1. DEVELOPING A ROADMAP FOR TURKISH MARINE AQUACULTURE TCP/TUR 3101 Project COMMITTEE ON AQUACULTURE Working Group on SITING and CARRYING CAPACITY 21- 23 October 2008 Crete, Greece

2. STATUS OF MARICULTURE IN TURKEY

3. In 2007 total production from the fisheries was 772,000 mt; In 2007 total production from the fisheries was 772,000 mt; Aquaculture consisted of 18% - 80,840 (10.5%) marine and 59,033 (7.5%) mt freshwater; Aquaculture consisted of 18% - 80,840 (10.5%) marine and 59,033 (7.5%) mt freshwater; 340 farms, 108,000 mt annual production capacity; 340 farms, 108,000 mt annual production capacity; 20 hatchery with annual production capacity of 220 million fry 20 hatchery with annual production capacity of 220 million fry Aquaculture provides 25,000 jobs. Aquaculture provides 25,000 jobs. General Features

4. Trends of Aquaculture Production

5. Species Produced Seabass Seabream Trout Mussel New species 41.900 33.500 2.740 1.100 1.600 Marine80.840 Freshwater59,033 GRAND TOTAL139,873 mt

6. Number of Farms Production systems No. of Farms Capacity (mt/yr) Cage Farms 23698,650 Land-based (Ponds) 1003,122 Rafts/Long-lines31,625 Mobile (ship) 14,800 TOTAL340 108 197

7. Farms by Seas

8. Distribution of Farms by Provinces ProvincesNumber Capacity Antalya 1 84,570 Aydin 3 15526 Balikesir 2 130 Canakkale 2 3656 Edirne 2 1100 Hatay 1 1561 İzmir 3 7020,880 Mersin 1 4600 Muğla 3 20763,593 Ordu 4 61,160 Rize 4 4750 Trabzon 4 32.900 1: Mediterranean; 2: Sea of Marmara; 3: Aegean Sea; 4: Black Sea

9. Major Provinces (5%) (4%) (1.1%) (90%)

10. Farms by Environmnet

11. Farms by Species and Production Capacity Species Farms (%) Sea bass and Sea bream89 Trout and Sea bass2,8 Bass, Bream and New Species2,5 Tuna2,2 Trout1,8 Shellfish (mussel)0,9 Sea bass0,6 Mussel and Sea bass0,3 Production Capacity % ≤ 5042 51-10018 101-25016 251-5006 501-100011  1001 6

12. DEVELOPING A ROADMAP FOR TURKISH MARINE AQUACULTURE SITE SELECTION AND ZONING USUNG THE ECOSYSTEM APPROACH TO MANAGEMENT TCP/TUR 3101 PROJECT

13. Background Pressures from certain media, summer house owners, some politicians, tourism sector, NGOs Environmental Law was amended to exclude marine cages from environmentally sensitive areas, enclosed bays and near shore areas on 26 April 2006. Based on amendment in Environmental Law a new decree entitled “Notification on determination of sensitive enclosed bays and gulfs areas where fish farms excluded - No: 26413” was issued on 24 January 2007. Those fish farms in the sensitive areas should evaluate their situation according to criteria (see Table) and report the Ministry of Environment and Forestry before May 1, 2007. Those cage farms cannot meet the criteria (see Table) will be closed before May 13, 2007 (this date has not been applied due to Supreme Court decision). Unfortunately amendment in the law and Notification issued without proper consultation with stakeholders and the definitions in the bill are considered somewhat vague. In addition duration given farmers to move new sites was very short and unrealistic.

