PREFACE

BACKGROUND

1. CHARACTERISTICS AND TRENDS OF NATIONAL AQUACULTURE

2. AQUACULTURE POLICY, ADMINISTRATION AND LEGISLATION

3. AQUACULTURE STRATEGIES AND PLANS

4. RESPONSIBLE AQUACULTURE PRODUCTION

ANNEX I     GLOSSARY

ANNEX II   LIST OF RELEVANT FAO DOCUMENTS

ANNEX III  CONSULTATION PROSPECTUS

The following synthesis is structured and based on the national reports which have been received.

All Mediterranean countries were invited to participate in the project, and national reports were received before the deadline for the preparation of the synthesis from the following:

• Bulgaria (draft)


• Croatia


• Cyprus


• Egypt


• France


• Greece


• Israel


• Italy


• Malta


• Morocco


• Romania


• Spain


• Tunisia


• Turkey

The outline for the national reports, the analysis, and this synthesis were prepared by the project team, which comprised the consultants Michael New (team leader) and Amedeo Freddi, together with FAO staff Mario Pedini (FIRI) and Cristina Leria (LEG). Messrs J. Catanzano (IFREMER) and A. Bonzon (FAO/FIPP) participated in the preparation of the outlines of the national reports, and valuable comments were also received from S. Cataudella, Chairman of the GFCM Committee on Aquaculture.

The historical development of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (the Code) is recorded in the Preface and Annex 1of the Code. In summary, it records the following. The fact that aquatic (and other) resources, though renewable, are finite and need to be properly managed has recently formed a topic of global focus. Fisheries, including aquaculture, are now recognised as providing vital sources of food, employment, recreation, trade and economic well-being for people throughout the world, both for present and future generations. From 1991 onwards a series of FAO actions have been taken by the Committee on Fisheries (COFI), the Council, and the Conference which have culminated in the adoption at the 28th Session of the FAO Conference of the Code on 31 October 1995. The first six of the twelve Articles of the Code are general in nature.

Article 1 of the Code, in describing its nature and scope, states that it is voluntary (although some parts of it which refer to marine capture fisheries are based on relevant rules of international law) and is global in scope. The Code, which provides a series of principles and standards, is directed towards members and non-members of FAO, sub-regional, regional and global organisations (both governmental and non-governmental) and all persons concerned with the conservation of aquaculture² resources and their management, including producers and those engaged in the processing of aquaculture products and other users of the resources which aquaculture utilises. While Article 9 refers specifically to aquaculture development, many facets of other Articles of the Code, refer to both aquaculture and capture fisheries.

Article 2 records the objectives of the Code, which , in relation to aquaculture, can be paraphrased as being to:

• establish principles for responsible aquaculture activities, taking into account all relevant biological, technological, economic, social, environmental and commercial aspects;

• establish principles and criteria for the elaboration of national policies for aquaculture development;

• serve as an instrument of reference to assist States to establish or improve the legal and institutional framework for responsible aquaculture development and in the formulation and implementation of appropriate measures;

• provide guidance which may be used where appropriate in the formulation and implementation of international agreements and other legal instruments, both binding and voluntary;

• facilitate and promote technical, financial and other cooperation in conservation of aquaculture resources, management and development;

• promote the contribution of aquaculture to food security and food quality, giving priority to the nutritional needs of local communities;

• promote protection of living aquatic resources and their environments in coastal (and riverine and catchment basin) areas;

• promote the trade of fish and fishery products in conformity with relevant international rules and avoid the use of measures that constitute hidden barriers to such trade;

• promote research on aquaculture, as well as on associated ecosystems and relevant environmental factors; and

• provide standards of conduct for all persons involved in the aquaculture sector.

Article 3 concerns the relationships of the Code with other instruments and states that the Code is to be interpreted and applied in conformity with the relevant rules of international law. Nothing in the Code prejudices the rights, jurisdiction and duties of States under international law.

Article 4 of the Code concerns the implementation, monitoring and updating of the Code. Inter alia, it notes that all members and non-members of FAO, aquaculture entities and relevant sub-regional, regional and global organisations, whether governmental or non-governmental, and all persons concerned with the conservation, management and utilisation of fisheries resources and trade in aquaculture products should collaborate in the fulfilment and implementation of the objectives and principles contained in the Code. In accordance with its role within the United Nations system, FAO will monitor the application and implementation of the Code and its effects on aquaculture and the Secretariat will report accordingly to COFI. All States, whether members or non-members of FAO, as well as relevant international organisations, whether governmental or non-governmental should actively cooperate with FAO in this work.. FAO, through its competent bodies, may revise the Code, taking into account developments in aquaculture as well as reports to COFI on the implementation of the Code. States and international organisations, whether governmental or non-governmental, should promote the understanding of the Code among those involved in aquaculture, including, where practicable, the introduction of schemes which would promote voluntary acceptance of the Code and its effective application.

Article 5 notes the special requirements of developing countries in relation to the Code. The capacity of developing countries to implement the recommendations of the Code should be taken into account. Thus, in order to achieve the objectives of the Code and to support its effective implementation, countries, relevant international organisations, whether governmental or non-governmental, and financial institutions should give full recognition to the special circumstances and requirements of developing countries. They should also work for the adoption of measures to address the needs of developing countries, especially in the areas of financial and technical assistance, technology transfer, training and scientific cooperation and in enhancing their ability to develop their own aquaculture.

The general principles of the Code are contained in the 19 sub-sections of Article 6. Those which can be related specifically to aquaculture may be summarised as follows:

• conserving living aquatic resources;

• conducting relevant research and collecting appropriate data;

• applying the precautionary approach;

• maintaining the nutritional value, quality and safety of aquaculture products during harvesting, processing and distribution, reducing wastes and minimising negative impacts on the environment;

• protecting (and rehabilitating where necessary) ecosystems such as wetlands, mangroves, reefs, lagoons, nursery and spawning areas;

• taking into account the multiple uses of coastal (and riverine and catchment basin) zones and integrating aquaculture into area management, planning and development;

• conducting international trade in aquaculture products in accordance with the World Trade Organisation (WTO) Agreement and other relevant international agreements;

• resolving disputes in a timely, peaceful and cooperative manner;

• promoting awareness of responsible aquaculture through the education and training of fish farmers and involving them in the policy formulation and implementation process, as well as the implementation of the Code itself;

• providing safe, healthy and fair working conditions for aquaculture personnel;

• protecting the rights of fish farmers, as well as those involved in subsistence, small-scale and artisanal fisheries, to a secure and just livelihood; and

• ensuring that resources are used responsibly and that adverse impacts on the environment are minimised, in order that aquaculture, including culture-based fisheries, provide a means to promote diversification of income and diet.

Articles 7-12 contain the specifics of the Code. These Articles, whose contents form the subject of the Consultation to which this national report contributes (and are therefore not summarised here), cover the following topics:

• Article 7 refers to fisheries management;
• Article 8 concerns fishing operations;
• Article 9 covers aquaculture development;
• Article 10 refers to the integration of fisheries (including aquaculture) into coastal (and other) area management;
• Article 11 concerns post-harvest practices and trade; and finally,
• Article 12 relates to fisheries (and aquaculture) research.

FAO has also issued technical guidelines for responsible fisheries (see Annex II) covering:

• Fishing operations;
• Precautionary approach to capture fisheries and species introductions;
• Integration of fisheries into coastal management;
• Fisheries management;
• Aquaculture development; and
• Inland fisheries.

Though Article 9 is specific to aquaculture development, certain sections in other Articles apply to aquaculture as well as capture fisheries. In order that the relevance and constraints in applying the Code (in all its Articles) can be discussed, the format of the national reports were structured in a logical progression from the general characteristics and trends of aquaculture (Section 1), through the administrative and legal situation (Section 2) and the policy and planning context (Section 3), to the production sector (Section 4).

The details of the current Consultation in the Mediterranean are given in the Prospectus (Annex III).

A series of national reports were produced to assist in the discussion of the three main objectives of the Consultation, namely:

• to review the level of understanding and the status of application of the Code in relation to aquaculture;

• to discuss identified gaps and difficulties encountered in the application of the Code in the Mediterranean context, at regional and national levels; and

• to propose an action plan at national and regional level, which will support the application of the Code to aquaculture.

The national reports followed a common outline and form the basis for the synthesis document which follows. This synthesis is based upon a comparative analysis of the situation in all countries which permits the identification of common gaps and constraints on which to base future actions.

Commercial freshwater aquaculture in the Mediterranean countries started at the end of the last century. Cold water salmonids, principally Oncorhynchus mykiss and Salmo trutta, are the most important group amongst the aquaculture production of France, Italy, Spain and Turkey. Salmonids are still considered a middle-high value product, commercialised, fresh or processed, destined for their domestic markets, but also exported. The high volume of this production is also its major constraint because of the progressive saturation of the demand. A slow increase in production is, nevertheless, still foreseen.

Warmwater freshwater species (originally based on common carp, to which introduced Chinese carps and tilapia were later added) represent the major aquaculture production in Croatia, Bulgaria, Romania, Israel and Egypt and are almost totally consumed domestically. In the three European countries of this group the production declined sharply due to the political transition period, and only recently showed a positive trend again (high potential was indicated for this type of aquaculture was reported in these three countries). On the contrary, in Israel and Egypt production has steadily increased and today contributes significantly to national food security and limits the import of fish. In these two countries the main constraint is the limited availability of freshwater (conflicts with agriculture and requirements for domestic water consumption) so both are trying to increase the stocking density in this form of fish rearing.

Marine aquaculture began more recently, during the 1960s, and has shown rapid growth. The high product value of the species reared (with the exception of mussels) directs this product towards export markets but, at the same time, marine aquaculture is also seen by many countries as a means to limit fish imports. The sector has been for a long time dominated by two species, sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) and sea bream (Sparus aurata) but, during recent years other Sparids (Diplodus sargus, Puntazzo puntazzo) and, more recently still, the imported Sciaenops ocellatus (Israel) are contributing to the diversification of production. Mollusc culture is more commonly a corporate activity, bringing direct positive social benefits, while fish culture is mostly dominated by private enterprises. Shrimp culture is still a minor sector and algae/macrophyte cultivation is practically absent in the region. Marine aquaculture is facing common problems in all the countries, such as a progressive saturation of available sites (both for extensive and intensive aquaculture), high competition in coastal areas use (especially with tourism development), and market restrictions (particularly due to the recent EU import regulations). A rather slow but continuous expansion of the aquaculture sector is generally anticipated, while off-shore fish culture is the activity which is actually attracting potential investors.

More details are provided, on a transectional basis from inland to off-shore, in sections 1.2 � 1.7 of this synthesis.

There are two major activities in this sector: i) re-stocking for commercial fisheries and ii) seeding for sport fisheries. Both activities are normally supported by public authorities dealing with fisheries and aquaculture, with forestry, or with agriculture (irrigation). The sector is only relevant in a few countries (Bulgaria, Egypt, Romania, Tunisia; several thousands of tons per year), and activities take place in a wide range of water bodies, which differ in size and use (mostly reservoirs used for electricity production or for irrigation), which support a huge number fishermen either belonging to cooperatives or working individually. Users frequently have exclusive fishery rights and only in a few cases do they have to pay for the resource use (by leasing the water surface or paying for the fingerlings introduced). Fishing communities are sometimes directly involved in fingerling production and/or management (Egypt, Morocco, Romania).

The most common species stocked are rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), common carp (Cyprinus carpio) and the introduced Chinese carps (Ctenopharyngodon idella, Aristichthys nobilis, Hyphophtalmichthys molitrix). Various species of Tilapia, pike (Esox lucius) and perch-pike (Stizostedion lucioperca) are also frequently used. Egypt is a special case in that it successfully practises culture-based fisheries in an inland salt-water lake (Lake Quaroun) by using marine fish and shrimp species. Wild-caught fingerlings of grey mullets (Mugil cephalus and Liza ramada) are used to restock reservoirs in Tunisia, which has contributed to an increase in freshwater fish production from 700 t in 1996 to 1,010 t in 1997. However, production is highly dependent on yearly fluctuations in the supply of wild-caught fingerlings. Re-stocking lakes and rivers in support of angling is commonly done in most Mediterranean countries. Anglers pay for fishing licences.

Extensive inland aquaculture, including culture-based fisheries, shows contrasting trends. A sharp decrease has characterised the sector during the past decade in Bulgaria (legal and financial constraints, due to the political transition period) and in Cyprus (because of the recent drought), while the limited availability of freshwater does not allow its expansion in Israel. On the contrary, it is rapidly expanding in Egypt and is reported as having high potential in Morocco. In the remaining countries the social impact of this activity is rather limited and production from extensive aquaculture remains stable at a low level of production, or is limited to sport fisheries.

Extensive freshwater ornamental fish aquaculture is poorly developed and is mostly based on the rearing of goldfish varieties.

This sub-sector is mainly dominated by trout, carp and tilapia farming.

Trout farming (mainly Oncorhynchus mykiss and Salmo trutta) is concentrated in the EU Mediterranean countries and Turkey, where it represents the most widespread form of intensive inland aquaculture, with an total annual production exceeding 150,000 t. In the other Mediterranean countries, trout culture is rare because of the limited availability of cold water sources. Traditionally developed as small- and medium-scale family activity, trout farming rapidly increased after the Second World War but then went through a critical period during the end of the past decade, due to over-production which resulted in a significant reduction in the market value of the products. This economic crisis principally affected the small-scale producers and, as a consequence, the sector quickly assumed industrial characteristics. At present, large-scale farms with capacity of 200 - 1,000 t/yr, representing less than 10% of the producers, are responsible for about 60% of the total production. Despite increased diversification into fresh and processed products, marketing still remains the most important constraint. However, the sector still attracts new investment and, in general, shows a gradual expansion.

