Periodic Management Report - ecasa

Periodic Management Report - ecasa

Table of ContentsSectionPages1, Justification of major cost items and resources. Partner4 - 471 to 16.1a. Person Month Status Table (All Partners) 502

Communication. Effective communication between all partners and the Coordinatorwas established and maintained from the outset. The project email address ismonitored by the project manager. Outputs arising from the meetings are promptlydrawn up and circulated to all partners (i.e. minutes from meetings, action point statusreports, presentations and scientific documents). Monthly Progress Reports arerequested from all Partners and, collated and circulated.Project Reporting. Interim Activity 12 Month Report. An Interim Activity Reportwas required after the first 12 months of the Project. This was drawn up, withcontributions from all Partners, and submitted to the EU on time. The Interim ActivityReport was accepted by the EU.Work package 2SAMS submitted 6 indicators for Work Package 2. The details of all indicators werethen summarised and compiled into a database. The AMBI model was tested withMERAMED data sets at the SAMS/AZTI modelling workshop in July 2005.Numerous benthic faunal data sets from Scottish fish farm monitoring surveys whichwere used to create the DEPOMOD benthic module were evaluated. From these datasets, species lists were used in the AMBI software to calculate AMBI and comparedwith univariate indices (e.g. number of species, abundance, biomass) and ITI. Inaddition, AMBI and modelled flux were compared to determine if a relationshipexists for the Scottish situation.SAMS tested AMBI with DEPOMOD model data sets (salmon farms, North Atlantic)and AMBI correlated well with univariate indices and ITI as expected. AMBI alsocorrelated with modelled flux in a similar manner to ITI. SAMS reviewed theproposed benthic indicators circulated by Angel and scored each of the indicatorsindividually, rather than just the indicators proposed by SAMS. In addition, theindicator sheets were examined in detail and more information from proposers oncertain aspects was requested.Work package 3Fish farms were also contacted directly to try and acquire the requested informationaccording to the Partner Task Allocation Table drawn up by Partner 8, anddiscussions were initiated with insurance companies which provide insurance coverfor marine aquaculture companies. Contact was made with Paddy Secretan, managingdirector of AUMS Ltd, and several other aquaculture insurance experts (GjensidigeForsikring, Norway and Sutherland Marine, UK) in regard to acquiring informationfor WP3 Partner task allocation table. All information gathered was passed to YannisKarakassis and Katerina Sevastou.A series of indicators were proposed and discussed between SAMS and the WorkPackage 3 leader.Work Package 4Summary sheets of SAMS’ models (DEPOMOD and MERAMOD) were provided tothe Work Package 4 Leader for information and distribution to partners.A modelling workshop was arranged between AZTI and SAMS in July 2005 Thegeneral aim of this workshop was for modelling partners SAMS and AZTI to meet atAZTI and kick start research for ECASA WP4. Initial discussions includedpresentations of models used at AZTI and SAMS as well as some background5

information on the type of research each partner undertakes. Presentations were alsogiven on the biotic index AMBI and the benthic response component of theMERAMOD model. The following objectives were achieved:1. SAMS demonstrated the model MERAMOD and AZTI demonstratedTRIMODENA.2. A comparative modelling study assessed common similarities and differencesbetween the models for a MERAMED study site.3. Information on indicators used for determination of benthic impact wasexchanged, with a view to developing the benthic components of the models.4. Future fieldwork planned for WP5 was discussed to ensure surveys areappropriately designed to collect information for validation of models andindicator testing.A report has been submitted to WP leaders. SAMS provided input to the modeldescription template and completed a form for DEPOMOD for general circulationaround ECASAA further Modelling Workshop was held between SAMS and Venice University inOctober 2005. The main objective was to undertake some waste flux and impactmodelling of shellfish sites off Chioggia and the Gulf of Trieste.The scientific literature was reviewed for publications on sediment biochemical andbioturbation models, in an Endnote library.Further development of MERAMOD benthic module was undertaken as well asdiscussions with MERAMED partners as to future validation work with the remainingMERAMED data set.SAMS organised and hosted a Field and Modelling Workshop in January 2006. Allpartners attended and considerable progress was made.Work Package 5Discussions on site selection criteria were initiated in January 2005. Study sitedescriptor template was developed along with a study site report. This report will takethe form of an EIA and can be presented to the farmer at the end of the project.The ECASA site database was interfaced with GIS. This will allow maps to begenerated on site name, species, tonnage, etc. as required. Several meetings were heldwith the farmers whose sites are being used as field locations. SAMS organised andhosted a Field and Modelling Workshop in January 2006. All partners attended andconsiderable progress was madeA work plan for the summer 2006 field campaign was developed and sent to the WorkPackage Leader.Work Package 6Website and Project Logo. The Project website was designed and populated. It isregularly updated and has become a useful tool for all ECASA participants. Theproject logo was developed and three different image resolutions circulated to allPartners.Newsletters. Two newsletters were written during the first reporting period. Hardcopies of these have been circulated to stakeholders and regulators through mail shotsand at various events.Stakeholder meetings. A series of meetings have occurred throughout the first 18months of the project with stakeholders and regulators.6

Presentations and wider dissemination. Eight oral and seven poster presentationshave been delivered during the first reporting period. These presentations haveoccurred at a variety of locations in Europe and to a broad audience range.Cost Budget follow up table*) total budget figures – not EC fundingContract No: Acronym DatePARTICIPANTSBUDGETACTUAL COSTS(EUR)Pct spentTYPE OFEXPENDITURE(as defined byparticipants)Period1Period2Period3Period 4TotalTotalRemaining budget(EUR)Partner 1SAMSe a1 b1 c1 d1 e1a1+b1+c1=d1/eTotal person 61 26 26monthPersonnel costs 226571 88247 88247 39%Other costs (the 122834 57362 5736rest)2 46%Total costs 349405 145609 145609 41%e-e113832465472203796All resources employed and global estimate of all costs.SAMS Salaries Travel Consumables Computers Equipment Auditing Sub Direct Indirect TotalContractProject 226571 25000 7500 5100 0 2000 30000 296171 53234.20 349405.20BudgetSpend to 88983.20 14736.38 4369.27 4642.05 0 0 11547.85 124278.75 28528.45 146824.9331.05.06Remaining 137587.80 10263.62 3130.73 457.95 0 2000 18452.15 171892.25 30688.02 202580.27%Remaining39% 41% 42% 9% 0 100 62% 58% 57% 57%There have been no major deviations from the cost budget or person month budget.Partner Staff InvolvedPartner Staff involved Position1. SAMS Kenny BlackCoordinatorAveril WilsonProject ManagerThom NickellPrincipal InvestigatorChris CromeyPrincipal InvestigatorShona MagillSupport Scientist7

Partner 2 University of PortsmouthSection 1 - Justification of major cost items and resourcesSynopsisThe University of Portsmouth is responsible for the socio-economic component of theproject. This has involved an assessment of the role and significance of aquaculture inthe coastal zone, the major issue being an evaluation of the trade-off between thenegative effects of environmental damage against the positive effects of job creationand livelihood support. UoP is formally involved with WP2, WP3, WP4 and WP6.However, it needs to be made clear that some of the socio-economic research carriedout within ECASA is relevant to WP5. This is especially so for the socio-economicsurvey work that will be undertaken in the coming year, since one of the main aims ofthis will be to develop a methodology for eliciting public attitudes towardsaquaculture development that may be relevant to site selection. Regarding theallocation of time during the first 18 months, WP2 and WP3 accounted for themajority of the research effort. In total, the actual commitment of person-monthsequated with the planned commitment (20), though in practice rather more time wasspent on WP3 than originally anticipated and correspondingly less on WP2.Details of the work over the past 18 months are as follows:WP2Development of a conceptual framework for socio-economic indicators of aquaculturesustainability and the completion of annotated sheets (including information on datasources and key references).WP3Preparation of two documents for inclusion in Deliverable 11: (i) Aquaculture in thecoastal zone: pressures, interactions and externalities, (ii) Methodologies forassessing the economic costs imposed on aquaculture by environmental externalities.WP4Completion of a Briefing Note (circulated to Project partners) outlining the use ofmulti-criteria methods of aquaculture site selection, and preparatory work ondesigning a preference elicitation survey.WP6Dissemination activities, including presentation at conferences and workshops (July21 st 2005, February 1 st 2006). See Periodic Activity Report for further details.8

