regional/EU a) Reduction in contradictory elements in different directives/regulations; harmonisation across MS Reduction in # of multiple applications required
b) * 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? How does this contribute to achieving sustainable development of aquaculture?) This indicator should increase efficiency for the sector and improve consumer confidence (joined up government). Ease of measurement of the indicator: (How easy is the indicator to measure? How often should the indicator be measured/recorded? Who will be responsible for monitoring (frequency)/recording the indicator?) Could be relatively easy variable, due to differing national legislation arrangements. Effect/overlap/compromise with other indicators: (Showing cumulative positive effects or trade offs) Overarching relative to site selection, proactive ecosystem approach, etc.. Trend: Decline in number of forms required. On-going. Implementation issues: 1) How easy is the indicator to implement at sectorial or farm level? It needs to be implemented at the sectorial level and is relatively easy to do. 2) Does present legislation incorporate this indicator? No. 3) Is there research required for effective implementation of this indicator? No. 4) Would further investment and/or new technology be required for implementation? No. 5) How will implementation affect production costs? Simplification of licensing process should reduce costs. 6) Are data for the indicator already available? If so, where can they be retrieved? Not applicable. 7) Where are the measured indicator data to be stored or archived? National trade associations. 8) Other implementation issues: None.
112
II.10.6 Funding for Sustainable Development (#48) Desired Status: Sustainable shellfish aquaculture prioritised in EC aquaculture mechanisms. Indicator: Priority status for sectoral developments in EFF and EC strategy documents. Env* * Soc* Level: Pan-Euro/Local/etc. Unit (how is it measured): 1 1 2 Local/regional/EU amount of funding dedicated to shellfish aquaculture # of successful EFF applications total funding to shellfish projects in EFF
* 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? How does this contribute to achieving sustainable development of aquaculture?) Low current margins require enhanced public sector support. Ease of measurement of the indicator: (How easy is the indicator to measure? How often should the indicator be measured/recorded? Who will be responsible for monitoring (frequency)/recording the indicator?) Relatively easy, via DG Fisheries. Effect/overlap/compromise with other indicators: (Showing cumulative positive effects or trade offs) Overlap with: strengthen the market/sector; encouragement of polyculture; diversification of aquaculture sector. Trend: Rising # of indicator units. Over lifetime of EFF. Implementation issues: 1) How easy is the indicator to implement at sectorial or farm level? The indicator is relatively easy to implement at sectorial level. 2) Does present legislation incorporate this indicator? No. 3) Is there research required for effective implementation of this indicator? Assessment of bottlenecks/constraints. Identification of cost effective technology/technique developments. 4) Would further investment and/or new technology be required for implementation? No. 5) How will implementation affect production costs? Improve production economics, reduce up-front private investment. 6) Are data for the indicator already available? If so, where can they be retrieved? Data arent yet available. 7) Where are the measured indicator data to be stored or archived? The measured indicator data should be stored at DG Fisheries. 8) Other implementation issues: None.
113
Annex III. Workshop Participants

