Application of the DPSIR framework

Application of the DPSIR framework
to the eco-governance of transitional waters Alice Newton IMAR-Institute of Marine Research University of the Algarve Gambelas Campus FARO Tel ; Fax Lecce, June 2008

Application of the DPSIR framework
to the eco-governance of transitional waters Lesson 1: Definitions and development of the DPSIR framework, Drivers and Pressures Alice Newton IMAR-Institute of Marine Research University of the Algarve Gambelas Campus FARO Tel ; Fax Lecce, June 2008

Development of the DPSIR framework Drivers and Pressures
DPSIR framework for eco-governance of transitional waters Definitions and development of the DPSIR framework Alice Newton Table of contents Definition of DPSIR Development of the DPSIR framework Drivers and Pressures An arrow pointing downwards means that there is more information below the slide in the note section. You will also have lesson notes for each lesson and a number of important papers in pdf format

DPSIR framework for eco-governance of transitional waters Definitions and development of the DPSIR framework Alice Newton Concepts and knowledge presented in the lesson Definition of DPSIR The development of the DPSIR framework and its application to transitional and coastal waters, especially with respect to eutrophication Drivers and pressures associated with biomass production and extraction

What is DPSIR? Drivers Pressures State Impacts Responses
The DPSIR framework links economics, social sciences and natural sciences DPSIR is a causal framework for describing the interactions between society and the environment. This framework has been adopted by the European Environment Agency. The components of this model are: Driving forces Pressures States Impacts Responses This framework is an extension of the pressure-state-response model developed by OECD. As a first step, data and information on all the different elements in the DPSIR chain is collected. Then possible connections between these different aspects are postulated. Through the use of the DPSIR modelling framework, it is possible to gauge the effectiveness of responses put into place OECD (1993). OECD core set of indicators for environmental performance reviews. OECD Environment Monographs No. 83. OECD. Paris.

Drivers: socio-economic activities, e.g. tourist development
Pressures: that affect the environment and the ecosystem e.g. increase nutrient runoff State: quantifiable metrics, indicators of environmental and ecological quality e.g. Dissolved Oxygen, chlorophyll a concentration Impacts: environmental e.g. increase turbidity, ecological, e.g. loss of biodiversity, economic e.g. lower fish catches, social e.g. loss of fishing jobs Responses: of society to manage or abate the problem, e.g. new management criteria, new infrastructure, new policy

1979 Rapport and Friend: stress response model
Carr et al 2007 Origins of DPSIR 1979 Rapport and Friend: stress response model 1993 OECD: P-S-R model (updated 2004) 1999 EEA DPSIR model 2001 EEA: DPSIR applied to eutrophication in transitional waters

BOD DO Nutrients P S R PSR + eutrophication OECD 1993
Indicators of environmental pressures: A complete set of pressure indicators would comprise emissions of nitrogen and phosphate from manure, fertilizer, domestic and industrial waste water, sewage sludge, dredge spoil and solid waste, corrected for the absorption of phosphates and nitrogen by crops. This could be further extended to reflect a proper nutrient balance. Data availability: at the international level, few data are available for the entire range of emission sources of phosphorus or nitrogen as well as for the absorption of phosphates and nitrogen by crops. Currently, measurements are confined to the apparent consumption of fertilizers and general information on waste water discharges. Aggregate amounts of fertilizers must be measured in terms of N or P to account for different types of fertilizers. Livestock density provides a rough but measurable proxy for potential eutrophication from manure. Indicators of environmental conditions: Direct indicators of the extent of eutrophication relate to the phosphate and nitrate contents of inland and marine waters. Biological oxygen demand of water bodies or the degree of dissolved oxygen can also be considered indicative of eutrophication. Measuring excess nutrients in soil complicates matters significantly. The focus of indicators is therefore on water. A general problem related to indicators of ambient quality is how to carry out spatial aggregation to present meaningful national figures: forming averages is seldom a satisfactory solution so that often data of representative sites are shown rather than national figures. Data availability: at the international level, data are available for BOD, phosphate and nitrate concentrations for selected rivers in OECD countries (Source: OECD). Indicators of societal responses: Several indicators would appear useful to show society’s efforts towards reducing eutrophication and excess nutrients: the extent of chemical and/or biological waste water treatment, the extent to which levies on sewage water treatment cover actual costs, the market share of phosphate-free detergents. For non-point sources, in particular agricultural ones, an indicator reflecting best farming practices could be introduced. Data availability: for OECD countries, data on the share of the population connected to sewage treatment plants are available in the short run (Source: OECD). Information on the type of treatment and on waste water charges remains partial. Data on the market share of phosphatefree detergents should be available more easily (Source: industry associations). OECD 1993

DPSIR + eutrophication + EU coastal waters

Pressures WFD TCW Borja, A. et al 2006

DPSIR + lagoons Aliaume, C., Do Chi, T, Viaroli, P., and Zaldivar, J.M.,2007. Coastal lagoons of Southern Europe: Recent changes and future scenarios. Transitional Waters Monographs 1:1-12.

DPSIR + lagoon Aliaume, C., Do Chi, T, Viaroli, P., and Zaldivar, J.M.,2007. Coastal lagoons of Southern Europe: Recent changes and future scenarios. Transitional Waters Monographs 1:1-12.

Transitional waters and lagoons play a key role in the Earth System functioning.
They provide a significant contribution to the life support systems of most societies. Goods and services derived from coastal systems depend strongly on multiple trans-boundary interactions with the land, atmosphere, open ocean and sea bottom. Socio-economic drivers such as urbanization, food production, tourism and transportation accelerate the pressures on the coastal zone and resources. Life support systems of societies Coastal zones play a key role in Earth System functioning providing a significant contribution to the life support systems of most societies. Goods and services derived from coastal systems depend strongly on multiple trans-boundary interactions with the land, atmosphere, open ocean and sea bottom. Human habitation, food production, growing tourism and transportation accelerate the exploitation of the coastal landscape and resources. Changes in the hydrologic cycle coupled with changes in land and water management alter fluxes of materials transmitted from river catchments to the coastal zone having a major effect on coastal ecosystems.

Socio-economic, e.g. tourist development
Drivers and Pressures Socio-economic, e.g. tourist development e.g. increase nutrient runoff

Socio-Economic Drivers
Aliaume et al list Agriculture Aquaculture Industry Urban development Climate change List for these lectures Biomass production Biomass extraction Water and mineral extraction Industry Transport Changing land use Changing lifestyles Global change Aliaume, C., Do Chi, T, Viaroli, P., and Zaldivar, J.M.,2007. Coastal lagoons of Southern Europe: Recent changes and future scenarios. Transitional Waters Monographs 1: 1-12. Aliaume, C., Do Chi, T, Viaroli, P., and Zaldivar, J.M.,2007. Coastal lagoons of Southern Europe: Recent changes and future scenarios. Transitional Waters Monographs 1: 1-12.

Biomass production Agriculture Animal rearing Aquaculture Aliaume, C., Do Chi, T, Viaroli, P., and Zaldivar, J.M.,2007. Coastal lagoons of Southern Europe: Recent changes and future scenarios. Transitional Waters Monographs 1: 1-12.

Biomass production Agricultural Drivers Agricultural Pressures
Fertilizer use and surplus ~ Nutrient inputs Crop legume N fixation ~ Pesticides Biofuels ~ Herbicides ~ Organic matter Animal wastes inputs Aquaculture

Intensive agriculture
Greenhouses Almeria, ES

DRIVER: Intensive Agriculture
Vitacress agricultural development on the Ria Formosa Photo Bruno Fragoso

DRIVER: Agriculture… …and golf
Photo Igor Khmelinskii Quinta do Lago golf development on the Ria Formosa

AGRICULTURAL Drivers Fertilizer use and surplus Legume crop N fixation Biofuels

DRIVER: Agriculture and golf
Pressures Use of agrochemicals (fertilizers…) Wetland drainage Animal wastes Loss of riparian vegetation Irrigation Damming Groundwater extraction

