3 Aquaculture and Coastal Space Management
103
either abolition of tuna farming or stronger management measures to better control
the practice (IUCN 2004; Volpe 2005; Borg and Schembri 2006).
3.6 Competition Between Aquaculture and Biodiversity
Protection
The impacts of marine aquaculture on biodiversity are rarely positive (Beveridge
et al. 1994), and as such, installations have been described as competing for space
with future potential MPAs (www.wwf.org). Declaration of marine protected
areas (MPAs) in European coastal waters to preserve biodiversity will likely preclude aquaculture activities that modify biodiversity. While the use of MPAs for
coastal management in Europe has so far been limited and most are relatively
small, the declaration of MPAs over extensive coastal areas elsewhere has
restricted availability of sites for aquaculture. For example, the zoning of the Great
Barrier Reef Marine Park in Australia in 2004 for biodiversity protection included
approximately 40% of the area of the park within protection zones that exclude
the establishment of aquaculture facilities (Fernandes et al. 2005).
For coastal areas where biodiversity is not or will not be protected through area
restrictions on aquaculture and other activities through the presence of MPAs,
which would concern the vast majority of European coastal space, constraints on
the level of biodiversity modification that aquaculture may cause to natural systems remain important. EC Directives relevant to marine aquaculture implicate the
integration of aquaculture management within the overall management strategy of
the coastal zone, through Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) and
requires Environmental Impact Assessments in licensing procedures for aquaculture developments (Fernandes and Read 2001). The EC Water Framework and the
Species and Habitat Directives are the most important protocols for maintaining
the integrity of the marine ecosystem structure in relation to marine aquaculture
(Read and Fernandes 2003).
The Water Framework Directive places emphasis on ecological status, which is
defined as the quality of the structure and functioning of aquatic ecosystems associated with surface waters. Ecosystem quality will be maintained through the control
of water contamination through human activities such as aquaculture. In terms of
“biological” contaminants, such as genetically modified or selected individuals
from farmed stocks, the Water Framework Directive and the Habitat Directive aim
to protect existing levels of genetic variability and diversity in natural
populations.
The Species and Habitat Directive (92/43/EEC) promotes the protection of habitats and species with a holistic approach, that concerns the integrity of ecosystem
characteristics and the protection of natural biodiversity. Hundreds of “Special Areas
of Conservation” (SAC) have been defined to protect European marine biodiversity.
A single management plan for each site is necessary and negative interactions of
aquaculture within these areas should be avoided. An important concept common to
103
either abolition of tuna farming or stronger management measures to better control
the practice (IUCN 2004; Volpe 2005; Borg and Schembri 2006).
3.6 Competition Between Aquaculture and Biodiversity
Protection
The impacts of marine aquaculture on biodiversity are rarely positive (Beveridge
et al. 1994), and as such, installations have been described as competing for space
with future potential MPAs (www.wwf.org). Declaration of marine protected
areas (MPAs) in European coastal waters to preserve biodiversity will likely preclude aquaculture activities that modify biodiversity. While the use of MPAs for
coastal management in Europe has so far been limited and most are relatively
small, the declaration of MPAs over extensive coastal areas elsewhere has
restricted availability of sites for aquaculture. For example, the zoning of the Great
Barrier Reef Marine Park in Australia in 2004 for biodiversity protection included
approximately 40% of the area of the park within protection zones that exclude
the establishment of aquaculture facilities (Fernandes et al. 2005).
For coastal areas where biodiversity is not or will not be protected through area
restrictions on aquaculture and other activities through the presence of MPAs,
which would concern the vast majority of European coastal space, constraints on
the level of biodiversity modification that aquaculture may cause to natural systems remain important. EC Directives relevant to marine aquaculture implicate the
integration of aquaculture management within the overall management strategy of
the coastal zone, through Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) and
requires Environmental Impact Assessments in licensing procedures for aquaculture developments (Fernandes and Read 2001). The EC Water Framework and the
Species and Habitat Directives are the most important protocols for maintaining
the integrity of the marine ecosystem structure in relation to marine aquaculture
(Read and Fernandes 2003).
The Water Framework Directive places emphasis on ecological status, which is
defined as the quality of the structure and functioning of aquatic ecosystems associated with surface waters. Ecosystem quality will be maintained through the control
of water contamination through human activities such as aquaculture. In terms of
“biological” contaminants, such as genetically modified or selected individuals
from farmed stocks, the Water Framework Directive and the Habitat Directive aim
to protect existing levels of genetic variability and diversity in natural
populations.
The Species and Habitat Directive (92/43/EEC) promotes the protection of habitats and species with a holistic approach, that concerns the integrity of ecosystem
characteristics and the protection of natural biodiversity. Hundreds of “Special Areas
of Conservation” (SAC) have been defined to protect European marine biodiversity.
A single management plan for each site is necessary and negative interactions of
aquaculture within these areas should be avoided. An important concept common to