Cost Budget follow up table*) total budget figures – not EC fundingContract No: 006540 Acronym: ECASA Date: 31.05.2006PARTICIPANTSBUDGETACTUAL COSTS(EUR)Pct spentTYPE OFEXPENDITURE(as defined byparticipants)Period 1Period2Period3Period 4TotalTotalRemaining budget(EUR)Partner 2University ofPortsmouthe a1 b1 c1 d1 e128 23a1+b1+c1=d1/eTotal personmonthPersonnel costs 94127 34885.63 59241.37Major cost item‘X’Major cost item‘Y’Other costs (therest)32985 9660.78 23324.22Total costs 127112 44546.41 82565.59e-e1Table 4: Person-Months status tableNote: The figures for Planned person-months refer to the whole projectPartner Staff InvolvedPartner Staff involved Position2. UoP David Whitmarsh Principal InvestigatorGianna PalmieriResearch Associate9

Partner 3 Napier UniversitySection 1 - Justification of major cost items and resourcesMajor costs were for personnel. This cost included the stipend of research studentCeline Laurent, who contributed to the development of pelagic indicators in WP2 andcontinued the development of the dynamic CSTT model in WP4. It also included thegross salary (at 50% time since appointment in month 10) of post-doc EnriquePortilla, who continued development of the CSTT model and also worked on aproposal for assessment of model reliability in ECASA.Of the other costs, Paul Tett as WP4 leader and steering committee member had toattend frequent meetings. The consumable costs include those for software licencesneeded for work on indicators and models, and analysis costs for samples from lochCreran, one of the ECASA study sites, providing data for model development (andtest in WP5). Direct costs incurred by other permanent staff - Teresa Fernandes,providing input to WP2 and co-supervisor of Celine Laurent; and Linda Gilpin, cosupervisorof Celine Laurent - were small, and for attending meetings.Table 3: Budget vs Actual CostsNapier direct costs. We did not have a budget for permanent staff costs when ECASAwas proposed, and the estimate of Napier spending on permanent staff is given inTable 4. Period 1 is months 1-18. The amounts, given here in euro, should be close tothose reported on form C, but might not be exactly the same as this because I do nothave direct access to the information used by Napier finance.Cost Budget follow up table*) total budget figures – not EC fundingContract No: Acronym DatePARTICIPANTSBUDGETACTUAL COSTS(EUR)Pct spentTYPE OFEXPENDITURE(as defined byparticipants)Period1Period2Period 3Period 4TotalTotalRemaining budget(EUR)Part 1Total personmonthe a1 b1 c1 d1 e1a1+b1+c1=d1/ee-e139.5 16.5 16.5 42% 23.0Personnel costs 128,360 29433 29433 23% 128,360Major cost item 10,286 3721 3721 36% 10,286‘X’Major cost item‘Y’Other costs (therest)7857 4924 4924 63% 7,85629301 7616 7616 26% 29,301Total costs 175,804 45694 45694 26% 130,110Estimate of permanent staff costs, based on recent evaluation by PT giving estimate oftotal annual cost per permanent academic :Permanent staff months = 4.4 x 12,641 euro/month = 45,694 EURThe main deviation from the cost and person-months budget is an underspend thatresults from the time required to find and appoint a post-doctoral modeller to theproject. The main impact was in relation to WP2 and WP3, where it proved difficult10

for the research student to make the contribution that was needed. This was partlybalanced by input from permanent staff.Partner Staff InvolvedPartner Staff involved Position3.NUE Paul TettPrincipal Investigator &WP4 co-ordinatorEnrique Portilla* Post-docTeresa Fernandes Principal Investigator* = salary paid (in part) by ECASABenôit GinouxTemporary supportscientist11

Partner 4National Institute of BiologySection 1 - Justification of major cost items and resourcesDescription of work performed:During first reporting period MBP-NIB has contributed to WPs 2, 3, 5 and 6.WP 1: Participating at meetings in Oban (2 times), Santiago de Compostella, Paris,FlorenceWP 2:- a bibliographic search was done- a wider set of indicators, from which some of them were recognised ascorresponding to all criteria, was prepared- a list of indicators showing impacts of mariculture on the environment wasprepared and incorporated into HOTO table- a list of specific indicators pointing to the impact of mariculture on the tourismassembled- the list of indicators which should be tested during fieldwork (WP5) wasdiscussed among subgroups and finally adoptedWP 3:- historical data about the environment around the fish farm were extracted fromavailable databases- some basic statistics was done on these data- HOTO table for experimental area was made- a list of indicators was prepared- a list of specific indicators pointing to the impact of tourism on the mariculturewas assembledWP 5:- investigated suitability of sites along Slovenian coast for testing and validatingindicators and models- provided all requested data for site description to WP leader- the site for fieldwork was selected and the agreement with the owner of fish farmwas achieved, the material for sampling and ORP instrument were purchased- first sampling was performed in October 2005; it included sampling in the watercolumn and sediment. The measurements in the water column were performedtwice in the period of 3 hours (before and after feeding the fish) in order to getinformation, when to sample. A new method of simultaneous sampling forparameters in water column was developed and tested. A method using digital stillcamera and graphical software was tested with an aim to develop a simpleindicator of differences in quantity and quality of suspended matter that is retainedon filters- fish farm owner changed, new negotiations were necessary and finallyagreement was signed12

- second sampling with an aim to collect environmental data around fish farm inlow temperature conditions (early April) was done. A very wide range ofparameters were measured in the water column and sediment as well- reports describing the study sites were delivered- the book of protocols was discussed in the group and the comments were sent tothe WP leader- preparation of field work plans for summer samplingWP 6:- a list of stakeholders was compiled and delivered to WP leader- met with fish farmers and some other stakeholders (NGOs and governmentofficials)- the project is presented on MBS website- the newsletters were translated into Slovenian language and presented on thewebsite- the project was presented at scientific and technical meetings- the project was presented to students of Marine Ecology at Polytechnic NovaGorica and some of them were participating to the fieldwork and data analyses.Table 3: Budget vs Actual CostsCost Budget follow up table*) total budget figures – not EC fundingContract No: Acronym DatePARTICIPANTSBUDGETACTUAL COSTS(EUR)Pct spentTYPE OFEXPENDITURE(as defined byparticipants)Period 1Period 2Period3Period 4TotalTotalRemaining budget(EUR)Part 1e a1 b1 c1 d1 e1a1+b1+c1=d1/e e-e1Total person 21 14,4 68,5monthPersonnel costs 67966 40543.83 59.6 27422Consumables 14900 3773.35 25.3 11127Travel 10200 6619.32 64.9 3581Indirect costs 79948 42588,27 53.3 37360Total costs 176414 93542.77Partner Staff InvolvedPartner Staff involved Position4. NIBAlenka MalejPrincipal InvestigatorJanez ForteCoordination/managementBranko CermeljPrincipal InvestigatorValentina TurkPrincipal InvestigatorVlado MalacicPrincipal InvesrigatorNives KovacSupport ScientistVesna Flander Putrle Support ScientistTechnicians (Avcin,Makovec, Maslo)Technicians13

Partner 5IFM-GEOMAR Keil UniversityDescription of work performedIFM-GEOMAR (Partner 5) contributed to WP1 by setting up and maintaining mailinglists for general discussions and for subgroups to discuss specific problems.Furthermore a Wiki has been set up to facilitate writing publications within a group.For WP2 IFM-GEOMAR (Partner 5) suggested two indicators, “validated distance”and “risk of escapes” and delivered corresponding indicator sheets. The usability of aGeographic Information System (GIS) for identifying spatial conflicts betweenmariculture and ecological sensitive areas has been considered.For WP3 IFM-GEOMAR (Partner 5) gathered the information required for the HOTOtable.In collaboration with SAMS, IFM-GEOMAR (Partner 5) contributed to WP4 byconsidering the feeding activity of wild fish and data on settling velocity of faecesfrom sea bass and sea bream in DPOMOD. In collaboration with SAMS and membersof the ICES Working Group for Environmental Interaction of Mariculture IFM-GEOMAR reviewed the available models for assessing the carrying capacity forshellfish farming on physical, production, ecological and social and identifiedresearch needs.For WP5 IFM-GEOMAR (Partner 5) investigated the suitability of two sites in theGerman Wadden Sea (Sylt and Wilhelmshaven) for testing and validating indicatorsand models, gathered background information and identified possible impacts on theenvironment. IFM-GEOMAR contributed to the ECASA book of protocols withprocedures for phototransects, use of sediment traps, and visual/acoustic mapping.WP 6 DisseminationIFM-GEOMAR contributed to WP6 by contacting and informing stakeholders inGermany, setting up a webpage on ECASA, and publishing in collaboration withSAMS a paper on settling velocity of fish faeces and implementations for modellingand a review paper on modelling of carrying capacity of shellfish farming.14

