Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

A global analysis of the sustainability of marine aquaculture 2007

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
ubc_2007-0621.pdf [ 8.9MB ]
ubc_2007-0621.pdf
ubc_2007-0621.pdf
Metadata
JSON: 1.0074900.json
JSON-LD: 1.0074900+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0074900.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0074900+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0074900+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0074900+rdf-ntriples.txt
Citation
1.0074900.ris

Full Text

A G L O B A L ANALYSIS O F T H E SUSTAINABILITY O F M A R I N E A Q U A C U L T U R E by Pablo Truji l lo B . S c , Universidad de Concepcion, 2000 A THESIS S U B M I T T E D IN P A R T I A L F U L F I L M E N T OF T H E R E Q U I R E M E N T S F O R T H E D E G R E E OF M A S T E R OF S C I E N C E i n T H E F A C U L T Y OF G R A D U A T E S T U D I E S (Resource Management & Environmental Sciences) T H E U N I V E R S I T Y OF B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A September, 2007 © Pablo Trujillo, 2007 A b s t r a c t Fol lowing a review of the history and main characteristics of mariculture, a global assessment o f its sustainability over the 10 year period from 1994 to 2003 was performed, which suggests that sustainability is low. The assessment is based on 13 indicators covering ecological, economic and social aspects of the industry and involving 60 countries and 86 species. The suite of indicators were based on a set of criteria meant to be independent o f areas, species and time, so that they have wide application and wi l l be applicable for years to come. The indicators used in the analyses proved to be effective in differentiating levels of sustainability between countries and species and provided a benchmark on which to gauge progress within the industry in the coming decades. A single mariculture sustainability index (MSI), ranging between 1 and 10, was derived by combining the 13 indicators weighted by production to analyze differences between countries and species, and to compare the M S I with other indicators such as the environmental sustainability index (ESI) and the human development index (HDI). The highest ranking countries for sustainable mariculture are Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, Japan and South Korea. In these countries, the common factor is farming (1) native species, (2) low trophic level species, (3) under non-intensive conditions, (4) for domestic consumption. The lowest ranking countries were Guatemala, Cambodia, Bangladesh, Honduras and Myanmar. The common factor in these countries is the culture of (1) non-native species, (2) higher trophic level species, (3) farmed intensively, and (4) destined for export, often to countries ranking high for mariculture sustainability. The highest ranking species on the sustainability scale were mollusks, specifically bivalves, i.e., blue mussels and cupped oysters. For finfish, the highest ranking taxa were Atlantic halibut, Spotted wolf ish and European eel. The lowest ranking species belonged to the crustacean groups, specifically prawns and shrimp. Many o f the most valuable groups such as shrimp and salmon were among the lowest scoring species in both developing and developed countries. i i The global average M S I score was 5.1 based on 361 cases. Based on this analyses, it is suggested that the industry is at the cross-roads of sustainability. There are a number of options for the industry to ensure it is sustainable over the long-term, including the implementation of best management practices, economic incentives and consumer awareness, expressed as a willingness to pay higher prices for sustainability. The results of this study provide the framework, indicators and baseline data on which to assess the sustainability of mariculture at global and regional levels, as wel l as across species. The M S I developed in this study can be used to generate globally, robust rankings of countries and taxa in terms of their sustainability. i i i T A B L E OF CONTENTS Abstract ii Table of contents iv List of tables vii List of figures x Glossary .' xii Acknowledgements xiii CHAPTER 1 1 1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 Research question and objectives 3 1.3 Sustainable development and mariculture 3 1.4 Measuring sustainability 5 .1.5 Thesis structure 6 CHAPTER 2 7 2.1 History of aquaculture 7 2.1.1 Aquaculture in As ia (4000 B P to 2500 BP) 8 2.1.2 Aquaculture in As ia in the 20th Century 9 2.1.3 Aquaculture in Europe, the Mediterranean & the Americas (2800 B P to W W II) 9 2.1.4 Globalization (post W W II to present) 10 2.2 Aquaculture status and trends 13 2.2.1 Global trends 13 2.2.2 Production by major taxa 18 2.2.3 Production by species 27 2.3.4 Undefined groups (aka nei) 27 2.2.5 Culturing environments 28 2.3 Aquaculture production technologies 33 2.3.1 Partial systems.. 33 2.3.2 Culturing systems. 34 2.3.3 Stocking densities •" • 35 2.4 Sustainability challenges in mariculture 38 2.4.1 General overview 38 2.4.2 Capture fisheries and mariculture 39 2.4.3 Poverty relief and food security 40 2.4.4 Others 41 iv CHAPTER 3 43 3.1 Assessing the sustainability of mariculture 43 3.2 Assessment definitions 44 3.3 Sustainability assessment framework 47 3.3.1 Background 47 3.3.2 Natural resources sustainability indicators 48 3.3.3 Capture fisheries indicators 48 3.3.4 Agricultural indicators 49 3.3.5 Forestry indicators 50 3.3.6 Aquaculture codes'of conducts and guidelines 50 3.4 Mariculture sustainability 51 3.4.1 Indicators in general 53 3.4.2 Ecological indicators 54 3.4.3 Socio economic indicators 60 3.5 Scoring Scheme 64 3.6 Data sources and processing 65 3.7 Data quality 67 3.8 Data analyses 68 CHAPTER 4 70 4.1 Introduction 70 4.2 Indicator scores 70 4.3 Mariculture sustainability index (MSI) 75 4.3.1 Ecological indicators : 75 4.3.2 Socioeconomic indicators 79 4.4 Culturing environment. 83 4.5 Cultured species 84 4.6 Stocking density 84 4.7 Trends in production 87 4.7.1 Unsustainable production 87 4.7.2 Sustainable production 88 4.7.3 Sustainability and value 89 CHAPTER 5 • -91 5.1 Introduction 91 5.2 Indicator validity 91 5.3 Country ranking 94 5.4 Environment and capture fisheries 95 5.5 Species culturing 97 5.6 Traceability 98 5.7 Value •••••99 5.8 Conclusions 100 5.8.1 Indicator validity 100 5.8.2 Country ranking 100 5.8.3 Environment and capture fisheries 101 5.8.4 Cultured species 101 v 5.8.5 Value and traceability 102 5.9 Recommendation for industry and governments 102 6. L I T E R A T U R E C I T E D 104 Appendices I l l 1. Detailed scoring scheme I l l 2. Ecological and socio-economic scores, and human development and environmental sustainability indices for each country-species combination 112 3. Primary productivity required (PPR) indicator 124 LIST OF TABLES T A B L E 2.1 14 Aquaculture species groups in 2003, their respective percentage composition. T A B L E 2.2 17 Average annual growth rate percentage for the period 1950-2003.. T A B L E 2.3 20 Top 40 marine and brackish species and species groups produced in the years 2000-2003 and their percentage make-up of global production. T A B L E 2.4 22 Main finfish sub-groups and their annual growth rate based on production trends by decade. T A B L E 2.5 23 Average growth rate in production of major crustacean sub-groups. T A B L E 2.6 26 Average percent growth of production for major mollusk sub-groups. T A B L E 2.7 28 Trends in production and percentage of total production from aquaculture of 'not elsewhere included' (nei) groups from 1970 to 2003. T A B L E 2.8 29 Difference in the market value of aquaculture species raised in different environments, 2000-2003. T A B L E 3.1 49 B.C. Herring roe fishery indictors. T A B L E 3.2 54 Ecological indicators and their performance with regards to ecological criteria. T A B L E 3.3 57 Detailed description of ecological indicators for mariculture. T A B L E 3.4.... 61 Socio-economic indicators and their performance with regards to socio-economic criteria. T A B L E 3.5 62 Potential socio-economic indicators of the sustainability of mariculture. T A B L E 3.6 66 Type and source of data used to quantify ecological and social indicators. T A B L E 4.1 71 Summary statistics for the 13 indicators of mariculture sustainability. T A B L E 4.2 '. , 72 Correlation matrix of the 13 indicators of mariculture sustainability. T A B L E 4.3 74 Results of principal component analyses a) eigenvalues b) the eigenvectors Z I and Z2 , and c) the scoring coefficients for the 13 indicators. T A B L E 4.4. 77 Rankings and weighted M S I , and ecological and socio-economic scores by country. T A B L E 4.5 78 Ecological scores for the 5 highest scoring countries. T A B L E 4.6.... 79 Ecological scores for the 5 lowest scoring countries. T A B L E 4.7 80 Five highest scoring countries for socio-economic sustainability. T A B L E 4.8 81 Eight lowest scoring countries for socio-economic sustainability. T A B L E 4.9 82 The top 10 countries and their Mariculture Sustainability Index M S I (along with it 's two major sustainability components. T A B L E 4.10 83 M S I and Average price U S D per ki lo for low-income food deficit countries. T A B L E 4.11 84 Average M S I per environment and taxonomic group. T A B L E 4.12 86 Lowest M S I scoring species and species groups in culturing environments. T A B L E 4.13 89 Prices paid based on the average price from 2001 to 2003 of mariculture taxa for ' low income- food deficient countries' L I F D C and non-LIFDC. T A B L E A3.1 125 Net primary productivity (NPP) required to produce one kg of a plant crop. v i i i T A B L E A3.2 125 Net primary productivity (NPP) required to produce one kg of fishmeal and fish oi l . T A B L E A3.3 126 Example of the trophic level for a species-country combination. List of Figures FIGURE 2.1 8 Conceptual overview o f the historical growth o f aquaculture and projected future growth. FIGURE 2.2a 15 Global aquaculture production in 1975. Figure 2.2b 16 Global aquaculture production in 2000. FIGURE 2.3.... 17 Aquaculture production and marine fisheries landings (1950-2004) with and without China. FIGURE 2.4 32 F A O Production by environment 1984-2003. FIGURE 2.5 '*...' 32 F A O Value by environment 1984-2003. FIGURE 3.1 45 Relationship between indicators, criteria and the underlying framework. FIGURE 3.2 52 Criteria and indicator selection with linkages between criteria, indicator for mariculture. FIGURE 4.1 73 Correlation between ecological and socio-economic indicators of mariculture sustainability. FIGURE 4.2 76 The resulting M S I o f the 60 countries analyzed in this study FIGURE 4.3 87 Production trends without Atlantic salmon (1994 - 2001) for unsustainable practices. FIGURE 4.4 88 Production trends without Blue mussels (1994 to 2003) for sustainably cultured species. FIGURE 4.5 90 Interaction between the M S I for all species and prices paid. FIGURE 4.6 90 Interaction between the M S I for the highest and lowest scoring species and prices paid. FIGURE 5.1 92 Distribution of component scores (ZI and Z2) based on taxa. FIGURE 5.2 Distribution of average component scores for developed and developing countries. FIGURE 5.3 Global production of major food items. FIGURE A3.1 Converging trophic levels in six farmed fish species. Glossary Aquaculture: The farming of aquatic organisms Brackishculture: The farming of aquatic organisms in water with a salinity between 0.05 - 3°/ 0 0 (the farmed species often can also tolerate fresh and sea water). First class protein: Also called 'complete protein', first class protein originate from animal sources, e.g. meat, fish, dairy, eggs. They have a full complement of essential amino acids, in proportions similar to those in human tissues. Mariculture: The farming of marine organisms in water of, salinity above 37 0 0. Net protein utilization (NPU): The term used to describe the percentage of protein which is actually available to be assimilated. Eggs and human breast milk have the highest NPU ratings of all foods and are therefore classified as complete protein. Sea ranching: releasing eggs, larvae or juveniles on structured habitat into the natural environment to increase the recruitment of marine fish. Sea ranching goes back to the 17th century with activities such as transplanting fish and construction of 'fish reefs' in Japan (Honma, 1993). Second class protein (also; incomplete protein): These are vegetable proteins, derived from grains, nuts, pulses and seeds. They are considered as incomplete because they are low in one or more of the essential amino acids. These amino acids are called limiting amino acids because they reduce the NPU of that protein. To obtain the essential amino acids from vegetable proteins in suitable ratios, they need to. be combined. For example, grains contain allot of tryptophan but not much lysine, whereas pulse's contain a lot of lysine but not much tryptophan so by combining grains and pulses a good balance is achieved. Traditional vegetarian cuisines (e.g. Indian) achieve such balance, which modem vegetarian diets do not. xn Acknowledgements I would like to start by thanking my advisor, Daniel Pauly, who beyond the call of duty, and most surely beyond reason, cared about this work and me. For this and more, I am and always wi l l be, eternally grateful. I am equally thankful to present and past thesis committee members; professors V i l l y Christensen and Rashid Sumaila, for their invaluable input and eager support throughout these years. To Jackie Alder, none more deserving and responsible not only for helping me carrying out this work, but motivating me until the very last. For these countless hours, mornings and nights I thank you from the core o f my being. Tony Farrell, Steve Martel l , John Volpe and Reg Watson for their contributions and inputs during the rough(er) and ugly(er) stages of this ordeal. Tony Pitcher for gambling on me and bringing me here. To my gurus around the world; Harald Rosenthal, Albert Tacon, Timothy Parsons, and Ciro Oyarzun. To the great ladies of the Fisheries Centre and R M E S , their gargantuan efforts, patience, and active involvement, were absolutely crucial for this work to see the light of day. To L isa Belanger, Brooke Campbell, Janelle Curtis, Janice Doyle, Sylvie Guenette, Sheila Ffeymans, Vasi l ik i Karpouzi, Yajie L iu , Jean Marcus, Suzanne Mondoux, Lyne Morissette, Deng Palomares, Chiara Piroddi, Terre Satterfield, Colette Wabnitz and many others. To my best friend, colleague and partner Chiara Anna Piroddi, for everything, in every way possible. To my brothers in arms, Dave Preikshot, Dave O'Br ien, Telmo Morato, Dawit Tesfamichael, Peter Rossing, Simone Libralato, Jordan Rosenfeld, Patrick Carrier, Brian Giles and Rodrigo Veas. To the kids from Liberty; Aaron, Christian, Brent, Chris, Regan, Amy , Mercedes and Alfred Gratien, for their timely help and their weekly shift covering. To my family and friends, here, there and elsewhere. Thank you. x i i i Chapter 1 1.1. Introduction The world's population continues to increase and the demand for food is increasing accordingly, and so is the demand for fish. However, there is still considerable inequity between the rich and poor with respect to the distribution, supply and consumption of food, including seafood, throughout the world. In 2004, only 2.3% of the world's food production originated from capture fisheries and aquaculture (FAO 2006). Although this is a small percentage of the global total, fisheries have been a traditional source of protein and an income generator for many developing countries. However, this situation is changing due to current demands for seafood by the developed world and the growing middle class in developing countries. In the developed world, the increased demand for fish products is partly being driven by the demand for high quality seafood, the lowered prices for many seafood products due to improved technologies, low production costs, increased awareness of the benefits of a seafood- rich diet, and more competitive marketing. However, capture fisheries alone can not meet this demand. Indeed, the recent FAO State of Aquaculture Report (FAO 2006) highlights the growing importance of aquaculture in meeting the demand for fish for direct human consumption. Two major questions need to be addressed when discussing the potential of aquaculture to meet an increasing demand for seafood: (i) will it risk the food security of developing countries; and (ii) can it be done sustainably? In fact, in 2003, The Economist dedicated a large section of the magazine to the question of how the 'Blue Revolution' might be able to supply society with fish whilst limiting impacts on the environment. Since 2003, global marine fish landings have recorded no increases and the dismal state of capture fisheries has not improved (Worm et al. 2006). Clearly, i f the future demand for fish products is to be met, aquaculture will have to play an increasingly important role. However, The Economist's question remains - how can this be achieved without negatively impacting the environment, and, more importantly, how can the aquaculture industry be developed so that (i) it is profitable, and (ii) benefits are 1 equitably distributed throughout society? If these questions can be addressed, then the likelihood of aquaculture achieving long-term sustainability is high. This then raises the subsidiary question: how wi l l we know when aquaculture has reached its sustainability goal? This last question is of great importance to the mariculture sector (farming marine organisms), as expansion of land-based facilities is fraught with issues surrounding: (i) limited freshwater availability; and (ii) conflicts with other important land uses such as urban development and agriculture. However, development of mariculture is associated with a number of positive and negative environmental and socio-economic impacts. Some of the latter issues include habitat alterations, lack o f waste management, use of antibiotics, displacement o f coastal fishers, and the marginalization of coastal communities. However, mariculture also creates job opportunities for economically depressed coastal communities (Alder and Watson 2007). In the 1970s, aquaculture development was chiefly promoted as a means to address food security in the developing world. In response, various initiatives were implemented to develop the industry in As ia , Af r ica and Latin America. Over the last three decades, aquaculture has expanded significantly in As ia and in Latin America, but not in Afr ica. Much of this expansion has been in the development o f high value and export-oriented species within the mariculture sector, which has not had the anticipated impact on food security, or improvement in the livelihoods of coastal communities. Indeed, many would argue that poor coastal communities in As ia and Afr ica have at best not gained from these developments, and at worst suffered from a reduction in food security and the loss of livelihoods. A number o f options exist to address the sustainability issues surrounding aquaculture, with some of them focused on mariculture. Examples include the F A O Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing ( F A O 1995), best management practices, technological advances (e.g. recirculation systems) and economic incentives (e.g., certification). Currently, there are a number of codes of conduct and protocols for improving the sustainability of aquaculture. Implementation o f some of these options is underway in a number o f countries, with differing levels of commitment, especially, in the developed world, e.g., in Europe and Australia. However, no certification schemes exist that allows one to determine whether the industry, especially, the mariculture sector, operates in a sustainable manner. 2 1.2. Research question and objectives The central research questions o f this thesis: are current mariculture practices sustainable at the global scale; and can countries and species be ranked according to their sustainability? In order to answer this, four subsidiary questions must first be addressed: 1. How is ecological, economic and social sustainability o f the mariculture sector measured? 2. What are the best indicators to measure the impact the mariculture industry has on ecosystems and coastal communities? 3. Are data available to assess sustainability of the mariculture industry using the indicators identified in 2? 4. How reliable are these indicators in assessing the sustainability o f mariculture at the global level? 1.3. Sustainable development and mariculture In 1987, the Brundtland Report ( W C E D 1987) clearly put the notion o f sustainable development on the world agenda. It also challenged government, industry and society to address issues related to declining environmental quality and natural resource capital to ensure that the opportunities of future generations would not be compromised. The report further notes that the pursuit of sustainable development requires: • A political system that secures effective citizen participation in decision making; • A n economic system that is able to generate surpluses and technical knowledge on a self- reliant and sustained basis; • A social system that provides solutions for tensions arising from disharmonious development; • A production system that preserves the ecological basis for development; • A technological system that can search continuously for new solutions; • A n international system that fosters sustainable patterns o f trade and finance; and • A n administrative system that is flexible and has the capacity for self-correction. 3 The report generated a flurry of activities within governments, and amongst international agencies, to define and implement programs that would ensure sustainable development. In 1988, FAO adopted and defined sustainable development, (i.e., by extension - sustainability) as: "the management and conservation of the natural resource base, and the orientation of technological and institutional change in such a manner as to ensure the attainment and continued satisfaction of human needs for present and future generations. Such sustainable development must conserve land, water, plant and animal genetic resources, is environmentally non-degrading, technically appropriate, economically viable and socially acceptable" (FAO 1988). Since 1988, FAO has implemented a number of initiatives, including the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing (FAO 1995), to address sustainability issues. However, few if any, initiatives included a systematic assessment of sustainability within the fisheries and aquaculture sector, or for a particular resource. The activities and issues associated with the expansion of mariculture stand in mark contrast to the requirements for sustainable development. Many conservationists argue that mariculture does not conserve the natural resource base, since many farmed species are fed fish, habitats altered and coastal waters polluted (Naylor et al. 2000). While many investors in mariculture have succeeded economically, the coastal communities, which often depend on fish resources as their prime source of protein (Pauly and Alder 2005), especially in developing countries, have paid a steep price for this development. In some areas, their fisheries have been disrupted or they have been displaced. As a consequence, fishers and non-fishers often have not benefited economically from mariculture through increased direct employment opportunities such as post-harvest processing or other indirect opportunities such as shipping. These and other issues also raise the question of whether the industry will be able to satisfy the needs of future generations. 4 The rapid development of the mariculture sector and the expectation that help meet future increases in seafood consumption, implies a strong need to develop a conceptual framework on which to develop a set of indicators to monitor and evaluate the sustainability of the industry can be based. 1.4. Measur ing sustainabil i ty Existing sustainability indices include the Environmental Sustainability Index (Esty 2002), Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare (ISEW) and the Gini Index or HDI Human Development Index (UNDP 2006). These are based on a suite of indicators that measure and integrate a number of ecological, social and economic parameters. Despite a need to measure the overall sustainability of the aquaculture industry, no such index exists. Ideally, a mariculture sustainability index (MSI) needs to incorporate indicators that have been chosen in consultation, preferably through a consensus building process, with stakeholders. Industry, government, conservation groups and civil society are key actors in defining and implementing these indicators. The process should be iterative, allowing all stakeholders to contribute to the development of the MSI and have a sense of ownership and commitment to using them. In such circumstances, the probability of the indicators being used for policy making, thus raising awareness of the need for better management and sustainable growth in the industry, is high. Undertaking such a process, was beyond the financial resources and outside of the time frame of this study. Hence, existing literature was used to guide the construction of a conceptual framework and a suite of indicators for measuring sustainability in the mariculture sector. 5 1.5. Thesis structure Chapter 2 is a literature review that (i) outlines the evolution and history o f aquaculture; (ii) places aquaculture in a global context and mariculture within this context; (iii) reviews the current range of marine culture systems and technologies; and (iv) highlights the challenges surrounding sustainable mariculture. The conceptual framework for developing a Mariculture Sustainability Index forms much of Chapter 3, which also identifies appropriate indicators that would constitute such an index, as well as data sources and methods to evaluate indicators themselves. Chapter 4 is an assessment of the sustainability of 361 mariculture cases spanning 60 countries and 86 species or species groups. The thesis concludes in Chapter 5, with a discussion of this assessment and the potential benefits of having industry and governments apply the indicators developed in Chapter 3. Finally, discuss areas for further research. 6 Chapter 2 2.1 History of aquaculture According to FAO's definition of sustainability, the development of a set of indicators to assess whether or not aquaculture is sustainable requires an understanding of its development, current production status, and practices (Costa-Pierce 2002). Moreover, if indicators are to be relevant and practical the various culturing technologies, existing systems in place, trends in species cultured, the industry's potential environmental and socio-economic impacts, and the challenges associated with evolving into a sustainable sector must all be understood. This chapter reviews the development of the aquaculture sector from its earliest beginnings, thereby providing insights into the drivers of current aquaculture practices and technologies. The latter are also reviewed here. This chapter then presents the status and trend of global, major taxa and species production providing context for aquaculture within the broader realm of fisheries. The potential impacts of current practices, technologies and production levels are then discussed along with their implications and challenges with respect to sustainability in general and poverty and food security in particular. Aquaculture as a source of food production for humans developed primarily in two geographic areas: Europe and the Mediterranean; and later in Asia, particularly China. Archaeological records have revealed that fish and shellfish have been important sources of food supplies. Early humans, i.e., Cro-Magnon (25-10,000 BP) are known to have used fish hooks and nets. Some sites even suggest that they may have constructed primitive ponds that held fish, though it is unlikely that any direct care was provided. Nonetheless, this impoundment symbolizes the first stage of aquatic farming (McLean 2003). This "proto-aquaculture", that is, the precursor to aquaculture as we know it, was further developed by the Egyptians of dynastic times, circa 4000 BP (Fig 2.1). The importance of fish culture and the development of apparently drainable ponds, along with ornamental fish ponds, have been documented in illustrations from the tombs of pharaohs. Aktihep's burial place for example appears to show men removing tilapia from a fish pond (Basurco and Lovatelli 2004). 