Carp aquaculture, which is based on the rearing of common carp and introduced Chinese carps, was traditionally developed in the Eastern European countries where, for a long period of time, it was the most widespread aquaculture practice. The recent political transition has resulted in a vacuum in governmental coordination and financial support for the sector, and production has heavily declined. However, carp culture is still the leading form of aquaculture activity in this area and production is now more stable (Bulgaria, Croatia and Romania produce a total of approximately 27,000 t/yr). It is normally a corporate activity. Israel and Egypt are the only other Mediterranean countries which base their production mainly (70 - 80%) on inland aquaculture, with carp and tilapia farming (Oreochromis niloticus and red tilapia hybrids) giving a total production (frequently on a polyculture base) of around 61,000 t/yr (17,000 t of carps and 44,000 t of tilapias). In addition, Egypt also produces mullets (16,000 t), sea bass (2,200 t) and, due to the presence of low salinity inland waters, sea bream (2,250 t). Inland semi-intensive and intensive aquaculture is usually combined, in ponds and canals, with water use for irrigation. Both countries reported a progressive intensification of production (from semi-intensive to intensive pond management) to limit water consumption. This process of intensification appears to be more urgent in Israel, because of the limited availability of freshwater, but more dramatic in Egypt, where it involves the elimination or restoration of the most primitive production units which represents about 70% of the farmed area. In both Israel and Egypt the activity is usually private.

Intensive or hyper-intensive eel culture was reported by Italy (3,100 t/yr) and Greece (310 t/yr). However, this activity is significantly constrained by the limited availability of wild seed (glass eels).

Egypt is the only Mediterranean country which reported the development of integrated aquaculture (rice-fish cultivation) stating, however, that its existence depends highly on governmental subsidies (often in the form of free fingerlings supply. However, production has gone down significantly now that fingerlings are no longer distributed free.

Inland semi-intensive and intensive aquaculture is mentioned as an important or potentially important sector in the report from many countries (Bulgaria, Croatia, Egypt, Morocco, Romania), due to the large freshwater surfaces available.

Intensive ornamental fish production is widespread, both for domestic and export markets, as a private activity, but little data is available (Cyprus, Greece, Spain, Turkey).

Extensive aquaculture inside coastal lagoons has been traditionally developed, over a period of two centuries, in Northern Italy, along the Adriatic sea coast. At present the activity is developed in about 38,000 ha of lagoons, producing a total of about 2,000 t of fish (sea bass, bream, mullets, eels). In Italy, vallicoltura is normally developed by private enterprises with a limited impact on the local communities. On the contrary, Greek lagoon aquaculture employs some 1,500 people, mainly belonging to cooperatives. However, the number of independent Greek lagoon fishermen is increasing, probably due to the high unemployment level in rural areas. In Italy, the production from vallicoltura also includes about 15,000 t of Manila clams (Japanese carpet shells) which were introduced about twenty years ago. However, this production comes from the management of what has now to be considered a natural stock, since it no longer requires spat seeding; thus its output should not be included within aquaculture or culture-based fisheries activities.

Tunisia, which privatised the management of six coastal lagoons in 1998, reported that (despite the limited production so far achieved, some 1% of the total farmed fish production in 1996) this form of aquaculture is considered important because of its product value and diversification. The report from Bulgaria mentions some "valliculture" activities which were practised along the Black Sea coastal lagoons before the industrialisation of the area, but they are now extinct. In Egypt, coastal lagoons are reported to be reserved for capture fisheries but the persistence of "hoshas" was also noted. Hoshas, despite legal prohibition, are still estimated to yield about 5,000 t/yr.

No other countries manage coastal lagoons for extensive aquaculture production.

The farming of marine species developed during the 1970s and 1980s in land-based facilities essentially because there were no acceptable alternatives. This activity is currently more and more constrained in most Mediterranean countries, because of high land costs and severe competition with other users of the coastal area (tourism, urban development, environment protection, harbours).

Today, the production of marine fish (principally Sparus aurata and Dicentrarchus labrax) and shrimp fry is probably the most developed land-based activity (again for a lack of valid alternatives), and is concentrated in the EU Mediterranean countries and Turkey, which export part of their production. Cyprus, Israel and Tunisia also produce enough fingerlings to support their land-based or floating cage farming units.

In general, land-based marine fish grow-out activities are being progressively substituted by cage culture, but it remains a valid option, in concrete tanks or earthen ponds, under special conditions such as the use of warm water sources (industrial effluents or well water); the rearing of certain species such as turbot (France); or combined with extensive production in lagoons (Italy); or, occasionally, in marsh areas (Spain, France).

This sub-sector still represents the bulk of coastal aquaculture production, having been developed in protected areas such as bays, gulfs, canals and coastal lagoons (see note in section 1.4), mostly based on mollusc farming and finfish cage culture. Despite the fact that it is subject to the same numerous constraints to on-land aquaculture (conflicts with other users, deterioration in coastal water quality), which limit the availability of adequate sites, a few countries still plan a significant expansion of in-shore aquaculture, as well as its gradual transfer into open waters (see section 1.7).

Mollusc culture, which has been developed since the beginning of the 20^th Century, involves the use of various techniques (fixed and floating structures) basically for the production of mussels (Mytilus galloprovincialis) and oysters (Crassostrea gigas and Ostrea edulis). Other species, such as scallops, clams and abalone, have also been farmed in order to diversify the production, but none attained the same commercial scale as mussel and oyster rearing. In particular, the promising culture of the imported Japanese carpet shell (Manila clam) was strongly constrained by its rapid adaptation to the natural environment (the Po river delta in Italy and the Morbihan Gulf in France) which gave rise to a competitive fisheries production. Mollusc culture is highly developed in the EU Mediterranean countries (Spain, France, Italy and Greece, with a total of several hundred thousands of tons per year) which can also rely on a traditional domestic consumption of these species groups. The sector has reached a high level of technology and mechanisation, and farms are operated both by private and corporate producers. Croatia (1,000 t/yr of mussels and 100 t/yr of oysters) and Morocco (250 t/yr of oysters) are the major producers among the remaining countries. In the Black Sea, both Bulgaria (150 t/yr) and Romania (20 t/yr) are trying to develop mussel farming, but face additional constraints because of the oligotrophic environmental conditions and market competition from the wild mussels, which are sold without any quality certification (Romania).

The cage farming of marine finfish started in the early 1980s. This in-shore activity provided the opportunity to avoid expensive land-based facilities but was initially confined to protected coastal areas until the more recent development of reliable off-shore cages. This farming technique therefore appears to be highly constrained by the competitive use of the littoral zone, and it is not expected to show further significant expansion. Greece, Turkey, Italy, France, Spain, Croatia, Israel and Morocco are the most important producers of marine fish in the Mediterranean, using in-shore cage farming. The report from Greece (which is expected to produce 31,000 t in 1999) noted that no more licences were being issued in accordance with EU Directives. In the Greek report, the urgent need to diversify production was specifically mentioned; this is a wider problem, which affects the whole of Mediterranean marine finfish production.

Marine fish farming is mostly developed by private enterprises and less so by corporate groups. Local communities are rarely involved (Turkey).

This form of aquaculture has the potential to solve most of the hindrances which hamper the expansion of coastal aquaculture, and therefore attracts great interest in most of the Mediterranean countries. It is already well developed in Cyprus (840 t/yr; 87% of the total national aquaculture production) and Malta (about 2,000 t/yr; which is almost the total aquaculture production of the country), where no sheltered areas exist. It is also well developed in other countries, such as Italy and Spain, where conflicts with the tourism industry or scarcity of appropriate sites are already forcing the producers to move far from the coast. In addition, the Black Sea countries reported interest in developing off-shore aquaculture, and some activities are already carried out by Turkey involving the farming of salmon and large-size trout.

However, it should be noted that the term "off-shore aquaculture" is frequently misunderstood or misused. Apart from incorporating the concept of open sea farming (sea ranching; culture-based fisheries), off-shore aquaculture usually involves the setting up of production units in deep seawater (but the recommended depth is different in the various legislative instruments) in order to reduce the potential negative impact of fish farming on the environment. In many cases, however, "open sea" and "deep water" conditions occur at a short distance from the coast line. Thus, simple respect for the relevant legislation is not sufficient to avoid conflicts with other users of the coastal area, as well as those organisations and authorities which are concerned with environmental protection.

An important constraint to the further development of off-shore aquaculture is the higher investment required. Many countries still have no local suppliers and must import cages and equipment from abroad. The increased management costs related with daily routine operations concerning cages located far from the coast is also limiting off-shore aquaculture development.

Off-shore aquaculture has been mainly for finfish cage farming. So far, France is the only country that has developed off-shore commercial mussel production in long-lines (10 - 15,000 t/yr) in the Mediterranean Sea. Even in this case, higher investment and management costs are required (stronger mooring systems and long-line structures as well as larger workboats).

In most countries a specific aquaculture policy document does not exist and aquaculture is normally included basically in the Fishery Sector Development Policy. document. It is also mentioned in other strategic policy documents; those for Industry and Environment are the two major policy documents concerned. In the absence of specific policy, aquaculture development is mainly based on development plans elaborated by the authorities in charge for the administering the sector but without formal approval. Participatory mechanisms concerned with the definition of policy mostly comprise unofficial consultations, with three exceptions. The first is in Spain where a formal Consultative Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture has been established in Cataluña which includes representatives from the aquaculture sector. The second exception is Greece, where there is an Agricultural Policy Council (APC) operating within the Ministry of Agriculture; this is a consultative body within which representatives from the Ministry itself, scientific organisations, producers, and universities participate. The third exception is France, where there are "inter-professional committees".

In the majority of countries the Administration is centralised and policies are developed by the competent Ministries. In Israel, for example, there is a central government and ministries that define national and regional policy which are put into practice locally by regional districts. Decentralisation exists in some countries such as Bulgaria, where it has been introduced recently (December 1998). Bulgarian districts have since increased from 9 to 28. The aim of this fragmentation is to increase local (municipal) responsibilities. Other countries, such as Romania and Spain, have decentralised governments with local autonomy. In Romania the Prefects represent the Central Government and are responsible for resource administration. In Spain, the Autonomous Communities have exclusive competence in the aquaculture sector.

Fisheries and aquaculture are generally administered by a ministry concerned with agriculture. In Turkey, the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs (MARA) administers husbandry, agriculture and fisheries (including aquaculture). However, authority over aquaculture is divided between MARA, the Ministry of Transportation (Department of Marine), the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Forestry, the Department of Water Works, the Ministry of Treasury and other authorities such as the Ministry of Tourism, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Ministry of Culture, the Ministry of Commerce and Trade, and the Ministry of Finance.

The most common problem concerning the administrative aspects of responsible aquaculture is administrative overlapping and interference. This problem arises from unclear regulation of the sector and a confused administrative situation. There is also a serious problem concerning the competition between resource users, particularly for the use of coastal land and sea areas (e.g. Cyprus).

2.3.1 Basic legislative climate for aquaculture

Access to public land is regulated in all the countries. Some have specific legislation to cover access to public land (i.e. Croatia: Agricultural Lands Act, 1995; Cyprus: Immovable Property of the Republic Regulations). In the majority of cases, this legislation does not refer specifically to the use of land for aquaculture purposes. Some legislation (such as Croatia) refers to State land, but allows for concessions, leases and sale of land, including that which contains existing fishponds. There are countries, however, where the legislation specifically refers to aquaculture, such as Malta. In France, Decree No. 83-228 (22 March 1983) regulates the granting of authorisations for mariculture, while in Tunisia the Article 23 of the Law No. 9413 (31 January 1994) concerns authorisations for the establishment of "pechêrie fixes" (aquaculture. In Turkey, Law No. 1380 provides for the granting of licenses for aquaculture in public areas (freshwaters, sea and land).

In all countries a licensing or similar system is in place to regulate the use of freshwater. For example, the Water Works Law No. 341 in Cyprus establishes the need for a license for the use of river or reservoir water for any farm. A license is also needed in Cataluña (Spain) and Greece, while in Turkey licenses are issued by the MARA after approval by the Department of Water Works, the Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources, and the Ministry of Forestry, as well as local authorities. Access to marine waters is also regulated through licensing [as in Cyprus where a license is required for any intervention on the shore (Wells Law Cap. 351 and Foreshore Protection Law Cap. 69), and also for the erection of piers (the Piers Law Cap. 78)]; or concessions [as is the case in Croatia, where concessions are required from the maritime affairs departments of the coastal counties]. Concessions are also used in Malta where they are given by the Malta Development Corporation, subject to the Development permission granted by the Planning Authority. Italy and Spain have a similar system. In other countries, such as Romania, access to marine waters depends on respect for the environment (Law 137/1995 which protects the environment).

Aquaculture experts are consulted in the formulation of economic and legal instruments. However, in some cases the private sector is only indirectly involved. Some laws exist in this respect (such as Law 137/95 of the Ministry of Water, Forest and Environment Protection of Romania, which establishes that central and local authorities, NGOs, and experts from the sector can take part in the decision making process on various subjects). Most of the countries consulted have advisory committees or councils which advise government authorities in the elaboration of water management, coastal area management and other land area management legislation. Where that type of advisory committee does not exist there are similar temporary working groups or ad hoc committees. The participation of aquaculture and fisheries experts in those committees is normal practice.

2.3.2 Specific legislation applicable to aquaculture

In all countries from which reports were received there is either a fisheries law which includes aquaculture (i.e. Tunisia), or a separate law for aquaculture. Bulgaria has a draft Fishery and Water Act which is pending Parliamentary approval. Croatia has a Marine Fishery Act No. 46/97 which regulates mariculture, a Freshwater Fishery Act No.16/86; 34/89, and a New Freshwater Fishery Bill awaiting adoption. In Cyprus a specific aquaculture law has been drafted and is expected to be approved soon. In Malta there are a number of regulations which affect aquaculture: environmental protection regulations, veterinary medicinal product regulations, marine vegetation license regulations, and others.

In almost all the countries in the Mediterranean region there is no difference between federal and provincial legislation. There are no considerable differences between legislation for marine and freshwater aquaculture. However, there are differences between obtaining approval for concessions on marine and freshwater aquaculture, due to the different authorities concerned. For example, to obtain a marine aquaculture license in Cyprus approval from the Council of Ministers, Department of Fisheries and Ports Authority is required, whereas for freshwater aquaculture approval is needed from the Department of Fisheries, the Town Planning Department and the Water Development Department. A similar situation pertains in Israel , where offshore marine aquaculture requires the consent of maritime authorities, the military, the Committee of Coastal Waters, the Ministry of Environment and the Department of Fisheries. For inland aquaculture in Israel, proof of land and water ownership is required, along with consent from the relevant regional council.