Cost Budget follow up table*) total budget figures – not EC fundingContract No: 6540 Acronym ECASA Date 19.06.2006PARTICIPANTSBUDGETACTUAL COSTS(EUR)Pct spentTYPE OFEXPENDITURE(as defined byparticipants)Period 1Period2Period 3Period 4TotalTotalRemaining budget(EUR)Part 5IFM-GEOMARe a1 b1 c1 d1 e1a1+b1+c1=d1/e e-e1Total person24,0 9,9 9,9 14,1monthPersonnel costs 127000,00 49121,87 49121,87 77878,13Major cost itemTravel 9000,00 1897,11 1897,11 7102,89Major cost itemconsumabels 3000,00 0,00 0,00 3000,00Indirect costs 27800,00 10203,80 10203,80 17596,20Total costs 166800,00 61222,78 61222,78 105577,22Partner Staff InvolvedPartner Staff involved Position5. IFM-GEOMAR Dietrich Schnack Local CoordinatorHelmut Thetmeyer Principal InvestigatorCarsten Schirnick computer technicianRuediger KunzepostmasterKerstin Nachtigall laboratory technicianHeide Roemlingfinancial administration15

Partner 6 AkvaplanSection 1 - Justification of major cost items and resourcesWork performed :Akvaplan niva has contributed to all workpackages.WP1: participating in planning and follow up of Ecasa project by joining the SSGmeetings in Oban (2 times), Edinburgh, Amsterdam and Florence (by Mr. Køgelerand Mr. Fieler).WP2: Commented on indicators (by Mr. Emblow).WP3: Delivered written input to leader of WP 3 on factors which influenceaquaculture. This has been done by collecting and aggregating data about Norwegianaquaculture form several official databases. Data were such as profits, production,investments, conflict regulation, damages done to farms, escaping fish, etc. (by Mr.Fieler).WP4: Participating in discussions about input, output and interpretation from models(by Mr. Emblow) at the intensive workshop in Oban.WP5: Planning and preparation of field study at the North Norwegian site which is aintensively used production site for salmon.WP6: Dissemination in Norway by dialogue with Ministry of Environment,Directorate of Fisheries, Norwegian Fisheries College, The Norwegian Fish-farmersOrganisation (FHL-havbruk), the Norwegian branch of WWF and NorwayInnovation. Co-ordination of dissemination for all countries by follow up onstakeholder groups and planning of final meeting at the end of the project.Major cost items for Akvaplan niva are ascribed to travel costs. Akvaplan nivaparticipated in all except one SSG meetings.Explanation of the impact of major deviations:There are no major deviations between budget and actual costs for Akvaplan niva.WP 5 – field work will be conducted this summer and has been budgeted as this.Table 3: Budget vs Actual CostsCost Budget follow up table*) total budget figures – not EC fundingContract No: 006540 Acronym: ECASA Date: 31.05.2006PARTICIPANTSBUDGETACTUAL COSTS(EUR)Pct spentTYPE OFEXPENDITURE(as defined byparticipants)Period1Period2Period3Period 4TotalTotalRemaining budget(EUR)Partner 6Akvaplane a1 b1 c1 d1 e1a1+b1+c1=d1/e e-e1Total person 10 3,5 3,5 35 6,5monthPersonnel costs 118 882 41 608 41 35 77 272608Major cost item 14 700 5 521 5 38 9 179travel521Major cost item‘Y’Other costs (therest)4 800 0 0 0 4 800Total costs 138 382 47 129 4791 25112916

Partner Staff InvolvedPartner Staff involved Position6. Akvaplan Jos KoeglerPrincipal InvestigatorReinhold FielerPrincipal InvestigatorChris EmblowPrincipal Investigator17

Partner 7 University of HaifaSection 1 - Justification of major cost items and resourcesDescription of the work performed 12.04 – 5.06WP1 – coordination activities. Attended all of the Steering Group (SSG) meetings andhelped coordinate activities related to workpackages 2, 3, and 4. As leader ofworkpackage 5, coordinated activities related to study site selection, selection ofindicators and protocols, preparation of fieldwork plans.WP2 – selection of indicators of aquaculture impacts. Participated in the discussionsof the following subgroups, focused on selection of indicators of aquaculture impacts:water quality, sediment geochemistry, benthos. Testing the use of foraminifera as ameans to assess benthic effects. Developing the means to measure sediment oxygendemand as an indicator of sediment loading.WP3 – indicators of ecosystem effects on aquaculture. Prepared a summary ofecosystem interactions with aquaculture in Israel and am working on collation of ametadatabase on environmental variables measured around fish farms in Israel.WP4 – selection of best tools (e.g. models) for predicting aquaculture – environmentinteractions. Worked with Bill Silvert on the development of a) a fuzzy logic tool toquantitatively assess benthic impact of fish farms and b) a fuzzy rule set foraquaculture management.WP5 – testing and validating ECASA tools. Orchestrated selection of study sites,compilation of study site descriptions, screening of study sites for final list,compilation of book of protocols for fieldwork, organized fieldwork plans with thepartners, participated in preparation of study site form (expanded EIA format).WP6 – outreach and dissemination activities. Met with Israeli fish farmers, otherstakeholders, NGO representatives and government officials to discuss the ECASAproject. Presented the ECASA project to colleagues and audiences at severalinternational scientific meetings. Organized a meeting of Israeli stakeholdersscheduled for autumn 2006 to air matters of concern and to describe ECASAdeliverables to this forum.• Explanatory note on any major cost items such as important equipmentpurchases, major travel costs, large consumable items etc., justifying theirnecessity to the project.Major items purchased for the project include:a. A Hydrolab multi-parameter CTD for measuring water quality at field sites. Thisinstrument measures temperature, salinity, depth, dissolved oxygen and chlorophylland is being used in the ECASA project to test indicators for fish farm impacts.b. Travel expenses incurred thus far have been to attend ECASA meetings in Europeand to carry out fieldwork in Israel.There have been no major deviations from either cost budget or person monthbudgets, thus far, however, it is anticipated that there will be a shifting of some of theperson months from WP4 (13 p-mo) to WP5 (12 p-mo). Moreover, the time dedicated18

to coordination activities has exceeded expectations and some of the p-mo’s allocatedto WP4 will be used for coordination activities.Table 3: Budget vs Actual CostsCost Budget follow up table*) total budget figures – not EC fundingContract No:006540 Acronym ECASA DatePARTICIPANTSBUDGETACTUAL COSTS(EUR)Pct spentTYPE OFEXPENDITURE(as defined byparticipants)Period1Period2Period3Period 4TotalTotalRemaining budget(EUR)Partner 7Haifae a1 b1 c1 d1 e1a1+b1+c1=d1/e e-e1Total person 33 18.5 56% 14.5monthPersonnel costs 105,200 43,697 41% 61,503Major cost item 14,700 3,151‘X’Major cost item 20,000 6,679‘Y’Other costs (therest)60,740 26,103Total costs 200,640 81,224 40% 119,416Partner Staff InvolvedPartner Staff involved Position7. Haifa Dror AngelPrincipal Investigator,WPLShirra FreemanSupport ScientistJohn TresmanSupport ScientistSteve BreitsteinSupport StaffAmir YurmanSupport Staff19

Description of the workPartner 8 University of CreteWP 1Participation in the following meetings of the Scientific Steering Group:Paris, 6/4/2005Amsterdam, 21-22/10/2005Oban, 27/1/2006Florence, 8/5/2006WP 2A bibliographic survey was carried out in order to compile information on the existingand potential aquaculture impacts on the environment. For each type of impact adescription was made with regard to the following aspects:level of scientific documentationbiotic communities affectedtype of impact (i.e. negative, positive)spatial scale of the effectrelevance to different types of aquacultureA further bibliographic search was carried out on indicators suitable for detectingeffects of aquaculture on marine ecosystemsTwo indicators were described and submitted for consideration to the coordinator ofWP2, namely BFI and TOCConsiderable work was performed on reviewing the initial WP2 list of indicators andfor selecting the appropriate set of indicators.WP 3Since UoC is the leader of this workpackage, considerable work was dedicated toorganise and coordinate the activities within this package. This was achieved throughthe following actions:Preparation of a work plan for effectively addressing the workpackage objectivesPreparation of guidelines for facilitating the involvement of partnersAllocation of tasks among partners for achieving workpackage goalsContinuous communication with the partners through meetings and electronic mail forensuring progress of work.Furthermore, the UoC team:Carried out an extensive bibliographic review on the water quality of coastal areas,the environmental sources of pressure on aquaculture, the intensity, severity and scaleof each potential pressure with regard to the type of ecosystem and type ofaquacultureCommunicated with several industrial sources (i.e. farmers, stakeholders, insurancecompanies) in order to collect data on the observed sources of damages foraquaculture farmsCompiled and analysed all the data deriving from partners contributionProduced Deliverables 6 & 1120

