Water quality and pollution of waters in general are dealt with in a piecemeal approach and the provisions relating to water quality appear in a variety of laws and regulations. These vary often according to the “type of pollution”.
However it is important to note that the current legal framework relating to the quality of water supply and discharge is rather new and in the process of being implemented. With regard to pollution of waters as such, the present legal regime allows for a distinction between pollution received by the fish farmer and pollution caused by the fish farmer. The Civil Wrongs Law, Cap.148 considers indeed that the act of pollution, in general terms, is either a public or private nuisance and as such it leads to an entitlement to compensation for the injury caused by the act of pollution and the granting of an injunction to prevent further continuation of the pollution from a specified source.2 In addition, fouling the water of any public spring or reservoir so as to render it less fit for the purpose for which it is ordinarily used is an offence under Section 190 of the Criminal Code. Hence the polluter may be prosecuted.
The basic purpose of the common law of water pollution is to provide a remedy where a right to an uncontaminated supply of water has been infringed. This principle, evolved long before the development of commercial aquaculture, might serve the present water quality interests of fish farmers. Moreover, this principle should apply to all kinds of waters, including territorial waters.3 However, difficulties may arise because with respect to marine pollution, the nature of the pollution is such that issues of causality are much more difficult to establish. Indeed, linking pollution to a particular offending discharge is much more complicated and problematical. Against this background, it might be useful to adopt a strategy of establishing standards or target values for water quality of sea and fresh water, in relation to the contents of the various pollutants and to the various uses it might be subject to. This will avoid addressing pollution problems on an ad hoc basis as they arise.
2 Civil Wrongs Law, Cap.148, Sections 45 and 46.
Special laws deal expressly with certain types of pollution, e.g. Mines and Quarries (Regulations) Laws, Cap.2701, the Foreshore Protection Law, Cap.592, the Public Rivers Protection Law, Cap.823 and the Fisheries Regulations, 19914. Under the Foreshore Protection Law, Cap.59, for instance, in order that the foreshore be protected, the District Officer may cause a notice to be published in the Official Gazette prohibiting absolutely or imposing restrictions or conditions upon the dumping of any rubble, rubbish, litter, night-soil, or refuse on that part of the foreshore specified in the notice, or into the sea within such distance from the low watermark as may be specified in such a notice, or from any pier, wharf, quay or jetty.5 In addition, the District Officer may, by notice, require any person or Municipal Council to cover, within a specified period of time, any drain which crosses the foreshore and to extend it into the sea by means of pipes to such a distance as the District Officer may direct.6 Upon the receipt of the notice, such person or Municipal Council must take all necessary steps to comply with the requirements of the notice and if such person or Municipal Council fails or neglects to comply, the District Officer may proceed to execute the necessary works, at the cost payable by the person or the Municipal Council.7
In addition, special legislation, relevant in the present context, provides for the protection of certain rivers. Again the appropriate administrative authority responsible for protection is the District Officer. By notification to be published in the Official Gazette, the District Officer may from time to time prohibit either absolutely or under specified conditions the dumping of any rubbish, sweepings or other refuse into the bed of any river or part thereof, on the bank, wall or any part of that river. Any person who does not comply with the notification commits an offence and is liable to be prosecuted, convicted and punished.8
5 The Foreshore Protection Law, Cap.59, Section 3(1)(b).
8 The Public Rivers Protection Law, Cap. 82, Section 5 (1)(b) and 5 (2)(b).
The quality of water supply is not regulated for aquaculture purposes, but instead for health preservation purposes. Indeed, the quality of water destined for a water supply for domestic purposes is decided by the WDD of the Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources. For this purpose, the Department carries out ion and bacteriological analysis in order to determine only whether the proposed water supply is suitable for drinking and not for other purposes. Once this is done, the responsibility for maintaining the water supply of an area clean and free from contamination is in the hands of the local authorities.1
Several laws and regulations deal with the question of quality of water discharge. This is the case of the Streets and Building Regulation Law, the Sewage System Law, No 1 of 19712 and the Control of Water Pollution Law, No 69/91.
This Law contemplates several offenses regarding water pollution in Cyprus4. A distinction is made between pollution in general and pollution from industrial sources5 on the one hand and pollution of surface water and underground water on the other hand. This section will deal with general and industrial water pollution as well as its relevance for the fish farmer. According to the discussions with the relevant authorities and according to the contents of the definition of “factory” under the Factories Law, Cap.134, 1956, it is likely that fish farming be considered as an “industry” or could cause pollution from “industrial sources”.1 In order to protect the quality of surface waters following offences are provided for in the Control of Water Pollution Law, No;69/91:
5 “Industrial sources” includes:
any factory, as defined in Section 2 of the Factories Law, and any place which would be a factory but for the fact that no person working there is working under a contract of employment,
any production of charcoal, any stubble burning, cable burning or burning of tyres,
any asphalt plant, oil or gas depot, and any station for supplying petrol or diesel oil to road vehicles,
any incinerator, any burning of a deposit of waste by or on behalf of a local authority, any burning of waste in the open as part of a commercial or industrial enterprise,
any mining or quarrying,
any vehicle when stationary and being used for building or civil engineering operations."