Most of the countries, with the exception of France and Greece, recognise that there is no clarity about the privileges and responsibilities of aquaculture producers. Morocco justifies this lack of clarity by saying that the aquaculture sector is underdeveloped. All the countries recognise conflicts amongst the various authorities which are involved and, in some cases, the conflicts within the applicable legislation. For example, in Romania conflicts between Water Law No. 107/96 and Decision No. 390 of the Government (24.07.97) was reported. These contradictions are based upon the fact that the Ministry of Food and Agriculture manages land issues and the Ministry of Water, Forestry and Environmental Protection is responsible for administering water issues. While the first ministry is responsible for the economic aspects of the fisheries, the second is responsible for the surveillance and preservation of water quality. With the exception of Israel, Bulgaria and Romania, most of the countries have regulated the procedure to issue permits. Normally there are differences between the permitting procedures for marine and freshwater aquaculture.

There are no commonalties in regard to the need for an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the establishment of an aquaculture farm. The requirement for an EIA is based in some cases on the projected production level of the aquaculture farm. In Croatia, for example, an EIA is required when farms have an projected production of more than 50 t. In Egypt, the criteria for requiring an EIA is based on the area where the farm is going to be established (Protected Area). Malta has very detailed legislation regulating EIAs, while Morocco, on the other hand, does not have precise rules controlling the necessity for new aquaculture ventures to submit an EIA.

The attitude to foreign investment in aquaculture ventures varies very considerably. For example, while only up to 49% of the investment can be foreign in Cyprus, there is no limit in Egypt, where foreign investment in aquaculture is actively encouraged.

2.3.3 Mechanisms to control environmental impact of and on aquaculture

There is no specific legislation which regulates the environmental impact either on and of aquaculture. In all the reporting countries, aquaculture is not specifically considered other than within the general safeguards applicable to productive/industrial activities.

In most countries the concept of the precautionary approach is not included in legislation, with the exception of Croatia and Greece, where the concept is included in their regulatory framework. In Turkey, the concept is mistakenly interpreted as being the prevention of a negative impact on the environment. However, in Cataluña (Spain), the precautionary approach is interpreted, as intended, in the reports prepared by the responsible environmental authority previous to the granting of an authorisation to aquafarm. In Romania, Article 3 of Law No. 137/95 applies the "polluter pays" principle. However, there is no reference to the rehabilitation (restoration of previous condition).

In most Mediterranean States it is reported that the international conventions referring to the introduction of non-indigenous species are applied and even if there is no specific legislation, the introduction of non-indigenous species and GMOs is always controlled by the competent authorities. These include those responsible for veterinary control, environmental protection, or animal production. For example, in Croatia non-indigenous species can only be introduced by competent research institutions and the introductions must be accompanied by the written consent of the State Environmental Protection Administration. The introduction of GMOs is strictly prohibited in Croatia (Livestock Husbandry Act). In Bulgaria introductions are controlled by the Zoological Institute of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. In Tunisia, specific legislation exists concerning the introduction of non-indigenous species and GMOs for aquaculture (Decree 29 August 1994).

In the Mediterranean countries very few initiatives from the private sector and NGOs to promote responsible aquaculture through seeking new or amended legislation. are described. There is a general lack of dialogue between Government authorities dealing with aquaculture and the private sector or NGOs. There are some exceptions to this rule, for example in Malta, where the private sector intervened to amend the original Fisheries Regulation of 1934 and in Croatia where the NGOs are involved in the legislative process.

Some countries (Croatia, Cyprus, Israel, Malta, Turkey) totally or partially prohibit aquaculture in protected (conservation or antiquarian) areas. In those that do not, this does not necessarily mean that aquaculture is considered as compatible with environmental conservation but rather that the relevant authorities forgot to specifically prohibit this activity. According to the reports, Aquaculture Zones (areas where aquaculture is positively encouraged and protected in legislation) only exist in three countries, namely Greece, Spain and Tunisia. In Greece, pursuant to Law No. 1650/86 on environmental protection, an area (including land and water space) has been created for the exclusive development of aquaculture activities. The Tunisian Aquaculture Plan has identified certain locations as favourable for aquaculture activities. Finally, in Cataluña (Spain) certain areas for mussel beds have been identified (Order 25 June 1975).

2.3.4 Involvement of local communities in the legislative process

Generally there is little in national legislation which specifically favours the development of aquaculture in support of local communities. However, there an exception in the maritime law of Cataluña (Spain) where preference is given to fisheries associations and cooperatives when granting authorisations to carry out aquaculture activities. Greece has similar legislation. There are also very few agreements that prevent conflicts over shared resources. However, there are ad hoc agreements in Cyprus, firstly between the Fisheries Department and coastal fishermen and aquafarmers regarding the sitting of offshore farms and also between owners of land-based trout farms and agricultural farmers concerning the water supplied to fish farms and the water outflow used for in irrigation. There is no customary law applicable to aquaculture activities in the Mediterranean region, with the exception of Greece, where there are some examples which are applicable to aquaculture, such as the right to conduct amateur or commercial fishing in leased areas of lakes or coastal lagoons. Many traditionally acquired rights are not considered "customary law". Generally, the national reports noted that local communities should be more involved in the formulation of legislation on aquaculture and fisheries and also for tourism, industry and environmental preservation. In Cataluña (Spain) the local communities are consulted before legislation is enacted.

2.3.5 Collaboration between Governments on transboundary aquatic ecosystems

Most countries have entered into a number of agreements for the protection of transboundary aquatic ecosystems. For example, Bulgaria has entered into the Danube Fisheries Agreement, the Black Sea Fisheries Agreement (1959), the Odessa Ministerial Declaration (1992), and the Black Sea Environmental Programme (1993), as well as participating in the new draft Convention on the Black Sea Living Resources and Fisheries. However, there are few agreements with neighbouring countries which are specifically oriented to protect the environment against irresponsible aquaculture activities or to safeguard the potential for aquaculture development against the activities of other resource users. Bulgaria has an agreement with Romania on bilateral cooperation in fisheries and aquaculture. Italy also has some agreements in this respect, such as the agreement with Yugoslavia for the protection of the Adriatic Sea and coastal zones from pollution, and with Greece regarding cooperation for the protection of the marine environment in the Ionic Sea and coastal areas (Rome 6/3/79). In the EU countries which a report has been received, the EU Directive No. 990/220/EEC on the deliberate release of GMOs into the environment has not yet been incorporated into national legislation, with the exception of Greece.

The majority of countries, with the exception of Greece (where there is an obligation for producers to provide statistical data) and Spain (where there is an obligation to share data between central administration and autonomous communities), do not foresee the obligation to establish appropriate mechanisms to collect, share and disseminate data relating to aquaculture activities in their legislation. In general, the creation of databases or other sources of information are voluntary, not mandatory.

2.3.6 Codes of Practice

Almost all the country reports referred to the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries as a (the) Code of Practice. Cyprus specifically refers to Codes of Practice for the introduction and transfers of marine and freshwater organisms of EIFAC/CECPI and the OIE International Aquatic Animal Health Code. Morocco additionally refers to the part of the Codex Alimentarius which refers to aquaculture products, as well as EU Directives on shellfish. A few reports noted that National Codes of Practice for Responsible Fisheries and Aquaculture are planned for the near future. For example, in Bulgaria a Code is planned which should be applicable to the whole basin of the Black Sea including the Danube, Dnepr and Dnestr rivers. In Turkey, the Code to be prepared is derived from the National Action Plan submitted to the EU in July 1998, which covers general hygiene and HACCP rules for aquaculture establishments.

2.3.7 Trade in aquaculture products

The national legislation applicable to trade in aquaculture products varies considerably. Most non-EU countries of the region do not have specific legislation for aquaculture products. Morocco is an exception, with some regulations to control the commercialisation of inland aquaculture products. Non-EU countries apply the same legislation for aquaculture products as applies to fish products from the capture fisheries. For example, in Croatia, Article 19 of the Veterinary Act together with subordinated legislation, which regulates the conditions under which fish can be marketed and sold, applies. In Cyprus, the control of the quality and hygiene is covered within the Food Sale and Control Law. In the EU countries of the region (e.g. Greece, Italy, Spain), EU Directives concerning aquaculture products have been incorporated into the national legislation (such as EEC Directive 91/67, which refers to sanitary measures for aquaculture products). Some countries have incorporated HACCP procedures into their national legislation (e.g. Bulgaria and Croatia, where HACCP is clearly stipulated as a mandatory system for quality protection and control of aquaculture products). Although the majority of the countries in the Consultation are not EU members, there is a tendency either towards the direct incorporation of EU Directives concerning quality control in aquaculture products into national legislation or towards harmonisation with EU legislation. The same tendency is also observed with respect to the legislation applicable to export and import of aquaculture products.

Aquaculture producers face a number of common problems when trading their products. First, in EU countries, there is a problem of an unclear regulatory framework (e.g. Italy, which recognises that legislation should exist to ensure that aquaculture products are clearly labelled with their origin). The second limitation refers to non-EU countries which need to apply very strict conditions to enter into the EU market (e.g. 15% tariff barriers), import duties, legislation of the member countries, etc. The reports indicate a clear interest in harmonising the controls over trade in aquaculture products (e.g. in the report from Malta, which pointed out that the harmonisation will benefit consumers and would place all producers on a level playing ground).

2.3.8 Incentives and penalties

Some countries in the Mediterranean region reported that incentives are provided to aquaculture producers. However, it is not clear (c/f section 3.4) how far such incentives specifically encourage responsible aquaculture practices. Cyprus provides subsidies on commercial bank loan interest for investment in approved aquaculture activities. In Morocco there are a number of benefits available to aquaculture producers such as tax reductions. Romania also foresees tax exemptions for those who apply ecological conservation and reconstruction measures with the aim of protecting the environment pursuant to the Article 34 of Law No. 137/96. Penalties are normally included in the legislation applicable to aquaculture and, in the majority of cases, are reported to be reasonable and having the potential to be effective. In Croatia an Environmental Protection Inspectorate was established when the Environmental Protection Act was enacted. However, the majority of countries recognise that the enforcement of penalties does not work in practice (e.g. Malta and Morocco, where there are limited human resources for enforcement).

2.3.9 Conflict resolution

Several of the reporting countries (e.g. Croatia, Morocco) stated that there are no specific mechanisms to settle conflicts. Some (Croatia, Egypt) reported that conflicts have not emerged. A few countries (Egypt, Malta) declared that conflicts are solved on a case by case basis. In Cyprus, conflicts are settled through consultations, personal contacts, in situ visits, establishment of ad hoc committees, exchange of letters between parties involved, and lobbying. In Cataluña (Spain), three measures have been established to settle conflicts. The first is a preventative measure (before authorisation for the aquaculture farm is granted, people affected by the activity are informed). The second is to notify the relevant administration about any problem which may arise. The third is the participation of fisheries and aquaculture associations in the Consultative Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture.

A number of improvements in the policies and administrative framework affecting aquaculture in the Mediterranean region. There is a common lack of clarity in the regulations. In most countries there is no official national policy document for aquaculture, merely pragmatic plans elaborated by the authorities in charge of the sector administration which do not have official approval. Most countries need to define a clear policy document for aquaculture, which includes participatory mechanisms through official consultations. The lack of clear regulations is the major cause of the overlapping administrative problems.

With respect to the legal environment for aquaculture, in all countries there are clear regulations for the use of land and water, but they do not normally include their use for aquaculture purposes. The private sector and NGOs need to be more involved in the formulation of economic and legal instruments concerning aquaculture. There is a need for precise legislation establishing the privileges and responsibilities of aquaculture producers. Legislation should also regulate the environmental impact on and of aquaculture as well as the development of aquaculture in support of local communities. Cooperation between neighbouring countries in order to protect transboundary ecosystems should be increased through consultations. There is a clear tendency in the reporting countries to either incorporate the EU Directives concerning quality control in aquaculture products into their national legislation, or to harmonise their legislation in conformity with EU Directives. In this regard, cooperation between EU and non-EU countries in the region should be increased to assist in legislative harmonisation. The system for enforcing penalties should be improved in most of the reporting countries and a clear procedure for conflict resolution should be included in the legislation.

National aquaculture plans were reported to exist in Cyprus, Egypt (1985-2000), Israel (within the Fisheries Plan), Italy (within the 5^th 3-year Plan for Fisheries and Aquaculture, 1997-1999), and Malta (1994), but not in Bulgaria, Croatia, Morocco, Romania, or Turkey. Section 3.1.1 therefore only applies to the countries which have reported plans, while section 3.1.2 applies to the countries which have not.

3.1.1 Aquaculture plans

This section of the synthesis only covers Cyprus, Egypt, Greece, Israel, Italy, Malta, and Tunisia, the only reports which gave details of their plans.

The aquaculture sector in those countries which have published a national aquaculture plan is very diverse. In some cases the sector was previously not well developed (e.g. mariculture in Israel; intensive marine finfish farming in Italy, due to the scarcity of wild fingerlings), or production was much lower (Egypt); in others procedures were more lengthy and complicated (Cyprus), constraints on resources were growing (Israel), or the fisheries organisation was not fully involved in aquaculture development (Malta).

Before its national aquaculture plan existed, the sector in Cyprus was managed through the Department of Fisheries, on demand. Procedures were more lengthy and less clear than nowadays. The Egyptian report gives some data on production before the plan but does not discuss how the sector was administered. Before the existence of an aquaculture plan in Israel, constraints on water use were growing, trade barriers (including customs duties) were high, customers preferences were shifting from traditional aquaculture products to new ones, and mariculture was in its infancy. In Malta, the first production unit started in 1991, three years before the aquaculture plan. Until 1994, all applications for new aquaculture ventures were coordinated by the Malta Development Corporation and the Planning Services Division (which pre-dated the current Planning Authority). EIA had already been mandatory since 1991.

Aquaculture in Greece was initially planned by the Ministry of Agriculture (Fisheries Service). From 1987 its development was regulated through medium-term plans (1987-1991 and 1991-1993) which were coordinated by the Fisheries Service, in conjunction with the European Community Service. Before the enforcement of its National Plan, investment in aquaculture in Tunisia concentrated on marine fish culture, with relatively modest results (500-600 t/yr).

The major features of existing national aquaculture plans are summarised in Table 1. The common features of national aquaculture plans include:

• Specifying limitations (e.g. farm site locations, farm sizes, numbers of farms; visual impact for new farms; minimum water depths and cage separation; allowable expansion of existing farms);
• Requiring EIA (on individual sites, or on whole areas within which farms can be considered);
• Defining management norms;
• Identifying and promoting appropriate research topics;
• Providing technical support; and
• Supporting species diversification.