Created a bibliographic database with the most relevant and comprehensive referencesof aquaculture – environment interactions.WP 4Work under this workpackage has mainly concentrated on the meta-analysis ofexisting data. More specifically:An appropriate set of data was selected for the purposes of the analysis from a largerdata set which is available to the teamCommunication with partners was established for receiving biological andgeochemical data of relevanceA worksheet was produced for use in the collection of dataPreliminary analysis was carried out after compiling and organising data receivedfrom several ECASA partners.WP 5A list with potential study sites in Greece was compiled and sent to WP 5 leaderThree study sites in Greece were described and submitted for consideration to theleader of the workpackage. Towards this end, it was essential to gather information onthe:existence of historical dataproduction sizeenvironmental characteristicsaccessibility to the farmscooperation with the farmersAfter the selection of two study sites in Greece, the managers of the farms werecontacted for initial arrangementsTwo protocols have been produced by UoC team for inclusion in the book ofprotocols, namely:A protocol for the study of meiofaunaProtocol for bioassays studies with phytoplanktonThe book of protocols was reviewed and comments were submitted to the WP5 leaderThe two Greek study sites were visited for investigating the options for carrying outthe whole fieldwork proposed during the field workshop in ObanA fieldwork plan was prepared and submitted to the leader of the workpackageUoC was set in charge for organising the meiofauna sampling throughout all theECASA study sites. All the partners with a study site have been contacted andprovided with all the relevant information for carrying out this taskWP 6A list of stakeholders that should be informed on ECASA project was compiled andsubmitted to the workpackage leaderMembers of UoC team has approached and informed the stakeholders of the abovelist as well as a considerable number of academics, researchers and regulators on thepurposes and objectives of ECASA project (more details can be found in the table ofdissemination activities)The following abstract was submitted and a presentation was subsequently deliveredat the international conference AQUA 2006:Katerina Sevastou, Ioannis Karakassis, Maria Panagiotidou, Angel Borja, Dror Angel,Roberto Pastres, Kenneth D. Black. Impact of the environment on aquaculture:21

Preliminary Indicators from ECASA project. AQUA 2006, International Conference& exhibition of European Aquaculture Society & World Aquaculture society,Florence, Italy, 9-13 May 2006The possibility of holding the final stakeholder meeting in Crete, Greece has beenbeing explored through contacts with several local authorities and enterprises in thetourism sector.Explanatory note on major cost itemsEquipmentComputing equipment has been purchased for facilitating work on:Bibliographic surveysData analysisReport and deliverable writing, editing and printingCommunication with partnersEquipment that will be used during the sampling surveys in Greece has been alsopurchased such as Water Samplers (Niskin type) and Secchi diskConsumable itemsMajor costs of this category relate mostly to consumables that will be used duringfieldwork (corers and stoppers for sediment collection). Additionally, writing materialand computing consumables were necessary for carrying out the work performedmostly under work packages 2, 3 and 5.Travel expensesTravel costs relate to:Participation of UoC team in all the ECASA meetings and workshopsVisits to the study sites for carrying out preliminary surveys that were important fordeciding on the sampling design that will be performed under WP 5Meetings with Greek regulators for the purposes of WP 6Participation in the AQUA 2006 international conference during which UoC team hadthe opportunity to inform a wide range of audience on the activities of ECASA, withemphasis given on the preliminary results of WP3.Table 3Cost Budget follow up table*) total budget figures – not EC fundingContract No: 006540 Acronym ECASA Date 31.05.2006ParticipantsBudgetACTUAL COSTS(EUR)Pct spentTYPE OFEXPENDITURE(as defined byparticipants)Period 1Period2Period3Period4TotalTotalRemaining budget(EUR)Part 1UoCe a1 b1 c1 d1 e1Total person 27monthPersonnel costs 53417 19750Major cost item 10000 8176.28‘Computers/Equipment’Major cost item 18333 6741.30‘consumables’Other costs (travel 11000 11126.48costs)Total costs 45794.06a1+b1+c1=d1/ee-e122

Partner Staff InvolvedPartner Staff involved Position8. UoC Ioannis Karakassis WP3 leaderKaterina Sevastou Principal InvestigatorIoanna KalantziSupport scientistIoulios Glampedakis Research assistantNafsika Papageorgiou Support scientist23

Partner 9 Plymouth Marine Laboratory (PML)Section 1 - Justification of major cost items and resourcesWP4Towards WP4, Partner 9 (PML) has contributed time towards separate workinggroups helping to identify appropriate water quality and benthic indicators and modelsfor testing.In addition, both as part of ECASA and other projects, Partner 9 (PML) has spenttime developing ShellSIM TM a generic model structure that may be calibrated forseparate species of bivalve shellfish to simulate how feeding behaviour, biodeposition,excretion, reproduction and growth respond to changes in food quantity,food quality, temperature and salinity.To help calibrate ShellSIM TM for species of interest within ECASA, Partner 9 (PML)has undertaken experimental field work in Scotland (Loch Creran), as is described forWP5 below, with a view to predicting the growth and environmental interrelations foreach bivalve species under their normal environmental conditions of culture.Meetings have been held in Oban and Edinburgh to discuss the coupling ofShellSIM TM with farm and ecosystem models in collaborations involving Partners 9(PML), Partner 3 (NUE), Partner 10 (IMAR), Partner 14 (UNIVE) and Partner 15(UBI).Partner 9 (PML) has not been party to any deviations from the WP4 projectworkprogramme.WP5Towards WP5, Partner 9 (PML) has spent time helping to agree upon relevantprotocols, and contributing specific protocols that have been accepted by ECASA formeasuring available concentrations of total particulate matter (TPM), particulateorganic matter (POM), particulate organic carbon (POC) and chlorophyll.Before experimental measures on bivalve feeding could be made to calibrateShellSIM TM by Partner 9 (PML), new equipment was needed, including newexperimental flow-through chambers and a multi-parameter probe for experimentalstudies. The rationale behind these needs was as follows. Environmental parametersaffecting bivalve feeding and growth are temperature, salinity, chlorophyll andsuspended particulate matter, such that an instrument capable of real-timemeasurements of all these parameters is a great asset to this experimental` work. Theinstrument was trialled, purchased and calibrated in part using ECASA resources. Inaddition, recent reviews on the measurement of filtration rate in bivalves havehighlighted the potential variation and reliability problems associated with thedifferent methods used and different experimental conditions. This has stimulated alively debate on the subject and emphasised the need for careful design in both flowthroughchamber geometry and experimental methods. To address these issues andensure that measurements meet the suggested strict criteria, Partner 9 (PML) has redesignedand improved its experimental system, undertaking laboratory trials toconfirm the validity of its measures, such that results will be acceptable through peerreview.To further develop, drive and calibrate ShellSIM TM , Partner 9 (PML) has undertakenexperimental measures of dynamic physiological responses in the feeding behaviour24

of mussels (Mytilus edulis) and oysters (Crassostrea gigas), in association with localpartners at a field site on Loch Creran (Scotland).Partner 9 (PML) has spent time informing other partners that to initiate, calibrate andvalidate ShellSIM TM , data are required that define culture scenarios (i.e. size of seed,time of seeding, size at harvest, time at harvest, culture densities and mortality rates),environmental parameters (i.e. water temperature, salinity, suspended chlorophyll a,suspended particulate organic carbon) and shellfish growth throughout normal culture.Partner 9 (PML) has been working with Partner 10 (IMAR) to integrate ShellSIM TMwithin FARM TM (Farm Aquaculture Management Resource Model), with a view tofacilitating prospective analysis in the citing of culture, optimising density anddistribution in existing farms and environmental assessment of farm-related effects onwater quality and ecosystem status. Partner 9 (PML) has spent time working withPartners 10 (IMAR), 12 (IFREMER) and 14 (UNIVE) to plan the comparison ofShellSIM TM with other models of bivalve shellfish physiology.Partner 9 (PML) has not been party to any deviations from the WP5 projectworkprogramme.Cost Budget follow up table*) total budget figures – not EC fundingContract No:6540 Acronym ECASA Date 31/5/06PARTICIPANTSBUDGETACTUAL COSTS(EUR)Pct spentTYPE OFEXPENDITURE(as defined byparticipants)ePeriod 1Period2Period3Period4TotalTotalRemaining budget(EUR)Part 9PMLa1b c d1 e1a1+b1+c1=d1/e e-e11 1Total person 26.5 10 10 16.5monthPersonnel cost 116445 62856 62856 46 53589Overhead / 132748 71656 71656 53 61092indirect costsOther costs (therest)30000 9903 9903 33 20097Total costs 279193 144415 144415 51 134778Partner Staff InvolvedPartner Staff involved Position9. PML Tony HawkinsPrincipal InvestigatorPhil PascoeScientistHelen ParryScientist25

