Transcript Slayt 1 - FAO Sipam

DEVELOPING A ROADMAP FOR
TURKISH MARINE AQUACULTURE
TCP/TUR 3101 Project
COMMITTEE ON AQUACULTURE
Working Group on SITING and CARRYING CAPACITY
21- 23 October 2008 Crete, Greece
STATUS OF MARICULTURE IN
TURKEY
General Features





In 2007 total production from the fisheries was
772,000 mt;
Aquaculture consisted of 18% - 80,840 (10.5%)
marine and 59,033 (7.5%) mt freshwater;
340 farms, 108,000 mt annual production
capacity;
20 hatchery with annual production capacity of
220 million fry
Aquaculture provides 25,000 jobs.
Trends of Aquaculture Production
160.000
140.000
128.943
139.873
120.000
118.277
100.000
94.010
79.031
80.000
60.000
40.000
79.943
67.244
56.700
63.000
61.165
45.450
20.000
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
Species Produced
•
Seabass
• Seabream
• Trout
• Mussel
• New species
41.900
33.500
2.740
1.100
1.600
Marine
80.840
Freshwater
59,033
GRAND TOTAL
139,873 mt
Number of Farms
Production systems
No. of
Farms
Capacity
(mt/yr)
Cage Farms
236
98,650
Land-based (Ponds)
100
3,122
Rafts/Long-lines
3
1,625
Mobile (ship)
1
4,800
340
108 197
TOTAL
Farms by Seas
4 (1%)
16 (5%)
14 (4%)
Med.
Aegean
Marmara
Black Sea
305
(90%)
Distribution of Farms by Provinces
Provinces
Number
Capacity
Antalya1
8
4,570
Aydin3
15
526
Balikesir2
1
30
Canakkale2
3
656
Edirne2
1
100
Hatay1
1
561
İzmir3
70
20,880
Mersin1
4
600
Muğla3
207
63,593
Ordu4
6
1,160
Rize4
4
750
Trabzon4
3
2.900
1: Mediterranean;
2: Sea of Marmara;
3: Aegean Sea;
4: Black Sea
Major Provinces
(5%)
(1.1%)
(90%)
(4%)
Farms by Environmnet
1%
29%
0%
Near shore
Offshore
Ponds
Rafts
Ship
56%
14%
Farms by Species and Production
Capacity
Species
Farms
(%)
Sea bass and Sea bream
89
Trout and Sea bass
2,8
Bass, Bream and New Species
2,5
Tuna
2,2
Trout
1,8
Shellfish (mussel)
0,9
Sea bass
0,6
Mussel and Sea bass
0,3
Production
Capacity
%
≤ 50
42
51-100
18
101-250
16
251-500
6
501-1000
11
 1001
6
DEVELOPING A ROADMAP FOR TURKISH
MARINE AQUACULTURE SITE SELECTION
AND ZONING USUNG THE ECOSYSTEM
APPROACH TO MANAGEMENT
TCP/TUR 3101 PROJECT
Background







Pressures from certain media, summer house owners, some
politicians, tourism sector, NGOs
Environmental Law was amended to exclude marine cages from
environmentally sensitive areas, enclosed bays and near shore areas
on 26 April 2006.
Based on amendment in Environmental Law a new decree entitled
“Notification on determination of sensitive enclosed bays and gulfs
areas where fish farms excluded - No: 26413” was issued on 24
January 2007.
Those fish farms in the sensitive areas should evaluate their situation
according to criteria (see Table) and report the Ministry of
Environment and Forestry before May 1, 2007.
Those cage farms cannot meet the criteria (see Table) will be closed
before May 13, 2007 (this date has not been applied due to Supreme
Court decision).
Unfortunately amendment in the law and Notification issued without
proper consultation with stakeholders and the definitions in the bill
are considered somewhat vague.
In addition duration given farmers to move new sites was very short
and unrealistic.
Background
 Parameters and criteria for sensitive areas where cage fish farms can
not be set:
Parameters
Criteria
Water depth
≤ 30m
Distance from coastline
≤ 0.6 mile
Current speed
≤ 0.1 m/sec
 Fish farms also cannot be established on natural and archaeological areas.
 Assesment of Eurtrophication Risk: Interpretation of the Trix Index (TI):
TRIX Index (TI)
Explanation
TI < 4
No eutrophication risk
4 ≤ TI ≤ 6
High eutrophication risk
TI > 6
Already eutrophic
Background



The Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs
(MARA) of Turkey asked FAO technical assistance;
FAO technical assistance has been considered key
to the success of this project, as the organization
can play its natural role as neutral agency with
technical capacity in aquaculture as well as in the
provision of policy guidance and stakeholder
coordination;
In addition FAO and GFCM are the only
international organizations which are currently
collaborating in aquaculture with all countries of the
Mediterranean.
Minister for Environment and Forestry
Measures Taken as Solution

Identification of new zones and sites (Izmir,
Mugla, Aydin, Mersin);

Regulatory studies

Discussions on implementing strategic EIA

TUBITAK Project

FAO-TCP Project (TCP/TUR 3101)
Mugla – Gulluk Gulf
TCP/TUR 3101 Project





Main objective to technically assist the Government
of Turkey in the development of firstly a roadmap for
sound marine aquaculture site selection and
secondly a zoning plan for marine aquaculture
following the pan-Mediterranean guidelines for fish
farmers.
Main Partners: FAO and MARA (Ministry of
Agriculture and Rural Affairs)
Major beneficiaries: MARA, MEF (Min. of Env), Min.
of Culture and Tourism, Yachting clubs, fish farmers,
local governments, tourism sector,
Duration: December 2007 – September 2008),
Startup meeting: 10-11 July 2008, Ankara
Expected Outputs







Recommendations to Government for clarifying the current
situation on siting of marine aquaculture.
Marine aquaculture farmers and governmental decision makers
trained in the application of commonly agreed upon site
selection criteria and identification of relocation options, using
the ecosystem approach to aquaculture management.
A draft pilot zoning plan for one selected location prepared.
Increased awareness and social acceptability of other
stakeholders active in the coastal marine environment on the
rightful place of aquaculture within coastal area development
and management.
An advocacy brochure on the place of marine aquaculture
within the coastal environment and other leaflets as required in
the process.
A roadmap and project for developing sound mariculture siting
and management built in a multi-stakeholder environment using
participatory approaches.
A new project proposal to seek funding as UTF or other funding
mechanisms prepared.
Major Activities 1: Startup Meeting
(10 -11 July 2008, Ankara)

-
-
Visits and meetings held at:
Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs: the
Directorate of Agricultural Production and
Development (GDAPD)
Ministry of Environment and Forestry: the General
Directorate of Environmental Management and the
General Director of Environmental Impact
Assessment and Planning.
Major Activities 2: 1st Stakeholder
Workshop (16 -17 July 2008, Izmir)

It was prepared and conducted and by a FAO team
(National and international Consultants plus an FAO FIMA
officer) together with Ministry (MARA) personnel;

Attended by 37 participants from 22 national ministries,
institutions, farmer groups, companies and NGOs;

The expected output was developing a draft roadmap
towards ecosystem approached management of Turkish
marine aquaculture;

The first part of the activity consisted of 6 presentations
made by the FAO team and the MARA. .
1st Stakeholder Workshop

A facilitation approach was used and participants were
divided in groups and were asked to write out 2-3 major
issues/problems of marine aquaculture in Turkey.

Various issues raised gathered under group headings
(including environmental impacts, R&D, education and
training, investment and credit, farm management,
mariculture management and coastal zone management).

The sources of the problems and proposed solutions
were also asked the groups.