Most other features are specific to the differing needs of the individual countries. However, with the exception of Egypt, there is an emphasis on the development of coastal aquaculture and off-shore technology.

The national aquaculture plans summarised in Table 1 have been primarily drawn up by the relevant fisheries authorities but the planning process incorporated some suggestions and ideas from discussions with other government departments and fish farmers (Cyprus); included representatives from academia, producers and other relevant government and other organisations (Egypt, Italy, Tunisia); and included other government departments (Malta). A subsequent review of the plan in Malta involves the producers association, as well as government authorities. The plan for aquaculture in Israel was drawn up mainly through initiatives from government and academic institutions, but the "Public Committee for the Evaluation of Marine Aquaculture" has promoted the plan (no indication of membership of this committee was provided in the report).

The existence of national aquaculture plans have produced a number of improvements, both from the perspective of producers and from an administrative point of view, include the clarification of authority; simplification of procedures; creation of opportunities; identification of constraints and measures to resolve them; provision of technical and sometimes financial support; and the promotion (though not necessarily acknowledging it as such) of responsible aquaculture development. In Cyprus, the plan clarifies the role of government and private sectors, simplifies procedures, and defines monitoring procedures. In Egypt, the plan creates expansion opportunities, provides more facilities and support for the private sector, and enables the administration to evaluate the requirements for training, extension services, etc., for the forecast expansion in aquaculture production. Greece has a well-articulated National Plan, which includes a major relevant plan (the Operational Fishery Business Plan of the Ministry of Agriculture) and two complementary plans (the Pesca Business Plan of the Ministry of Agriculture and the Private Investment Plan of the Ministry of National Economy). These conform with EU Directives, which combine infrastructure expansion and improvement, the investment and marketing promotion, environmental care, and the improvement of working conditions. Plans for aquaculture within the fisheries plan of Israel provide priorities for research and development, highlight constraints and identify the means to combat them, provide new research and development funding, mobilise financial support for private investment, identify the value of aquaculture for food security, assist the efficient use of marginal desert waters; and target a customs rate decrease of 50% by 2001. In Italy, the plan favours the development of a responsible attitude by defining criteria for the issuance of grants and loans. In Malta, the plan provides a clear perspective of development for the next ten years to the private sector, identifies development and conservation areas, promotes responsible aquaculture through health and environmental monitoring programmes, and identifies the Planning Authority as the prime authority for granting development permission. The identification of available aquaculture sites, as well as appropriate rearing techniques and market opportunities for the main aquaculture sectors (inland and marine fish culture and mollusc culture) are features of the Tunisian plan.

Some linkages between the aquaculture plans and other relevant plans are described in the national reports. In Cyprus the aquaculture plan is mentioned in the current 5-year strategic development plan (which is based on "indicative planning") but there is no specific link between the plans for the various development sectors. The aquaculture plan of Egypt is part of the fisheries resources development plan, which is in turn part of a multi-sectorial national development plan. The aquaculture (within fisheries) plan of Israel complies with other national and regional (with Jordan) targets aimed at maximising the efficiency of water use. The Maltese aquaculture plan is linked with other planning documents concerning development outside built-up areas, and the use of farmhouses and agricultural buildings. Linkages between a major and two complementary plans, within the Greek National Plan, have already been recorded above.

The concept of the precautionary approach has been employed in the development of aquaculture plans, which seem to be promoting a responsible attitude to aquaculture in the countries where they have been introduced. These plans, though mainly the means of executing laws and regulations, have generally also created a climate for the development of responsible aquaculture. However, since the aquaculture plan of Cyprus is not yet implemented, it is difficult to forecast how far it will positively promote responsible aquaculture. The precautionary approach was the basis of its plan, in accordance with an FAO consultancy on the environmental impact of proposed aquaculture developments. In Egypt, the existence of the plan is reported to have resulted in a sharp increase in aquaculture production; the use of improved techniques, especially in traditional farms; the involvement of a wider spectrum of the populace in aquaculture; the extension of aquaculture from the Northern Delta to Upper Egypt; and the application of the precautionary approach is preventing the negative impacts on water and land resources which were being created by unplanned aquaculture expansion. The existence of an aquaculture plan in Israel is promoting responsible aquaculture because it minimises effluents through recycling; controls introductions more efficiently; enables the future licensing of aquaculture farms; and thus enhances the enforcement of regulations. In Malta, the aquaculture plan is reported to have substantially promoted the concept of responsible aquaculture by establishing the use of the precautionary approach; limiting sites for development; and insisting on environmental impact studies. Some countries (Greece, Israel, Malta) promote the concept of the precautionary approach and responsible aquaculture through the terms of their aquaculture licenses.

Major beneficiaries of the plans are reported to include the commercial sector (Cyprus, Egypt, Greece, Italy, Malta), artisanal fishermen (Egypt), high priority remote rural areas (Israel), and public administration (Cyprus, Malta) and research (Cyprus, Greece, Italy). The reports from Cyprus and Greece also remarked that it was the public which ultimately benefited.

The national aquaculture plans have carefully considered the availability of resources in all cases. The necessity to diversify income and diet was recognised in the plans for Cyprus, Egypt, Greece, and Israel, but not in Malta. Specifically, the dependency on tourism in Cyprus and the fact that 60% of fish and fish products are imported was considered, while in Egypt it is hoped that the plan will increase the availability of foodfish from 5 kg/caput/yr to 13 kg/caput/yr, as well as increasing job opportunities, which is a priority need. In Greece, a specific reference to the high nutritional value of fisheries products is included in the primary plan.

3.1.2 Aquaculture development strategy in the absence of specific aquaculture plans

This section of the synthesis refers only to Bulgaria, Croatia, Morocco, Romania, Spain, and Turkey. France does not appear in sections 3.1.1 or 3.1.2 because the relevant parts of their report were missing at the time that this synthesis was prepared.

Various strategies were described in the national reports of countries which do not yet have a specific aquaculture plan but the absence of a plan was thought to reflect the minimal level of importance attached to aquaculture development by government authorities in Croatia (probably), Morocco (compared to the fisheries sector), and Turkey (except within the relevant ministries and department specifically concerned with aquaculture). In Bulgaria and Romania, the absence of an aquaculture plan may only reflect the time necessary to establish reform programmes during the transitional period, rather than any lack of enthusiasm for the aquaculture sector per se. The reports from Croatia and Turkey did not indicate that there was any immediate intention to issue a specific national aquaculture plan. This also seems to apply to Morocco and Romania but the fisheries authorities in those countries are incorporating, or intend to incorporate aquaculture within other plans. In Morocco, the Ministry of Marine Fisheries is, for the first time, including aquaculture within its 5-year (1999-2003) fishery strategic plan. The Marine Fisheries Department is therefore integrating aquaculture into the general development process, paying special attention to the availability of on-land or offshore sites for exploitation; the rearing of economically interesting species; deficiency of good quality farmed fish for the national and international markets; encouraging culture-based littoral fisheries, in conjunction with fishing communities; establishing of artificial reefs; diversifying fishing community income; and controlling aquaculture�s use of the coastal environment, thus creating some potential for the eco-labelling of aquaculture products. In Romania, the government fisheries authorities have requested that the planning of a reform programme for aquaculture should be incorporated within the "Know-how Fishery Project", funded by the UK government. Aquaculture development planning in Spain is included in the fisheries sector and is implemented autonomously on a regional basis; at the national level, Spain intends to integrate aquaculture into the EU funding programmes.

Aquaculture is referred to in other plans, where there is no national aquaculture plan. Freshwater aquaculture was mentioned within a strategy document drafted by the Croatian Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry two years ago but, due to the passage of time, about 50% of the objectives have already been achieved. Certain coastal areas also have documents which discuss the feasibility of and justification for marine aquaculture in their districts but these do not constitute true development plans. There are also strategies for the development of agriculture and tourism in Croatia, which mention aquaculture but accord it no priority. All recent five-year plans in Turkey mention the fact that aquaculture should be supported. In some other countries, aquaculture is being given a rather higher profile. In Morocco, aquaculture is included in the plans of the Ministry of Agriculture (sanitary control and land use), the Ministry of Infrastructure (environmental protection and EIA), and within the an interministerial commission for the development of tourism (which is concerned with the administration of projects within 5 km of the coastline. In addition, as mentioned above, aquaculture has been included for the first time in the new 5-year Moroccan marine fisheries strategic plan which includes, inter alia, site evaluation for aquaculture potential; development of the institutional framework; the promotion of culture-based fisheries; the management and expansion of mollusc stocks; and the promotion of seaweed cultivation. In Romania, aquaculture is included in several other regional and national plans, including the regional Strategic Plan of Action for the Black Sea (1996), which was also mentioned in the report from Bulgaria, includes common strategies for sustainable aquaculture development, and the establishment of common norms for ecologically compatible aquaculture; the national plan for the protection and rehabilitation of the Black Sea (this plan was established by the Ministry of Water, Forestry, and Environmental Protection, but without the advice of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food) promotes sustainable aquaculture; another plan of the Ministry of Water, Forestry, and Environmental Protection, which coordinates the development of trout farming; a reform programme for the agricultural and food production sector, including farmed fish, which is included in the government development plan for 1998-2000; and interministerial programmes for disadvantaged rural areas and for conservation areas.

Aquaculture development has a mixed future in the countries which do not have specific aquaculture plans. Its future in Turkey is reported to be dismal; producers expect the industry to collapse. In Romania, the privatisation of inland fish farms is expected to continue, which should be followed by increased production. If plans to develop the integrated management of aquatic resources occur in Bulgaria, it is hoped that diet will be diversified and income increased. Like other countries which do not have a specific plan for aquaculture development, it is difficult to say what the future of aquaculture development in Croatia will be. It is possible that there may be an increase in carp and trout production; in addition, a slight increase in the production from marine aquaculture and a greater increase in its value is forecast. There may seem little scope for a great expansion of aquaculture in Morocco. However, strategic choices � marine aquaculture, the rational use of coastal lagoons and bays, good species selection � could provide an opportunity for an autonomous and spontaneous expansion in the sector, even in the absence of an aquaculture plan.

Aquaculture provides an opportunity to diversify income and diet. It is hoped that the per capita consumption of fish in Bulgaria (currently, at 4 kg/caput/yr, lower than the European average) can be increased through the expansion of aquaculture. There are no particular strategies to achieve diversification of income and/or diet through aquaculture in Croatia, Turkey, or Romania, but the potential is at least recognised. The situation is more positive in Morocco, where the strategy for marine fishery development up to 2000 foresees aquaculture as a means of increasing the income of fishermen. However, while inland aquaculture is seen by the Ministry of Agriculture as a means of increasing employment, income, and food security, this is not reflected in any relevant development plan.

A number of criteria which are utilised to evaluate the suitability (responsibility) of specific aquaculture ventures for approval were described in the various national reports (Table 2). Common criteria in evaluating new ventures include compliance with the relevant legislation and the objectives of national aquaculture plans, a favourable EIA, and an assessment of the economic feasibility.

Even in those countries where there is an aquaculture plan, the sector has a comparatively low profile in the competition for resources. In a drought-ridden country like Cyprus, the priority for freshwater must be for domestic and agricultural use. Fisheries (both capture and aquaculture) contributes only 0.23% to the GDP of Cyprus, compared to 8% from tourism. Fisheries employ 0.4% of the population there, whereas tourism employs 10.5%. Though comparisons with alternative resource use were not quantified in the report from Egypt, it was stated that its aquaculture plan was successful in achieving targeted production levels and that there was an increased availability of fish in local markets. In order to conserve particularly limited supplies of freshwater, inland aquaculture in Israel is closely linked to irrigation, so the future expansion of aquaculture is symbiotic with the production of green crops. In Malta there is a high level of competition with other common resource users. Potential marine aquaculture developments are assessed on the basis of their potential interference with tourism and shipping. Land-based aquaculture comes under considerable scrutiny because a large proportion of the coastline consists of cliffs and competition for the remainder, particularly from the tourism industry, is intense. In Tunisia, a special committee holds annual meetings to evaluate the implementation of its aquaculture plan, and to discuss the successes achieved and the difficulties encountered.

Amongst those countries without an aquaculture plan, similar constraints generally appear to face aquaculture, in the sense that it is a rather small player in a highly competitive world of resource users. However, the report from Greece notes that despite the restrictive measures which have been taken for the protection of capture fisheries, total fish production has increased dramatically due to aquaculture development, thus conforming with the Greek National Plan. A significant increase in employment through aquaculture has also occurred. In Croatia some resources (e.g. existing fish ponds, shellfish rearing areas) cannot be used for anything else except for aquaculture. Aquaculture is expected to bring future benefits, including increased employment and higher farm gross revenues and profits. In Morocco, although statistical information is collated on aquaculture production and employment, there is no formal evaluation of the relative benefits of aquaculture compared with other common resource users. Defending aquaculture against other industries, notably tourism and agriculture, is therefore difficult. Similarly, in Turkey the presence of tourism, cultural and historical relics, and also capture fisheries, have priority over aquaculture. In the absence of an aquaculture plan, as in other countries, the comparative economic and social benefits of aquaculture cannot be assessed.

Two common factors constrain aquaculture development in the region. One primarily affects marine aquaculture, namely the requirements of the vitally important coastal tourism industry throughout the Mediterranean. The other is a shortage of freshwater, which constrains its use for inland aquaculture. The exact nature and severity of these problems vary from country to country but these common issues need special attention, possibly on a regional basis.