14. Background  Parameters and criteria for sensitive areas where cage fish farms can not be set: ParametersCriteria Water depth≤ 30m Distance from coastline≤ 0.6 mile Current speed≤ 0.1 m/sec  Fish farms also cannot be established on natural and archaeological areas.  Assesment of Eurtrophication Risk: Interpretation of the Trix Index (TI): TRIX Index (TI)Explanation TI < 4No eutrophication risk 4 ≤ TI ≤ 6High eutrophication risk TI > 6Already eutrophic

15. Background The Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs (MARA) of Turkey asked FAO technical assistance; The Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs (MARA) of Turkey asked FAO technical assistance; FAO technical assistance has been considered key to the success of this project, as the organization can play its natural role as neutral agency with technical capacity in aquaculture as well as in the provision of policy guidance and stakeholder coordination; FAO technical assistance has been considered key to the success of this project, as the organization can play its natural role as neutral agency with technical capacity in aquaculture as well as in the provision of policy guidance and stakeholder coordination; In addition FAO and GFCM are the only international organizations which are currently collaborating in aquaculture with all countries of the Mediterranean. In addition FAO and GFCM are the only international organizations which are currently collaborating in aquaculture with all countries of the Mediterranean.

16. Minister for Environment and Forestry

17. Measures Taken as Solution Identification of new zones and sites (Izmir, Mugla, Aydin, Mersin); Identification of new zones and sites (Izmir, Mugla, Aydin, Mersin); Regulatory studies Regulatory studies Discussions on implementing strategic EIA Discussions on implementing strategic EIA TUBITAK Project TUBITAK Project FAO-TCP Project () FAO-TCP Project (TCP/TUR 3101)

18. Mugla – Gulluk Gulf

19. TCP/TUR 3101 Project Main objective to technically assist the Government of Turkey in the development of firstly a roadmap for sound marine aquaculture site selection and secondly a zoning plan for marine aquaculture following the pan-Mediterranean guidelines for fish farmers. Main objective to technically assist the Government of Turkey in the development of firstly a roadmap for sound marine aquaculture site selection and secondly a zoning plan for marine aquaculture following the pan-Mediterranean guidelines for fish farmers. Main Partners: FAO and MARA (Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs) Main Partners: FAO and MARA (Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs) Major beneficiaries: MARA, MEF (Min. of Env), Min. of Culture and Tourism, Yachting clubs, fish farmers, local governments, tourism sector, Major beneficiaries: MARA, MEF (Min. of Env), Min. of Culture and Tourism, Yachting clubs, fish farmers, local governments, tourism sector, Duration: December 2007 – September 2008), Duration: December 2007 – September 2008), 10-11 July 2008, Ankara Startup meeting: 10-11 July 2008, Ankara

20. Expected Outputs Recommendations to Government for clarifying the current situation on siting of marine aquaculture. Marine aquaculture farmers and governmental decision makers trained in the application of commonly agreed upon site selection criteria and identification of relocation options, using the ecosystem approach to aquaculture management. A draft pilot zoning plan for one selected location prepared. Increased awareness and social acceptability of other stakeholders active in the coastal marine environment on the rightful place of aquaculture within coastal area development and management. An advocacy brochure on the place of marine aquaculture within the coastal environment and other leaflets as required in the process. A roadmap and project for developing sound mariculture siting and management built in a multi-stakeholder environment using participatory approaches. A new project proposal to seek funding as UTF or other funding mechanisms prepared.

21. (10 -11 July 2008, Ankara) Major Activities 1: Startup Meeting (10 -11 July 2008, Ankara) Visits and meetings held at: Visits and meetings held at: - Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs: the Directorate of Agricultural Production and Development (GDAPD) - Ministry of Environment and Forestry: the General Directorate of Environmental Management and the General Director of Environmental Impact Assessment and Planning.

