Site selection and carrying capacity in Mediterranean ... - FAO Sipam

74 GFCM:XXXV/2011/Dma.9
Table 8 - Aquaculture sector and stakeholders by sector
GEOGRAPHICAL
SECTOR
Northwest HIGH
COASTAL
(COMMERCIAL
SCALE)
AQUACULTURE
PRESENCE
Northeast MODERATE
(EXCEPT FOR
TURKEY
GREECE)
AND
Southeast LOW (EXCEPT
Southwest
FOR EGYPT)
LOW
KEY
STAKEHOLDERS
CAPTURE FISHERY;
SHIPPING;
URBAN/INDUSTRIAL;
TOURISM;
RECREATION;
CONSERVATION
CAPTURE FISHERY;
URBAN/INDUSTRIAL
SECTORS;
(TOURISM &
RECREATION);
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
6.3 Stakeholder interactions and their management – selected review
74
AQUACULTURE POLICY
PRIORITIES
EXPANSION/MAINTENANCE
OF SECTOR; FOOD SAFETY;
MARKETING AND
DISTRIBUTION; LOCAL
COMMUNITIES
EXPANSION OF SECTOR;
FOOD SAFETY; MARKETING
AND DISTRIBUTION; LOCAL
COMMUNITIES
INTRODUCTION OF
AQUACULTURE; LOCAL
FOOD SECURITY; TRADE;
LOCAL COMMUNITIES
Although stakeholder interactions can be synergistic, competitive, neutral or antagonistic, the last
category tends to receive the most attention because it generally requires the most intervention by
local decision makers. For this reason, most of the cases considered here document conflicts and their
resolution. Where possible, cases of positive spillovers among stakeholders are described as well.
Moreover, it is the authors’ position that greater attention needs to be given to identifying synergies
among stakeholders. Synergies tend to emerge spontaneously and often escape the planner’s attention,
yet, they may be the key to successful integration of the aquaculture sector into ICZM.
TURKEY
This is a case of a legislated resolution to ongoing conflicts between tourism, environmental and
aquaculture stakeholders. In Turkey, 56% of aquaculture (including both freshwater and mariculture)
is located inshore. The absence of integrated coastal zone management plans has contributed to site
allocation conflicts between the aquaculture and tourism sectors for space (Zone A). Environmental
concerns have also played a part, but the main stakeholders were owners of tourism facilities and
holiday properties and fish farmers. In 2006, the Turkish Environmental Law 2872 was amended to
include the following provision: “Marine aquaculture facilities should not be constructed in sensitive
areas such as enclosed bays and gulfs and in natural and archeologically protected areas. Fish farms
existing in contravention of this article will be closed after 1 year of the publishing of this law” (MEF,
2006). The site selection criteria under this law proscribe farms in areas where water depth is less than
30 metres, distance from shore is less than 0.6 nautical miles and sea current velocities are less than
10 cm/s (MEF, 2007). The law applies to new farms and those already operating, and as of May 2009,
has resulted in the removal of 16 sea bass/sea bream farms on the Akbük Gulf and 133 farms on the
Güllük Gulf, near Bodrum. The costs of upgrading facilities and relocating to deeper water and more
exposed sites are difficult to estimate with precision may be as high as US$2.4 million. This is beyond
the capacity of most small and medium sized firms. Moreover, in the absence of comprehensive,
consistent aquaculture legislation, the farmers lack assurance that regulation will not change after they