Few identifiable strategies are being employed specifically to promote awareness about the importance of responsible aquaculture, or to encourage cooperation between individual fish farmers, between the aquaculture production sector and public institutions, with non-governmental organisations, and with the general public, to improve responsibility. However, some actions are reported to be consonant with the general concept. These include the harmonisation of legislation with the EU, an increase in the standard of living, and the activities of international organisations (Bulgaria); and the role of the fisheries department in helping to form the producers association, as well as the distribution of relevant information, media publicity and the organisation of visits to farms (Cyprus). In Greece, environmental responsibility is ensured through the obligation to file an EIA report when applying for an aquaculture licence and through the application of the law (Resolutions Approving Environmental Conditions) concerning the identification of aquaculture areas. However, it is accepted that legal penalties are not sufficient to ensure the adoption of responsible practices. For this reason, Greece constantly promotes the concept of responsible aquaculture to producers during aquaculture conferences and trade fairs; it also uses the conclusions from such events in the formulation of future policies and legislation. Awareness of responsible aquaculture practices in Israel is enhanced by the existence of various committees which consist of administration, research, and producer personnel in equal proportion. These committees control and provide support for aquaculture, including the provision of governmental funding. These committees include one for steering research and development in aquaculture; another (run by the fish breeders association) which advises the three research stations; and an advisory committee for introductions. In addition, where Israel participates in a regional research project which concurs with national projects, a coordination committee is set up. As in Cyprus and Malta, the role of the governmental authorities in Israel in assisting the formation of a producers association has encouraged cooperation between farmers, and thus awareness of mutual responsibility. The advice of this association is now sought in reviewing government policy. Morocco has also found that the establishment of a national aquaculture advisory committee, involving the public, academic, and private sectors, and the Morocco Aquaculture Society and fisheries chambers of commerce all assist the promotion of responsible aquaculture practices. A similar picture is presented from Turkey but it is noticeable that this report also indicates that, besides, government and academic personnel and producers, consultations take place with NGOs. Close links with international organisations were also noted as important.

Generally all strategies and plans are coordinated and funded by the national government, but some funding from other sources in Turkey (Turkish Fisheries Foundation) and Israel (Fish Breeders Association; international sources) was also noted. A plea for coordination and funding from international sources was made in the report from Bulgaria, and would probably be supported by the other countries. The way in which the effectiveness of strategies and plans in achieving responsible aquaculture were actually evaluated was not reported. However, a number of views were expressed by the national teams in preparing their reports. These included statements that they should be assessed by all relevant parties, including the producers, traders and NGOs, as well as the government sector; that it was the (continuing) implementation of the strategies themselves which proved their effectiveness; and that the evaluation of farm performance, farm visits, personal contacts with government officials, and the frequency and severity of conflicts (and the ease with which they are resolved) were all measures of success.

In this section of the national reports, no specific current incentives to persuade existing aquaculture units to operate in a more responsible manner were identified (but c/f section 2.3.8). However, in the report from Romania, it was noted that requests may be made to the government for a reduction in fees for those who practice effective measures for ecological protection, conservation, and rehabilitation; this incentive applies to aquaculture in the same way as to other activities. Unspecified aid is granted to Greek aquaculture ventures which respect the current legislation (which embodies the principles of responsible aquaculture). A deterrent was described in the report from Egypt, where those farms that do not achieve the targets set for increasing efficiency and maximising within 7 years lose their licenses. The report from Israel regarded government support for research and development as an incentive. Everywhere, reliance appears to be being placed on the "stick" of legislation (which, as observed in other parts of the respective reports, is often inadequate or badly coordinated), rather than any positive "carrots" in the form of incentives.

A similar picture emerges from the responses to the question about potential future incentives to encourage future aquaculture ventures to adopt responsible attitudes and to follow the Code. The incentives and deterrents which are built into the legislation which affects aquaculture are generally thought to suffice. In many ways they are more easy to apply to new ventures than to existing aquaculture producers. However, some incentives were mentioned in the reports from a number of countries. In Romania, some measures are being taken to stimulate investment in freshwater crustacean and frog culture. In Morocco, the government will bear some enterprise costs, which will depend not only on the level of employment generated, the area where the enterprise is to be situated, and the total amount invested, but also on the eco-friendliness of the technology to be employed. Under some circumstances, new ventures can benefit from free land, and re-imbursement of the cost of facilities and personnel training.

Almost no examples of specific deterrents and disincentives to discourage non-responsible construction and operational procedures being applied in existing or future aquaculture developments were cited. The exception was the report that some recently illegally constructed cages had been removed in Turkey. In other countries it may be that the application of the existing legislation and the rules of permits, etc., is believed to be sufficient.

A number of observations can be drawn from the material submitted by the national teams concerning aquaculture strategies and plans. Broader participation in the preparation of new aquaculture plans, and the review of existing ones, would be beneficial. Linkages between aquaculture plans and other national plans which concern common resources would be advantageous. Improvements need to be made in the indicators by which the efficiency of aquaculture is assessed and clear review processes need to be established. Greater emphasis on incentives, rather than total reliance on punitive measures should be encouraged. Since many resources are shared, sub-regional or regional aquaculture plans are be worth considering. In particular, regional approaches towards solving the common problems of inland aquaculture in competing with other users for freshwater, and of coastal aquaculture in competing with tourism could be considered. Regional promotion of aquaculture as a responsible activity should be considered. Assistance is required in the national promotion of the concept of responsible aquaculture. There would be a value, in those countries which do not already have them, in the establishment of national aquaculture advisory committees. Regional committees of this type may also be useful. Linkages with international organisations concerned with responsible aquaculture need to be strengthened.

Because of the complex nature of the topic of section 4, a different approach has been used in its synthesis to that used for section 3. In section 4, some major points have been highlighted in bold in each sub-section, while some conclusions have been drawn in sub-section 4.8.

The necessity for aquaculture to develop in a responsible manner is well accepted and understood in government and academic circles. Indirectly, responsible aquaculture is encouraged through its inclusion in legislation but information specifically designed for the private sector is limited, and there is room for improved dissemination. Awareness of the general concept of responsibility is increasing amongst the owners and operators of large-scale and intensive farms, but small-scale and traditional fish farmers are generally ignorant of the concept, and some resistance has been noted, due to the higher costs envisaged by farmers. The concepts of the precautionary approach and responsible aquaculture have generally been incorporated, where legislation exists, into regulations and licences. However, recognition and application of these principles in the private sector, unless enforced by law, is limited by lack of dissemination, specifically due to shortages in financial resources.

Despite the lack of recognition of the concept of the Code per se, there is generally a positive attitude within the production sector towards the environment in which it operates because of the clear recognition that financial success depends not only on maximising production but also on creating and maintaining a good product image. For example, depuration of bivalve molluscs reared in French waters classified as "category B" is mandatory. However, the report from another country specifically notes that farmers care about the quality of the water which they access for their freshwater fish farms but care little about the quality of the water which they discharge, or its effect on the environment in general, or even on their neighbouring fish farms. As might be expected, the attitude towards the environment amongst the newer entrants to aquaculture tends to be more responsible than amongst traditional fish farmers. Thus education, not just reaction to consumer concerns (and thus its impact on revenue), has a vital role to play in this topic. While at one extreme the need to co-exist with other common resource users is recognised, elsewhere the lack of a development plan and poor coordination between ministries is reported to inhibit the development of the sector.

The attitude of alternative resource users towards aquaculture is variable. Considerable opposition to coastal aquaculture from farmers, fishermen and land developers is recorded in one country and to inland aquaculture from other freshwater users (domestic consumers and irrigated crop producers) in another. In several countries, the tourism industry is a major opponent to coastal aquaculture. However, in many countries, reaction to the aquaculture industry is either generally positive or indifferent; some local conflicts were reported in others, but were easily solved. However, where there is a lack of conflict this may simply reflect the fact that resource use by aquaculture is still low.

Most local NGOs in the region, though generally active on general environmental matters, were reported to have a positive or neutral attitude towards aquaculture [but see also section 4.2.1 (The attitude of NGOs towards the environment ...) and 4.3.2 (NGOs and the aquaculture industry)]. However, criticism has been voiced about tuna farming (Croatia) and the effect of cage culture on the marine environment (Israel, Malta) and, more generally, about the possible negative impact of aquaculture (Spain). No intervention in the region by international NGOs has been reported.

While the concept of sustainable resource use is recognised by the public, no special provisions are taken by the public sector to make aquaculture producers and suppliers aware of the potential risks of resource exhaustion or irreversible adverse changes in most countries except, where it exists, in legislation. Few, if any, specific actions seem to be taken to promote the concept of responsible aquaculture within the production sector in the region. Strong reliance seems to be placed on legislation rather than direct education or training in this topic. The Code itself has clearly not yet become common parlance. However, at least two countries intend to set up meetings and training courses as well as issuing publications to disseminate the CCRF. In three other countries (Italy, Romania, Spain) it has been translated and disseminated, either through an annual bulletin to fish farmers or through producer associations, engendering many constructive comments from the private sector. This initiative clearly demonstrates the need to produce aquaculture information (in general, and specifically on the Code) in the national language for it to be utilised in the private sector [c/f section 4.7].

4.2.1 The environment

Aquaculture producers are aware of the importance of monitoring "external" environmental conditions, to guarantee themselves against problems caused by the activities of other resource users. However, their ability to defend themselves from the actions of other resource users is sometimes weak due to a lack of actual systematic monitoring by public authorities. Public environmental monitoring of the water resources utilised for aquaculture is reported from a few countries. Specific problems of external pollution were reported in freshwater sources, and in ponds because of poorly controlled pesticide use. Sanctions against external polluters were reported in one country. In another, cooperative societies were reported to endeavour to solve the water quality problems affecting culture-based fisheries. The report from France mentions that mollusc culture is integrated with other traditional coastal activities through the application of specific coastal planning instruments which protect aquafarms from external environmental contamination. The compliance of aquafarmers with environmental regulations is monitored by national or regional government authorities. In some cases, producers are required to submit annual environmental monitoring reports. However, in one country, while the report quite surprisingly recorded that there are no impacts of aquaculture on the environment, it noted that the consequences of other resource users impacted on aquaculture because effluent legislation is inadequately enforced. In Egypt, it is interesting that one law specifically lists activities which are harmful to agriculture; aquaculture is not included.

Efficient evaluation of the impacts of aquaculture activities on the environment, as well as the impact of other activities on the environment within which aquaculture operates, is reported to be enhanced by good cooperation with other relevant authorities, and sometimes through the establishment of a formal interministerial committees. However, interdisciplinary or interministerial dialogue is reported to be weak in almost a third of the countries. In many cases this may be linked to the lack of integration of aquaculture with other activities. However, the integration of aquaculture with other resource users was described in some countries. Actual (Bulgaria) or potential (Romania) use of warm water discharges from electricity power stations, plans or existing activities related to tourism (with freshwater aquaculture in Croatia and Cyprus; with all aquaculture activities in Israel), integration with crop production especially desert agriculture (Egypt, Israel) were recorded. Research on the integration of aquaculture with livestock (pigs, chicken) production was noted in Romania.

The responsibility for environmental monitoring belongs to a wide spectrum of authorities, as listed in the relevant national reports. These include, in addition to the authorities responsible for fisheries, water and environment, those which are concerned with agriculture, forestry and agrarian reform, veterinary services, shipping, and tourism. The economic and human resources available in the public sector to monitor the environmental milieu of aquaculture are limited in most countries, and administrative problems are sometimes identified as an additional constraint.

The necessity for adequate farm management and the use of rearing practices which are not only technically and economically sound, but also environmentally consonant with the needs of other resource users, is well understood in most countries, particularly by the larger producers. These concepts were reported to be fostered by the adoption of legislation, by the technical training of farmers, and by controls on farm water quality and use. However, the importance of good farm management practices is less well understood by some less-educated producers, especially traditional fish farmers. The activities of less well-educated farmers often impacts on those farmers who are environmentally conscious, because the general image of aquaculture suffers. Economic reasons primarily influence the management techniques which are applied, as well as the fear of enhanced competition from other resource users, should aquaculture farm management be seen to be deficient. Specific performance bonds or deposits (Bulgaria, Croatia, Malta), or the restoration of abandoned farms to their original state (France, Greece, Morocco, Spain) is required from aquaculture investors in some countries, but their effectiveness is not reported; some countries did not report any specific measures of this type.

The means by which those producers who cause environmental damage are legally constrained, which include farm closure and fines, seem generally effective in most countries but some problems were reported in enforcement, and in the detrimental effect of imposing excessively repressive measures on aquaculture producers, in others. In Egypt, where aquaculture was reported to have been negatively impacted by the activities of other resource users, the penalties for such actions were severe but the punitive process was cumbersome and therefore ineffective.

The methods which aquaculture producers use to dispose of wastes, such as dead or diseased fish, processing wastes, pond solids, excess veterinary drugs and hazardous chemicals, is rather variable. In most countries, dead (and sometimes visibly diseased) fish are dumped into pits or burned, but in at least one they are left on the pond banks where they desiccate or are consumed by birds. Several countries reported that drugs are little used because of their high cost, while others stated that adequate controls were the deterrent. In many cases, there are no processing wastes because the fish are sold whole, but one country mentioned that trout processing wastes were buried in pits. The discharge from hatcheries was only mentioned in the report from one country, where they go into the drainage system. Similarly, only one country mentioned the disposal of waste pond solids, which were disposed of in fields. Two countries (Bulgaria and Turkey) mentioned the need for further training and monitoring of waste disposal. In terms of health management, the situation seems to be more satisfactory. Outbreaks of disease are monitored by public authorities in almost all countries. In addition, the larger aquaculture producers avail themselves of the assistance available from private companies in this topic. Health certificates are generally required for live animal imports.

Where the imposition of emergency actions (e.g. the banning of product sale or live organism transfer) by public authorities in the case of adverse natural phenomena (e.g. toxic algal blooms or environmental contamination) have been necessary, producers are reported to be understanding about the need for such actions, and willing to cooperate. The potential impact of non-cooperation on the markets being supplied by producers is obvious, and commercial considerations are paramount.

Although some countries (Bulgaria, Romania, Morocco) report that NGOs have no specific concerns about the environmental consequences of aquaculture (although NGOs are active about general environmental matters in Morocco), some concerns have been expressed in about half of the other countries, especially in the island States and the eastern Mediterranean. One country (Turkey) indicated that aquaculture was being treated unfairly, while the more significant detrimental impacts of other, more major, common resource users received less attention. Despite this aquaculture appears to have received relatively little attention from NGOs in the Mediterranean region to date, perhaps because of its relatively small scale, and therefore its minimal resource requirements and impacts.

