1. Main results of the discussions with the stakeholders at the Thessaloniki Management workshop Alexander Triantafyllidis Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece International Symposium, Bergen, Norway, 2-4 July 2007

2. Development of management options to reduce genetic impacts of aquaculture activities Management workshop Thessaloniki, Greece, April 19 th - 22 nd 2007 (Resp. Costas Triantaphyllidis)

3. People 47 participants from 37 institutions from 15 countries Abatzopoulos Theodore, Asaridou Chloi, Emmanuel Babatunde, Bartley Devin, Baxevanis Athanasios, Baxter Stuart, Bonhomme Francois, Colombo Lorenzo, Donatella Crosetti, Tom Cross, Delphine Danancher, Flajshans Martin, Fredheim Arne, Eva Garcia-Vazquez, Giedrem Trygve, Gilbey John, Guyomard Rene, Haffray Pierrick, Holmefjord Liv, Hough Courtney, Kalomiris Stephanos, Kampouris Stratos, Kappas Ilias, Karaiskou Nikoletta, Knut Joerstad, Koukaras Konstantinos, LaPatra Scott, Lapegue Sylvie, Zissis Mamuris, Maroni Kjell, Philip McGinnity, Metaxatou Aggelina, Nhhala Hassan, Olesen Ingrid, Nikos Pappas, Pavlidou Pavlina, Piferrer Fransesc, Paulo A. Prodöhl, Schane Demian, Shields Brian, Stefanis John, Terje Svaasand, Triantaphyllidis Costas, Alex Triantafyllidis, Tsiggenopoulos Costas, Vamvakas Constantin, Eric Verspoor

4. To discuss the gaps in our current knowledge, and the suggested research needs, identified during the previous expert workshops with stakeholder representatives. To reach consensus statements on the “state of the art” as regards genetic impact of farming activities and its implications for aquaculture management, stock conservation and environment safety. Objectives

5. Status of the aquaculture production and challenges facing the management of a growing aquaculture industry Genetics of domestication, breeding and enhancement of performance of fish and shellfish-WP1 Use of DNA vaccines & Performance improvements by polyploidization in aquaculture-WP1 Monitoring tools-WP2 Modeling assessment and risk-WP3 Options for the future - Farming of more advanced domesticated animals and sterile animals - How to prevent Escapes Presentations and discussions on…

6. The following points should be taken into consideration not only for the 12 GENIMPACT species/groups of species but for the sustainable development of aquaculture in general (Europe and the whole world). MAIN CONSENSUS POINTS

7. It is not possible to extrapolate from one species model to other species. Each species has its own life history traits, genetic structure etc. Important knowledge gap exists for most Genimpact species/group of species (basic population demographic studies, biology and ecology of the species in the wild) (WP1) The effect of escapes on wild populations should be assessed on a species basis. Each species has to be managed separately

8. Best solution  try to prevent escapes. Technical improvements needed - little to do with geneticists. (4/5 escapes in Norway due to system failures) Efforts should be made to avoid escapees EU 7th framework project proposal Preventing escape of fish from sea-based aquaculture - Prevent Escape More information: www.sintef.no/preventescape Arne Fredheim

9. However, it is almost impossible to completely stop escapees. What is the level of escapees that should be considered damaging??? To be dealt on a species basis Look at…intensity of escapes, stock structure and size of wild populations as well as life stage of the escapees Protect wild stocks!!! Efforts should be made to avoid escapees

10. Is this a real and big problem? Conservationists, environmentalists and non-profit associations are concerned, but… Consumers are generally not well informed Results of GENIMPACT should raise public concern. However DON’T over-express concerns to the point of freezing all activities and demonizing the aquaculture industry. Efforts should be made to avoid escapees

11. Traceability of escapees with genetic techniques is an expensive approach. The aquaculture industry prefers to spend financial resources on preventing escapes rather then assessing the impacts. Economical and technical support by governments and Fishery Directorates is recommended Efforts by the industry in some countries and cases acknowledged Measures to identify escapees are needed

12. Molecular markers constitute the tool of choice to identify the origin of escapees. Reliable information on the origin of broodstock is highly needed. In the future broodstock movements and import/exports will intensify. Increased problems with diseases also forecasted Measures to identify escapees are needed

13. Different measures: hybridization, sterilization and polyploidy. Work on a species basis! Induction of triploidy has been successfully applied in several fish and bivalves and it is not regarded as a “genetic modification” Gonadal or gametic sterility achieved with high efficiency, though below the 100% level. Reproductive isolation between wild and domesticated stocks is needed Cal et al 2006

14. Better growth, more consistent fillet quality and/or greater final survival are expected in triploids, But… initial higher mortality and greater costs of fingerling production. Problems with consumer acceptance are avoidable and labelling is not required Most will depend on how the information is presented. Main research needs pointed out already (e.g. effects of triploidy on gene regulation and protein function, adaptability of triploids to different culture environments, potential consequences of restocking with triploid fish). Reproductive isolation between wild and domesticated stocks is needed

