NASCO/ISFA Liaison Group

Report of the

Sub Group on Salmon Co-operation (SalCo-Op)

SLG(03)4

Inventory of Co-operative Projects between

Salmonid Aquaculture and Wild Fisheries

January 2003

Prepared by: Margaret Poole, Furnace, Newport, Co. Mayo, Ireland: salcoop@marine.ie Kenneth F. Whelan, Marine Institute, Newport, Co. Mayo, Ireland: ken.whelan@marine.ie Deirdre Cotter, Marine Institute, Newport, Co. Mayo, Ireland: deirdre.cotter@marine.ie

1

2

Table of Contents Acknowledgements 5 Executive Summary 7 Map of the North Atlantic Region 11 Section 1 Introduction 13

1.1 Background 13 1.2 Objectives 13 Section 2 Review 13 2.1 Review Objectives 13

2.2 Review Process 14 2.3 Overview of Projects Identified 14

2.4 Areas Where No Co-operative Projects Were Identified 15

2.5 Co-operative Projects Identified Outside the NASCO/ISFI Jurisdiction 16

Section 3 Analysis of the Review Findings 17 Section 4 Recommendations 18 4.1 Definitions 18 4.2 Identification of Possible Areas for Future Co-operation 19 (A) Area Management 19 (B) Restoration 20 (C) Enhancement 21 (D) Containment 21 (E) Education 21 (F) Research 22 (G) Fish health 24 (H) Accreditation 24 (I) Dissemination of Information 25 Section 5 Conclusions 25 References 26 Appendix 1 Summary of Web Sites Reviewed 27 Appendix 2 Contact List for SalCo-Op Project 35 Appendix 3 Inventory of Projects Identified 43 Appendix 4 Sources of Funding 71

3

4

Acknowledgements

We would like to sincerely acknowledge the contributions of all who submitted information to the project, especially those who were not members of the Liaison Group and who replied to the introductory e-mails. Particular thanks are extended to James Ryan, Malcolm Windsor, Jack Taylor, Sebastian Belle and Richie Flynn for their detailed input to the project, and to the staff of the Marine Institute, for their help and support throughout the project.

5

6

SalCo-Op Project Executive Summary

The SalCo-Op research project was carried out on behalf of the NASCO/International Salmon Farmers Association Liaison Group to establish the level of co-operative projects between aquaculture and wild fisheries interests and to identify potential areas for future co-operation. All members of the Liaison Group and key individuals in the co-operative arena were contacted for their input. An internet search for co-operative projects was also carried out. The project was highlighted in Dave Conley’s Aquaculture Newsclips and at two international and one national conference held in Ireland. The regions reviewed in this study were the NASCO Commission areas (North America, West Greenland and the North-East Atlantic) and the Western States of America and Canada, where Atlantic salmon are an introduced species.

Overview of projects identified In total eight projects were identified, covering area management, containment, enhancement and restoration. The area management projects were located in Scotland and Maine, while the other initiatives were located in Maine, New Brunswick, Scotland and Quebec. Detailed inventories for the projects were generated; these results are outlined in Appendix 3. These projects, together with the Liaison Group’s underpinning co-operative work on containment, are the basis of this report. To gain a greater understanding of the achievements and challenges facing such endeavors, a SWOT analysis was carried out: The main strengths associated with co-operative initiatives are: • benefits gained in experience and commitment, • improved mutual understanding of the challenges and limitations facing partners, • the establishment of foundations for future initiatives, • highlighting of co-operative initiatives through publications. Many opportunities are available to those wishing to continue with or participate in co-operative projects: • there is potential to broaden the scope of existing partnerships, • to develop a greater mutual understanding through discussion, • to implement area management initiatives in new regions, • to broaden the scope for research and proactive initiatives in partnership, • to disseminate information on co-operative projects more widely. Some challenges also exist for co-operative initiatives: • to avail of best practice in project management, • to be pro-active as well as reactive in establishing initiatives, • to improve publicity of initiatives, • working in an atmosphere of litigation.

7

Additional threats could arise from: • lack of defined guidelines on best practice, • polarisation between groups which can result in a lack of trust and mutual

understanding, • lack of funding (sources of funding are identified in Appendix 4), • lack of commitment, • interference from parties not involved in the co-operative initiative, • health issues. Recommendations/Areas for Future Co-operation Recommendation: Based on the analysis of the projects

• The Liaison Group should evaluate the findings of this review, address the issues

highlighted and determine how best to build on the recommendations. A future workshop highlighting the experiences encountered by those involved in co-operative projects is recommended.

Recommendation: Definitions In the course of this review, the apparent lack of clarity concerning the fishery terms ‘aquaculture’, ‘salmon enhancement’ and ‘salmon restoration’ was noted. Aquaculture • It is strongly recommended that the Liaison Group should agree on a series of

definitions and practical guidelines relating to restoration, enhancement, aquaculture and fish farming. Agreement on such definitions is fundamental to ensuring that optimum co-operation is facilitated between the fish farming/food and wild/recreational sectors of the aquaculture industry.

Salmon Enhancement/Salmon Restoration • Review the NASCO definition of salmon enhancement and formulate a clear

definition for stock restoration.

Potential areas for future co-operation identified were: area management, restoration, enhancement, containment strategies, education, research, fish health, environmental improvement awards and, within the two industries, dissemination of information on new technology and current best practice. Recommendation: Areas for future co-operation Area management • Each region should review the concept of area management and assess the possibility

of appropriate initiatives in this area. Restoration • Examine guidelines available for restoration in each country. Develop a code of

practice for determining when restoration is appropriate.

8

Containment – annually each jurisdiction reports on its progress to the group. Education • Review the feasibility of both parties developing an education programme aimed at

achieving a greater understanding of all aspects of both industries, targeted at those not covered by existing programmes.

• Evaluate the possibility of generating and promoting Post-Graduate/Post-Doctorate internships in both industries, to improve understanding and technology transfer.

• Evaluate the feasibility of establishing annual workshops co-hosted by aquaculture and wild fisheries interests to review new technological developments in both areas and to discuss current best practice within each group.

• Each region should review the feasibility of utilising distance learning or e-learning, as a method of conveying educational information.

Research • Evaluate a taxation mechanism (% tax on fish/fish product/services exports) as a

means of raising research funds in the various jurisdictions. • Evaluate the Link aquaculture mechanism (50:50 – government:industry funds) as a

means of raising research funds in the various jurisdictions. Establish a mechanism for wild interests to contribute.

• Establish a web site page to detail all current co-operative projects. • Review the possibility of establishing Centres for Collaborative Studies in each

region. • Review the possibility of the farming industry mass-rearing specific stocks of smolts

for research projects (e.g. marine survival projects). Fish Health • Review the opportunity for participation in co-operative projects relating to fish

health. Accreditation • Review the possibility of acknowledging respective achievements by means of awards

or joint publicity. Dissemination of Information • Review the possibility of establishing a web site to carry information on co-operative

projects. Information could also be disseminated through the conference forum. Conclusion This review has highlighted the opportunities which currently exist to foster pragmatic co-operative ventures between the fish farming/food and wild/recreational sectors of the aquaculture industry. There is no doubt that over the past twenty years a great deal of animosity has been generated between various sectors of the industry. This is most unfortunate, as an objective overview would clearly identify food generation based on fish rearing and recreational opportunities based on fish rearing as two sides of the same coin. In moving forward it is suggested that the primary focus must relate to education and communication. Inherent in such a mind shift is a willingness to accept that negative

9

interactions can exist but may be overcome through the co-operative efforts of all concerned. A belief that co-operative initiatives should be primarily driven by the need for an improved public image is anathema to a successful process since the essence of co-operation is the elimination or mitigation of current or potential problems. Continued commitment from all sectors is required and an acknowledgement of each other as equals is critical. As the level of activity will no doubt vary from time to time it may be of benefit to the cohesion of the Group that a major underpinning project should be initiated; a proactive initiative on issues such as disease or parasite control, the impact of climate change on salmonid populations or salmonid genetic studies of mutual interest to the two industries. In conclusion each region must choose its own path with regards to co-operation and what steps it wishes to take. Lack of co-operative initiatives should not be seen in a negative light, if a mature relationship exists. A sign of a mature relationship is not the quantum of activity at any point in time but the ability to work side by side in harmony, understanding each other’s position on an ongoing basis and co-operating when appropriate.

10

North Atlantic Region

11

12

1 Introduction 1.1 Background At a meeting of the NASCO/International Salmon Farmers Association Liaison Group in Ottawa, February 2001, a discussion took place on how the salmon farming industry might assist with restoration and enhancement of wild salmon stocks. The meeting recognised that the industry has considerable experience in hatchery techniques, in reducing costs of rearing salmon, in genetics and fish husbandry, and some experience in rearing triploid salmon. The Liaison Group considered a proposal from the salmon farming industry representatives to establish a Salmon Co-operation Group to further explore the options for enhanced co-operation between wild and farmed salmon interests.

1.2 Objectives

The Salmon Co-operation Group was established in 2001 to explore the options for enhanced co-operation between wild and farmed salmon interests. Ten areas for possible joint initiatives were identified and initially the group decided to compile a list of on-going projects and review the existing co-operative ventures. The Liaison Group appointed the following members to the Salmon Co-operation Group.

James Ryan, Managing Director, Killary Salmon Limited, Ireland Dr. Ken Whelan, Director, Aquaculture and Catchment Management Services, Marine Institute, Ireland Jack Taylor, Executive Director, Office of the Commissioner for Aquaculture Development Fisheries and Oceans, Canada Sebastian Belle, Executive Director, Maine Aquaculture Association, USA

At the 2002 meeting of the Liaison Group, the Salmon Co-operation Group put forward a proposal to carry out a full review of all existing co-operative ventures between wild salmon and fish farming interests with the following overall objectives: • to carry out a full review of all existing co-operative ventures between wild salmon

and fish farming interests. • to identify future areas of co-operative work. • to seek financial support or support in kind for such programmes. • to put in place a fund to support such programmes.

Funding for this review was secured from the fish farming industry. 2 Review 2.1 Review Objectives

The project plan was drafted with the assistance of Ken Whelan, Deirdre Cotter and James Ryan. The following format was agreed:

13

• To contact the Salmon Co-operation Group and Dr Malcolm Windsor, Secretary of NASCO, for their assistance in the compilation of an initial list of ‘Salmonid Aquaculture/Wild Fisheries co-operative projects’.

• Subsequently to contact a group of approximately 10 key individuals from the NASCO Liaison Group.

• To initiate an internet trawl for co-operative projects. • To initiate a literature review for co-operative projects. • To generate a detailed inventory of the significant projects identified. • To identify key areas for future co-operation. • To recommend methods for the dissemination of results from such initiatives.

Current projects were to be the primary focus, but relevant projects carried out in the previous 5 years could also be included.

2.2 Review Process

An introductory letter was drafted and circulated to the initial contact group and an internet search was initiated. As the yield of information from these two sources was low, all of the delegates who attended the 2002 Liaison Group meeting and additional key people, identified by the Salmon Co-operation Group, were contacted. The survey was also highlighted in Aquaculture NewsClips on 26/09/2002. This is a weekly internet mail shot of news items relating to the aquaculture industry. As the internet web search yielded projects of interest, further details were requested by e-mail from the project co-ordinators. Over 170 web sites were reviewed and details of the most relevant sites are listed in Appendix 1. Individuals and groups contacted in the course of the review are listed in Appendix 2. A literature review yielded no projects, and highlighted the need for co-operative/collaborative to be included as a key word in all such published literature. The regions reviewed in this study were the NASCO Commission areas (North America, West Greenland and the North-East Atlantic) and the Western States of America and Canada, where Atlantic salmon are an introduced species. Although the latter two regions do not fall into the NASCO jurisdiction, the areas were reviewed to ensure a complete overview of all co-operative projects involving salmonids. 2.3 Overview of Projects Identified

In response to the call for information on co-operative projects, eight projects were identified in the NASCO commission areas and three projects on the Pacific coast. Within the NASCO commission areas, two area management projects and six co-operative projects were identified, as shown below. Area management plans bring together the overall management of catchments and bay areas in a given geographical region. A complete inventory of the projects identified in this study is included in Appendix 3.

14

Area Management Initiatives

Project Name Project Type Jurisdiction

Project No.

Scottish Tripartite Working Group

Area Management Initiative

Europe E1

Atlantic Salmon Conservation Plan for Seven Maine Rivers

Area Management Initiative

United States U1

Co-operative Projects

Project Name Project Type Jurisdiction

Project No.

Magaguadavic River Co-operative Salmon Restoration Project

Restoration Canada C1

Gaspe Bay Speckled Trout Project

R&D Canada C2

Langavat Catchment Restocking Program

Enhancement Europe E2

Lachaber Sea Trout Rearing Co-operative

Restoration Europe E3

Independent Co-operative Initiatives Scotland

Miscellaneous Europe E4

Maine Aquaculture Containment & Verification System

Containment United States U2

Note: Proposals for a Co-operative Pilot Project emanating from the Irish Sea Trout Review Group report also fall into this category. However, funding for the pilot co-operative project was not secured. Work continued on generating fish health/sampling protocols and funds were made available for the upgrading of existing trapping systems, which would generate more accurate wild fish census information. This work is now near completion.

2.4 Areas Where No Co-operative Projects Were Identified Replies were received indicating the absence of co-operative projects in the following countries. Russia – currently salmonid aquaculture is not developed in Russia. Only small-scale trials are carried out at one experimental farm for Atlantic salmon. A small number of rainbow trout farms, with low annual outputs and limited resources, are also in operation.