Partner 11Central Institute for Marine Research (ICRAM)The ICRAM is involved only in the workpackage 5 and the main part of the work willbe carried out during the summer 2006.In the period between 1 December 2004 and 31 May 2006 ICRAM performed thefollowing activities:- attendance at the ECASA meetings (Paris, 07/04/05-10/04/05; Santiago deCompostela 17/06/05-20/06/05; Oban 23/01/06-29/01/06; Florence 09/05/06);- meeting with fish farmer directly involved in ECASA field operation(Bisceglie 20/04/06-21/04/06);- Involvement in ECASA discussion on indicators for water quality, sedimentgeochemistry and benthos;- Discussion on identifying and quantifying the most relevant indicators of themariculture interactions (positive and negative) on ecosystem consideringphysical, chemical and biological factors;- Contribution to book of protocols drafting;- Meeting with involved fish farmers;- Organization field activities.To carry out the analysis for the next ECASA sampling campaign (Bisceglie, June 2006)some chemical consumables were purchased.Cost Budget follow up table*) total budget figures – not EC fundingContract No:006540 Acronym ECASA Date 31.05.06BudgetRemaininACTUAL COSTSPct spent g budget(EUR)(EUR)ParticipantsPart 11TYPE OFEXPENDITURE(as defined byparticipants)Total personmonthPersonnel costs 112052Major cost item‘X’Major cost item‘Y’Other costs (therest)Period1Period2Period3Period4Totale a1 b1 c1 d1 e111 2.52360014348Total costs 150000Method to determine indirect costsICRAMoverhead(According tothe last signedAnalyticalbalance) (A)ICRAMPersonnel costs(According tothe last signedAnalyticalbalance) (B)29736.809812.5324681.5464230.87(A:B)=percentage toPut onPersonnel Costsin reportingperiod (C)PersonnelCosts inreportingperiod (D)64230.87Totala1+b1+c1=d1/ee-e164230.87 85769.13(CxD)=Indirect costs2.545.752,43 3.040.820,77 83,00% To be filled To be filled28

MAJOR COSTITEMTravel andaccommodation(A)Laboratoryconsumables(B)Equipment (C)DETAILSParis (meetingECASA 2 person)Santiago deCompostela(meeting ECASAand ASLOsummer meeting2 person)Oban (meetingECASA 2 person,ECASA trainingcourse 1 person)Bisceglie(ECASA meetingwith fish farmers,2 person)Firenze (meetingECASA 2 person)Consumables forauto-analyzer andCHN-SinstrumentsSulphideelectrodeCOST €1787.672337.782373.99382.50181.651726.541022.40Total (A+B+C) 9812.53Total budgetSee table“Allocation ofbudget betweenpartners forresearchactivities” ofECASA ProjectANNEX 123600.00NECESSITY TO ECASAOrganized by the coordinator to discuss:chemical, biological and socio economicindicators (WP2, 3, 4, 5)Organized by the coordinator to discuss:chemical, biological and socio economicindicators, book of protocols (WP2, 3, 4, 5).Attendance at the ASLO summer meeting2005Organized by the coordinator to discuss:preparation of book of protocols for ECASAfield study, study site selection.Attendance at the “Field and modellingworkshop” organized by ECASA modellersOrganized by ICRAM to discuss the nextfield study survey that will be carried out atthe Bisceglie fish farm “Copromar”.Organized by the coordinator to discuss:field study survey.The consumables will be used to performthe Bisceglie fish farm samples chemicalanalysis.The electrode will be used to measure theBisceglie fish farm samples sulphide.Obtained by the sum of : “travel”,“consumables”, “equipment”, “auditing” ofthe table “Allocation of budget betweenpartners for research activities” of ECASAProject ANNEX 129

Partner Staff InvolvedPartner Staff involved Position11. ICRAM Salvatore Porrello Team coordinatorPaolo Tomassetti Principal InvestigatorEmma PersiaPrincipal InvestigatorIsabel MercataliPrincipal InvestigatorPaola GennaroPrincipal InvestigatorDanilo VaniSupport Scientist30

Partner 12 IFREMERWork performed by partner 12, IFREMER during the period.During the first reporting period, the partner 12, IFREMER has contributed toall workpackages, as it was initially scheduled. The partner was represented to allplenary meetings (Oban, Paris, Santiago de Compostella, Oban, Florence) by two orthree scientists, and to all but one meeting, of the Steering Committee.WP1 : IFREMER has the responsibility to lead the Workpackage 2. As such, it is amember of the Steering Committee, and is involved in the workpackage 1(coordination). Alain Bodoy has participated to all the corresponding meetings,excepted one in August 2005. As part of this work in the workpackage 1, severalcontributions have been given, according to the minutes of the different meeting(Steering group and plenary group):WP2 : IFREMER was deeply involved in this workpackage, both as leader and ascontributor. The main contribution was to structure the presentation of the differentindicators, through the production of an annotated sheet, for use by all partners,Which was built from different sources, and from the discussion that arose during theWP2 meeting in Paris. Another task has consisted in the selection f different themes,allowing to classify the different indicators according to their subject, and to establishcorresponding subgroups of partners, depending on the available competencies. Abibliographic file on indicators has been compiled and put into the ECASA website.As ECASA partner, IFREMER contributed with the production of the followingindicators:- Monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFAB) as specific indicator of theimpact of aquaculture under cages.- Water use versus water availability- % of shoreline occupied by aquaculture facilities.Another indicator, based on the residence time of the water, is being prepared.WP3 : IFREMER has contributed to the completion of the ‘HOTO” table, byaddressing and commenting the effects of industrials on the marine environment (witha particular attention given to the sensitivity of aquaculture). Unfortunately, no dataswere available from the insurance companies in France, that could have allowed toanalyze the risks factors affecting aquaculture.WP4 : IFREMER has contributed to the different models which are of potential usefor ECASA, by presenting and making available the four different models which werebuilt for use in aquaculture management:• Hydrodynamics models (2D and 3D)• Model of the effect of density and lease size on the growth of mussels rearedin longlines.• Bioenergetic model describing the growth and reproduction of bivalvemolluscs.32

• A population dynamics model of oysters and mussels cultured in the ThaulagoonWP5: For the field test of the different ECASA tools, IFREMER has selected twosites, both being devoted to shellfish culture, mussels and oysters:• A Site of deepwater longline mussel culture (7 000 tonnes), in a macrotidalbay (Pertuis Breton, site 1)• A Site of intertidal intensive trestle culture of oysters and mussels inNormandy, in a macrotidal environment (Baie des Veys, site 2).An initial sampling has been performed in an intertidal area, in order to calibratethe distance between stations, for the true sampling, in a tidal flat submitted tostrong tidal currents.WP6 : In order to comply with its commitments, IFREMER has organized severalmeetings at the national level, aiming at presenting the ECASA tools to differentstakeholders, namely the French syndicate for marine aquaculture, FEAP, and thenational Council for shellfish culture (CNC). The ECASA contracts has also beenpresented on several occasions in front of scientific audiences, to participate to thedissemination of information among the French aquaculture community (see periodicactivity report).• 1-2. Major cost items and their necessity to the project.1-2-1. Cost item 1- Travel expenses.Because of the implications of the partner IFREMER, both in the Steering Group andthe Plenary Group, a large number of travels has been accomplished during the firstreporting period to assist to these meetings, essential for the accomplishment of itsduties. This was absolutely necessary, as the different IFREMER scientists areinvolved in different workpackages. The different IFREMER laboratories in whichthese persons are working, are all disseminated along the coasts. This implies thatevery travel is composed on several segment.Also several journey were devoted to meetings with stakeholders and the aquaculturecommunity at the national level.1-2-2. Cost item 2- Laboratory furniture.During the first period of the contract, many scientific apparatus and productswere bought in order to prepare the validation tests for indicators and models whichare scheduled to occur during summer 2006. Since some of the measurements whichare part of these tests are not routinely performed in the IFREMER lab, thecorresponding analytical products and materials were bought enough in advance toimplement the analytical procedures before these field tests. However, the amountplanned for the first period may have been overestimated.33