Synthetic fertilizer use and surplus
Agricultural Drivers Synthetic fertilizer use and surplus Fertilizers (also spelled fertiliser) are chemical compounds given to plants to promote growth; they are usually applied either through the soil, for uptake by plant roots, or by foliar feeding, for uptake through leaves. Fertilizers can be organic (composed of organic matter), or inorganic (made of simple, inorganic chemicals or minerals). They can be naturally occurring compounds such as peat or mineral deposits, or manufactured through natural processes (such as composting) or chemical processes (such as the Haber process). These chemical compounds leave lawns, gardens, and soils looking beautiful as they are given different essential nutrients that encourage plant growth. They typically provide, in varying proportions, the three major plant nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium: N-P-K), the secondary plant nutrients (calcium, sulfur, magnesium) and sometimes trace elements (or micronutrients) with a role in plant or animal nutrition: boron, chlorine, manganese, iron, zinc, copper, molybdenum and (in some countries) selenium. Both organic and inorganic fertilizers were called "manures" derived from the French expression for manual tillage, but this term is now mostly restricted to organic manure. Though nitrogen is plentiful in the earth's atmosphere, relatively few plants engage in nitrogen fixation (conversion of atmospheric nitrogen to a biologically useful form). Most plants thus require nitrogen compounds to be present in the soil in which they grow. Producing more nitrogen, not knowing where it goes Rather than stay where it's put, element taints soil, water, air By Tom Horton and Heather Dewar Originally published September 25, 2000 Applied to soils as fertilizer and released as fuel burned in autos and industries, nitrogen readily spreads through the planet's natural systems, with devastating consequences. For decades, farmers and researchers were convinced that agriculture wasted very little nitrogen. But closer study shows that modern food production loses more fertilizer than it uses. On average, only about 3 ounces of every pound of nitrogen fertilizer actually leaves farms in the form of produce, according to an Ecological Society of America panel. Of the rest, significant amounts can become airborne as ammonia, which travels as far as 30 miles on the wind and causes pollution when it hits surface waters. More nitrogen is washed away by rains from the soil before plants absorb it. Some runs directly into waterways. But a lot moves slowly underground, saturating the water table and seeping out to contaminate waterways for years, even after drastic cuts in fertilizer use. Scientists say the land is "leaking" nitrogen. More leaks occur during droughts; they arrest crop growth and absorption of fertilizer -- which washes away with the next rainfall. Even after harvests, nitrogen continues to leak from decaying stalks and leaves left in fields -- and from legumes such as soybeans, which aren't fertilized with nitrogen fertilizer because they capture it from the air. The process might seem abstract, but the consequences aren't. "How are you going to bring things back when you can't see the bottom in six inches of water?" Chesapeake Bay ecologist Walter Boynton asks, gazing into a creek near his home in Calvert County. Boynton had just reviewed old aerial photos showing river bottoms in the area covered with sea grass meadows, vital fish and crab habitat, visible through several feet of clear water. Too much fertilizer has clouded the water with algae and killed 90 percent of the Chesapeake Bay's sea grasses. World fertilizer production, at 88 million tons a year, is the main way that humans have glutted the Earth with new nitrogen. Another estimated 22 million tons is added annually when we unearth and burn such fossil fuels as coal, oil and natural gas. And there is preliminary evidence that these airborne forms of nitrogen are especially potent in triggering excess algae growth when they fall directly on surface waters or wash into them. Both major nitrogen sources, fertilizer and fossil fuels, are projected to grow rapidly. About half the commercial nitrogen fertilizer used in the history of agriculture on Earth has been applied since And automobiles, a major source of airborne nitrogen, increased tenfold as world population doubled since the 1950s. Changes in agriculture make it even harder to plug the leaks in nature's nitrogen cycle. Animals used to be raised on the same farm where their feed was grown; their manure went back onto the fields to nourish the coming crop. But today, nitrogen applied to grow corn in Iowa is fed to chickens in Maryland or pigs in China. Farmers end up with mountains of manure too far away to be recycled efficiently back into growing Midwestern corn. The southern United States, for example, grows nearly a third of the nation's livestock, but it produces just 6 percent of the grain fed to these animals, importing the rest. Nitrogen in runoff from their manure is linked to toxic algae blooms and oxygen losses in North Carolina's Pamlico Sound and elsewhere. Such large-scale, concentrated production now dominates not only in meat and poultry growing, but also in farm-raised fish and shellfish -- increasingly a suspected cause of nitrogen pollution in coastal waters. Nitrogen is not the only nutrient to cause water-quality problems. Humans have nearly tripled the amount of phosphorus fertilizers that run into rivers and the oceans in the past century. Phosphorus, however, is usually more a problem in fresh water, more easily contained in farm fields and removed from sewage, and not produced by burning fossil fuels. So nitrogen is a more pernicious and widespread threat to coastal waters. Experts continue to puzzle over a key mystery: Only about a fifth of all nitrogen leaking from human activities appears to end up in waterways. The rest is unaccounted for. Scientists once assumed a lot of it was consumed by increased growth in forests. But studies at the Harvard Forest, a research station in western Massachusetts, failed to confirm that. A significant amount of the missing nitrogen is likely being recycled harmlessly back into the atmosphere. Bacteria perform this beneficial deed wherever nitrogen-laden runoff flows through the sediments of wetlands. So the worldwide destruction of wetlands has been a major factor in the worsening impact of nitrogen. And finally, large quantities of nitrogen seem to be accumulating in soils, posing a critical question: Is this nitrogen safely and permanently stored, or are soils becoming so saturated that millions of tons of nitrogen soon will begin leaking out to further taint our waters? see text below slide

Fertilizer use http://www.efma.org
Industrial N- fixation and synthetic fertilizer process invented during WW1 Not widely used ‘til 1950’s Steady increase ‘til late 1980s Slight decline to (collapse of Soviet collective farms) Rapid increase since (China & India) 1996: annual fertilizer use ~83 Tg History of Fertilizer In the 1730s, Viscount Charles Townshend (1674–1738) first studied the improving effects of the four crop rotation system that he had observed in use in Flanders. For this he gained the nickname of Turnip Townshend. Chemist Justus von Liebig (1803–1883) contributed greatly to the advancement in the understanding of plant nutrition. His influential works first denounced the vitalist theory of humus, arguing first the importance of ammonia, and later the importance of inorganic minerals. Primarily his work succeeded in setting out questions for agricultural science to address over the next 50 years. In England he attempted to implement his theories commercially through a fertilizer created by treating phosphate of lime in bone meal with sulfuric acid. Although it was much less expensive than the guano that was used at the time, it failed because it was not able to be properly absorbed by crops. At that time in England, Sir John Bennet Lawes (1814–1900) was experimenting with crops and manures at his farm at Harpenden and was able to produce a practical superphosphate in 1842 from the phosphates in rock and coprolites. Encouraged, he employed Sir Joseph Henry Gilbert, who had studied under Liebig at the University of Giessen, as director of research. To this day, the Rothamsted research station that they founded still investigates the impact of inorganic and organic fertilizers on crop yields. In France, Jean Baptiste Boussingault (1802–1887) pointed out that the amount of nitrogen in various kinds of fertilizers is important. Metallurgists Percy Gilchrist (1851–1935) and Sidney Gilchrist Thomas (1850–1885) invented the Thomas-Gilchrist converter, which enabled the use of high phosphorus acidic Continental ores for steelmaking. The dolomite lime lining of the converter turned in time into calcium phosphate, which could be used as fertilizer known as Thomas-phosphate. In the early decades of the 20th Century, the Nobel prize-winning chemists Carl Bosch of IG Farben and Fritz Haber developed the process that enabled nitrogen to be cheaply synthesised into ammonia, for subsequent oxidisation into nitrates and nitrites. In 1927 Erling Johnson developed an industrial method for producing nitrophosphate, also known as the Odda process after his Odda Smelteverk of Norway. The process involved acidifying phosphate rock (from Nauru and Banaba Islands in the southern Pacific Ocean) with nitric acid to produce phosphoric acid and calcium nitrate which, once neutralized, could be used as a nitrogen fertilizer. The Englishmen James Fison, Edward Packard, Thomas Hadfield and the Prentice brothers each founded companies in the early 19th century to create fertilizers from bonemeal. The developing sciences of chemistry and Paleontology, combined with the discovery of coprolites in commercial quantities in East Anglia, led Fisons and Packard to develop sulfuric acid and fertilizer plants at Bramford, and Snape, Suffolk in the 1850s to create superphosphates, which were shipped around the world from the port at Ipswich. By 1870 there were about 80 factories making superphosphate. After World War I these businesses came under financial pressure through new competition from guano, primarily found on the Pacific islands, as their extraction and distribution had become economically attractive. The interwar period saw innovative competition from Imperial Chemical Industries who developed synthetic ammonium sulfate in 1923, Nitro-chalk in 1927, and a more concentrated and economical fertilizer called CCF based on ammonium phosphate in Competition was limited as ICI ensured it controlled most of the world's ammonium sulfate supplies. Other European and North American fertilizer companies developed their market share, forcing the English pioneer companies to merge, becoming Fisons, Packard, and Prentice Ltd. in Together they were producing 85,000 tonnes of superphosphate per annum by 1934 from their new factory and deep-water docks in Ipswich. By World War II they had acquired about 40 companies, including Hadfields in 1935, and two years later the large Anglo-Continental Guano Works, founded in 1917. The post-war environment was characterized by much higher production levels as a result of the "Green Revolution" and new types of seed with increased nitrogen-absorbing potential, notably the high-response varieties of maize, wheat, and rice. This has accompanied the development of strong national competition, accusations of cartels and supply monopolies, and ultimately another wave of mergers and acquisitions. The original names no longer exist other than as holding companies or brand names: Fisons and ICI agrochemicals are part of today's Yara International[4] and AstraZeneca companies.

Agricultural fertilizer application
easily transferred directly to the aquatic environment or via the atmosphere…

Agricultural Drivers Monoculture of Legumes
Leguminous plants harbor symbiotic micro-organisms in their root nodules The micro-organisms can fix N2 and so these plants can grow in N-poor soil Beans, peas etc, protein rich crops Grown for human (soybean, peanut) and animal consumption (clover, lucerne, alfalfa) as well as for biofuels (soybean, peanut) Legume plants are noteworthy for their ability to fix atmospheric nitrogen, an accomplishment attributable to a symbiotic relationship with certain bacteria known as rhizobia found in root nodules of these plants. The ability to form this symbiosis reduces fertilizer costs for farmers and gardeners who grow legumes, and means that legumes can be used in a crop rotation to replenish soil that has been depleted of nitrogen. Legume seed and foliage have a comparatively higher protein content than non-legume material, probably due to the additional nitrogen that legumes receive through nitrogen-fixation symbiosis. This high protein content makes them desirable crops in agriculture. Legume plants are staple, essential for supplementing protein where there is not enough meat. Farmed legumes can belong to numerous classes including forage, grain, blooms, pharmaceutical/industrial, fallow/green manure, and timber species, with most commercially farmed species filling two or more roles simultaneously. Forage legumes are of two broad types. Some, like alfalfa, clover, vetch, stylo, or Arachis, are sown in pasture and grazed by livestock. Other forage legumes such as Leucaena or Albizia are woody shrub or tree species that are either broken down by livestock or regularly cut by humans to provide stock feed. Grain legumes are cultivated for their seeds, and are also called pulses. The seeds are used for human and animal consumption or for the production of oils for industrial uses. Grain legumes include beans, lentils, lupins, peas, and peanuts. Bloom legume species include species such as lupin, which are farmed commercially for their blooms as well as being popular in gardens worldwide. Industrial farmed legumes include Indigofera and Acacia species, which are cultivated for dye and food gum production respectively. Fallow/green manure legume species are cultivated to be tilled back into the soil in order exploit the high nitrogen levels found in most legumes. Numerous legumes are farmed for this purpose including Leucaena, Cyamopsis, and Sesbania species. Various legume species are farmed for timber production worldwide including numerous Acacia species, Erythroxylum species and Castanospermum australe.