22. It was prepared and conducted and by a FAO team (National and international Consultants plus an FAO FIMA officer) together with Ministry (MARA) personnel; Attended by 37 participants from 22 national ministries, institutions, farmer groups, companies and NGOs; The expected output was developing a draft roadmap towards ecosystem approached management of Turkish marine aquaculture; The first part of the activity consisted of 6 presentations made by the FAO team and the MARA.. (16 -17 July 2008, Izmir) Major Activities 2: 1st Stakeholder Workshop (16 -17 July 2008, Izmir)

23. 1st Stakeholder Workshop A facilitation approach was used and participants were divided in groups and were asked to write out 2-3 major issues/problems of marine aquaculture in Turkey. Various issues raised gathered under group headings (including environmental impacts, R&D, education and training, investment and credit, farm management, mariculture management and coastal zone management). The sources of the problems and proposed solutions were also asked the groups. The final part of the exercise consisted of prioritising the solutions and actions and placing them in a time frame

24. First Workshop, Izmir

25. 1st Stakeholders Workshop

26. Stake Holders Defining The Problems….

27. Road Map –Immediate Action –Action plan 1 year to 3 years –Action plan 3 years to 5 years

28. Identifying the problems - 1 Management and Administration Management and Administration –Coordination gap between Ministries –Legislative conflicts –Bureaucracy for permitting –Need for DG for Fisheries and Aquaculture –Need long term planning –Need identifying zones for aquaculture

29. Identifying the problems - 2 Site selection and logisitics Site selection and logisitics –Need to identify new sites –Conflict between Ministries –Insufficient jetties –Insufficient shore bases

30. Other problems Poor image of aquaculture Poor image of aquaculture Lack of market orientated approach Lack of market orientated approach Need for streamlined Credit and finance Need for streamlined Credit and finance High sea rental costs High sea rental costs Lack of vocational training Lack of vocational training Lack of research Lack of research Conflicts with other coastal users Conflicts with other coastal users

31. One conflict area: Gerence Bay - Izmir

32. Bodrum, Mugla: Summer Houses and Cages

33. Field study of Gerence Bay-Izmir

34. 10 - 11 August 2008, Mugla) 2nd Stakeholder Workshop (10 - 11 August 2008, Mugla)

35. Fees YerFee for per 1000 m per year YerFee for per 1000 m 2 per year İzmir: 2100 Euro İzmir: 2100 Euro Muğla: 800 Muğla: 800 Mersin: 275 Mersin: 275 Antalya: 275 Antalya: 275 Black Sea: 400 Black Sea: 400

36. 2nd Workshop Attended by 62 participants belonging to 5 national institutions, 16 fish farmer companies, 6 aquaculture support industries, 3 farmer associations. Attended by 62 participants belonging to 5 national institutions, 16 fish farmer companies, 6 aquaculture support industries, 3 farmer associations. Presentations were given by the coordinator, international and national consultants. Presentations were given by the coordinator, international and national consultants. Questions arising were answered at the end of each session. Questions arising were answered at the end of each session.

37. 2nd Workshop: Presentations Benefits to the producers by undertaking EIAs and monitoring of the environment, Benefits to the producers by undertaking EIAs and monitoring of the environment, Offshore and Open Sea Farming Technology, Offshore and Open Sea Farming Technology, Offshore and Open Sea Farming Ancillary equipment, Offshore and Open Sea Farming Ancillary equipment, Offshore and Open Sea Farming Management, Offshore and Open Sea Farming Management, Financial requirements Offshore vs Open Sea, Financial requirements Offshore vs Open Sea, Minimising Risks, Minimising Risks, New species, New species, New technology for Offshore and Open Seas, New technology for Offshore and Open Seas, Regulations for aquaculture license, EIA and monitoring Regulations for aquaculture license, EIA and monitoring Process for setting up a fish farm, Process for setting up a fish farm, Role of the Ministries in regulating aquaculture, Role of the Ministries in regulating aquaculture, Site selection Criteria, Site selection Criteria, Proposed road map for moving offshore Proposed road map for moving offshore

38. 2nd Workshop: Identifying Major Problems and Potential Solutions The participants were asked to identify fundamental problems and potential solutions. Following the discussions of the first day the problems were classified under 3 main categories: 1. Management and Administration: Total 35% - Coordination gap among Ministries – (legislation, authority and responsibility conflict) 9% - Legislative chaos – (each organization has a different legislative implementation related to marine aquaculture) 7% - To steamline the bureaucracy relevant to Aquaculture Certification and Licensing Requirements 7%. - To establish a separate General Directorate for Fisheries and Aquaculture since authority in MARA is divided among the various General Directorates in this issue 5%. - Lack of long-term mariculture development plans 3.5%. - The need to define mariculture zones in the coastal zone 3.5%.

