4 AQUACULTURE MANAGEMENT AREAS (AMA) AND MACRO ZONES

4.1 What Are the Amas and Why Are They a Need?

AMAs were recognized as a need as early as 2004 when INTESAL, based on the best oceanographic information available, identified the first 12 “Environmental Areas.” INTESAL defined them as bodies of water where predominant oceanographic conditions were similar enough as to determine them as identifiable water bodies. This was the first attempt to establish some monitoring and coordinated management of salmon farms in function of the characteristics of the water bodies.

This was the base of a voluntary system applied in the industry which reached as an average participation less than 50 percent of the farms. After the ISA crisis the Industry and the Government realized the importance of applying a system like this and designed a mandatory approach.
Presently (GLFA, LAW 20, 434/2009) the AMAs also known as Neighbourhoods are Groups of Concessions (licenses) located inside an AAA in a sector that presents epidemiologic, oceanographic, operational and geographic characteristics that justify its coordinated sanitary management by a group of species (as per the declaration of SUBPESCA). In consequence AAAs have different AMAs inside depending on all mentioned elements based in studies ordered by SUBPESCA.
Defining the boundaries of the AMA for new and existing farms. The INTESAL AMAs established for a voluntary system of the industry pretended to identify management measures as per the characteristics of each of them. The idea was to gradually advance towards specific regulations and practices congruent with environmental characteristics and carrying capacity of each water body.

The new AMAs defined as a consequence of the ISA crisis are the result of a veterinarian view, emphasizing disease control and logistics aspects. With the oceanographic and environmental information available it was possible to reach more than 60 neighbourhoods or groups of licenses. Distinction was clearly influenced more by logistic considerations and interest of the company than objective oceanographic information, particularly considering that associated to the neighbourhood system, resting periods were planned impacting companies who had all or almost all their sites in one or two neighbourhoods. Because this was the case, what is not acceptable after that is to take measures assuming that each AMA really represents an environmental distinguishable area.
The design of the AMA system after ISA partially considered the zoning done by INTESAL but in the discussion process, first internally in the industry, added some other information contributed by other actors like Plancton Andino, and also included the views of the companies. The authority accepted both, the proposition of the industry for AMAs and also the resting periods programming for all areas, which demanded long discussions between farmers.
So, the system principally purposed to coordinate treatments to control diseases, essentially caligidosis, isolate or impose restrictions to group of licenses in any affected AMA in order to avoid propagation, principally of ISA, and to establish a rest period system that would allow sites to recover their sanitary conditions for next production cycles.
Presently the authority establishes both, coordinated treatments and resting periods per neighbourhood.
Also SUBPESCA can accept additional management measures adopted by the farmers in a given neighbourhood, becoming mandatory once they are agreed on.
The declaration of groups of licenses or AMA will not affect free boat transit, fishing operation of benthic resources management areas or other maritime or aquaculture licenses. Neither will it affect tourism activities or the rights recognized to specific coastal space of indigenous people.
Finally, it is important to mention that Groups of licenses exclusively dedicated to fish smoltification, broodstock maintenance and genetic management can be specifically authorized.

4.2 Developing an Ecosystem Approach to Aquaculture (Eaa) Management Plans for Amas

Considering that developing aquaculture in the context of ecosystem functions and services is a challenge that involves defining ecosystem boundaries (at least operationally), estimating some assimilative and production carrying capacities, and adapting farming accordingly (FAO, 2010), it is possible to say that this is still a pending task in Chile. Some transitions from a conventional approach to an ecosystem approach have occurred, but others have not. On the right track are: participation, agreement on multiple objectives, multiple (nested) scales, adaptive approach, public/ transparent; but not much progress has been done in interaction with other sectors, extended knowledge and incentives cited as part of an ecosystem approach (FAO, 2010).
No doubt, that the intentions of the original AMAs voluntarily defined by INTESAL were conceptually closer to the purpose of generating a correspondence between the ecosystem limits and management areas, and consequently a higher level of harmonization across planning structures (FAO, 2010). But the crisis moves the focus again towards disease control, which is not the remedy but the symptom of more basic disruptions. The present system has to be reviewed along with AAAs as sectors of the industry, government and community are demanding. AAA’s and AMA’s boundary reviews supported by the best available environmental information is a must, independently of the gradual character of the future adjustment process. This is a task that should be run in parallel to the present system operation.
Beyond the criticism to the present system, the situation is better than the one applied in the past which did not recognize areas others than the original AAA.
Yet more emphasis should be applied in the next industry stage to a closer integration with neighbourhood communities and other sectors interacting with the industry like indigenous people, artisanal fisheries and tourism, among the principal ones. Some companies and SalmonChile have initiated programs that move in that direction creating new bridges with these sectors and also supporting educational plans in the southern regions. CORFO (The National Agency for Economic Development) will set a macro regional program for salmon, mussel and seaweed industries, based in public-private governance that should support to close fundamental gaps of these activities during the next years including scientific, technical, social and economic factors limiting sustainable development of these industries.
Although there are no large scale IMTA initiatives in Chile, several authors have studied and promoted benefits of introducing this system integrating salmon and mussels and/or seaweed (Aquahoy, 2011; Barra, 2013). Some other authors have studied IMTA potential for abalone or seaweed (Macchiavello, 2014).
Process to establish AMAs. This has been essentially an industry/authority process in which stakeholders and public participation has not been considered. This has happened probably under the understanding that they were established essentially to control diseases, implicitly understanding this as an “internal” problem.
On the contrary the AAAs and the licenses have passed through stakeholders and public scrutiny. At August 2014, there were 78 groups of concessions for salmon in the Regions X, XI and XII, that include all together 1,302 concessions (SUBPESCA, 2014). These are summarized in Table 2.
Figure 8 shows groups of licenses and licenses at August 2014. Magallanes is not shown but it has 16 groups of licenses and 88 concessions.