Cultivation of Biofuels crops
Agricultural Drivers Cultivation of Biofuels crops Sugar cane Sugar beet Maize Palm oil Soybean Biofuel (if cultivated, then also called agrofuel or agrifuel) can be broadly defined as solid, liquid, or gas fuel consisting of, or derived from recently dead biological material, most commonly plants. This distinguishes it from fossil fuel, which is derived from long dead biological material. Biofuel can be theoretically produced from any (biological) carbon source. The most common by far is photosynthetic plants that capture solar energy. Many different plants and plant-derived materials are used for biofuel manufacture. Biofuels are used globally and biofuel industries are expanding in Europe, Asia and the Americas. The most common use for biofuels is as liquid fuels for automotive transport. The use of renewable biofuels provides increased independence from petroleum and enhances energy security. There are various current issues with biofuel production and use, which are presently being discussed in the popular media and scientific journals. These include: the effect of moderating oil prices, the "food vs fuel" debate, carbon emissions levels, sustainable biofuel production, deforestation and soil erosion, impact on water resources, human rights issues, poverty reduction potential, biofuel prices, energy balance and efficiency, and centralised versus decentralised production models. One of the greatest technical challenges is to develop ways to convert biomass energy specifically to liquid fuels for transportation. To achieve this, the two most common strategies are: To grow sugar crops (sugar cane, sugar beet, and sweet sorghum[2]), or starch (corn/maize), and then use yeast fermentation to produce ethanol (ethyl alcohol). To grow plants that (naturally) produce oils, such as oil palm, soybean, algae, or jatropha. When these oils are heated, their viscosity is reduced, and they can be burned directly in a diesel engine, or the oils can be chemically processed to produce fuels such as biodiesel. Wood and its byproducts can be converted into biofuels such as woodgas, methanol or ethanol fuel. Some researchers are working to improve these processes. Biofuels and (N2O) emissions New research suggests that nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions associated with growing some biofuel crops may be much greater than previously thought and could be high enough to outweigh the potential CO2 savings associated with biofuels. Producing fuels from crops such as rapeseed is one strategy being explored to replace fossil fuels, with a view to reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the transport sector. However, annual crops such as rapeseed and maize require significant inputs of nitrogen-based fertilisers and this in turn will lead to higher N2O emissions. New research suggests that these N2O emissions are 3-5 per cent of the nitrogen fertiliser input, which is substantially higher than generally considered. N2O is a major greenhouse gas. Although it has a lower warming effect than CO2, it persists in the atmosphere for longer. Over a 100 year time frame, each molecule of N2O has 296 times more impact on global warming than a molecule of CO2. Furthermore, N2O reacts in the atmosphere to create nitrogen oxides (NOx), which can damage the ozone layer. Not all biofuels are the same in terms of N2O emissions. The research indicates that for bioethanol produced from maize, for example, the warming effect associated with N2O emissions would balance or slightly exceed the benefits achieved through CO2 reductions, from the replacement of fossil fuels. Rapeseed, currently the source of over 80 per cent of the world's transportation biofuels and widely used in Europe, has a value of times, which means it is has an overall warming effect, compared with fossil fuels. Sugar cane, used to make bioethanol, particularly in Brazil, has a value of , which means that it performs better than fossil fuels when both CO2 reductions and N2O emissions are considered. However, this does not take into account any fossil fuels used in the cultivation of the biofuel crop, for example in fertiliser manufacture. Biofuels could be produced with a smaller impact on the climate by increasing the efficiency of nitrogen fertiliser use by plants and employing agricultural practices that minimise the amount of excess nitrogen that escapes into the environment. Other plants such as switchgrass, elephant grass, and lignocellulosic plants such as eucalyptus, poplar and willow would result in much smaller N2O emissions, which make them attractive alternatives for biofuel production leading to genuine GHG reductions. Source: Cruzen, P. J., Mosier, A. R., Smith, K. A., & Winiwarter, W. (2008). N2O release from agro-biofuel production negates global warming reduction by replacing fossil fuels. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. 8: Contact: Theme(s): Agriculture, Climate change & energy

DRIVER: Biomass Production
DRIVER PRESSURE ~ Animal rearing ~ Animal wastes Aquaculture ~ Organic matter inputs

Biomass production Drivers
Netherlands: (2000) Human pop.= Denmark (2004) Human pop Animal population? Environmental impact According to the 390 page 2006 United Nations report "Livestock's Long Shadow", the livestock sector (primarily cattle, chickens, and pigs) emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to our most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global. The report recommends an immediate halving of the world's livestock numbers, in order to mitigate the worst effects of climate change. Livestock is responsible for 18% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 equivalents. By comparison, the world's entire transportation sector emits 13.5% of the CO2. In the US, which produces about 23% of global greenhouse gases, agriculture accounts for 7% of total greenhouse gas emissions (in CO2 equivalents), while transportation produces more than 25%. By comparison, the energy sector, which includes transportation, accounted for more than 85% of US greenhouse gas emissions in 2004. Agriculture produces 65% percent of human-related nitrous oxide (which has 296 times the global warming potential of CO2) and 37% of all human-induced methane (which is 23 times as warming as CO2). It also generates 64% of the ammonia, which contributes to acid rain and acidification of ecosystems. The findings of the United Nations report suggest that addressing the issue of livestock should be a major policy focus when dealing with problems of land degradation, climate change and air pollution, water shortage and water pollution, and loss of biodiversity. A research team at Obihiro University of Agriculture and Veterinary Medicine in Hokkaidō found that supplementing the animals' diet with cysteine, a type of amino acid, and nitrate can reduce the methane gas produced, without jeopardising the cattle's productivity or the quality of their meat and milk. Research from the University of Botswana in 2008 has found that farmers' common practice of overstocking cattle to cope with drought losses made ecosystems more vulnerable and risked longterm damage to cattle herds in turn by actually depleting scarce biomass. The study of the Kgatleng district of Botswana predicted that by 2050 the cycle of mild drought is likely to become shorter for the region — 18 months instead of two years — due to climate change. Livestock's Long Shadow, 2006

Pollution from human population and domestic sewage is augmented by waste from domestic animals. This may not be treated. Ringkøbing Fjord, Dk

Drivers: Biomass production Animal Rearing
Netherlands: (2000) Human pop.= Cattle = :1 Pigs = :0.9 Chickens :7 Denmark (2004) Human pop :5 Pigs …..5 times more pigs than humans …..15 times more pig manure than human sewage Human pop.= Cattle = :1, 1 cow for every 4 people Pigs = :0.9 Chickens :7 7 times more chickens than people Denmark (2004) Human pop Pigs 5 times more pigs than humans 15 times more pig manure than human sewage

produces meat… … and manure!
Animal rearing In Greek mythology, Augeas (or Augeias, Greek: Αυγείας), whose name means "bright", was King of Elis and husband of Epicaste. He is best known for his stables, which housed the single greatest number of cattle in the country and had never been cleaned until the great hero Heracles came along. The fifth of the Twelve Labours set to Herakles/Hercules was to clean the Augean stables in a single day. The reasoning behind this being set as a labour was twofold: firstly, all the previous labours exalted Heracles in the eyes of the people and this one would surely degrade him; secondly, as the livestock were a divine gift to Augeas they were immune from disease and thus the amount of dirt and filth amassed in the uncleaned stables made the task surely impossible. However, Heracles succeeded by rerouting the rivers Alpheus and Peneus to wash out the filth. ELME Waste from large poultry and pig farms resulted in approximately 94,000 tonnes of ammonia released into the air in EU-25 countries in 2004; much of this will eventually find its way into the aquatic environment. produces meat… … and manure!

Pressure Organic matter, manure
USA 5 tonnes animal wastes per resident p.a. Netherlands: (2000) 6 tonnes animal wastes per resident pa Government Levy Bureau monitor Farm inputs (feeds,etc) Output (meat & dairy) Manure and what happens to it

http://www. tsswcb. state. tx. us/files/contentimages/newtechsample
COD mgO2/L K. F. Knowlton, N.G. Love and G. Mullins 2006 Wastewater Treatment to Minimize Nutrient Delivery from Dairy Farms to Receiving Waters Environmental impacts of dairy farming in the Czech Republic New research suggests that dairy farming may have an important impact on the environment and human health. Although differences in the impact of farming practices across countries have been known for some time, this is the first study to explore the impact of the dairy industry in different regions in the Czech Republic. Dairy farming in the Czech Republic is commonly large-scale with 500 or more head of cattle typically found in the herds. Management of both the animals and manure depends on the intensity of milk production, the farm structure and the nature of the farmland and varies across the country. In this study, researchers characterised nine regions based on: the intensity of dairy farming, measured as the number of dairy cows per 100 hectares of agricultural land the sensitivity of ecosystems to acidification and terrestrial eutrophication the percentage of agricultural land sensitive to nitrates, indicated by surface or groundwater polluted by farming activity the size of the human population measured as the number of people per square kilometre For each of the regions the researchers estimated the emissions produced directly from dairy herds and the manure produced by the animals, as well as the contribution of these emissions to the pollution of the area. Emissions were calculated for: ammonia (NH3) and nitrogen oxides, which cause acidification and terrestrial eutrophication nitrates (NO3) and phosphates (PO4), which cause aquatic eutrophication nitrogen oxides and fine particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) which have an impact on human health methane and nitrous oxide which contribute to global warming Overall, the study suggests that emissions from the dairy-farming sector have an important impact on the environment at local, regional and global level, although there is no significant contribution to global warming. The researchers found that ammonia emissions cause most of the acidification and terrestrial eutrophication, with nitrates being the main cause of aquatic eutrophication across all regions. Proportionately, nitrogen oxides have a more significant impact on human health than the fine particles (PM10 and PM2.5). Intensive dairy farming activity and manure management on relatively small areas of land generated the highest emissions per hectare. The study also suggests that the impact of the emissions on terrestrial eutrophication is greater than the impact caused by acidification. In particular, intensive farming activity contributed significantly to aquatic eutrophication, especially in areas with nitrate vulnerable zones. In addition, greater numbers of people living in rural areas were more exposed to the potential health effects from dairy cattle emissions. Further research based on the findings of this study could suggest ways to reduce pollution from dairy cattle emissions by targeting the most affected areas in the Czech Republic. Source: Havlikova, M., Kroeze, C. and Huijbregts, M.A.J. (2008). Environmental and health impact by dairy cattle livestock and manure management in the Czech Republic. Science of the Total Environment. 396: Contact: Theme(s): Agriculture, Health Dairy farm effluent

Intensive pig farming Waste production 1 pig=3 humans
Agricultural wastewater treatment relates to the treatment of wastewaters produced in the course of agricultural activities. As agriculture is a highly intensified industry in many parts of the world, the range of wastewaters requiring treatment can encompass at least the following: Animals wastes - both liquid and solid Silage liquor Pesticide run off and surpluses Milking parlour wastes including milk Slaughtering waste Vegetable washing water