• 1-2-3. Table 1: Budget vs Actual CostsCost Budget follow up table*) total budget figures – not EC fundingContract No: 006240 Acronym ECASA Date 31-05-2006PARTICIPANTSBUDGETACTUAL COSTS(EUR)PctspentTYPE OFEXPENDITURE(as defined byparticipants)ePeriod 1Period2Period 3Period4TotalTotalRemainingbudget(EUR)Part 1 :IFREMERa1 b c1 d e1a1+b1+c1=d1/ e-e111eTotal person month 22 14 8 63.63 8Personnel costs 311207 194477.77 194477.77 62.49 116.729.43Major cost item ‘X’ 35000 18026.66 18026.66 51.5 16973.34Major cost item ‘Y’ 60000 22253.34 22253.34 37.09 37746.66Other costs (the rest) 10000 4016.10 4016.10 40.16 5983.9Total costs 416207 238773.67 238773.67 57.37 177433.331-3. Deviations from cost budget.An amount was allocated by mistake in the original budget for computing expenses.This has been readjusted to other costs, excluding expenses for personnel.Also the planned expense for the Consumables were overestimated, which lead to apercentage of use of 40 %. It is envisaged that the partner will submit a proposal inorder to increase the personnel expenses during the second period, at the expense ofthe consumables, in a proportion that agrees with the original whole budget1-4. Deviations from person-month budget.1-4. Deviations from person-month budget.WP2 was initially scheduled to end after one year of contract. However, similarcontracts are running at the same time (CONSENSUS) and it has been decided topostpone to end of the collect of information on indicators in order to allow inputfrom Consensus, GESAMP, ICES and other relevant working groups into thedeliverable D10. The version of this deliverable D10submitted to the EU along withthe 18 month report deadline shall be an initial draft (cf minutes of the Steeringcommittee meeting, 8 May 2006 in Florence), and the forecast delivery date isscheduled for the 31 of July 2007. As a consequence, it is envisaged that more timewill be needed for this workpackage and an addendum to the contract will beproposed during summer 2006 to the coordinator.No deviations were observed between planned and actual person-monthsdedicated to the WP3, WP4, WP5 and WP6 during the first reportingperiod. But an unscheduled event will modify the person-month budget for34

the second reporting period. One of the two senior scientists will retire earlier thenplanned, and will not be available for the ECASA tasks in 2007. It is thereforenecessary to hire a scientist in 2007 for the 5 person-months which should have beenrealised by Jean-Louis Martin. It is proposed that he corresponding amount of moneywill be transferred from the laboratory expenses, within the same allocated budget.Partner Staff InvolvedPartner Staff involved Position12. IFREMER Alain BodoyWorkpackage leaderJean-Louis Martin Principal investigatorAline gangneryPrincipal investigatorLucette JoassardTechnical staffDidier LegayTechnical staffMartine BreretTechnical staff35

Partner 13 AZTISection 1 - Justification of major cost items and resourcesWP 2 Identifying and quantifying the most relevant indicators of the interactions ofaquaculture on ecosystemsAZTI has contributed with a selection of benthic and sediment indicators, describingthem and incorporating a description of the scientific meaning, the computation andthe parameters required in the computation, range of validity, accuracy, etc. We havecoordinated the collation of the benthic indicators within the project, selecting themost suitable for ECASA application. AZTI members have actively participated inthe discussion of such indicators, suggesting the best way to apply them and datanecessary for application. We have collated also some data from Scotland, Italy andGreece for the application of AMBI as indicator for assessing benthic impacts, and wehave calculated and compared results.WP 3 Identifying and quantifying the main driving forces of ecosystem changesinfluencing the aquaculture sector and developing the appropriateWe have provided data to the WP leader about stakeholders, driving forces, problemsassociated to the aquaculture in Spain, including data from insurance.WP 4 Assessing the applicability (efficiency, cost effectiveness, robustness,practicality, feasibility, accuracy, precision, etc) of such indicators and developingoperational tools, e.g. models, establishing the functional relationship betweenenvironment and aquaculture activities.We have organised a meeting between Scottish and Spanish partners for modellingcomparison, in June 2005. We have developed the TRIMODENA model, includingsediment and particle transport to assess the impact on benthic communities,including AMBI. We have checked the results using a submarine outfall near SanSebastián, in which we have many data (currents, hydrography, pollutants, benthiccommunities, etc.) over years. We have participated in the definition of the indicatorsassociated to the modelling.WP 5 Testing and validating these tools in order to include them in a methodologyfor Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) and effective site selection.We have made the necessary contacts with farms and authorities looking for asampling location. Finally we have sampled, in early April, in Garrucha (Almería) ina tuna farm. We have obtained data from water, sediments and benthos, together withcurrents. Now we are analysing samples. We have participated also in the book ofprotocols for sampling and analysis.• Explanatory note on any major cost items such as important equipment purchases,major travel costs, large consumable items etc., justifying their necessity to theproject.36

Major travel costs are associated to regular meetings within the project: Oban(December 2004; January 2006); Santiago de Compostela (June, 2005), Florence(May, 2006), etc. There is important also the expenses for the sampling survey inAlmería, including the transport of the boat.Table 3: Budget vs Actual CostsCost Budget follow up table*) total budget figures – not EC fundingContract No: 006540 Acronym: ECASA Date: 31-05-2006PARTICIPANTSBUDGETACTUAL COSTS(EUR)Pct spentTYPE OFEXPENDITURE(as defined byparticipants)Period 1Period 2Period3Period 4TotalTotalRemainingbudget (EUR)Part 13:AZTIe a1 b1 c1 d1 e1a1+b1+c1=d1/e e-e1Total person 26 11,53 11,53 0,44 14,47monthPersonnel costs 110.990 44.383,00 44.383,00 0,40 66.607,00Travel 13.000 5.336,31 5.336,31 0,41 7.663,69Recurrent 3.000 0,00 3.000,00Auditing 1.000 0,00 1.000,00Subcontracting 13.500 0,00 13.500,00Overheads 88.795 48.253,00 48.253,00 0,54 40.542,00Total costs 230.285 97.972,31 97.972,31 132.312,69Partner Staff InvolvedPartner Staff involved Position13. AZTI Angel BorjaHead of ProjectManuel González Head of the ModellingAreaJulien MaderSenior ScientistLuis FerrerScientistJuan BaldSenior ScientistIñigo MuxikaJunior ScientistVictoriano Valencia Head of LaboratoryNote: there are also severalmembers of the samplingteam staff and laboratorytechnicians, together withsome punctual scientistcollaboration (datacollation, etc.)37

Partner 14DCF_UNIVE, University of Venice1. Justification of major costsWP2A set of indicators of environmental impact to be applied to long-line mussel culturewas preliminary identified, based both on the general literature and on the results ofsite-specific studies. This set included: chlorophyll a in water column, ammonia andSRP (Soluble Reactive Phosphorus) in sediment pore water, Eh profile in sediment,Total Organic Carbon, Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus in sediment. Theindicators concerning the impact on sediment were included in a list, which wassubsequently discussed within the “sediment subgroup”, led by R. Pastres(DCF_UNIVE) and Chris Cromey (SAMS). After discussion within the sedimentsubgroup, the following indicators, initially proposed by us, were selected: Eh, TotalOrganic Carbon, Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus. The above indicators weredescribed in detail and included in the Deliverable 7.WP3Information about risks and sources of damage and main environmental factorsaffecting long-line mussel culture along the North-Western Adriatic coastline havebeen collected. The major environmental issues concerning this area have beenidentified, on the basis of literature. Data bases regarding these issues have also beenidentified. A short review concerning the impact of fishery on ecosystem servicesessential for aquaculture was compiled and sent to the WP3 leader.WP4The literature concerning individual based and population dynamic models ofmussel was carefully reviewed. On this basis, an individual based model forsimulating the growth of Mitylus Galloprovincialis was identified.The literature concerning the modeling of phytoplankton dynamics in theAdriatic sea was carefully reviewed. On this basis, a (Nitrogen, Phytoplankton,Zooplankton), or NPZ, model was identified and calibrated against time series ofchlorophyll a, measured along the NW Adriatic coast. This work was carried incollaboration with the DYN group at the International Institute of Applied SystemAnalysis, in Laxenburg, (Austria).A transport model was developed, in order to simulate the advection anddispersion of a passive tracer along the North West Adriatic coast. Hydrodynamicinput data are provided by a 2D model of the Adriatic, which is being developed byour research group, in collaboration with the Institut für Meereskunde der UniversitätHamburg.The transport model was coupled with a reaction module, whichsimulates phytoplankton and seston dynamics and takes into account the effectof mussel filtration.In collaboration with SAMS, the model DEPOMOD was modified in order toallow the estimation of the fluxes of organic matter from a long-line mussel farm tothe sediment. Preliminary results were used for orienting the choice of the stations tobe sampled at the Chioggia site.38