The Control of Water Pollution Law, 69/91.
| As regards surface waters a person (including the fish farmer) commits an offence if he: | exceptions to these offences which might be of interest for the fish farmer: |
| “causes or knowingly permits the discharger to deposit into any stream2, or dried bed of any stream, or into any coastal waters3, lake or dam, any object or substance which tends to, or will tend to, pollute4 the waters thereof;”5 | A person is not guilty of the offence enunciated in the opposite column under the following circumstances: (i) if the deposit in question is authorised by a discharge consent granted by the Minister of Agriculture and Natural Resources (after consultation with the Technical Committee on Environmental Protection) and according to the Control of Water Pollution Law, Nr 69/91,6 and (ii) in case of force majeure i.e. the deposit or discharge was beyond the discharger's control and all precautionary measures were taken by the latter to avoid the offence as well as all “practicable” steps were taken to remedy the problem within a reasonable time.7 |
1 Factories Law, Cap. 134, 1956, Section 2, subsection (4).
3 Not defined under the Control of Water Pollution Law, Nr 69/91.
| As regards surface waters a person (including the fish farmer) commits an offence if he: | exceptions to these offences which might be of interest for the fish farmer: |
| “causes or knowingly permits the deposit of any object or substance in any place from which it might fall or be carried into the stream, its dried bed, or any lake or dam, so that it may pollute, or tend to pollute, the waters thereof;”1 | A person is not guilty of the offence mentioned in the opposite column in the following circumstances, (i) if the deposit was made in the course of “a good agricultural practice”2, and (ii) if the deposit was a deposit of waste3 on a site occupied by a person holder of a waste disposal licence issued under the Law on the Pollution of Land and the Disposal of Certain Wastes and that the deposit was in accordance with the terms and conditions of the licence. |
| “causes or knowingly permits the cutting or uprooting of any vegetation on or so near the bed of a stream or its dried bed, from where it may tend to lead to an aggravation of pollution of that part of the stream;”4 | The offence described on the opposite side is not subject to exceptions. |
• More particularly, with respect to pollution of waters from industrial sources, the subject Law states that:
"It shall be an offence for any person to cause or knowingly permit the discharge or deposit from any industrial source into the surface waters of Cyprus, including coastal waters, of:
- any effluent;
- any liquid containing matter in suspension;
any solid waste material;.."5
This offence is subject to a number of exceptions of which the most relevant are the following: a “polluter” will not be guilty
if the “polluting substance” which is discharged into a public sewer with the consent of the appropriate sewerage or sewage disposal authority.
It is important to note that either of the above offenses is capable of being committed in the context of fish farming and that therefore the system of discharge consents can be of considerable importance for fish farmers whose discharge will be subject to such consents. It will allow the farm to operate efficiently and to avoid blame for causing any pollution. It will also allow the Minister of Agriculture and Natural Resources and the Technical Committee on Environmental Protection1, who are responsible for the determination of the consents, to regulate potentially polluting emissions with reference to the particular characteristics of the receiving waters and general policies for the aquatic environment. Furthermore the use of appropriately formulated discharge consents may contribute to the realization of water quality objectives or to securing conservation objectives.
Even though it might be difficult to determine the discharge consent conditions which can help to restrict potentially polluting discharges of fish farms, the DOF should take the opportunity to provide the Minister of Agriculture and Natural Resources, the competent authority involved in the process of granting the discharge consent, with a set of standard consent conditions for fish farms varying according to the water resource from where they are abstracting water and into which they are in turn discharging the waste water. Indeed the extent of the pollution problem depends on the place where the fish farming activity takes place.
The procedure to obtain a discharge consent involves first the filing of an application with the Ministry of Labour and Social Insurance.2 The form and information to be provided has still to be specified in an Order issued by the Minister of Labour and Social Insurance. The procedure for granting the consent will be discussed in that Part of this report dedicated to the institutional aspects. Consent may be refused or granted subject to such terms set out in the application or subject to conditions concerning:3
means of access to the point of discharge for sampling the discharge or measuring the rate of flow.
1 Ibid., Section 3 and Schedule 1; see below also.
2 Ibid., Sections 12 (2) and 21 (2), and PART II of Schedule 1.
The conditions stated in the consent may be amended.18
With regard to charges for applications and consents and costs of administration and enforcement, the Minister of Labour and Social Insurance is empowered to charge fees with respect to discharge consents. Depending on the amount charged (inferior or superior to the real administrative costs), this could mean that on the one hand the polluter contributes to the protection of the environment and on the other hand the polluter is charged for services offered to him by the administration. The “Cost of Administration and Enforcement Provision”2 provides that for an application for consent made under the Law, the Minister of Labour and Social Insurance may (i) charge a fee sufficient to cover the costs of dealing with the application and (ii) for the time the discharge consent is in force, on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture and Natural Resources, charge an annual fee to cover the cost of routine monitoring of the discharge. However, if the discharger installs continuous monitoring equipment either voluntarily or in accordance with a consent's condition, the Minister of Agriculture and Natural Resources may remit “such part of the annual fee as he considers reasonable”3 and the discharger may appeal to the District Court regarding the permitted remission.