7 Present food and feed 4000 BP 2500 BP 5th 12th 15th 1733 1860 1976 1985 2007 Century Century Century Period (not to scale) Figure 2.1 Conceptual overview of the historical growth of aquaculture from its earliest records to current and projected future growth. / 2.1.1 Aquacul ture in As ia (4000 BP to 2500 BP) It is in As ia , especially in China around 4000 B P (L i and Mathias 1994), that we can best trace the origins of aquaculture. In the warm southern provinces, freshwater ponds were stocked with different species o f carp, in conjunction with grazing livestock so that the ponds would be fertilized. This ancient practice, which creates a micro-ecosystem l inking water, fish, and livestock through products and crops, is still in existence today, and is better known as 'integrated fish farming' (Lin 1991; L i and Mathias 1994). Fan-L i wrote the first extensive treatise on fish culture approximately 2500 B P (Li and Mathias 1994) . His text outlined the design and layout of fishponds, the breeding of fish and the rearing of fry, thus providing clear evidence of the technological development required to separate proto-aquaculture from aquaculture. Much of the information from the treatise is still used in As ia today. 8 2.1.2 Aquaculture in Asia in the 20tn Century Coastal countries such as Japan developed large-scale aquaculture to supply its population with fish and shellfish centuries ago. At the end of the 18 t h Century, Japan developed cage culturing to farm yellowtail (Seriola quinqueradiata) while trapping sardines and anchovies as bait in the same cages (Takashima and Arimoto 2000). More recently, Japan expanded marine finfish aquaculture to enhance some of its commercial fish stocks. It has become one of the main producers o f farmed marine finfish in the world, with Yel lowtai l , Red sea bream, Coho salmon, Horse mackerel, Stripped jack, flatfish and pufferfish representing the main cultured species. Total production o f farmed fish reached 250 000 tonnes worth 2.4 bi l l ion U S D in 1997 (Takashima and Arimoto 2000). Other Asian nations invested primarily in crustacean species, in particular highly valued shrimps and prawns. In the 1990s, small but unique markets, such as the live reef food fish trade (LRFFT) developed in much of Southeast As ia and the Indo-Pacific region in countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand, Papua New Guinea and Australia. Targeted species mainly comprise groupers (Serranidae). Although sourced primarily from capture fisheries, mariculture is playing an increasing role in the production o f these highly valuable fish (Sadovy and Cornish 2000). 2.1.3 Aquaculture in Europe, the Mediterranean & the Americas (2800 BP - World War II) B y 2800 B P , the Etruscans (in what is now Tuscany and surrounding areas of Italy) operated some of the earliest extensive marine farms in the Mediterranean (Kirk 1987). Mol luskan (shellfish) culture was practiced in Ancient Greece circa 2500 B P . Around 2200 B P , at Baia, near Naples, Italy, the Romans were active in the culture o f Seabass, Seabream, mullets and shellfish such as oysters (Kirk 1987). This is generally considered to be the first true sea ranching activity in Europe, and possibly worldwide; although recently uncovered records seem to indicate that clam terraces were used by native communities of the Northwest Pacific as early as at least 4000 years B P (Harper et al. 2002). The Romans spread mariculture throughout coastal Europe (Ravagnan 1975; Pellizzato 1978). However, with the fall of the Western Roman Empire by circa 476 A D , aquaculture and 9 mariculture activities soon diminished and arguably disappeared from Europe altogether. It is not until the 12 t h century A D , that records indicate the re-emergence o f freshwater aquaculture in central Europe. B y the 15 t h century, large scale lagoon mariculture, referred to as 'vall icoltura', developed in the northern Adriatic (Ravagnan 1975). Growth o f aquaculture and vallicoltura, such as that found in the Venice lagoon (Ghetti 1999), throughout the region might have been correlated with the role and influence of the Roman Catholic Church. Indeed, religious injunctions prohibiting the consumption of meat on Fridays led to increases in the demand for year-round fish supplies. Centuries later, new foods (including fish) were introduced to the Americas by European colonists. Salmonid species were the most popular fish to be stocked where water conditions were suitable (Soto and Norambuena 2004). At the turn of the 20 t h century, advances in European aquaculture techniques and practices led to the development o f what is know today as "modern" aquaculture. These practices were first developed for freshwater salmonid cultures in 18 t h century Denmark and Germany (H. Rosenthal, Institute of Marine Research, K ie l , 2004 pers. comm.). Soon thereafter these techniques spread throughout Western Europe, finding application also in the marine realm, through the culture o f species such as modern Atlantic salmon and shellfish. The development of hatcheries and hatchery science allowed for the further evolution of salmonid and shellfish culturing and the associated growth in their production and value. Technological breakthroughs in the fields of breeding and larval culture, along with major progress in supplement feeding and feed manufacturing and engineering, further facilitated this evolution and expansion. Similar culturing techniques are now commonly used throughout a wide-ranging list of species such as shrimps and tilapia (Fitzsimmons 2000). 2.1.4 Globalization (Post World War II to present) The technological developments in Europe outlined above quickly spread worldwide and were quickly implemented throughout As ia in countries such as the Philippines, Indonesia, Cambodia, Vietnam and more importantly China, where the bulk of contemporary production lies. Economic pressures from the World Bank and the U N among others (Kent 1995), may have in part been responsible- for the rapid transition and expansion of, aquaculture from traditional 10 culturing systems to modern European based methods (Bardach 1997). This shift saw traditional low impact, low-yield, but historically sustainable production systems, being replaced by high- yield, intensive operations. The change of culture methods and the incorporating o f western techniques shaped 1970s aquaculture baseline, marking a new development of intensive aquaculture, which has continued to the present. In the late 1970s, mariculture was also expanding in developed countries through a change from traditional extensive bivalve cultures to high-value species, specifically carnivorous finfish species (e.g. groupers) which were, and still are, caught aspart of the capture fishery sector. Flow-through and recirculation (re-circulating and recycling) culture systems, developed as a consequence of the expansion from extensive to intensive farming systems, based on the concepts developed in earlier stages of aquaculture production, as discussed above (Rosenthal 1985) Advances in diet formulation and supplementation, such as improved industrial animal feed production systems (Tacon 1998) created the impetus for expanding the industry internationally. Expansion was targeted to =the developing world, where labour is often cheaper, resources such as land and marine areas are more readily available, and in some countries, financial incentives for such developments provided (Alder and Watson 2007). Establishing modern aquaculture systems in developing countries, however, can be costly, concentrating wealth, as wel l as dramatically changing traditional methods of fish and shellfish culture (Pillay 2001; Goldburg and Naylor 2005) The repercussions of these changes through all types of cultures and societies are still perplexing today. The benefits o f transforming traditional aquaculture systems into modern intensive systems are still debated in terms of meeting the food security demands of an ever increasing local and global population (Tacon 1998: Kent 1995). The 1976 Kyoto Technical Conference on Aquaculture was not only the first conference of its kind to be held, it also marked the beginning of a new era. Supported by the F A O and U N D P , the conference adopted the "Kyoto Declaration on Aquaculture", which identified the 11 various forms of aquaculture production worldwide, and gave the catalyst to the potential for developing it into a major industry, providing the means of revitalizing rural life along with the possibility of supplying products of high nutritional value (Pillay 2001). The "Action Plan" agreed in conference is as follows: • That aquaculture has made encouraging progress in the past decade, producing significant quantities of food, income and employment; that realistic estimates place future yields of food at twice the present level in ten years, and five times the present level in thirty years, if adequate support is provided; • That aquaculture, imaginatively planned and intelligently applied, provides a means of revitalizing rural life and supplying products of high nutritional value, and that aquaculture, in its various forms, can be practiced in most countries, coastal and landlocked, developed and developing; • That aquaculture has a unique potential contribution to make to the enhancement and maintenance of wild aquatic stocks and thereby to the improvement of capture fisheries, both commercial and recreational; • That aquaculture forms an efficient means of recycling and upgrading low-grade food materials and waste products into high-grade protein-rich food; • That aquaculture can, in many circumstances, be combined with agriculture and animal husbandry to the mutual advantage of both sectors, and contribute substantially to integrated rural development; • That aquaculture provides intellectual challenge to skilled professionals of many disciplines, and a rewarding activity for farmers and other workers at many levels of skill and education; • That aquaculture provides now, and will continue to provide, options for sound investment of money, materials, labour and skills; • That aquaculture merits the fullest possible support and attention by national authorities for integration into comprehensive renewable resource, energy, and land and water use policies and programs, and for ensuring that the natural resources on which it is based are enhanced and not impaired; 12 • That aquaculture could benefit greatly from support and assistance from international agencies, which should include the transfer o f technology, actively planned and executed, with research carried out in centres representative of the various regions concerned. In response to the action plan presented in Kyoto in 1976, and with the help of F A O and U N D P , networks were created around the world, to coordinate and integrate the proposed ongoing multidisciplinary activities and research in developing regions. In As ia for instance, the Network o f Aquaculture Centres in Asia-Pacif ic ( N A C A ) was formed, with China, India, Thailand and the Philippines as major regional centres of research and specialization with regards to that region's particular requirements. Similar regional networks were established in, Afr ica and Latin America. The Afr ican lead centre was established in Nigeria and the Latin American lead centre in Brazi l . Twenty-five years later, the need for a similar conference was recognized, and the 2000 Conference on Aquaculture in the Third Mi l lennium in Bangkok was held to review the progress made since the Kyoto conference and discuss the future of aquaculture (Silpachai 2001). The Bangkok Conference strengthened the 1976 Kyoto Declaration and further emphasized the role of aquaculture in alleviating rural poverty and improving livelihoods and food security, while maintaining the integrity of biological resources and the sustainability o f the environment. Many countries adopted the Bangkok Declaration and Strategy on Aquaculture Development Beyond 2000 to guide pol icy makers and industry on the sustainable development o f this industry. 2.2 Aquaculture status and trends 2.2.1 Global trends Aquaculture has grown rather fast, with an average annual percent growth rate of 8 to 9% since the late 1980s (Tacon 1998, 2001; Pul l in and Sumaila 2005; F A O 2004) (Table 2.1). There were few areas left in the world without some form of aquaculture, including mariculture (Figure 2.2). 13 T a b l e 2.1. Aquaculture species groups in 2003, their respective percentage composition. Based on F A O 2004 statistics. (F: freshwater; B ; brackish water; M : mariculture). Group Environment. 2000 (million t) 2003 (million t) Annual growth rate % Contribution (in %; 2003) Finfish F+B+M 22.7 27.1 5.8 49.3 B+M 2.9 3.6 9.8 - Mollusks F+B+M - - - - B+M 10.7 12.3 4.9 22.5 Aquatic plants F+B+M - - - - B+M 10.2 12.5 6.7 22.8 Crustaceans F+B+M 1.8 2.8 16.7 5.1 B+M 1.3 2.1 15.1 - Other F+B+M . 0.14 0.17 7.1 0.3 B+M - - -14.0 - The trend appears to continue in the 2000s; with total production surpassing 50 mil l ion tonnes (mil l ion t) for the first time in 2000 and by 2003, reaching approximately 55 mil l ion t valued at 67.3 thousand mi l l ion U S D (Figure 2.3). 14 Harvest rate (t • k m " 2 • year" 1) for the year 1975 • > 5000 4000 - 5000 3000 - 4000 2000 - 3000 • 1000 - 2000 • 500 - 1000 • 200 - 500 100 - 200 5 0 - 1 0 0 0 - 50 Fig 2 .2a G l o b a l maricul ture product ion i n 1975. M a p courtesy o f D r R e g Watson (Sea A r o u n d U s Project, Fisheries Centre, U B C , J u l y 2007 , pers. comm.) . Harvest rate (t • k m " 2 • year" 1) for the year 2000 e >5000 4000 - 50 3000 - 40 2000 - 30 1000-20 • 500 - 100 200 - 500 100 - 200 5 0 - 1 0 0 0 - 5 0 Fig 2.2b G l o b a l maricul ture product ion i n 2000. M a p courtesy o f D r R e g Watson (Sea A r o u n d U s Project, Fisheries Centre, U B C , Ju ly 2007 , pers. comm. ) . ©S Year Figure 2.3. Trends in aquaculture production and marine fisheries landings (1950-2004) with and without Chinese data ( F A O 2004) Nevertheless, as for the period 2000-2003, the rate of growth has decreased slightly, to an average o f 6.2% ( F A O 2004). In comparison, livestock meat production has been growing at around 3 % per year and the output from capture fisheries has reversed to - 3 % over the same period ( F A O 2004). Mariculture and brackish water aquaculture (brackish culture) have shown similar trends (Table 2.2). Table 2.2 Average annual growth rate percentage for the period 1950-2003 (F: freshwater; B; brackish water; M : mariculture). Environmental Component 1950-59 1960-69 1970-79 1980-89 1990-99 2000-03 World Aquaculture 13.2 5.6 7.6 9.4 10.1 6.2 World Aquaculture minus China 7.2 6.4 8.2 7.7 3.9 5.7 M + B 11.5 7.9 8.5 7.3 9.9 6.7 M + B minus China 7.9 6.3 8.5 7.2 2.9 5.8 M + B minus algae 9.1 5.1 6.6 8.8 9.7 5.5 M + B minus (China + algae) 7.3 5.2 6.0 5.9 5.2 6.7 F minus (China + algae) 6.1 6.9 7.6 8.9 5.6 5.6 China F minus algae 30.3 0.5 4.2 17.9 13.2 5.7 China M + B minus algae 45.3 5.4 10.8 17.4 16.9 6.8 17 Global aquaculture production broken down by environmental components (with and without Chinese data) has fallen from an average annual growth rate of 10% to 7%. On the other hand, i f we disregard the Chinese production and aquatic plant data, we find that by 2003, the mariculture sector (including brackish culture) has increased, from an average annual growth rate of approximately 5% to 7%. More so, the annual growth rate was above 11% from 2002 to 2003. The major farmed taxonomic groups for 2003 and their respective mariculture components are finfish, which comprises nearly half of the total aquaculture production, with 27.1 mil l ion t (in marine, brackish and freshwater) or 49.3% of total production, followed by aquatic plants and mollusks (mostly marine and brackish water), with 12.5 (22.5%) and 12.3 mil l ion t (22.8%) respectively, which together account for 4 5 % o f total aquaculture production (Table 2.1). The remaining 5% consists of crustaceans, with 2.8 mi l l ion t, but with the highest proportional growth among all sectors, i.e., an average annual growth rate 16.7 % (Table 2.1). 2.2.2 Product ion by major taxa Prior to the rapid expansion of aquaculture in the 1970s, many taxa were farmed (around 100 species), but very few dominated the aquaculture sector - with the exception of carp and certain aquatic plants, which have a long history of culturing in As ia . Since 1970, there have been introductions of new fish and invertebrate species, which increased the number of cultured species to over 150 by the early 2000s. In 2004, almost 60 mi l l ion t o f aquaculture products worth over 70 bi l l ion U S D were produced. As ia accounted for 92% of all production, and 80 % of its value. China alone accounted for 70% of the world's production, and 51% of its value. However, only 10 species (Table 2.3) now dominate the sector, and account for 75% of the total production and over half of total value ( F A O 2004). These 10 dominant species include eight of the traditional aquatic plants cultured in Asia. The remaining two species, Whiteleg shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei) and Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), are recent developments (since the 1980s). Whiteleg shrimp developed in tropical As ia as a substitute to Penaeus sp. and Blue shrimp species, which were disease affected in the 1980s and early 1990's (Pil lay 2001). Salmon farming developed to meet the demand for high 18 value fish in North America, Europe and Japan. Nine of these 10 species have recently gained in importance relative to other species, because of (1) a growing Asian population, (2) increasing incomes in As ia , and (3) the ease in which the new technologies and practices can be incorporated or totally replace traditional culture methods and species. In As ia , many of these species are now cultured for local and export markets, making the development of an industry for these farmed species financially profitable. The recent development of shrimp aquaculture in Latin America has been possible due to the availability of investment capital from multi-national fish farming companies and the further development of efficient technologies and practices (McClennen 2004). Salmon has also gained in importance in response to the ever-growing demand for high-value and high-quality fish. The industry was able to capitalize on the long history of trout farming in Europe and North America to quickly develop the hatchery and rearing practices needed to provide consistent volume and high-quality products each year that can be sold at an affordable price to many consumers (Bardach 1997) 19 Table 2.3. Top 40 marine and brackish species and species groups produced (Prod, thousand tonnes) in the years 2000-2003 and their percentage make-up of global production (M: marine; Br: Brackish), (nei = not elsewhere included). Rank Species/sp. group Species M Br Prod. % total 1 Aquatic plants nei - X X 4900 17.25 2 Japanese kelp Undaria pinnatifida X 4600 16.17 3 Pacific cupped oyster Crassostrea gigas X 4400 15.33 4 Japanese carpet shell Ruditapes philippinarum X 2600 9.12 5 Laver (Nori) Porphyra sp. X 1300 4.41 6 Marine mollusks nei - X 1200 4.32 7 Yesso scallop Patinopecten yessoensis X 1200 4.05 8 Atlantic salmon Salmo salar X X 1100 3.96 9 Zanzibar weed Eucheuma cottonii X X 880 3.08 10 Whiteleg shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei X X 720 2.54 11 Sea mussels nei Mytdus sp. X 680 2.39 12 Giant tiger prawn Penaeus monodon X X 670 2.33 13 Milkfish Chanos chanos X X 490 1.70 14 Blue mussel Mytilis edulis X 470 1.66 15 Blood cockle Anadara sp. X 430 1.51 16 Chinese river crab Eriocheir sinensis X 370 1.29 17 Wakame nei Undaria sp. X 260 0.90 18 Marine fishes nei - X X 210 0.87 19 Rainbow trout Oncdrhynchus mykiss X X 210 0.74 20 Fleshy prawn Penaeus chinensis ' X 200 0.72 21 Marine crabs nei - X X 170 0.68 22 Mediterranean mussel Mytilus galloprovincialis X 150 0.59 23 Flathead grey mullet Mugil cephalus X X 140 0.52 24 Marine crustaceans nei - X X 120 0.51 25 Green mussel Perna viridis X 110 0.41 26 Coho (=Silver) salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch X X 110 0.40 27 Gracilaria seaweeds Gracilaria sp. X X 100 0.37 28 Gilthead seabream Spams auratus X 89 0.35 29 Banana prawn Penaeus merguiensis X X 79 0.31 30 Percoids nei Percoidea X 78 0.28 31 Penaeus shrimps nei Penaeus sp. X X 78 0.27 32 European seabass Dicentrarchus labrax X 50 0.27 33 Flatfishes nei Peluronectiformes X 42 0.18 34 Indian white prawn Fenneropenaeus indicus X X 32 0.15 35 Chum (=Keta=Dog) salmon Oncorhynchus keta X 22 0.11 36 Cupped oysters nei Crassostrea gigas X 22 0.08 37 Tilapias nei Oreochromis sp. X 21 0.08 38 Kuruma prawn Penaeus japonicus X X 2.4 0.07 39 Blue shrimp Penaeus stylirostris X X 2.3 0.01 40 Whiteleg shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei X X 1.1 0.01 20 The remaining 144 taxa are still important because their volumes are high (most are produced in excess o f 100,000 tonnes) with many species traded globally for human consumption, pharmaceutical processing and other industrial use's. Taxa that are not traded globally are still important domestically, as they are a source of food and income generation for coastal communities. These 144 taxa also have the potential to gain in importance depending on industry investment, consumer preferences and environmental requirements. The monetary value of mariculture species are headed by finfish valued at 240 bi l l ion dollars in 2000, which increased to a value of 260 bi l l ion by 2003, with the top groups consisting of salmonids, tilapias, jacks and mullets. Decapods (crayfish, prawns and shrimp) comprise 90% of the total farmed crustaceans' value of 37 bi l l ion U S D in 2003, with leading species such as Whiteleg shrimp, Fleshy prawn, Giant tiger prawns, Banana prawn, Indian white prawn and Kuruma prawn. Finfish recent and rapid expansion Marine aquaculture o f finfish has become more intensive over the last 15 years (Table 2.4), due mainly to the introduction of new technologies, the development o f suitable sites, improvements in feed technology, an improved understanding of the biology of farmed species, the ability to increase water quality within farming systems and the increased demand for fish products (Divanach et al. 1996). It is now widely acknowledged that this intensive development of the finfish culture industry has been accompanied by an increase of its environmental impacts, such as disease transfer to wi ld fish, water quality and waste accumulation to name a few (Bardach 1997; Ervik et al. 1997). In the mid-nineties, in Germany, a threshold o f 20 tonnes • year"1 was set for differentiating between major polluting aquaculture facilities, requiring a license for stock intensive productions, and less polluting facilities. In this context, the sustainability of intensive mariculture, including finfish aquaculture, has been questioned (Barg 1992; Suvapepun 1994; Naylor et al. 2000). 21 Table 2.4. Ma in finfish sub-groups and their annual growth rate (in %) based on production trends by decade. Based on F A O (2004) and Tacon (2001). Taxa 1950-59 1960-69 1970-79 1980-89 1990-99 2000-03 Bass - - 247.9 43.4 42.9 9.1 Breams 30.4 0.6 6.8 14.6 12.8 4.4 Carp 18.6 1.8 5.5 14.1 11 3.7 Catfish 7.1 16.5 17.8 19.8 5.9 7.2 Flatfish . - - 386.6 24.5 40.1 Jack/Mullet 3.5 31.7 16.9 0.9 1.9 12.1 Salmonids 12.4 13 7.8 13.3 11.2 7.3 Scombrids . - - 46.4 234.6 16 Tilapia 13.7 3.7 15.5 13.4 12.3 10.9 Other fish 7.3 4.6 5.1 9 8.5 11.5 Total finfish 14.5 3 6.3 12.4 10.4 5.8 Fish, whether farmed or from capture fisheries, is an excellent source of high quality protein, which contains as much as 60% first class protein on a dry matter basis (Tacon 2001). It is also rich in vitamins, and contains variable quantities of fat, calcium, phosphorus and other nutrients important to human health and growth. Fish, in many ways, is even more nutritious than the meat from most warm-blooded animals. Nutrition experts have long agreed that fish with the addition o f a variety of vegetable products, constitutes a completely balanced diet (Lossonczy et al. 1978). The improved understanding o f the nutritional value of fish, in particular the Omega-3 fatty acids and their role in a healthy diet has increased the perceived value o f fish in Europe and North American (industrialized) nations. This has led to a growing demand for fish (farmed and wild). The downside to eating fish is the risk caused by persistent organic pollutants (e.g. PCBs ) , heavy metals (e.g. mercury), present in both capture and farmed fish, residual antibiotics and synthetic carotenoids, the last two all too frequent in farmed fish. The value o f finfish (both ex-vessel and farm gate) is generally increasing, although at certain times, periods of over supply may cause prices to plummet. Aquaculture also has potential for increasing socio-economic benefits through developing farmed finfish initiatives, and generating employment opportunities in the harvest and postharvest sectors, as seen in the development of salmon farming. The key to socio-economic sustainability of the aquaculture sector is to ensure that benefits are distributed as widely and equitably as possible. 