The performances of the model BRNS, freely available at the GeochemistryDept. University of Utrecht webpage ( wereinvestigated, in view to use this model for estimating the release of Nitrogen fromsediment impacted by finfish and shellfish farms.WP5.After discussion within the sediment subgroup, the following indicators, initiallyproposed by us, were selected: Eh, organic carbon, total nitrogen and totalphosphorus. The procedures for measuring the above indicators were described indetail and included in the book of protocols (Deliverable 9). Socio-economic data andenvironmental data about long-line mussel farming in Italy were collected. On thisbasis, we proposed to include the VI.S.MA long-line mussel farm, located near thetown of Chioggia (Northern Italy) as a site to be included in the set of ECASA studysites. A detailed site description and a description of available historic data weresubmitted to WP5 leader. This information is presented in Deliverable 8. A detailedfield work plan was set out. A pre-survey was carried out, in order to select thesampling sites in the most efficient way. The following sediment variables werecollected at 20 stations (top 1 cm): granulometry, water content, ash, Total Carbon,Organic Carbon, Inorganic Carbon, Total Nitrogen, Total Phosphorus, InorganicPhosphorus, Total Sulphur. Furthermore, vertical profiles (top 5 cm) of the abovevariables, plus Dissolved Oxygen, Dissolved Organic Carbon, sulphides, TotalDissolved Nitrogen and Phosphorus were measured at two stations. Vertical profilesof Eh, pH and T profiles (0-5 cm) were measured at all 20 stations. The water columnwas sampled at two sites, in order to test the CTD probe.Major cost explanatory noteMajor costs concerned the following items:Travel. Two third of the budget was spent in the first reporting period (see thecost budget Table). The major costs, about 65% of the total spent, concerned theparticipation to the project meetings held in Oban (December 2004), Paris (April2005), Santiago de Compostela (June 2005) and Florence (May 2006). About 15%was invested in important collaborations with two research institute: the InternationalInstitute for Applied System Analysis (Laxenburg, Austria) and the Institut fürMeereskunde der Universität (Hamburg, Germany).Equipment. Since one of the partner, i.e. ICRAM, made available theirequipment, it was not necessary to buy a CTD probe, as was anticipated at thebeginning of the project. Therefore no major cost is reported.Others. The major cost associated with the item “others”, which includes theitems “Consumable” and “Audit”, is given by a maintenance intervention on a CTDprobe, made available by ICRAM.Major deviations from cost budget and from person per month budgetAs a result of the collaboration with participant 11, ICRAM, it was not necessary toinvest in equipment the budgeted amount. Because of that, it will be possible to carryout a more comprehensive field activity. However, in order to achieve this goal, itwould be necessary to re-allocate most of the equipment budget to consumable, sinceit will be necessary to rent a boat in order to carry out the field work.39

As regards, the person-month, no deviation from the budget concerning WP2 andWP3 has occurred. However, we can anticipate that, partially due to the low taxationof research contract in Italy, it will be possible to obtain more person-month thanbudgeted. This surplus will be invested mainly in WP5, since we planned to monitorthe water column on a monthly basis during the mussel rearing cycle, in order to beable to test the Mytilus Galloprovincialis model.Cost Budget follow up table*) total budget figures – not EC fundingContract No: 006540 AcronymECASA Date 31.05.2006ParticipantsBudgetACTUAL COSTS(EUR)Pct spentTYPE OFEXPENDITURE(as defined byparticipants)Period1Period2Period3Period4TotalTotalRemaining budget(EUR)Partner 14DCF UNIVEe a1 b1 c1 d1 e1a1+b1+c1=d1/e e-e1Total person 48.0 25 25 0.52 23monthPersonnel costs 100000 40052.4005 0.40 59947.15852.85Major cost item 15000 9849.69849. 0.66 5150.37‘Travel’363Major cost item 15000 193.47 193.4 0.01 14806.53‘Equipment’7Other costs (therest)10000 6961.856961.8599.46 38.15Total costs 140000 57057.5705 0.41 82942.2807.80Overview of all resources employed by Participant 14.EquipmentPersonal computers, Laser printers.Personnel One Associated Professor, one experiencedresearcher.Global estimate of all costs: 42.000 Euro.Estimated person-months of permanent staff.QualificationMen MonthAssociate Professor 9Experienced Researcher 3Partner Staff InvolvedPartner Staff involved Position14. DCF_UNIVE Roberto PastresPrincipal InvestigatorFabio PranoviPrincipal InvestigatorDaniele BrigolinSupport ScientistLaura SpanoSupport ScientistTomas LovatoSupport Scientist40

Partner 15Rudjer Boskovic InstituteSection 1 - Justification of major cost items and resources• A brief description of the work performed during the period at theworkpackage level.Developed two reduced lists of indicators of effect of fish and shelfish aquacultureson ecosystems as a contribution to WP2. Each list will be used for quantifying effectof corresponding type of aquaculture on marine ecosystem during monitoringexercises. Parameters will also be used for testing models under development. Infuture we expect that lists will be used for routine monitoring under the aquaculturesas each EIA study contains a monitring and remediation requirement.Two lists of indicators of marine ecosystem on fish and shelfish cultures aredeveloped as a contribution to WP3. The lists will be used for defining zones foraquacultures.Both sets of lists developed in WP2 and WP3 are needed for a computation ofcarrying capacity for the corresponding type of aquaculture.KK3D Model of influx of matter to the bottom under the fish aquaculture is thecontribution to WP 4. It employs stochastic equivalent to advection-diffisioninteractionmodel with variable depth. The model is under development especiallywith regard to verification which we plan to complete in the second part of theproject.OE_A Model for predicting Overexploitation of Anchovies has been developed asanother contribution to WP4. Its relation to fin-fish aquacultures is that anchoviesserve as food for tuna farms and hence are a parameter for computing carryingcapacity of aquacultures in the Adriatic.It is anticipated that aquacultures will increase in future and hence the developedmodel and a similar model for sardines will become even more important forcomputing carrying capacity.A model for computation of carrying capacity of aquacultures in a mezo scale withregard to oxygen depletion is being developed and tested as a contribution to WP5.Major model tests are sheduled for the second part of the project when a complete setof relevant in situ data are obtained.• Explanatory note on any major cost items such as important equipmentpurchases, major travel costs, large consumable items etc.- Sediment traps were purchased for the purpose of testing the KK3D model with insitu data.42

-Data loggers were purchased for obtaining the data on tides during experimentsunder the aquacultures. This is needed in conjunction with ADCP current meters forbetter resolving tidal currents.- Travel to ECASA Paris meeting by T. Legović was needed for planning and firstresults of the project.- Travel to ECASA Modelling and monitoring workshop by M. Jusup was needed toget a first hand experience on models that other partners have developed and toexchange information on monitoring protocols.- The purpose of participation to the European Ecological Modelling Conference byM. Jusup, J. Klanjšček and T. Legović was to present results of our modellingachievements in agreement to obligation of the project to disseminate our results toscientific community.- Field trip of T. Legović to Philippines was undertaken in ored to learn of thecomputational difficulties in calculating carrying capacity of aquacultures. Only aminor part of the expense was charged to ECASA project.- The purpose of participation of M. Jusup, J.klanjšček and T. Legović to the ECASAmid-term meeting in Florence was to exchange information on results of the ECASAproject and determine the status of the project with regard to the plan.• A tabular overview of budgeted costs and actual costs, by Partner and by majorcost item including personnel AC PartnerPermanent staffPlanned/charged Actual Nonpermanent staffT. Legovic 6 months 8 monthsM. Jusup 6 momths 18 monthsJ. Klanjscek 3 months 18 monthsS. Geček 6 months 18 monthsM. Kišević 2• A summary explanation of the impact of major deviations from cost budget andfrom person-month budget, with reference to Section 2 “Workpackage progress”of the accompanying Periodic activity report where the reasons for deviationfrom plan have been explained.Impact of major deviation: We planned monitoring exercise under aquaculturesto be held in October 2005. However, aquaculture owners took a chance to sell theirtuna and we were left with a delay for a whole season. We then took followingcountermeasures: strengthened measurement teams and enriched number ofparameters to be measured, bought new equipment and made sure that other methodsare working. The first monitoring and experimental field trip will start 19.06.2006under aquaculture of sea-bass, the second in july 2006 under shelfish aquacultures andthe third in october 2006 under tuna aquaculture. The location of the tuna aquacultureis at present tentative and it depends on which aquaculture owner suceeds to stocktheir aquaculture with fish.In summary, we turned the deviation in execution of the project versus the originalplan into an advantage for the project.43

Table 3: Budget vs Actual CostsCost Budget follow up table*) total budget figures – not EC fundingContract No: Acronym Date: 31.05.2003Partner 15AC partnerPeriod1Period2Period 3Period 4Total Totale a1 b1 c1 d1 e1a1+b1+c1=d1/e e-e1Personnel costs 17750 3583 3583 0.2 14167Travel 8000 8186 8186 1.02 -186Consumables 3000 629 629 0.2 2371Computers 6000 529 529 0.09 5471Equipment 30500 5430 5430 0.18 25070Sucontractors 11000 0 0 0 11000Indirect costs 9110 3672 3672 0.4 0Total costsFor the whole 91100 22029 22029 0.242 69071Project periodPartner 15: Justification of the difference:Ideally, on the 18 month of 36 project months, if project costs would be distributedhomogeneously, one would expect that half resources were spent. However,It is the second part of the project that will cost significantly more than the first part.Here is the justification:1) Field trips were planned for October 2005 since they have been postponed for thesecond part of the project period due to circumstances beyond our control, there isa great difference in personal costs, equipment, consumables and subcontractors.Since eligible personal costs are due to employment of new asistants and these areconnected to execution of field trips and data analysis, these will charge second partof the project. The same holds for subcontractors and equipment.Equipment has been ordered and sibcontractors work has been sucessfully negotiated,These will charge the project very soon.2) We were able to get by with computers that we have, but some will have to bereplaced and new bought for execution of the second part of the project.3) Travel turned to cost more than we anticipated. These will not be smaller in thesecond part of the project, to the contrary. Hence we will need to reshuffle the coststoward increase in travel and these we will ask on the expense of equipment cost.Partner Staff InvolvedPartner Staff involved Position15. RBI Tarzan LegovicPrincipal investigatorSuncana GecekSupport scientistMarko JusupSupport scientistJasminka Klanjscek Support scientistEmin Teskeredzic Support scientistDonat PetricioliExternal support scientistTatjana BakranExternal support scientistTin KlanjscekSupport scientistTeuta SkorinSupport scientist44

Partner 16University of GoteborgSection 1: Justification of major cost items and resourcesWork packages 2,3: Identification of relevant indicators to assess the effect on waterquality 1) from aquaculture and 2) on aquaculture. We have developed a report onindicators of water quality. The report is on the ECASA Website. , member site. Report: Andersson, H.C., Erlandsson, C.P.,and , Stigebrandt, A. 2006. “Indicator assessment: Sub-group for water quality”Describing evaluation criteria for the set of chosen indicators i.e., 1) Obvioussignificance– clear meaning to authorities, farmers as well as scientists. 2) Realisticcollection or development costs – must be simple and cost effective. 3) Clarity indesign – must be simple to set reliable reference points that can assess the risk ofcurrent status of the indicator relative reference points so that the indicator does notfail to inform about events that have occurred in the real world, or provide falsealarms about events that did not happen. Reference points depend on local conditions.4) High quality and reliability – related to its accuracy/precision/sensitivity of bothmeasurements and modelling results. Could depend on the local conditions. We havedeveloped a method that extends the use of Secchi Depth measurements as anindicator of water quality to areas where the Secchi Depth is influenced by localsupplies of coloured freshwater. The method only requires that the vertical salinityprofile is measured.Published paper: Erlandsson C. P, and A. Stigebrandt, 2006. Increased utility ofSecchi disk to assess eutrophication in coastal waters with freshwater run-off. Journalof Marine Systems 60:19-29.Work package 4: During the project research on water quality and water qualityindicators are and will be performed. The results will be used to improve the models.Published paper: Erlandsson C. P, A. Stigebrandt, and L. Arneborg, 2006. Thesensitivity of minimum oxygen concentrations in a fjord to changes in biotic andabiotic external forcing. Limnol. Oceanogr. 51: 631-638.Papers in progress: Erlandsson, C.P., “The vertical transport of POM regulated byfjord topography”, Erlandsson, C.P. and Stigebrandt, A. “Dynamics of waterexchange in fjord basins”.Gathering of basic data on growth, appetite and respiration for development of fishand shell fish models. The work will be reported during the coming project period.Workpackage 6: Preparation and planning of national and regional meetings with theSwedish water users association, Swedish Board of Fisheries, and relevant countyAdministrative Boards. The meetings are held to present the ideas behind the ECASAproject, and the toolbox and its advantages in decision making.Travelling to ECASA meetings in: Oban, Scotland 2004; Paris, France 2005;Santiago de Compostela, Spain 2005; (Oban, Scotland 2006; Florence, Italy, 2006)A poster was presented at the conference; Aqua 2006, 9-13 May in Florence, based onthe paper: Erlandsson, C.P and Stigebrandt, A., 2006: Increased utility of Secchi disk46

to assess eutrophication in coastal waters with freshwater run-off. Journal of MarineSystems 60:19-29.Cost Budget follow up table*) total budget figures – not EC fundingContract No: Acronym DatePARTICIPANTSBUDGETACTUAL COSTS(EUR)Pct spentTYPE OFEXPENDITURE(as defined byparticipants)ePeriod 1Period2Period3Period4TotalTotalRemaining budget(EUR)Part 16UGOTa1b1c1d1e1a1+b1+c1=d1/eTotal person 21 17monthPersonnel costs 154052 66079.95 66079.95 42.89% 87972.05Consummables 7773 961.38 961.38 12,37% 6811.62Travel 8675 2923.57 2923.57 33.7% 5751.43Equipment 0 796.75 796.75 -796.75Cost certificate 5400 0 5,400Indirect costs 34100 14,152.32 14,152.32 41.5% 19947.68Total costs 210000 84913.96 84913.96 40.44% 125086.04e-e1Summary of deviations from person-month budget• We have charged 17 man months instead of the planned 21 man months, sincemost of the work in WP 4 will be done during the next period.Summary of deviations from cost budget• As the amount of work will increase during the next period, salary costs willrise during that period.• Expected increasing salaries will also increase the salary costs during the nextperiod.• The travelling costs for the spring period 2006 will charged the budget for thenext period.• Unforeseen equipment costs is due to internal routinesPartner Staff InvolvedPartner Staff involved Position16. UGOTAnders Stigebrandt Principal InvestigatorHelén Andersson Principal InvestigatorCarina P. Erlandsson Support ScientistJörgen ÖbergSupport Scientist47

Section 1a. Person month status tableThe following table has been compiled from all contributions received.48

Person-Month Status TableContract No. Partner – Person Month per Work package006540Acronym: ECASAPeriod: 01.12.2004– 31.05.2006TotalsPartner 1Partner 2Partner 3Partner 4Partner 5Partner 6Partner 7Partner 8Partner 9Partner 10Partner 11Partner 12Partner 13Partner 14Partner 15Partner 16AC – own staffAC TotalsPartner 1Partner 2Partner 3Partner 5Partner 7Partner 8Partner 10Partner 14Partner 15Partner 16WorkPackageActualWP total 12 0.5 0.5 2 0.5 0.5 0.7 1 0.5 0.5 01 PlannedWP total 12 0 1 1.5 1 0.5 0.75 1 0WorkPackageActualWP total 4 8 5 4 1.5 0..5 1.5 2 0.5 7 3.67 9 6 1.1 0.2 0.5 1 62 PlannedWorkPackage3 PlannedWorkPackage4 PlannedWorkPackage5 PlannedWorkPackage6 PlannedTotalProjectpersonmonthWP total 4 12 6 4 3 0..5 3.5 1 0 8 6 9 6 1.5 6ActualWP total 4 12 0 2 1 0..5 1 8 3 2 0.86 3 6 0.2 6 1 6WP total 4 8 6 3 6 0..5 1 8 3 2 2 3 6 1 6ActualWP total 3 2.5 11.5 2 0..5 3 2 3 7.5 1 3.25 9 4.5 1.6 0.1 2 1 2 6 3WP total 3 7 8.8 6 2 13 9 8 12 1 8 24 8 4 3 6 3ActualWP total 2 0 8 3 0.5 10 1 7 9.85 2.5 2 3.75 4 1 0.2 3 0.5 3 3WP total 2 0.8 12 13 3 12 6 18 17 10 2 9 9 6 6 3ActualWP total 1 0.5 0 0.3 1.9 1 1 1 1 0 1.5 0 0 0.5 0.2 0 1 1WP total 1 1 1 0.5 2 3 2 2 0.6 1 1.5 1 3 1 1 1Actualtotal 26 23 16.5 14.4 9.9 3.5 18.5 14.5 10 21.45 2.5 14 11.53 25 17 4.4 1.9 6 10 6 22Plannedtotal 26 28 23.3519.5 24 10 33 27 13.2533 5.5 15 26 24 21 13.5 10 1850

More magazines by this user
Similar magazines