Two countries (Croatia, Malta) reported that producers� own records are used in the public evaluation of the environment of aquaculture. Some countries reported that organised or ad hoc training is provided for farmers. Some of the larger aquaculture producers obtain technical information from other countries, sometimes because of absence of national academic institutions concerned with the development of new aquaculture technology. At the other extreme, the academic and production sectors are closely linked in the smaller countries of the region (e.g. Cyprus, Israel, Malta), where the aquaculture community is closely knit. It is not clear whether the training available in any country is specifically aligned to responsible aquaculture practices, however; in most cases, it seems likely that tuition is provided on purely technical matters. Most countries reported that they have research institutes with specific interests in aquaculture but these are sometimes inhibited by funding difficulties. Though dialogue between academic institutions and the private sector is generally appropriate in the more developed countries of the region, it is clearly inadequate in others. More rapid dissemination to the private sector of the information generated through research, in a digestible form, is desirable. The lack of funds for disseminating such information is noted as a factor in some countries.

4.2.2 Species choice

The import of non-indigenous species is reported to be under strict national control, or totally prohibited, in most countries of the region and the use of international controls (specifically EIFAC) and academic or foreign assistance is mentioned in the reports. EU countries apply their own relevant legislation, in addition to the terms agreed in CITES. However, while current practice is said to be reasonably effective, the impact of earlier uncontrolled introductions was noted. For example, all the freshwater species introduced into Croatia have spread into the wild. In addition, one country noted the effect of introductions by neighbouring Mediterranean countries and another reported that national violations had occurred due to the strict interpretation of the word "fish" as finfish, thus permitting the introduction of crustaceans without control. The report from Greece commented that the opening of borders between EU countries may result in less effective controls on introductions. In several countries, introductions are controlled by means of a special committee. While academic institutions are frequently consulted before new introductions are permitted, it is not clear whether their considerations include the potential and comparative economic benefits of introductions, or whether they concentrate only on the real or perceived threat to local fauna and flora, should escapes occur.

Some regard the eastern Mediterranean Sea as "contaminated" with inferior non-indigenous species of Indo-Pacific origin, which have gained access through the Suez Canal. Some positive effects of introductions were recorded, including rainbow trout, Japanese carpet shells (Manila clams), carps, and Pacific oysters. However, negative impacts were reported in four countries. These were the effect of the introduction of Carassius auratus, Pseudorasbora parva, Lepomis gibbosus, and Ictalurus nebulosus on open waters in Croatia, the introduction of Siluris glanis on the Po River and two molluscs (Scapharca inaequivalis and Rapana venosa) on mollusc culture in Italy, the introduction of crawfish in Egypt and the loss of the indigenous tilapia Oreochromis aureus through the import of about 30 exotic species in Israel (an action which had been taken because of the lack of local species suitable for aquaculture). Disease problems for the trout, eel, and sea bass and bream farming industries through introductions were also reported (Italy).

While control over introductions of exotic species for aquaculture appears to be reasonably effective, there is some circumvention, and in only a minority of reports are controls over the within-country sale and transfer of live organisms regarded as adequate. Academic institutions are frequently consulted about proposed introductions but one country (Malta) reported a lack of dialogue between scientific institutions and local authorities. The incorrect application of regulations due to a lack of adequate training, was noted. While many in the private sector have a good understanding of the need for controls over introductions and transfers, the temptation to circumvent the rules for financial gain remains. Effective implementation of regulations therefore continues to be critically important, not only for the continued success of aquaculture but for the capture fisheries and conservation. More education and training for the private sector, the greater use of public research facilities, specialised education for the officials responsible for control, and more efficient monitoring (made more effective where there is a producers association) would generally seem to be necessary.

4.2.3 Genetic manipulations

The national reports note that the private sector is successfully raising hybrids of sturgeon, tilapias, sea bream, bass (Morone spp.) and Chinese carps. Hybrid stocks are maintained by public institutions and private producers.

In most countries of the region, no research programmes on the use of genetically modified organisms in aquaculture exist, with financial constraints being frequently cited as the cause. However, some investigations on gynogenesis and polyploidy were reported by Croatia, France, and Italy. In only two reports was any use of GMOs by the private sector noted. These were in Cyprus, where the private sector has imported small quantities of all-female trout eggs and triploids have been imported under strict controls. The other was in Italy, where experiments on transgenic fish in private farms under strict supervision from scientific institutions was reported. The use of genetically modified organisms in commercial aquaculture is not yet a major issue in the region. Since there is little use of GMOs in the countries which submitted reports, there are no specific national research programmes designed to evaluate or control the potential impact of the use of genetically modified organisms on the environment (e.g. effects on biodiversity). However, an EU-financed concerted action programme on the introduction of sterile GMOs for sea bass improvement was mentioned (Italy).

Although the potentially harmful effects which GMOs may cause (e.g. in terms of decreased genetic diversity if introduced into the wild) have therefore hardly been considered in most countries of the region, a provision on their use within the national environmental law of Cyprus, which will be consonant with EU legislation and the international conventions which the country has signed, is under preparation. Future introductions of GMOs and hybrids in Malta will also be consonant with EU legislation. Bilateral cooperation within Black Sea countries on this topic was mentioned, as well as a programme for the identification, evaluation, conservation, and improvement of genetic quality, which is being considered by the Romanian government.

4.2.4 Sustainable use of inputs

In those countries where aquaculture development is included within the wider agricultural development strategy, it has a lower priority for land and water resource use than agriculture itself. Land, water and human resources were reported to be under-utilised or badly managed in some countries and the need for integrated resource management, whether inland or coastal, was identified several times. No specific problems were identified concerning the labour available for aquaculture in the region, except for a shortage in specialised personnel which was noted as a potential constraint in Croatia.

The shortage of economic resources for aquaculture (Croatia) and the shortage of sites for coastal aquaculture (Malta) were reported to have had positive effects, in the sense that they have led to more sustainable resource utilisation. In another country (Italy), it was reported that the current aquaculture plan states that aquaculture, particularly extensive aquaculture, contributes to the conservation of the environment in lagoon and marshy areas, as well as local cultural characteristics.

While some countries (Bulgaria, Croatia, Turkey) did not report any particularly difficult issues illustrating past, current or potential conflicts in resource use, other reports mentioned conflicts with the local population, the tourism industry, agricultural farmers, landowners, oil companies, harbour authorities, and military authorities. Conflicts with fishermen are commonplace (for example, because of the capture of wild fingerlings for aquaculture and reservoir re-stocking programmes in Tunisia). One report suggested that the statistical data which farmers and fishermen are obliged to provide might assist in monitoring and evaluating the results of strategies and decisions concerning resource use by the aquaculture sector. However, no defined procedures for evaluation were described in any report except that for Tunisia, where a special commission, established within the Ministry of Agriculture was established to evaluate the results and constraints experienced in executing its five year plan; This commission met in the third year of the plan, to allow for adjustments to be made.

Apart from the EU countries, Turkey was the only country where locally manufactured supplies of fish meal were reported to be available, the complete or partial replacement of marine resources in aquafeeds appears to be receiving research attention in only a few countries (Israel, Malta). In those countries without an aquafeed manufacturing sector the high cost of importing aquafeeds was reported to encourage responsible use, but also led to a high price for aquaculture products. Aquafeeds and their ingredients are mainly selected according to their cost, but some attention to their impact on the environment was also reported, where aquaculture is an industrial activity (e.g. trout farming and marine finfish culture in cages) .

While most farmers may understand their environmental advantages, many are reported to avoid using extruded feeds because of their high cost (it is not clear if these farmers are only considering unit feed cost, or the more valid "cost of feeding per unit of production"). Ecologically acceptable feeds (e.g., low-phosphorus, low-nitrogen) are available in a number of countries (e.g. Italy, where their environmental benefits are clearly pointed out on the labels), but the reports from many countries indicate that farmers are generally resistant to their use because of their higher unit cost. Economics is the principle factor governing feed utilisation in most countries, although there is a general awareness that there are also environmental consequences of poor feeding practices. The importance of eco-friendly feeds and feeding technology may continue to be ignored by the private sector in many countries, unless they can be proved to be more profitable (in Italy this is said to have been demonstrated; this is also true for France, where research in this field is carried out in strict cooperation with producers), or regulations are developed and enforced (for example, control over the impact of marine aquafeeds in the Bay of Eilat, Israel, through by feed quotas).

Some use of chemical fertilisers in freshwater aquaculture was reported in several countries, but animal manures in only two (Egypt, Romania). Some countries were reported to have minimised fertilisation, sometimes for economic reasons.

The necessity for maintaining optimum levels of farm hygiene and health management to ensure the safe, effective and minimal use of therapeutants, hormones and drugs, antibiotics and other disease control chemicals is generally recognised. In some countries (e.g. Egypt), in-farm stocking of chemicals is prohibited. However, it is sometimes their cost, rather than responsibility which limits their use. In most countries, the use of these substances is limited and strictly controlled, usually by the veterinary authorities, or avoided through the use of vaccines (e.g. in France). However, surveillance is not always effective, and farmers may be unlikely to hesitate to use them if their stock is endangered. However, in Malta it is the farmers themselves who self-regulate chemical use, by carrying out fish health monitoring programmes. In some countries, aquafarmers were reported not to be using herbicides or rotenone (in practice, they are absent in EU countries); while controls on their use exist in other countries, monitoring is not always effective. Other substances, such as anti-predator agents, antifoulants, formalin, etc., are generally used with caution (sometimes only by authorised personnel), and sometimes prohibited.

Many farmers do not analyse their discharge water for hazardous chemicals. In some cases, farmers are said to consider that water is so polluted by urban and industrial wastes, and that the contribution of inland aquaculture is relatively minor. However, the cage farmers of Eilat are themselves funding an environmental programme to control environmental impact. Aquafarm wastewater control is thus mainly a function of the public sector in some countries but even then is not always effective. Producers in most countries accept public monitoring measures for the use of therapeutants, hormones and chemicals willingly, being aware of their importance and the market image of their product. Others temper their concern with the fear of provisions in existing or future legislation, particularly from the EU; their concern is primarily commercial.

A desire to replace potentially hazardous materials with safer products was reported in the reports from some countries. However, in view of another report which stated that many farmers care little about these matters, the concern may primarily be evident amongst government and academic staff. The public do not yet appear to be sensitised to such topics in many countries.

4.2.5 Insurance

It appears that a considerable proportion of the risk inherent in being an aquaculture producer is still borne by the farmers in the region, where the use of insurance is very variable. While coverage for all the aquaculture activities developed to date in Greece (hatcheries, shellfish culture, intensive fish farming in land-based and floating facilities) is available, the take up rate is low, and many farmers only insure on a seasonal basis, because the terms of the policies are not yet sufficiently favourable. All units are said to be insured in Malta, but in many countries the stock in most grow-out units is uninsured, due to the high costs involved. Consignments of marine fry are insured in Cyprus, and the structures and stock of finfish farms are reported to be insured in Morocco but shellfish farmers are not. Insurance for aquaculture is only available against disease risks in Croatia, and reported to be unavailable from local agents in Egypt. However, the yield of most inland aquaculture farms in Israel is insured by a semi-government insurance firm and marine production units are insured internationally, through Lloyds of London. Some State insurance (e.g. against loss by predation) for aquafarms was formerly available in Bulgaria but the situation is now in flux. State insurance, through the agricultural bank, is available in Turkey but only for facilities, not stock. In France and Italy, only a few large aquaculture ventures insure their facilities and stocks, again because of the high costs entailed. Difficulties in identifying insurance companies willing to accept aquaculture risks have been experienced in Tunisia. Aquaculture has been considered a high risk activity by insurers since a significant incident caused by toxic dinoflagellates there in 1991; now much more attention is paid to the technological competence of the farms seeking insurance.

Apart from problems of cost, most farmers are reported to view insurance not only as beneficial from a commercial point of view, particularly for marine cage culture, but inherently supportive of responsible aquaculture practice. While there seems to be little attempt on behalf of the insurance companies themselves to promote the practice of responsible aquaculture through inserting specific clauses in their agreements (this was only noted in two reports), they certainly do so in an unconscious manner because of the way in which they take their decisions to insure. In addition, conventional attitudes towards risk management, based on the inherent dangers to structures and stock from weather conditions, were reported in all cases where insurance was available to, or employed by, aquafarmers. There were no reports that insurance firms were seeking to protect the environment within which aquaculture units operate against the activities of other resource users by including this topic in the policies issued to other resource users. Although insurers, for their own commercial reasons, have a generally positive attitude towards responsible aquaculture, and some may be aware of the existence of the CCRF (whose application should reduce risk), none of the reports indicated that the Code is officially recognised in the policies issued. Two reports (Malta, Tunisia) specifically suggested that Article 9 of the Code should be incorporated in all insurance policies.

4.3.1 Socio-economic issues

Though aquaculture is a recognised means to diversify income and diet, and contribute to food security, not many specific programmes (inland and/or coastal aquaculture) in support of local communities by the adoption of technologically and economically appropriate aquaculture practices (e.g. culture-based fisheries, integrated aquaculture, bivalve mollusc farming, etc.) were noted. However, there were a number of exceptions. Three current programmes (on culture-based fisheries in lakes, fish culture in rice fields, and cage culture in lakes and the Nile) were reported in Egypt. Israel reported that there is a general national strategy to transform fish ponds into reservoirs and share their water with irrigation. Now, Israeli policy is to exploit saline and other marginal waters, to promote recycling and intensive recirculation systems, and to diversify the species reared. For many years, the Tunisian government has been operating a programme of reservoir re-stocking with mullet fingerlings and broodstock of autochthonous species; training in fisheries activities for the local population has also been provided, as well as some equipment (boats, nets). In Morocco, programmes to promote culture-based fisheries in reservoirs in support of local communities are commencing.

The reservoir re-stocking activities in Tunisia are regarded as highly successful and this programme is therefore expanding. Fishermen are beginning to organise themselves into associations and are expected to be able to operate the programme independently soon. It is too early to comment on the success or failure of the programmes in Morocco but acceptance by the local communities seems to be good and efforts are being made to set up cooperative mechanisms. All the Israeli strategies mentioned in the previous paragraph are reported as successful. In Egypt, the cage culture and culture-based programmes are reported to be successful but the culture of fish in rice fields in 1997 fell to 30% of that in 1996, which coincided with the cessation of the policy to supply free fry.

Though the credit lines available for agriculture are sometimes applicable to aquaculture, no credit lines designed specifically for small-scale aquaculture producers or producers associations were reported, except in Croatia and Egypt. In one report it was noted that the recommendation of the fisheries department was regarded as insufficient for credit to be approved. Personal assets must be lodged as loan security; this is not unusual, but it is a severe inhibition to the development of small-scale aquaculture, since the potential producers may not have (substantial) assets.