The final part of the exercise consisted of prioritising the
solutions and actions and placing them in a time frame
First Workshop, Izmir
1st Stakeholders Workshop
Stake Holders Defining The
Problems….
Road Map
– Immediate Action
– Action plan 1 year to 3 years
– Action plan 3 years to 5 years
Identifying the problems - 1

Management and Administration
– Coordination gap between Ministries
– Legislative conflicts
– Bureaucracy for permitting
– Need for DG for Fisheries and Aquaculture
– Need long term planning
– Need identifying zones for aquaculture
Identifying the problems - 2

Site selection and logisitics
– Need to identify new sites
– Conflict between Ministries
– Insufficient jetties
– Insufficient shore bases
Other problems







Poor image of aquaculture
Lack of market orientated approach
Need for streamlined Credit and
finance
High sea rental costs
Lack of vocational training
Lack of research
Conflicts with other coastal users
One conflict area: Gerence Bay Izmir
Bodrum, Mugla: Summer Houses
and Cages
Field study of Gerence Bay-Izmir
2nd Stakeholder Workshop (10 11 August 2008, Mugla)
Fees






Yer
İzmir
Muğla
Mersin
Antalya
Black Sea
Fee for per 1000 m2 per year
: 2100 Euro
: 800
: 275
: 275
: 400
2nd Workshop



Attended by 62 participants belonging to 5
national institutions, 16 fish farmer
companies,
6
aquaculture
support
industries, 3 farmer associations.
Presentations were given by the coordinator,
international and national consultants.
Questions arising were answered at the end
of each session.
2nd Workshop: Presentations













Benefits to the producers by undertaking EIAs and monitoring
of the environment,
Offshore and Open Sea Farming Technology,
Offshore and Open Sea Farming Ancillary equipment,
Offshore and Open Sea Farming Management,
Financial requirements Offshore vs Open Sea,
Minimising Risks,
New species,
New technology for Offshore and Open Seas,
Regulations for aquaculture license, EIA and monitoring
Process for setting up a fish farm,
Role of the Ministries in regulating aquaculture,
Site selection Criteria,
Proposed road map for moving offshore
2nd Workshop: Identifying Major
Problems and Potential Solutions
The participants were asked to identify fundamental problems and
potential solutions. Following the discussions of the first day
the problems were classified under 3 main categories:
1. Management and Administration: Total 35%
- Coordination gap among Ministries – (legislation, authority and
responsibility conflict) 9%
- Legislative chaos – (each organization has a different legislative
implementation related to marine aquaculture) 7%
- To steamline the bureaucracy relevant to Aquaculture Certification
and Licensing Requirements 7%.
- To establish a separate General Directorate for Fisheries and
Aquaculture since authority in MARA is divided among the
various General Directorates in this issue 5%.
- Lack of long-term mariculture development plans 3.5%.
- The need to define mariculture zones in the coastal zone 3.5%.
.... Identifying Major Problems
and Potential Solutions
1. Site Selection and Logistic Support: Total 26%
A – Site Selection, 15.5%
– Defining new potential sites, 7%.
– Conflict among the Ministries, 5%.
– Fry nursery site located inshore 3.5%.
B – Logistic Problem 10.5 %
– Lack of Jetties.
– Land-based office (multipurpose – nets, food
storage, temporary accommodation, basic fish
processing).
.... Identifying Major Problems
and Potential Solutions
3. Other Problems: Total 39.5%.
- Image promotion, 9%.
- Lack of a market oriented approach in marine
aquaculture in Turkey, 5.5%.
- Credit and financing, high rental prices, assurance 9%.
- Problems related to operations of off-shore conditions,
5.5%.
- Lack of well trained technicians, 5.0%.
- Inadequate Research and Development (R&D) and
where there is R&D existing the results not reaching
the producer, 3.5%.
- Conflicts among the users of the coastal zone, 2.0%.
From old farms to new farms
Old Style Cages
New style
The Road map

Strengthening Institutional Organisation
– Contribute to the creation of a General
Directorate (GD) for Fisheries and Aquaculture
– Capacity building for Ministry Departments at
provincial level
– Creation of a Special Commission for
Mariculture Development (SCMD)
– Formation of an Integrated Coastal Management
Board (ICMB) under the Prime Ministry
Proposed Institutions
Prime Ministry
Inter-Ministerial Agreement for
the development of
aquaculture
Integrated Coastal
Management Board for
Mariculture , Ankara
Provincial ICM
Boards
Cooperate
together
Special Commission for
Aquaculture Development
Ankara
Provincial
Commissions for
Aquaculture
Development
Work
together
Provincial
Development
Agencies
Planning Mariculture Development
There is a need for a thorough review of mariculture
planning and the through integration of mariculture
into the coastal zone development. However, this
will require time and funding.
 Review of zoning for mariculture
 Review of the integration of mariculture into Coastal
Planning
 Data collection of essential parameters for open
sea site selection
 Expand the strategic aquaculture development
plan:
 Review models that can be used for production
carrying capacity estimation
Managing Mariculture Development










Review aquaculture legislation and regulations and role of
aquaculture Ministries/Institutions
Review present institutions responsible for mariculture
development
Review and recommend revisions of mariculture regulations
and legislations
Review regulations on Environmental Issues
Review EIAs for mariculture
Review regulations on monitoring
Review of decision making process for mariculture
development
Review of permit procedures and requirements for
transportation and exportation
Review of leasing and permitting procedures
Review animal welfare issues
Support for Mariculture Development










PR to encourage fish consumption and enhance the
image of mariculture
Credit and finance guidelines
Insurance Guidelines
Training needs assessment, draft training curriculum and
identify Faculties and Institutes
Research needs assessment
Improved technology transfer, and access to global
information and technology in mariculture
Establish an aquaculture extension service
Additional Fish Health Laboratories
Establishment of Quarantine facilities
Promotion and Marketing services
Aquaculture Zoning Plan for Izmir
Output: A draft pilot zoning plan for one selected location which will be
included short, medium and long term options for present and future
marine aquaculture enterprise in support of a sustainable sector
development.
Moving cage farms offshore: According to Aquaculture Regulation
following requirements should be met in site:
 Space/area should be large enough for rotation and should not be
less than twice of the actual area occupied by cages.
 Distance between tuna cage farms, and tuna and other fish farms can
not be less than 2 km, and less than 1 km between other fish farms.
 Minimum annual production capacities of farms are set as a cage farm
is 250 mt/y.
 On offshore, open coast and outside the enclosed bays and gulfs
cage sites should have minimum 40 m water depth. However,
Aquaculture Department may allocate sites for cage farming less than
40 m taking into account capacity of farm, water depth, current speed
and intended production system/technology.
Gerence Bay - Izmir
Production capacity
There are 14 farms planned for Gerence Bay with a total capacity of 4,900 tonnes.
Of the 14 farms planned only 4 have approved EIAs at the present time.
Planned cage farms in Gerence Bay
Before moving cages
Example of Potential Zoning of
Aquaculture in Gerence and Ildir Bays
New Aquaculture
Zones in Izmir
New Aquaculture
Zone in Izmir
Identification
of
new
aquaculture zones based
on absence of conflicts
There needs to be data collection for these
new areas and they need to be re- assessed
on the basis of the site selection criteria
There should be a review of the needs
for logistic support for offshore farms
Muğla: Zoning Problem Solved?
PR: Advocacy Brochure
PR: Advocacy Brochure
Project Proposal
Output 1 – Coastal zone planning for mariculture development
 Review of new zones as to their suitability for aquaculture
 Identify potential new areas for open sea aquaculture
Output 2 – Mariculture production carrying capacity
 Review models for estimating carrying capacity
 Estimate finfish carrying capacity in two aquaculture zones
Output 3 – Aquaculture regulatory framework
 Review of current legislation and identify conflict issues among
the Ministries and Institutes
 Review scope and data collection for mariculture EIA
 Review monitoring requirements for assessing mariculture
impact
Output 4 – Support for mariculture development
 Research needs assessment and prioritisation
 Training needs assessment and prioritisation
Project Proposal
Beneficiaries:
 The direct targeted beneficiaries in the
project are MARA, MEF, fish farmers and
mariculture sector as whole.
 In addition companies providing service,
system and equipment, tourism sector and
local fishermen will also benefit.
 Duration: 30-36, starting from 2009
 Budget: 2-3 million USD
The project team: Enjoying their dinner
Thank You for Your Attention