4.3 Developing Management Measures for the Ama

Sanitary and environmental measures. The coordinated sanitary resting system is the measure applicable to AMAs that consists in a period of time during which the farms that are part of the respective AMA must stop their operations and withdraw all

Table 2. Salmon AMAs or groups of licenses per region including number of licenses.

Figure 8. Groups of licenses (identified with red numbers) and salmon farms (concessions in yellow dots) in X and XI Regions.

specimens from the site, being prohibited the entrance and keeping of fish. SERNAPESCA approves the resting program for AMAs controlling coordinated harvest (with a specified deadline) and also the fish entrance in a period of time in the number approved for each AMA. Also SERNAPESCA can establish programs of epidemiologic vigilance when necessary.
The authority (SERNAPESCA) establishes coordinated treatment in AMAs for sea lice, determining and controlling the program, which include periods of baths and oral administration treatment as well as rotations of products in order to mitigate potential resistance development.
Services of holding cages (before harvest) in coastal zones can be regulated by SERNAPESCA to minimize risk of disease.
SERNAPESCA will prohibit transit of boats from a higher risk AMA to other of minor risk except, that boats are disinfected in authorized stations by SERNAPESCA or follow other mitigation measures duly authorized by SERNAPESCA.
In order to manage online environmental parameters of groups of concessions these AMAs should apply a technology able to register and transmit at least indicators of conductivity, salinity, temperature, depth, currents, density, fluorescence and turbidity, as per the respective regulation.
License holders in a group of licenses can agree on environmental and sanitary measures additional to those established in virtue of the regulations. These should be specific for the AMA in question and not affect environment or the normal development of other activities in the zone. All measures adopted will have public character and will be informed in the SUBPESCA website. The authority will enforce measures agreed and duly informed.

 

4.4 Production and Carrying Capacity Measures

Although carrying capacity estimations are not in place for AMAs, there are measures limiting densities in all farms of an AMA and even reduction of fish intake according to the previous production cycle sanitary performance.
In fact, maximum density for a given license is done regulating the maximum intake number of fish in any site of the group of licenses. This is done based on sanitary conditions of each specific concessions group.
Procedure Applied is:
• SUBPESCA develops a proposal which is sent in consultation to SERNAPESCA and the Institute of Fishery development (IFOP). SUBPESCA analyzes and includes observations and sends the proposal to the farms (companies) involved in the AMAs under analysis.
After receiving their observations, SUBPESCA issues a final resolution with the densities for the AMAs.
• Farming density is the existent biomass of fish per used area at the end of the on-growing phase in the sea. To materialize the density requirements a maximum number of fish intake is established at the beginning of the on-growing stage.
• The groups of concessions are also classified in terms of biosecurity based on the application of an accepted model by Resolution of SUBPESCA. All sites classified in medium and low categories in a given neighbourhood are mandated to reduce fish intake for the following period.
• As it has been mentioned above the authority can ban fish entrance temporarily or indefinitely to an AAA, affecting all AMAs in the area. In the X Region an indefinite ban has been applied; meanwhile in the XI and XII Regions temporary prohibitions were applied in past years, subjected to some conditions that were satisfactorily accomplished.
• Procuring to reduce concentration of farms in some zones, farms can be relocated within a given AMA or moved to others complying with the specific requirements established by SUBPESCA or SERNAPESCA.

4.5 Certification Potential and Social and Economic Indicators of Amas

Potential for certification to AMA products. International certification systems in aquaculture are requesting the farms to participate in AMA systems or at least demonstrate efforts to establish AMA with other farms close to them. In that sense, Chile’s present system has been acceptable for these certification systems and has contributed to facilitate Chilean farms certification.
Using social and economic indicators to monitor economic (AMA costs and benefits). Although there are not known public evaluations on this aspect, it can be said that the cost of stopping production in resting periods is more than compensated by improvement in sanitary conditions of the area of the farm and the benefit of coordinated treatment against sea lice (otherwise not effective). Probably the most beneficial effect of the AMA system has been the demonstration that cooperation in sea farming is not an option but a need in light of the long-term projections of the industry that undoubtedly rest on social capital construction.
More regular interaction, exchange of information and share monitoring and research efforts reduce conflicts and open a stronger private-public interaction.
Most of the procedures developed under the new regulations in Chile, particularly those dealing with environmental and sanitary monitoring, have been standardize and certified through the INN (National Institute of Normalization) which improves transparency and quality of procedures and services.

4.6 Macro Zones

SUBPESCA establishes macro zones according to the procedures indicated in the GLFA and the D.S. 319 (sanitary regulation—RESA, 2001). In fact, based on a technical report (SUBPESCA, 2012) and consultation with an expert panel, SUBPESCA defines macro zones and the minimum distance between them. The basis are oceanographic (essentially hydrodynamic model), epidemiologic and logistic information. The objective
Figure 9. Macro zones (red boundaries) and Neighbourhoods (white boundaries) in the X Region (courtesy of MundoAcuícola, Chile).

of these zones is to favor bio contention in front of a sanitary emergency, contributing to avoid dissemination of a disease. The establishment of the macro zones has to be based in oceanographic information.
Macro zones include 2 or more AMAs and their boundaries consider oceanographic conditions and existence of coastal facilities allowing boats transit without passing through other Macro zones. At least 5 miles separate Macro zones between them. The farms that interrupt the distance of minimum 5 miles between macro zones can be relocated.
In front of a sanitary emergency immediately will operate a restriction of boats transit supporting farms between macro zones. Macro zones of the X and XI Regions are shown in Figure 9.