39. .... Identifying Major Problems and Potential Solutions 1. Site Selection and Logistic Support: Total 26% A – Site Selection, 15.5% A – Site Selection, 15.5% –Defining new potential sites, 7%. –Conflict among the Ministries, 5%. –Fry nursery site located inshore 3.5%. B – Logistic Problem 10.5 % B – Logistic Problem 10.5 % –Lack of Jetties. –Land-based office (multipurpose – nets, food storage, temporary accommodation, basic fish processing).

40. .... Identifying Major Problems and Potential Solutions 3. Other Problems: Total 39.5%. - Image promotion, 9%. - Image promotion, 9%. - Lack of a market oriented approach in marine aquaculture in Turkey, 5.5%. - Lack of a market oriented approach in marine aquaculture in Turkey, 5.5%. - Credit and financing, high rental prices, assurance 9%. - Credit and financing, high rental prices, assurance 9%. - Problems related to operations of off-shore conditions, 5.5%. - Problems related to operations of off-shore conditions, 5.5%. - Lack of well trained technicians, 5.0%. - Lack of well trained technicians, 5.0%. - Inadequate Research and Development (R&D) and where there is R&D existing the results not reaching the producer, 3.5%. - Inadequate Research and Development (R&D) and where there is R&D existing the results not reaching the producer, 3.5%. - Conflicts among the users of the coastal zone, 2.0%. - Conflicts among the users of the coastal zone, 2.0%.

41. From old farms to new farms Old Style Cages New style

42. The Road map Strengthening Institutional Organisation Strengthening Institutional Organisation –Contribute to the creation of a General Directorate (GD) for Fisheries and Aquaculture –Capacity building for Ministry Departments at provincial level –Creation of a Special Commission for Mariculture Development (SCMD) –Formation of an Integrated Coastal Management Board (ICMB) under the Prime Ministry

43. Proposed Institutions Inter-Ministerial Agreement for the development of aquaculture Special Commission for Aquaculture Development Ankara Provincial Commissions for Aquaculture Development Provincial Development Agencies Work together Prime Ministry Integrated Coastal Management Board for Mariculture, Ankara Provincial ICM Boards Cooperate together

44. Planning Mariculture Development There is a need for a thorough review of mariculture planning and the through integration of mariculture into the coastal zone development. However, this will require time and funding. Review of zoning for mariculture Review of zoning for mariculture Review of the integration of mariculture into Coastal Planning Review of the integration of mariculture into Coastal Planning Data collection of essential parameters for open sea site selection Data collection of essential parameters for open sea site selection Expand the strategic aquaculture development plan: Expand the strategic aquaculture development plan: Review models that can be used for production carrying capacity estimation Review models that can be used for production carrying capacity estimation

45. Managing Mariculture Development Review aquaculture legislation and regulations and role of aquaculture Ministries/Institutions Review aquaculture legislation and regulations and role of aquaculture Ministries/Institutions Review present institutions responsible for mariculture development Review present institutions responsible for mariculture development Review and recommend revisions of mariculture regulations and legislations Review and recommend revisions of mariculture regulations and legislations Review regulations on Environmental Issues Review regulations on Environmental Issues Review EIAs for mariculture Review EIAs for mariculture Review regulations on monitoring Review regulations on monitoring Review of decision making process for mariculture development Review of decision making process for mariculture development Review of permit procedures and requirements for transportation and exportation Review of permit procedures and requirements for transportation and exportation Review of leasing and permitting procedures Review of leasing and permitting procedures Review animal welfare issues Review animal welfare issues