Another important part of this Law is the general public availability of information concerning discharge consents. The Law provides that certain measures should be taken with respect to publicity (notice of receipt of the application to appear in the Official Gazette, publication of notice of the application in a special register available for consultation by the public and of the place where the copy of the register may be inspected in newspapers circulating in the area where the discharge is located) and that the Minister of Agriculture and Natural Resources must receive representations concerning the discharge before determining the application.4
In the same sense, the Law secures some sort of general public availability of information concerning matters described hereinafter through a register system. Indeed, the Minister of Agriculture and Natural Resources, in accordance with the regulations made by the Council of Ministers, keeps a register recording details of:
1 Ibid., Section 13 and cfr. below.
Nevertheless, upon request of the applicant, the Minister of Agriculture and Natural Resources may limit the disclosure of such information in the register for reasons of contrariety to public interest or of prejudice to private interests (trade secret).1 It is hoped by the author that the exemption from publicity requirements will not be granted easily since excessive use of this power would undermine the general policy objective of public availability of information concerning the water environment. The question for the fish farmer is whether the disclosure of information about a discharge is to be considered as economically confidential as it might reveal information about his enterprise to a competitor.
As regards the revocation and variation of consent2, the Minister of Labour and Social Insurance is empowered to serve notice on the discharger to: revoke his consent, rescind or vary the conditions of the consent, or add new conditions to the consent. In some cases the discharger is entitled to compensation.3 However, compensation will not be granted where the revocation or alteration of the consent was made with the written agreement of the discharger; or was proved to be necessary for the protection of the environment or the health of any person or for a reason of change in circumstances which were not foreseeable at the time the consent was granted, etc.4 The possibility of appeal against aforesaid decisions to revoke or alter the consent or against the refusal of compensation is provided for in the subject Law.5
In addition to the above, the Law deals with:
offences from industrial sources (or sewage treatment works);
ground waters protection measures against general pollution and pollution from industrial sources; and,
preventive measures against accidental pollution from sources of supply and against accidental pollution of surface waters from industrial sources.
Protection is secured either through the declaration of protected areas or by means of obligatory approval procedures.
The above description of the Water Pollution Control Law, Nr. 69/91 leads to following observations especially with respect to its relevance for fish farmers:
1. The scope (i.e. the waters which are governed by this Law) is unclearly defined. Even though the objective of the law is to avoid, prevent and restrict the pollution of the waters of Cyprus (including the territorial waters), it is worth noting that the present text:
contemplates, under the heading “the protection of streams and other waters, and of sources of supply”, amongst others, the general offenses committed by anyone who “causes or…deposit into any stream, or the dried bed of any stream, or into any coastal waters, lake or dam any object or substance which tends to, or will tend to, pollute the waters thereof;”1 or “causes…carried into a stream, its dried bed, or any lake or dam, …; ”2 Apart from the word “stream”, none of the other words, such as coastal waters, is defined. Consequently, the fish farmers who could commit the offenses listed would be those located inland (using and) discharging into freshwater sources, rearing the fish in cages in coastal waters and those located on the coastal land area insofar the outlets are discharging the water into the coastal waters;
deals with the precautions against accidental pollution of “sources or potential sources of supply” without defining the latter term; some questions are: does the present water legislation offer the right guidance to interpret these terms, is the sea to be considered as a source or potential source of supply, etc…?
deals with “any of the waters of Cyprus” (i) where it regulates the restoration of waters in case a person has been convicted of an offence under “Section 7” relating to the protection of underground waters or “Section 13” relating to additional conditions which may be imposed at any time after the grant of consent3, (ii) where it enables the Minister of Agriculture and Natural Resources to prepare and publish standard conditions of consent for “any waters of Cyprus and for any class of discharge”4, (iii) where it enables the Council of Minister to regulate the custody or control of any poisonous…substance which might “escape and enter any waters of Cyprus”1 (but not for other matters);
covers offences committed by means of “discharge or deposit from any industrial source into the surface waters of Cyprus, including coastal waters, of any…”.2 Again coastal waters are not defined nor are the surface waters.
It is hoped by the author that the approved text of Law deals with the waters of Cyprus in a harmonized way. It would certainly enhance a clear legal framework with respect to the protection of the quality of the waters of Cyprus (marine and inland waters).
2. The pollution according to the Law should be provoked “by discharge or deposit into”. Now, the question is: what about the deposit or discharge caused by the faeces/excrements of fish and/or the sediments of elements which are already in the water as it is often the case where fish are reared in cages? Can someone, for instance the fish farmer, be guilty of an offence committed under the present Law? If yes to what extent? And what would be the conditions to obtain the discharge consent should the fishfarmer apply for it?
