5 SITE SELECTION

Site selection ensures that farms are located in a specific location, which has attributes that enable the necessary production with the least possible adverse impact on the environment and society. Site selection is a process that defines what is proposed (species, infrastructure, and so on), estimates the likely outputs and impacts from that proposal, and assesses the biological and social carrying capacities of the site so that the intensity and density of aquaculture do not exceed these capacities and cause environmental degradation or social conflicts.

It also provides an assessment for locating farms so that they are not exposed to adverse impacts from other economic sectors and vice versa.
Site selection for individual farms within designated zones is normally led by private-sector stakeholders with direct interest in a specific aquaculture investment. The government assists by defining clear site licencing, environmental impact assessment procedures, and what is acceptable within the zones where the sites will be located. The key steps in the site selection process are:
(i) assessment of suitability for aquaculture;
(ii) detailed estimation of carrying capacity for sites;
(iii) biosecurity planning and disease control; and
(iv) authorization arrangements.

5.1 Assessment of suitability for aquaculture

Table 8 lists the most important criteria to be considered in the selection of individual farm sites within aquaculture zones. Because of the multidisciplinary nature of the criteria and the assessment that needs to be undertaken, it is normal practice to employ professional aquaculture technicians and/or consultants. It is always wise to use conservative estimates (i.e. precautionary principle) in production system planning.

The assessment should thus include a review of local conditions (e.g. temperature, water quantity), historic conditions (such as historical climate data from the local meteorological agency or other sources), and some prediction of impacts from aquaculture activity and measures to be undertaken to minimize impacts (i.e. mitigation). Before finalizing a site suitability assessment, a historical review of external risks should be done, which can include storm, flood and drought frequency, and intensity data from the zoning exercise (section 4.2), that should be made available to individuals or groups seeking permits for aquaculture.
Spacing between the proposed site and other farms and between the proposed fish farm and other economic, cultural or ecological assets is of critical concern in determining where a farm is likely to succeed and how much product a farm can generate (Table 9). This is particularly true in the case of disease transfer, which has proved costly to the aquaculture community. If farms are too close together, diseases can easily spread from one farm to another, and diseases can recirculate leading to persistent problems.
This is what happened in the Chilean salmon farming industry prior to zoning and carrying capacity based management, with too many farms crowded into too small a space. When one farm had a disease outbreak, it rapidly spread from one farm to another, resulting in near collapse of the entire industry (see Chile case study in Annex 5). In the Mekong Delta of Viet Nam, farm overcrowding has been identified as a key factor in the inability to manage disease outbreaks (World Bank, 2014).
The choice of an aquaculture site should also take into consideration the location and distance of sensitive habitats, tourist facilities, sites of cultural importance and other service infrastructure, with a consideration of the potential to impact these activities or be impacted by these activities. Table 10 provides an example of distances from aquaculture facilities to other areas or activity in British Columbia, Canada.
Being potential sources of pollution or introduction of disease, human habitation has the potential to be a threat to the viability of a farm and should, where possible, be kept at a safe distance. Potentially, tourism can also be negatively affected, both from a visual perspective (e.g. visual impacts from tourists visiting

TABLE 8. Criteria and data requirements to address production, ecological, and social opportunities and risks

Modified from Ross et al. (2013).
Notes: Includes social, economic, environmental and governance considerations. Takes into account considerations of carrying capacity for site selection for different farming systems. The list of criteria is indicative rather than exhaustive.

 

TABLE 9. Some examples of regulated site-to-site minimum distances

1 Environmental Regulations for Aquaculture. 2001. Reglamento ambiental para la acuicultura (Decreto No. 320), 14 de Diciembre de 2001, Chile. FAOLEX No. LEX-FAOC050323. (also available at http://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/chi50323.pdf).
2 Act of 17 June 2005, No. 79, relating to aquaculture (Aquaculture Act). Lov om Akvakultur (Akvakulturloven), I 2005 hefte 8, Norway. FAOLEX No. LEX-FAOC064840. (English translation by Norwegian Directorate of Fisheries of 24 April 2006 (also available at https://www.regjeringen.no/ globalassets/upload/kilde/fkd/reg/2005/0001/ddd/pdfv/255327-l-0525_akvakulturloveneng.pdf).
3 Aquaculture Regulation No. 25507. Su Ürünleri Yetiştiriciliği Yönetmeliği, T.C Resmî Gazete No. 25507. 29 June 2004, Turkey. FAOLEX No. LEXFAOC044968. (also available at http://faolex.fao.org/docs/texts/tur44968.doc).

 

picturesque places that also contain aquaculture) and from an environmental perspective, whereby negative impacts on water quality may impact a tourist’s enjoyment of a local area. It is generally desired that fish farming operations be located away from tourist areas. Conversely, biological assets, such as coral reefs, mangroves, seagrass beds, shellfish beds, fish spawning grounds and other biodiversity assets, should be protected by locating aquaculture sites at a safe distance, preferably downstream where effluents cannot cause problems. Sites sacred to indigenous peoples and sites of historical significance should be respected and only developed through consultation with stakeholders and with explicit permission.