BELGIUM
Mr. Richard Bates European Commission Belgium Dr. Laurent Bochereau European Commission Belgium Ms. Joke Charles EAS, European Aquaculture Society Belgium Mr. Courtney Hough FEAP, Federation of European Aquaculture Producers Belgium Mr. Alistair Lane EAS, European Aquaculture Society Belgium Mr. Mario Lopes dos Santos European Commission - DG Fisheries Belgium Ms. Astrid Meesters FEFAC Belgium Mr. Robert Remy Test Achats Belgium CZECH REPUBLIC Dr. Zdenek Adamek University of South Bohemia, Res. Inst. of Fish Culture, Laboratory Pohorelice Czech Republic DENMARK Mr. Knud Fischer Danish Institute for Fisheries Research Denmark Mr. Bjarne Hald Olsen Dana Feed A/S Denmark Mr. Priess Henning Aqua Prime ApS Denmark Dr. Vibeke Kristensen Christensen Forellenexport Denmark Mr. Erling Larsen Danish Institute for Fisheries Research Denmark Dr. Per Bovbjerg Pedersen Danish Institute for Fisheries Research Denmark Ms. Lisbeth Jess Plesner The Danish Aquaculture Organisation Denmark Dr. Richard Sktt Rasmussen Danish Insitute for Fisheries Research Denmark Dr. Frantisek Vacha University of South Bohemia Czech Republic Ms. Isabelle Sioen University of Ghent Belgium Ms. Despina Symons European Bureau for Conservation & Development, EBCD Belgium Ms. Eva Valle European Bureau for Conservation & Development, EBCD Belgium Dr. Constantin Vamvakas European Commission, DG Fisheries and Maritime Affairs Belgium Dr. Bill Vandaele BVD Consultants sa Belgium Mr. Filiep Vanhonacker University of Ghent, Fac. of Bioscience Engineering Belgium Dr. Wim Verbeke University of Ghent Belgium
114
FRANCE Mr. Jol Aubin INRA France Dr. Jean-Paul Blancheton IFREMER France Mr. Bernard Breton European Anglers Alliance (EAA) France Mr. Arnault Chaperon Viviers de France France Mr. Olivier Clement Ple d'Hydrobiologie INRA France Mr. Andrew Cookson GIRA France Mr. Cyrille Deshayes CIPA France GERMANY Dr. Stefan Bergleiter Naturland e.V. Germany GREECE Dr. Olga Kehagia Agricultural University of Athens Greece HUNGARY Dr. Laszlo Stndl University of Debrecen, Faculty of Agronomy, Hungary Mr. Balazs Varadi Aquapark Hungary IRELAND Dr. Gavin Burnell University College Cork Ireland Ms. Mary Ferns European Mollusc Producers Association Ireland Dr. John Joyce Marine Institute Ireland Mr. David Murphy AquaTT Ireland Mr. James Ryan AquaVision Ireland Dr. Laszlo Varadi HAKI Hungary Mr. John Dallimore TNC-Partners Germany Dr. Benoit Fauconneau INRA Bordeaux Aquitaine Research Center France Dr. Philippe Goulletquer Ifremer France Mr. Bruno Guillaumie AEPM France Dr. Sadasivam Kaushik UMR NUAGE, INRA, Station d'Hydrobiologie France Dr. Christian Michel INRA France Dr. Ren Robert Ifremer, Laboratoire de Physiologie des Invertbrs, Station Exprimentale d'Argenton France
115
ITALY Mr. Uwe Barg FAO Italy Ms. Loredana Locatelli Association of Italian Fish Associazione Piscicoltori Italiani Italy NETHERLANDS (The) Dr. Ingeborg Brouwer Wageningen Centre for Food Sciences/ Human Nutrition The Netherlands Dr. Nynke de Jong RIVM The Netherlands Ms. Marijke de Jong-Timmerman Dutch Society for the Protection of Animals The Netherlands Dr. Lynn Frewer University of Wageningen, Marketing and Consumer Behaviour Group, Social Sciences The Netherlands Mr. Aldin Hilbrands SGS The Netherlands 116 Mr. Jaap Holstein PO Kokkelvisserij The Netherlands Mr. Adriaan Kole Netherlands Institute for Fisheries Research, RIVO The Netherlands NORWAY Dr. Brge Damsgrd Fiskeriforskning Norway Mr. Arne Dulsrud SIFO National Institute of Consumer Research Norway Mr. Eskil Foraas SINTEF Fisheries and Aquaculture Norway Dr. Gro-Ingunn Hemre NIFES - Natl. Inst. of Nutrition & Seafood Research Norway Mr. Knut A. Hjelt Norwegian Seafood Federation Aquaculture Norway Ms. Pirjo Honkanen Fiskeriforskning Norway Dr. Matthias Kaiser NENT Norway Ms. Kine Mari Karlsen Fiskeriforskning Norway Dr. Pl Lader SINTEF Fisheries and Aquaculture Norway Dr. Joop Luten Fiskeriforskning Norway Mr. Kjell Maroni FHL Havbruk Norway Mr. Bjorn Myrseth Marine Farms ASA Norway Dr. Catarina Martins Wageningen University The Netherlands Mr. John Oosterhuis Albert Heijn The Netherlands Dr. Gerard Roessink Food & Consumer Safety Authority The Netherlands Dr. Arjo Rothuis Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Fisheries, Nature & Food Quality The Netherlands Dr. Aad Smaal RIVO, Netherlands Inst. For Fisheries Research The Netherlands Mr. Jan van Rijsingen van Rijsingen Beheer bv The Netherlands Dr. Johan Verreth University of Wageningen, Aquaculture & Fisheries The Netherlands Farmers (API), Dr. Giovanna Marino ICRAM, Aquaculture Unit Italy Dr. Marco Saroglia University of Insubria, Molecular Sciences Italy Dept Biotechnologies &
Mr. Kristian Prytz FHL Industry and Export Norway POLAND Dr. Miroslaw Kuczynski Polish Academy of Sciences, Institute of Ichthyobiology & Aquaculture Poland SPAIN Mr. Julio Domezain Piscifactoria de Sierra Nevada S.L. Granada Spain Dr. Rosa Flos Universitat Politcnica de Catalunya (UPC), DEAB Spain Mr. Antonio Lopez Pizarro Isidro de la Cal Spain Mr. Javier Ojeda APROMAR Spain SWEDEN Dr. Hans Ackefors Stockholm University, Department of Zoology Sweden
Dr. Taran Skjerdal DNV Research Norway
Ms. Begoa Prez-Villarreal AZTI Spain Mr. Franois Simard IUCN , Centre for Mediterranean Cooperation Spain Dr. Fernando Torrent Universidad Politecnica de Madrid Spain Ms. Gemma Trigueros OCU Spain
Dr. Max Troell Beijer Institute, Internat. Institute of Ecological Economics, The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences Sweden
117
UNITED KINGDOM Mr. John Bostock University of Stirling, Institute of Aquaculture UK Mr. William Crowe SSPO/FEAP UK Mr. Alistair Davison Royal Haskoning UK Dr. John Godfrey BEUC UK Mr. John Holmyard Offshore Shellfish UK Dr. Bari Howell Pontcanna Aquaculture Services UK Mr. Ken Hughes Scottish Quality Salmon UK Dr. Sunil Kadri University of Glasgow, Aquaculture Innovation UK Mr. Douglas McLeod Association of Scottish Shellfish Growers, ASSG UK Dr. Thom Nickell Scottish Association for Marine Science (SAMS), Dunstaffnage Marine Laboratory UK Dr. Ben North University of Stirling, Institute of Aquaculture UK Mr. Nick Read British Trout Association UK Dr. Selina Stead University of Newcastle, School of Marine Science & Technology, Ridley Building UK Dr. Trevor Telfer University of Stirling UK
Dr. Elizabeth Turrell Fisheries Research Services, Marine Laboratory UK USA Dr. Anamarija Frankic UMASS Boston USA
118