15

Spain – no marine-based salmonid farming takes place but there are several enhancement hatcheries located in northern Spain. Iceland – ranching was, in the past, a major aquaculture activity. Ranching to the rod is still practised in several major recreational fisheries but commercial ranching has all but ceased. A major salmon farming initiative has recently been proposed along the remote West Coast of Iceland. Some genetic studies are also ongoing. Faroe Islands – do not have an indigenous Atlantic salmon population; however, five river systems support introduced Atlantic stocks of Icelandic origin. One or two other systems have stocks of Norwegian origin. Faroes has good stocks of sea trout around its coast but currently there are no co-operative ventures between the farming and recreational sectors. Northern Ireland – limited salmon farming activity (just one Atlantic salmon farm). Currently there are no co-operative projects but a major restoration project is on-going on the River Lagan, which flows through the city of Belfast. Finland – currently there is no salmon farming in Finland. Newfoundland/Labrador/Nova Scotia/Prince Edward Island - no co-operative projects

are in place between the aquaculture industry and wild salmon conservation groups. Norway – no direct co-operative initiatives were identified. However research projects of benefit to both groups and funded by a 0.5% levy on fish and fish product exports were identified, see section 4.2 (F).

2.5 Co-operative Projects Identified Outside the NASCO/ISFA Jurisdiction In the course of the search for aquaculture/wild fisheries co-operative projects the West Coast of the United States and Canada were also surveyed. Three projects were identified and are summarised below: Washington Marine Fish Aquaculture Bill The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is working in partnership with the salmon aquaculture industry in Washington State to implement regulatory controls. Regulations have been developed in the areas of: escapee prevention, recapture and eradication, approval of species and stocks of fin fish, development of an industry code of practice, implementation of an Atlantic salmon watch program (as exists in British Columbia, Canada), the development of an education program and an extension program for marine fin fish facilities. The aquaculture industry has also committed to a fish identification system using otolith marking, Gas Bubble Disease in Resident Fish below Grand Coulee Dam This was a project carried out between the US Geological Survey and the Columbia River fish farms to evaluate the affects of total dissolved gas super saturation episodes below Grand Coulee Dam on resident fish in Lake Rufus Woods. This information is of benefit to the resident wild fish and to the pen-reared fish on the lake.

16

Development of DNA Vaccines for Salmonids This project was carried out as a co-operative initiative between the US Geological Survey and Clear Springs Foods. As pathogens have a significant impact on the health and productivity of both wild and cultured fish, the purpose of the study was to develop a DNA vaccine for Infectious Hematopoietic Necrosis Virus (IHNV) that could be used on both wild and cultured salmon and trout. The project aims to:

• determine the minimum dose of DNA vaccine required for protection, • determine the efficacy of the vaccine in fish of different ages, • determine the effect of different vaccine constructs, • determine the breath of protection against heterologous strains of

IHNV(Infectious Hematopoietic Necrosis Virus), • determine the duration of the protective response.

3. Analysis of the Review Findings At the outset it should be noted that the first co-operative initiative of the Liaison Group was the drafting of Guidelines on the Containment of Farm Salmon, CNL(01)53. The work underway to ratify this in the various jurisdictions is the underpinning co-operative initiative of the group. The group should take great encouragement from the success of this initial co-operative initiative. Significant effort and planning has gone into the co-operative programs identified in this review, to bring them to their current status. To gain a greater understanding of the achievements and challenges facing such endeavours, a SWOT analysis (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) was performed. Based on an overview of the projects and feedback from participants the following observations were made:

The main strengths associated with co-operative initiatives are: • benefits gained in experience and commitment, • improved mutual understanding of the challenges and limitations facing partners, • the establishment of foundations for future initiatives, • highlighting of co-operative initiatives through publications.

Many opportunities are available to those wishing to continue with or participate in co-operative projects:

• there is potential to broaden the scope of existing partnerships, • to develop a greater mutual understanding through discussion, • to implement area management initiatives in new regions, • to broaden the scope for research and proactive initiatives in partnership, • to disseminate information on co-operative projects more widely. Some challenges also exist for co-operative initiatives: • to avail of best practice in project management, • to be pro-active as well as reactive in establishing initiatives, • to improve publicity of initiatives,

17

• working in an atmosphere of litigation.

Additional threats could arise from: • lack of defined guidelines on best practice, • polarisation between groups which can result in a lack of trust and mutual

understanding, • lack of funding (sources of funding are identified in Appendix 4), • lack of commitment, • interference from parties not involved in the co-operative initiative, • health issues. 4. Recommendations

The following are possibilities and opportunities that exist for co-operation, formulated in the context of recommendations. It is for the individual jurisdictions to assess what is relevant in their region and how they will respond. The first recommendation is based on an overview of the study. Recommendation 1 • The Liaison Group should evaluate the findings of this review, address the issues

highlighted and determine how best to build on the recommendations. A future workshop highlighting the experiences encountered by those involved in co-operative projects is recommended.

4.1 Definitions In the course of this review, the apparent lack of clarity concerning the fishery terms ‘aquaculture’, ‘salmon enhancement’ and salmon restoration’ was noted. A number of definitions are commonly used for aquaculture. Frequently quoted is the FAO definition, which states: “Aquaculture is the farming of aquatic organisms including fish, molluscs, crustaceans and aquatic plants. Farming implies some sort of intervention in the rearing process to enhance production, such as regular stocking, feeding, protection from predators, etc. Farming also implies individual or corporate ownership of the stock being cultivated. For statistical purposes, aquatic organisms which are harvested by an individual or corporate body which has owned them throughout their rearing period contribute to aquaculture while aquatic organisms which are exploitable by the public as a common property resources, with or without appropriate licences, are the harvest of fisheries”. The NASCO definition, outlined in the Oslo Resolution of 1994, article 6, develops the definition further with regard to the activities associated with salmonids. It states: “For the purposes of this Resolution: 1. “Salmon aquaculture” is the culture or husbandry of Atlantic salmon and includes

salmon farming, salmon ranching and salmon enhancement activities. 2. “Salmon farming” is a production system, which involves the rearing of Atlantic

salmon in captivity for the duration of their life-cycle until harvested. 3. “Salmon ranching” is the release of reared juvenile Atlantic salmon with the

intention of harvesting all of them on their return.

18

4. “Salmon enhancement” is the augmentation of wild stocks in individual river systems by the release of Atlantic salmon at different stages in their life-cycles.

5. “Wild salmon” are salmon, which originate naturally and have not been subjected to aquaculture.

6. “Transfer” is the deliberate or accidental transport of Atlantic salmon within their native or natural range”.

The introductory letter concerning the SalCo-Op Project requested information on co-operative projects between ‘Salmonid Aquaculture and Wild Fisheries Interests’. All of the recipients and individuals contacted interpreted salmonid aquaculture to mean fish farming. As shown, the NASCO definition of Salmonid Aquaculture includes ranching and enhancement activities as well as farming - in many quarters enhancement by restocking would be considered a wild initiative. If the broader interpretation of aquaculture were applied, some enhancement/restoration projects currently seen as wild initiatives would be considered as wild/aquaculture co-operative ventures. Restoration projects, which utilise progeny from ranched fish, are those of the Thames, Lagan, Rhine and the Elbe.

NASCO’s definition of salmon enhancement currently includes only augmentation by re-stocking and habitat enhancement is not referred to. Since the definition was drawn up in the context of agreeing the Oslo Resolution perhaps it is not surprising that habitat enhancement is not mentioned. However, in many regions, enhancement has now come to refer principally to habitat enhancement. NASCO does not currently have a definition for stock restoration, but it is generally taken to mean the re-stocking of a system that previously supported a salmon population prior to an incident or a significant change in the system resulting in the loss of the stock. Recommendation 2 It is strongly recommended that the Liaison Group should agree on a series of definitions and

practical guidelines relating to restoration, enhancement, aquaculture and fish farming. Agreement on such definitions is fundamental to ensuring that optimum co-operation is facilitated between the fish farming/food and wild/recreational sectors of the aquaculture industry.

Recommendation 3 Review the NASCO definition of salmon enhancement and formulate a clear definition for stock restoration.

4.2 Identification Of Possible Areas For Future Co-operation Based on the projects identified to date and the feedback from contacts, there appears to be a willingness by both parties to participate in future collaborations. The following is a list of potential areas for future co-operation. (A) Area Management

During the 1990s the concept of catchment and bay management was developed. The twinning of these initiatives has led to the concept of area management, which brings together the management of both the fresh- and sea-water environments.

19

Area management programmes are positive mechanisms for supporting co-operation. Programmes are focused in defined geographical areas and the groups, which consist of various stakeholders, work on a range of topics which have clear identifiable benefits to the group. Partners have the opportunity to work together on common concerns and direct dialogue is facilitated. The process can provide opportunities for the building of confidence and mutual trust. Recommendation 4 Each region should review the concept of area management and assess the possibility of implementing such an initiative.

(B) Restoration

Restoration projects identified in this review generally commenced in response to serious declines in fish populations and provided good opportunities for co-operation. On examining the issues of restoration there appeared to be no clearly defined code of practice to specify ‘where’ and ‘when’ a restocking program should commence.

A range of methods for river classification is available. NASCO employs the NASCO Rivers Database, which has been agreed by all NASCO parties. This is the reference database that will be utilised for establishing Inventories of Rivers in accordance with NASCO’s Plan for Action on the Application of the Precautionary Approach to the Protection and Restoration of Atlantic Salmon Habitat (CNL(01)51).

There are also two EU projects currently working on the classification of rivers for implementation in the EU region. They are the STAR (standardisation of river classifications) and FAME (fish-based assessment method for ecological status of European streams) projects which are due for completion in 2004.

In addition the SALMODEL project, which is scheduled for completion in Spring 2003, will dedicate a chapter of the final report to summarising most of the work that has been undertaken in Europe on classification of salmonid rivers.

Proceedings from the SALGEN Project - an Atlantic Salmon Trust/EU-funded project, designed to review genetic studies on Atlantic salmon and provide appropriate scientific advice, will also become available in the near future. The project aims to increase understanding and improve effectiveness of wild stock conservation. The findings and recommendations from this study will be published in book form. Currently there are a number of guidelines available or in preparation on this topic in Europe. EIFAC (European Inland Fisheries Advisory Commission) have generated guidelines in the past1,2, and routinely reviews the impact of stocking and introductions on the environment3.

1 Report of the EIFAC working group on stock enhancement – EIFAC Technical paper 44 – 1983. 2 Report of the third session of the working party on stocking – EIFAC Occasional paper No.28 – 1994. 3 Report of the 22nd session of EIFAC, Windermere, United Kingdom, 12 – 19 June, 2002.

20

The Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans specify in their Habitat Conservation and Protection Guidelines 1998 Section 3.3.2 Artificial propagation: “This option should be considered only in rare cases where the Minister determines that this course of action is in the public interest”.

Recommendation 5 Examine guidelines available for restoration in each country. Develop codes of practice for determining when restoration is appropriate. (C) Enhancement

Enhancement now typically refers to habitat enhancement whereby habitat improvements are carried out to enlarge the habitat area and thereby the fish population. Thus co-operative opportunities may well be reduced to hands-on or financial contributions from aquaculture interests.

(D) Containment

The underpinning initiative of the NASCO/North Atlantic Salmon Farming Industry Liaison Group is the drafting and ratification of its code of containment. The Liaison Group as a whole are working in their respective jurisdictions to achieve agreement on the containment guidelines and to draw up national codes. Annually each jurisdiction reports on its progress on implementation. The option of introducing tagging as part of a containment program in order to provide greater traceability of farmed fish is under evaluation in some jurisdictions. (E) Education Education is also an area where co-operative initiatives could be undertaken and where both parties could derive benefit. This could be focused in two areas, continuing education for graduate employees and module courses for non-qualified field/site workers.

It appears that the sector in which a graduate secures their first appointment tends to be that in which they remain. There is very little transfer of knowledge or current thinking from one sector to the other. Recommendation 6 Review the feasibility of both parties (wild/farming interests) developing an education program aimed at achieving a greater understanding of all aspects of both sectors. It may be beneficial to deliver this to both groups together, in order to facilitate discussion and improved comprehension. It could include information on: • biology, • stock status, • rearing – husbandry, • genetics, • disease control/parasites, • technical developments.

21

Target Group - aquaculture operatives, fishery personnel, regulatory personnel, statutory and private contractors who are not covered by existing programs. Recommendation 7 Evaluate the possibility of generating and promoting Post-Graduate/Post-Doctorate internships in both sectors, to improve understanding and technology transfer.

Recommendation 8 Evaluate the feasibility of establishing annual national workshops co-hosted by aquaculture and wild fishery personnel, to review new technological developments in both areas and to discuss current best practices being undertaken by both groups.

Recommendation 9 Review the feasibility of utilising distance learning or e-learning as a method of conveying educational information. This might be achieved with the help of a specific educational institute currently running such courses. (F) Research While the majority of co-operative projects identified show direct co-operation between aquaculture and wild fishery interests, the area of co-operative research is also of relevance to the Liaison Group. Research projects are usually undertaken by third parties such as Universities or Research facilities and typically do not involve direct aquaculture/wild fishery collaboration – however, this may be an area where future links can be established.