3. As regards some procedural aspects, the fish farmer might be interested in learning (i) whether the benefit of the discharge consent would be granted automatically to successors in title or tenants of the original grantee of the consent; (ii) the reasons why and after how long a discharge consent could be revoked or varied; (iii) what the amount of fees to be paid at the moment of the application will be and how he will be affected by it. How can the fish farmer evaluate the expenses incurred by the Minister of Labour and Social Insurance in carrying out its functions in relation to discharge consents? What are the defences, if any, against preferences shown towards sectors or discrimination in fixing of the fee. The risk exists for the fish farmer that the cost of a discharge consent may become so significant as to impede the undertaking of a fish farm.
4. It is also indisputable that the formulation of a discharge consent with respect to fish farming operations should differ according to the type of operations involved. There is indeed no doubt that intensive cage culture in the open sea will have a different impact on the aquatic environment than intensive cage culture in dams or reservoirs. The same could be said about land-based (e.g. ponds, tanks, raceways) and water-based aquaculture. Moreover, the pollution load caused by the use of feedstuff and the organic waste originated by the fish fluctuates according to a number of variables such as: the species cultured, the site, the season, the stocking density and the stock movements, the quality of food, the management, etc.. Further, in attempting to determine the discharge consent conditions, another question to answer is: how will the aquatic environment respond and what will be the receiving capacity of the aquatic environment be to “neutralise” the effluents? Other uses of the aquatic environment concerned might influence this capacity as well as unforeseeable elements such as currents, temperature of the water, etc..
5. This leads to a final observation: it will be relevant for the development of the aquaculture sector to examine how those granting powers of the Minister of Labour and Social Insurance will be used to restrict potentially polluting discharges from fish farms. So far, it is likely that the decision will be outside the mandate of the DOF. Further, it is also true that a crucial problem of the current status of aquaculture is that it could be seriously threatened under legal or institutional framework especially regarding the environment.
Marine water pollution from fish farms is capable of being subject to measures intended to regulate pollution which is covered by Regulation 141 of the Fisheries Regulations 1991. This Regulation prohibits the “discharge or dumping of any substances or objects in the waters of any sea area of the Republic2 or in the waters of any dam, river, lake or other natural or artificial reservoir where live fish exist, such act resulting in the creation of any direct or indirect harmful impact on the reproduction, growth, survival or exploitation of fish”.3 The same Regulation deals furthermore particularly with the pollution of the “sea area”, clarifies the interpretation of “direct or indirect harmful impact in respect of any marine area” and provides criteria to determine whether the dumped or discharged substance is directly or indirectly harmful to the “marine area”. Provisions specify how much change of the water is permissible in order to accept the discharge or dumping of any object or substance and fixes acceptable ranges and permissible values.4 With respect to fish farming operations, a first element to note is that the effectiveness and practical implementation of these rules imply that the quality of the water (and the productivity of the water) will be assessed prior to exploitation. Second, the parameters and values fixed in the Regulation omit to state whether they are maximums (absolute or working). Indeed the Regulation furtheron contemplates criteria to determine whether the water discharged is directly or indirectly harmful to the marine environment. These criteria (levels) need clarification as it is not evident whether they are maximum levels and whether some fluctuations are allowed. Further, do these parameters and values take into consideration the potential environmental impact of different methods of fish farming? Finally, in order to avoid overlapping or contradictions between these rules and the provisions of the Water Control Pollution Law, No 69/91, clarification is needed regarding the scope of the latter and more specifically regarding the water bodies it intends to protect.
1 Section 14 of the Fisheries Regulations, 1991 (The SBA Gazette, No. 933 of 23rd May, 1991)
3 Fisheries Regulations, 91, Regulation 15 (1).
4 Whether these values are working maximums or absolute maximums is not stated in the Regulation 14.
Finally, offences are punished by fines up to 30,000 Cyp.pounds (± 60,000 US$) and imprisonment up to 6 months.
Since 1979, the Republic of Cyprus has been a contracting Party to the Convention on the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against Pollution (i.e. the Barcelona Convention) which serves as the legal framework for the Mediterranean Action Plan. Cyprus did also ratified the four protocols1 associated with the aforesaid Barcelona Convention of which two might be relevant for aquaculture purposes:
The measures considered here are those relating to the import and export of fish and those dealing with transfers of fish within Cyprus' inland waters.
Under Regulation No 16 of the Fisheries Law, Cap.135, "no person shall:
“(a) import, into the Republic, live fish eggs or live fish at any stage of growth, or
(b) put into any inland waters2 any fish or fish eggs, unless he has secured, prior to this, permission in writing by the Director Fisheries Service and complies with any conditions that the Director Fisheries Service imposes upon issuing of this licence.”
Several species of trout and salmon were introduced to the island for purposes of experimental culture in proper installations. Before each introduction an extensive study of the requirements of each species was carried out and information on relevant experiences from other countries was collected. According to the legislation of the Veterinary Services Department a certificate of health, issued by the competent authority of the country of origin, must accompany each consignment of live fish or eggs to Cyprus. The requirements of the aforesaid Veterinary Services Department are based on the guidelines given by the Draft International Convention for the Control of Communicable Fish Diseases of EIFAC/OIE (FAO/OIE 1977, OIE 1986). Likewise the export of fish is subject to the release by the Veterinary Department of a Health Certificate relating to the fish to be exported.