Uncontrolled Factory Farm Manure Causes Pollution and Threatens Health, According to Comprehensive New Report AUSTIN, TX - The unchecked growth of factory farms-and their resulting mountains of untreated livestock manure-are fouling drinking water and causing a public health risk in Texas and at least 29 other states according to a new report released today. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the Clean Water Network on Thursday released the report America's Animal Factories: How States Fail to Prevent Pollution from Livestock Waste nationwide. The report details how corporate-owned "factory" farms in these states are poisoning drinking water supplies by fouling rivers, lakes, streams and underground aquifers. Moreover, these mountains of manure are releasing toxic fumes into the air, making them a major source of air pollution in rural areas. In most states, according to the report, polluters face minimal regulation and lax enforcement of existing laws. Facing a general reluctance at the state government level to tackle the farm waste problem, citizens in Colorado and South Dakota passed ballot initiatives this year to hold factory farms accountable for the pollution they cause. The issue also played a major role in at least two Congressional races and several local elections. In October, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Department of Agriculture (USDA) released a draft strategy to better regulate factory farm waste. As part of the government's practice of collecting public comment, Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman and Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) will join senior EPA officials in Des Moines for a public hearing on the issue December 4. EPA officials will hold a similar public hearing in Ft. Worth, Texas on December 10. "The scale of the problem is enormous," says Robin Marks, NRDC senior resource specialist and a principal author of the report. "Factory farms are producing stadiums-full of manure every day, and most simply let this waste pollute drinking water supplies. It's outrageous." In Texas, manure from dairies applied to fields in Erath County significantly contributed to the degradation of the Bosque River, which feeds into Lake Waco. Massive new factory pig farms-with their huge wastewater lagoons and odors-continue to spark controversy throughout the Panhandle. Farmers and ranchers in Perryton, Spearman and elsewhere complain that the odors and flies significantly devalue their homesteads, while the lagoons pose a threat to the region's critical water supply. "These animal factories like to present themselves as the 'new' American family farm," said Reggie James of Consumers Union, Southwest Regional Office, which assisted with research on Texas factory farming. "They come into the state promising economic growth, and are welcomed with taxpayer-subsidies. But this isn't Farmer Jones we're talking about with his ties to the community.. Rather, they're factory farms run by remote corporations." The NRDC / Clean Water Network documented-for the first time in one report-how little the states do to protect their citizens from factory farm pollution. Most states have few regulations, and current laws are poorly enforced. At the same time, federal rules do little to fill in major loopholes left by the states. The result is unchecked pollution leading to contaminated well water, fish kills, sickness from toxic gases in the air, and plummeting property values for neighboring land owners. As large corporate entities have come to dominate the nation's farm landscape (10 corporations produce 92 percent of the nation's poultry), animal factories have been built that raise thousands more animals than a family farm would raise on the same acreage. In many cases, pollution problems occur when shopping mall-size storage "lagoons," filled with manure, overflow in heavy rains or leak into groundwater. In other cases manure, over-applied to crops as fertilizer, runs off saturated fields into rivers or lakes. America's Animal Factories offers several recommendations to control factory farm pollution. They include: Issuing a moratorium on Clean Water Act permits for new and expanding animal factories; Allowing local residents to participate fully in decisions allowing new factory farms in their communities; Banning open-air cesspools for factories; Banning the spraying of manure and urine; Eliminating manure run-off from land; Protecting the nation's water supplies from poultry manure and regulating chicken factories under the Clean Water Act; Making corporate factory farm owners responsible for bearing the cost of waste disposal and cleanup. The entire report is available at the Natural Resources Defense Council's website at

The EU-12 pig farming is a growing sector that is shifting towards fewer holdings with larger numbers of animals. Evidence is also beginning to emerge of major investments in animal production units in Eastern Europe. Pig production units often import fodder from outside the EU, thus decoupling protein production from European farming.

ELME Waste from large poultry and pig farms resulted in approximately 94,000 tonnes of ammonia released into the air in EU-25 countries in 2004; much of this will eventually find its way into the aquatic environment. ELME, 2007

Poultry farms

Industrial Poultry farms
Finger-Lickin' Bad How poultry producers are ravaging the rural South By Suzi Parker 21 Feb A person driving through the South might notice the chicken houses dotting the hills and flatlands. He might marvel at the larger ones, as long as a football field. He might react to their gagging stench for a moment, and then forget as he travels on. But those who live near the structures -- stuffed with as many as 25,000 chickens each -- combat the odor and health hazards daily. Not yer pappy's chicken coop.Photo: USDA."There's a horrible odor, a stench, and I have flies and rodents digging in, trying to get into my house," says Bernadine Edwards, whose 39-acre farm near Owensboro, Ky., is surrounded by 108 chicken houses within a two-mile radius. "It is unbelievable." The 65-year-old school bus driver, who recently bought a purifier to help her breathe easier in her home, says the value of her property has plummeted since the chicken houses arrived in the early 1990s. "I'm too old to start over," she says. "I can't afford to. My house is paid for." Edwards is not alone. Over the last 15 years, the country has seen a boom in chicken farming. Today, the industry is serving a cocktail of injustice and pollution to rural residents, and most of them aren't in a position to fight back. Growing Pains Since the early 1990s, observers say, thousands of chicken houses have cropped up across the South as consumer demand for poultry has grown. Today, the U.S. is the world's poultry leader, with production of broilers, turkeys, and eggs valued at $29 billion in 2004, according to the National Chicken Council. Broilers -- chickens raised for meat -- generated $22 billion of that. The leading broiler production states in 2004 were Georgia, Alabama, and Arkansas, which is home to the world's largest poultry producer, Tyson Foods. Like chemical companies and industrial hog farmers, poultry producers don't tend to place these concentrated animal-feeding operations, or CAFOs, in ritzy neighborhoods beside multimillion dollar McMansions. Instead, chicken houses commandeer spacious rural areas, where local residents need the income and their neighbors won't speak out against them -- or are unaware of the factories' environmental and health consequences. These companies seek rural areas where unemployment, or underemployment, is high and people are desperate for ways to stay on the farm," says Aloma Dew, a Sierra Club organizer in Kentucky. "They assume that poor, country people will not organize or speak up, and that they will be ignorant of the impacts on their health and quality of life." The companies provide local growers, who work under contract, with chicks, feed, medicine, and transportation. Growers take care of the rest, investing hundreds of thousands of dollars in construction, maintenance, and labor costs. When the company requires upgrades, the costs fall to the growers. The massive amounts of manure, too, are their responsibility. (In Arkansas alone, chicken farms produce an amount of waste each day equal to that produced by 8 million people.) Payment is results-oriented, based on measures like total weight gain of the flock. It's a system, says the United Food and Commercial Workers, that leaves 71 percent of growers earning below poverty-level wages. A far cry from free range. If growers protest, companies can cancel their contracts, leaving farmers responsible for incurred debt, says Laura Klauke, director of contract agriculture reform at the North Carolina-based Rural Advancement Foundation International. And that debt can be substantial: since banks in the region will more readily loan money for poultry houses than other types of agriculture, Klauke says, some farmers put everything on the line, mortgaging their property to make a living this way. "If those contracts are canceled -- and they can be if the farmer doesn't do what the industry wants -- then that farmer could literally be homeless," said Klauke. "I know farmers who have been in that situation." (Industry representatives did not respond to requests for comments on this or any of the concerns expressed in this story.) Pecks and Effects More frightening than the economic balancing act may be the health and environmental hazards posed by chicken farms, from the arsenic, ammonia, and other chemicals found in feed and manure to threats from diseased animals. While traditional farming can carry similar risks, CAFOs are especially hazardous because of the tight confinement that defines them. "The fact is, you put hundreds of animals in a very small area, that creates problems that would not exist if these animals were distributed across the countryside," says Barclay Rogers, who successfully litigated a pollution case against Tyson in Kentucky in In The Same Vein Fine and Randy Bush admin deal exempts thousands of farms from pollution finesRogers says the industry grew rapidly with little regulatory constraint, and has been "riding roughshod" over land and people. While CAFOs must follow federal environmental laws such as the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act, he says, many growers try to "duck and weave" regulations. "The industry may stand up and say we are over-regulating, and that we have all of these permits, but the practical aspect is that they have devised many ways to avert pollution controls," said Rogers. "That's why we are seeing the fouling of water and air. We just now are coming to grips with these consequences, as people are catching up and realizing what has happened to them." Last year, Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson (D) filed suit against Tyson, Cargill, and several other poultry companies, seeking to stop water pollution caused in his state by soiled chicken litter dumped in Arkansas. Polluted runoff, also known as non-point source pollution, is the biggest remaining water pollution problem in the U.S., according to the EPA, which cites agriculture as the largest source of such pollution. Edmondson described the problem as "an economic development issue, an agricultural issue, and a quality-of-life issue." Not to be outdone, Arkansas Attorney General Mike Beebe (D) -- who is running for governor -- countered in November by suing the state of Oklahoma directly, asking the U.S. Supreme Court to prohibit Oklahoma from forcing his state's poultry farmers to adhere to the stricter standards. Both cases are still pending. This messy interstate situation is just one indication of the many unknowns at stake. "Some of the [environmental] consequences of these CAFOs are just not clear," said Van Brahana, a geologist at the University of Arkansas who studies groundwater. "What we do know is when you have a lot of organisms living in close conditions and you have a buildup of chemicals, you might get a cause-and-effect relationship. The scary thing is we just don't know right now." The effects on those who work directly with the animals are clearer. "In rural America, the poultry companies can get workers for a song, and the workers are so grateful to get the jobs," says Jackie Nowell of the United Food and Commercial Workers. These workers -- usually poor, and often African American or Hispanic -- "are exposed to feces [and] any disease the chicken has," Nowell says. "There are also horrible levels of dust and dander inside these houses." Nowell adds that researchers in the region are currently exploring the possible crossover of various viruses from poultry to humans, like avian flu. "That's a real concern. These workers and people who live near these houses will be on ground zero of an outbreak." Flies cluster around a pile of carcasses in Missouri. Workers in poultry processing plants also face serious dangers from machinery, carpal tunnel syndrome, and health hazards such as contaminated microorganisms and dust. "There are huge health and safety violations in every plant," says Jennifer Rosenbaum, a lawyer with the Southern Poverty Law Center in Montgomery, Ala. In 2004, for example, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration issued citations to Tyson for alleged violations after an employee was asphyxiated when he inhaled hydrogen sulfide, a gas created by decaying organic matter. OSHA fined the company $436,000. Poultry companies "hire relatively low-income people, immigrants who have less of an understanding of rights and health issues," Rosenbaum says. Simply put, she says, the companies are hurting the South's small towns while they fatten their own wallets. Chicken Fight Katie Tillinghast lives in rural northwest Arkansas. In early January, she received a call from a neighbor who told her he planned to put three large turkey houses on his property, 200 yards away. Tillinghast wants to stop the project, but the only plausible choice would be to buy her neighbor out at $3,000 an acre -- and he owns 73 acres. She can't afford that, and knows it's highly unlikely that a rich buyer will step in to help. You'll never look at chicken nuggets the same way again.Like other states, Arkansas does not yet have a law to protect residents from these operations, though several states have considered such legislation. So Tillinghast can't do much but worry -- about her drinking water, about avian flu, about noise and light pollution, about air quality. "I agree someone should be able to do what they want to do on their land," Tillinghast says. "But I don't think you should be able to do something that hurts your neighbors." Many others agree with her, but local dynamics can make it hard for activists to issue a battle cry. "Often these plants are the only major industry in town," says SPLC's Rosenbaum. "Everyone goes to church together or went to high school together. Everyone knows everyone, and it's hard to fight that." Groups like the Sierra Club have fought the poultry industry for many years, but only recently have they begun to collaborate with people on the ground. In 2004, a group of growers, workers, and environmental, public-health, religious, and social-justice organizations created the National Poultry Justice Alliance. The idea came from the Glenmary Commission on Justice in Ohio, a group of Catholic brothers and priests who have worked in the South since Marcus Keyes, the commission's director, says he was inspired by a statement from the Catholic Bishops of the South in 2000 about workers' rights. "These are moral issues -- the rights of workers, conditions of workers, pay and benefits," said Keyes. "These are human rights issues, and environmental [issues, but] in the end they are all moral issues." The group's members are working to strengthen the alliance before launching a major campaign. Meanwhile, a lawsuit may come to trial in early April that could up the ante. While previous suits have dealt with pollution and workers' rights, this one tackles the issue of health effects on residents. In 2003, a group of citizens from Prairie Grove, Ark., a town of 2,500, filed a lawsuit against several poultry producers. Citing a connection between the community's high cancer rates and arsenic contamination from chicken litter spread as fertilizer, they are seeking damages from the companies that own the birds (not, it should be noted, from the local growers). Their lawyers say cancer rates in the small town are 50 times higher than the national average. The Prairie Grove effort has grown to include about 100 plaintiffs in multiple suits, each of which will be tried separately. Supporters say that legal action may be the only way to bring these issues to light and hold the industry to higher standards. If the court rules in Prairie Grove's favor, the decision could provide ground for others to stand on. Until then, the only ones winning in this despair-filled industry are the mammoth corporations. 25000 chicken in each shed