15. Commercial farming of transgenic fish is viewed with widespread scepticism. (e.g. indefinite moratoria on patented GH- transgenic fish) Release into the wild is a serious threat to ecosystem stability and conspecific genetic integrity. Only totally sterile transgenic fish would represent a commercial innovation. Transgenic fish could eventually represent a convenient source of cheap animal protein New techniques of direct genetic manipulation are needed

16. Potential of somatic gene transfer, such as DNA vaccination (effective against certain fish viruses), is needed. Transgenesis with RNA interference deserves to be investigated (resistant fish to viral pathogens). New techniques of direct genetic manipulation are needed Acosta et al., 2005 Scott E. LaPatra

17. What constitutes a “farmed” individual? A general answer cannot be given. Other fish and shellfish have gone through the selection process, … others are simply captive wild. Different degrees of domestication even within species …domestication is immediate. Initial information from the wild local populations is required (phylogeographic structure). Where there is genetic structure, the use of local stocks for selective breeding is a considerable option, (competitiveness of stocks???) But… fully domesticated strains could have deleterious impact on wild populations, (easier traceability???). Debate on use of local stocks as broodstock

18. Information missing on interactions between wild and farmed individuals. The performance of farmed individuals in the wild needs to be examined case by case. Fitness experiments (common garden experiments) should be done for other species and situations. Debate on use of local stocks as broodstock McGinnity et al. 2003

19. Stocking is a particular and different case. Avoiding stocking is highly recommended In some cases it may be necessary for restoring lost populations. For restocking, the individuals to be employed must not be domesticated. Debate on use of local stocks as broodstock

20. Modelling is a tool to aid understanding, identify data deficiencies, define research priorities and provide advice to inform management decisions. Modelling can estimate intensity of escapes and the interaction with wild populations. Avoid the impression of bias by showing full range of possible outcomes under full range of potential scenarios. Model must be reliable before offering advice, or make it clear that answers are preliminary. Failure to do this will damage credibility. Input from modelling assessment and risk

21. The places where the aquacultures are sited play a major role (away from spawning grounds, migration routes) Priority should be given to a) habitat enforcement, b) sustainment of large populations and c) control of fishing Site selection / conservation of wild populations

22. Common legislation across EU is needed

23. Most problems could be solved with good regulations! Reinforcing the volunteer collaboration between the state and the industry is much better than imposing protective measures by law. Too many constraints on some aspects like broodstock movements are non desirable. Self-regulation of the industry by voluntary code of practise could be a good way of protecting the wild populations. Common legislation across EU is needed

24. There is a growing awareness and willingness of governments as well as the industry to protect the wild populations. The need of legislation to implement control and/or compensation measures in some cases should be pointed out. The possibility of establishing a politic of fines or economic compensation for the impact of aquaculture on the wild should be taken into consideration. Common legislation across EU is needed

25. Differences between countries are recognized; e.g., environmental-protective legislation existing in Norway and Scotland. In some regions there is not legal requirement to provide information about aquaculture escapes. In other cases, local governments have no jurisdiction about aquaculture activities (i.e. movement of stocks, origin of farm broodstocks and others). For some regions only international treaties exist, without further development at national or regional level. Common legislation across EU is needed

26. More interaction between ecologists, quantitative genetics/molecular biologists is recommended Misunderstanding due to specialised terminology is frequent Science must be communicated with clarity, care must be taken that correct terminology is used, and ambiguous scientific terms and ideas are avoided or defined Educational programmes and simple leaflets for producers are highly needed Participation of scientists to producers’ workshops is highly desirable. Genetics and Aquaculture industry interaction

28. The information obtained by scientists does not directly answer the issues raised by the industry. The application of genomic revolution is premature due to lack of understanding and technical difficulties. The industry will benefit from the genomic revolution as soon as its practical implications are better known. The capacity of the industry to incorporate new techniques to increase productivity and profit is emphasised. There is big effort of the industry for employing researchers and persons genetics experts Genetics and Aquaculture industry interaction

29. For more information see... Triantafyllidis A., Karaiskou N., Bonhomme F., Colombo L., Crosetti D., Danancher D., García-Vázquez E., Gilbey J., Svåsand T., Verspoor E., Triantaphyllidis C. (2007). Development of management options to reduce genetic impacts of aquaculture activities. Management workshop. Thessaloniki, Greece, April 19th - 22nd 2007. P 161-167. In: Svaasand, T., Crosetti, D., Garcia-Vazquez, E., Verspoor, E. (eds). Evaluation of genetic impact of aquaculture activities on native populations: a European network. GENIMPACT Final Report project (EU contract n. RICA-CT-2005- 022802).http://genimpact.imr.no/

30. This was not an exhaustive list of all points raised throughout discussions But these were the points where it was easier to reach main consensus or define disagreements Input is always welcome More to discuss now and more importantly tomorrow Main Conclusions