In addition to the requested Certificate, the fish, upon arrival, as far as the DOF is concerned, are undergoing a quarantine period for several weeks and several treatments in order to ensure that no live fish or diseased organisms could escape to the outside environment and consequently, to eliminate the possibility of introducing fish diseases.
Finally, notable is the fact that as far as import is concerned provisions only deal with “live” fish or “live” fish eggs whereas in the case of transfers between Cypriot inland waters provisions concern fish and fish eggs. Can't disease be spread through the movement of dead fish? Other questions are: who can be guilty of introducing the fish into inland waters: the owner, his employees, or who and why are only inland waters concerned? It is believed that the owner of the fish farm could be guilty and that, if appropriate, the Fisheries Regulation No 16 of the Fisheries Law should be amended as to include the territorial waters in addition to the inland waters.
Irrespective of the aforesaid requirements, any person willing to import, into the Republic, live fish and/or eggs is subject to the laws and regulations regarding import and export of goods into the Republic and therefore will need an import and/or export licence issued by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry. Moreover, the fishery products which are imported for purposes of food consumption are subject to a quality control procedure established by the Ministry of Health.
Under the Import Regulations 19911, following goods are subject to an import licence issued by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry:
1 Ordinance of 1991 on the Import of Fish, Control and Regulation of Goods.
2 However, restrictions exist with regard to the import of certain marine fish.
3 An import ban exist on import of fresh trout.
Nevertheless the importers of those goods exempted from the import licence requirement must fill an application for classification of the imported agriculture products". This is a preliminary application to submit to the Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources. This application will be studied by the Permanent Advisory Committee for the Regulation of Imports of Agriculture and Animal Products in consultation with the DOF in case the Department is concerned by the imported good. The effect of this application is that the good which is requested to be imported will be classified as “subject or not subject to an import licence”.
Export of fish (including fry) occurs mainly towards Italy, Greece and a few countries in the Mediterranean area. Regarding the export towards EEC member countries especially, the main problem faced by the fish farmer is not obtaining an export licence from the Cypriot authorities or the comply with countries' import requirements but paying instead the 15% import tax plus 2% for value-added tax. The reason for this is that fishery products are not included in the Customs Union Agreement with the EEC which provides for a series of preferential trade concessions.
The import/export policy seems to protect to a certain extent the local production. This approach could be justified given the recent and rather new development of aquaculture. However, it is questionable whether in the long term it would be convenient and appropriate to maintain such a policy.
The introduction of fish farming operations to waters can cause a number of changes to the environment; moreover, aquaculture is subject to biological risks (fish diseases, parasites, predation, etc.) and to physical risks (poor water quality, storms, heavy rainfalls, etc.), different subject matters which will be discussed in this chapter.
In Cyprus, areas (land or water) have not been zoned for aquaculture purposes through legislative measures, even though such measures would help in preventing the contamination of cultured aquatic organisms and in settling conflicts relating to land and water use, with the cooperation of other users in controlling the environmental degradation and optimum use of land and water resources. Instead, in Cyprus there are legal provisions for protecting water and land areas from certain uses and where consequently aquaculture (mainly land based and fresh water aquaculture) operations are restricted if not prohibited. In other word, the present legal framework authorizes merely aquaculture development on a “ad hoc” basis i.e. on the basis of site and project justifications and in the meantime provides for particular areas where aquaculture is prohibited or limited. Though such a system allows for flexibility and at the same time offers some guidance to aquaculture developers, a continuous increase of protected areas - for sometimes unjustified reasons - could represent a serious threat to the future development of aquaculture.
The legislation relating to protected areas is abundant and will briefly be described hereinafter.
In Cyprus there exist open areas1, water conservation areas2, controlled areas3 and ground water conservation areas4. Apart from the latter case, the District Officer is the Administrator who deals with water problems in each of these areas. Within these areas, strict controls exist upon the abstraction from inland waters and restrictions are imposed upon the construction of impounding works on such waters, such as wells and boreholes.
1 The Wells Law, Cap. 351, Section 3 (3).
2 lbid., Sections 4(1), 5, 7, 8.
3 The Water Supply (Special Measures) Law 32/64, Section 4 (1) (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e).
4 The Water Pollution Law, No 69/91, Section 7.
As noted earlier, the Cypriot Government provided recently for zoning classifications within the framework of a comprehensive land use plan for purposes of control of land development. This zoning is the end product of a newly established planning process which is likely to affect aquaculture development in Cyprus, especially in coastal areas. As such, 6 zones have been identified:
Tourist Zones, pure and mixed (“Zones A, B, Ta, Tb”).
Within each zone, the construction of buildings is restricted to a certain plot ratio, the kind of building (residential, commercial structure or stores; etc.) is limited as well as the kind of activities to be developed and undertaken throughout the zone. The Cyprus Government planners have apparently not yet classified aquaculture within one of these zones nor identified certain areas (zones) where such operations would be encouraged, in part through the suppression of other competing activities. This shows the difficulties which the TCPD is facing in defining aquaculture and consequently classifying this activity among the activity categories.