Fisheries and Aquaculture

Aquaculture Due to the increase of sea-food demand and the decrease of natural marine stocks, coastal lagoons are increasingly exploited for aquaculture. Italy: clams/mussels France: oysters/mussels Spain: mussels/clams Greece: fish Portugal: clams

>10% French oyster production (~13000 tons)
Thau lagoon (France): >10% French oyster production (~13000 tons) Direct employment 2220 ~ 40 M€

2nd Italian producer of clams (~ 8000 tons) after Venice lagoon
Sacca di Goro (Italy): 2nd Italian producer of clams (~ 8000 tons) after Venice lagoon 1500 jobs ~ 30 M€

Artesanal culture system for clams in
the Ria Formosa

Culture system for oysters in the Ria Formosa
Even artesanal and extensive aquaculture causes some pressures

Intensive aquaculture

Aquaculture Effluent: Pressures on Inland & Coastal Waters
Eutrophication Pollution Control Using Natural Fish Stocks to Feed Farmed Fish Genetic Conservation & Aquatic Biodiversity Introduction of Alien Species Habitat Destruction: Mangrove Forests Socio-Economic effects and conflicts Public Environment Management: Planning considerations Aquaculture can impact on the environment on 3 scales. On the scale of a farm, finfish and bivalve shellfish consume oxygen and release ammonia (and phosphate); their particulate waste can perturb, and in the worst case destroy, sea-bed communities. Filter-feeding shellfish remove phytoplankton. On the scale of a waterbody, nutrients released into the water can stimulate increased growth of phytoplankton or seaweed, with consequences such as harmful algal blooms and deep water deoxygenation. Consequential changes in transparency can impact on seaweed or seagrass distributions. On the regional scale, the spread of aquaculture may interact with other human activities to bring about extensive disturbance of the sea-bed and eutrophication. Three main EU directives must be taken into account: the Shellfish Directive (maintainance of water quality where shellfish are exploited); the Species & Habitats Directive (protection of certain species and habitats); and the Water Framework Directive (maintainance of good ecological and water quality). Aquaculture Impacts on the Environment Review Article C. Emerson 1999 Whether as an economic windfall for developing countries, or as one of the most environmentally-destructive food industries, aquaculture has come under increasing scrutiny and criticism as the world tries to supply food for a population exceeding six billion. Aquaculture, the farming of aquatic organisms such as fish, molluscs, crustaceans and plants, is the fastest growing food production sector in the world1, but its sustainability is not assured. Pollution, destruction of sensitive coastal habitats, threats to aquatic biodiversity and significant socio-economic costs must be balanced against the substantial benefits. Aquaculture has great potential for food production and the alleviation of poverty for people living in coastal areas, many of who are among the poorest in the world. A balance between food security and the environmental costs of production must be attained. Aquaculture Development & Techniques For over 3,000 years, fish have been farmed in China, a country that continues to dominate the industry by producing 83% of the world's aquaculture output2. Other key producers include India (6%), Philippines (4%), Indonesia (3%), Republic of Korea (2%), and Bangladesh (1%), a list overwhelmingly concentrated in the developing world. Everything from sea cucumbers to sea horses is farmed, but the vast majority of production is carp, accounting for ~50% of aquaculture production measured as weight or value. The remaining top cultured species include kelp, oysters, shrimp and salmon. Salmon mariculture is often in the news, but the fish farming industry is concentrated inland, with over 15 million tonnes of fish produced in freshwater systems compared to 9.7 million tonnes produced at sea. The remaining 1.6 million tonnes is produced in brackishwater ponds. Seaweed farming accounts for another 7.7 million tonnes. There are a variety of production systems around the world, including ponds, tanks, raceways, and cages or "netpens". There are hundreds of variations in technique, but there are only two significant differences: water processing and feeding regime. By economic necessity, most inland facilities use a flow-through system where water is diverted from surface water (lakes, rivers) or from natural underground reservoirs (aquifers). In many parts of the United States, aquaculture has been legally classified as a beneficial, nonconsumptive use of water, but in some states such as Idaho, the trout industry's raceways require huge quantities of freshwater which combine with drought to result in a drawdown of the aquifer. Recirculating systems only require periodic additions to top-up the water level, but the accompanying cost of filtration or aeration to maintain water quality restricts implementation. For cultured species held in natural water bodies, restrictions generally reflect site selection because water quality is heavily dependent on natural currents in and around the farm. Although water resource issues are significant, there is a great deal of environmental concern focused on feeding techniques. The source of food for all aquaculture species can be divided into: 1) the use of artificial feed (aquafeed) in finfish and some shellfish operations, 2) provision of natural food (e.g. phytoplankton) in shellfish operations, and 3) a combination of natural and artificial feed. Whether inland or coastal, any operation that relies on artificial feed to grow fish faces the quandary of increasing production at the expense of increasing pollution from farm effluent. Aquaculture Effluent: Pollution of Inland & Coastal Waters In 1989, a sudden and catastrophic collapse of wild seatrout populations in areas close to salmon rearing cages in Ireland gave aquaculture critics a focus for protest. Although a link between fish farming and the decline of natural stocks cannot always be established, some environmental effects are clear. Unlike mollusc farming, many species of fish depend on a diet of artificial feed in pellet form. This feed is broadcast onto the surface of the water, and is consumed by the fish as it settles through the water column. Because not all the feed is eaten, a great deal of feed can reach the bottom where it is eaten by the benthos or decomposed by microorganisms. This alteration of the natural food web structure can significantly impact the local environment. Many studies have implicated overfeeding in fish farms as the cause of changes in benthic community structure4 because a high food supply may favour some organisms over others. Moreover, sedentary animals may die in water depleted of oxygen resulting from microbial decomposition, while the mobile population may migrate to other areas. Antibiotics and other therapeutic chemicals added to feed (e.g. Ivermectin, Terramycin and Romet-30) can affect organisms for which they were not intended when the drugs are released as the uneaten pellets decompose5. Nonetheless, many drugs used in fish farms have been found to have minimal (if any) deleterious effects on the aquatic environment6. Feed additives, however, are not the only source of potentially toxic compounds in culture operations. A variety of chemicals are used to inhibit the growth of organisms which foul netting and other structures, reducing water flow through the cages. Eutrophication An increasingly significant effect of intensive fish culture is eutrophication of the water surrounding rearing pens or the rivers receiving aquaculture effluent. Fish excretion and fecal wastes combine with nutrients released from the breakdown of excess feed to raise nutrient levels well above normal, creating an ideal environment for algal blooms to form. To compound the problem, most feed is formulated to contain more nutrients than necessary for most applications. In Scotland, an estimated 50,000 tonnes of untreated and contaminated waste generated from cage salmon farming goes directly into the sea, equivalent to the sewage waste of a population of up to three quarters of Scotland's population7. Once the resulting algal blooms die, they settle to the bottom where their decomposition depletes the oxygen. Before they die, however, there is the possibility that algal toxins are produced. Although any species of phytoplankton can benefit from an increased nutrient supply, certain species are noxious or even toxic to other marine organisms and to humans. The spines of some diatoms (e.g. Chaetoceros concavicornis) can irritate the gills of fish, causing decreased production or even death8. More importantly, blooms ("red tides") of certain species such as Chattonella marina often produce biological toxins that can kill other organisms. Neurotoxins produced by several algal species can be concentrated in filter-feeding bivalves such as mussels and oysters, creating a serious health risk to people consuming contaminated shellfish (e.g. paralytic shellfish poisoning9). Fish is low in fat and considered a healthy alternative to other meats, but consumers cannot ignore the potential health risks of cultured species, just as they must not ignore the risks associated with terrestrial agriculture. In addition to shellfish contaminated with toxic algae, cultured seafood can pose additional concerns from disease transmission. Most fish pathogens are not hazardous to humans, but some fish pathogens such as Streptococcus bacteria can infect humans10. High levels of antibiotics and genetically-engineered components in fish feed (e.g. soya additives) can also pose risks. The challenge for regulatory agencies like the Food & Drug Administration in the United States is to ensure that these risks are "acceptable". Pollution Control Although aquaculture development has often occurred outside a regulatory framework, government oversight is increasingly common at both the seafood quality control level, and at baseline initiatives addressing the basic problem of pollution generated by culture operations. The impact of coastal aquaculture depends on a number of physical, chemical and biological factors, most notably the local hydrodynamics. In areas of high currents, waste accumulation is minimized by hydrodynamic dispersal. Excess nutrients aren't eliminated, but the lower level of waste is more easily assimilated into the local food web. Water movement also helps to replenish anoxic water with oxygen-rich water from surrounding areas. Accordingly, site selection is a primary factor in the mitigation of coastal pollution. There are a number of studies that have developed mathematical models to predict the hydrodynamics around culture operations to optimize selection18. Others are experimenting with new systems for growing flounder Paralichthys dentatus and mussels Mytilus edulis in offshore areas of New England11. Despite potential net entanglements with marine mammals and conflict with traditional trawling grounds, these operations can take advantage of waste dilution from offshore currents and deeper water. Aquaculture effluent from inland operations can be treated much more effectively than coastal operations because the outflow can be controlled, and therefore treated, in much the same way as municipal sewage treatment. In addition, a firm in Japan has developed an odourless, environment friendly organic fish waste treatment system which uses a colony of micro-organisms active at high temperature to process up to 5 tonnes of fish waste daily12. Coastal operations can also take advantage of innovative techniques to reduce pollution. In China, polyculture of scallops, sea cucumbers and kelp reduces eutrophication and the use of toxic antifouling compounds. Nutrients from scallop excreta are used by kelp, which used to require the addition of tonnes of fertilizers. Antifouling compounds and herbicides can be reduced because sea cucumbers feed on organisms which foul nets and other structures. For shrimp and catfish culture, deeper ponds can be constructed to reduce weed growth to further limit herbicide use. Culturing finfish with mussels, oysters and other filter feeders can minimize feed accumulation, as can the reformulation of feed and design of new feed delivery systems. Pellets are no longer packed with more nutrition than the target fish can possibly use, and feed pellets are designed to stay longer in the water column, rather than rapidly sink to the bottom where they become unavailable to the target species. Drugs added to feeds to combat diseases can be reduced by enclosing fish in what are essentially bags, rather than nets, and by vaccinating individual fish. Many techniques are being developed to minimize environmental impact but the most basic and cost-effective pollution control is implementation of an efficient aquaculture management regime. Unfortunately, many operations continue to have a lack of trained manpower, resulting in waste and misapplication of chemicals. Using Natural Fish Stocks to Feed Farmed Fish Ironically, fish culture is dependent on a diet of wild fish because fish meal and fish oils from natural stocks are the primary components of artificial compounded feed (aquafeed)13. It can be argued, therefore, that aquaculture cannot provide an alternative to fishing unless only herbivorous fish and shellfish are farmed. However, the source of the fish meal is pelagic fish such as menhaden and mackerel, species not normally consumed by humans. Additional fish meal comes from bycatch which would otherwise be discarded as waste. Nonetheless, it is not clear that the conversion of "trash fish" into human food via aquaculture is preferential to using fish meal in swine and poultry feed. As farms intensify, there is a growing trend toward the increased use of aquafeed. Almost 31,000,000 megatonnes (MT) of the world's total wild fisheries production is used for animal feed each year, 15% of which is used in fish feed. Feed is specially formulated to ensure high conversion efficiencies, (amount of feed needed to produced one pound of animal), and in general, aquatic animals are far more efficient at feed conversion than terrestrial animals. Given these facts, the strategy of feeding fish to fish seems logical, however it should be noted that only a few percent of feed for swine and poultry is composed of fish meal, compared with 70% for finfish and shellfish13, and inefficient practices can lead to a great deal of waste. Growing a pound of salmon may require 3-5 pounds of wild fish, and between 1985 and 1995 the world's shrimp farmers used 36 million tons of wild fish to produced just 7.2 million tons of shrimp. In general, the quantity of input of natural fish stocks exceeds outputs in terms of farmed fishery products by a factor to 2 to 314. A potential solution to the fish-eating-fish dilemma would be to shift culture operations to herbivorous species such as tilapia, catfish, carp, oysters and clams which rely little, if at all, on supplement feed. Unfortunately, the vast majority of world aquaculture production is already concentrated on these species, and it is much more lucrative to grow salmon and shrimp that rely heavily on fish meal. There have been gains made in substituting terrestrial animal byproduct meals, plant oilseed and grain legume meals, and cereal byproduct meals for fish meal but dependence on natural fish stocks for aquaculture feed will