22 In some regions o f the world and for a few species, large multi-national corporations, often subsidized by governments, dominate finfish aquaculture. A n example o f this is in the U S A where catfish growers control the domestic market through their influence on U S imports of potential competitors (Cherry 2006). In Chi le, the government regulates fishing and environmental laws to benefit the salmon industry (Ibanez and Pizarro 2002). When large multi- national corporations dominate the aquaculture sector, social issues emerge: the number of workers declines, employment concentrates in few areas, jobs become seasonal; there is no job security and wages are low, as is the case for salmon farming in Chi le (Ibanez and Pizarro 2002; Neira and Diaz 2005). Crustaceans Marine and brackish water decapods (shrimps and prawns) make up the major part of the world crustacean farming (Table 2.5), and Southeast As ia is the leading region. Overall, crustaceans now make close to one-fourth of the aquaculture crop in the world, and are mostly produced in the developing world, and in coastal areas. However, in many areas, this development occurred at great cost to coastal ecosystems and surrounding social communities, notably through habitat conversion and redistribution of wealth (Perez et al. 2000). Table 2.5 Average growth rate (in %) in production of major crustacean sub-groups. Taxa 1950-59 1960-69 1970-79 1980-89 1990-99 2000-03 Crab 7.9 -0.2 26.3 16.7 45.7 18.6 Shrimp 16.9 16.1 23.6 25.6 6.2 15.6 Other Crustaceans - 21.2 34.5 26.0 26.5 43.7 Total Crustaceans 12.5 13.3 23.2 25.3 8.3 16.7 The annual percent growth rate of the shrimp farming sector has been significantly higher than other mariculture production sectors. In terms of growth, shrimp production had decreased to more modest levels during the 1990s (averaging 5%), relative to the double-digit growth rates 23 observed during the 1970s (23%) and 1980s (25%). However, by 2000, the annual growth rate once again reached double digit form, averaging (17%) and is discussed below. Since the 1980s, a great deal of attention has been paid to the emergence of high-value, export-oriented aquaculture crops in developing countries (Naylor et al. 2000; Tacon 2001). Modern shrimp culture is a classic example of such a crop. This sector, which relies on intensive, mono-culture stocking, mechanized water exchange, antibiotics and processed feeds, has become a major source of export earnings for a number of countries in Southeast A s i a and Latin America ( F A O 2004). Shrimp farming has also emerged as a main source of employment and income for hundreds of thousands of people in As ia. Employment and income is generated in production, associated service and supply industries, such as feed mil ls, ice plants, drug and chemical suppliers, as wel l as in shrimp trading, processing and distribution, including retailing and exporting. In recent years, global prices for shrimp have been declining ( F A O 2004), but returns from shrimp farming have until very recently continued to be considered high compared to other aquaculture and agricultural crop options. The livelihoods of many small-scale farmers and communities in coastal As ia are still connected to the shrimp industry in various ways, e.g. supplying broodstock, catching larvae, etc. Most shrimp farming in As ia is still done by small-scale farmers owning less than 5 ha of land in rural coastal areas (Hall 2004). Therefore, it continues to play an important role in the economic well-being of coastal communities. However, with overproduction, dropping prices and issues of anti-dumping in major importing countries, its economic sustainability is questioned. Because earnings from the production, export and trade of shrimp products are so important, the expansion of shrimp farming continues in both As ia and Latin America. There is also an emerging interest in Afr ica, where there has been relatively limited shrimp farm development to date (Moehl and Machena 2000). The lessons learned in Southeast As ia and Latin-America should provide ample information to plan for a more sustainable sector in Afr ica. 24 Unti l recently most studies have either treated shrimp farming as a global activity, blurring distinctions between and within countries, or else taken up its development in one region and generalizing trends in production and management practices globally. Ha l l (2004) noticed that variation between or within countries has received little analysis. Such analyses wi l l be useful in finding broad approaches to improving sustainability in this industry. The response to the growth of shrimp farming has raised controversy in both shrimp producing and shrimp importing countries. Public opinion in importing countries, and in certain exporting countries, is being influenced by concerns over environmental impacts such as ecological consequences of mangrove conversion to shrimp ponds; salinization o f groundwater and agricultural land; pollution of coastal waters from pond effluents; use o f fish meal and oils in shrimp feeds and biodiversity issues that arise from the collection o f wi ld shrimp seed (Ling et al. 1999). More recently the introduction and spread of exotic species such as Litopenaeus vannamei to As ia and other species including associated pathogens has also emerged as an issue for sustainability o f this industry. The social impacts of shrimp culture, include food security issues such as the diversion of local food resources for export, general conflicts with other stakeholders and concentration o f the industry in the hands of a few entrepreneurs. These impacts combined with pollution and subsequent disease outbreaks are symptoms common to rapid shrimp expansion and poor site selection. These general failures in managing development and farm design have created considerable debate regarding the long-term sustainability of shrimp farming practices (Naylor et al. 1998). Mollusks Bivalve mollusks, e.g. gastropods; snails and bivalves; clams, mussels and oysters are good sources of inexpensive, and high quality protein. More than half of the world's mollusk production comes from aquaculture, which has for the most part been steady at around 23% of total aquaculture production (Table 2.6) for the past 5 years ( F A O 2004). Cultured bivalves lead the world in weight of products. 25 Table 2.6 Average percent growth (in %) of production for major mollusk sub-groups ( F A O 2004). Taxa 1950-59 1960-69 1970-79 1980-89 1990-99 2000-03 Clams 6.6 17.7 11.7 11.1 17.3 8.5 Mussels 7.8 9.7 6.9 6.1 3.2 2.5 Oysters 10.2 2.8 4.0 4.4 12.1 4.8 Scallops - - - 24.0 14.9 5.9 Other mollusks 17.3 10.1 27.2 23.9 26.8 0.7 Total mollusks 9.4 5.2 6.0 7.4 11.6 4.9 About 50% of the world-wide mussel harvest comes from Europe, with the main yield of Atlantic mussels coming from Spain, the Netherlands and Denmark, while the Mediterranean production predominantly comes from Italy. Production in these traditional areas has stabilized since the 1970s, and Europe's share o f the world production has decreased due to increased production outside Europe, i.e., in Chile and Peru (O'Sul l ivan 2006). Mussel production is based on extensive operations and depends for the most part on natural resources for food, spat and space. In the main European culturing areas, production using existing techniques seems to have reached carrying capacity ( F A O 2004). Plants and Algae F A O 2004 statistics, on aquatic plant mariculture, ranks plants first among total production worldwide with 12.5 mil l ion t in marine and brackish water (Table 2.1), with 99% of this production in China. Most of these locally consumed aquatic plants, which supply wholesale markets, are commonly produced in integrated culturing systems across southern As ia (Alveal et al 1995). Plants such as water spinach and water mimosa are commonly grown and require limited knowledge of production techniques and preparation methods for marketing. Abundant nutrients are needed, however, to support the rapid growth of these plants. A n ingenious 26 traditional method for using wastewater and in the context of a reuse system, integrated with the farming facilities, is often used (Alveal et al. 1995). 2.2.3 Production by species In 2003, 337 different farmed species and species groups were reported to F A O for statistical purposes. O f these, 76 were 'unspecified' groups, which is equivalent to 12.0 mil l ion t or 21.9% of total aquaculture production (Table 2.3). Production reported at species level consists of 242 species, o f which more than 60% (158 species) are produced in marine and brackish water culture. This includes 70 finfish species, 54 mollusk species, 19 crustacean species, 13 plant species, and 2 'miscellaneous' species ( F A O 2004). 2.2.4 Undefined groups (aka nei) The non-specified groups most of which refer to groups "not elsewhere included" (nei) range from genera such as abalones (Haliotis spp) to classes such as in "Marine fish ne i " and phyla "Invertebrates ne i " ( F A O 2004). It is imperative that, for any comprehensive sustainability assessment of aquaculture, information on these groups should be better resolved. Throughout the F A O reported period o f 1950-2003, there have been 95 different non- specific associations when a reporting country, at one point or another, had not provided sufficient statistical information. Some of these undefined groups have disappeared, but more have been added throughout this period as new species move from development stages into production stages. Nine o f these, which comprise larger more general taxa, are more or less permanent (marine finfish nei, invertebrates nei, etc.); furthermore the total amount of nei groups has increased to over 2 1 % of all reported aquaculture production (Table 2.7). 27 Table 2.7: Trends in production (mil l ion t) and percentage of total production from aquaculture of 'not elsewhere included' (nei) groups from 1970 to 2003. Number of nei groups 1970 1980 1990 2000 2003 29 34 62 78 77 Production (million t) 0.29 0.64 2.29 8.83 12.0 % of total aquaculture 8.1 8.8 13.6 19.3 21.9 Based on F A O (2004), China seems to have reported in 2003, for the first time its finfish mariculture production not exclusively as 'marine finfish nei ' , but as consisting o f three species o f marine finfish (Cobia, Large yellow croaker and Red drum). However, instead o f one single large 'nei group', China now has 6 new aggregated 'nei ' species groups (Amberjacks nei, Flatfish nei, Groupers nei, Percoids nei, Porgies/Seabreams nei and Puffers nei). More importantly, China reported a decline in finfish mariculture for the first time since 1984. Whether this decline is coincidental with China's new 2003 reporting classification or that the limited availability o f new marine areas for expanding marine culture, having reached maximum levels, and the fact that China's policies are increasingly shifting towards imports (China is now the largest importer o f fishmeal in the world), is unclear. Since China is the largest producer of aquaculture (including mariculture), any improvement of the Chinese aquaculture statistics w i l l impact on global assessments o f aquaculture sustainability. 2.2.5 Cu l tu r ing environments Aquaculture has developed in the three primary water environments: freshwater, brackish and marine. Based on F A O (2004), by 2003 global freshwater aquaculture production topped 24.2 mi l l ion t or 44.2% of total aquaculture production, while mariculture makes up 27.7 mil l ion t or 50.6 %. Lastly, brackish culture was 2.9 mi l l ion t or 5.2% of total aquaculture production ( F A O 2004). Whi le freshwater production may represent 40% of total global aquaculture, this is centered mainly in China, and is focused on three main finfish groups, (i.e., catfish, carp and tilapia species), a wider array of invertebrates (mainly mollusks such as freshwater clams and 28 snails) and aquatic plants such as water lettuce, etc. Since I focus on a global assessment of mariculture, freshwater aquaculture is not discussed further. Brackish Brackish water culture showed the highest growth in 2003, with an annual percent growth rate o f 18.2% (Table 2.8), followed by mariculture and freshwater culture, with 5.7% and 5.6% respectively. Brackish water systems are used to culture a range of plants, invertebrates and fin fish. There are two classes o f brackish water environments in aquaculture: natural systems such as lagoons, mangroves and saltwater wetlands, and man-made systems such as ponds, raceways and tanks. Natural systems are very dynamic due to seasonal climate and coastal influences. Therefore, their fluctuations influence production, as well as determining the species, technologies and culturing practices that can be used. The increasing recognition o f the ecological and socio-economic value of intact coastal ecosystems now limits how much of these areas can be developed solely for culturing systems and can create conflict between users of these coastal areas and resources (Bardach 1997: Naylor et al. 1998; K a y and Alder 2005). This recognition has driven the development of man-made brackish water systems in inland areas or in areas that have no other productive potential (e.g. desert areas). Table 2.8 Difference in the market value (USD/kg) of aquaculture species raised in different environments, 2000-2003. Based on FAO (2004). Environment 2000 2001 2002 2003 Brackish culture 31.30 15.98 16.94 13.92 Mariculture 6.75 6.42 5.75 5.16 Mariculture + Brackish culture 8.84 7.27 6.69 5.97 In natural systems, there is a high diversity of species cultured, ranging from plants to finfish, with low establishment and operating costs relative to man-made systems. However, there are higher risks associated with natural systems, including higher disease prevalence, 29 vulnerability to coastal disturbances (e.g. cyclones) and conflicts with other users due to absent or weak property rights. These low establishment and operating costs provide low-income coastal communities with the potential to develop income generating activities to help address the issue of poverty and food security. However, the history o f shrimp culture in coastal areas throughout As ia and Latin America has raised questions over its ecological, economic and social sustainability (Naylor et al. 1998). Man-made systems are more expensive to run, i.e., they have higher fixed and operating costs. However, in these systems, some diseases are easier to control, and risks of predation, theft and natural disasters are reduced as well . In some areas, these systems also have less o f an environmental impact, especially where recycling and re-circulating technologies are used (Piedrahita 2003). Because so much of the operating environment is controlled, these systems are often used to culture a single species; therefore, globally, only a few species are cultured in man- made systems. Technically, there is no reason why a polyculture could not be established in such a system and be sustainable, but the high investment cost tends to drive production goals towards intensive monoculture systems using high-value and proven species. This has resulted in crustacean species, especially Whiteleg shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei dominating production in man-made brackish water systems. However, for many low-income coastal communities, these systems are often beyond their financial resources. Marine (Mariculture) Marine water systems are used for culturing plants, invertebrates and finfish (Table 2.9). L ike brackish systems, culturing can take place in natural systems (e.g. bays and coasts with net pens and racks, open ocean with cages), and man-made systems (tanks). Overall, in both systems, the species cultured are larger and require bigger culturing facilities, such as nets and pens. Natural marine systems are just as dynamic as brackish water systems, and the environmental conditions also determine the species, technologies and culturing practices. These systems also have the same benefits in culturing species and are vulnerable to the same suite of risks. However, the proportion of the ecosystem that is used in marine systems is much less than in brackish water systems, and therefore in these systems, there is a lower perceived risk from 30 impacts such as disease outbreaks. They are therefore perceived as more sustainable (Bardach 1997). In natural marine system, there is also a relative high diversity o f species cultured compared to man-made marine systems. The infrastructure such as nets, cages and feeding systems required for natural marine systems imposes a higher cost to establish and maintain these systems compared to brackish water systems. Therefore, investment tends to focus on a few species that are proven and high-value, such as salmon, turbot and ornamental fish. The higher costs of establishing and operating marine systems can be a barrier to poor coastal communities investing in the industry (Donaldson 1997). While brackish water culture corresponded only to 5.2% of all current aquaculture production and 10.2% of total value (on average equivalent to U S $ 147kg), mariculture contributed 50.6% of aquaculture production and 36.9% of total value, equivalent to US$ 5.16/kg ( F A O 2004). Nevertheless, these values have been declining since 2000 (see Table 2.4). The reasons for such apparent declines in value lie primarily with lower trophic species common to mariculture (e.g. mussels, clams etc.) showing increasing trends o f production in response to a growing demand for seafood and more competitive marketing, resulting in lowering price trends. If we take an even closer look at the production values and remove the Chinese and aquatic plant production (Figures 2.4 and 2.5), trends in production and value indicate a change in mariculture production (again together with brackish water culture) showing an annual growth rate of 11.4%, equivalent to 6.9 mi l l ion t in 2003. 31 40 r- _ 30 </> 0) c c o .2 20 c o 3 10 o Mariculture Mariculture w/o China and algae J I 1984 1987 1990 1993 Year 1996 1999 2002 Fig 2.4 F A O Production by environment 1984-2003 (adapted f rom 'FAO 2004) 450 Q  3 0 0 I- 3 c o a> •i 150 All aquaculture All aquaculture w/o China _L Mariculture w/o China J I 1984 1987 1990 1993 Year 1996 1999 2002 Fig 2.5 F A O Value by environment 1984-2003 (adapted from F A O 2004) 32 2.3 Aquaculture production technologies The development of aquaculture would not be possible without some major advances in the technology of fish culturing, including, breeding animal husbandry, optimal harvest and post harvesting (Bardach 1997) protocols and performance. Technological and scientific research has also enabled a greater number o f species to be cultivated. Consequently mariculture production and development is taking diverging paths from common mainstream traditional farming, examples are the discrepancies between different shrimp species e.g. Litopenaeus vannamei vs. P. monodon culturing techniques (Naylor et al. 1998). A detailed description of the technological advances in these areas is beyond the scope of this thesis and the sections below provide an overview of current technologies only as they relate to environmental or socio-economic sustainability o f this industry. The technology of aquaculture is often described in terms of its energy inputs (Roth et al. 2002) or culturing production systems as described in the following section. 2.3.1 Partial systems Culturing technologies may take full control of all stages and requirements o f a particular species and its life cycle (as in animal husbandry). This may include assisting in reproduction, incubation and in early life stages such as breeding, larval and seed rearing. It may also include providing the necessary energetic requirements, such as feeding throughout the ontogeny of the species; providing enclosures that w i l l prevent their escape and provide protection from diseases and predators. These forms of control are often described as partial culturing. Two technologies are prevalent in partial culturing: 'sea ranching and seed collection'. Sea ranching is the culture of a given species beginning at its earliest phase, until a more advanced juvenile (e.g. fmgerling) stage is reached for release into the wi ld . The final stages of development are attained naturally with limited or no control, and the species is harvested later through conventional fishing methods. This technology used by fisheries managers when the objective is to replenish commercially or recreationally viable fishing stocks (stock 33 enhancement), such as important salmonid species in the Northwest of the United States and red sea bream in Japan. According to F A O (2004) and other authors (Mustafa and Rahman 2000; Mustafa 2003) sea ranching or ocean ranching is distinct from mariculture, as the latter implies some form of intervention in the rearing process that leads to increased production. If so, the distinction between systems is a matter o f scale and time, with marine ranching arguably similar to animal husbandry since some environmental controls are implemented and field improvements made (Fujiya 1999). The second partial culturing technology is the rearing of juveniles or adults, which are obtained from wi ld juvenile, (i.e., seed collection) or adult stage. They are for the most part fattened or maintained alive until the organisms reach a marketable size or an optimal market price. Again, this is seen in sea ranching and more specifically as a harvest type (Fujiya 1999). This technology is commonly used throughout As ia , where traditionally one or two fish are caught from the wi ld then confined in rudimentary wooden cages in rivers and coastal marine systems until they are consumed or sent to market. This combination of optimized fishing and mariculture has grown to industrial levels, as seen in tuna ranching. This is arguably a production system of doubtful sustainability since it relies on captured juvenile tuna, and small pelagic fishes as feed. Nevertheless, it is growing rapidly in the Mediterranean (Basurco and Lovatell i 2004) and in Pacific waters, mainly in Australia (Love and Langenkamp 2003) 2.3.2 Culturing systems Stocking densities which reflects energy inputs may vary within and among culturing production systems. A few major categories of these systems include: • Water-based systems (cages and pens, inshore/offshore); • Land-based systems (rainfed ponds, irrigated or flow-through, tanks and raceways); • Recycl ing systems (high control enclosed systems, more open pond based recirculation); • Integrated systems (e.g. livestock-fish, ponds for growing fish and plant crops). Mariculture technologies are primarily classified by production system based on the energy input levels, and primarily by one important measure, stocking density. Stocking density 34 may range from extensive (low density) farming, semi-intensive, intensive and hyper-intensive cultures which until recently were limited to prototypes production systems, now moving out o f the laboratory (Roth et al. 2002). Because there are no clear distinctions between and among culture types, characterization of system types must be defined as part o f a continuum of levels of intensification (Funge-Smith and Phil l ips 2001). 2.3.3 Stocking densities Extensive Extensive aquaculture, involves the farming of finfish or shellfish in a 'natural' habitat with little or no supplementary inputs (food, fertilizer etc.) and low stocking densities with minimum impact on the environment (Tacon 1998; Naylor et al. 2000). Shellfish cultures mainly clams and mussel and some forms of oyster cultures are examples o f extensive farming. The advantages of this type of stocking rate are lower disease incidence and lower cost. However, these also imply low return and profit. For some species with higher operating costs, such as pearl oysters, low densities are also used. Extensive systems are often sustainable environmentally, but the socio-economic sustainability o f the systems is variable with profit levels depending on the species farmed, its operating costs and farmgate price (Pull in and Sumaila 2005). Questions still remain whether the lower production rates w i l l l imit production thus requiring more farms for food supply creating stress on coastal zoning and its different users. Semi-Intensive Semi-intensive systems are often integrated with other agricultural production systems. Semi-intensive systems are distinguished from extensive systems by increased stocking rates and the requirement of some level of input, such as food, fertilizer, chemicals, etc. Integrated systems, as seen in China, incorporate fish production with the rearing o f swine (where excreta are used to fertilize ponds), ducks (which churn sediment and assist in nutrient turnover), plants 35 (which may be used as food), etc. (Kent 1995). Some integrated cultures and polyculture systems using omnivorous fish, i.e., vegetarian and omnivorous carp with rice paddy. Some recent shrimp cultures that stock at lower densities can be considered semi-intensive (Rosenthal 1985). The environmental risks associated with high stocking densities may differ from species to species and from tropical to temperate systems. Common problems from high stocking densities include water nutrient changes; in some situations, nutrient levels in the water column may increase with higher stocking levels. In other situations; nutrient levels may decrease when bivalve mollusks are cultured extensively and over a large area. In China, some traditional integrated pond systems that may be viewed as extensive, relied on a fine balance of biological, physical and chemical processes. When such ponds are transformed to semi-intensive systems, major changes take place, including increased disease susceptibility and pond eutrophication (L i 2003). Intensive Intensive production systems are typified by the need for total control over the production cycle. Examples of intensive aquaculture include pond culturing o f shrimp, cage and pen cultivation of salmon, pond production of channel catfish, microalgal cultivation and rearing of crocodiles and alligators. Intensive aquaculture generally demands providing all the food consumed by the farmed organism, as well as chemicals, fertilizers, etc. They may also require sophisticated interventions: control of reproduction, larval rearing, vaccination and so forth. Intensive production aims to maximize production and minimize infrastructure costs and requirements, but it has more often than not failed. For example, in the Philippines, shrimp disease outbreaks increased when the traditional extensive practices were replaced to semi- intensive and intensive practices (Naylor et al, 1998). Considering the tradeoff between production and risk is in line with the industry's growing concern growing for its economic sustainability (Pull in and Sumaila 2005). However, the pull of international markets is so high that minimizing costs through under-funding operations and using quick and dirty techniques is prevalent, as seen for example in rural India where brackish 36 water shrimp farms using intensive culturing practices dominate the sector, but there is also a high failure rate due to disease (Rout and Bandyopadhyay 1999) Intensive systems often result in large-scale conversion of habitats as described above. The loss o f coastal habitats has long term implications for sustainability, because a range o f ecosystem services from water quality to providing the broodstock that is used to stock the farms are compromised (Agardy and Alder 2005). Extensive systems are at great risk o f disease, with potentially wide-reaching impacts, since disease outbreaks often spread quickly. In developing countries, such losses can be devastating for many small-scale farmers and can have long-term affects on the social and economic sustainability o f communities. Hyper-intensive Hyper-intensive cultures are at the limit o f what the present technology can do for maximizing production. In the best-case scenario, hyper-intensive cultures operate completely closed systems. The systems are characterized by small enclosures and shorter farming stages, so that returns o f investment are high. Continued investment in this technology w i l l probably lead to biotechnological breakthroughs, increasing the predominance of these hyper-intensive systems. For example, extensive shrimp culture can produce only 100 to 200 kg per ha per crop cycle, one or two orders o f magnitude less then hyper-intensive systems, which are capable o f producing over 10,000 kg per ha per crop cycle. Hyper-intensive closed systems have the potential to reduce impacts on ecosystems, because they can be constructed on less productive land, which implies less conflict with other sectors, and eliminates the need to convert productive or protected land. The technology also exists to treat discharges prior to release. However, these systems are very expensive to develop (Shang and Tisdell 1997), and they marginalize small-scale farmers and poor coastal communities, who are unable to invest and benefit from this technology directly. They may benefit indirectly, however, through employment in production, post-harvesting and marketing, depending on local conditions. 37 Firms that sell or lease such planned hyper-intensive enterprises are multiplying and are targeting countries with economies in transition, such as Ecuador and Peru (Aladi 2002). However, these firms do not fully master the technology, resulting in many failures. These enterprises are best described as 'boom-bust' operations that operate in the short-term by establishing the enterprise, quickly making a profit and then translocating before environmental damage appears to be irreparable. This mismatch between theory and practices raises question on the ecological and socio-economic sustainability of such systems. Mariculture operations can also be categorized by another important attribute: feeding type and strategy (Tacon 1998). These are vital traits for cultured species, which reflect their predisposition to adapt or adjust to diverse diets and feeding regimes that often differ from their natural diets and feeding habits. The ability to adapt thus has long-term implication on the sustainability o f cultured species. When differentiating feeding strategies and stocking densities among the same species, fish cultures, as does terrestrial husbandry, depends on the level of technology and social acceptance of the farm site. Metabolic versatility o f a given species in this aspect and for other traits (oxygen demand, maximal stocking density, etc.) may assist in determining future candidate species with culturing potential. 