So far, two marine reserves have been created in Cyprus:
Larnaka Lake Nature Reserve (W)
type: coastal wetland
area: 668 ha
established under: the Game and Wild Birds (Protection and Development)
Law, No 39 of 1974 according to which the shooting, pursuing or catching
of any bird is forbidden. Some management of the water regime has been
carried out by the DOF, in cooperation with the Department of Customs
(which is involved in salt collection)
Limassol Lake Nature Reserve (W)
type: coastal wetland
area: 2000 ha
established in 1974 under: the Game and Wild Birds (Protection and
Development) Law No 39 of 1974; Apart for the forest, which is being
managed by the Department of Forests of the Ministry of Agriculture and
Natural Resources, no other part of the area is under management
The protection of the Akamas region (about 155 square kilometres), of which the Lara beach1 is part, is still taken in consideration. Indeed, although the setting up of a national park was approved in 1989 by the Council of Ministers, the implementation of the legislative acts are still dependent on the outcome of ongoing discussions and disputes with concerned parties, particularly with local communities and the religious community.
In these areas aquaculture operations are limited if not prohibited.
Other legislation creating protected areas which might restrict the development of aquaculture operations are:
The culture of aquatic organisms faces many biological risks, a feature which differentiates it from many industrial developments and brings it closer to systems of agriculture and animal husbandry. There are two major biological risks which threaten aquaculture: (i) the uncertainty in provision of water of suitable quantity and quality and (ii) the ever present possibility of disease among the cultured animals. Diseases are important because they can cause mass mortalities, reduce production and decrease the quality of the cultured fish for purposes of food consumption.
The legal framework which tries to achieve the prevention of disease is discussed in this section. The first type of measures which strives for the control of spread of fish disease are those discussed in chapter 5 above i. e. the restrictions upon import of live fish and/or live eggs thereof and upon transfers of fish and/or eggs between the inland waters of Cyprus. A second type of measures are those contemplating the control and prevention of introduction of contagious or infectious diseases of animals in general (including fish) and the eradication thereof1:
• The Contagious Diseases (Animals) Law, 1988 (i) grants the Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources (Veterinary Authorities) effective legal means and powers to prevent the introduction, or reduce the spread of serious animal disease in general (including fish) where outbreaks are discovered and movement controls could apply2, (ii) allows the Minister of Agriculture and Natural Resources to declare an area as “an area infected3 by notifiable disease”4, (iii) requires that where the existence of a notifiable disease has been publicly declared any person who has in his possession or under his charge an animal, for which there might be reason to suspect that it has been infected to isolate the animal from not so affected animals and gives notice as soon as possible to the Veterinary Department or District Officer or nearest Police Station5 and (iv) enables inspectors of the Veterinary Department to take preliminary measures where it is clinically or by laboratory testing diagnosed or suspected that a notifiable disease exists.6 Any person who fails to comply with any provision of this Law or impedes any officer or inspector in the exercise his powers can be found guilty of an offence and if convicted can be liable to imprisonment ranging from 1 month to 2 years or to payment of a fine ranging from 1 to 1500 Cyp. Pounds depending on the offences.
• The Regulation of Importation and Unloading of Animals, Animal Derivatives, Biological Products and Animal Feed Order, 1991 provides that the import of any quantity of animals7, animal derivatives8, biological products and animal feed (of either animal or vegetal origin) and also the unloading thereof from any means of transport into Cyprus is prohibited unless a written permit from the Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources has previously been obtained and all the relevant veterinary conditions which are required for the issuing of an import licence are satisfied. Any offence committed against this Order is punished by confiscation of the imported or unloaded animals, animal products, or animal feed and destruction thereof in appropriate manner.1
2 The Contagious Diseases (Animals) Law, 1988, Section 4.
• With respect to the veterinary conditions referred to above, a distinction is made between veterinary conditions for the importation into Cyprus of:
With regard to the above it might be more appropriate to provide for special fish disease rules should aquaculture develop considerably. This especially concern those rules relating to isolation of fish, removal of fish, the inspection of cages and the protection of certain waters, etc..
It is also important to foresee and prevent potential problems arising through wildlife being attracted to fish farms, especially where sites are close to seal colonies (mink seals and other mammalian predators found in Cyprus), heronries, cormorants, shags, etc. (in Cyprus, seagull and king fish and other piscivorous birds2) Moreover, at various seasons of the year the islands is host to a great variety of migrating birds which travel from the North to the South and vice versa in the autumn. Cyprus lies on two migratory bird routes between Europe on the one hand and Africa and Asia on the other.3 The question is what is the fish farmer allowed to do? In fact, predators should be deterred or prevented from entering a fish farm before they come to treat it as a source of food. Predator species can be subject to special legal protection as rare species. Problematic legal issues and policy choices arise: for example, whether species protection or fish farm productivity should be given priority in authorizing destructive methods concerning predators control.4 Depending on the location of the fish farm the predators' attack can cause a lot of damage: damage to nets allowing the escape of the fish into the wild, hurt and wounded fish becoming more vulnerable to disease.
