no aquaculture-specific legislation pur-
posely designed to protect or allow this
activity. However, many aquaculturists
must cope with complex laws and regu-
lations on land tenure, waste use, envi-
ronment protection, pollution prevention,
public health and fisheries in general.
Few of these are specifically drafted to
promote or regulate aquaculture, and
confusion, conflicts and overlapping exist
(Van Houtte et al. 1989).
Constructive and adaptive concepts
on regulations are neededin order to avoid
obstacles to aquaculture development and,
equally, to ensure that the aquatic envi-
ronment is adequately protected. Appar-
ent over-regulation and legal uncertain-
ties can, however, hamper aquaculture
development, by creating significant bar-
riers to the establishment or the continued
operation of aquafarms.
Various preventative and remedial
measures for controlling and managing
the environmental impact of aquaculture
have been developed and applied (Van
Houtte et al. 1989; see also McCoy 1989;
Bye 1990; Quiney 1990; EIFAC 1992):
- When planning the use of land and
water resources the zoningofareas for
aquaculture purposes should be in-
cluded. Also, once protected areas and
waterbodies such as parks and nature
reserves are established, it should be
clearly stated where and under which
conditions aquaculture practices would
be permitted, if at all. - In some countries, e.g., Venezuela,
Mexico, Philippines and France, en-
vironmental impact assessment stud-
ies on the potential effects of the
proposed aquaculture operation are
required prior to the authorization for
the installation of a fish farm. - In France, activities/installations may
be termed and classified as environ-
mentally critical undertakings, being
subject to special declaration or au-
thorization procedures.
The installation of effluent quality
control equipment or water discharge
treatment facilities is being promoted
through fiscal incentives like direct
subsidies or tax deductions and ex-
emptions. Charges or taxes on pollut-
ing effluents also exist, e.g., in Poland,
Hungary and France.
The introduction of pollutants into
freshwater ecosystems through
aquaculture or other industries may
be regulated by setting quantitative
and qualitative limits to the waste
waters discharged (FWPCA 1968).
Also, in order to meet these limits, the
treatment of effluents prior to dis-
charge is often required.
In general, regulatory standards on
the water quality of effluents and th.e
recipient waterbodies have been adopted
to meet scientifically derived water qual-
ity .criteria (FWPCA 1968; Sprague 1976;
EEC 1978; Alabaster and Lloyd 1982).
Both standards and criteria are deter-
mined according to the choice of water
quality objectives formulated. The main
advantage of the water quality objectives
approach is that standards can be set
appropriate to particular uses of the water
resources (GESAMP 19861, but the appli-
cation and usefulness of water quality
standards have also been increasingly
questioned by scientists and
decisionmakers (see also GESAMP 1991).
This approach also neglects the effects of
aquatic sediments, bioaccumulation in the
food chain, the impact and interactions of
multiple sources and the overall load and
the persistence characteristics of poten-
tially harmful substances.
There are now modern conceptual
frameworks for environmental
management and pollution control such
as the Environmental Capacity Approach
(GESAMP 1986, 1991) including Hazard
Assessment methodology (Bro-Rasmussen
and Christiansen 1984; Landner 1988,
1989). The concept of environmental