be slow to disappear. Impacts on Natural Stocks Clearly, feeding fish to fish leads to a net loss of protein in a protein-short world and impacts directly on natural stocks, but aquaculture may also have a myriad of indirect effects on the natural environment. Almost all marine or brackishwater culture is dependent upon natural fisheries for some aspect of operations. Although more and more hatcheries are being constructed to provide seed for shellfish and finfish culture, most farms still capture wild animals for broodstock or for a source of larvae. In some cases, collection of wild-caught shrimp larvae to stock ponds has destroyed thousands of other larval species in the process. The full consequences of removing natural fish stocks from food webs are difficult to predict. When fish are removed to make fish meal, less food may be available for commercially valuable predatory fish and for other marine predators, such as seabirds and seals. This effect exacerbates large-scale problems caused by global warming and the El Nino phenomenon. The El Nino of is considered to be the second strongest "warm event" in the topical and subtropical Pacific this century. The shift in water temperature caused a severe decline in biomass and total production of small pelagic fish leading to altered food webs and a shortage of fish meal and fish oil. Genetic Conservation & Aquatic Biodiversity Not all impacts on natural stocks are detrimental. Fish culture can actually mitigate the decline of fish stocks decimated by overfishing and environmental changes. In addition to decreasing the dependence on natural stocks, fish culture may help to re-stock populations by the release of cultured larvae or juveniles into the wild to bolster natural populations. Since 1890, Japan has engaged in stock enhancement in coastal waters through seeding from hatcheries in a bid to maintain fishing sustainability and genetic conservation of endangered stocks15. It has been suggested, however, that the genetic diversity of natural stocks is hurt, more than helped, by aquaculture. In Norway, acid precipitation, hydroelectric development, and salmon parasites have all contributed to the extinction of over 40 salmon stocks and the endangerment of others, but stocks are also threatened by the spread of salmon escaping from fish farms. Cultured species are often bred or otherwise genetically engineered to exhibit abnormally high growth rates, usually at the expense of other characteristics unimportant in an aquaculture operation. Through selective breeding, aquaculturists have tripled the growth rates of native coho salmon, supporting a $5 million domestic industry16. If these genetically engineered salmon escape and breed with native salmon, the genetic traits optimal for culture may break up local adaptations critical to survival in nature. In Maine, USA, federal officials estimate that only 500 Atlantic salmon with a native genetic makeup remain in the wild17. Genetic impacts can originate from the genetic manipulation of cultured organisms, but they may also be minimized. By heat or chemical shocking at the larval stage, triploid mussels and scallops can be produced which allocate more resources to meat production than reproductive tissue19. As a result, these cultured bivalves are reproductively sterile, and of little threat to local populations. Unfortunately, a study that introduced supposedly sterile Pacific oysters into Chesapeake Bay found that 20% of the population reverted back to their sexually fertile state17. Whether intentionally or unintentionally released, the potential loss of natural biodiversity through genetic hybridization could make aquaculture difficult to rationalize, particularly since accidental release of cultured populations also results in ecological competition. Introduction of Alien Species In the northwest United States, abnormally high spring tides destroyed net pens in Puget Sound, releasing 100,000 Atlantic salmon, two years after an escape of 300,000 salmon. This species cannot breed with local fish, and it was suggested that the only effect was a field day for anglers20. Such releases, however, may have significant ecological effects that are difficult to detect immediately. In the above case, government officials indicated that the competitive threat to the native Pacific salmon was minimal since the released fish would not survive long enough to breed and increase in abundance. Nonetheless, escaped fish will compete for food and space, at least temporarily. Release of blue tilapia in Florida has lead to the loss of food, native habitat, and spawning areas for native species in Everglades National Park. Although ship ballast water is often the cause of introduced species, the importing of non-indigenous animals for culture can also introduce diseases and non-target organisms. The Japanese oyster drill and a predatory flatworm were introduced to North America with the Pacific oyster (Crassostrea gigas), thereby contributing to the decline of west coast native oyster stocks. French shellfish farmers have been warned not to import the American oyster (Crassostrea virginica) or the Pacific oyster from Canada because of possible parasitic disease transmission from Haplosporidium nelsoni, Haplosporidium costale, Mikocytos mackini and Perkinsus marinus21. Whether the cultured species is native or not, culture operations do introduce a high concentration of potential prey which may significantly alter the local ecology. Birds, seals, crabs, and starfish can significantly predate farmed species. In the southern United States, cormorants, herons, kingfishers and pelicans consume millions of dollars worth of commercially raised catfish. In some areas, these birds have increased their numbers dramatically, far exceeding the normal carrying capacity of an area and negatively impacting natural roosting areas and island habitats. Covering fish pens with nets is extremely expensive and is effective only for avian predators. Installation of sound devices by salmon farmers often provide a temporary respite from seals, but it is feared that the sound may scare humpback whales from feeding in the area. Inland and coastal operators often resort to killing predators, but because the predators are often rare or endangered, killing them is not acceptable politically. Habitat Destruction: Mangrove Forests Nowhere are the negative impacts on the natural environment more apparent than with shrimp farming and the associated destruction of mangrove forests22. In Asia, over 400,000 hectares of mangroves have been converted into brackishwater aquaculture for the rearing of shrimp. Farmed shrimp boost a developing country's foreign exchange earnings, but the loss of sensitive habitat is difficult to reconcile. Tropical mangroves are analogous to temperate salt marshes, a habitat critical to erosion prevention, coastal water quality, and the reproductive success of many marine organisms. Mangrove forests have also provided a sustainable and renewable resource of firewood, timber, pulp, and charcoal for local communities. To construct dyked ponds for shrimp farming, these habitats are razed and restoration is extremely difficult. Unfortunately, shrimp ponds are often profitable only temporarily as they are subject to disease and to downward shifts in the shrimp market. Growing political pressure in western countries may restrict the shrimp market in response to consumers' avoidance of environmentally-unfriendly products. More significantly, Japan's economy is experiencing difficulty at present, and Japan is the world's largest market for shrimp; when the market falls, ponds are abandoned. A return to traditional fishing is not always possible because the lost mangroves no longer serve as nursery areas which are critical for the recruitment of many wild fish stocks. Unemployment prospects cannot always balance short-term gains. It is clear that socio-economic effects are as important as pollution and ecological damage when evaluating the sustainability of aquaculture. Socio-Economic Effects In developed countries, visual pollution created by thousands of buoys in coastal farms and the inconvenience to recreational boaters and others sharing the coastal zone, pale in significance to the socio-economic effects of aquaculture in the developing world. The quest for profit often has devastating consequences. In the Indian province of West Bengal, four fishermen were killed and over 20 injured in a dispute between fishermen and shrimp farmers as a result of access rights to Lake Chilika, one of the largest freshwater lakes in Asia23. Many nations embrace aquaculture, not as a direct way to provide food for their poor, but as a source of export wealth that can potentially lead to longer-term social benefits. Many rural communities enjoy the employment opportunities possible with aquaculture, but conflicts often develop within these communities when traditional employment clashes with the aquaculture industry. Local fishing communities often do not hold title to coastal wetlands, and have at times been displaced by shrimp consortia that have acquired leases along tropical shorelines. Resource ownership is often complex or ambiguous in prime aquaculture locations, and pollution and social concerns are often secondary to economic ones. Once touted as employment for individual operators, aquaculture is starting to reflect terrestrial farming strategies, where small farms are absorbed into large industrial farms. An increase in culture efficiency is obtained, but employment can be reduced and the remaining small farms cannot compete economically. The Future of Aquaculture Aquaculture will continue to be one of the most viable methods to supply growing world population needs, but the challenge to maintain profitability and environmental compatibility is daunting. Growth of aquaculture was fueled initially by governments eager only for economic success, but many governments have started to implement strict regulatory guidelines addressing environmental and social issues to ensure sustainability. In the United States, aquaculture is under close scrutiny from the Environmental Protection Agency, Food and Drug Administration, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the United States Department of Agriculture and numerous state environmental agencies and local groups. Canada has also developed stringent guidelines to maintain the health of the environment, and Brazil, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and others have all made progress in the establishment of legal and regulatory frameworks which are starting to have a positive effect on aquaculture development. Despite such progress, there are still major aquaculture producing countries that do not have appropriate legal frameworks and policies for aquaculture. All to often, governments fail to provide the needed economic, legal, and social support to ensure economic and environmental sustainability24. Where governments were initially integral to development, contraction of government involvement is now prevalent, resulting in increased privatization and corresponding social conflicts. While social issues are notoriously intractable, water quality problems are not. New technologies such as recirculating and offshore systems hold promise for lessening the impact of aquaculture on the surrounding environment, but many countries cannot take advantage of these expensive innovations. Technology alone cannot determine the approach for sustainability; aquaculture development must adapt to the needs and capacities of developing countries. Politically, food production will remain an overriding priority, and aquaculture will continue to grow. Models must be developed to clearly predict whether the socio-economic benefits of aquaculture are worth the environmental cost25. © Copyright 1999, All Rights Reserved, CSA Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Aquaculture -- new opportunities and a cause for hope. viewed on November 10, 1999]. FAO. The state of world fisheries and aquaculture: [viewed on September 2, 1999]. Boghen, A.D Cold-water aquaculture in Atlantic Canada. Institut Canadien de Recherche sur le Developpement Regional. 672 pp. Stenton-Dozey, J.M.E., L.F. Jackson and A.J. Busby Impact of mussel culture on macrobenthic community structure in Saldanha Bay, South Africa. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 39(1-2) Grant, A., & A.D. Briggs Use of Ivermectin in marine fish farms: Some concerns. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 36(8): back to article Costelloe, M., Costelloe, J., O'Connor, B. and P. Smith Densities of polychaetes in sediments under a salmon farm using Ivermectin. Bulletin of the European Association of Fish Pathology. 18(1): Anon. Environmentalists issue challenge to Scottish salmon farmers. [viewed on November 12, 1999]. Yang, C.Z. and L.J. Albright Anti-phytoplankton therapy of finfish: The mucolytic agent L-cysteine ethyl ester protects coho salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch against the harmful phytoplankter Chaetoceros concavicornis. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms. 20(3): Bricelj, V.M. and S.E. Shumway Paralytic shellfish toxins in bivalve molluscs: Occurrence, transfer kinetics, and biotransformation. Reviews in Fisheries Science. 6(4): Goldburg, R. and T. Triplett. Murky Waters: Environmental effects of Aquaculture in the United States. [viewed on November 10, 1999]. back to article Polk, M Feeding the multitudes today will take more than miracles. Nor'Easter pp , New Hampshire Sea Grant. Anon Waste disposal gets green light. Fish Farming International. 27(8) p. 43. Anon. National Aquaculture Association: U.S. Aquaculture and Environmental Stewardship. [viewed on November 10, 1999]. Tacon, A.G.J. Aquafeeds and feeding strategies. /c886.1/feed4.asp [viewed on October 3, 1999]. Wada, L.T The present status of genetic conservation of cultured aquatic species in Japan. pp In: Action before extinction An International Conference on Conservation of Fish Genetic Diversity. IDRC, Ottawa. back to article Anon. New Coho Breed spurs domestic and foreign markets. [viewed November 22, 1999]. Goldburg, R., and T. Triplett. Murky Waters: Environmental effects of Aquaculture in the United States. [viewed on November 10, 1999]. Dudley, R.W., Panchang, V.G. and C. Newell AWATS: A net-pen aquaculture waste transport simulator for management purposes. In: Nutrition and Technical Development of Aquacutlure. pp Brake, J.W., Davidson, J. and D.J. Davis Triploid production of Mytilus edulis in Prince Edward Island--an industrial initiative. Journal of Shellfish Research. 18(1): p. 302. Anon Historic US farm hit by highest tides in years -- no danger to other species, say scientists. Fish Farming International. 27(8) p. 38. back to article Anon Oyster warning. Fish Farming International. 27(8) p. 37. Be, T.T., Dung, L.C. and D. Brennan Environmental costs of shrimp culture in the rice-growing regions of the Mekong Delta. Aquaculture Economics & Management. 3(1) Anon Four die in shrimp 'war'. Fish Farming International. 27(8) p. 42 Tisdell, C Overview of environmental and sustainability issues in aquaculture. Aquaculture Economics & Management. 3(1): 1-5. Muir, J., C. Brugere, J. Young, and J. Stewart The solution to pollution? The value and limitations of environmental economics in guiding aquaculture development. Aquaculture Economics & Management. 3(1):