46. Support for Mariculture Development PR to encourage fish consumption and enhance the image of mariculture Credit and finance guidelines Insurance Guidelines Training needs assessment, draft training curriculum and identify Faculties and Institutes Research needs assessment Improved technology transfer, and access to global information and technology in mariculture Establish an aquaculture extension service Additional Fish Health Laboratories Establishment of Quarantine facilities Promotion and Marketing services

47. Aquaculture Zoning Plan for Izmir Output: A draft pilot zoning plan for one selected location which will be included short, medium and long term options for present and future marine aquaculture enterprise in support of a sustainable sector development. Moving cage farms offshore: According to Aquaculture Regulation following requirements should be met in site: Space/area should be large enough for rotation and should not be less than twice of the actual area occupied by cages. Space/area should be large enough for rotation and should not be less than twice of the actual area occupied by cages. Distance between tuna cage farms, and tuna and other fish farms can not be less than 2 km, and less than 1 km between other fish farms. Distance between tuna cage farms, and tuna and other fish farms can not be less than 2 km, and less than 1 km between other fish farms. Minimum annual production capacities of farms are set as a cage farm is 250 mt/y. Minimum annual production capacities of farms are set as a cage farm is 250 mt/y. On offshore, open coast and outside the enclosed bays and gulfs cage sites should have minimum 40 m water depth. However, Aquaculture Department may allocate sites for cage farming less than 40 m taking into account capacity of farm, water depth, current speed and intended production system/technology. On offshore, open coast and outside the enclosed bays and gulfs cage sites should have minimum 40 m water depth. However, Aquaculture Department may allocate sites for cage farming less than 40 m taking into account capacity of farm, water depth, current speed and intended production system/technology.

48. Gerence Bay - Izmir Planned cage farms in Gerence Bay Before moving cages Production capacity There are 14 farms planned for Gerence Bay with a total capacity of 4,900 tonnes. Of the 14 farms planned only 4 have approved EIAs at the present time.

49. Example of Potential Zoning of Aquaculture in Gerence and Ildir Bays

50. New Aquaculture Zones in Izmir New Aquaculture Zone in Izmir Identification of new aquaculture zones based on absence of conflicts

51. There needs to be data collection for these new areas and they need to be re- assessed on the basis of the site selection criteria

52. There should be a review of the needs for logistic support for offshore farms

53. Muğla: Zoning Problem Solved?

54. PR: Advocacy Brochure

56. Project Proposal Output 1 – Coastal zone planning for mariculture development Review of new zones as to their suitability for aquaculture Review of new zones as to their suitability for aquaculture Identify potential new areas for open sea aquaculture Identify potential new areas for open sea aquaculture Output 2 – Mariculture production carrying capacity Review models for estimating carrying capacity Review models for estimating carrying capacity Estimate finfish carrying capacity in two aquaculture zones Estimate finfish carrying capacity in two aquaculture zones Output 3 – Aquaculture regulatory framework Review of current legislation and identify conflict issues among the Ministries and Institutes Review of current legislation and identify conflict issues among the Ministries and Institutes Review scope and data collection for mariculture EIA Review scope and data collection for mariculture EIA Review monitoring requirements for assessing mariculture impact Review monitoring requirements for assessing mariculture impact Output 4 – Support for mariculture development Research needs assessment and prioritisation Research needs assessment and prioritisation Training needs assessment and prioritisation Training needs assessment and prioritisation

57. Project Proposal Beneficiaries: The direct targeted beneficiaries in the project are MARA, MEF, fish farmers and mariculture sector as whole. The direct targeted beneficiaries in the project are MARA, MEF, fish farmers and mariculture sector as whole. In addition companies providing service, system and equipment, tourism sector and local fishermen will also benefit. In addition companies providing service, system and equipment, tourism sector and local fishermen will also benefit. Duration: 30-36, starting from 2009 Duration: 30-36, starting from 2009 Budget: 2-3 million USD Budget: 2-3 million USD

58. The project team: Enjoying their dinner Thank You for Your Attention