3 “Cyprus”, published by the Press and Information Service.
Protection to potential predators in Cyprus is implemented through the following laws:
The general protection for potential fish predator species is provided for under the “Game and Wild Birds Law”, Cap. 65, 1934 as amended up to 1991, which offers a coverage for the protection of wild birds, (i) by prescribing that “no person shall by any means whatsoever shoot, kill, take or pursue any game or wild bird1 unless he is holder of a game licence”2 and (ii) by imposing a range of prohibitions such as: prohibition “to shoot, kill, pursue or sell any game or wild bird during a close season”3 There is only one measure which might avail a fish farmer to a certain extent i.e. the fish farmer might seek protection by means of obtaining a game licence issued by the Minister of Interior.
There are also certain areas which are prescribed by an order of the Council of Ministers and consequently declared as game reserves wherein shooting is temporarily or permanently prohibited.4 The present game reserves are currently not relevant for the fish farmer.
As regards animals, an offence is committed if a person shall cause by acts and/or omissions unnecessary suffering to any animal. The latter is defined as “any domestic or captured animal or bird”. Whether cultured fish belongs to one of these categories remains an open question.
Due to exceptional weather conditions or even vandalism, stock from fish ponds or cages might escape into the rivers, dams or the coastal waters where they were cultured. The problems are twofold: (1) who owns the escaped fish which are in the coastal waters, rivers and reservoirs and (2) what are the steps which the fish farmer can take to recover lost stock without being accused of illegal fishing under the fishery legislation.
The present legal framework does not provide a clear answer to these questions. First of all, there seems to be a distinction between wild animals and domestic animals. Fish appear to belong to the world of wild animals defined in the Civil Wrongs Law as “any animal1 not usually kept in captivity or under the control of man in the Republic”2. Nevertheless, the present legislation does not provide that all animals can be owned. The Criminal Code states that a person who steals a horse, mare, gelding, ass, mule, camel, bull, cow, ox, ram, ewe, wether, goat or pig or the young of any such animal is liable to imprisonment of five years.3 The latter list contemplates mainly domestic animals and the ownership of cattle, sheep, mules, donkeys, horses is retained by the farmer despite the loss of custody. On the other hand, any person can be responsible for damages caused by any animal of which he is in charge of.4 This relation to escaped fish, however, is quite difficult and leaves the question open whether the fish farmer retains ownership rights to the escaped fish (to the extent that it is possible to recover them).
With respect to the second problem, the present Fisheries Legislation does not provide for exemptions to its conservation measures for purposes of aquaculture. Consideration should be given to this matter.
This section deals with a range of miscellaneous matters arising in relation to the control of the use of drugs and feedstuff, which are potentially polluting elements in fish farming operations. More particularly, an attempt has to be made to analyse the laws and regulations relating to (i) the control of the use of drugs or other chemicals for fish farming purposes and (ii) the prevention of pollution of the aquatic environment by the use of chemicals, drugs or artificial feedstuffs.
Several laws deal with the subject-matter mentioned in (i) above:
The Animal Feeding Stuffs Law does not apply to fish as the scope of the law is to regulate and control the importation and sale of feeding stuffs for livestock (bulls, cows, calves, heifers, oxen, goats, sheep, horses, donkeys, mules, swine, camels and poultry [sic]).5
1 “animal” includes birds, fish, insects and reptiles. Civil Wrongs Law, Section 2.
3 The Criminal Code, Section 265.
4 The Civil Wrongs Law, Section 54.
5 The Animal Feeding Stuffs Law, Cap. 30, 1953, section 2.
The Sale of Food and Drugs Law regulates (i) the mixing of food1 and drugs2 with other ingredients and the sale thereof; (ii) the sale of food and drugs not of the nature, substance and quality demanded by the purchaser; (iii) the sale of decomposed food and drugs; and, (iv) the import of agricultural and other produce.
This Law could be relevant for the fish farmer insofar as fish falls under the definition of food and that ingredients such as conthaxarthia, which are often used in fish culture, can be injurious to health and could be subject to control under the Law.
The Pharmacy and Poison Law covers the control of the profession of pharmacy and the trade in drugs3 and poisons.4 This law applies insofar as some of the drugs and pharmaceutical preparations listed in the relevant Schedules, such as phenols and pituitary gland, hydrofluoric acid and phosphorous compounds are likely to be used in the breeding phase of fish or in the parasite treatment or for other purposes. The law imposes obligations on the seller of the in the schedule of the law listed drugs and pharmaceutical preparations and on the person to whom such things are sold: certification, qualified person, etc..5
Finally, the Drugs (control of quality, supply and prices) Law, 1967 is dealing with the control of the use antibiotics6, drugs7 and pharmaceutical preparations8.
2 drug includes "medicine for internal or external use, ibid..
7 “drug” includes "any medicines or medical preparation or therapeutic substance.
It enounces three main principles:
it is prohibited for any person to market any controlled pharmaceutical preparation1 unless he holds a marketing licence issued by the Drugs Council;2
no person shall sell or supply a prescription drug3 or any preparation of which any such drug is an ingredient or part, unless he is a registered veterinary surgeon with respect to animals; The preparation or drug can only be sold for purposes of treatment by or in accordance with the directions of the surgeon;4
no person shall manufacture for sale any pharmaceutical prepapration unless he holds a manufacturing licence issued by the Drugs Council;5
With regard to aquaculture, it is relevant to note the following:
the present Law covers the drugs which are used to prevent and treat dissease in aqauculture insofar as they qualify as “prescription drug” or “antibiotic”;
no distinction is made so far between drugs administered to human beings and those administered to animals;
medicated feeding stuffs administered to animals are almost likely to be subject to this Law as an preparation of which any presription drug is an ingedient or part can only be sold or supplied by a registered veterinary surgeon or under veterinary surgeon's prescription;
Finally, these legisaltion is in the process of being revised and the legal consultant was told that the major amendments relate to:
the distinction between veterinary medicinal drugs and others;
the inspecting and control powers of the veterinary officers; and
the withdrawal periods i.e. the period necessary to elapse between the last administration of a veterinary medicinal product to animals and the slaughtering of the animal/the production of food stuffs from such animals in order to ensure that such food stuffs do not contain any residues which might harm the health of the consumer.
The prevention of pollution of the aquatic environment by the use of chemicals, drugs or artificial feedstuffs, is covered in that part of this report dealing with the protection and conservation of the quality of waters.
Availability of credit will be a key element in the implementation of future plans for aquaculture development. Specialized financial schemes should be set up wherever and whenever major development is foreseen. Financial assistance schemes for aquaculture do not exist as such but fish farmers could take avantage of the financial assistance scheme for the setting up of new industries, elaborated by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry. Under this scheme, financing is extended in the form of loans at a special interest rate (between 6 and 9%) or of bank guarantees. The precise details of this scheme were not made available. There are a lot of uncertainties as to whether aquaculture can be considered as an “industry”1. In this respect, the consultant was told that whether aquaculture can benefit from the financial assistance scheme for new industries will be decided on a case by case basis and the merits, the characteristics, the attractiveness, etc. will influence such decision. The emphasis however seems to be on the development of new farms rather than assistance to existing farms.
Apart from the above, special loans (max. 30.000 Cyp. pounds2) issued by the loan commissioners at an interest rate of 5.5% are available for land based fish farmers for a maximum period of 10 years. It is worth mentioning here that the interest rate is lower than for loans granted to farmers by the same authorities for the simple reason that aquaculture is classified under fisheries this time and not under agriculture. The marine floating cage culture fish farmer is, with regard to loans, more likely to face problems and has to offer appropriate guarantees. The loan applications are partly processed by the DOF. There is, in fact, a consultation procedure between the loan commissioners and the DOF. Usually the final 15% of the loan will only be issued after confirmation by the DOF that with these funds the project will be successfully completed.
Commercial banks are in general cautious in issuing loans for aquaculture operations. This because it is a new branch of commercial/agricultural activity and there are still gaps in knowledge on technical and economical aspects. but also, because the industry still lacks appropriate organizational structure as well as political support.
Current aquaculture developers are eligible for EEC loans under the “EC International Investment Partners” programme which was set up in order to promote joint ventures between Cypriots and citizens from EEC member countries.
2 The loan should not exceed 60% of the total capital investment.
Finally, foreign participation and joint ventures in Cypriot commercial activities is restricted under the Control of Exchange Law.
It appears that a number of fiscal benefits are available to fish farmers. In the first place it must be noted that aquaculture seems to fall under “farming”, “broad agriculture activities”.1 Given this classification, a range of fiscal benefits available for farming and agriculture products can be claimed by the fish farmer:
Capital expenditure allowances can be claimed in relation to expenditures incurred for the acquisition of machinery, equipment, installations, etc.2 where it is established that they serve for the business at a relief rate of 10% over a period of 10 years and in relation to the construction of new buildings at a relief rate of 3% for non industrial buildings and at 4% for industrial buildings for the same period;
Investment allowances can be claimed over and above the capital expenditure allowances at a rate of 20%;
The tax rate on the profit made from export of Cypriot products is reduced by 10%;
Concessions for loan rates are only admitted provided that the business, for which the loan was obtained, started;
Revenue expenditures can only be deducted from the taxable income provided that the expenses were made “only and exclusively for the production of the income”; and,
Incentives to employ qualified graduates registered as unemployed: the Cypriot Government grants 40% extra allowance for a period of three years over and above the salary of the qualified graduate provided his academic qualifications fully serve the operation of the business (including animal husbandry and agriculture business).
In addition, because aquaculture is classified under farming operations, the import of equipment is not free of duty whereas the import of equipment for fishermen is.
Finally, if the fish farmer is only involved in fish farming and has no other business or work and his total income is less than 10.000 Cyp.p, then 30% of his income will not be subject to income tax although the remainder will be.
2 This does not include plants i.e. fixtures, partitions of a room, furniture, etc.