From the review it appears that research can be identified under three distinct categories: 1) Research funded by both groups for the benefit of both groups – co-operative projects 2) Research funded by one party where there is a perceivable benefit to the other party –

Fisheries and Aquaculture Industries Research Fund (Norway) 3) Research which solely benefits one group or the other, e.g. Link Aquaculture in its

present format (UK) or NGO-supported wild fisheries projects. An example of a category 2 initiative is the Norwegian Fisheries and Aquaculture Industries Research Fund. This is a fund aimed at increasing the financial participation of the fishery and aquaculture industry in research and development. The fund, which commenced in 2001, is derived from a 0.3% tax on fish and fish products exports. In 2001 it raised approximately 85 million Norwegian Kroner (NoK), 3 million of which funded research in the aquaculture industry. In 2002 funding increased to 20 million NoK. Two projects which commenced in 2002, are shown below: Sea lice as a population regulation factor in Norwegian Salmon; status, effects of measures taken and future management (NFR, FHL); 2002 – 2004. – 60% financed by the Fisheries and Aquaculture Industries Research Fund. Water quality and smolt quality (NFR, FHL); 2002 – 2004. – 100% financed by the Fisheries and Aquaculture Industries Research Fund. While the majority of this fund is acquired from the aquaculture industry, the funds are contributing to research that is beneficial to both parties.

22

Recommendation 10 Evaluate this mechanism (% tax on fish/fish product/services exports) as a means of raising

research funds in the various jurisdictions. Category 3 is research that is solely of benefit to one group. One such fund was the Link aquaculture fund in the UK amounting to £10 million. 50% was donated by industry and 50% by Government. Wild fisheries also tend to have exclusive funds, which are primarily generated from private subscriptions or government grants to further the aim of wild fish research. The following is a relevant extract from a comment on research funding from the Scottish Transport and Environment Committee 11th Report 2002 ‘Phase 2 of the Inquiry into Aquaculture Industry’ which may be worth discussing by the

Liaison Group. It comments on research funding thus: “Aquaculture research divides into two categories: the first of these is near market work to develop husbandry and farming technology and to develop methods for measuring environmental impact in close proximity to farm sites. The second of these is to address more generic and strategic issues relating to the environmental impact of aquaculture, involving a holistic approach to environmental impact in Scottish waters. The committee considers that the first of these two categories should be undertaken by the aquaculture industry with assistance from appropriate funding agencies (for example local enterprise companies) where possible. The second of these two categories should be undertaken through publicly co-ordinated research programs. A number of witnesses identified the success of the Link aquaculture program in funding aquaculture research and recommended continuation of this scheme. The committee acknowledges the success of the Link programme but notes that it was mainly directed at near market research. The committee recommends that consideration be given to the establishment of a Scottish Link aquaculture programme but that it should not be seen as a substitute for targeted government sponsored funding of more strategic and generic issues such as assimilative capacity and related issues”. The first two paragraphs are useful tools in outlining how research operates in Scotland and indications are that this is reflective of other areas. Recommendation 11 Evaluate the Link aquaculture mechanism (50:50 – government:industry funds) as a means of raising research funds in the various jurisdictions. Establish a mechanism for wild interests to contribute. An important component of the Link scheme was to maintain an overview of the research being undertaken by different institutions. The committee is conscious of the benefit it has derived from the information contained in the SAMS report. The committee therefore considers it vital that now this work is available, it should be continuously updated, in order for the scientific information to be easily available. The committee therefore recommends that the Executive take a lead role in ensuring that the current research data base in this area is continuously updated”.

23

Recommendation 12 Establish a web site to detail all current co-operative projects. Such information may be of benefit to members of the Liaison Group or other individuals embarking on co-operative initiatives. Note: This may be achieved by establishing a link from the NASCO web site or any other site that would be

agreeable to the members of the Liaison Group. In order to promote more co-operative research projects it may be wise to further evaluate the research mechanisms currently available. From the review it is evident that some Institutes carry out work for both groups independently.

Recommendation 13 Review the possibility of identifying an Institute in each region, which could be established as a centre for collaborative studies.

Opportunities also exist for aquaculture to contribute to research by the rearing of fish for research projects

Recommendation 14 Review the opportunities for carrying out such initiatives, mindful of best practice.

Finally there are a great many unanswered questions regarding salmon population declines, and what happens when the salmon leave home waters. Topics such as climate change could be evaluated in partnership.

Recommendation 15 Review the possibility of the group becoming involved in such a study.

(G) Fish Health

Opportunities exist for co-operative programmes in the area of fish health addressing issues such as disease, parasites, diagnostics, and vaccine development.

Recommendation 16 Review opportunities for participation in co-operative projects relating to fish health.

(H) Accreditation

Many opportunities exist for the partners to enhance co-operation by offering mutual support for respective achievements.

Recommendation 17 To demonstrate this the parties could advance co-operation by: • showing support for the environmental accreditation of a partner in the local press, • highlighting co-operative initiatives on their respective web sites, • establishing environmental awards for both parties to promote improvements to

systems.

24

(I) Dissemination of Information

Currently there appears to be a significant gap in the dissemination of information regarding co-operative initiatives. Even people committed to the process were unaware of the initiatives which are currently underway.

Recommendation 18 Review the possibility of establishing a web site to carry information on co-operative projects. Information could also be disseminated through the conference forum. Note: Currently Aqua TT – the Aquaculture information dissemination portal for EU RTD projects are proposing to hold an information day/workshop for non Aquaculturalists prior to the next major Aquaculture event in Ireland.

5. Conclusions

This review has highlighted the opportunities, which currently exist to foster pragmatic co-operative ventures between the food/fish farming and recreational/wild sectors of the aquaculture industry. There is no doubt that over the past twenty years a great deal of animosity has been generated between various sectors of the industry. This is most unfortunate, as an objective overview would clearly identify food generation based on fish rearing and recreational opportunities based on fish rearing as two sides of the same coin. In moving forward it is suggested that the primary focus must relate to education and communication. Inherent in such a mind shift is a willingness to accept that negative interactions can exist but may be overcome through the co-operative efforts of all concerned. A belief that co-operative initiatives should be primarily driven by the need for an improved public image is anathema to a successful process since the essence of co-operation is the elimination or mitigation of current or potential problems. Continued commitment from all sectors is required and an acknowledgement of each other as equals is critical.

As the level of activity will no doubt vary from time to time it may be of benefit to the cohesion of the Group that a major underpinning project should be initiated. A proactive initiative on issues such as disease or parasite control, the impact of climate change on salmonid populations or salmonid genetic studies of mutual interest to the two industries.

In conclusion each region must choose its own path with regard to co-operation and what steps it wishes to take. Lack of co-operative initiatives should not be seen in a negative light, if a mature relationship exists. A sign of a mature relationship is not the quantum of activity at any point in time but the ability to work side by side in harmony, understanding each other’s position on an ongoing basis and co-operating when appropriate.

25

References Act No 68 of 7 July 2002: Act relating to the Levying of a Research and Development Tax in the Fisheries and Aquaculture Industry. Act No. 1056 of 11 October 2000: Regulation relating to the levying of a Research and Development Tax in the Fisheries and Aquaculture Industry. Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans-Habitat Conservation and Protection Guidelines 1998. CNL(94)53 The NASCO Oslo Resolution CNL(00)26 Report of the Liaison Meeting with the Salmon Farming Industry CNL(01)27 Report of the Second Liaison Meeting with the Salmon Farming Industry CNL(01)51 Plan of Action on the Application of the Precautionary Approach to the Protection and Restoration of Atlantic Salmon Habitat CNL(01)53 Guidelines on the Containment of Farm Salmon CNL(02)24 Report of the Third Liaison Meeting with the Salmon Farming Industry

North Atlantic Region Map, courtesy of the FAO web site.

Report of the EIFAC working group on stock enhancement – EIFAC Technical Paper 44 – 1983. Report of the Third session of the working party on stocking – EIFAC Occasional paper No.28 – 1994 Report of the 22nd Session of EIFAC, Windermere, United Kingdom, 12 –19, June 2002.

Report of the Sea Trout Review Group, April 2002.

SLG(00)06 North Atlantic Salmon Farming Industry and NASCO Liaison Group constitution SLG(01)11 Guiding Principals for Co-operation between NASCO and its Contracting Parties and the North Atlantic Salmon Farming Industry Transport and Environment Committee 11th Report 2002. Phase 2 of the enquiry into Aquaculture – Scotland.

26

Appendix 1

Web Sites Reviewed During the

SalCo-Op Project

27

28

Websites Reviewed During the SalCo-Op Project

Organisation Web site address

A guide to Coastal Information in Atlantic Canada (ACZISC - Atlantic Coastal Zone Info Steering Committee

www.dal.ca/aczisc

Agranet www.fishfarming.co.uk Alaska Department of Fish and Game www.cf.adfg.state.ak.us Alaska Department of Fish and Game www.state.ak.us/adfg/geninfo/special/AS/AS _home.html Alternative Farming Systems Information Centre (AFSIC at the National Agriculture Library

www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/index

Aquaculture Association of Canada www.aquacultureassociation.ca Aquaculture Information Centre (DOC/NOAA)

www.lib.noaa.gov/docaqua/frontpage.htm

Aquaculture License Appeals Board www.alab.ie Aquaculture Network Information Centre //aquantic.org Aquaculture News www.fishace.demon.co.uk/news Aquaflow - Aqua dissemination site, Eurocomission funded, co-ordinated by European Aquaculture Society. Network managed by ESA and FED of European Aquaculture Producers

www.aquaflow.org

Aquamedia www.aquamedia.org Aquanet - Network of Centres of Excellence in Aquaculture

www.aquanet.ca

Aquascot www.aquascot.uk.com Aquatic Information Centre www.biofilter.com Atlantic Salmon Federation www.asf.ca Atlantic Salmon Trust www.atlanticsalmontrust.org Atlantic Salmon.com www.atlanticsalmon.com BC Salmon Farmers Association www.salmonfarmers.org Biomar UK www.biomar.co.uk Biotechnology & Biological Sciences Research Council

www.bbsrc.ac.uk

Bord Iascaigh Mhara, Irish Sea Fisheries Board

www.bim.ie

Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance www.aquaculture.ca Canadian Centre of Fisheries Innovation www.mi.mun.ca/ccfi/noframes/org-list/org-6-3.html Canadian Connection Magazine www.adcom.ca/pdf/Newsletter_June_2002.pdf

29

Central Fisheries Board www.cfb.ie Commercial Fish & Shellfish Technologies

www.cfast.vt.edu

Community of Science www.cos.com Connecticut River Salmon Organisation www.ctriversalmon.org Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection

//dep.state.ct.us/burnatr/fishing/geninfo/fisherie.htm

David Suzuki Foundation www.davidsuzuki.org Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Ireland

www.marine.gov.ie

Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Canada, Aquaculture Collaborative Research and Development Program

www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/science/aquaculture/ACRDP_program_information_final_e.htm

Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Canada, Habitat and Enhancement Branch Pacific Coast

www-heb.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca

Directory of State Coordinators and Contacts

www.mda.state.md.us/aqua/cordin

Down East Salmon Federation www.mainesalmonrivers.org EIFAC European Inland Fisheries Advisory Commission

www.fao.org/fi/body/eifac/eifac.asp

Embark www.embark.ie Enterprise Ireland www.enterprise-ireland.com/news-newsletter-archive.details Environmental Protection Agency Ireland www.epa.ie/r_d/default.html EU Commission www.europa.eu.int European Aquaculture Society www.easonline.org European Science Foundation www.esf.org European Union On Line www.europa.eu.int/comm/research/agriculture/research_themes/susta

inable_fisheries

European Union On Line www.europa.eu.int/comm/research/index-en.html FAME Project - Fishbased Assessment Method for Ecological Status of European Rivers

//fame.boku.ac.at

FDA-CVM Greenbook www.fda.gov/cvm/greenbook/greenbook.html Find a pHd.com/Find a Post Doc.com www.findaphd.com Finnish Ministry of Agriculture and Fish www.mmm.fi.english Fish Information Services www.fis.com Fishfarms.com www.fishfarms.com FishLink - internet site for fish and shellfish

www.fishlink.co.uk

Food and Drug Administration www.fda.gov For The Sake of the Salmon www.4sos.org Foundation for Water Research www.fwr.org

30

Fraser River Aboriginal Fisheries Secretariat

www.frats.ca.current_ed.html

Fresh Water Institute VA, USA www.freshwaterinstitute.org Freshwater Solutions www.fsvo.com/aquaculture Friends of Clayoquot Sound BC www.ancientrainforest.org Global Aquaculture Alliance www.galliance.org Gold Seal Seafoods www.canfisco.com High Seas Salmon Tagging Research Program

www.fish.washington.edu/research/highseas/tagging.html

IFDN Atlantic Salmon www.ifdn.com/salmon/research/streamstore.htm Innovation Partners Ltd www.innovation-partners.com Institute of Aquaculture University of Sterling

www.aquaculture.str.ac.uk

Institute of Marine Research, Norway www.imr.no International Council for the Exploration of the Sea

ww.ices.dk

International Foundation for the Conservation of Natural Resources Fisheries Committee

//fisheries.ifcnr.com

International Rod and Line www.rod-and-line.net Internet Guide to International Fisheries Law

www.oceanlaw.net/orgs/nasco

Intrafish www.intrafish.com Ireland’s Fisheries Act //193.120.124.98/1997_23html Irish Farmers Association www.ifa.ie Irish Research Council for Science Engineering and Technology

www.ircset.ie

Irish Seafood www.irishseafood.com Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture (JSC) - National Co-ordinator for Aquaculture New Animal Drugs Applications

//ag.ansc.purde.edu/aquanic/jsa/aquadrugs/index.htm

Kames Fishfarming Ltd www.kames.co.uk Kenai Peninsula Borough www.borough.kenai.ak.us La Tene.com www.latene.com Leggatt Inquiry into Fish Farming in BC www.laggattinquiry.com