2.4 Sustainability challenges in mariculture 2.4.1 General overview Ensuring that the aquaculture sector is sustainable and can continue to develop presents challenges to the industry itself. These challenges include: 1) Determining areas for development and expansion. In some areas, available coastal land is a limiting factor as seen in Europe for mussel cultures ( F A O 2006). Habitat modification that results from converting productive land to aquaculture occurs in South East As ia , where mangrove deforestation is no longer deemed acceptable, as it disrupts the essential mangrove- fishery link (e^g.. shrimps- milkf ish; Barbier and Sathirathai 2004). When this l ink is damaged, the risk of coastal subsistence fishers losing their resource base is increased; 38 2) Supplies of inputs such as fishmeal and fish oi l . Demand for trash fish or low-value fish has steadily increased with continued expansion of mariculture. Present trends in production can be maintained only i f the proportion of fishmeal and fish oi l obtained from capture fisheries is increased (Delgado et al. 2003; F A O 2004; Tacon 2003; Alder and Pauly 2006); 3) Addressing the risk represented by indiscriminate use of antibiotics, pesticides and other chemicals. This use may cause health problems, including antibiotic resistance and harm non-target species (Husevag and Lunestad 1991; Naylor et al. 2000; Cabello 2006); 4) Managing organic pollutants. Dissolved and solid waste discharges and outputs contribute to nutrient loading and eutrophication (Sather et al. 2006); 5) Controll ing biological pollutants through the introduction of species, parasites and diseases. These weaken, hinder or alter ecosystem functions .and equilibrium (Hindar 2001). The implications for sustainability vary with each culturing technology and species. They are discussed below. 2.4.2 Capture fisheries and mariculture Many fish stocks traditionally preferred for direct human consumption are presently overfished (Pauly et al. 2002; Worm et al. 2006). Indeed, the reported landings of global fisheries are declining by about 500,000 tonnes per year since the late 1980s when they peaked at approximately 90 mil l ion t (Pauly et al. 2002). The demand for fish is driven by increasing human population, increasing economic purchasing power as seen in emerging economies such as China and India, and increasing awareness of health benefits from fish consumption (Tacon 2001). In response to this demand, fisheries are also increasingly capturing fish of low trophic levels and low economic value as the catches of large fish declines. Nevertheless the demand for fish continues to grow globally and, as fish become scarce, the demand for these low value fish increases. Some people have called for the expansion of aquaculture to meet this increasing demand. However, much of the increase in recent seafood demand has been for carnivorous (e.g. salmonids) or omnivorous (e.g. shrimp) species that are grown on compound aquafeeds, and thus 39 contributing to the increasing demand for small pelagic fish (anchovies, sardines, mackerels, etc.) which are the major input to aquafeeds (Naylor et al. 2000). 2.4.3 Poverty relief and food security A t the World Commission on Environment and Development ( W C E D ) in 1987, the 'Brundtland Commission' advocated aquaculture as one of the measure that would help attain sustainable development in developing countries ( W C E D 1987). Questions regarding whether the present mariculture systems can contribute to sustainability, food security, locally and abroad, were not addressed. Since then, questions on what forms of cultures are more sustainable than others within and among species, culture techniques and regions still need to be answered. A s mentioned above, efforts to solve food security dilemma in the developing world in the 1980s led to many governments opening the door to any potentially promising development. This open-door pol icy extended to the aquaculture sector and paid little attention to the environment and coastal communities. What mattered was private and international aid, or investments. The introduction of foreign species, as was the case for shrimp culture in India, Philippines and Ecuador, as well as salmon farms in Chi le (Ibanez and Pizarro 2002) are just a few examples of these unsustainable policies that affected coastal communities. The likelihood of sustainably meeting the increasing demand for seafood, even with supplementing production from mariculture is minimal (Naylor et al. 2000). Present day seafood preference has increased the demand for farmed high-priced marine fish such as tuna and salmon. A considerable proportion of sardines, anchovies and other small pelagics are diverted to feed other fish, thus compromising food security in many countries (Alder and Watson 2007). Small pelagic fish are a traditional food source for poor communities who cannot afford increasingly expensive pelagics (Alder and Pauly 2006) which make up less than 5% (4.5 mil l ion t) of total capture fish production. However, maintaining current supplies of tuna at around 4 - 5 mil l ion t is technically possible, but would be entirely dependent on the progress and continuous expansion of offshore tuna mariculture ventures and continued diversion of small pelagic fishes as feed for this industry. 40 Sustainability has been the stated goal behind the promotion of modern aquaculture; the inputs required by a growing mariculture sector imply the diversion of resources away from animal husbandry, in addition to the diversion of small pelagics from direct human consumption. The future of mariculture, therefore, w i l l be determined largely by consumers and their ability to pay, and with investors seeking economic opportunities and investment, and sustainability and long-term food security are l ikely to take the back seat. 2.4.4 Others A synthesis of the previous sections highlights the ecological, social and economic challenges the industry faces in meeting global sustainability objectives. Ecological issues such as habitat conversion, nutrient loading into coastal environments, the use of antibiotics, diseases, introductions of new species threatening biodiversity and the use o f fishmeal and fish o i l as feed, all threaten the coastal ecosystems and the industry that depend on its services. Some of these challenges can be addressed through technological developments, while others require changes in management practices. Similarly, there are social and economic challenges for the industry, which are primarily addressed through policy changes, and the development of partnerships with communities and industry, which develops income generating opportunities directly through jobs, or indirectly through new business opportunities. The large-scale industrial sector has additional needs to ensure its operations remain profitable, notably productivity increases and consistent quality standards (Funge-Smith and Phil l ips 2001). Consequently, the requirements for sustainable aquaculture development wi l l need to include technological, economic and social aspects that effectively meet human needs, and provide for economic well-being while maintaining productive ecosystems. Addressing these challenges is not an easy task. Indeed, it may take considerable time to build consensus within government and industry on how to implement the necessary changes to 41 ensure sustainability. A n y change, however, w i l l be a trade-off between the level of ecosystem sustainability, social benefits and profitability. How to measure the trade-off and who benefits has yet to be defined at global and regional scales. However, the question still remains on how to measure sustainability especially for mariculture, the focus o f this thesis. The next chapter provides a framework to address this question. 42 Chapter 3 3.1 Assessing the sustainability of mariculture The previous chapter argued that the aquaculture industry and governments realize that, for long-term growth, they must regard sustainability as a key component of all of their operations, despite the challenges this poses. The aquaculture industry, including the mariculture sector, has guidance on how to achieve environmentally-friendly practices as wel l as ecological and social-economic sustainability. This comes from various sources: industry itself, governments, academia, N G O s and consumers, and from other sectors involving animal husbandry. Industry, N G O s and governments have responded to the need for sustainability by developing a suite of guidelines, codes of practice and protocols;- some of these are discussed below. A s suggested previously, the long-term sustainability of mariculture relies on maintaining ecosystem services, building social capital and contributing to economic growth. Therefore in assessing the sustainability o f the mariculture sectors, the broad aspects of maintenance of ecosystems, and continuing social and economic growth need to be included in any assessment. Indeed, the growing concern over sustainable aquaculture, in particular mariculture, has prompted reviews of particular aspects of the industry for example aquafeeds (Tacon 1993, 1998: F A O 2004). However, there are no overall industry-wide reviews other than the recent F A O State of Aquaculture Report ( F A O 2006), which is very comprehensive, although it fails to include an overall quantitative or qualitative indication of progress towards sustainability at the global, regional or species-specific levels. There are many approaches to assessing the sector's sustainability such as the Pressure- State-Response Model (Linster and Fletcher 2001) or the Conceptual Framework o f the Mi l lennium Ecosystem Assessment (2003). Some approaches are highly complex and data intensive such as the Conceptual Framework, but provide a comprehensive picture o f the state o f the system(s) assessed. A t the other end of the assessment spectrum is the use o f a well-defined, suite of indicators such as the ecological footprint (Wackernagel and Rees 1996), which requires a number o f standardized data sets, or the Marine Trophic Index, M T I , (Pauly and Watson 2005) 43 which is based primarily on a single database of fish landings and estimate of trophic level of the fish landed. The indicators approach is often much simpler to apply and it is easier for policy makers and society to understand how the indicators reflect changes in the system and the significance of changes in the value of the indicators (e.g., declining M T I = declining marine health o f the ecosystem). In some situations, indicators wi l l help direct and steer pol icy makers on determining the type and level of development and management o f a given aquaculture sector, including mariculture. Whi le there are codes of practice, guidelines and recommended protocols within the aquaculture industry to minimize its impact on the environment, the ability o f the industry or government to assess progress toward meeting sustainable management or development objectives is weak at best. Given the growing awareness o f consumers o f the long-term benefits of sustainable production, and growing demand by wholesalers to meet the demand based on this awareness, it is imperative that a set of indicators be developed to assess the sustainability of aquaculture, similar to the Marine Stewardship Counci l 's ( M S C 1998) guidelines for the sustainable fishing or the World Wi ldl i fe Fund's "Fish 'Yes'List" ( W W P 1998). This chapter first describes the terms and the general approach used to assess sustainability, and reviews the criteria and indicators used in other agricultural and natural resource sectors, along with species-specific guidelines and codes of practices for marine and brackish water culture (mariculture). While some of the guidelines for freshwater aquaculture w i l l no doubt overlap with those for mariculture, freshwater aquaculture indicators are outside the scope of this thesis. This chapter then describes the criteria used to select mariculture indicators, and defines and describes the selected indicators o f countries' mariculture performance. 3.2 Assessment definitions Measuring the state of a resource, sector or process including mariculture requires three steps: a) defining the criteria on which to identify and assess indicators meant to reflect sustainability in the mariculture sector; b) determining the boundaries of the indicator 44 (quantitative or quali tat ive) that reflects the leve l o f sustainabil i ty; and c) either co l lec t ing the data or undertaking studies to measure or to quantify the indicator relat ive to the boundaries prev ious ly defined (Esty et al. 2005). The relat ionship between cri teria, indicator and sustainabili ty are i l lustrated i n F igure 3.1. Figure 3.1 Re la t ionsh ip between indicators, cr i ter ia and the under ly ing f ramework. In some studies, thresholds are specif ied so that the state o f resources or process is c lear ly defined. F o r example , when less than 10% o f biomass remains (the threshold) a fishery is considered overf ished ( H i l b o m and Walters 1992). In some studies, the indicators are aggregated into a single or set o f indices that provide an overa l l assessment o f the system or process such as the H u m a n Deve lopment Index ( U N D P 2006). In this thesis, the f o l l o w i n g defini t ions are used: Criterion (plural: criteria): " A standard, a rule, or test on w h i c h a judgment or dec is ion can be based" Merr iam-Webs te r ' s collegiate dic t ionary 10th ed. (1993) Indicator: " A measure used to determine, over t ime, the performance o f functions, processes, and outcomes" Merr iam-Webs te r ' s collegiate dic t ionary 10th ed. (1993) 45 Criteria In the context of an assessment, there are a number o f possible criteria and, for the assessment to be robust, the criteria used to identify and select the indicators should also reflect the principles of sustainability and good mariculture management practices. A lso they should be acceptable to the industry, government, concerned consumers and the local community. In this thesis, criteria were developed or modified in the light of these concerns. Indicator Indicators can provide the qualitative and/or quantitative measures against which we assess a given sector. If the criteria are well defined and have the features discussed above, this wi l l allow for the identification and selection of indicators that w i l l also be robust, relevant and acceptable. It should also be possible to express the indicators quantitatively (e.g. score between 1 and 10) or qualitatively (e.g. high, medium, low). This study uses several criteria to guide in the selection of the most appropriate indicators for assessing sustainable mariculture. There are general criteria, often described as Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time-bound or S M A R T (GEF 2005) which can be applied to any indicator: Specific: The indicator captures the essence of the desired result by clearly and directly relating to achieving an objective, and only that objective, and in this study it is mariculture sustainability; Measurable: The indicators are unambiguously specified so that all parties agree on what the system covers and there are practical ways to measure the indicators and interpret the results; Achievable and Attributable: The indicators can measure the changes that are anticipated as a result of an intervention such as a policy or improved farming practice, and whether the changes-are realistic. The indicator is clearly defined and measured so that changes in the indicator can be linked to the intervention; Relevant and Realistic: The type of indicator can be achieved in a practical manner, and that reflect the expectations of stakeholders; 46 Time-bound, Timely, Traceable, and Targeted: The indicator can be tracked in a cost-effective manner at desired frequency for a set period, with clear identification of the particular stakeholder group to be impacted by the project or program (modified from G E F 2005). The reliability of a specific 'diagnostic' indicator for a selected standard o f sustainability must be subjected to continuous scrutiny. Because indicators often reflect the views and values of society at a certain temporal and spatial scale, they could lose their relevance. Thus there is a need to identify indicators that wi l l be useful over long time frames. There are also criteria that are specific to the sustainability o f ecosystems, and socio- economic conditions that can be applied in the aquaculture sector. The development of indicators in other natural resource sectors can also provide criteria to select a suite of indicators. While criteria may be specific or applicable to the mariculture sector, in this study, criteria that are globally applicable (spatially and species-independent) are used. 3.3 Sustainability assessment framework 3.3.1 Background A search o f peer-reviewed and industry-specific literature failed to identify any widely accepted criteria or indicators to assess the sustainability of aquaculture as defined in Chapter 2 of this thesis. A s noted previously, there are published mariculture guidelines and codes of practices such as those for shrimp (Boyd 1999) and the Canadian Department o f Fisheries and Oceans (DFO 2001) for salmon guidelines. Nevertheless these guidelines do not provide indicators on how to measure their impact on sustainability. Fortunately, the work in developing indicators in the fisheries, agriculture and forestry sectors provide considerable information, approaches and frameworks upon which to develop the necessary criteria and indicators for the mariculture sector. They are reviewed in the following sections. 47 3.3.2 Natural resources sustainability indicators A definition o f sustainable mariculture has yet to be developed, but authors such as Costa-Pierce (2002) have described forms of sustainable and ecologically appropriate aquaculture as integral parts o f modern aquatic resources management. Nevertheless, proper indicators are still lacking; however, they can be derived from other sectors where sustainability indicators have reached some level of acceptance. In the fisheries, agriculture and forestry sectors, significant progress has been made in establishing indicators for sustainable use of fish, land and forest resources. The criteria for indicators used in these sectors provide examples and lessons learned on which to develop indicators for mariculture. Some o f the criteria and indicators in these sectors, while not being a direct measure o f sustainability, can still provide a basis for developing a set of indicators. In addition, many o f these indicators cover ecological, economical and social conditions as noted in Section 3.1. Also operational details in these documents can often be translated into criteria or indicators. In addition, the definition of sustainable aquaculture and the codes o f conduct and guidelines highlighted in Chapter 2 cover the fundamentals of sustainability for the industry, and can provide models to develop sustainability criteria and indicators for mariculture. The following sections outline sustainability and some indicators that are used and applicable to aquaculture. 3.3.3 Capture fisheries indicators The crisis in the capture fisheries sector has prompted international, regional and national governments to move towards sustainable fisheries practices. In some areas, the shift has included a requirement to assess the sustainability of stocks and to consider the effects of the industry on marine ecosystems. For example, the Fisheries Department of South Australia has developed sustainable management plans for its major fisheries with objectives and indicators. The shrimp fisheries in this state are assessed using biological (e.g. exploited biomass), environmental (e.g. bycatch levels), economic (e.g. gross value of catch) and social (e.g. number of public meetings) indicators (Primary Industries and Resources South Australia 2003). 48 Another example is the B.C. herring roe fishery managed by Fisheries and Oceans Canada, which uses five indicators (Table 3.1) considered to be "fundamental to biologically sustainable fisheries management" (Wallace and Glavin 2003). Table 3.1 B .C . Herring roe fishery indictors (Wallace and Glavin 2003). Indicators Score Knowledge of species' life history B Stock assessment and sustainable quota determination B Management system: Accurate and timely catch information B Ecosystem considerations C Precautionary measures and long-term sustainability C Overall Grade B This report card approach is an example of a simple indicator approach. This overall assessment, while presenting a 'passing' grade is only as good as the framework on which the scoring is based, and wi l l only be relevant i f current standards or performance indicators are current and updated to reflect sustainability criteria. Thus, in this report card example, a biodiversity criterion (recently been deemed of primary importance to ecosystem function and sustainability) should be stated as a separate performance indicator, which would no doubt change the overall score. 3.3.4 Agr icu l tu ra l indicators In agriculture, the common criterion for sustainable agriculture resides on 'permanence' which means adopting techniques that maintain the soil fertility indefinitely, so that an agricultural area can be used in perpetuity, although this diminishes the land's capacity to be used by other organisms (e.g. wildlife). The U .K . ' s Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs uses 35 indicators to assess agricultural sustainability. These indicators cover the ecological (e.g. land committed to conservations), economic (e.g. income from farming) and social (e.g. age distribution of farmers) dimensions of sustainability (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 2001). 49 3.3.5 Forestry indicators Habitat loss and declining biodiversity are major drivers of sustainable forestry. The issue here is whether the use and appropriation of goods and services w i l l detract from or degrade the use of the forests by other organisms. Biodiversity, productive capacity, ecosystem health, socio- economic benefits and governance frameworks are key criteria for determining sustainability in the forestry sector (Oliver et al. 2001). Based on these criteria, several indicators are used, such as relative forest area by type, timber volume and occurrence of invasive species. 3.3.6 Aquaculture codes of conducts and guidelines Codes of conduct and operational guidelines for the aquaculture sector are often focused on mariculture and aimed at addressing sustainability issues (and issues discussed in Chapter 2) such as biodiversity, ecosystem conservation, nutrient discharges, employment, use of pharmaceuticals, among others. Whi le these guidelines do not provide benchmarks on which to gauge i f the industry is meeting its sustainability objectives, they do provide a framework can be used to develop appropriate indicators. Over the last decade, numerous codes or guidelines have been developed for aquaculture, ranging from supporting particular stages of culturing to industry-wide guidelines applying to feed manufacturing (Hassard and Tacon 2001). The F A O Code o f Conduct for Sustainable Fishing ( F A O 1995) and the Jakarta Mandate ( C B D 1997) are the two most relevant codes for guiding the identification and selection o f indicators for mariculture. One o f the most well known codes is the F A O Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing, which covers the sustainable use of aquatic resources, including guidelines for sustainable aquaculture. The Code promotes responsible aquaculture practices that include distributing benefits equitably, participation of stakeholders in development o f best practices through appropriate feeds and feeding regimes, safe use of drugs and other chemicals, safe disposal of wastes and production of food that is safe for human consumption. 50 The International Counci l for Exploration of the Sea (ICES) developed a Code of Practice on the Introductions and Transfers of Marine Organisms with recommendations regarding procedures and practices to reduce the negative risks involved in the intentional introduction and transfer of marine and brackish water organisms ( ICES 1995). More recent ICES publications have come up with 10 categories of recommendations centered on issues that should be carefully addressed before and after the introductions of organism, as well as considerations on the use o f Genetically Modif ied Organisms (Beardmore 2003). Past initiatives, such as the Jakarta Mandate on Marine and Coastal Biological Diversity, an outcome of one of the conferences o f the parties for the Convention on Biological Diversity ( C B D 1997) have taken into account the relationship between fishing activities (including aquaculture) and the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity. The Mandate is the first all-inclusive global consensus on marine biodiversity conservation. It describes case studies for mariculture as wel l as promoting best practices. The case studies cover diverse topics in mariculture including feed systems, coastal management, social and financial aspects and the best practices associated with these case studies that relate to biodiversity conservation and sustainable use o f marine resources ( U N E P 2001). Some important outcomes of the Jakarta Mandate are the A d Hoc Technical Expert Group on Mariculture, the S B S T T A 8 ( C B D 2001) where it was recommended that parties adopt the use o f specific methods and practices in aquaculture to avoid adverse biodiversity-related effects. These included practices such as the completion o f environmental impact assessments, effective site-selection methods, effluent and waste control, use of native species and subspecies and other techniques for protecting genetic, species and ecosystems diversity. These recommendations and decisions provide guidance on the scope and nature of sustainability indicators. 3.4 Mariculture sustainability Previous sections and chapters have noted that indicators should reflect the need to balance biodiversity with the productive capacity of the system, maintain ecosystem health, 51 provide for equitable distribution of social and economic benefits and operate within a sound governance framework. They should be culturally appropriate, relevant to their geographic locality and cost effectiveness. How much these criteria w i l l influence sustainability indicators depend on the context in which they are used. The indicators should also be S M A R T (see above), irrespective of system, species or location. However, this study attempts to assess mariculture sustainability at the global level. Therefore, it uses indicators that are culturally, spatially and ecosystem independent. Using such indicators w i l l make global and regional comparisons possible and contribute to a globally accepted set of standards. Codes of conduct and aquaculture industry guidelines, as well as species-specific indicators, also provide input into developing more globally appropriate indictors for mariculture. When this information is combined with what has been learned in the other sectors a robust set o f indictors meeting ecological, economic and social criteria emerge (Figure 3.2). Identifying type of mariculture -Environment, country, species -Extensive, semi-intensive, intensive -Production data, value -Criteria: ecological and socio- economical Setting criteria indicators -List of indicators — _ ^ -Chosen list of indicators per criteria Scoring -Scope of score, min. and max. -Scoring system Figure 3.2 The approach for criteria and indicator selection and application with its linkages between criteria, indicator and its application in mariculture. 52 Based on the literature related to mariculture practices as reviewed in Chapter 2 , sector developments and interactions, and the above criteria, the following set of sustainability indicators (ecological and socio-economic) were identified and described below. 3.4.1 Indicators in general Potential Ecological Indicators: • Species introduction versus native/local (regional); • Fishmeal usage in diet; carnivorous versus non-carnivorous species; • Fishmeal substitution in carnivorous species diet, (i.e., usage o f blood meal, feather meal etc.); • Intensity o f production; • Aquatic versus inland farm sites; open versus closed system; • Hatchery usage versus w i l d seed provenance; • Habitat alteration; • Waste water treatment. Potential socio-economic indicators: • Market destination; foreign export or local domestic market; • Nutrition value o f species produced; • Code of practice implementation; • Pharmaceutical usage; • Use of molecular/genetic manipulation linked to cultivated species or its feed; • Conflicts with surrounding systems; • Traceability; • Employment; • Toxicity control; 53 3.4.2 Ecological Many of the ecological indicators below were selected and adapted from Costa-Pierce (2001), the recommendations and decisions resulting from the Jakarta Mandate and from the F A O Code o f Conduct. These studies provided key information on managing ecosystems and also on the addressing issues within the sector including sustainability. This information was used to define the six ecological indicators used in this study (Table 3.2) Table 3.2 Ecological indicators chosen for this study and their performance with regards to ecological criteria. Criteria Potential indicator A B C D E Main source/references Native or introduced C B D (2004); Costa Pierce (2001). Use of fishmeal and derivatives. Tacon (1993); Tacon (2003). Stocking density 4 Bardach (1997). Larvae & seed provenance V1 Kautsky and Folke (1991); Folke and Kautsky (1992). Habitat impacts Costa-Pierce (2001); Folke and Kautsky (1992). Waste treatment Costa-Pierce (2001); Rosenthal (1985). Four of the six criteria for ecological aquaculture identified by Costa Pierce (2001) provide the framework of aquaculture-specific criteria. The first three are based on ecologically sustainable theory: A ) Preserving the form and functions of natural ecosystems; B) Optimizing trophic level efficiency, that is, optimal efficiency is realized when plants or herbivorous organisms are cultured; C) Practicing nutrient management by not discharging any nutrients or causing chemical pollution, and not using chemicals or antibiotics harmful to human or ecosystem health; D) Using native species/strains and not contributing to 'biological ' pollution; but i f exotic species/strains are used, ensuring that complete escapement control and recovery procedures are in place. 54 The first three criteria may be deemed ecologically conservative whereas the 4 t h point stands out by implying that exotic species may be used as long as there is full control o f escapement. This involves costly investments, such as fully integrated water recycling and recirculating systems and waste treatment. Moreover, depending on specific ontogenetic stages, control requirements may extend to hatchery, and other rearing and maintenance stages. For example, trials on the feasibility of culturing freshwater catfish such as the catfish Clarias sp in Cuba and the Australian freshwater crayfish Cherax sp. in Chi le, required isolated conditions where connecting water ways were impeded. In the case of the crayfish, ponds were created in extreme hot desert habitats to ensure that escaped crustaceans would not survive. Such scenarios are not profitable on a commercial scale. Escarpments have also been reported recently for both species (Arthington and McKenz ie 1997; E. Diaz, CEVI University o f Habana, 2005 pers. comm.). The fourth criterion (D), requires more than physical boundaries; genetic manipulation such as tetraploidy has been implemented to lessen the risk of escapement. Yet genetically modified organisms are in the forefront of the debate over the reliability o f their sterile and their potential to transfer disease. The first three criteria are considered essential for achieving sustainable aquatic resource management. These ecological criteria also provide the basis upon which all current aquatic husbandry practices have been accepted (at least in theory), and from which indicators can be derived. The habitat impact and wastewater treatment indicators were derived from these criteria. Industries that fulf i l these three criteria may not necessarily achieve sustainability. The fourth criterion (D), identified by Costa Pierce (2001), suggests that introduced species can be pests: a subject that becomes contentious in many areas of the world, and which shows how the evolution of criteria and guidelines and technological developments w i l l alter what is considered a requirement for sustainability. A n invasive species can cause harm to ecosystems, and to the commercial, agricultural, or recreational activities dependent on these ecosystems ( C B D 2004). Non-native shrimp, oysters and Atlantic salmon in the Pacific 55 Northwest, are just a few examples of non-native mariculture species that have generated concern over disease and other impacts that might arise from their escape ( C B D 2004) Based on the above analysis; ecological indicators were selected based on: A : Effects on the form and functions of the surrounding natural ecosystems; B: Trophic level efficiency, e.g. food conversion ratio (FCR) ; C : Nutrient management, i.e., outputs, such as organic and chemical pollutants; D: Biodiversity issues, including the use of native species and subspecies; E: S M A R T = Specific, Measurable, Accurate, Realistic, Time-Bounded. These criteria were applied to the potential indicators presented above, with most indicators meeting 3 of the 5 criteria (Table 3.2). These six indicators were therefore considered acceptable for the analysis and are described in detail below and in (Table 3.3). Native versus introduced The ICES Code of Practice ( ICES 2005) stresses that all introductions and transfers of marine organisms carry risks associated with target and non-target species. Furthermore, F A O (1995a) contends that introductions cannot meet the Precautionary Principle, because their impacts are irreversible and unpredictable. Indeed, introductions can result whenever live organisms are moved, regardless of the original intent ( ICES 2005). Therefore the origin and natural distribution of species used for farming is crucial when determining risks and levels of environmental and socio-economic impact. Farming activities that involve non-native species pose inherently a higher risk due to the potential negative effects. Furthermore these risks can differ depending on the extent (or lack) o f measures implemented by the farm (e.g. ful ly closed re-circulating systems; open net pens, etc.) 56 Table 3.3: Detailed description of ecological indicators for mariculture. Ecological criteria Description of practice and score scheme Native or introduced Native species score the highest (10), rather than foreign and introduced species (1) on the premise of potential impacts to local biodiversity if they escaped. Use of native but non-local species where scored intermediately. Genetic biodiversity impacts may be of a native origin when larvae, spats or seeds are from poorly managed hatcheries, vulnerable to out-breeding depressions and/or genetic bottlenecks. Use of fishmeal, and derivatives. Fish protein and oil inclusion in the diet at any stage of development must be considered; herbivore species will score 10, and carnivorous (piscivorous) organisms will score closer to 1, depending on the level of feed supplied. Stocking density The three intensity levels (intensive, semi-intensive and extensive) score 1, 5 and 10, respectively. Variations due to polyculture or feed requirements at different ontogenetic stages will modify the score accordingly. Larvae and seed provenance Hatcheries are major providers of larvae, fry and seeds. Broodstock origin and strain will also affect the score. Wild seed collection and its importance contribute to a low score due to bycatch and other effects on non-target species. Habitat impacts Farm site location and selection, surface area, impact on the surrounding ecosystem, biodiversity impacts are considered with low impacting species (e.g. mussels) scoring high (10) and high-impact species (e.g. shrimp in coastal areas) scoring low (1). Waste treatment Water exchange, output destinations, recycling and filtering implementations open water discharge or closed system reuse systems. Systems that are closed score high (10), while open systems without waste treatments score low (1) Farmed species that are released into the environment, accidentally or on purpose, constitute a direct threat to ecosystem biodiversity i f those organisms are not retrieved in time and produce offspring that are able to survive and adapt in their new environment ( ICES 2005). The majority o f these events may not be reversible or quantifiable in terms o f damage (e.g. salmon farms in southern Chile). Other releases may be reversed, but at great expense (e.g. Whiteleg shrimp and Tiger prawns, seabreams and mullets). Nevertheless, steps in determining the full cost o f such events must be undertaken. Transferring species to closed rearing systems 57 wi l l always be associated with a potential risk for escapement (e.g. accidental slippage, flooding, etc.). Even complete isolation o f an exotic species entails risks, as the probability of accidental release is not zero. Feed and food use Autotrophic organisms are arguably the least demanding organisms to produce, in terms of feed cost. Yet, they are also less valuable, in terms of financial returns, than carnivorous species such as tuna and salmon. With few exceptions, it is mainly omnivorous and carnivorous species that are the top market drivers of non-plant mariculture production, and they are often the most profitable. The demand by developed countries and the wealthy class o f developing countries continues to grow for these species. Despite their reliance on fishmeal, which is a major source of increasing costs, they continue to fetch top dollars. The dilemma of feeding fish to fish is the opportunity cost lost by turning fish into aquafeed; this is certainly true when fish, which are perfectly suited as direct food, are destined to aquafeed (A. Tacon, Hawai i Institute o f Marine Biology, 2006, pers. comm.). Stocking densities Harmful discharges and transfers from mariculture farms have been directly correlated with stocking densities, regardless of development stage and culture ( C B D 2004). Fish farm discharges into the environment include organic and inorganic wastes, uneaten feeds, mortalities, residual vaccine, antibiotics and other chemicals. Other potential transfers to marine systems such as potential illness and stress susceptibility are inherent in aquaculture. Limits on stocking densities which minimize the impacts of discharges and transfers are related to the carrying capacity of the farming system and subsequent carrying capacity of the surrounding ecosystem, which itself defines the true thresholds, and thus stocking limits to any farming enterprise (Bardach 1997). 58 Larvae and seed provenance Farming activities often require juvenile stages for stocking purposes, such as seed and larvae, i.e., cannot produce their own and they may be dependant on wi ld fry collection. Depending on the species reproductive strategies and ecosystem sensitivity, harvesting of wi ld seeds may impact wi ld stocks and cause local population changes, as is the case for milkf ish in Indonesia (Chua 1997). Hatchery and brood stock development can mitigate some of the negative effects that result from wi ld seed harvesting. Nevertheless genetic biodiversity may still be at risk in the medium and long term when hatchery stock is used and better management practices are still preferred. Secondary habitat impacts Environmental impacts from marine aquaculture operations can also be caused by poor site selection, construction phase impacts such as material transportation, road construction, housing, feed storage and inappropriate farm expansions. These are some examples of secondary impacts that need to be considered in any sustainability assessment, since they can affect ecosystems as wel l as coastal communities. These impacts tend to be overshadowed by more contentious and direct impacts such as pollution, chemical contamination, etc. Impacts caused by previous uses, e.g. agriculture or past aquaculture industries, should also carry some weight on the level of impact since they wi l l influence future activities. Waste treatment Effluent waste and its management differ among and within farmed species, feed type, and culture method. Husbandry parameters and consequential drug and chemical discharges are dependent on local biotic and abiotic conditions along with infrastructure, e.g. human resources or government support services. Mitigating initiatives through better management and technological improvements such as re-circulating systems wi l l for the most part contribute to waste reductions, but when the resulting benefits lead to increases o f production, the effluent 59 reduction achieved can be offset by production increases. This often results in no net changes from previous effluent levels. 3.4.3 Socio-economic indicators The intent o f sustainable production systems is not only to consider environmental aspects of the production process, but also the economic and social aspects, especially in the case o f 'fair trade'. Countries striving to increase their economic development through trade, are often faced with a dilemma of importing ' food' versus exporting high-value food. In theory, i f the economic benefits generated by exports are high, they can be used to meet local demands. However, in fisheries, this is often not the case, and trade has generated food insecurity in some countries (Alder and Watson 2007). The reasons for this failure are often due to unfair .trade practices and corruption. Costa-Pierce (2001) supports exports, but also highlights the need to market locally to support community development. Based on the concepts and guidelines previously defined and the need for fair trade and equitable distribution of the economic benefits gained from developing a mariculture industry, the following criteria were used to evaluate potential performance indicators (Table 3.4): A : Fair trade and equity standards for production and market; B: Employment standards; C : Chemical and pharmaceutical use in final product; D: Code o f Practice existence, implementation and degree o f impact; E: S M A R T = Specific, Measurable, Accurate, Realistic, Time-Bounded. 60 Table 3.4 Socio-economic indicators chosen for this study and their performance with regards to socio-economic criteria. Criteria Potential indicator A B C D E Main source/references Product destination Naylor etal. (1998). Chemical and pharmaceutical use Folke and Kautsky (1992). Genetic manipulation Beardmore and Porte (2003) Code of practice usage F A O 1995; F A O (1999). Traceability Moretti et al. (2003). Employment Costa-Pierce (2001). Nutrition; protein ratio Tacon (2004). These criteria were applied to the potential indicators presented above, with most indicators meeting 3 of the 5 criteria (Table 3.4). These seven indicators were therefore considered acceptable for the analysis (Table 3.5) and are described in detail below. Benefit distribution What, where and who is to farm? Aquaculture development, as stated before, has and still is, promoted as a relief option for food security deficits in developing nations and communities. The outcome of certain mariculture sectors have shown that benefits do not always trickle down, and that the sector often benefits only a few farmers or investors. Therefore, social benefits for any mariculture venture w i l l be determined by local income distribution. Fair trade, which encompasses profit sharing, poverty alleviation efforts, food security standards and class discrimination also influences the distribution o f social and economic benefits and needs to be considered in national assessments. When mariculture production aims to satisfy domestic or export demand, it should have clear social benefits, either as an affordable commodity for locals or as a source of foreign currency, which is then used to supplement domestic food supplies. 61 Use of chemicals and pharmaceuticals Concern over antibiotic overuse, residual pesticides and piscicides, indiscriminate hormone and vaccine usage by the mariculture industry have all been widely reported (Naylor et al. 1998) and are indicative of overstocking and poorly managed mitigation measures. The drug levels and chemicals used in mariculture overlaps with ecological indicators in some areas. However, from a human health and food security perspective, it is an appropriate socio- economic indicator with less chemical and antibiotic use being better Table 3.5: Potential socio-economic indicators of the sustainability of mariculture. Socio-economic criteria Description of practice and score scheme Product destination Culture is to satisfy international (1) or domestic demand (10). Use of chemicals and pharmaceuticals Indiscriminate use of antibiotics, pesticides, disinfectants, antifoulants, hormones and vaccines (1) or no use of chemicals or pharmaceuticals (10). Genetic manipulation Production of genetically modified organisms (e.g. fertile tetraploids) and transgenic species fall low in the scoring scheme (1). Well managed, sterile animals may or may not qualify for better management practices, but score > 1. Code of practice usage Certification, up to date set of standards and principles, i.e., FAO Code of Conduct (FAO 1995, 1999), or Eco-labeling are scored high, while no certification or similar scheme scores low (1) Traceability Food safety related to a specific geographical origin, slaughtering or processing facility, down to the batch offish can be identified scores high (8-9). If the origin and preparation of feed used in the farmed sector is included then scores high (10). Employment Jobs created or strong community focus scores high (8-10); and where jobs are lost to the farming operations, or weak local community focus, score is low (1-3). 62 Genetic manipulation (Biosafety issues) Farming genetically modified species (GMOs) or the use of modified strains of a species in all or any phase of the production cycle, including use of genetically manipulated feed, requires further analysis with regards to biosafety. Biological impacts have been documented with hybrid species (CBD 2004) but many more risks have not been properly studied yet. Given the uncertainties associated with GMOs, the lower the use of these organisms, the less risk there is to human health and higher the socio-economic sustainability. Nevertheless there is potential to manage these risks through further research on consequence of using GMOs in the ecosystem, and as a source of food for humans. Use of code of practices A measure of the extent an operation or species-specific industry complies with the objectives of sustainable value chain management provides an indication of socio-economic sustainability. Capitalizing on value chain management is an inherent part of the basic concept of sustainable production. It has the potential to enhance economic sustainability of all members of the value chain, making it an appropriate indicator (FAO 1999). Traceability The sustainable food chain management enhances the welfare and health of people and animals. However, if there is no oversight of the phases and the steps in production, processing, marketing and the final destination, then economic sustainability is at risk, since failure (e.g. food unsafe to eat) of any of the steps has a domino affect on participants further down the chain. Tracking of post harvest activities is imperative to food safety and food quality (Moretti et al. 2003). Nevertheless, the specific traceability analyzed here concerns only the productive phase of the mariculture industry. Therefore, only partial traceability is considered here, i.e., the production cycle before reaching the wholesaler. 63 Employment When mariculture is planned as a highly integrated community-based local operation, employment opportunities and the potential for positive community impacts increase greatly (Costa-Pierce 2001). The ability of the specific mariculture enterprise to create economic niches, generate employment and to provide local sources of high quality foods is highly desired to meet socio-economic sustainability goals. When alternatives such as grow-out, feedlot concept operations are the norm, few benefits to communities are provided. Nutritional value (protein content) There are different types of protein and fats with different benefits to human health found in fish and invertebrates (Tacon 2004). However, determining the level of each protein was not possible and so it was decided that a simpler approach: total protein content per 100 grams of product. This indicator reflects levels of food security in different countries. 3.5 Scoring scheme The scoring scheme, using a scale from 1 to 10 for each ecological and socio-economic indicator, was developed by examining the range of data values (minimum to maximum), practices (worst to best) and impacts (negative, neutral, and positive) for each indicator based on published literature. A minimum value of 1 was assigned to reflect a completely unsustainable situation, and a maximum value of 10 was used to reflect the ideal case for sustainability. The intermediate values were distributed to reflect the number and distribution of values, practices or impacts for each indicator (Appendix 1). The indictors based on discrete or continuous variables were standardized to values between 1 and 10. The 1 to 10 scale for all indicators is based on absolute numbers and avoids using relative scores. This approach using a 1 to 10 scale is simple without losing the resolution of the data so that the key characteristics of sustainability are evident and comparisons between country-species combinations now and in the future are possible. 64 In this study, an overall score of less than 6 [or 7 if, o f the 13 indicators were less than 6] was considered unsustainable, between 6 and 8 as approaching sustainability and greater than 8 sustainable. This scheme for rating sustainability is similar to the Marine Stewardship Council approach for scoring capture fisheries. 3.6 D a t a sources a n d p rocess i ng The data used in this study (Appendix 2), came mainly from primary publications, i.e., official national (e.g. Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans) and international publications (e.g. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations), internationally recognized websites with databases (e.g. the website of the Sea Around Us Project; www.seaaroundus.org) and academic research reported in peer-reviewed journals (Table 3.6). The prices used in this study were extracted from the F A O FishStat database for each country-species combination. Anomalies were found in the dataset with extremely high values, and experts in the trade of seafood were queried about these prices (A. Tacon, Hawai i Institute of Marine Biology, 2006, pers. comm.). The spurious prices often were orders of magnitude higher than the price o f related groups, and could be corrected straightforwardly. Given the indicators identified in the previous section, a search of available and reliable data provided a number of datasets to quantify the indicators in Table 3.2. The datasets selected were for species that are commercially produced and that make up approximately 95% of total global mariculture production, and hence do not include species with very low production levels. The data were extracted from these datasets on a case-by-case basis and checked to ensure: the information was current and generated within the last 10 years; consistency, by ensuring data were within the l ikely range of possible values; and validity, by comparing the values obtained with other studies or reports. If these three criteria were met, the data was checked to make sure the value for the species was applicable throughout the country. Where more than one culture practice was evident for a species in the country, the proportion o f production was estimated, and the data was adjusted accordingly. The data expressed in a decimal grade between 1 (worst-case) and 10 (best case/the perfect practice) were used to assign a value for each indicator. 65 Table 3.6 Type and source of data used to quantify ecological and social indicators. Indicator Da ta descript ion Sources C o m m e n t Native or introduced Two way response (native or none native) -State of the environment -Sea Around Us Project database. -FAO publications -FishBase -Other NGO publications Country of origin and distribution is readily obtained from these sources, yet regional or within- region translocations are not. Fishmeal use -Use or no usage, and if so how much of it -Farm diet information -Industrial feed composition information -Nutrition Journals -FAO publications -Field work -National statistical synthesis e.g. (SERNAP Chile) -Personal communications Prevalent diet make-ups are not readily available; technological and economical issues will vary type and season when first and last used. Stocking density -Stocking capacity Better practice protocols, and maximum production carrying capacity -Aquaculture Journals -Reports on best practices -NGO reports Maximization of production capacity may be unknown. Practices differ from farm to farm, species to species Seed and larvae origin Origin, provider, hatchery implementation -FAO publications -FishBase Aquaculture journals Number of hatcheries per farm, unknown importation of larvae from outside Habitat impacts Direct and indirect effects on the surrounding environments; biodiversity change biomass changes, eutrophication etc. -NGO publications -FAO publications -Environmental impact assessments -Scientific journals Full knowledge of the effects is less common in developing and more remote areas. Waste treatment Use of filter system waste disposal implementation, re-use recycling systems. -NGO publications -Field work -Scientific journals Updated data is required for accurate estimations Product destination Destination market and secondary markets -Scientific journals -FAO publications -Globefish -Personal communications Market watch, under the scrutiny of market and economical forces and policies make the whereabouts of one product change from one day to the next Chemical and drug use Usage and how much -Scientific journals -NGO publications Seasonal changes in disease outbreaks and control may vary Genetic manipulation Use of GMOs species, feed, derivatives -Scientific journals -FAO publications Banned use for direct human consumption, non genetically altered species are key Code of practice Implementation or not and of which code and standards -Scientific journals -FAO publications Reports based on national policy may vary with current activity Traceability Market and product control and monitoring -Scientific journals -FAO publications -NGO publications -Personal communication Great void in developing and more remote areas. Employment Equity, fair trade, number of employees per farm -Scientific journals -NGO publications -FAO publications -Personal communication Accessibility problems and lack of interest for smaller productions may harbor poor working conditions Nutrition, protein ratio Protein content Nutrition and Diet Journals The type of protein was not taken in account in this study 66 The values were entered into a Microsoft Access database and, where required, used to construct spreadsheets for further analyses or for import into a statistical program. For each country-species combination a 'case', additional details on the country, species, organism category, F A O coastal zone and habitat were also recorded. Data was collected for 60 countries spanning all continents except Antarctica, covering the world's main coastal ecosystem types, and the diverse group of cultured species. Some data sources provided data that could be used directly as an indicator e.g. native vs. introduced, or stocking density. Other data sources were combined to jointly provide quantitative measures for an indicator e.g. direct and indirect employment, fish diet and food conversion ratio. Where data were not used directly, and required some form of processing, the process is outlined below and described in detail in Appendix 3. 3.7 Data quality Data from primary sources were preferred since they are generally more reliable, consistent and wel l documented. When they were insufficient, secondary publications and sources were investigated. However, consistency was maintained to ensure their comparisons across species and countries could be made. If no data was available, a similar and adjacent country that produced the same species was used to estimate the corresponding value. The data used applied to the period between 2000 and 2003. When a guesstimate for an indicator in one country was issued using neighbouring country information, the final score could not be inferior to the score used in the first place. Another point o f concern was the species group consisting of more than one species, which is the case for 'ne i ' groups. Other sources of information were used to determine what would be the l ikely species in that group and then 50% of the score would be allocated to that group and 50% to the score on the remaining nei groups. This was meant to leave the benefit o f doubt to the non- specific group, but, as wel l , tax the country that does not specify the composition of their aquaculture production. Examples include 'cephalopods nei ' or 'sturgeons ne i ' , where at least 67 two species are known to be produced. In these cases, the ratio or the extent o f one over the other set the estimate for the score. 3.8 Data analyses The values of the 13 indicators derived from the data described above were analyzed using a correlation matrix to check the level of association between indicators, and the extent of co-linearity, consistency and reliability. Correlation coefficients were also used to check for consistency between the overall ecological and socio-economic indicators. Principal, component analysis (PCA) was used to examine the importance of the indicators to overall sustainability (Manly 1998). P C A is a multivariate statistical method that reduces multi-dimensional systems to a few dimensions generally 4 or less (Manly 1998). The reduction of the dataset to a smaller number of factors is often expressed as eigenvalues: the greatest variance of the dataset is in the first component, the next greatest amount o f variance is in the second component, and so on, until the number o f components equals the number of original factors. In this case, the 13 indicators accounts for all of the variation, i.e., 1.0 (Table 4.3a). The number of components to use in the analyses is based on the amount of variation in the eigenvalues. For each component, eigenvectors (ZI and Z2) were also derived and were used to map the cases onto the principle components, generally in the first (ZI) and second dimension (Z2) (Table 4.3b). The eigenvectors were used to calculate the individual Z I and Z2 scores in two dimensions to explore differences between species groups and countries (see Figures 5.1 and 5.2). The scoring coefficients (Table 4.3c) were calculated to determine i f one or more indicators dominated the assessment. Scoring coefficients can be considered as correlation coefficients between the original indicators and the extracted principle components, with high values reflecting high association between the original indicators and components, and a negative value indicating an inverse association. S T A T A , version 8, was used for the correlation and P C A analyses (StataCorp 2005). A mariculture sustainability index (MSI) was calculated for each country-species combination using the average of the 13 indicators with values ranging from 1 to 10. The M S I 68 was weighted using total production for the period from 1994 to 2003 to account for differences in annual production between species, as well as the differences in production between countries and the differences in the species produced. Production in the period 1994 to 2003 was used to weight the M S I to account for differences in performance between operations that were operating for a longer time (more weight) than more recent or emerging operations (less weight). This enabled comparisons between species and countries as wel l as the calculation of ecological, socio-economic and overall mariculture sustainability indices to be made. These indices were compared to other sustainability indices such as the Environmental Sustainability Index (ESI; Esty et al. 2005) and the Human Development Index (HDI; U N D P 2006), as wel l as low-income food deficit countries (L IFDC; F A O 2002) were also compared. 69 Chapter Four 4.1 Introduction This chapter presents the analysis results of testing the coherence and robustness of the 13 indicators presented in Chapter 2, applying those indicators to a range o f countries and comparing the results to other indices o f sustainability. The scores based on these indicators and the mariculture sustainability index (MSI) are presented, and summarized by country, species group and taxa. The production and prices paid are also discussed for species with high M S I scores (where a high score, e.g. 10, equals high sustainability) and for a range o f developing countries, in particular those with low incomes and a food deficit. 4.2 Indicator scores This assessment generated a total of 361 cases (country - species combinations) and associated MSIs covering 60 countries and 86 species or species groups (Appendix 2) for the period from 1950 to 2003, with focus on the last 10 years. The possible M S I ranged from 1 (low sustainability) to 10 (high sustainability). The highest M S I was 8.4 with seaweed grown in Chile and the lowest score was 1.7 for Whiteleg shrimp farmed in Thailand. A score o f less than 6 was considered unsustainable, since it implies that (based on a weighted average for the country or species) the combined score (MSI) was less than 6, or the majority o f indicators scored less than 6. A score of between 6 and 8 was considered as approaching sustainability. A score greater than 8 was considered sustainable. In this analysis, 13 cases were greater than or equal to 8 (sustainable), 112 cases were between 6 and 8 (approaching sustainability) and 236 cases were less than or equal to 6 (not sustainable). The average score for each indicator ranged between 4.5 and 7.6 (Table 4.1). 70 Table 4.1. Summary statistics for the 13 indicators of mariculture sustainability. Indicator Average Std. Dev. Min Max Native/introduced 7.3 3.63 1 10 Export levels 4.5 1.87 1 10 Fishmeal use 5.2 3.62 10 Stocking intensity 4.8 2.63 1 10 Nutrition 7.6 2.46 10 Hatchery use 5.0 1.84 1 10 Antibiotic use 5.2 3.40 10 Habitat modification 5.0 2.04 10 GMOs . 6.4 . 1.78 10 Code of Conduct compliance 5.2 1.44 1 9 Traceability 5.5 1.87 1 10 Employment ' 5.4 1.26 3 8 Waste management 5.4 3.08 1 10 The number of farmed species in this study varied by country, ranging from a minimum of 1 in a number of countries to a maximum of 19 in Taiwan. In approximately 40% of the cases, there was incomplete data to estimate the MSI . However, it was usually only one indicator that was missing and in most instances, it was a socio-economic indicator. For these records, the missing score was estimated based on information from adjacent countries, secondary sources or personal communications. The correlation matrix of the 13 indicators (Table 4.2) resulted in significant correlations between fishmeal, stocking intensity, nutrients and habitats. However, on closer examination, these significant correlations were not directly related or were not from the same core dataset, but reflected the logic of how specific culturing practices relate to each other (e.g. a high fishmeal score implies herbivorous organisms such as bivalves, which score low for protein, and therefore have a significant negative correlation). A correlation analysis was also used to look at the relationship between the total ecological score and socio-economic score (Figure 4.1), which indicated a positive and significant relationship. 71 Table 4.2: Correlation matrix o f the 13 indicators of mariculture sustainability, high positive numbers indicate a strong association while high negative numbers indicated a strong but inverse association. Indicators Indicators 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1. Native/introduced 1.00 2. Export 0.02 1.00 3. Fishmeal -0.17 - 1.00 4. Intensity -0.13 0.20 0.80 1.00 5. Nutrition 0.21 0.26 -0.84 -0.76 1.00 6. Hatchery -0.15 0.24 0.34 0.40 -0.38 1.00 7. Antibiotic -0.14 0.21 0.87 0.82 -0.84 0.44 1.00 8. Habitat -0.13 0.25 0.74 0.74 -0.78 0.55 0.83 1.00 9.GMO 0.17 0.05 0.38 0.43 -0.28 0.01 0.42 0.32 1.00 10. Code of conduct -0.18 0.25 0.42 0.45 -0.50 0.51 0.57 0.60 0.05 1.00 11. Traceability -0.09 0.20 0.38 0.44 -0.46 0.58 0.53 0.59 0.19 0.65 1.00 12. Employment 0.06 -0.17 0.18 0.23 -0.25 -0.05 0.26 0.13 0.01 0.19 0.09 1.00 13. Wastes -0.15 0.26 0.76 0.71 -0.78 0.49 0.81 0.81 0.27 0.49 0.47 0.17 1.00 10 3 4 5 6 7 8 Socio economic index Figure 4.1 Correlation between ecological (x-axis) and socio-economic (y-axis) indicators of mariculture sustainability for 361 cases. The principle component analysis of the 13 indicators (Table 4.3) suggests that two to four components account for the overwhelming bulk of the variability (see Section 3). The first two components account for 60% of the variation in the 13 indicators (Table 4.3a). The coefficients for the first two components (ZI and Z2) of the analysis are presented here (Table 4.3b) and used later to explore the effect of country and species (see Section 5.2). The scoring coefficients, which provide a relative measure of the degree of association between indicators, ranged from -0.34 to 0.373 (Table 4.2c) with 4 coefficients (native/foreign, domestic/exports, G M O s and employment) having absolute values less than 0.25 and therefore not considered to be highly associated with the first component. Nutrition (protein content) was associated with the first component, but negatively. 73 Table 4.3 Results o f principal component analyses a) eigenvalues in the 13 components and the proportion of variance explained, b) the eigenvectors Z I and Z2 used to estimate the Z I and Z2 values used to map the cases onto the components, and c) the scoring coefficients for the 13 indicators, a) Component Eigen value Difference Proportion Cumulative prop. 1 6.29 4.821 0.484 0.484 2 1.469 0.269 0.113 0.597 3 1.201 0.175 0.092 0.689 4 1.026 0.231 0.079 0.768 5 0.795 0.194 0.061 0.829 6 0.601 0.16 0.046 0.876 7 0.44 0.136 0.034 0.909 8 0.304 0.035 0.023 0.933 9 0.27 0.074 0.021 0.954 10 0.196 0.028 0.015 0.969 11 0.168 0.022 0.013 0.981 12 0.146 . 0.05 0.011 0.993 13 0.096 — 0.007 1 b) c) Indicator Component ZI Z2 Native/introduced -0.076 0.274 Export levels 0.117 -0.309 Fishmeal use 0.345 0.21 Stocking intensity 0.344 0.171 Nutrition -0.35 -0.149 Hatchery use 0.236 -0.453 Antibiotic use 0.373 0.146 Habitat modification 0.363 . -0.029 GMOs 0.151 0.438 Code of Conduct compliance 0.271 -0.324 Traceability 0.264 -0.314 Employment 0.089 ; 0.332 Waste management 0.348 0.031 Indicator Scoring co-efficient Native/introduced -0.076 Export levels 0.117 Fishmeal use 0.345 Stocking intensity 0.344 Nutrition -0.35 Hatchery use 0.236 Antibiotic use 0.373 Habitat modification 0.363 GMOs 0.151 Code of Conduct compliance 0.271 Traceability 0.264 Employment 0.089 Waste management 0.348 74 4.3 Mariculture Sustainability Index (MSI) The ten highest performing countries, based on a weighted index (MSI weighted by production), consisting of ecological and socio-economic indicators, were: Germany, The Netherlands, Spain, Japan, Russian Federation, North Korea, South Korea, Ireland, France and Argentina (Table 4.4). Six of these top ten countries are developed and European, while the remaining countries are considered to be economies in transition except North Korea which is a developing country. There is no consistency between countries that score high for the ecological indicators and countries scoring high for socio-economic indicators as seen in Iceland which was ranked 13 t h with an M S I of 6.2 overall but ranked 2 2 n d for ecological (score of 5.4) and 2 n d for socio-economic (score o f 7.1). The ten lowest scoring countries are: Guatemala, Cambodia, Bangladesh, Honduras, Myanmar, Bel ize, Chi le, Norway, Brazi l and Faeroe Islands (Table 4.4). Eight o f the 10 countries are developing and spread across Latin America and Asia. The remaining two countries are European. Most o f these countries scored low for both ecological and socio-economic indicators. The 60 countries evaluated and their respective M S I scores are depicted in Figure 4.2. 4.3.1 Ecological indicators Four of the top five performing countries based on a weighted index composed of the six ecological indicators were European: Germany, Netherlands, Spain, Japan and the Russian Federation (Table 4.5). Most of the countries scored high for l imiting introduced species, their use of fishmeal and their treatment of waste and water. The countries cultured a mix of bivalves and fish, with the Russian Federation also culturing marine plants. The majority o f the lowest scoring nations (Table 4.6) for ecological sustainability are highly dependant on aquafeeds that are rich in fishmeal and fish o i l , and which were essential for many o f the species produced through 1994 to 2003. Low scores for stocking density and insufficient waste treatment were also common for the lowest scoring nations. Low scores of these indicators suggest a higher risk on impacting surrounding habitat, especially, when these farms are open system cultures. 75 NOR.3.6 Figure 4.2 The resul t ing M S I o f the 60 countries analyzed i n this study O N Table 4.4 Rankings and weighted MSI (top and bottom 10) and ecological and socio-economic scores country; 10 indicate high sustainability and 1 is low sustainability of mariculture. Country Rankings Scoring Ecological Socio-eco MSI Ecological Socio-eco MSI Germany 1 1 1 9.0 7.1 8.0 Netherlands 2 2 2 9.0 7.1 8.0 Spain 3 3 3 8.7 • 7.1 7.9 Japan 5 6 4 7.5 6.5 7.0 Russian Federation 4 27 5 8.4 5.4 6.9 Korea, North 6 8 6 7.4 6.4 6.9 Korea, South 10 9 7 7.1 6.4 6.8 Ireland 7 12 8 7.4 6.1 6.8 France 14 5 9 6.4 7 6.7 Argentina 8 17 10 7.4 5.9 6.6 — _ - - - - - India 54 39 50 2.8 5.0 3.9 Faeroe Islands 40 56 51 4.5 3.0 3.8 Brazil 57 46 52 2.5 4.8 3.7 Norway 50 53 53 3.5 3.7 3.6 Chile 53 51 54 2.9 4.1 3.5 Belize 56 52 55 2.7 3.8 3.3 Myanmar 55 54 56 2.8 3.7 3.2 Honduras 52 57 57 3.2 3.0 3.1 Bangladesh 58 58 58 2.3 2.7 2.5 Cambodia 59 59 59 2.3 2.7 2.5 Guatemala 60 60 60 2.3 2.7 2.5 Table 4.5 Ecological scores for the 5 highest scoring countries; number in brackets is the total weighted ecological sustainability score for each species in that country. The 6 indicators used are: Native vs. Introduced (Nat. vs. Int.), Fish meal/oil (F. meal), Intensity (Int.), Hatchery vs. Wild seed (H. vs. W.), Habitat Impact (H. Impact), Waste treatment (W. treat.). Indicator (10 indicates high sustainability and 1 is low/non sustainable) Country Species Nat. vs. Int. F. meal Int. H. vs. W. H. Impact W. Treat. Germany Blue mussel 10 10 9 8 7 10 European seabass 10 3 5 7 5 7 Pacific cupped oyster 1 10 10 5 7 1 Netherlands Blue mussel 10 10 9 8 7 10 Cupped oysters nei 5 10 7 7 9 10 European flat oyster 10 10 7 5 7 10 Spain Atlantic salmon 10 1 2 3 3 1 Blue mussel 10 10 9 8 7 10 Cupped oysters nei 5 10 10 7 8 10 European eel 10 3 3 3 6 7 European flat oyster 10 10 7 5 7 10 European seabass 10 3 5 5 5 5 Flathead grey mullet 10 3 5 . 5 5 5 Gilthead seabream 10 1 1 3 3 1 Kuruma prawn 1 3 5 5 5 7 Pacific cupped oyster 1 10 7 5 7 10 Tuna-like fishes nei 10 1 3 1 5 .1 Japan Coho (=Silver) salmon 10 1 1 5 3 5 Flathead grey mullet 10 3 5 5 5 5 Kuruma prawn 10 3 5 5 4 7 Laver (Nori) 10 10 7 5 7 7 Pacific cupped oyster 10 10 7 3 5 10 Russian Federation Atlantic salmon 1 3 3 6 3 4 Brown seaweeds 10 10 10 8 8 10 Flatfishes nei 5 3 4 " 5 4 5 Marine fishes nei 5 3 4 5 4 5 Mediterranean mussel 10 10 7 6 7 8 Mullets nei • 5 5 ' ; 5 • 5 4 5 Sea mussels nei- 5 w io ' 7 •• 5 7 8 Sea trout 10 3 3 6 3 5 Sea urchins nei 5 5 7 5 7 5 Silver carp 10 5 3 6 4 5 Sturgeons nei 5 5 6 6 4 5 Yesso scallop 10 10 7 7 7 7 78 Table 4.6 Ecological scores for the 5 lowest scoring countries; number in brackets is the total weighted ecological sustainability score for each species in that country. The 6 indicators used are: Native vs. Introduced (Nat. vs. Int.), F ish meal/oil (F. meal), Intensity (Int.), Hatchery vs. W i l d seed (H. vs. W.), Habitat Impact (H. Impact), Waste treatment (W. treat.), Country Species Indicator (10 indicates high sustainability and 1 is low/non sustainable) Nat. vs. Int. F. meal Int. H. vs. W. H. Impact W. Treat. Norway Atlantic cod 10 l 3 3 3 l Atlantic salmon 10 l 1 ' 5 3 l Blue mussel 10 10 9 8 7 10 European flat oyster 10 10 7 5 7 10 Pacific cupped oyster 1 10 7 2 7 10 Thailand Barramundi (=Giant seaperch) • 10 1 1 3 3 1 Blood cockle 10 io 7 3 5 7 Cupped oysters nei 5 10 7 5 6 10 Giant tiger prawn 10 I 1 1 1 1 Groupers nei 9 l 5 5 3 4 Penaeus shrimps nei 5 3 1 3 1 2 Whiteleg shrimp 1 3 1 3 1 1 Chile Abalones nei 1 10 1 7 3 3 Atlantic salmon 1 1 1 1 1 2 Coho (=Silver) salmon 1 1 1 5 1 2 Gracilaria seaweeds 10 10 10 7 10 10 Pacific cupped oyster 1 10 7 5 7 1 India Giant tiger prawn 10 1 1 . 3 1 1 Myanmar Giant tiger prawn 10 1 1 3 1 1 Belize Whiteleg shrimp 1 3 3 5 1 3 Cupped oysters nei 7 10 7 7 7 10 Brazil Groupers nei 9 1 5 5 5 4 Whiteleg shrimp 1 3 3 5 1 1 4.3.2 Socio-economic indicators Germany, The Netherlands, Spain, Iceland and France are the five highest scoring countries for socio-economic indicators (Table 4.7). They all emphasize production of carnivorous species such as finfish and crustaceans, and yet they are also top bivalve producers, which provide high sustainability scores via the socio-economic indicators. 79 Table 4.7 Five highest scoring countries for socio-economic sustainability; 10 indicates high sustainability and 1 is low sustainability, the 7 indicators are: Export vs. Domestic (Ex vs. Do), Nutrition-Protein content (Prot), Antibiotic and drug use (Drug), Genetically modified organism use (GMO), application of Code of Practice (CoP), Traceability (Trace), Employment (Emp). (10 Indicator indicates high sustainability and ] is low/non sustainable) Country Species Ex vs. Do Prot Drug GMO CoP Trace Emp Germany Blue mussel 7 5 10 10 5 7 6 European seabass 5 9 5 . 5 7 7 5 Pacific cupped oyster 5 .4 10 7 9 9 6 Netherlands Blue mussel 7 5 10 10 5 7 6 Cupped oysters nei 5 4 10 3 7 7 7 European flat oyster 5 4 10 7 • .7 5 7 Spain Atlantic salmon 1 9 1 ' 5 3' 4 3 Blue mussel 7 5 10 10 5 7 6 Cupped oysters nei 5 4 10 3 7 7 7 European eel 7 9 5 7 5 5 7 European flat oyster 5 4 10 7 7 5 7 European seabass 5 9 3 5 5 7 7 Flathead grey mullet 5 9 4 7 5 7 5 Gilthead seabream 3 9 1 5 5 7 7 Kuruma prawn 7 9 1 5 5 7 3 Pacific cupped oyster 3 4 10 7 6 7 6 Tuna-like fishes nei 5 10 5 10 3 1 5 Iceland Abalones nei 1 8 7 9 7 10 5 Arctic char 5 9 9 7 7 10 5 Atlantic cod 5 9 8 9 7 10 5 Atlantic halibut 5 9 8 9 8 10 5 Atlantic salmon 5 9 8 7 7 10 5 Atlantic wolffish 1 7 10 9 7" 10 5 Blue mussel 10 5 8 7 8 10 5 European seabass 5 9 8 8 7 10 5 Haddock 5 8 8 9 7 10 5 Rainbow trout 5 10 8 7 7 10 5 Spotted wolffish 5 7 8 9 7 10 5 Turbot 5 8 8 8 7 10 5 France Atlantic salmon 1 9 4 5 5 5 5 Blue mussel 7 5 10 10 5 7 6 Coho (=Silver) salmon 3 9 4 3 5 5 5 European eel 7 9 5 7 5 5 7 European flat oyster 5 4 10 7 7 5 7 European seabass 5 9 3 5 5 7 5 Gilthead seabream 1 9 1 5 5 7 7 Kuruma prawn 7 9 4 5 5 7 3 Pacific cupped oyster 5 4 10 7 8 8 7 80 The five lowest scoring countries were Myanmar, Honduras, Bangladesh, Cambodia and Guatemala (Table 4.8). They are all developing countries and intensively farm shrimps. Low scoring developed countries are European with high tonnage o f Atlantic salmon. Pharmaceutical use and the export orientation of these two main species groups were common across developing and developed countries for many of the species cultured. Table 4.8. Eight lowest scoring countries for socio-economic sustainability; 10 indicates high sustainability and 1 is low sustainability, the 7 indicators are: Export vs. Domestic (Ex vs. Do), Nutrition-Protein content (Prot), Antibiotic and drug use (Drug), Genetically modified organism use (GMO), apply Code of Practice (CoP), Traceability (Trace), Employment (Emp). Country Species Indicator (10 indicates high sustainability and 1 is low/non sustainable) Ex vs. Do Prot Drug GMO CoP Trace Emp Norway Atlantic cod 7 9 8 5 7 3 Atlantic salmon 1 9 1 5 5 5 5 Blue mussel 7 5 10 10 5 7 6 European flat oyster 5 4 10 7 7 5 7 Pacific cupped oyster 5 4 10 7 8 8 7 Myanmar Giant tiger prawn 1 10 1 7 4 3 6 Finland Atlantic salmon 1 9 1 6 7 5 5 Faeroe Islands Atlantic salmon 1 9 1 7 6 5 5 Honduras Penaeus shrimps nei 5 10 1 5 2 2 3 Bangladesh Penaeus shrimps nei 5 10 1 6 4 1 5 Cambodia Penaeus shrimps nei 5 10 1 6 4 1 5 Guatemala Penaeus shrimps nei 5 10 1 5 1 1 3 The environmental sustainability index (ESI) and the human development index (HDI) are not closely associated with the ecological and socio-economic indices, that comprise the M S I indicator (Table 4.9). The closest association was between the H D I and the socio-economic indicator, with many o f the higher ranking M S I countries also having relatively higher ranking HDI scores. 81 Table 4.9 The top 10 countries and their Mariculture Sustainability Index M S I (along with it's two major sustainability components; Ecological index ' E C O ' and Socio-economic Index 'Soc- Eco' ) are compared to their respective ranks in both Environmental Sustainability Index " E S I " (146 countries) and the Human development Index " H D I " (177 countries). Ecological dimension Socio-economic dimension MSI ECO ESI Soc-Eco HDI Country rank index rank index rank Germany 1 1 31 1. 21 Netherlands 2 2 40 3 10 Spain 3 3 76 4 19 Japan 5 5 30 7 7 Russian Federation 4 4 33 27 65 Korea, North 6 7 n/a 8 n/a Korea, South 7 10 n/a 9 26 Ireland 8 6 21 12 4 France 9 14 36 5 16 Argentina 10 8 9 17 36 The M S I for low-income food deficit countries (L IFDC) was low except for North Korea, which farms high-value yet sustainable abalone, and Morocco, which farms relatively sustainable bivalves. Overall, LEFDC countries generally receive high prices for cultured species, averaging over > 1 U S D / k g for their farmed seafood. The exceptions are Senegal and Pakistan where prices are lower than 1 U S D / k g (Table 4.10). Prices were not available for cultured species in North Korea and Nigeria. 82 Table 4.10 M S I and Average price U S D per ki lo for low-income food deficit countries (L IFDC) ; prices are averaged over all species farmed and sources from FishStat ( F A O 2004). L I F D C Country Country MSI Average 2001-2003 USD per kilo Bangladesh 3.5 3.4 Cambodia 3.5 5.4 China 5.5 2.1 Ecuador . 4.6 6.2 Egypt 4.9 3.6 Honduras 3.6 6.0 India 3.9 6.3 Indonesia 4.3 • 4.4 Kiribati 5.5 1.4 Korea, North 7.1 N/A Korea, South 5.9 15.2 Madagascar 4.0 5.0 Morocco 6.0 2.1 Nicaragua 4.8 4.7 Nigeria 4.9 N/A Pakistan 4.3 0.5 Philippines 4.8 2.5 Senegal 5.5 0.6 Sri Lanka 3.8 10.2 4.4 Cu l tu r ing environment Mol lusk culturing was the highest scoring form of farming based on a weighted score in culturing environments (Table 4.11), especially in marine waters. In brackish water, finfish was the highest scoring animal culturing system and crustacean culturing was lowest overall, with a combined M S I o f 3.9 (Table 4.11). Cultured crustaceans are primarily shrimp and prawns and account for much o f the annual average growth rate in mariculture over the last decade. However, much of this growth is from intensive farm operations, which are low-scoring systems. 83 Table 4.11 Average M S I per environment and taxonomic group. Environment Major taxa Crustaceans Finfish Mollusks Brackish water culture 3.8 5.7 4.7 Mariculture 4.3 3.9 6.0 Combined 3.9 4.3 6.0 Plants have the highest weighted score of all the major taxa, especially in brackish water, where their score is 8, twice as high as for crustaceans in brackish water. There is minimal difference in scores between brackish water and mariculture for non-plant organisms. 4.5 Cu l tu red species The highest M S I scoring species are presented below. A s mentioned above, cultured crustaceans in general fail to reach a passable sustainability level, since the scores are less than 5 for Kuruma prawn, Indian white prawn and Banana prawn. Finfish species peak at an M S I of 7 for Rainbow trout, Halibut and Wolf ish. Nevertheless, these are smaller and isolated productions in countries with a small share of the global aquaculture market. However, species such as milkf ish scored just above 5 in both brackish water and mariculture, while better-known brackish water species such as mullet, and mariculture species such as Atlantic salmon failed to reach the top 10 species, according to the MSI . On the other hand, mollusk (more precisely bivalves) scored very well . This applies to species such as Blue mussel, flat oysters and Grooved carpet shell. The latter is also featured in brackish cultured environment along with cupped oysters and European flat oysters, scoring above 7 in the M S I index. 4.6 Stocking density The two species of crustaceans (Whiteleg shrimp) and finfish (Milkf ish) that are cultured extensively score low on the weighted sustainability score (Table 4.12). In this study, there are less than 10 species o f crustaceans that are farmed semi-intensively, and more than 10 extensively. Natantian decapods and Balt ic prawns are the exception to the generally low scores assigned to crustaceans (Table 4.12). A combination o f low socio-economic scores (e.g. 84 traceability, export driven), poor waste management and limited regulatory guidelines accounts for the remaining species scoring low on sustainability. The single species of Mi lk f ish that is farmed extensively (Chanos chanos) was scored lower than many semi-intensively and intensively farmed finfish (Table 4.12). This is due to limited traceability, poor waste management, larvae and dependence on wi ld capture fisheries for seed requirements. Overall , semi-intensively cultured finfish score higher than those intensively cultured (Table 4.12). Most finfish are intensively cultured using aquafeeds with open systems. In addition, most o f these fish are exotics. The few mollusks that are cultured intensively scored between 5 and 8, which is within the range of scores for semi-intensively cultured mollusks (Table 4.12). The exception to this is the Pacific cupped oyster, which is an introduced species in many areas. There was little variation between scores for semi-intensively cultured mollusks, which ranged from 6.9 to 7.3; this is because they do not require aquafeeds. 85 Table 4.12 Lowest M S I scoring species and species groups in culturing environments. Extensive MSI Crustaceans - Whiteleg shrimp 4.6 Finfish - Milkfish 5.9 Mollusks - n/a n/a Plants - Aquatic plants nei 6.9 Brown seaweeds 7.3 Gracilaria seaweeds 6.9 Laver (Nori) 6.9 Semi-intensive MSI Crustaceans - Natantian decapods nei 7.3 Kuruma prawn 5.4 Indian white prawn 4.5 Whiteleg shrimp 4.3 Giant tiger prawn 4.0 Penaeus shrimps nei 3.5 Baltic prawn 7.3 Finfish - Mullets nei 8.8 Spotted wolffish 7.7 Atlantic wolffish 7.4 Atlantic halibut 7.0 Rainbow trout 7.0 Arctic char 6.9 Turbot 6.9 Haddock 6.9 Silversides(=Sand smelts) nei 6.0 So-iuy mullet 5.9 Mollusks - Mediterranean mussel 7.4 Razor clams nei 7.4 Smooth mactra 7.3 Perlemoen abalone 7.2 Pullet carpet shell 7.0 Common cuttlefish 7.0 Gasar cupped oyster 7.0 Yesso scallop . 7.0 Marine mollusks nei 6.9 Blood cockle 6.9 Intensive MSI Crustaceans - Baltic prawn 5.2 Marine crustaceans nei 4.7 Indian white prawn 4.6 Kuruma prawn 4.6 Banana prawn 4.5 Giant river prawn 4.0 Giant tiger prawn 3.6 Whiteleg shrimp 3.5 Finfish - Blackchin tilapia 6.6 Trouts nei 6.0 European eel 5.9 Common sole 5.8 European seabass 5.4 Turbot 5.3 Sea trout 5.3 Rainbow trout 5.2 Freshwater fishes nei 5.0 Seabasses nei 4.8 Mollusks - Common edible cockle 8.1 Octopuses nei 7.3 Mediterranean mussel 6.7 Pacific cupped oyster 5.5 4.7 Trends in production 4.7.1 Unsustainable production In both analyses of the overall sustainability M S I , culturing environment and stocking density for Atlantic salmon was scored low relative to other species. The production of Atlantic salmon has been steadily increasing over the last 10 years, and overall tonnage (> 100 thousand tonnes) has been much higher than other species (Figures 4.3), with low sustainability scores. The low scoring species are shown in Figure 4.3 without the high values of Atlantic salmon that would otherwise dwarf their production numbers. The production of Coho salmon, shrimp and seabass has also been increasing, but slowly; for Barramundi, production has been constant over the last 10 years. 40 i — Giant tiger prawn Penaeus shrimp Seabasses nei 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Year Figure 4.3: Trends in production (thousand t) without Atlantic salmon (for the years between 1994 and 2001 inclusive) of the most unsustainable practices in mariculture species production, (i.e., Atlantic salmon [not shown], Coho salmon, Barramundi and seabass and as for crustaceans; Giant tiger prawn and penaeid shrimps). 87 4.7.2 Sustainable production The species with the highest M S I scores are shown in the following graph (figure 4.4) throughout 1994 to 2003 period, excluding blue mussels (Mytilus sp.) which showed high levels of production relative to other species with high M S I scores. When blue mussel production is excluded, declines in production in the last years are evident. These years coincide with minor E l Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) index between 1998 and 2001, which affected the seasonal nutrients input and temperature range required for adequate productions used for plants (seaweeds) and filter feeding bivalves (Gonzalez et al. 2000;Tigueroa et al. 2006). 16 14 •a c « (A 3 O £ c o o 3 •o o 12 10 Gracilaria seaweeds Grooved carpet shell European flat oyster - T - — i 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Year Figure 4.4: Trends in production (thousand t) for the most sustainable cultured species (excluding Blue mussels) from 1994 to 2003, i.e., Brown seaweeds, European flat oyster, Gracilaria seaweed and Grooved carpet shell. 88 4.7.3 Sustainabi l i ty and value The cultured species price based on F A O Fishstat ( F A O 2004) ranged from U S D 60/kg (Korean abalone) to U S D 0.10/kg (Gracilaria). For some cultured species, there were differences in price between L I F D C and non-LIFDC (Table 4.14). There was no association between the M S I by species and the fob price in U S D of farmed species (Figure 4.5). However, when the prices for the top- and bottom-scoring species are examined, a weak inverse association appears (Figure 4.6). Table 4.13 A comparison of prices paid (USD/kg) based on the average price from 2001 to 2003 of mariculture taxa for ' low income-food deficient countries' L I F D C and non-L IFDC, along with their difference ratio (based on FishStat F A O 2004). Taxa Pr ice Non LIFDC LIFDC Price ratio Laver (Nori) 13.2 0.4 33.0 Gracilaria seaweeds 0.8 0.1 8.0 Banana prawn 5.3 2.2 2.4 Pacific cupped oyster 2.5 1.2 2.1 Gilthead seabream 4.4 2.9 1.5 Penaeus shrimps nei 3.5 2.7 1.3 Milkfish 1.2 1.1 1.0 Whiteleg shrimp 5.8 5.3 1.1 Barramundi (Giant seaperch) 2.8 2.8 1.0 Flathead grey mullet 2.4 2.8 0.9 European seabass 4.9 5.7 0.9 European eel 6.5 7.6 0.9 Marine fishes nei 2.8 4.0 0.7 Giant tiger prawn 4.4 6.7 0.7 Mediterranean mussel 0.8 1.5 0.5 Groupers nei 5.1 11.0 0.5 Blood cockle 0.3 1.6 0.2 89 30 • • g Figure 4.5: Interaction between the M S I for all species and prices paid (USD/kg) for these farmed species based on the average price from 2001 to 2003 (source: FishStat F A O 2004). 12 10 o> 8 Q W ^ 6 o • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 5 MSI Figure 4.6: Interaction between the M S I for the highest and lowest scoring species and prices paid (USD/kg) for these farmed species, based on the average price from 2001 to 2003 (source: FishStat F A O 2004). 90 Chapter 5 5.1 Introduction The aquaculture industry is developing at a rapid rate, perhaps too rapidly. This particularly applies to mariculture, which is diversifying and growing as new technologies become practical and new species become available (Costa-Pierce 2001; Naylor et al. 2000). However, uncontrolled growth and development may cause serious environmental degradation and unforeseen economic, social and cultural impacts on its surrounding communities (Corbin and Young T 997). I f the industry is to be sustainable in the long-term, it must be able to recognize its impacts and be able to mitigate them as wel l as track its progress toward sustainability. This study defined 13 indicators to measure mariculture sustainability in ecological, economic and social dimensions, and assessed 60 countries against these indicators. The implications of the results of this assessment and subsequent conclusions and recommendations are presented below 5.2 Indicator validity The validity of the indicators in reflecting the state of mariculture in the 60 countries assessed was investigated using correlation and principal component analyses. These analyses are based on 361 case studies, covering a range of countries and species cultured and therefore a robust test of the validity of the 13 indicators. The correlation matrix of the 13 indicators did not reveal co-linearity among the indicators (Table 4.1); further investigation o f significant correlation coefficients could be explained by the interactions o f multiple practices as described in Section 4.2. The principal component analyses (PCA) in this study also suggest that the indicators are valid. More than 60% of the variation in the indicator values can be explained by two dimensions and 77% variation by four dimensions. A l l the scoring coefficients were less than 0.37 and two were negatively associated. This suggests that the indicators are measuring the different dimensions in the data and that no one indicator is driving the assessment (Table 4.2). Analyses 91 of species groups (Figure 5.1) and countries (Figure 5.2) illustrates that the indicators are capable of differentiating between high and low sustainability practices. Whi le 4 indicators were less than 0.25 suggesting a weak association, the remaining 9 indicators were only marginally stronger in their association with the first component. Three of the weak indicators were from the socio-economic group, reflecting the challenge in defining indicators that effectively assess the social and economic dimensions of sustainable mariculture. The difference in the strength between ecological and socio-economic indicators is due in part to the ecological aspects of mariculture being directly associated with mariculture production or specific practices, (i.e., easily measured) relative to social and economic aspects, which are usually measured using proxies. 3 i • -6 A * X A A A X A A AA *> v—*- x • crustaceans • finfish A mollusks x plants A A ZI Figure 5.1: Distribution of component scores in 2 dimensions (ZI and Z2) for the 361 cases based on taxa. 92 rvi 3 C\l L « kir « ton » sri • mal „ ;ra « mad f a e « ' ^ a * f i n chn . d e n « p e r " n o r » . s e n -ukr » ger . s a u « t p c spa . s a f .ban "1 .por cam , bel » c a n . « m e x r u s „ k r D . n z pale-nig cn/ » u k r . swe •pan ; « w " , c e col ' usa gua m hon .ecu "cos pol kdp • vie . ire " mXa «/'do " Pni ' m ° r ' arg ind " net -4 -2 0 2 4 Average of ZI Figure 5.2: Distribution of average component scores for developed (red) and developing (blue) countries. Whi le 361 cases presents a substantial dataset to test the indicators, there are many more combinations of country-species-environments that exist within the mariculture sector. This study may not have captured the total range of combinations and therefore have limited application. However, the species-country combination used in this assessment represents over 95% of global mariculture production and can be considered a good representation of the industry. The underlying data may also bias the results since much of it was obtained from F A O datasets ( F A O 2004). While every effort was made to ensure the data was reliable and accurate, there may be reporting biases within specific countries as seen in the capture fisheries sector, where countries such as China have misreported wi ld capture fisheries landings (Watson and Pauly 2001). The other source of inaccuracy is missing data, which were interpolated in some cases. However, in these instances, it was often only one indicator that was interpolated and usually in the socio-economic dimension. Nevertheless, the 13 indicators used in this study are robust, relevant and easily measured for application at the global and regional scales and independent of species and place. 93 5.3 Country ranking The top ranking countries for M S I were primarily developed countries (Table 4.3), the exceptions being the Russian Federation and Argentina, which are emerging economies, and the North Korea, a developing country. Five of the developed countries are European, which is in part a reflection of the demand by Europeans for sustainable seafood products and their concerns for pollution and G M O free products (Beardmore and Porte 2003). Japan and Korea are the other two high-ranking countries and the scores reflect their demand for high quality seafood products (Bridger and Costa-Pierce 2001). These two countries also produce substantial amounts of mollusks and plants (Table 4.4), which are relatively more sustainable that crustaceans and finfish. However, the rankings of many of these countries would decline i f they themselves produced some of the seafood they import and consume, such as Atlantic salmon and shrimp. For example, Spain is a significant importer of seafood including salmon and shrimp, much of it sourced from mariculture in developing countries ( F A O 2004). The lowest ranking countries for M S I are Guatemala, Cambodia, Bangladesh, Honduras, Myanmar, Bel ize, Chile and Norway (Table 4.3) and the first five almost exclusively culture shrimp (Table 4.5), while Chi le and Norway are the top two producers o f Atlantic salmon globally (Ibanez and Pizarro 2002). They all score low on sustainability due to their semi- intensive to intensive production practices and use of fishmeal/oil in production. The developing countries in this list also score low for environmental management o f waste. Many policy makers promote the expansion of aquaculture for improving the economies o f developing countries including the creation of employment opportunities. However, this analysis suggests that this is not a sustainable strategy due to the extemalization of environmental costs. The future of the industry in developing countries in the short-term (next 2 to 3 decades) wi l l be a tradeoff between socio-economic development and sustaining ecosystems. However, the impacts of this tradeoff can be minimized implementing best management practices ( F A O 2006). It is worth noting that U S A (ranked 15), Canada (43), Australia (40) and New Zealand (19) were not in the top or bottom ranking countries based on the M S I . The U S A and New Zealand are currently not significant mariculture producers by world standards. Much of the U S 94 aquaculture production is in freshwater. In New Zealand much, o f their production is mollusks, and their finfish culturing industry is emerging. A s in the top ranking countries, i f imports were included in the assessment, the rankings would be lower. Canada and Australia are large producers of finfish, and Australian is also a producer of crustaceans. They culture high tropic level species requiring fishmeal/oil. The countries ranked high in the M S I were not necessarily ranking high when measured against an overall environment sustainability index such as the ESI (Table 4.8). Even when the combined ecological score is compared to the ESI there are very few similarities. This difference is due to the ESI encompassing a wider range of environmental sustainability indicators such as land, air and freshwater (Esty and Levy 2006). Currently it does not include a marine component that includes fish, making direct comparisons difficult. The countries ranked high in the M S I did not necessarily rank high when measured against an overall socio-economic index such as the H D I (Table 4.8). There is a closer association o f the combined socio-economic indicator when measured against the H D I (Table 4.8). This is due in part to the broader definitions of the socio-economic indicators in both indices. Approximately 60% of the developing countries in this study are also low income and food deficit countries (L IFDC) and their corresponding M S I is also low (Table 4.9). The average non-weighted M S I for the 19 L IFDCs in this study was 5.1 and ranged from 7.1 (North Korea) to 3.5 (Bangladesh). Only two countries exceed a score o f 6, i.e., were approaching sustainability. This implies that these countries are risking their food security from marine sources and the long-term sustainability of their marine ecosystems to provide for short-term benefits. 5.4 Env i ronment and wi ld capture fisheries The literature review in Chapter 2 highlighted the growth of aquaculture in marine and brackish water environments, especially for crustaceans and finfish. This growth was reflected also in the low rankings and scores for the culturing of crustaceans and finfish in both 95 environments (Tables 4.10 and 4.11), where the combined M S I was 3.9 and 4.3, respectively. Crustaceans are cultured primarily in the coastal zone in brackish water and marine areas (Table 2.1), and often involve the conversion of land and high inputs o f nutrients, which all score low in terms of sustainability. The consistent growth of crustacean culture continues to put coastal ecosystems at risk for long-term sustainability (Costa-Pierce 2002). Plants, followed by mollusks have the highest rankings in brackish water and marine ecosystems (Figure 4.2), but their production has been steady over the last decade (see Table 2.1). Although bivalves were often ranked high for sustainability, they can impact negatively on the ecosystems depending on the locality and local environmental conditions (e.g. Deal 2003). The necessary indicators to assess these impacts are level o f habitat alteration for bivalve farming, changes in biotopes and nutrient levels, which are outside of the scope of the 13 indicators. Nevertheless, it is important to consider the impact of bivalves in normal ecosystem functions. Eutrophication is the most pressing issue related to aquaculture and environmental management (Bardach 1997), and much of it originates with the culturing o f crustaceans and finfish. However, this issue can be addressed by implementing best management practices. These include controlling nutrient loading into surrounding water environments and siting farms in suitable locations that avoid areas with poor flushing and shallow waters (Rosenthal 1985). The first solution is technologically feasible and only limited by the cost o f implementing the necessary technology. The second solution is best addressed through coastal planning and management, which is more problematic. Integrated coastal management requires building consensus with stakeholders with differing perspectives, wants and needs on how the coast should be managed (Kay and Alder 2005). In particular, conflicts with other users such as agriculture, fisheries, urban expansion and tourism need to be solved. In some cases, the introduction o f aquaculture, especially semi-intensive or intensive stocking densities of higher trophic level organisms requiring aquafeeds can add significantly to the current nutrient loading and exacerbates degrading water quality (Bardach 1997). This has been shown in Chi le where the cumulative effect of agriculture, urban development and aquaculture degraded water quality in several regions (Ibanez and Pizarro 2002). 96 The long-term future of mariculture should be independent of aquafeeds, broodstock, seed and fry from wi ld capture fisheries. However, this does not preclude the development of synergies between mariculture and capture fisheries, as seen in the growing interest in developing viable systems where mariculture can contribute to sustainable fisheries. For example, in Japan the wi ld capture fishery for red sea bream and Japanese flounder and is enhanced by the release of hatchery-reared juveniles (Kitada and Kishino 2006). 5.5 Species culturing The choice of the species to culture plays a critical role in determining the M S I of that species. Whether it is non-endemic to the area, requires aquafeeds and the stocking density influence the M S I . In this study, many of high ranking species are low-trophic level with the exception of a rainbow trout operation which was farmed in Iceland and which was highly sustainable manner until 2003, when it ceased operations (Table 4.11). In this case, it was fed on fish processing wastes and other non-fish protein such as worms. Most species are also cultured in the areas where they are in closed systems. In open systems, they usually are endemic and farmed within the carrying capacity of the ecosystem, which is known and taken into account. Not all endemic species are appropriate for culturing either because there is no local or international demand, difficulties in culturing, high operating costs or low profitability. When native species are not appropriate for mariculture, tradeoffs are made with the introduction non- endemic species when communities decide to capitalize on the opportunity mariculture offers for economic development. The introduction of non-endemic species increases the risk of introducing diseases, parasites and displacement o f native species with consequential risk for the ecosystem (Costa-Pierce 2002). These risks can be reduced by strict quarantine regulations for importing, testing the viability o f non-endemic species reproducing due to escapements prior to commercial production and preferably using closed systems (Naylor et al., 2000; Costa-Pierce 2002). However, implementing these measures are too expensive for most developing countries. Species that are cultured can be herbivorous, omnivorous or carnivorous. However, carnivorous species cannot be sustainable unless they are fed on protein that cannot be consumed 97 in any form by humans, such as fish-processing wastes. There are presently no forms of aquaculture based solely on such forms of protein. Rather, existing aquafeeds are either based on capture fisheries, or on wastes from fish processing or other forms of animal protein and each form has different impacts and limits on sustainability, with wi ld capture fisheries the most limited. Because the issue of compound aquafeeds links with the issue of ' food versus feed' (Tacon 1993), many producers are investigating other options for aquafeeds. A n example of an alternative to fishmeal and oi l is growing fish on a vegetarian diet (Tacon 1993, 2001; Tacon and Forster 2003). There is considerable experimental work underway for dietary requirements such as vegetable-based protein and oi l substitutes (Appendix 3.2). 5.6 Traceability One of the most important indicators, and yet one most commonly overlooked, is traceability. Traceability is an operational process documenting al l the stages o f production and distribution that food products go through ( F A O 2002), or as defined by the International Organization for Standardisation (ISO 8402:1994), as "the ability to trace the history, application or location o f an entity by means of recorded identification." The enforcement of traceability implies the development o f systems giving information on the entire life cycle o f food products, 'from the farm -or the sea- to the fork'. This food control indicator provides a measure of reliability, transparency and accountability, which are concerns that are o f increasing importance among seafood traders, as demonstrated in recent U S actions to ban imports of Chinese seafood products (Cherry 2006). Consumers expect farmed seafood to be safe, high quality and i f certified, the certification is maintained and products accurately labeled (Jacquet and Pauly 2006). If the traceability practices are not implemented, ecological and socio-economic sustainability are at risk (Moretti et al. 2003). Fol lowing the outbreak of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) and the awareness of the health impacts of dioxin and P C B in farmed animals, concern over food quality has grown. The concept o f traceability in food products became an issue of primary concern among European policy makers and scientists e.g. the E .U . Tracefish Project, when such outbreaks were identified. 98 5.7 Value Results from this study indicate that there is, at best a weak, inverse relationship between price and M S I (Figure 4.6), suggesting that low ranking species are more valuable and potentially more profitable. These results also suggest that developing countries, including L I F D C , are investing in high-value species, often for export. This policy can risk food security i f the benefits of exporting are not used to either supplement food supply or invested back into the country to assist in developing the economy and creating livelihood opportunities for coastal communities. The exponential growth of the Chilean salmon industry has brought economical and urban development to remote areas in Southern Chile. Nevertheless the industry's growth has not 'trickled down' accordingly to the labor force or at the regional level. In the past decade, workers' salaries participation in the industry's added aggregated value, fell from 8.4 to 3.6%, while the industry's net earnings grew by 11.9% for the same period (Ibanez and Pizarro 2002). Externalizing costs to the coastal communities and the environment must be reflected in the value of the cultivated species and industry must be held accountable to it. The range in the price of cultured species is wide, ranging from 0.10 U S D / k g to 60.00 USD/kg , and for some species, developing countries also receive a lower price than developed countries. These differences may be due to quality, production costs, transportation costs and market inequities. Much of these products is exported to developed countries where demand is high, but mariculture production is low (Figure 5.3). Therefore the price of farmed fish and crustaceans is highly sensitive to consumer preferences and world supply, as seen in the price of Atlantic salmon which has dropped by more than 50% in the past 10 years, corresponding to the same period of increasing production and export o f farmed salmon. The declining price o f farmed Atlantic salmon has affected the price o f wi ld capture salmon in the same way (Pullin and Sumaila 2003). 99 Vegetable Fiber • Rjlses a Bggs a Rsh (2001 estimate) aa Oilcrops ZZ} Meat c= Fruit I Milk t Roots and Tubers Vegetables and melons Cereals 0 1 2 3 Production (billion t) Fig 5.3 Global production (mill ion t) of major food items 5.8 Conclusions 5.8.1 Indicator val idi ty Tests show that the thirteen indicators identified in this study are valid and can be used as a basis for assessing mariculture sustainability at the global and regional scale. They are defined broadly, so that they are species and locality independent. More importantly, they are based on data that is easily accessed and mostly current. 5.8.2 Count ry rank ing We find that overall, mariculture is not sustainable using current practices. Those countries ranking high are primarily from the developed world, but only because their imports of unsustainably farmed seafood are yet to be included in an assessment. Mariculture in the lowest ranking countries is not sustainable and much of the production consists o f crustaceans. In many developing countries, shrimps are the species of choice, which is highly unsustainable and primarily for export in these countries. Indeed many of the countries with high seafood import levels also rank high in mariculture sustainability. Some developing countries may be risking 100 their (marine) food security and the long-term sustainability o f their marine ecosystem to produce food export. The ESI and H D I are not closely associated with the M S I , this is due to the lack o f a marine component in the ESI ; as for the HDI , it does not reflect aquaculture practices or socio- economic features pertinent to mariculture. 5.8.3 Environment and capture fisheries Many of the issues surrounding environmental degradation and other negative effects from mariculture can be addressed through technological improvements, best management practices and effective coastal planning and management. The first two solutions are limited by financial resources o f operators and investors, while the third is much more difficult and requires more effort and consensus-building with other stakeholders. Alternatives to basing aquafeeds on wi ld capture fisheries are needed i f higher trophic species are to become candidates for sustainable aquaculture. Unt i l alternative feeds are developed, the mariculture sector w i l l continue to compete with other intensive animal productions systems. However, there is considerable research underway to develop alternative feeds that are competitive with fishmeal and fish oi l . 5.8.4 Cultured species There are limitations to what species can be cultured in a given environment. Producing non-endemic species in many countries, especially developing, w i l l be a trade-off between ecosystem sustainability and socio-economic development due to the uncertainties associated with introducing non-endemic species to the ecosystem. 101 5.8.5 Value and traceability The combination of perceived high quality product, growing consumer demand, increasing awareness of the benefit from seafood and declining prices are driving the expansion o f mariculture today. Current low prices are only possible because the ecological and social costs of production are externalized. However, the ecosystems that are providing for this growth are at risk, as wel l as the coastal communities that have traded their ecosystem services. Increasingly, consumers are considering these impacts and reflect their concern in paying more for sustainably produced seafood, which wi l l in turn drive investors and producers to implement best management practices. This wi l l require effective traceability systems so that the consumer can be confident in their choice o f seafood. In the 1970s aquaculture was promoted as a source o f accessible and cheap protein for developing countries. It has yet to fulf i l l its potential. In mariculture, the focus has shifted to supplying the demand for high-value seafood to developed countries or the growing rich class in developing countries. Meeting this demand wi l l require the industry to operate in a more ecologically, economically and socially sustainable ways, and to monitor and evaluate how well it is operating within a sustainability framework. This study has defined 13 indicators that w i l l enable the industry to progress towards its sustainability goals. 