ECASA.org.uk
Minutes of the ECASA Meeting.
June 2005.
Santiago de Compostela.
Delegate List
Attendees
Partner 1SAMS.Kenny Black, Averil Wilson, Bill Silvert CS.
Partner 3 NUE.Paul Tett
Partner 5 IFM GEOMAR.Helmut Thetmeyer.
Partner 7HAIFA. Dror Angel.
Partner 8UOC .Yannis Karakassis.
Partner 9PML.Phil Pascoe
Partner 10 IMAR.John Icely, Ana Sequiera, Alice Newton.
Partner 11ICRAM.Salvatore Porrello, Paolo Tomassetti
Partner 12IFREMER.Alain Bodoy
Partner 13AZTI. Angel Borja.
Partner 14DCF UNIVE.Roberto Pastres
Partner 16UGOT.Carina Erlandsson
Apologies:
Partner 1SAMS.Thom Nickel, Chris Cromey, Shona Magill.
Partner 2UOP.David Whitmarsh
Partner 3NUE.Teresa Fernandes, Celine Laurent
Partner 4NIB. Alenka Malej, Janez Forte, ??
Partner 6AKVAPLAN. Jos Koegler, Reinhold .
Partner 9 PML.Tony Hawkins, Helen Parry.
Partner 10IMAR. Joao Ferreira
Partner 13AZTI. Inigo Muxica, Julian Mader
Partner 15RBI.Tarzan Legovic
Partner 16UGOT. Anders Stigebrandt, Helen Andersson
Day One Thursday 7th April.
Morning Session. Chair Alain Bodoy.
WP2 Progress Summary and Update.
It should be noted that it is important that indicators are discussed in layman’s terms as they will be applied by farmers and not scientists.
References cited in the indicator sheets should be combined into a bibliography and posted on the website. Action point Averil Wilson.
It is important that some tasks are completed soon. A list of deadlines for deliverables in WP 2 will be issued. Action Point Alain Bodoy.
The pelagic indicators oxygen and transparency are simple indicators and they should be used. Oxygen is easy to measure but highly variable. An adequate monitoring strategy should be applied to take this into consideration. The indicators used in the WFD should be noted and used if appropriate.
Emails relating to individual Work Packages should be inclusive and sent to all participants to maintain good communication pathways. Action Point all WPL’s.
The most relevant aspects of the WFD are concisely described in Annex 5. The WFD (Annex 5) will be posted on the web. Action Point Averil Wilson.
It should be noted that the WFD is limited in its application within ECASA. It is focused on environmental indicators solely and not on those relating to aquaculture.Within the text of the WFD undisturbed conditions should be read as reference conditions. However there are no known undisturbed/pristine conditionsunless we go back to the ice age! When describing reference conditions it is important that natural variability, although it is difficult to establish,is included. Within the WFD any change for the reference conditions is regarded as negative, even an increase in diversity is regarded as change and therefore bad.
WP3 Progress Summary and Update.Chair Yannis Karrakassis.
Comprehensive documents regarding WP3 progress will be posted on the website.
Action point Averil Wilson.
Locational guidelines relating to WP3 will be posted on the web.
Action point Averil Wilson.
General Point. WPL have the authority to delegate tasks in the absence of a volunteer. This is necessary to maintain the momentum of the projects progress and ensure all tasks are allocated.
WP4. Introduction and Start Up. Chair Paul Tett.
All documents and presentations for WP4 will be posted on the website.
Action Point Averil Wilson.
Slide ? illustrating DPSIR model, the green elipse is the area of most relevance to ECASA. It is imperative that there is agreement on indicators and models selected and the criteria for the subsequent scientific robustness and practical utility of these is established.
There is a range of abilities within stakeholders regarding their understanding and ability to sample accurately and apply models. Some fish farmemployees may be illiterate husbandry personnel(Portugal) to managerial level personnel with tertiary level education (Greece).
Could all participants send on a single paragraph describing the typical finfish/shellfish farmer and regulators they have had dealings with, including the difference in abilities regarding the application/understanding of the ECASA toolpackof personnel deployed on the farms, office staff, managerial staff and regulators. An email to be sent to everyone requesting this information.
Action Point Averil Wilson.
Model testing. If after testing a model does not work, do not discard it as a process may have been overlooked and it may just need some adjusting. Models should be tested across as wide a range of sites as possible. Each model should be accompanied with a statement regarding its appropriateness across the range of sites. In the presentation for WP4, slide ? illustrates the ECE models’ success/failure in application. The terms Ok should be replaced with appropriate (OK), not appropriate (fail). The ECASA toolbox will only include robust models but there will be an accompanying appendix of models which were considered but could not be validated.
Strategy: The focus during the next 12 months should be on improving the science of the models (removing the ‘fudge factors’) and testing them against historical data. The steering Group will comment and request further model development if necessary. Action Point All Participants.
Appropriate models identified during this process will then be tested in the field for validation.
Target: Historical data can be collected up to30/05/06 but not thereafter.
It is important that there are some independent test sites.
The completed model description template should be between 2 – 4 pages. It should include criteria for rejection- a judgement must be made on the level of testing to assess the models appropriateness. Citations should include key references, scientific literature and public reports.
Submission of completed model templates by 31/08/05. It should be clearly stated in the template if there are any reservations regarding intellectual property.
Regarding intellectual property rights there will be a ‘Gentlemen’sAgreement’ between participants.
“It is agreed if use is made of a model by someone who is not the originator, the originator should be invited to contribute to any resultant papers.”
A covering letter will be drafted to accompany the model template circulated to anyone not involved in ECASA. ActionPointKenny Black.
It should be noted that model development should be driven from the ‘bottom up’ and not ‘top down’. The Steering Group will only intervene if no progress is being made. All participants are expected to be proactive in their approach.
WP5 Progress Update. Chair Dror Angel.
There are 17 sites submitted so far from across Europe, but none as yet from Norway.
There is the possibility of collaboration with the EU project MFSTEP, which concerns Mediterranean hydrodynamics. The Project Leader will be contacted to discuss this possibility.
Action Point Yannis Karakassis, Roberto Pastres.
A matrix incorporating study sites, historic data and expertise will be formulated and circulated.
Action Point Dror Angel.
Next main ECASA meeting, Spring 2006. Date and venue tba.
Next Steering Group Meeting will be in Edinburgh in August. Date tba.
1