Biomass extraction Fisheries Logging Ecological impacts caused by fishing (ELME 2007) Target and non-target species are heavily impacted by non-specific fishing gears. Benthic species are caught as bycatch and killed by large towed gears. Other species are affected indirectly when prey availability is reduced by overfishing. Populations at risk from fishing and showing signs of decline over the past decade include large pelagic fish (e.g. swordfish and tuna), elasmobranchs (rays and pelagic sharks), seabirds, marine turtles, and marine mammals (including monk seal and cetaceans). The mean trophic level and Fishing-in-Balance Index (FiB) have decreased since the mid 1990s, demonstrating impacts on the food web. Additionally, seagrass habitats are at risk from destructive demersal fishing activities such as trawling and dredging, and anchoring of recreational vessels, which damage and remove seagrass. Trawling in the vicinity of seagrass beds is now banned in many parts of the Mediterranean but most reports of seagrass habitat decline identified in this study were due to illegal trawling.

Fisheries in lagoons are mainly from small artesanal boats because the lagoons are shallow Lagoon of Lesina (E.Manini)

Lagoon of Cabras

Lagoon fisheries are typically multispecies fisheries

Typical small scale, artesanal fishing boats

Artesanal fishing in coastal lagoon
in Greece

Artesanal fishing in Ringkøbing Fjord, Dk

Fisheries Pressures Habitat disruption Ecological disruption
Dynamite fishing Cyanide fishing Bottom trawling Ecological disruption Overfishing By catch The environmental effects of fishing can be divided into issues that involve the availability of fish to be caught, such as overfishing, sustainable fisheries, and fisheries management; and issues that involve the impact of fishing on the environment, such as by-catch. These conservation issues are part of marine conservation, and are addressed in fisheries science programs. There is a growing gap between how many fish are available to be caught and humanity’s desire to catch them, a problem that gets worse as the world population grows. Similar to other environmental issues, there can be conflict between the fishermen who depend on fishing for their livelihoods and fishery scientists who realise that if future fish populations are to be sustainable then some fisheries must reduce or even close. The journal Science published a four-year study in November 2006, which predicted that, at prevailing trends, the world would run out of wild-caught seafood in The scientists stated that the decline was a result of overfishing, pollution and other environmental factors that were reducing the population of fisheries at the same time as their ecosystems were being degraded. Yet again the analysis has met criticism as being fundamentally flawed, and many fishery management officials, industry representatives and scientists challenge the findings, although the debate continues. Many countries, such as Tonga, the United States, Australia and New Zealand, and international management bodies have taken steps to appropriately manage marine resources. Effects on habitat Some fishing techniques also may cause habitat destruction. Dynamite fishing and cyanide fishing, which are illegal in many places, harm surrounding habitat. Bottom trawling, the practice of pulling a fishing net along the sea bottom behind trawlers, removes around 5 to 25% of an area's seabed life on a single run.[3] A 2005 report of the UN Millennium Project, commissioned by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, recommended the elimination of bottom trawling on the high seas by 2006 to protect seamounts and other ecologically sensitive habitats.[4] Dynamite fishing Blast fishing or dynamite fishing describes the practice of using dynamite, homemade bombs, or other explosives to stun or kill schools of fish for easy collection. This often illegal practice can be extremely destructive to the surrounding ecosystem, as the shockwaves often destroy the underlying habitat (such as coral reefs close to a coastline) that supports the fish.[1] The frequently improvised nature of the explosives used also means danger for the fishermen as well, with accidents and injuries. Although outlawed, the practice remains widespread in Southeast Asia, as well as in the Aegean Sea and coastal Africa. In the Philippines, where the practice has been well documented[2] blast fishing dates back to even before the First World War, as this activity is mentioned by Ernst Jünger in his book Storm of Steel. One 1999 report estimated that some 70,000 fishermen (12% of the Philippines' total fishermen) engage in the practice today.[3] Extensive hard-to-patrol coastlines; the lure of lucrative, easy catches; and in some cases outright apathy or corruption on the part of local officials make enforcement of blast fishing bans an ongoing challenge for authorities.[4] Commercial explosives or, more commonly, homemade bombs constructed of a bottle with layers of powdered potassium nitrate and pebbles are often employed. These devices explode without warning, and have been known to injure or kill the person using them, or innocent bystanders.[5] Fish are killed by the shock from the blast and are then skimmed from the surface or collected from the bottom. The explosions indiscriminately kill large numbers of fish and other marine organisms in the vicinity and can damage or destroy the physical environment, including extensive damage to coral reefs.[6][7] Cyanide fishing Cyanide fishing is an illegal form of fishing common in South East Asia, which usually uses the chemical compound sodium cyanide. Since 2000, increasing restrictions on illegal dynamite fishing have led to an increasing growth in this indiscriminate method – particularly as it can be used without generating noise. The use of cyanide as a fishing technique was first documented in the Philippines in 1962[1]. More than 150,000 kg of cyanide is believed to be used in the Philippines annually by the aquarium trade and more than a million kg have been used since the 1960’s[2][3] In seawater sodium cyanide breaks down into sodium and cyanide ions. In humans, the latter blocks the oxygen-transporting protein haemoglobin; the haemoglobin in fish is closely related to that of humans, and can combine with oxygen even faster. Through the irreversible combining of cyanide ions onto the active structural domain, oxygen is prevented from reaching the cells, and an effect similar to carbon monoxide poisoning results. Coral polyps, young fish and spawn are most vulnerable; adult fish can take somewhat higher doses. The use of cyanide is known to cause mortality on laboratory corals in measured doses, however this data is very difficult to quantify in regard to wild populations.[4] In humans ingestion or breathing in of cyanide leads to unconsciousness within a minute; asphyxiation follows. Lower doses lead to temporary or permanent disability and/or sensory failure. This is a constant danger for the fishermen; there are many local accounts of such "occupational accidents", but such incidents are not recorded in official statistics or statements. The fishermen dive into the sea usually without artificial breathing aids, although some use illegal and highly-dangerous apparatus whereby compressed air is sent down thin breathing tubes. When they reach the coral reefs, they spray the poison between the individual layers, after which the yield is collected. Edible fish, of which a number are sold for general consumption, are first placed for ten to fourteen days in fresh water for "rinsing". Recent studies have shown that the combination of cyanide use and stress of post capture handling results in mortality of up to 75% of the organisms within less than 48 hours of capture. With such high mortality numbers, a greater number of fish must be caught in order to supplement post catch death. Colourful, particularly eccentric and therefore rare coral fish are packed into plastic bags, of which up to two-thirds die during transport. They are mostly sold to aquariums in the US, Europe and Asia. In the 1990s 80% of the western trade in coral fishes alone came from the island of Palawan in the Philippines. Estimates suggest 70 to 90% of aquarium fish exported from the Philippines are caught with cyanide.[1][3][5] Due to the post capture handling stress and the effects of the cyanide, fish are bound to have a shorter life span than usual in our aquariums. According to an interview with experienced aquarium owners, they were willing to pay more for net-caught fish because of the higher survival rate.[6] They also said they would not trust an eco-labelling system, which can be misleading. The basis for this illegal fishing method is, among others, the rising demand for live fish in the higher-class restaurants of the big cities, particularly in rich, nearby countries, which pay increasingly high prices. The extremely low wages of the fishermen in remote, underdeveloped areas, where there are no alternative sources of income, drive them to endure the health risks and possible prosecution. Many fishing and diving areas across the whole of South East Asia, already severely damaged from the impact of dynamite fishing, have been ruined or totally lost through cyanide fishing. Many of the slowly growing corals, particularly the dendritic varieties, are a particularly important safe area for young fish and spawn and are now disappearing. Most legal and illegal fishing methods cannot by themselves destroy a stable ecosystem. However, through the effects of synergy, they have led to the almost total breakdown of large coastal areas which were formerly excellent fishing grounds. Bottom trawling Environmental impacts Bottom fishing has operated for over a century on heavily fished grounds such as the North Sea and Grand Banks. Although overfishing has caused huge ecological changes to the fish community on the Grand Banks, concern has been raised recently about the damage which benthic trawling inflicts upon seabed communities. A species of particular concern is the slow growing, deep water coral Lophelia pertusa. This species is home to a diverse community of deep sea organisms, but is easily damaged by fishing gear. On November 18, 2004 the United Nations General Assembly urged nations to consider temporary bans on high seas bottom trawling. Bottom trawling stirs up the sediment at the bottom of the sea. The suspended solid plumes can drift with the current for tens of kilometres from the source of the trawling. These plumes introduce a turbidity which decreases light levels at the bottom and can affect kelp reproduction. Ocean sediments are the sink for many persistent organic pollutants, usually lipophilic pollutants like DDT, PCB and PAH.