31

LinkAqua - sponsored by Dept of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, The Scottish Executive, Environment and Rural Affairs Dept and Natural Environment Research Council and 50% by the Aquaculture Industry

www.linkaquaculture.co.uk

Magaguadavic River Project www.asf.ca/research/magaguadavic/index.html Maine Aquaculture Innovation Center www.maineaquaculture.org Maine Atlantic Salmon Commission www.state.me.us/asa Maine Rivers www.mainerivers.org Marine Biological Association www.mba.ac.uk Marine Institute - Ireland www.marine.ie National Academic Mailing List Service www.jiscmail.ac.uk National Institute of Technology Management - UCD

www.ucd.ie/nitm

National Marine Fisheries Services www.nmfs.noaa.gov National Marine Fisheries Services, NW Region Office

www.nwr.noaa.gov

National Sea Grant www.nsgo.seagrant.org Natural Environment Research Council www.nerc.ac.uk Netfish - Sustainable Aquaculture, Sustainable Fisheries, Wetland Restoration

www.netfish.org

Network of Market orientated R&D www.eureka.be NINA Norwegian Institute for Nature Research

www.ninaniku.no

Nooksack Salmon Enhancement Association

www.n-sea.org

North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation

www.nasco.int

Northeastern Regional Aquaculture Centre

www.umassd.edu

Northern Aquaculture www.northernaquaculture.com Northernlight - search engine //northernlight.com Northwest Fisheries Science Centre www.nwfsc.noaa.gov Northwest Marine Technology Inc www.nmt-inc.com Norwegian Fish Farmers Association www.fiskeoppdrett.no Norwegian Fisheries website www.fiskerifond.no Norwegian Institute for Nature Research NINA

www.naturforvaltning.no

Nova Scotia Salmon Association www.novascotiasalmon.ns.ca

32

Office of the Commissioner for Aquaculture Development Canada, Aquaculture Partnership Programs

//ocad-bcda.gc.ca/epartnershipprogram.html

Omega Salmon Group Ltd www.omegasalmon.com Ontario Aquaculture Association www.aps.uoguelph/~ontaqua Oregon State www.oregon.gov Panfish Website www.panfish.com/contacts/usa Papersinvited.com www.papersinvited Plymouth Marine Laboratory www.pml.ac.uk Relay Research for the Food Industry www.relayresearch.ie Royal Irish Academy www.ria.ie/awards.html SALGEN Project - Seeks to increase understanding and improve effectiveness of wild stock conservation

www.salgen.marlab.ac.uk

SALMODEL Project - A co-ordinated approach towards the development of a scientific basis for management of wild Atlantic Salmon in the North-East Atlantic

www.salmodel.net

Salmon Preservation Association of the Waters of Newfoundland

www3.nf.sympatico.ca/spawn

Salmonid 21C www.salmonid21c.org Salmonid Association of Eastern Newfoundland

www.saen.org

Saltonsall-Kennedy Program //caldera.sero.nmfs.gov/grants/programs/sk.htm Save Our Sea Trout www.seatroutsos.org Science Foundation Ireland www.sfi.ie Science Next Wave (published by Science Magazine)

//nextwave.sciencemag.org

Scottish Anglers National Association www.sana.org.uk Scottish Environment Link www.scotlink.org Scottish Fisheries Research Services www.marlab.ac.uk Scottish Executive Web site www.scotland.gov.uk/whatwedo.asp?topic=fisheries Scottish Quality Salmon www.scottishsalmon.co.uk Seaweb Aquaculture Clearing House www.seaweb.org SHARE-NGO protect and conserve / /salmonhabitat.org Silverplatter Information www.silverplatter.com Simon Fraser University Canada www.sfu.ca/cstudies/science/aquaculture STAR Project - Standardisation Of River Classifications

www.eu-star.at

State of Washington Water Research Centre

www.swwrc.wsu.edu

33

The Aquaculture News - Monthly pub www.theaquaculturenews.com The Foundation Center Learning Lab www.fdncenter.org/learn The Marine Life Information Network for Britain and Ireland

www.marlin.ac.uk

Tidepool - latest news from 3doz. Sites www.tidepool.org Tools for the Salmon Industry Resources for communities, groups and individuals involved in Alaska’s salmon industry

www.sfos.uaf.edu/salmontools/resources/links

Transport and Environment Committee www.scottish.parliament.uk/official-report/cttee/trans Trout Concerted Action www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/trout-concerted-action.html Trout Unlimited www.tu.org UK Defra Digest of Environmental Statistics

www.defra.gov.uk/environment/statistics/des/inwater/ch031617.htm

UK Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs

www.defra.gov.uk

UK Dept of Environment Food and Rural Affairs

www.defra.gov.uk/research

UK Sustainable Development Indicators www.sustainable - development.gov.uk/indicators University Maine Seagrant www.seagrant.umaine.edu University of Idaho www.uidaho.edu/ag/aquaculture United States Dept Of Agriculture www.usda.gov University of Prince Edward Island www.upei.ca/~iis/naip/index.htm US Environmental Protection Agency www.epa.gov US Federal Money Retriever www. Fedmoney.com/grants US Fish & Wildlife Service www.fws.gov Virginia Sea Grant www.virginia.edu/Virginia-sea-grant Washington Dept of Fish and Wildlife www.wa.gov/wdfw Washington Fish Growers Association www.wfga.net/default.asp Watershed Watch Salmon Society www.watershed-watch.org/ww/salmon_farming.html Aquaculture News web site www.aquaculture.com Western Fisheries Research Centre //biology.usgs.gov/wfrc Yukon Salmon Committee www.yukonweb.com/government/salmon

34

Appendix 2

Individuals and Groups Contacted regarding the

SalCo-Op Project

35

36

Individuals and Groups Contacted Regarding the SalCo-Op Project

Belgium Ole Tougaard Directorate General DG2,

European Commission, Brussels, Belgium

ole.tougaard@cec.eu.int

Canada BC Salmon Growers Ass. British Columbia Salmon Growers

Association info@salmonfarmers.org

Darlene Elie Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Canada

elied@dfo-mpo.gc.ca

David Bevan Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

bevand@dfo-mpo.gc.ca

David Conley D.C. Conley & Associates, Aquaculture Communication Consultants, Ottawa, Canada

dave.conley@sympatico.ca

Elizabeth Leboe Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Canada

leboeE@pac.dfo.mpo.gc.ca

Éric Tamigneaux Centre spécialisé des pêches, Grande-Rivière (Québec)

aquiculture@globetrotter.qc.ca

Fred Whorskey Atlantic Salmon Federation asfres@nb.aibn.com Jack Taylor Department of Fisheries and

Oceans, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada taylorj@dfo-mpo.gc.ca

Jim D. Martin Magaguadavic River Salmon Recovery Project

MartinJD@mar.dfo-mpo.gc.ca

Jon Carr Magaguadavic River Salmon Recovery Project

carrj@mar.dfo-mpo.gc.ca

Julia Barrow Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

barrowj@dfo-mpo.gc.ca

Nell Halse New Brunswick Salmon Growers Ass., Letang, New Brunswick, Canada

nbsganh@nb.aibn.com

Rex Porter Department of Fisheries and Oceans, St Johns, New Foundland, Canada

porterr@dfo-mpo.gc.ca

Stephen Chase Atlantic Salmon Federation schase@nb.aibn.com Tim Young Department of Fisheries and

Oceans, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada youngt@dfo-mpo.gc.ca

England

Arlin Rickard Westcountry Rivers Trust, UK wrt@wrt.org.uk David Solomon Northwest Marine Technology,

UK

david.solomon@nmt.us

37

Faeroes Jan Mortensen Faroe FishFarming Association fag@industry.fo Jan Arge Jacobsen Fisheries Laboratory of the Faroes janarge@frs.fo

Andrias Reinert andrias.reinert@fiskaaling.fo Finland Eija Kirjavainen Ministry of Agriculture and

Forestry, Finland kirjaamo.mmm@mmm.fi

Iceland Anna K Danielsdottir Marine Institute in Reykjavik andan@iti.is Arni Isaksson Directorate of Freshwater

Fisheries, Reykjavik, Iceland arni@veidimalastjori.is

Sigurdur Gudjonsson Freshwater Fisheries, Iceland sigurdur.gudjonsson@veidimal.is Vigfus Johannsson Icelandic Fish Farmers

Association, Reykjavik, Iceland vigfus@stofnfiskur.is

Ireland All Marine Institute Staff Marine Institute, All Hands@marine.ie David Murphy Aqua TT, Dublin david@aquatt.ie Donal McGuire BIM maguire@bim.ie James Ryan Irish Salmon Growers

Association, Co. Galway, Ireland killarysalmon@eircom.net

Ken Whelan Marine Institute, Newport, Co. Mayo, Ireland

kwhelan@iol.ie

Ollie Tully BIM tully@bim.ie Paddy Gargan Central Fisheries Board Paddy.Gargan@cfb.ie Philip McGinnity Central Fisheries Board pmcginnity@anu.ie Richard Flynn Irish Salmon Growers

Association, Dublin, Ireland richieflynn@ifa.ie

Tom Cross University College Cork t.cross@ucc.ie Northern Ireland H Mark C McCaughan Dept of Agriculture and Rural

Development, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK

mark.mccaughan@dardni.gov.uk

Marcus McAuley Dept of Culture, Arts and Leisure, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK

marcus.mcauley@dcalni.gov.uk

Robert Rosell Dept of Agriculture and Rural Development, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK

robert.rosell@dardni.gov.uk

Norway Aina Valland FHL Aquaculture, Trondheim,

Norway aina.valland@nho.no

Arne Sivertsen The Directorate for Nature Management

arnie.sivertsen@dirnat.no

Bengt Finstad NINA bengt.finstad@ninatrd.ninaniku.no

38

Kjell Maroni FHL Aquaculture, Trondheim, Norway

kjell.maroni@fhl.no

Knut Hjelt FHL Aquaculture, Trondheim, Norway

knuta.jelt@nho.no

Oystein Aas NINA oystein.aas@nina.no Oystein Skaala Norwegian Marine Research

Institute oystein.skaala@imr.no

Norway Steinar Hermansen Royal Ministry of Environment,

Oslo, Norway sh@md.dep.no

Tone Kjenstad Fisheries and Aquaculture Industries Research Fund

tone.kjenstad@fiskerifond.no

Torbjorn Forseth NINA torbjorn.forseth@nina.no Fisheries and Aquaculture

Industries Research Fund fhf@fiskerifond.no

Russia Alexander Zubchenko Pinro, Murmansk, Russia salmon@pinro.murmansk.ru Boris F Prischepa Murmanrybvod, Murmansk,

Russia mrv@an.ru

Elena Samoylova Pinro, Murmansk, Russia inter@pinro.murmansk.ru Svetlana Krylova Murmanrybvod, Murmansk,

Russia mrv_sova@an.ru

Spain Carmen Beraldi Secretaria General de Pesca

Maritima, Madrid, Spain cberaldi@mapya.es

Jose Luis Gonzalez Serrano

Department de Pesca Maritima, Madrid, Spain

jlgonza@mapya.es

Scotland Angus Morgan Scottish Quality Salmon, Perth,

UK angusmorgan@sol.co.uk

David Dunkley Scottish Executive Rural Affairs Department, Edinburgh, UK

david.dunkley@scotland.gsi.gov.uk

David Cahill Marine Harvest, UK David.Cahil@marineharvest.com James Lindsay Scottish Quality Salmon, Perth,

UK jlindsay99@lineone.net

Jeremy Read Director, Atlantic Salmon Trust salmontrust@aol.com Jinny Hutchison Scottish Executive Rural Affairs

Department, Edinburgh, UK jinny.hutchison@scotland.gsi.gov.uk

Jon Watt LDFT, Fort William, Scotland, UK

ldftrust@zetnet.co.uk

John Webster Scottish Quality Salmon, Perth, UK

jwebster@scottishsalmon.co.uk

Laura Cregan Scottish Executive Rural Affairs Department, Edinburgh, UK

Laura.Cregan@scotland.gsi.gov.uk

39

Malcolm Windsor NASCO Secretariat, Edinburgh, UK

hq@nasco.int

Mark Bilsby Western Isles Fisheries Trust, Isle of Lewis, UK

m.bilsby@btinternet.com

Mandie Currie NDO, Tripartite Working Group, Argyll, Scotland, UK

archibald@mcgillivary.fsnet.co.uk

Peter Hutchinson NASCO Secretariat, Edinburgh, UK

hq@nasco.int

Peter Watson LDFT, Fort William, Scotland, UK

peter.watson@sepa.org.uk

Simon Scott Grimersta Estate, Isle of Lewis, UK

grimersta@lineone.net

William Crowe Scottish Quality Salmon, Perth, UK

wcrowe@scottishsalmon.co.uk

US Alec Maule Western Fisheries Research

Centre (USGS) alec_maule@usgs.gov

Andy Appleby Washington State Fish and Wildlife

appleaea@dfw.wa.gov

Chris Bartlett Maine Sea Grant Marine Extension Team

lett@marine.edu

Dan Swecker Washington Fish Growers Association

dan@wfga.net

Dana L. Morse Maine Sea Grant Marine Extension Team

Dana.Morse@maine.edu

David Bean National Marine Fisheries Service, Gloucester, Massachusetts, USA

david.bean@noaa.gov

Deb Merchant Watershed Program Manager, For The Sake of the Salmon, WA, USA

dmerchant@4sos.org

Debra A Becker Western Fisheries Research Centre (USGS)

debra_becker@usgs.gov

Edward Baum Atlantic Salmon Unlimited, Hermon, Maine, USA

asunlimited@aol.com

Fred Kircheis Maine Atlantic Salmon Commission, Augusta, Maine, USA

f.kircheis@stats.me.us

Gael Kurath Western Fisheries Research Centre (USGS)

gael_kurath@usgs.gov

Guyla McGrady Dept. of Natural Resources, State of Alaska

Guyla_McGrady@dnr.state.ak.us

Jackie L. Timothy Department of Fish and Game Alaska

jackie_timothy@fishgame.state.ak.us

40

Kevin Bright Cypress Island Inc., Washington State USA

kbright@nwlink.com

Mary Colligan National Marine Fisheries Service, Gloucester, Massachusetts, USA

mary.a.colligan@noaa.gov

Mike Pietrak Maine Aquaculture Association, Maine, USA

mpietrak@worldnet.att.net

Sebastian Belle Maine Aquaculture Association, Maine, USA

futureseas@aol.com

Steve Page Env. Compliance Officer, Atlantic Salmon of Maine, Belfast, Maine, USA

steve.page@us.fjord.com

Tom Busiahn US Fisheries and Wild Life Service, Washington, DC, USA

tom_busiahn@fws.gov

Trial Joan

Maine Atlantic Salmon Commission, Bangor, Maine, USA

Joan.Trial@state.me.us

41

42

Appendix 3

Detailed Inventory of Co-operative Projects Identified

43

44

No. 1 Canada Project No. C1

Party or relevant jurisdiction

Magaguadavic River, Co-operative Salmon Restoration Project New Brunswick, Canada