Aquaculture development was reported as creating socio-economic benefits in all reports, with increased employment (especially in areas of high unemployment), new products and a steady supply of good quality traditional products at a reasonable costs, increased availability of high-protein food, foreign exchange earnings, the creation of small farms in association with restaurants, and "enhanced contacts with foreign counterparts" being specifically cited. Oyster culture has brought socio-economic benefits (e.g. employment) to over 10,000 people in France. However, the traditional structure of the industry (i.e. family-scale enterprises) makes it extremely vulnerable to environmental change. Few other problems due to the expansion of aquaculture were reported. However, concern about its low manpower usage per hectare and fear of enhanced competition for fishermen (despite the fact that only 5% of aquaculture production is mandated for domestic consumption) was noted in Malta. Problems with inshore fishermen were also reported in Cyprus. In Israel, the only socio-economic problems experienced have been when specific ventures have failed and the whole community is financially impacted. While aquaculture seems to be overwhelmingly beneficial, the apparent absence of major problems may reflect the relatively small scale of aquaculture in most countries. No specific research programmes which examine the socio-economic effects of aquaculture were reported, except in Egypt, but the inclusion of aquaculture within general environmental and socio-economic academic projects was noted in Malta and Romania.

The question which was posed in the outlines for the national reports which enquired to what extent local communities are organised into associations, and what the relationships of such associations are with the activities of aquaculture and culture-based fisheries, appears to have been inadequately specific. Some reports refer only to the formation of aquaculture producers associations or membership of aquaculture trade unions, rather than local community associations. Despite this confusion, community associations were reported to be generally positive towards aquaculture in one country (Croatia), and some conflicts were reported with local fishing communities in two island States. In Greece, all aquafarmers in coastal lagoons are reported to belong to cooperatives. National norms concerning the rights, health and safety of its employees are applied by the aquaculture production sector in every country. However, one report noted that aquaculture employees were excluded from an accelerated retirement scheme which is available for those employed in stressful and physically taxing conditions.

4.3.2 The public climate for aquaculture

So far, public opinion towards aquaculture in many countries appears to be generally positive, but this may be because its public profile remains low or because the industry is mainly export oriented. In some cases, aquaculture is regarded as another form of agriculture (livestock production). One report indicated that the general public is rather oblivious of aquaculture. Aquaculture is also generally regarded as a means of increasing food production, increasing revenue, and providing employment. However, some public concern (sometimes strong) is expressed about the visual and environmental impact of aquaculture, and the competition which it is perceived to create for fishermen. Negative public attitudes towards aquaculture on a national scale often only occur if a local problem is not quickly resolved. However, the tourism industry is clearly a major opponent of aquaculture (particularly coastal aquaculture) in many countries of the region.

Most local environmental NGOs appear to be either positive or neutral towards aquaculture development. The only international NGO activity which was reported relates to those who regard fish farms mainly as nature reserves. While fish farmers may support the establishment of conservation areas, they regard it difficult to manage a fish farm which is regarded as a conservation area and make a profit. However, aquaculturists and conservationists are reported to be cooperating in the protection of Italian marshes and lagoons, and some examples of cooperation between producers and environmental organisations were reported in Greece. Elsewhere, local NGOs seem more concerned with industrial pollution than the impact of aquaculture. However, the "easy ride" which aquaculture has had from NGOs and lobby organisations in most reporting countries of the region probably reflects the small scale of its activities so far. It might be expected that the attitude of Mediterranean aquaculture producers towards NGOs and lobby groups would reflect the generally low level of exposure to attacks on the industry. However, disputes with NGOs or avoidance of regulations (mainly concerning conservation, particularly of wading birds) were reported in some countries. In addition, sensitivity to the views of NGOs seems to be unexpectedly high (perhaps due to frequent stories about their activities in other parts of the world in the international aquaculture media).

In several countries, the attitude of aquaculture producers towards NGOs was stated to be generally defensive, sceptical, or critical of their ignorance of aquaculture. On the other hand, some specific examples of dialogue between aquaculture producers associations and NGOs, concerning the protection of birds, the environmental impact of cage farming in the Red Sea, and moves to encourage a positive and collaborative approach towards the sector, were reported.

Generally, existing or newly formed aquaculture producers� and professional aquaculture associations are expected to defend the industry against criticism from those concerned with aquaculture impacts. No special "defence" organisations have been established so far, and no membership of international organisations, such as the Global Aquaculture Alliance (not surprisingly, because its publicised activities have so far been confined to marine shrimp farming), was reported.

Aquaculture producers are becoming increasingly consumer oriented in defining quality attributes but this is often dictated by the need to satisfy the requirements of export consumer markets and legislation (e.g. EU). However, some countries indicated that there was little pressure to become consumer oriented, because aquaculture products were already regarded as fresher and cleaner than those from the local capture fisheries, or because the high demand (and value) of farmed products made it unnecessary. On the other hand, the industry in one country was reported to be very responsive to preferences for marine rather than freshwater fish, sea bream rather than sea bass, smoked rather than fresh trout, and flesh and colour characteristics in farmed fish which resemble those which are wild-caught. Specific actions have been taken by aquaculture producers in a number of countries to improve dialogue with their consumers. These have included mass media advertising, the use of fish merchants as intermediaries, direct contact with consumers and housewives associations (in homes and through farm-gate sales), the publication of recipes, and prompt reaction to complaints. In only a few countries has there been an attempt to publicise the "political correctness" of farmers� attitudes towards the concept of responsible aquaculture, and in most cases they were confined to personal discussions with buyers or to providing products with labels clearly identifying their farm source (thus promoting the image of a particular supplier). An exception is France, where the application of quality indices (site, strain, nutritional value) has led to the national quality grid, which favours the commercialisation of the products of mollusc culture. Most countries reported that producers had not organised general promotions of the industry as a responsible activity, and, with a few exceptions (Greece, Italy) there were no comments on the existence or potential of "eco-labelling" in the reports.

Similarly, there seems to be little current action to educate consumers about such topics as the need for increased aquaculture production, the nutritional benefits of aquaculture products, or (with a few exceptions) the importance for the aquaculture industry to be assured of a good operational environment. Generally, the perception seems to be that fish, being a healthy food, "sells itself" and that its cost is the only major factor in the choice of purchasers, but there was some limited recognition that there may be more need for promotion if the market becomes saturated. with aquaculture products.

4.3.3 Animal welfare

While specific national legislation on the treatment of aquatic animals during rearing, or at the time of slaughter, does not exist, current or planned general animal welfare legislation either actually covers aquatic animals, or is presumed to cover them in most countries. Some reports refer to EU regulations or to the rules for scientific experimentation with vertebrates. Despite this, the treatment of aquatic animals appears to be mainly pragmatic, based on the effect of good rearing and slaughter practices on product quality, and therefore value, rather than on ethical principles. One report noted that existing national legislation concerning animal welfare specifically does not include aquacultured animals and, since the public normally purchases fish dead, there is little concern for the method by which they are reared or slaughtered. In another report it was noted that attitudes to this topic vary according to the individual farmer. This is probably true everywhere, in the absence of specific education and legislation in this field.

There was an almost unanimous perception that birds (principally cormorants, but also other wading birds, and pelicans) are the major predators affecting aquaculture. The need for an international programme on cormorant impact was suggested in one report, while another report (from Croatia, where aquaculture producers are paid compensation for cormorant damage) noted cases of uneven interpretation of the rules during enforcement, "elastic" assessments of damage, and confusion about which species were protected (since the protected list was fluid, and contained some species which no longer needed protection, while omitting others which now needed it). The use of predator nets, wires and acoustic devices to avoid bird predation was noted. Conflicts between bird protection groups and aquaculture producers were reported in some countries and NGO concern for dolphins, which could be aquaculture predators, was also noted.

The participation of aquaculture producers (in many cases through their associations), aquaculture suppliers, and the buyers of aquaculture produce in the formulation and implementation of policies, strategies and plans which pertain to responsible aquaculture development is gradually increasing. This participation is normally manifested through informal ad hoc discussions but there was one case (Cyprus) where some official provision for this exists within current aquaculture legislation. The existing degree of general cooperation at the national level among the private, public and academic sectors is reported to be good and improving in every country which reported. However, there is little indication that this extends far towards the concept of responsible aquaculture and the application of its principles. Further education on this topic is necessary before it can be fully understood, accepted, and put into practice. A number of other regional projects (e.g. funded by FAO, EU, Arab League) and bilateral projects which have relevance to the general concept of responsible aquaculture were listed in the various reports. However, apart from the current Italian-supported project, of which this document is a synthesis, no regional or sub-regional projects directly concerned with the CCRF exist.

A strong enthusiasm for participation in regional activities concerned with the CCRF (and to continue collaboration with other regional or sub-regional aquaculture development and information activities which are relevant) was expressed in every national report. Particular keenness for joint activities which would enable better access to EU markets was expressed in some reports. However, there were no comments about the possibility of common marketing activities related to aquaculture products except in the report from Turkey, which expressed interest but noted possible constraints related to proprietary commercial knowledge. A marked willingness to share information was expressed in every report because this was regarded to have marked potential to further the cause of responsible aquaculture, within the Code, in the Mediterranean. A large number of institutions which might play an active role in promoting collaboration in support of the Code�s acceptance and its application were mentioned. In addition to the relevant national government, academic, and private sectors in each country, these included international aid and loan organisations (e.g. FAO, EU, UNDP, WB, UNEP, and their various commissions and programmes), regional producers associations (FEAP), international (WAS) or regional (EAS) aquaculture societies, and NGOs. One report (Italy) noted that FEAP was already working on an European Code of Conduct for aquaculture.

Finally, a number of potential constraints which might inhibit cooperation in developing responsible aquaculture practices and attitudes were identified. These included:

• uneven national progress towards responsible practices, leading to discrimination against the products of some countries;

• political conflicts;

• limited skilled personnel and facilities;

• resistance by producers to controls, particularly those imposed by importing countries;

• financial and legislative constraints; and

• fear of losing national competitive advantages.

A summary of the names, date of foundation, type, membership, and functions of aquaculture producer organisations was requested in this section of the national reports. The information provided is summarised in Table 3. The producers associations listed for Croatia, Cyprus, Egypt, Malta, Morocco, and one of those listed for Turkey (TURKSU) are reported to assist in the promotion of responsible aquaculture. The methods used, where stated, include participation in the elaboration of regulations and establishment of policies, participation in seminars, consultations, and scientific meetings, and providing support for controls on introductions and the establishment of HACCP.

4.6.1 Farm-gate to point of sale

Details about the farm-gate to point-of-sale treatment (handling, processing and distribution) of aquaculture products were provided in most of the national reports and are summarised in Table 4.

4.6.2 Marketing

Very little specific information was provided in the national reports about the contribution of aquaculture products to the balance of trade and to foreign exchange earnings (Table 5). Considerable efforts to increase fish consumption by the private sector were reported in most countries (but c/f section 4.3.2). Consumers are reported to favour aquaculture products over their captured equivalents in a number of countries. The superior quality of farmed mussels, and the freshness, availability, quality, price, nutritional value, and hygienic rearing conditions of finfish, were cited as the reasons for this preference. Attempts to specifically promote farmed aquaculture products domestically were reported in some countries (Greece, Israel, Italy, Turkey) but others were said to regard this as unnecessary because they were destined only for the rich, or intended mainly for export. Apart from individual preferences, little domestic consumer discrimination against aquaculture products was reported. The major exceptions were in the reports from Cyprus (where wild marine finfish are preferred to farmed fish and marine fish are favoured over freshwater fish) and Turkey (where it was noted that cultured sea bass and sea bream were regarded as "fake").

In most countries, trade controls are not reported to cause major difficulties for aquaculture products. However, the rule that farms must export 95% of their product is noted in Malta, and trade liberalisation and reductions in customs levies is expected to increase competition from other countries in Israel, especially from those with lower quality standards. The import duty on fresh fish is seen as favourable to fish culture in Cyprus. The only major problem identified was in the report from Turkey, where EU trade bans in 1998 on fresh fishery products significantly affected aquaculture. These problems were quickly overcome by adaptation to the regulations but a local sense of harsh treatment and possible prejudice by the EU remains. Other countries were also reported to have had real or potential difficulties for non-EU in marketing their products in the EU. These included the prohibition on imports of shellfish into the EU, which requested enhanced monitoring practices in the rearing areas, a 15% export duty on table-sized fish and 16% on fry, and increased production costs generated by EU regulations which generally inhibited exports. However, the use of internationally accepted management practices are believed to positively assist the overseas marketing of aquaculture products in some countries; in other words, a market value can be placed on compliance. This provides an advantage for those producers which have ready access to information about international markets and an ability to rapidly adapt to their quality requirements.

A number of real or perceived barriers to the international trade of aquaculture products were reported, but most of these related to export into the EU. These problems include general EU restrictions on imports from non-EU countries (Bulgaria), the discriminatory misuse of EU regulations (Cyprus), the subsidies available to EU aquaculture producers (Morocco), and a specific temporary EU ban on imports from Turkey in 1998 which was regarded as contrary to free trade principles. Other reported hidden barriers to trade in aquaculture products which were reported included unfair competition from fishing and fish trading companies (Bulgaria) and the high cost of imported goods (Morocco).

4.6.3 Quality and safety assurance

In general, aquafarmers are aware of the commercial importance of producing high quality products. The major motives are to achieve the highest price for their products and to maintain a good reputation with purchasers, as stated in some reports, but compliance with legal requirements is also a factor. Ethical, as well as commercial motives were also mentioned as being important in some countries. However, in the Danubian countries existing farmers were stated to be only marginally aware of the importance of quality but new producers learn through marketing failures. The incentive which principally governs the production of high quality aquaculture products is the necessity to adhere to regulations, particularly when wishing to export. HACCP was reported to be applied in some countries, adherence to EU regulations was noted in others. Cyprus is reported to have given subsidies to upgrade processing facilities to EU standards, to improve export potential. In the report from Malta, it was stressed that though no special incentives were available, close partnership between the public and private sectors helped to achieve the national aquaculture industry�s reputation for quality. Only one report (Malta) reported that strict quality controls were imposed in imported fingerlings for aquaculture.