[4] Bottom trawling mixes these pollutants into the plankton ecology where they can move back up the food chain and into our food supply. Phosphorus is often found in high concentration in soft shallow sediments.[5] Resuspending nutrient solids like these can introduce oxygen demand into the water column, and result in oxygen deficient dead zones. Even in areas where the bottom sediments are ancient, bottom trawling, by reintroducing the sediment into the water column, can create harmful algae blooms.[6][7] More suspended solids are introduced into the oceans from bottom trawling than any other man-made source.[8] [edit] Deep sea impacts The UN Secretary General reported that 95 percent of damage to seamount ecosystems worldwide is caused by deep sea bottom trawling. [3] Also see: Fishery Marine conservation [edit] Current restrictions Today, some countries regulate bottom trawling within their jurisdictions: [4] • The United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration banned bottom trawling off most of its Pacific coast in early 2006 and has restricted the practice severely off its other coasts as well. [5] This Federal regulation affects areas between miles from the coast (areas within 3 miles of the coast are State regulated). • The Council of the European Union in 2004 applied “a precautionary approach” and closed the sensitive Darwin Mounds off Scotland to bottom trawling. • In 2005, the FAO’s General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM) banned bottom trawling below 1000 metres and, in January 2006, completely closed ecologically sensitive areas off Italy, Cyprus, and Egypt to all bottom trawling. • Norway first recognized in 1999 that trawling had caused significant damage to its cold-water lophelia corals. Norway has since established a program to determine the location of cold-water corals within its EEZ so as to quickly close those areas to bottom trawling. • Canada has acted to protect vulnerable coral reef ecosystems from bottom trawling off Nova Scotia. The Northeast Channel was protected by a fisheries closure in 2002, and the Gully area was protected by its designation as a Marine Protected Area (MPA) in 2004. • Australia in 1999 established the Tasmanian Seamounts Marine Reserve to prohibit bottom trawling in the south Tasman Sea. Australia also prohibits bottom trawling in The Great Australian Bight Marine Park near Ceduna off South Australia. In 2004, Australia established the world’s largest marine protected area in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park where fishing and other extractive activities are prohibited. • New Zealand in 2001 closed 19 seamounts within its EEZ to bottom trawling, including in the Chatham Rise, sub-Antarctic waters, and off the east and west coasts of the North Island. New Zealand Fisheries Minister Jim Anderton announced on 14 February 2006 that a draft agreement had been reached with fishing companies to ban bottom trawling in 30 percent of New Zealand's exclusive economic zone, an area of about 1.2 million km² reaching from sub-Antarctic waters to sub-tropical ones. [6] But only a small fraction of the area proposed for protection will cover areas actually vulnerable to bottom trawling. [7] • Palau has banned all bottom trawling within its jurisdiction and by any Palauan or Palauan corporation anywhere in the world. [8] • The President of Kiribati, Anote Tong, announced in early 2006 the formation of the world’s first deep sea marine reserve area. This measure—the Phoenix Islands Protected Area—creates the world’s third largest marine protected area and may protect deep sea corals, fish, and seamounts from bottom trawling. [9] However, the actual boundaries of this reserve and what harvest limitations may occur therein have not been detailed. Moreover, Kiribati currently has only 1 patrol boat to monitor this proposed region. [edit] Lack of regulation Beyond national jurisdictions, most bottom trawling is unregulated either because there is no Regional Fisheries Management Organization (RFMO) with competence to regulate, or else what RFMOs that do exist have not actually regulated. The major exception to this is in the Antarctic region, where the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources regime has instituted extensive bottom trawling restrictions. [10] The North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) also recently closed four seamounts and part of the mid-Atlantic Ridge from all fishing, including bottom trawling, for three years. This still leaves most of international waters completely without bottom trawl regulation. As of May 2007 the area managed under the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation (SPRFMO) [11] has gained a new level of protection. All countries fishing in the region (accounting for about 25 percent of the global ocean) agreed to exclude bottom trawling on high seas areas where vulnerable ecosystems are likely or known to occur until a specific impact assessment is undertaken and precautionary measures have been are implemented. Also observers will be required on all high seas bottom trawlers to ensure enforcement of the regulations. [edit] Failed United Nations ban Palau President Tommy Remengesau has called for a ban on destructive and unregulated bottom trawling beyond national jurisdictions and Palau has led the effort at the United Nations and in the Pacific to achieve a consensus by countries to take this action at an international level. [12] [13] Palau has been joined by the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and Tuvalu in supporting an interim bottom trawling ban at the United Nations. [14] The proposal for this ban did not result in any actual legislation and was blocked. [15] New Zealand Fisheries Minister Jim Anderton has promised to support a global ban on bottom trawling if there was sufficient support to make that a practical option. Bottom Trawling has been banned in 1/3 of New Zealand's waters (although a large percentage of these areas were not viable for bottom trawling in the first place) [16] In mid October 2006, U.S. President Bush joined other world leaders calling for a moratorium on deep-sea trawling, a practice shown to often have harmful effects on sea habitat and, hence, on fish populations. [edit] Overfishing Main article: Overfishing Overfishing has also been widely reported due to increases in the volume of fishing hauls to feed a quickly growing number of consumers. This has led to the breakdown of some sea ecosystems and several fishing industries whose catch has been greatly diminished.[5][6] The extinction of many species has also been reported.[7] According to an FAO estimate, over 70% of the world’s fish species are either fully exploited or depleted.[8] According to Nitin Desai, Secretary General of the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development, "Overfishing cannot continue, the depletion of fisheries poses a major threat to the food supply of millions of people."[9] The cover story of the May 15, 2003 issue of the science journal Nature – with Dr. Ransom A. Myers, an internationally prominent fisheries biologist (Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada) as the lead author – was devoted to a summary of the scientific information. The story asserted that, as compared with 1950 levels, only a remnant (in some instances, as little as 10%) of all large ocean-fish stocks are left in the seas. These large ocean fish are the species at the top of the food chains (e.g., tuna, cod, among others). However, this article was subsequently criticized as being fundamentally flawed, although much debate still exists (Walters 2003; Hampton et al. 2005; Maunder et al. 2006; Polacheck 2006;Sibert et al. 2006) and the majority of fisheries scientists now consider the results irrelevant with respect to large pelagics (the open seas).[10] The environmental impact of recreational fishing may be alleviated to some extent by catch and release fishing. [edit] Ecological disruption Fishing may disrupt food webs by targeting specific, in-demand species. There might be too much fishing of prey species such as sardines and anchovies, thus reducing the food supply for the predators. It may also cause the increase of prey species when the target fishes are predator species such as salmon and tuna. [edit] By-catch Main article: By-catch By-catch is the portion of the catch that is not the target species. These are either kept to be sold or discarded. In some instances the discarded portion is known as discards. [edit] Possible remedies Main articles: Fisheries management and Fish farming Many governments have implemented fisheries management policies designed to curb the environmental impact of fishing. Fishing conservation aims to control the human activities that may completely decrease a fish stock or washout an entire aquatic environment. These laws include the quotas on the total catch of particular species in a fishery, limits on the number of vessels allowed in specific areas, and the imposition of seasonal restrictions on fishing. Fish farming has also been proposed as a more sustainable alternative to traditional capture of wild fish. However, fish farming has been found to have negative impacts on nearby wild fish

Biomass extraction, logging and mangrove removal

In the next lecture we will continue looking at Drivers and Pressures…

Application of the DPSIR framework

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Application of the DPSIR framework"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Application of the DPSIR framework

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Application of the DPSIR framework"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback