Aquaculture in Scotland the potential effects of the Water framework Directive

1. Aquaculture in Scotland the potential effects of the Water framework Directive Peter Holmes Marine Science Manager Scottish Environment Protection Agency

2. Scottish Environment Protection Agency ( SEPA) Responsible for licensing discharge from Fin Fish Farms by: • Controlling the position of farm in relation to the depth, flushing rates and proximity to other farms or sensitive sites • Consenting the farm size in terms of peak biomass • Consenting the use of chemicals such as drugs, anti-parasitics, anti-fouling treatment SEPA is only consulted on the siting of shellfish farms as they are not artificially fed their discharge is considered “natural”

3. Existing data/monitoring requirements for Cage Farms • Monitoring Benthos self monitoring and audit • Modelling of organic deposition • Hydrographic data and audit • Modelling of nutrient load • Modelling of infeed treatment dispersion and audit • Audit of all chemicals and their fate

4. Details of SEPA’s Fish Farm Manual are on SEPA’s Web Site

5. SCOTLAND

6. Federation of Scottish Aquaculture Producers, 2004

7. Fin Fish Farms in Scotland Farm numbers –all species - by SEPA team area (as of August 2003) Shetland - 166 Orkney - 34 Thurso – 20 Dingwall North – 20 Dingwall South – 16 Western Isles - 83 Fort William - 54 Lochgilphead - 64 Ayr - 2

8. Characterisation - Risk Assessment (Pressures & Impacts) • Assess the degree of risk of a water body failing good status • For Fish Farms this was done using Scottish Government Locational Guidelines • And SEPA’s coastal classification scheme(not WFD compliant) • If farms were in Guideline Category 1 or were designated C or D in SEPA’s classification system then they were considered at risk with moderate confidence and therefore subject to Operational Monitoring

9. Scottish Government Locational Guidelines • Based on sensitivity of sea area in terms of available volume, depth, flushing rate etc • Sensitivity of any Natural History designation • Location of existing farms • Concerns over wild salmon and sea trout populations

10. Categories in the Locational Guidelines CATEGORY 1 - No new or expanded farms except in exceptional circumstances CATEGORY 2 - Limited scope for new sites some room for expansion of existing sites especially where this would reduce environmental effect. CATEGORY 3 - Where some scope for expansion if all environmental requirements can be met.

11. Category 1Areas

12. Creating Water Bodies • Critical that it is remembered these are the management units • They must be of one type • Their size will depend on the pressure they are under

13. Water Bodies for North West Scotland

14. Water Bodies and Types

15. NEA6 NEA7 NEA1 NEA1

16. Typology • Scotland does not have every NE Atlantic Group Type but shares Type NEA7 Fjord/Sealoch with Norway. • Suitable for Intercalibration especially as pressure from fish farming similar

17. Monitoring of 3 types -Surveillance -Operational -Investigative

18. Surveillance Monitoring The surveillance monitoring to look at: • A range of sites including impacted ones • Validate risk assessment • Trends in natural or man induced changes Sufficient surveillance sites are required to allow an assessment of the overall surface water status.

19. Thinking behind design of the Scottish Surveillance Monitoring Programme • One site in each of eight coastal sediment transport cells • One site within in each type • Monitoring should cover 5% of water bodies (=25 sites) • all relevant quality elements to be sampled at all sites • Every 3 years for invertebrates and macroalgae • Every 3 years sampling for fish in transitional waters • bi-annual, quarterly or monthly sampling for phytoplankton • bi-annual, quarterly or monthly sampling for water quality • Every six years for hydromorphology

20. Surveillance Monitoring Must monitor all Quality Elements

21. 25 surveillance sites, but no lagoon sites identified yet. 8 are in water bodies containing fish farms

22. Operational Monitoring • The operational monitoring network derived from the risk assessment process in the first instance. • Monitoring Frequency Nationally decided but should be at least as frequent as that given in the Directive

23. Operational Monitoring Monitor only those quality elements that are at risk

24. Where reasons for exceedances are not known To examine impacts of accidental pollution Where operational monitoring has not been put in place Investigative Monitoring

25. Considering the effect of the WFD an ICES Mariculture Committee concluded at a workshop in Spain 2003 that: • “Specifically, fish farms will probably be assessed as potentially affecting the quality of the benthic fauna, the phytoplankton and angiosperm communities, and also hydrochemical conditions such as nutrient and dissolved oxygen concentrations.” • I would agree but add “Specific Pollutants”

26. CHEMICAL MONITORING Antibiotics, antiparasitics, antifouling agents are all “Specific Pollutants” requiring member state control with state derived standards.

27. Regulation • If any water body fails to reach at least Good Status then a Programme of Measures must be brought in to improve the quality of that water body by 2015 • Programme of Measures is subject to national regulation but must be reported through River Basin Management Plan • River Basin Plans must allow participation and consultation with stakeholders such as Aquaculture Industry

28. Plus Clear Universally applied quality standard and classification Ensure that water quality in areas that are used for aquaculture are of high quality Allows wide consultation and consideration of socio-economics Minus More thorough auditing of the industry in areas where currently there is little attention Poor results will be open to public scrutiny Environmental quality compared with “natural state” not just a local control site WFD Summary for Aquaculture

29. Summary • I believe that for Scotland that the monitoring will be more comprehensive in scope but may be less intensive at any one farm. • Shellfish farming will have to be monitored for the first time by SEPA • The effective regulation will be of a similar nature to the present so the farmer with good environmental credentials has nothing to fear. For Norway?