Consensus Workshop

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Consensus Workshop

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FP6 COORDINATION ACTION EC contract FOOD-CT-2005-513998

Defining Indicators for Sustainable Aquaculture Development in Europe

A multi-stakeholder workshop held in Oostende, Belgium November 21-23, 2005

2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6

2.6.1 2.6.2 2.6.3

2.8.1 2.8.2 2.8.3 2.9.1 2.9.2 2.9.3 2.9.4

Biodiversity ................................................................................................... 24 Post-harvest operations ................................................................................. 26

Sector Issues ................................................................................................ 29

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

CONSENSUS Sustainable Aquaculture in Europe

Number of Indicators FISH SHELLFISH 12 3 5 3 4 1 9 0 6 1 2 1 12 3 8 2 2 4 60 18

CONSENSUS Sustainable Aquaculture in Europe

1. Introduction and the Workshop process

CONSENSUS Sustainable Aquaculture in Europe

European aquaculture stakeholders at the CONSENSUS workshop

CONSENSUS Sustainable Aquaculture in Europe

CONSENSUS Sustainable Aquaculture in Europe

Working Group discussions were followed by evening plenary wrap up sessions

CONSENSUS Sustainable Aquaculture in Europe

CONSENSUS Sustainable Aquaculture in Europe

CONSENSUS Sustainable Aquaculture in Europe

CONSENSUS Sustainable Aquaculture in Europe

2.2 Public Image

CONSENSUS Sustainable Aquaculture in Europe

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

CONSENSUS Sustainable Aquaculture in Europe

2.3 Use of Resources

CONSENSUS Sustainable Aquaculture in Europe

CONSENSUS Sustainable Aquaculture in Europe

2.4 Health Management and Welfare Issues

CONSENSUS Sustainable Aquaculture in Europe

CONSENSUS Sustainable Aquaculture in Europe

2.5 Environmental Standards

CONSENSUS Sustainable Aquaculture in Europe

CONSENSUS Sustainable Aquaculture in Europe

2.6 Human Resources

CONSENSUS Sustainable Aquaculture in Europe

CONSENSUS Sustainable Aquaculture in Europe

CONSENSUS Sustainable Aquaculture in Europe

CONSENSUS Sustainable Aquaculture in Europe

2.8 Post-harvest operations

Commission of the European Communities. COM(2002) 511

CONSENSUS Sustainable Aquaculture in Europe

CONSENSUS Sustainable Aquaculture in Europe

CONSENSUS Sustainable Aquaculture in Europe

2.9 Sector Issues

CONSENSUS Sustainable Aquaculture in Europe

3. Towards Sustainability Protocols

CONSENSUS Sustainable Aquaculture in Europe

Annex I. The CONSENSUS Consortium

CONSENSUS is coordinated by the European Aquaculture Society (EAS)

CONSENSUS Sustainable Aquaculture in Europe

Annex II. The CONSENSUS Indicators by Theme

CONSENSUS Sustainable Aquaculture in Europe

CONSENSUS Working Group Template

CONSENSUS Sustainable Aquaculture in Europe

II.2 Indicators of Economic Viability

CONSENSUS Sustainable Aquaculture in Europe

CONSENSUS Sustainable Aquaculture in Europe

CONSENSUS Sustainable Aquaculture in Europe

CONSENSUS Sustainable Aquaculture in Europe

CONSENSUS Sustainable Aquaculture in Europe

CONSENSUS Sustainable Aquaculture in Europe