Title of project Magaguadavic River, Co-operative Salmon Restoration Project

Objective of Project The Magaguadavic River Salmon Association (MRSA) was formed in 1992, largely through the efforts of Gerald Bradley, to address the serious decline of wild Atlantic salmon returning to the Magaguadavic river. This original group made up of anglers, camp owners and others with an interest in conserving salmon, undertook several salmon enhancement projects under the guidance of federal and provincial biologists, the Atlantic Salmon Federation and the Eastern Charlotte Waterways Commission. With the drastic declines in wild salmon returns to the river, the Magaguadavic River Recovery Group (see major players below) was established in 1998 by the MRSA with the goal of restoring the wild salmon population of the Magaguadavic river. The success of this project has depended on the ability of the major players (listed below) to co-operate in a single committee so that decisions can be made quickly. Magaguadavic River Salmon Association

List of Co-operative Partners

MRSA - project leader NB Wildlife Trust Fund - funding support NB Environmental Trust Fund – funding support NB Council of the Atlantic Salmon Federation - Liaison with local stakeholders. Atlantic Salmon Federation, Research and Environment Dept - program scientific lead, background scientific studies and in-river monitoring, extensive administrative support. Fisheries and Oceans Canada - technical expertise, disease testing, genetic screening, Mactaquac grow-out facility, expedited permitting process. Huntsman Marine Science Centre - genetics expertise, facilities Eastern Charlotte Waterways - river water quality monitoring and mapping. J.D. Irving Limited - technical advice, juvenile rearing facilities at St. George dam NB Department of Natural Resources and Energy - technical input NB Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Aquaculture - extensive disease and fish health testing, funding support. The New Brunswick Salmon Growers Association - liaison with the salmon aquaculture industry, communication support Cooke Aquaculture and Stolt Sea Farm Inc. - planning & technical advice Cooke Aquaculture - grow out facility, equipment for transfer to Huntsman Heritage Salmon. - hatchery rearing of eggs to smolt Jail Island Aquaculture - equipment and expertise for transfer to Huntsman Moore-Clark - feed

45

Cards Aqua - equipment Shur-Gain - materials Corey Feed - feed Syndel – materials

Responsibility/Function of each of the Partners

November 1998 – June 2000 Heritage Salmon Lake Utopia Fish Culture Station – spawning and rearing to smolt stage June 2000 Cooke Aquaculture (Grand Manan) – marine rearing Fisheries and Oceans Mactaquac Biodiversity Facility – fresh water rearing November 2001 Fisheries and Oceans Mactaquac Biodiversity Facility – spawning January 2002 Conservation Groups and Salmon Farmers Collaborate To Move Magaguadavic Salmon to New Foster Home. Movement of salmon from Grand Manan to Huntsman Marine Science Centre – continued seawater rearing Fisheries and Oceans Mactaquac Biodiversity Facility – continued fresh water rearing June 2002 Release of 29,000 Atlantic salmon fry (from Mactaquac) into Magaguadavic watershed for research aimed at future restoration. Fisheries and Oceans Mactaquac Bio-diversity Facility – broodstock maintenance HMSC (not in kind - paid rent and salary) - broodstock maintenance Fisheries and Oceans – genetic analysis (pedigree lines) for broodstock August – October 2002 Release of 30 Ultrasonically Tagged Adult Salmon into the Magaguadavic Release of 78 surplus brood fish from HMSC into Magaguadavic watershed Fisheries and Oceans – develop mating plan for captive broodstock November 2002 Fisheries and Oceans Mactaquac Biodiversity Facility – spawning and egg incubation; continued broodstock maintenance Plans for January 2003 Fisheries and Oceans Mactaquac Biodiversity Facility – movement of eyed eggs to Heritage Salmon; and continued broodstock maintenance Heritage Salmon Lake Utopia Fish Culture Station – rear eyed eggs to smolt

Who are the beneficiaries of the project

The wild Atlantic salmon population is the primary beneficiary, with knock-on benefits being derived by the environment and the people of the Magaguadavic river catchment.

46

Brief description of the project. Select appropriate box below;

The aim of the Magaguadavic River Salmon Association is to restore the annual return of wild adult Atlantic salmon to about 1000 fish, so as to support again a sustainable recreational fishery, and also to research the efficacy of use of adult spawners as a restoration tool.

Commercial Restoration a Enhancement a Disease/Diagnostic aRecreational Environmental Regulatory Research aVoluntary/ Community

Educational Technology Transfer

Quality Improvement Systems

NGOs a Genetic a Nutrition Progress to date of the Project

January 2002 Conservation Groups and Salmon Farmers Collaborate To Move Magaguadavic Salmon to New Foster Home in St. Andrews, NB. Salmon farmers and conservation groups pooled their resources and expertise to move nearly two hundred Magaguadavic river salmon from a cage site near Grand Manan to a new home at the Huntsman Marine Science Centre. They will be reared there until they mature and can be spawned for their eggs in November 2002. The move is part of a joint project to maintain the wild genetic stock that will be used in efforts to restore salmon runs in the Magaguadavic river. Many smolts (15-25 cm long salmon) that migrate from freshwater to the ocean are not returning as adults to spawn and complete the life cycle. The reasons for the severe decline in virtually all of the rivers emptying into the Bay of Fundy and the Gulf of Maine are still not known. There are indications that the problem may be related to the marine phase of the salmon’s life cycle. June 2002 Release of 29,000 Atlantic salmon fry into Magaguadavic watershed for research aimed at future restoration. In June, the recovery group released 29,000 Atlantic salmon fry, spawned in November 2001 from captive Magaguadavic salmon broodstock, into the Piskahegan river, a tributary of the Magaguadavic. August – October 2002 Release of ultrasonically tagged adult salmon into the Magaguadavic through a series of releases, 30 tagged salmon (half male, half female, half reared in salt water, and half reared in freshwater) weighing an average of 5 kilograms each were released into the Magaguadavic. Jonathan Carr, staff biologist with the Atlantic Salmon Federation, surgically implanted coded ultrasonic transmitters (pingers) into the salmon a few days prior to their release, to allow sufficient time for recovery and observation. These acoustic tags emit signals that are carried through the water column and allow the fish to be detected by submersible receivers positioned at strategic locations in the river. Using this technology, researchers can follow the salmon’s underwater movements.

Timeframe of project 1998 – until the target of 1000 returning adult fish is reached. It will probably require several generations of salmon to achieve this objective

Area in which research is undertaken

New Brunswick, Canada

47

What was the genesis of the project

The drastic declines in wild salmon returns to the river. The Magaguadavic River Recovery Group was established in 1998 by the MRSA with the goal of restoring the wild salmon population of the Magaguadavic river.

Resources Estimated cost of the research project

To date: Approx $200,000 has been contributed in kind, this is inclusive of salaries. Aprox $50,000 in direct funding has been contributed. The contribution of volunteer work to this project has been significant.

Source of Funding

NB Wildlife Trust Fund - funding support NB Environmental Trust Fund – funding support NB Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Aquaculture – funding support All partners contributed in kind (salaries and equipment, volunteer)-

Name of co-ordinating scientist in charge of project

Jim Martin, Project Leader, Magaguadavic River Salmon Association

Proposed method of dissemination of project

Peer-reviewed scientific journals Presentations at Fisheries and aquaculture related conferences/workshops ASF web site see - http://www.asf.ca/Research/magaguadavic/index.html

Details of any collaborating bodies, Universities, Government Depts, etc

N/A

48

No. 2 Canada Project No. C2

Party or relevant jurisdiction

Gaspé Bay, Québec, Canada

Title of project Gaspé Bay, Speckled Trout Rearing Project, Québec, Canada Objective of Project The project is a co-operative R&D project whose objective is to:

1)Verify if speckled trout rearing in sea cages is technically possible between May and November in Quebec’s cold waters. 2)Verify if there is really an economic advantage in transferring young 100g speckled trout in sea cages to grow them between May and November in Quebec’s cold waters. 3) Verify also if it is possible to do so without conflict with the other users of the coastline. 4) Check if the environmental impact can be kept as low as possible. 5) To build up a technical and scientific expertise in fish farming in the Québec’s maritime areas.

List of Co-operative Partners

CCTTP (Centre collegial de transfert de technologie des pêches, Cégep de la Gaspésie et des Iles) SODIM (Société de développement de l’industrie maricole) MAPAQ (Ministère de l’agriculture des pệcheries at de l’alimentation du Québec)

Responsibility/Function of each of the Partners

CCTTP is managing the project. It is also part of the scientific advisory board of the project. SODIM and MAPAQ are part of the scientific advisory board. CCTTP, SODIM and MAPAQ share parts in the financing of the project.

Who are the beneficiaries of the project

Québec’s aquaculture industry Québec’s school of fishery (through the participation of its teachers in the project. The school has a collegial aquaculture education programme in Québec. The project will allow teachers and students to familiarize themselves with sea farming technologies).

Brief description of the project. Select appropriate box below;

Before any cages are put in place, an environmental and oceanographic portrait of the bay was drawn and a mathematical modelling of waves propagation and currents was build for the bay (ISMER, UQAR). The wild salmon populations living in the tributaries of the bay were screened for pathogens (UDM). A research team is working on the formulation of a salted feed to enhance the osmotic adaptation of young triploid fishes before their transfer to sea (MAPAQ-UQAR).

Commercial a Restoration Enhancement Disease/Diagnostic aRecreational Environmental a Regulatory Research aVoluntary/ Community

Educational a Technology Transfer

a Quality Improvement Systems

NGOs Genetic Nutrition a

49

Progress to date of the Project

Stage 1 - 2000 to 2001: A literature search about the Gaspé bay was carried out. A large-scale oceanographic study of currents and wave propagation in the bay, which resulted in the modelling of currents and waves in the bay, was also conducted by ISMER (Institut des sciences de la mer de Rimouski, UQAR). Simulations of dispersion of the dissolved organic matter were done with the model for several potential rearing sites. The benthos of the bay was also categorised. A study of diseases in the wild salmonids populations of the bay, was carried out by Dr. Carl Uhland, veterinarian at the Université de Montréal and Dr Nathalie Le Francois, a fish physiologist at the Universite du Quebec a Rimouski (UQAR). In order to get the 300 fish required for the study a collaboration was developed with the river management Department (Faune et Parcs du Quebec). Stage 2 - 2002 Based on the information gained from stage 1 the best location for the cage installation was chosen. The site was chosen so as to minimise the potential environmental impact of salmonid farming and to optimise fish growth. A small-scale oceanographic study (temp, salinity, turbidity, current, and waves) was done on the chosen site to obtain data at small temporal and spatial scale. A benthic survey was carried out on the chosen site so as to get the time zero, base line status, i.e. a picture of the situation before any cages were introduced. The same survey was carried out on another area, 500 m away from the cage site, which will be the control throughout the experimental programme. The cages, the anchoring system and the feeding system are about to be installed on the farming site so as to check their robustness in rough sea and for familiarisation with the manipulation of the various pieces of equipment. A study on a salted diet that will help the fish to adapt their osmotic system before they are put to sea has also been completed by Dr Nathalie Le François from Université du Québec a Rimouski. A study on trout and sea trout marketing is on its way. Stage 3 – 2003 The triploid, vaccinated trout are due to be put to sea in Spring of 2003 and harvested in November 2003. The benthic survey will go on around the cage. Technical and rearing adjustments will be made. A bio-economic model will be built up using the results of the 2003 activities.

Timeframe of project 2000 – 2003 Area in which research is undertaken

Gaspé Bay, Québec, Canada

What was the genesis of the project

There was a need expressed by two speckled trout rearing plants in the Gaspé area to export part of their production to sea in order to accelerate growing and to make space in their terrestrial facilities and to speed up production turnover. The programme is also part of Québec’s new policy on the development of aquaculture in its waters. It will help to develop aquaculture of emerging species like marine fishes, since there is already research done on marine fishes in Québec’s universities.

50

Resources

Estimated cost of the research project

No costs submitted

Source of Funding Federal and Provincial government funds (Développement économique Canada, Ministère des régions du Québec, Ministère de l’agriculture des pêcheries et de l’alimentation du Québec, Ministère de la recherche de la science et des technologies du Québec, Société de développement de l’industrie maricole, Ministère de l’éducation du Québec.

Name of co-ordinating scientist in charge of project

Éric Tamigneaux

Proposed method of dissemination of project

Regular meetings are held with the local population through the Comité de concertation de la baie de Gaspé. Information is also disseminated in Québec’s fisheries newspaper, Pêche Impact. National and International presentations are also given by the scientists involved and a final report will be published at the end of the project.

Details of any collaborating bodies, Universities, Government Depts, etc

Université de Montréal (UDM) Université du Québec a Rimouski (UQAR) Institut des sciences de la mer (ISMER, UQAR) Centre aquicole marin de Grande-Rivière (MAPAQ) Faune et Parcs du Quebec, the river management Department. Centre collégial de transfert de technologie des pêches (CCTTP, Centre spécialisé des pêches, Cégep de la Gaspésie et des Iles)

51

No. 1 Europe Project No. E1

Party or relevant jurisdiction

West Coast, Scotland

Title of project Tripartite Working Group of Government, Aquaculture and Wild Fisheries Interests

Objective of Project The project involves the development and continued operation of the Area Management Agreement process on the West Coast of Scotland. This is the bringing together of Government, aquaculture and wild fisheries interests to address the serious decline in wild salmon and sea trout stocks in the west of Scotland

List of Co-operative Partners

Scottish Executive – Government Scottish Quality Salmon Salmonid Fisheries Forum Association of Salmon Fishery Boards Association of West Coast Fisheries Trusts Atlantic Salmon Trust Salmon & Trout Association (Scotland) Scottish Anglers National Association The development of AMAs is underpinned by three regional projects: Argyll/Lochaber Regional Project Argyll Fisheries Trust Argyll District Salmon Fisheries Board Lochaber Fisheries Trust Lochaber District Salmon Fisheries Board Aquascot Murray Seafoods Lighthouse of Scotland Marine Harvest (Scotland) Scottish Sea Farms NW Scotland Regional Project Wester Ross Fisheries Trust West Sutherland Fisheries Marine Harvest Scottish Seafarms Lighthouse Highland Loch Duart Ltd Fisheries Research Services Highland Council Western Isles Regional Project Western Isles Fisheries Trust Western Isles Aquaculture Association Western Isles Salmon Fisheries Board Comhairle nan Eliean Siar

Responsibility/Function of each of the Partners

The responsibility of each partner will be outlined and agreed in the individual Area Management Agreements

52

Who are the beneficiaries of the project

The wild Atlantic salmon and sea trout population is the primary beneficiary, with knock-on benefits being derived by the aquaculture industry, the environment and the anglers and the people of West Scotland.

Brief description of the project. Select appropriate box below;

Ministerial Working Group to develop a strategic framework for aquaculture development, comprising Government, industry and wild fish interests and NGOs.

Commercial Restoration a Enhancement a Disease/Diagnostic aRecreational Environmental a Regulatory a Research aVoluntary/ Community

a Educational Technology Transfer

a Quality Improvement Systems

a

NGOs a Genetic Nutrition Progress to date of the Project

Area Management Agreements To date seven Area Management Agreements have been signed (Laxford Loch, West Loch Tarbert, Loch Torridon, Lochs Carron/Kishorn, Loch Nevis, Loch Linnhe/Firth of Lorn/ Sound of Mull and Loch Fyne), with two in the final stages of negotiation (Loch Broom/Little Loch Broom and East Harris/Lewis) and work has started on AMAs for Loch Roag and Loch Duich). The AMAs are negotiated by the parties themselves, with the process managed by Fisheries Trust biologists, with assistance from Scottish Executive staff. A National Development Officer has just been appointed who will be available to facilitate the process. The function of the National Development Officer will vary from area to area depending on needs, and leading new agreements as they develop. Area Management Agreements have clearly defined aims and objectives, and they cover a defined and agreed geographical area. The aims relate to promoting healthy stocks of wild and farmed salmon and the restoration of wild sea trout stock – these vary in their wording from area to area. The objectives cover some of the following issues: • Identified production areas (if required within large AMAs) • Synchronised production • Synchronised fallowing • Sea lice treatments and targets • Sea lice counts (recording and monitoring) • Containment/recovery strategy for dealing with fish farm escapes • Working practices - such as well boat operations, discharge of

harvest blood water etc. • Collation and distribution of data • Recording/management of information and documentation They usually make reference to: the Scottish Quality Salmon Code of Practice; the code of practice proposed by the Joint Working Group on ISA (Feb 2000); and the recommendations of the Escapes Working Group.

53

Clauses relating to freshwater management are also included, for example: • The collation and distribution of catchment data – catch statistics,

population data etc • Codes of practice for fisheries • Conservation measures, catch/release programmes etc • Riparian improvement/management, • Restocking and enhancement measures • Movement controls • Fish health checks • Predator control To date all AMAs have included a confidentiality clause – usually stating that information shared within the AMG will be treated as confidential. It is anticipated that the need for this will be reduced as local relationships are strengthened and a culture of mutual trust and understanding is fully established. It is also anticipated that the membership of the Area Management Groups may be widened in time to include representatives from local community groups and other stakeholders within the area, however the groups need to become more firmly established first. The AMAs all follow similar basic structures, but they are negotiated independently, and each makes its own decisions regarding what clauses are included. Issues may also be left open for future negotiation. In order to underpin these initiatives, three Regional projects have been developed. They are broken into geographical areas as follows: Argyll/Lochaber, the Western Isles and NW Scotland (Wester Ross and West Sutherland). The projects will run for three years and will be managed by regional groups representing both industry and wild fish interests. Bids have been submitted to Highlands and Islands Enterprise for project funding – to date the Argyll/Lochaber and the Western Isles bids have been approved and the NW Scotland bid is pending approval. The aim of the regional projects is to support the delivery of AMAs within each region. Regional officers will deliver each project and they will be employed by the local Fisheries Trusts or DSFB, on the behalf of the local Area Management Groups. This is likely to be achieved through a regional group comprising representatives from each local Area Management Group. The role of the Regional Officer will be to underpin the AMA process, by carrying out activities such as the co-ordination of lice treatments; lice monitoring; monitoring and provision of advice on disease issues for both farmed and wild fish; and collating and disseminating information on the AMAs. These activities will support and complement the role of the National Development Officer – carried out at the local level.

54

The work of both the National Development Officer and the Regional Officers will be complemented by the employment of a Conservation/Restoration Co-ordinator, who will provide advice and assistance to the Trusts, DSFBs and individual river proprietors on catchment management and wild stock restoration projects. These projects will build on the collaborative work that has already been undertaken between industry and managers of wild fisheries. The Conservation/Restoration Co-ordinator will be employed by the Atlantic Salmon Trust, on behalf of the TWG).

Timeframe of project 2000 - Ongoing Area in which research is undertaken

West Scotland, Europe

What was the genesis of the project

The serious declines in wild salmon and sea trout stocks in the West of Scotland.

Resources Estimated cost of the research project

Argyll/Lochaber Regional Project; Total Fund - £230,125 In–kind contribution of £71,375 from industry and wild fish interests. A grant of £158,750 from Highlands and Islands Enterprise has been approved. NW Scotland Project Total Fund Required - £326,022 In-kind/cash contribution of £179,900 from industry and wild fisheries interests. Application for a grant for the balance has been made to the Highlands and Islands Enterprise and has yet to be considered. Western Isles Project Total Fund - £167,699 In-kind/cash contribution of £72,800 from industry and wild fisheries interests A grant £94,899 from Highlands and Islands Enterprise has been approved.

Source of Funding

Name of co-ordinating scientist in charge of project

Dr Mandie Currie, National Development Officer Andrew Wallace (Association of Salmon Fishery Boards) Lord Lindsay & Dr. John Webster (Scottish Quality Salmon) Gordon Brown (Scottish Executive)

Proposed method of dissemination of project

Atlantic Salmon Trust web-site see – http://www.atlanticsalmontrust.org/news_body.htm Scottish Quality Salmon web-site see - http://www.scottishsalmon.co.uk/collaborations/index.html

Details of any collaborating bodies, Universities, Government Depts, etc

N/A

55

No. 2 Europe

Project No. E2

Party or relevant jurisdiction

Isle of Lewis, Western Isles, Scotland

Title of project Langavat Catchment Restocking Program Broodstock and Smolt Production on the Grimersta Estate

Objective of Project On an informal basis WISCo aid production of salmon broodstock and smolts for the Grimersta Estate fishery, in return for freshwater production sites.

List of Co-operative Partners

Grimersta Estate Western Isles Fisheries Trust WISCo

Responsibility/Function of each of the Partners

Grimersta Estate – fish and hatchery facilities. Western Isles Fisheries Trust – technical input. WISCo – hatchery support, installation and running of a loch cage for rearing.

Who are the beneficiaries of the project

The wild Atlantic salmon population is the primary beneficiary, with knock on benefits being derived by the environment and the anglers and the people of West Scotland.

Brief description of project. Select appropriate box below;

The initiative is part of the Langavat Catchment restocking program, where catchment production is being augmented by restocking of areas adjoining the main catchment where stocks are low. This is being carried out in conjunction with habitat improvements and predator protection. WISCo contribute to this by providing, cages, rearing advice, manpower for rearing, and helicopter transport for stocking when required. While there is a formal contract between the groups the production plan is an informal document. The partners routinely revise the production plan as is necessary.

Commercial Restoration Enhancement a Disease/Diagnostic Recreational a Environmental Regulatory Research aVoluntary/ Community

a Educational Technology Transfer

Quality Improvement Systems

NGOs a Genetic Nutrition Progress to date of the Project

Up to 4 years ago the Grimersta Estate took all its broodstock from the wild, but due to a low run in that year, up to 5% of the wild run was taken for broodstock. This was deemed to be too great a proportion as only a 2% return was attributed to this effort. In order to address this, on an annual basis smolts are brought to maturation in freshwater, and the females selected for use as broodstock. For the past 3 years, reared females have been back crosses with wild salmon cocks, which were subsequently re-released into the wild. As a practice hens are only spawned once in captivity, to avoid genetic problems.

56

Progeny are hatchery reared to fry or smolt stage, prior to release into the catchment. A target of restocking 100,000 fish per annum is being reached. Returns based on the restocking are evaluated annually, by scale reading. The Fresh Water Fisheries Lab verifies readings. This year it is planned to commence DNA testing of the population, so as to get a better genetic profile of the population in the catchment. Currently the partners are moving towards participation in an Area Management Agreement in the near future.

Timeframe of project 2000 – Ongoing Area in which research is undertaken

Western Isles Scotland, Europe

What was the genesis of the project

The need to cease using wild fish for restocking purposes.

Resources Estimated cost of the research project

As the contributions are in kind, it is difficult to get an accurate costing.

Source of Funding

N/A

Name of co-ordinating scientist in charge of project

Simon Scott, Grimersta Estate, Isle of Lewis, Scotland, Mark Bilsby, Western Isles Fisheries Trust, Isle of Lewis, Scotland Brian Shaw, WISCo, Isle of Lewis Scotland

Proposed method of dissemination of project

Annual WIFT Reports

Details of any collaborating bodies, Universities, Government Depts, etc

N/A

57

No. 3 Europe

Project No. E3

Party or relevant jurisdiction

Lochaber, Scotland

Title of project Lochaber Sea Trout Rearing Co-operative

Objective of Project To increase the numbers of available breeding adult sea trout and boost egg disposition/fry numbers, in response to the recent decline of sea trout stocks in the Lochaber area.

List of Co-operative Partners

Ailort, Shiel and Moidart Fisheries proprietors Lochaber and District Fisheries Trust Marine Harvest Scotland Morar Association Shiel Fisheries Action Group

Responsibility/Function of each of the Partners

Ailort, Shiel and Moidart Fisheries proprietors – staff as required for marking stocking out etc. Lochaber and District Fisheries Trust – plan originator and co-ordinator. Monitoring of wild stocks, capture of smolts, tagging and input to strategy based on this information. Marine Harvest Scotland – main partner, provide facilities for rearing all stocks plus husbandry for all except the Morar river. Morar Association – husbandry for the Morar stocks, plus input as required to other stocks. Constructed additional hatchery unit using materials provided by Marine Harvest. Shiel Fisheries Action Group (group of anglers clubs) – smolt capture and construction of satellite hatchery to receive ova

Who are the beneficiaries of the project

The wild sea trout population is the primary beneficiary, with knock on benefits being derived by the environment, the anglers and the people of West Scotland.

Brief description of project. Select appropriate box below;

In order to increase the numbers of adult fish and boost stocks the co-operative project commenced in 1999 on the Rivers Morar and Ailort. Based on wild smolt capture and captive rearing of these trout smolts as broodstock, progeny are returned to the river of origin. Two additional initiatives have commenced on the river Moidart in 2000/2001 and the river Shiel in 2002. A project plan was drawn up initially for the River Ailort, this is updated as needed based on growth rates, fecundity and survival of captive stocks. A program evaluation process is under development for the Ailort and Morar systems. There is an annual turn over of broodstock at the rate of 30 – 50%, this is achieved by taking in new smolts and removing existing broodstock

Commercial Restoration a Enhancement Disease/Diagnostic Recreational a Environmental Regulatory Research aVoluntary/ Community

a Educational Technology Transfer

a Quality Improvement Systems

NGOs a Genetic Nutrition

58

Progress to date of the Project

Ailort: Aprox. 100 smolts were captured in 1999 as core broodstock. Since then 75 – 100 individual broodstock have been held with a view to an output of 150,000 fry annually. 2000 – 4,000 fry stocked 2002 – 200,000 fry stocked 2003 – 150,000 fry projected. Fyke netting in Spring 2002 indicated good survival of fry stocked in 2000 – 1.2% captured as smolts, but as capture lasted only 6 days, it is suggested that fry smolt survival would be in excess of 10%.

Morar: Broodstock building up 2003 – 100,000 fry projected

Shiel: Broodstock will not be stripped until 2003/4

Moidart: No estimate available at time of writing.

The main task now is to assess whether stocking improved smolt output and adult runs. An assessment of this is being developed on the Ailort and the Morar. Restocking is just one measure in an overall package which includes habitat improvement and action on marine issues.

The partners are working towards an Area Management Agreement for these rivers. Both are currently involved in AMAs for other rivers.

Timeframe of project 1999 - Ongoing to achieve 4 full years of stocking Area in which research is undertaken

Lochaber and District, Scotland, Europe

What was the genesis of the project

The severe decline and in some areas collapse of the wild sea trout population.

Resources Estimated cost of the research project

As much of the contributions are in kind, it is difficult to get an accurate estimate. LDFT estimate an input of £2,600 in the year 2002/2003.

Source of Funding Name of co-ordinating scientist in charge of project

Jon Watt, Lochaber and District Fisheries Trust, Inverness-shire, Scotland. David Cahill, Marine Harvest, Scotland

Proposed method of dissemination of project

Fisheries Trust Annual Reports

Details of any collaborating bodies, Universities, Government Depts, etc

N/A

59

No. 4 Europe

Project No. E4

Party or relevant jurisdiction

West Coast, Scotland

Title of project Independent Co-operative Initiatives between Wild Fisheries and Aquaculture

Objective of Project Miscellaneous projects based on co-operation between individual Fishery Trusts and local aquaculture concerns

List of Co-operative Partners

Argyll Fisheries Trust Lochaber Fisheries Trust Marine Harvest (Scotland) Rispond Hatchery Wester Ross Fisheries Trust Fisheries Trust District Fisheries Boards West Sutherland Fisheries Trust Loch Duart Ltd Ardessie Salmon Ltd Lighthouse of Scotland Ltd Wester Ross Salmon Bob Kindness Scottish Sea Farms Loch Fyne District Salmon Fishery Board Loch Fyne Marine Trust Caladonian Trout Co. Kinloachawe Smokery Ltd

Responsibility/Function of each of the Partners

The responsibility of each partner is outlined in the project details overleaf.

Who are the beneficiaries of the project

The wild Atlantic salmon and sea trout population is the primary beneficiary, with knock-on benefits to the environment and the anglers and the people of West Scotland.

Brief description of the project. Select appropriate box below;

Miscellaneous independent initiatives in the West of Scotland

Commercial Restoration a Enhancement a Disease/Diagnostic aRecreational Environmental a Regulatory a Research aVoluntary/ Community

a Educational Technology Transfer

a Quality Improvement Systems

a

NGOs a Genetic Nutrition Progress to date of the Project

Restoration: • Marine Harvest supply equipment to several small-scale hatchery

operations including River Shiel (Dorlin and Glenfinnan), Ailort, Scaddle/Cona and Lochy. Marine Harvest staff are consistently helpful in providing advice on hatchery operations, husbandry and fish health.

• Industry provide direct support to Fisheries Trusts via projects or core funding

60

• The Argyll Fisheries Trust (AFT) is currently participating in two Area Management Agreements (AMAs) in the Argyll and Lochaber region (in partnership with Lochaber District FT) and has a further four to negotiate. The Loch Fyne and Loch Linnhe Area Management Groups may be viewed as a route to restoration of wild fisheries in the area through on-farm and fishery management.

Enhancement: • Rispond Hatchery has assisted with the provision of equipment and

advice for the development of a small hatchery within the area. This is on an estate - fish farm basis.

• Fish farms have supplied/are supplying materials for the development of small hatcheries on several estates within the WRFT area. This has usually been on an individual estate - fish farm basis.

• Red River Hatchery Marine Harvest produces 25,000 smolts annually for the last 9 years for the Uig and Hamanavay Estate. The success of the scheme is assessed by WIFT.

• Marine Harvest provided transport for 500,000 fry from the Seafield Centre stocked into Loch Maree in 2001.

Fish Health: • Area Management Agreements are working on disease and

diagnostic strategies. Environmental/Regulatory: • Working Group to address escapes from fish farms. In addition,

further co-operation between industry and Fisheries Trusts and District Salmon Fishery Boards continues informally in the recovery of escaped farmed fish.

• Recovery of escaped salmon smolts from Loch na Thull in 1998 and 2000 was undertaken jointly by Loch Duart Ltd and WSFT.

Research – biotech/genetic/nutrition: • Rispond Hatchery provides manpower to assist with sweep netting

within the Polla estuary. This project has been on-going since 1997 and involves monthly netting of the estuary in order to assess the lice burdens and presence of early-returning sea trout. The project also gains information on growth rates and migrations of sea trout within the area.

• Loch Duart Ltd is assisting with data analysis of sea lice information

from Laxford Bay, particularly through the provision of lice data from the cages within the Loch.

• Ardessie Salmon Ltd. was subcontracted to conduct sea lice sampling on sea trout post smolts in the Dundonnell River Estuary in 2002, a part of WRFT - FRS sea lice monitoring programme. WRFT hopes to involve other fish farms with sea lice monitoring in 2003.

• Argyll Fisheries Trust area; On-going – collaborative monitoring work on sea trout and sea lice burdens in Loch Fyne in association with Lighthouse of Scotland to inform Area Management Group.

61

Technology Transfer • Argyll Fisheries Trust Area; Provision of advice (and potential

equipment in the future) from Lakeland Smolts Ltd on hatchery operations at Loch Fyne District Salmon Fishery Board hatchery.

• The Manse Trap has received assistance with equipment from both Loch Duart Ltd and Rispond Hatchery. The Manse trap is intended to monitor the marine and kelt survival rates of salmon and sea trout in the Manse system, flowing into Loch Roe.

• Marine Harvest kindly provided some materials for a new upstream trap at Tournaig. The Tournaig trap was installed to monitor the marine survival of salmon and sea trout from a small river system by Loch Ewe.

• Marine Harvest contributed materials to the Gruinard estate hatchery. Co-operative Projects completed in the last 5 years: • Loch Duart Ltd supplied eyed ova for a ‘salmon in the classroom’

project with Scourie Primary School. • WSFT were involved in discussions with Loch Duart Ltd for the use

of the Geisgeil Hatchery to rear salmon and sea trout to restock local rivers.

• Ardessie Sea lice project: monitoring of sea lice on farmed and wild salmonids in Little Loch Broom (1997).

• Restocking: Loch Maree: sea trout eggs from Bob Kindness were grown on by Marine Harvest and stocked into the River Ewe - Loch Maree system in 2000 and 2001.

• Escaped smolt recapture: WRFT and Wester Ross Salmon worked together to recapture smolts that had escaped from a fish farm in Loch Tollie in 2000.

• WRFT was also been involved in discussions with Wester Ross Salmon to set up a hatchery for restocking rivers in the Loch Broom area in the late 1990s.

• Scottish Sea Farms have in the past supplied ova and fry for restocking, e.g. River Aline, but this has been discontinued due to concerns over genetic impacts of stocking non-native fish.

• Loch Fyne Rivers Habitat Survey; A collaborative project undertaken by the AFT to investigate the current state of in-stream and riparian habitats for salmonid fish. Lighthouse of Scotland Ltd, the Loch Fyne District Salmon Fishery Board and the Loch Fyne Marine Trust provided financial support.

• Loch Awe Fish Trap and Hatchery; A collaborative project undertaken by the AFT and Loch Awe Improvement Association to monitor wild fish numbers (trap) and enhance brown trout populations in heavily fished areas of Loch Awe. Machinery and manpower provided by the Caledonian Trout Co. to construct a fish trap and brown trout hatchery on Loch Awe. Materials supplied by Kinlochawe Smokery Ltd.

Timeframe of project Varies Area in which research is undertaken

West Scotland, Europe

What was the genesis of the project

The wish to co-operate between the individuals concerned for neighbourly or economic reasons.

62

Resources

Estimated cost of the research project

As they are individual initiatives, and support is mainly in kind, it is difficult to estimate costs.

Source of Funding

N/A

Name of co-ordinating scientist in charge of project

Fisheries and aquaculture personnel.

Proposed method of dissemination of project

N/A

Details of any collaborating bodies, Universities, Government Depts, etc

N/A

63

No. 1 United States of America Project No. U1

Party or relevant jurisdiction

1997 – June 1999: Atlantic Salmon Authority July 1st 1999 - Present: Atlantic Salmon Commission

Title of project Species Protection and Enhancement Collaboration, as part of the, Atlantic Salmon Conservation Plan for Seven Maine Rivers (Sheepscot, Ducktrap, Narraguagus, Pleasant, Machias, East Machias and the Dennys.)

Objective of Project Developed in response to the Atlantic salmon population in the State of Maine reaching near endangered species status. “The goal for each of the seven rivers is to rebuild naturally-reproducing Atlantic salmon populations to levels where stocking will no longer be necessary on a continual basis. From a fisheries restoration and management perspective, these efforts will influence the Maine Atlantic salmon restoration program well into the 21st Century, since a long-term commitment is required to develop the necessary stocks, and several generations of adult returns will be required to rebuild Atlantic salmon populations.” The Maine Atlantic Task Force Atlantic Salmon Conservation Plan - March 1997

List of Co-operative Partners

This is a multidisciplinary project with many partners involved, however for the purposes of this study the aquaculture/wild fisheries partners will be listed as the significant partners in this context. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USF&WS) National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS) Atlantic Salmon Commission Department of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife Department of Marine Resources Atlantic Salmon of Maine Connors Brothers Heritage Salmon Stolts Sea Farm Atlantic Salmon Federation Department of Natural Resources, Penobscot Indian Nation Kennebec Aquaculture University of Maine, Department of Zoology Atlantic Salmon angler Office of the Governor Atlantic Salmon Task Force

Responsibility/Function of each of the partners

Atlantic Salmon of Maine/Connors Brothers Heritage Salmon/Stolts Sea Farm - raising eyed salmon eggs to stock as juveniles (parr/smolts) and adults into rivers of origin US Fish &Wildlife Service – Maintain and protect river-specific captive broodstock populations and provide river-specific eyed eggs to industry hatcheries National Marine Fisheries Service – provide oversight and support during tagging and stocking efforts, adult tracking and project evaluation. Atlantic Salmon Commission – provide field support for stocking, project evaluation and population assessments.

64

Who are the beneficiaries of the project

The wild Atlantic salmon population is the primary beneficiary, with additional benefits being derived by the environment and the people of Maine.

Brief description of the project. Select appropriate box below;

This project operates over four broad categories, wild fish management, habitat protection, habitat enhancement and species protection and enhancement. In terms of the area of interest to this inventory, it is the aims associated with co-operation between aquaculture/wild fisheries in the area of Species Protection and Enhancement that are of relevance. They are outlined below; • To eliminate risk to Atlantic salmon from recreational angling • To reduce the by-catch of salmon from riverine and estuarine

recreational fishing activities • To reduce the potential risks of pen-raised fish interbreeding and

competing with wild Atlantic salmon • To reduce the potential of disease transmission between farmed

fish and wild Atlantic salmon • To increase recruitment from increased numbers of spawning

adults and egg deposition • Maintain and protect river-specific captive broodstock populations

for seven Maine rivers

Commercial a Restoration a Enhancement a Disease/Diagnostic aRecreational a Environmental a Regulatory a Research aVoluntary/ Community

a Educational Technology Transfer

Quality Improvement Systems

a

NGOs Genetic Nutrition Progress to date/ Project milestones

Commercial Aquaculture: Enhancement/Restoration 1997 – 20,000 eyed eggs each from Dennys, Machias and East Machias river

broodstock and 20,000 eyed eggs from Narraguagus river broodstock, were transferred from Craig Brook National Fish Hatchery to fresh water industry hatcheries, Atlantic Salmon of Maine and Connors Bros. Heritage Salmon respectively.

1998 – Approximately 41,000 fish were stocked as juveniles into rivers of

origin – Two stocks of 1000 smolts each were transferred to two salt water

sites managed by Atlantic Salmon of Maine and Heritage Salmon. – 20,000 eyed eggs each from Dennys, Narraguagus and Sheepscot

river broodstock and 10,000 eyed eggs from Machias river broodstock, were transferred from Craig Brook National Fish Hatchery to fresh water industry hatcheries managed by Atlantic Salmon of Maine and Connors Bros. Heritage Salmon.

65

1999 – Approximately 60,000 fish were stocked as juveniles into rivers of

origin – Three stocks of 1000 smolts each were transferred to three saltwater

sites managed by Atlantic Salmon of Maine, Heritage Salmon and Stolts sea farm.

2000 – 1038 adult Atlantic salmon reared at Atlantic Salmon of Maine

marine sites were stocked into the Dennys, Machias and St Croix rivers. Prior to release, the fish were sampled for disease and genetics, measured, weighed and PIT tagged. – 112 salmon were released into the Dennys river 52 ♂ and 60

♀(of these 60 were ultrasonically tagged and 15 ultrasonic receivers were deployed throughout the Dennys river to evaluate pre-spawning and over winter migratory behaviour)

– 176 salmon were released into the Machias river 91 ♂ and 85 ♀ – 750 salmon were released into the St Croix river 338 ♂ and 412

♀

Disease/ Diagnostic – Aquaculture industry monitors their marine sites for evidence of

Infectious Salmon Anemia virus (ISA) and found none. – Examined over 6000 fish for pathogens of concern and did not detect

any. Approx 60 adults were tested prior to stocking

Quality improvement system – Several aquaculture companies participated in 3rd party bio-security

audits of their processing and marine sites to identify areas of possible improvement in practice.

– Aquaculture industry continues to improves in reporting losses of captive fish

– Completed and implemented a voluntary Loss Control Code of Practice by the aquaculture industry. Currently developing a proposed rule to codify these practices, making them mandatory.

2001 – 703 adult Atlantic salmon reared at Atlantic Salmon of Maine marine

sites were stocked into the Dennys, Machias and St Croix rivers. Prior to release, the fish were sampled for disease and genetics, measured, weighed and PIT tagged. – 75 salmon were released into the Dennys river 25 ♂ and

50 – 104 salmon were released into the Machias river 39 ♂ and 65 ♀ – 524 salmon were released into the St Croix river 212 ♂ and 305

♀

Recreational/Regulatory 2000 – Adopted angling rules shortening the catch and release season on the

seven rivers: then, following the first annual review of the plan, adopted a rule prohibiting all angling for Atlantic salmon in all the Maine rivers. This rule took effect in January 2000 and was enforced by the Warden Service during the fishing season

66

– Adopted new rules for trout, black bass, chain pickerel, and landlocked Atlantic salmon fishing to protect Atlantic salmon.

2001 – Angling prohibition maintained

Research • Marine growth and morphometrics for three populations of Atlantic

salmon • Redd to spawner evaluation of adult Atlantic salmon stocking as an

enhancement strategy • Adult Atlantic salmon migration and post-spawning behaviour

Timeframe of project 1997 – 2001 - 5 year plan Area in which research will take place

State of Maine, USA

What was the genesis of the project

The critical condition of the wild Atlantic salmon populations in the state of Maine, USA. Federal Government listed Atlantic salmon under the Endangered Species Act

Resources Estimated cost of the research project

It is difficult to establish the cost for co-operative initiatives from the overall costing of the project. Atlantic Salmon of Maine estimates its in-kind services of labour and infrastructure amounted to $40,000

Source of Funding Federal, state and private funds

Name of co-ordinating scientist in charge of project

2000 – Present; Fred Kircheis, Executive Director

Proposed method of dissemination of project

Published research papers Published plan and annual progress reports and papers Atlantic Salmon Conservation Plan Amendments to the plan 1998 ASCP Annual Progress Report 1999 ASCP Annual Progress Report 2000 ASCP Annual Progress Report 2001 ASCP Annual Progress Report see: www.state.me.us/asa/ascp.html

Details of any collaborating bodies, Universities, etc.

University of Maine Cornell University

67

No. 2 United States of America

Project No. U2

Party or relevant jurisdiction

Maine, USA

Title of project An Aquaculture Containment Verification System based on best practices, event reporting and stock branding.

Objective of Project The objective is to minimise the interaction between river reared/wild and farmed Atlantic salmon in the state of Maine.

List of Co-operative Partners

Maine Aquaculture Association, Atlantic Salmon of Maine, Heritage Salmon Inc, Stolt Sea Farms Inc, Atlantic Salmon Federation, Trout Unlimited, Conservation Law Foundation, National Marine Fisheries Services, Maine Department of Marine Resources, Maine Department of Environmental Protection, US Army Corp of Engineers, US Environmental Protection Agency, Maine Atlantic Salmon Commission, The Ocean Conservancy, US Fish and Wildlife Service

Responsibility/Function of each of the Partners

Project is overseen by a Project Manager from Maine Aquaculture Association. All of the participating Agencies and Signatories have representation on the steering committee that oversees the work conducted. Some of the signatories have provided the appropriate representation on various technical committees under the oversight of the steering committee.

Who are the beneficiaries of the project

River reared/wild Atlantic salmon and the general public, with knock-on benefits being derived by the aquaculture industry.

Brief description of the project. Select appropriate box below;

This is a collaborative venture between environmental groups, the aquaculture industry and government bodies, with the objective of minimising the interactions between sea run/wild Atlantic salmon and farmed salmon using a three-pronged approach.

1) The development of a 3rd party verification system for the existing code of containment. The existing code of containment was written by the salmon farmers in Maine in 1998. This verification system is to be modelled after the hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) system.

2) The utilisation of audits and reports from the code of containment system to establish a long term data base on escapes from Maine farm sites and to document the cause of those escapes. This database will help to identify those areas where additional research can be conducted to improve containment of farmed salmon.

68

3) The investigation of the potential impacts both biological and economical of marking farmed salmon. To this end both laboratory and field trials of several potential marking methods are being conducted The marking committee will recommend the most promising marking methods and report on the impacts associated with each method.

Note: Currently there is no requirement for salmon farmers to mark their fish.

Commercial a Restoration Enhancement Disease/Diagnostic Recreational Environmenta

l a Regulatory a Research a

Voluntary/ Community

Educational Technology Transfer

Quality Improvement Systems

a

NGOs a Genetic Nutrition Progress to date of the Project

To date the following work has been carried out. 1) Third Party verification system: a template plan has been completed

and beta testing is finished. 2) Data base has not yet started 3) Marking trials:

Lab studies – completed or in progress Field studies – commencing.

Timeframe of project 2001 - 2005 Area in which research will take place

Maine, USA

What was the genesis of the project

The desire by all parties to minimise the interaction between river reared/wild salmon and farmed salmon, while maintaining an economically viable salmon farming industry in Maine

Resources Estimated cost of the research project

$3,500,000

Source of Funding

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation ($500,000) Industry Partners ($3,000,000)

Name of co-ordinating scientist in charge of project

Mike Pietrak, Project Manager

Proposed method of dissemination of project

Scale reading Workshop held July 25 – 26th 2002 Final Report to all parties involved Various journal publications

Details of any collaborating bodies, Universities, Government Depts, etc

N/A

69

70

Appendix 4

Possible Sources of Funding for

Co-operative Projects

71

Summary of Possible Sources of Funding for Co-operative Initiatives Part 1 Funding for Co-operative Projects Region Source of Funding Projects Funded Fund

amount Duration Rate of

Funding Europe - UK

Proposed Scottish Links Aquaculture

TBA TBA TBA TBA

Europe - UK

Innovations Actions in Fisheries Sector (www.access – funds.co.uk/archive/2002/june/fisheries_sector.htm)

Trans-national Projects in favour of the fisheries sector and areas dependent on Fisheries as well as establish exchange networks between these areas. Project Duration<18 months

€1,000,000 Upper limit of €150,000/project 50% for Pilot Projects by industry 75% for networking projects by public or not for profit orgs

Europe - UK

Highlands and Islands Enterprise

AMAS

Europe - Ireland

Exchequer & EU distributed by BIM and Udaras Na Gaeltachta

Grant Scheme for Aquaculture Development

BMW region €46.5mill SE region €26.5mill

2000 - 2006

45% Max BMW & private Projects 75% Max SE region and Public projects

Exchequer &EU distributed by CFB

Tourism and Recreational Angling

BMW region €27mill SE region €12mill

2000 - 2006

75% Max Public and community partnership 50% Max BMW & private Projects 50% Max SE region and Public projects

Europe- EU

Europe Atlantic Area INTERREG, 111B,Measure C

Sustainable Management of Economic Activity

€8.6million /annum

2000 - 2006

Europe - EU

EU 6th Framework Area 8 Policy Oriented Research www.cordis.lu/fp6/support.htm

Area 1.3 Fisheries and Aquaculture 2nd call July 03 - closure Oct 03 3rd call July 04 - closure Oct 04 4th call July 05 - closure Oct 05

€19million 2002 - 2006

72

Part 1 Funding for Co-operative Projects Region Source of Funding Projects Funded Fund

amount Duration Rate of

Funding Europe - EU

EU 6th Framework Thematic Areas

Element 1(sustainable development, Global Change….) Traditional instruments 1) Specific Targeted

Research Projects 2) Co-ordinated Actions Specific Support Actions

€700million dedicated to Global Change and Ecosystems

2002 - 2006

Europe - Ireland

Marine RTDI Fund Projects and Research initiatives

1) Applied Industry RTDI

(two calls per annum – Jan & June) 2) Strategic Marine RTDI

2000 - 2006

1) € 40,000 – 50,000 per project

Europe - Ireland

National Lottery

US/ Canada

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Challenge Grant Proposals & Special Grant Programs

What Does the Foundation Fund? Challenge grants are awarded to projects that: • Address priority

actions promoting fish and wildlife conservation and the habitats on which they depend;

• Work proactively to involve other conservation and community interests;

• Leverage available funding;

• Evaluate project outcomes.

Annual $10,000 - $150,000

US – Maine

Saltonstall – Kennedy S-K (www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfweb/skhome.html)

Development of sustainable managed fisheries <18 month duration

Aprox $10,000,000 of which $5,000,000 will be set aside of Atlantic Salmon Aquaculture Development

Annual

73

Part 1 Funding for Co-operative Projects Region Source of Funding Projects Funded Fund

amount Duration Rate of

Funding Canada Aquaculture

Collaborative Research and Development Program(ACRDP) Part of the program for sustainable Aquaculture

To increase the level of collaborative research and development activity between the Aquaculture industry and the DFO and in some instances other key funding partners

$4.5 million/annum

Canada Review of Federal Programs and Services in Support of Aquaculture Development DRAFT Document

For the summary document of all sources of funding contact the Richard Wex, Director General, Office of Sustainable Aquaculture 613 993 1872 or www.ocad-bcda.gc.ca

Canada Study 4 Review of Provincial and Territorial Program and Services in the Aquaculture Sector

For the comprehensive study document, see Study 4 on web page //ocad-bcda.gc.ca/emandate.html

US National Marine Fisheries Service(NOAA) www.nmfs.noaa.gov/trade/newgrant.htm#programs

Various NMFS grants

US Fish and Wildlife Service www.endangered.fws.gov

Endangered Species – Project Grants Related Programs: Wildlife Restoration Sportfish Restoration Fish and Wildlife Restoration Co-operative Endangered Species conservation fund

$10,000,000 $1,000 - $500,000

US Federal Money Retriever www.fedmoney.com

Government Grants and Loans Portal e.g. Collaborative Research and Development, Habitat Conservation, Aquaculture Program

Note: Most grants require matching funds. Rates vary from fund to fund.

74

Part 2 Funding for Conferences & Networking Region Source of

Funding Projects Funded Fund

amount Duration Rate of

Funding Europe - Ireland

Distributed by Marine Institute

Marine RTDI Measure (Networking &Technology Transfer) Sponsorship to attend conferences or towards the organisation of conferences Short working visits (1 – 6 weeks) Inward short stays (1 – 3 months)

2000 - 2006

100% to public and higher Education institutes 50% to private sector

Europe Marie Curie Individual Fellowships

Researcher may apply to go to another country to pursue their chosen area. - no age limit - schemes to support European researchers to go to third countries (US, Australia, Japan, etc) - schemes to support researchers from outside of Europe Open to Universities/Research facilities/Companies

€1.58billion 2002 - 2006

Europe - Ireland

Science Foundation of Ireland

SFI Workshop and conference Grant Facilitating Internationally focused workshops and conferences in Ireland

Max €50,000 /event

75

76

Part 3 Other Sources of Funding

Fund Web site Projects funded of Relevance to SalCo-Op Project

Typical rates

David and Lucile Packard Foundation

www.packard.org Conservation & Science $88million 2002, median grant $80,000

Rivers Foundation of the Americas

www.riversfoundation.org

Projects will commence in 2004

Alcoa Foundation

www.alcoa.com Projects in areas near Alcoa plants – Plants in Ireland, UK, Canada & Support for National or International Organisations in Conservation & Sustainability

Rockefeller Family Fund

www.rffund.org Environment – Projects of national significance within its program area

$25,000 – 30,000

Rockefeller Brothers Fund

www.rbf.org Environmental stewardship - Globally

$25,000 – 300,000

Fields Pond Foundation

www.fieldspond.org Funding stewardship of conservation areas & related education Programs

$2,000 - $10,000

Legacy Resource Management

www.dodlegacy.org Department of Defence – for areas in its jurisdiction?

Fish America Foundation

www.fishamerica.org Conservation & Research $7,500/annum – Conservation $15,000/annum - Research

Curtis and Edith Munson Foundation

www.munsonfdn.org Conservation of natural resources in North America

$15,000 – 25,000

The Kendall Foundation

www.kendall.org Resource management (but not species specific preservation!)

$5,000 - $50,000

Aquatic Network

www.aquanet.ca Range of funds and educational grants associated with fisheries and aquaculture world wide

New York Regional Ass. Of Grant makers

www.nyrag.org

Doris Duke Charitable foundation

www.ddcf.org Preservation of wildlife & ecological endeavours

Maine Grant Makers

www.megrants.org List of various grant makers in Maine

Stewardship Canada

www.stewardshipcanada.ca

Database of almost 300 funding agencies

The Foundation Centre

//fdncenter.org Funding Finders

Note: These funds typically require a preliminary 2 to 3 page letter of inquiry/introduction to be submitted, briefly outlining the project. The reply received will indicate whether or not to proceed with an application.