Producers generally accept government controls on quality and safety but no defined cooperative links between the aquaculture industry and other related sectors (such as the capture fishery industry, livestock production, and food processing) or others groups (such as wholesale fish merchants, retail fishmongers, national or international export organisations, etc.) to define rules and organise the control of quality seem to exist in any country. However, a link with tourism is being explored in Croatia and informal cooperation with wholesalers and retailers, but not with the capture fisheries sector, was reported in Cyprus. In one country, Israel, it was reported that the fish breeders association will not sell farmed fish to fishmongers who refuse to comply with sanitary regulations, in order to preserve the corporate reputation of the farmers.

Trained public sector staff were reported to be available to support the aquaculture industry in the implementation of quality assurance programmes and to verify their effectiveness in every country except Romania, while an inadequacy was noted in Turkey. However, the need for further training, coordination and information sharing for these staff was recognised in some countries. The assistance provided in this respect to Cyprus through FAO TCP/CYP/5611 was acknowledged, and on-the-job and foreign training was reported to be already in progress in Bulgaria. The availability of some large private companies offering quality implementation services was noted in Malta, while training offered by universities, the fish farming association, and the government was mentioned in the report from Turkey.

The Codex Alimentarius and/or HACCP was reported to be applied to aquaculture products in several countries, in some cases quite recently, but there are some exceptions. In some, no reasons were stated; in others, economic conditions were reported to be inhibiting their application, or they had been applied to products for export but not yet for domestic consumption, or the industry was currently being assisted in their application. Increased confidence in, and demand for, aquaculture products because of their application was reported in Malta.

Consumer resistance to paying higher prices for good quality aquaculture products was reported in some countries. It is not apparent in others, for a variety of reasons which include the small quantity of farmed fish domestically available in one country; a positive desire for quality (both by rich and poor consumers) in another; or (in one country) because aquaculture products do not achieve a higher price than captured fish. Only two countries mentioned an actual (Croatia) or expected (Cyprus) movement towards the purchase of alternative types of food if the prices for high quality cultured fish rose significantly above captured fish.

The certification of coastal areas where molluscs are cultured was reported in most countries where mollusc culture was a major activity, and the monitoring processes which are used to ensure the safety of these products for domestic sale or export are summarised the national reports. No special initiatives (for example as "being produced in an environmentally acceptable manner") appear to have been taken towards the certification of aquaculture products themselves. (see also 4.3.2: Aquaculture and the consumer).

In some reports, national standards for monitoring the responsibility of aquaculture production were cited to be available within relevant regulations. The national sources of information include government departments, scientific institutes, aquaculture societies, and fisheries NGOs. No voluntary codes on responsible aquaculture, apart from the FAO CCRF, appear to exist yet, although moves are being made by FEAP in this direction. The FAO CCRF, EU environmental regulations, HACCP, and global information systems (larger farms in Croatia were cited as using these) were cited as international sources of information on this subject.

An important point was raised in the report from Israel, which stated that the CCRF would be of little value until it was translated into Hebrew. This is undoubtedly true elsewhere and efforts to have the CCRF translated into all the major languages of the region are essential.

The present status concerning the application of responsible aquaculture practices ranged from "unsatisfactory" (Romania), through "progressing" (Turkey) and "insufficient" (Croatia, Morocco), to "acceptable" (Israel), but the reports of some countries (Cyprus, Egypt) did not deal with this topic.

The methods cited as having potential for improving the situation are summarised as:

• providing education for new aquafarmers;

• providing foreign training for producers, administrators, researchers, and traders, in countries where responsible aquaculture is predominantly practised;

• conducting media publicity and advertising;

• making membership of national aquaculture societies mandatory for producers;

• integrating aquaculture with other activities, including tourism, crop and animal production, and waste utilisation;

• improving national regulatory frameworks (more coordination; clearer ministerial authority);

• preparing national aquaculture plans, where non-existent;

• harmonisation with EU standards by non-EU countries;

• improving the speed of information transfer from government and academic institutions to producers;

• seeking enhanced cooperation from the aquaculture industry;

• establishing a common information (computer ?) network on responsible aquaculture; and

• establishing regional programmes for cooperation on responsible aquaculture.

What follows are summary conclusions on what has emerged from reading and analysing the various sections of the national reports. However, they do not represent an action plan, although have to be taken into consideration for their preparation. The reader is referred to the second document "Elements of an Action Plan for the Promotion of Responsible Aquaculture in the Mediterranean" for additional and more structured ideas on what could be a follow-up of this Consultation.

Concerning promotion of the concept of responsible aquaculture, it would be useful to conduct sub-regional workshops on the Code for environmental administrators and academics, as a prelude to the national organisation of training courses for the members of producers associations as a means of diffusion. The Code needs to be translated into local languages.

In view of the experience of other regions, a decline in the general attitude towards aquaculture can be expected unless pre-empted now. The public therefore needs education about the positive benefits of aquaculture before attacks arise. Dialogue with environmental, food safety and conservation NGOs, leading to mutual benefits and perhaps joint projects, must be encouraged. A specific example might be a regional programme on aquaculture predation and the protection of wading birds Education and legislation on aquatic animal welfare needs to be improved.

It is essential to endeavour to cooperate with environmental NGOs. Further efforts have to be made to improve the monitoring of the environment by public authorities, in a way which safeguards not only other resource users but also aquaculture itself. Better coordination of the various authorities concerned with monitoring is required. Public authorities should provide training in environmental quality control methodology for farmers. They should also make greater use of the environmental information which producers generate. There should be parity in punishment for all resource users who damage the environment. Procedures for speedy conflict resolution need to be set up.

Further integration of aquaculture with the activities of other common resource users (e.g. crop and livestock production, thermal effluents, irrigation) is desirable. It would also be beneficial to find means of linking aquaculture with tourism activities. Coordination, at the planning stage and in the management of resources, particularly land and water, is desirable. Support, probably international, is required for the preparation of national aquaculture plans, or the improvement of existing plans. In addition, all national and local resource use plans (e.g. for coastal zone management, or water use) must include a consideration of aquaculture and must be consonant with national aquaculture plans. The processes for reviewing the success or failure of plans need improvement. The creation of aquaculture zones in those countries which do not already have them would aid the implementation of responsible aquaculture.

In its broadest sense (through tax breaks, free training and advice, assistance with monitoring and the supply of monitoring equipment, and the supply of fingerlings for pilot activities) modernisation of aquaculture technology needs to be supported, especially in certain countries of the region. States should also increase the availability of specialised personnel.

Aquaculture as a means of diet and income diversification needs greater emphasis. The multiple use of resources and the integration of aquaculture with local traditional production activities (e.g. the use of fish ponds as reservoirs; encouraging fishermen to double as aquaculturists) should be encouraged and community associations need to be more involved in aquaculture development. The problem of obtaining credit lines for small-scale producers without substantial security needs to be addressed. The socio-economic effects of aquaculture development need examination by specific research projects.

The evaluation of potential introductions should carefully consider not only the possible detrimental effects but also the likely economic benefits. The private sector needs training on the reasons for concern over introductions and transfers. The precautionary approach to the use of aquatic GMOs needs to be applied, in consonance with EU regulations and in recognition of the poor public image of GMOs generally, and the region should monitor the effect of their use in other regions. Regional cooperation on the use of GMOs would be valuable.

The incidence of disease outbreaks should be minimised by further training, and exchange of information between producers and with health authorities at national, sub-regional and regional levels, and similar cooperation concerning emergency actions concerning food safety should be supported. Farmer cooperation in reporting disease outbreaks should be encouraged by seeking methods of compensating farmers who have to destroy stock, by government and/or insurance.

Eco-friendly aquafeeds need to be promoted in the private sector, together with training in methods of assessing the environmental benefits, nutritional efficiency and cost-benefits of applying alternative feeds and feeding strategies. Information transfer on research for replacing marine ingredients in aquafeeds needs to be improved. Those who control the use of therapeutants, hormones and chemicals need further education and monitoring improvements are necessary. Responsible attitudes to the use of such materials needs to be developed in anticipation of the concerns of consumers. Insurance companies should be encouraged to more promote responsible aquaculture, possibly by inserting the Code within insurance policies.

Improvements in the dissemination of research results to farmers, in a usable form, are needed. Existing sources of information on responsible aquaculture need better publicity. Information needs to be provided for the media, to generate publicity to promote aquaculture as an essential and responsible food producing sector, not an environmentally harmful industry. Training for producers, administrators, researchers and traders in the concept and its practices is required. Both industrial and traditional fish farmers need national training (at different levels of skill) in general environmental matters and most farmers would benefit from training in waste management, in order to increase their ability to profitably but responsibly use resources.

The establishment of single national producer associations needs to be encouraged, and regional linkages between them would have merit. The effect of trade controls on aquaculture in the region needs examination. Ways should be sought to remove the real or perceived discrimination against aquaculture products, perhaps by setting up a regional trade commission. The region should lobby for a single, independent, internationally monitored, eco-labelling system for aquaculture products to be set up. If global cooperation proves impossible, a Mediterranean aquaculture eco-label might have merit. Aquaculture products and their quality could be marketed in conjunction with the tourism industry ("the Costa Aqua", to include visits to fish farms and restaurants to experience the quality of their products ?). Certain countries (e.g. Romania, Turkey) need further training on quality aspects (HACCP, Codex, etc.).

Using the current project as a pump-primer, regional and sub-regional cooperation on improving and adapting the Code for regional needs and the promotion of responsible aquaculture, which involves existing producers associations, needs support. Rural and coastal communities should also be included in such project(s). Activities could include education on the CCRF, sub-regional projects to improve access to EU markets and harmonisation with EU regulations, an information network on the CCRF. A regional commission to resolve resource use and other conflicts involving aquaculture should be considered.

At its XXII session, held in 1997, the Committee of Fisheries (COFI) highlighted the importance of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, which should be in a central position to guide in the identification of solutions to the problems of world fisheries. At the same meeting it was requested to FAO, other organisations and donors, to obtain assistance to facilitate the application of the Code at national, regional and sub-regional level.

Matters related to responsible development of aquaculture are dealt with in Article 9 of the Code for which also Technical Guidelines have been prepared by the FAO Fisheries Department. Following the instructions of the XXII Session of COFI, the FAO Fisheries Department has prepared and distributed an experimental questionnaire to enquire to what extent the principles of the various articles of the Code are being applied in the member countries.

In order to meet the specific needs of different regions and fisheries, sub-regional, regional and sectoral adaptation of the Code is considered desirable. This adaptation is likely to foster greater national acceptance of the Code and further facilitate the implementation of the policy changes necessary to secure sustainable practices and responsible fisheries. For these reasons, adaptation should be encouraged as far as it is consistent with the objectives and principles of the Code.

A useful starting point to commence the process of regionalisation of the Code is the organisation of sub-regional and regional consultations. These consultations might be organised under the aegis of regional fishery bodies, FAO projects, non-FAO bodies, and other FAO partners, as appropriate, to identify priorities, areas of relevance and constraints. The consultations should also provide commentary notes on each of the provisions of the Code so as to ensure that the intent of the provisions are correctly and properly reflected in the respective regionalised provisions. Through such a process adaptation of the Code will not compromise its spirit and intent, thereby preventing erroneous interpretation of provisions.

Regional adaptation of the Code is likely to yield the following benefits:

• a sense of direct participation in the Code process will be fostered, thus facilitating a greater commitment to local and national implementation;

• specific national, sub-regional, and regional problems will be identified, including those relating to different fisheries, gear, and management practice;

• additional areas which are not specifically nor sufficiently covered in the Code but which are important for a sub-region or region will be identified;

• major �local� constraints to the implementation of the Code and the estimation of approaches needed to address those constraints will be identified;

• sub-regional and regional strategies ( including the preparation of technical guidelines) to assist with the national implementation of the Code will be elaborated;

• sub-regional and regional advantages will be fully utilised, including the coordination and elaboration of research and training requirements (national initiatives and experience in particular countries can be applied to other countries) together with the use of TCDC expertise.

Responding to the request for assistance, the Italian Government, through its Directorate of Fisheries, has offered assistance to the FAO to initiate the work of adaptation of the Code in what refers to Article 9 on Aquaculture Development in the countries belonging to the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM). This assistance is linked to the period of Chairmanship of Italy in the Committee on Aquaculture of the GFCM.

(i) to review the level of understanding and the status of application of the principles contained in the Article 9 of the Code in the GFCM member countries, and to examine the mechanisms which have been put in practice by member countries to utilise the Code as general guidelines to ensure a responsible development of aquaculture,

(ii) to discuss identified gaps and difficulties encountered in the application in a Mediterranean context of the principles of the Code contained in Article 9, at national and regional level,

(iii) on the basis of the above points to propose an action plan at national and regional level which would support the application of Article 9 of the Code.

3. Preparatory Work for the Meeting

The preparatory work to be carried out to comply with the objectives indicated above includes several activities. In first place the writing of national reports, which should follow a common outline and which will assist in the discussion related to the first two objectives of the meeting. These national reports would be prepared by selected national authors. As second step a synthesis document to be prepared, based on the national reports, with the assistance of consultants, which through comparative analysis of the sections of the national reports would permit the identification of common gaps and constraints on which to base future actions. Third, the elaboration of an annotated outline of the main elements of an action plan to support at national and regional level the application of Article 9 of the Code in the Mediterranean.

This approach will be implemented with the assistance of consultants, which will prepare an outline for the national reports to be prepared by the countries. After the outline is finalised and approved by a joint Italy/FAO Steering Committee (SC), the consultants will visit the countries, to brief the national teams and discuss the document outline and contents with them. Authors contracts will be provided by the FAO to selected countries for the preparation of the national reports, and will be funded by the Italian donor. The existing documentation in support of the application of Article 9 of the Code, in particular the technical guidelines for the various elements related to the principles of the Article 9 of the Code will be compiled and distributed to the teams in charge of the preparation of the national reports.

A verification mission to make sure that the documentation requested is prepared according to established standards, and to clarify doubts which the national teams may have in the preparation of the national report, will follow before the conclusion of the preparation of the national reports.

Upon reception of the national reports, the consultants will prepare a synthesis of the national documents and a document in which the main elements of a strategy will be outlined. These two documents will be distributed to the countries prior to the holding of the meeting and will be key documents for the discussion.

The GFCM countries will be invited by FAO to participate in the meeting, and are requested to provide support for the preparation of the information required for the elaboration of the national report. Some selected GFCM countries will also be invited to attend the meeting, and the cost of their participation will be covered by the Italian donor.