5.9 Recommendation for industry and governments 1. Further research on socio-economic indicators should be funded. Indicators that directly measure social and economic impacts are needed to better assess these aspects within the mariculture sector; 2. Further development of the ESI and HDI to include mariculture (or aquaculture) should be supported. Ideally, the M S I could be incorporated into both indicators, or the relevant ecological and socio-economic indicators could be incorporated; 102 3. Further development of the sustainability indicators should also include the import of farmed seafood so that those countries that are externalizing ecological and social costs can be appropriately assessed; 4. Considerable support be given to developing countries so that policy and regulations for implementing best management practices are effected, enabling them to respond more efficiently to the current rapid growth of mariculture. This includes increased funding for monitoring of impacts on ecosystems, economies and communities, and increased strategic planning of the industry to include best management practices, especially within a coastal management framework; 5. Increase awareness among the consumers who are driving the demand for shrimp and salmon. They should be at least aware of the benefits in choosing sustainably produced seafood. This in turn w i l l raise awareness among investors to implement best management practices and this can be done through instruments such as certification schemes and other economic incentives; 6. Further research funding to develop models for public-private partnerships so that mariculture systems are sustainable, profitable and ensure local communities benefit from private investment and minimizes the government and the community subsidizing industry development; 7. The industry reduces its dependence of fish-based aquafeeds through supporting the research on reducing fish protein content in feeds. In addition to technological solutions, other options include developing integrated mariculture and polyculture systems for a range of species, especially crustaceans and finfish; 8. Standardize and promote traceability among producers including self-regulation of traceability standards with N G O s potentially taking an external party monitoring role. 9. Further develop the indicators so they can be applied on a finer scale, specifically for use at the species-level or at the farm-level with a defined locality. 103 Literature cited Agardy, T. and Alder, J . 2005. Coastal Systems. In: Current State and Trends V o l . 1 Ecosystems and Human Well-being (eds R. Hassan, R. Scholes and N . Ash). Island Press, Washington, pp. 513-550. Aladi (2002) Aquaculture and Fisheries Expo Peru. Aladi Report 1-118. Alder, J . and Watson, R. (2007) Fisheries globalization: fair trade or piracy. In: Globalization: Effects'on Fisheries Resources (eds W. Taylor, M . G . Schechter and L . G . Wolfson). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 47-74. Alder, J . and Pauly, D. (2006) Human consumption of Forage Fish. Fisheries Centre Research Reports No. 14(3), 21-32. Alveal , K., Romo, H. and Werlinger, C. (1995) Cultivo de Gracilaria a partir de esporas. In: Manual de Metodos Ficologicos (eds K. A lvea l , M . Ferrario, E. de Oliveira and E. Sar), Editorial Anibal Pinto, Chile, pp. 599-610. Arthington, A . and McKenz ie , F. (1997) Review of impacts o f displaced/introduced fauna associated with inland waters. Australia: State of the Environment Technical Paper Series (Inland waters), 69 pp. Barbier, E .B . and Sathirathai, S. (2004) Shrimp Farming and Mangrove Loss in Thailand. Edward Elgar, London. Bardach, J . (1997) Fish as food and the case for aquaculture. In: Sustainable Aquaculture, (ed. J .E. Bardach). John Wi ley and Sons, New York, pp. 1-14. Barg, U .C . (1992) Guideline for the promotion of management o f coastal aquaculture development. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 328, 122 pp. Basurco, B. and Lovatell i , A . (2004) The aquaculture situation in the Mediterranean Sea predictions for the future. In: Sustainable Development of the Eastern and Black Sea Environments (International Conference on the Sustainable Development of the Mediterranean and Black Sea Environment, Thessaloniki, 29 M a y - 1 June, 2003). I A S O N N E T , Thessaloniki, 6 pp. Beardmore, J .A. and Porte, J.S. (2003) Genetically modified organisms and aquaculture. FAO Fisheries Circular No. 989, 35 pp. Boyd, C. (1999) Mangroves and coastal aquaculture. In: Responsible Marine Aquaculture (eds R.R. Stickney and J.P. McVey) . C A B I Publishing, Wall ington, pp. 145-157. Bridger, C .J . and Costa-Pierce, B A . (2001) Sustainable development of offshore aquaculture in the G u l f o f Mexico. In: Proceedings of the Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute No . 53 (Proceedings of the Fifty-Third Annual Gu l f and Caribbean Fisheries Institute, Mississipi , November, 2000). R.L. Creswell, ed. Alabama Sea Grant Consortium, Fort Pierce, pp. 255-265. Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) (1997) Introduction to Jakarta mandate on marine and coastal biodiversity. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity Technical Series UNEP/CBD/JM/Exper t / I /2 , 5 pp. C B D (2004) Solutions for sustainable mariculture - avoiding the adverse effects o f mariculture on biological diversity. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity Technical Series No . 12, 54 pp. Cabello, F .C. (2006) Heavy use of prophylactic antibiotics in aquaculture: a growing problem for human and animal health and for the environment. Environmental Microbiology 8, 1137-1144. 104 Cherry, D. (2006) Protectionism rocks. IntraFish Media, http://www.intrafish.no/global/news /articlel06264.ece. Chua, T. (1997) Sustainable aquaculture and integrated coastal management. In: Sustainable Aquaculture (ed. J .E. Bardach). John Wi ley and Sons, New York, pp. 177-200. Corbin, J.S. and Young, L .G .L . (1997) Planning, regulation, and administration of sustainable aquaculture. In: Sustainable Aquaculture, (ed. J .E. Bardach). John Wi ley and Sons, New York, pp. 201-233. Costa-Pierce, B .A . (2002) Ecology as the paradigm for the future o f aquaculture. In: Ecological Aquaculture (ed. B .A . Costa-Pierce). Blackwel l Science, Oxford. Deal, H . (2003) Sustainable Shellfish Recommendation for Responsible Aquaculture. Report of the David Suzuki Foundation, 34 pp. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2001) Application of the National Sustainable Agriculture Indicators to Farm Level: Indicator Explorer. University o f Hertfordshire, Hatfield, http://www.herts.ac.uk/aern/indicators. Delgado, C .L . , Wada, N . , Rosegrant, M.W. , Meijer, S. and Ahmed, M . (2003) Fish to 2020: Supply and Demand in Changing Global Markets. International Food Pol icy Research Institute, Washington and WorldFish Center, Penang. Department of Fisheries and Oceans (2001) Salmon aquaculture: economic development and environmental safety. DFO Report BG-PR-01-021E. http://www-comm.pac.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/pages/release/bckgrnd/2001 /bg02 l_e.htm Divanach, P., Boglione, C , Menu, B., Koumoundouros, G. , Kentouri, M . and Cataudella, S. (1996) Abnormalities in finfish mariculture: an overview o f the problem, causes and solutions. In: Handbook of Contributions and Short Communications on Seabass and Seabream Culture: Problems and Prospects (International Workshop on Seabass and Seabream Culture: problems and prospects, Verona, 16-18 October, 1996). B. Chatain, M . Saroglia, J . Sweetman and P. Lavens eds. European Aquaculture Society, Oostende, pp. 45-66. Donaldson, E . M . (1997) The role of biotechnology in sustainable aquaculture. In: Sustainable Aquaculture (ed. J .E . Bardach). John Wi ley and Sons, New York , pp. 101-126. Ervik, A . , Hansen, K., Aure, J . , Stigebrandt, A . , Johannessen, P., and Jahnsen, T. (1997) Regulating the local environmental impact of intensive marine fish farming. Aquaculture 158, 85-94. Esty, D.C. (2002) Why Measurement Matters. In: Environmental Performance Measurement: The Global 2001-2002 (eds D .C. Esty and P. Cornelius). NewYork :Wor ld Economic Forum, New York, pp. 2-11. F A O (1988) Report o f the council of F A O , ninety-fourth session. FAO Report C L 9 4 / R E P , 124 pp. F A O (1995) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. F A O (1995a) Precautionary approach to fisheries. Part 1: Guidelines on the precautionary approach to capture fisheries and species introductions. F A O Fisheries Technical Papers No . 350/1, 1-52. F A O (1999) The development and use of indicators for sustainable development of marine capture fisheries. FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries No . 8, 79 pp. F A O (2002) Low Income Food Deficit Countries. The LIFDC Classification - An Exploration. Food and Agriculture Organization o f the United Nations, Rome. h t tp / / :DOCREP/MEETING/004/Y6691E/Y6691 EOO.HTM 105 F A O (2004) The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture. Food and Agriculture Organization o f the United Nations, Rome. F A O (2006) The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture. Food and Agriculture Organization o f the United Nations, Rome. Fitzsimmons, K. (2000) Future trends of tilapia aquaculture in the Americas. In: Tilapia Aquaculture in the Americas, V o l . 2. (eds B .A . Costa-Pierce and J .E. Rakocy). The World Aquaculture Society, Baton Rouge, pp. 252-264. Folke, C . and Kautsky, N . (1992) Aquaculture with its environment: Prospects for sustainability. Ocean and Coastal Management 17, 5-24. Froese and D. Pauly (Editors) 2000. FishBase 2000: Concepts, Design and Data Sources. I C L A R M , Los Baftos, Philippines, 346 p. [Distributed with 4 C D - R O M s ; previous annual editions: 1996-1999; updates in www.fishbase.org1 Fujiya, M . (1999) Marine ranching: present situation and perspectives. FAO Fisheries Circular No. 943, 1-27. Figueroa, D., Pizarro, O., Hormazabal, S., Hernandez, R. and Leth, O. (n.d.) Sistema Integradode Registro de Corrientes y Olas (SIRCO) aplicado al monitoreo, la modelacion y el diagnostico de bahias, fiordos y zones costeras. Proyecto FONDEF D031-1104. Funge-Smith, S. and Phil l ips, M.J . (2001) Aquaculture systems and species. In . Aquaculture in the Third Millenium (Technical Proceedings of the Conference on Aquaculture in the Third Mi l len ium, Bangkok, 20-25 February, 2000). R.P. Subasinghe, P. Bueno, M.J . Phi l l ips, C . Hough, S.E. McGladdery and J.R. Arthur, eds. Network o f Aquaculture Centres in Asia-Pacif ic, Bangkok and Food and Agriculture Organization o f the United Nations, Rome, pp. 129-135. Global Environment Fund (2005) The Emerging Smart Grid. Global Environment Fund, Washington.http://gefweb.org/MonitoringandEvaluation/MEPoliciesProcedures/ MEPIdnicators/mepindicators.html. Ghetti, P.F. (1999) Uomo e natura: i l punto di vista dell 'ecologia. In: Uomo e Natura Verso II Nuovo Millennio (ed I. Musu). II Mul ino, Bologna. Goldburg, R. and Naylor, R. (2005) Transformed seascapes, fishing and fish farming. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 3, 21-28. Gonzalez, H. , Sobarzo, M . , Figueroa, D. and Nothig, E . M . (2000) Composition, biomass and potential grazing impact of the crustacean and pelagic tunicates in the northern Humboldt Current area off Chi le: differences between E l Nino and non-El Nino years. Marine Ecology Progress Series 195,201-220. Hal l , D. (2004) Explaining the Diversity of Southeast Asian Shrimp Aquaculture. Journal of Agrarian Change 4, 315-335. Harper, J . , Haggarty, J . and Morr is, M . C . (2002) Final Report: Broughton Archipelago Clam Terrace Survey. Report of Coastal and Ocean Resources. Hassard, S.Q.D. and Tacon, A . G . J . (2001) Good aquaculture feed manufacturing practice. FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries No . 5(1), 47pp. H i lbom, R. and Walters, C. J . (1992) Quantitative Fisheries Stock Assessment: Choice, Dynamics and Uncertainty. Chapman and Ha l l , New York. Hindar, K. (2001) Interactions o f cultured and wi ld species. In: Marine Aquaculture and the Environment (eds M.F . Tlusty, D.A. Bengston, H.O. Halvorson, S.D. Oktay, J .B. Pearce and R.B. Rheault Jr.). Cape Cod Press, Falmouth. 106 Husevag, B. and Lunestad, B.T. (1991) Simultaneous occurrence of Vibr io salmonicida and antibiotic resistant bacteria in sediments at abandoned aquaculture sites. Journal of Fish Diseases 14, 631-640. Ibanez, C. and Pizarro, R. (2002) De la Harina de Pescado al "Salmon Val ley" . Registro de Problemas Publicos No . 8, 72 pp.. ICES (1995) Code of practice on the introductions and transfers o f marine organisms. ICES Co- operative Research Report No . 204, 5 pp. ICES (2005) Code of Practice on the Introductions and Transfers of Marine Organisms. ICES Co-operative Research Report, 30 pp. Jacquet, J . and D. Pauly. 2007. The Rise o f Seafood Awareness Campaigns in an Era of Collapsing Fisheries. Marine Policy 31, 308-313. Kay , R. and Alder, J . (2005) Coastal Planning and Management. E F & N Spoon, London. Kent, G . (1995) Aquaculture and food" security. In: PACON Conference on Sustainable Aquaculture (Proceedings of the P A C O N Conference on Sustainable Aquaculture, Honolulu, 11-14 June, 1995). Pacific Congress on Marine Science and Technology, Hawai i , pp. 226-232. K i rk , R. (1987) A History of Marine Fish Culture in Europe and North America. Fishing News Books Ltd, Farnham. Kitada, S. and Kishino, H. (2006) Lessons learned from Japanese marine finfish stock enhancement programs. Fisheries Research 80, 101-112. L i , S. and Mathias, J . (1994) Freshwater fish culture in China: Principles and practice. Developments in Aquaculture and Fisheries Science 28, 461. L i , S.F. (2003) Aquaculture Research and its Relation to Development in China. In: Agricultural Development and the Opportunities for Aquatic Resources Research in China (Proceedings of WorldFish Center Conf. P r o c , Penang, 2003). L . X . Zhang, J . L iu , S.F. L i , N.S. Yang and P.R. Gardiner, eds. WorldFish Center, Penang. L in , Z . (1991) Pond Fisheries in China. Pergamon Press, Oxford. L ing , B .H . , Leung P.S. and Shang, Y . C . (1999) Comparing Asian shrimp farming: the domestic resource cost approach. Aquaculture 175, 31-48. Linster, M . and Fletcher, J . (2001) Using the Pressure-State-Response Model to Develop Indicators of Sustainability: OECD Framework for Environmental Indicators. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris. Lossonczy von, T.O., Ruiter, A . , Bronsgeest-Schoute, H.C., van Gent, C M . and Hermus, R.J.J. (1978) The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 31, 1340-1346. Love, G . and Langenkamp, D. (2003) Australian Aquaculture: Industry Profiles for Related Species. ABARE eReport No . 03.8. Marine Stewardship Counci l (1998). Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing: Arlie House Meeting Report. Marine Stewardship Counci l . http://www. msc.org/cgi- bin/library/articles/cgi/view_article.pl?section=2&area=l &id=891616876&html=templ ate.html> 11/9/98 McClennen, C . (2004) White Spot Syndrome Virus: The Economic Environmental and Technical Implications on the Development of Latin American Shrimp farming. Tufts University, Medford. McLean, E. (2003) Aquaculture: A Global V iew. Resources for F IW 4514, Principles of Aquaculture. Aquaculture Center Virginia Tech Report 5 pp. Merriam-Webster's collegiate dictionary (10th ed.). (1993). Springfield, M A : Merriam Webster. 107 Mil lennium Ecosystem Assessment (2003) Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Island Press, Washington. Moehl , J . and Machena, C . (2000) Afr ican Aquaculture: A Regional Summary with Emphasis on Sub- Saharan Afr ica. In: Aquaculture in the Third Millennium (Technical Proceedings of the Conference on Aquaculture in the Third Mi l lennium, Bangkok, 20-25 February, 2000). R.P. Subasinghe, P. Bueno, M.J . Phil l ips, C. Hough, S.E. McGladdery and J.R. Arthur, eds. Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia-Pacif ic, Bangkok and Food and Agriculture Organization o f the United Nations, Rome, pp. 341-355. Morretti, V . M . , Turchini, G . M . , Bellagamba, F. and Caprino, F. (2003) Traceability Issues in Fishery and Aquaculture Products. Veterinary Research.Communications 27, 497-505. Mustafa, S. and Rahman, R .A . (2000) Sustainable Marine Aquaculture: Recent Developments with Special Reference to Southeast Asia. University o f Malaysia Sabah, Kota Kinabalu. Mustafa S. (2003) Stock enhancement and sea ranching: objectives and potential. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 13, 141-149. .Naylor, R., Goldburg, R.J . , Mooney, H. .et al. (1998) Nature's Subsidies to Shrimp and Salmon Farming. Ecology 282(5390), 883-884. Naylor, R., Goldburg, R.J . , Mooney, H. et al. (2000) Effect o f aquaculture on world fish supplies. Nature 405,1017-1024. Neira, R. and Diaz N . (2005) Contribucion de la Acuicultura a la Conservacion de los Recursos Acudticos y su Biodiversidad. Biodiversidad Marina: Valoracion, Usos y Perspectivas lHacia donde va Chile?. Editorial Universitaria, Santiago. Oliver, C D . , K immins, J.P., Harshaw, H.W. and Sheppard, S.R.J . (2001) Criteria and indicators of sustainable forestry: a systems approach. In: Forests and Landscapes: Linking Ecology, Sustainability, and Aesthetics IUFRO Research Series No. 6 (eds S.R.J. Sheppard and H.W. Harshaw). C A B I Publishing, Wall ingford, pp. 73-93. O'Sul l ivan, G . (2006) Mussels - April 2006. Globefish Market Report. http://www.globefish.org/index.php?id=2791. Pauly, D. and Christensen. V . (1995) Primary production required to sustain global fisheries. Nature 374, 255-257. Pauly, D., Christensen, V . , Guenette, S. et al. (2002) Towards sustainability in world fisheries. Nature 418, 689-695. Pauly, D. and R. Watson. 2005. Background and interpretation o f the 'Marine Trophic Index' as a measure of biodiversity. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society: Biological Sciences 360: 415-423. Pellizzato M . (1978) L a riproduzione artificiale del pesce: prospettive per una modema vallicoltura. Societa' Veneziana di Scienze Naturali - Lavori - 3, 70-76. Perez, J . , Nirchio, M . and Gomez, J . (2000) Correspondence Aquaculture: part o f the problem, not a solution. Nature Correspondence 408, 514. Piedrahita, R. (2003) Reducing the potential environmental impact o f tank aquaculture effluents through intensification and recirculation. Aquaculture 226, 35-44. Pi l lay, T .V .R. (2001) Aquaculture development: from Kyoto 1976 to Bangkok 2000. In: Aquaculture in the Third Millennium (Technical Proceedings of the Conference on Aquaculture in the Third Mi l lennium, Bangkok, 20-25 February, 2000). R.P. Subasinghe, P. Bueno, M.J . Phil l ips, C. Hough, S.E. McGladdery and J.R. Arthur, eds. 108 Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia-Pacif ic, Bangkok and Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, pp. 3-7. Pinnegar, J .K. , Polunin, N . V . C . and Badalamenti, F. (2003) Long-term changes in the trophic level of western Mediterranean fishery and aquaculture landings. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 60, 222-235. Pul l in, R.S.V. and Sumaila, U.R. (2005) Aquaculture. In: Fish for Life: Interactive governance for fisheries, (eds J . Kooiman, M . Bavinck, S. Jentoft and R. Pull in). Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam, pp. 93-108. Ravagnan G . (1975) L a piscicultura italiana d'acqua salmastra: sviluppi recenti e prospettive. In: ( V I P Congresso Nazionale della S. I .B.M, Venecia, 22 Maggio, 1975), Venecia. Rosenthal, H . (1985) Constraints and perspectives in aquaculture development. Geojournal 10, 305-324. Roth, E., Rosenthal, H . and Burbridge, P. (2002) A discussion of the use o f the sustainability index: 'ecological footprint' for aquaculture production. Aquatic Living Resources 13, 461-469. Rout, K . and Bandyopadhyay S. (1999) A comparative study of shrimp feed pellets processed through cooking extruder and meat mincer. Aquacultural Engineering 19, 71 -79. Sadovy, Y . and Cornish, A . S . (2000) Reeffishes of Hong Kong. Hong K o n g University Press, Hong Kong. Shang, Y . C . and Tisdell , C A . (1997) Economic decision making in sustainable aquacultural development. In: Sustainable Aquaculture (ed. J .E. Bardach). John Wi ley and Sons, New York, pp. 127-148. Silpachai, D. (2001) The Bangkok declaration and the strategy for aquaculture development beyond 2000: the aftermath. FAO RAP Publication 2001/120, 84 pp. Soto, D. and Norambuena, F. (2004) Evaluation of salmon farming effects on marine systems in the inner seas o f southern Chi le: a large-scale mensurative experiment. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 20, 493-501. StataCorp (2005) Stata Statistical Software: Release. 8. StataCorp L d , Texas. Stergiou, K.I. and Karpouzi , V . S . (2002) Feeding habits and trophic levels o f Mediterranean fishes. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 11, 217-254. Suvapepun, S. (1994) Environmental impacts of mariculture. In: NRCT-JSPS Joint Seminar on Marine Science (Proceedings of the N R C T - J S P S Joint Seminar on Marine Science, Songkhla, Thailand, 2-3 December, 1993). A . Snidvongs, W. Utoomprakporn and M . Hungspreugs eds. Department of Marine Science, Chulalongkorn University, Thailand. pp. 25-29. Tacon, A . G . J . (1993) Feed ingredient for warm water fish : fish meal and other processed feedstuff's. FAO Fisheries Circular No. 856, 64 pp. Tacon, A.G.J.(1998). Global trends in aquaculture and aquafeed production 1984-1995. In: International Aquafeed Directory and Buyers' Guide 1997/1998. Turret G R O U P P L C , Rickmansworth, 5-37. Tacon, A . G . J . (2001) Increasing the Contribution of Aquaculture for Food Security and Poverty Alleviation. In: Aquaculture in the Third Millennium (Technical Proceedings of the Conference on Aquaculture in the Third Mi l lennium, Bangkok, 20-25 February, 2000). R.P. Subasinghe, P. Bueno, M.J . Phil l ips, C . Hough, S.E. McGladdery and J.R. Arthur, eds. Network o f Aquaculture Centres in Asia-Pacif ic, Bangkok and Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, pp. 63-72. 109 Tacon, A . G . J . (2004). Use of fish meal and fish oil in aquaculture: a global perspective. Aquatic Resources, Culture and Development 1,3-14. Tacon, A . G . J . (2003) Aquaculture Production Trends Analysis. Review of the State of World Aquaculture, FAO Fisheries Circular No. 886. Tacon, A . G . J , and Forster, L P . (2003) Aquafeeds and the environment: policy implications. Aquaculture 226, 181-189. Takashima, F. and Arimoto, T. (2000) Cage culture in Japan toward the new millennium. In Cage Aquaculture in Asia (Proceedings of the first International Symposium on Cage Aquaculture in Asia). I.C. Liao and C K . L in , eds. Asian Fisheries Society, Mani la, and World Aquaculture Society, Bangkok, pp. 53-58. Tyedmers, P. (2000) Salmon and Sustainability: the Biophysical Cost of Producing Salmon Through the Commercial Salmon Fishery and the Intensive Salmon Culture Industry. PhD thesis, University of Brit ish Columbia, 258 pages. U N D P (2006) Human Development Report 2006. Oxford University Press, New York. C B D (2001) Report of the Sixth Session of the Subsidary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBTTA-6 Report). CBD Report U N E P / C B D / C O P / 6 / 3 Wackernagel, M . and Wi l l iam R. (1996) Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth. New Society Publishers, Philadelphia. Wallace, S. and Glavin T. (2003) Strait of Georgia Roe Herring Fishery Report Card. Sierra Club of Canada - BC Chapter 29 pp. Watson, R. and Pauly, D. (2001) Systematic distortions in world fisheries catch trends. Nature 414,534-536. W C E D (1987). Our Common Future: The Bruntland Report. Oxford University Press, New York. Worm, B., Barbier, E., Beaumont, N . et al. (2006) Impacts of Biodiversity Loss on Ocean Ecosystem Services. Science 314, 787. W W F (1998) WWF and The Marine Stewardship Council: New Hope for World Fisheries. World Wildl i fe Fund. 110 Appendix 1. Detailed scoring scheme. Ecological criteria Scoring scheme Introduced 1= non native, introduced; 3= native to country, locally introduced recently; 5= native and risk of similar non native species to an unknown ratio (e.g., nei); 7= native, with risk of local introductions; 10= native to local ecosystem Fish meal, oil use 1= usage; 3= relatively less usage; 5= usage and non fish based diet substitute used; 7= almost no usage; 10= none. Intensity level 1= hyper and intensive stocking; 3= mostly intensive stocking; 5= intensive/semi intensive stocking; 7= semi-intensive and extensive stocking; 10= extensive stocking Hatchery vs wild 1= indiscriminate wild capture with depleting consequences; 3= indiscriminate wild capture when population is stressed; 5= unknown origin when but hatchery production and/or larvae importation exist; 7= mostly hatchery stocking with somewhat unknown seed/larvae provenance; 10= predominantly hatchery stocking with adequate wild broodstock provenance Habitat alteration 1= practice is detrimental to surrounding habitat and ecosystem; 3= serious concerns of impacts on habitat and ecosystem; 5= occasional cases of adjacent habitat impact and certain unknown cases; 7= non impacting farming with minor effects on surrounding ecosystems; 10= as friendly as it gets Waste water treatment 1= high discharges with no waste treatment whatsoever; 3= high discharges with some waste treatment; 5= moderate treatment operating at carrying capacity, 7= adequate treatment or none needed with minor seasonal variations; complete isolation of waste discharge and more than adequate treatment implementation, or no treatment needed. Socio-economic criteria Scoring scheme Export vs. domestic 1= exclusive for export; 3= mostly for export; 5= both markets; 7= mostly local consumption; 10= local consumption Nutrition <5 = under 10 ppm of nutritional protein content; 7= between 10 and 13 ppm of protein content; >9= above 20 ppm of protein Antibiotic and drug use 1= indiscriminate use; 3= poorly regulated use; 5= occasional use with implemented pre-harvest drug free period; 7= almost no use; 10= drug free GMO <3= gonadic underdevelopment; 5=sex selection (e.g., polyploidy); 7= minor selectivity at the non molecular level; 10= No GMO Code of practice <3= Non use or ignorance of regulations; 5= minor implementations or locally non-binding; 7= updated and current use and followed rigurosly; 10= beyond the regulation forfront and benchmark implementations Traceability 1= unknown 3= grey areas in provenance and farming stages; 5= cases of incomplete provenance; 7= appropriate tracing with certain cases of uncertain sources of feed or species combinations; 10= fully traceable Employment <3= unfair, insecure and exploitative working conditions; 5= seasonal, marginal employment in job sensitive areas; 7= adequate and locally involved industry reflected in working conditions; 10= optimal work and working conditions 111 Appendix 2. Ecological and socio-economic scores, and human development and environmental sustainability indices in each country-species combination. Country Sp. Native Introduced Fish meal usage Intensity level Hatchery vs wild Habitat alteration Waste water Treatement Ecological MSI ESI HDI Argentina Blue mussel 10 10 7 5 7 10 8.2 7.1 62.7 0.863 Arqentina Pacific cupped oyster 3 10 5 7 7 10 7.0 6.4 62.7 0.863 Argentina River Plata mussel 7 10 7 5 7 10 7.7 7.0 62.7 0.863 Australia Atlantic salmon 1 1 1 3 5 3 2.3 3.7 61.0 0.957 Australia Barramundi 5 3 1 5 5 1 3.3 4.0 61.0 0.957 Australia Cupped oysters nei 5 10 7 7 9 10 8.0 7.1 61.0 0.957 Australia Flat oysters nei 5 10 7 7 7 9 7.5 7.4 61.0 0.957 Australia Giant tiger prawn 10 1 1 5 5 1 3.8 4.9 61.0 0.957 Australia Giant tiger prawn (br) 10 1 1 5 5 1 3.8 4.9 61.0 0.957 Australia Kuruma prawn 10 1 5 4 5 5 5.0 5.0 61.0 0.957 Australia Pacific cupped oyster 1 10 10 10 7 10 8.0 7.2 61.0 0.957 Australia Pacific cupped oyster (br) 1 10 8 10 7 10 7.7 7.0 61.0 0.957 Australia Southern bluefin tuna 10 1 1 1 3 1 2.8 4.1 61.0 0.957 Bangladesh Penaeus shrimps nei 5 3 1 3 1 1 2.3 3.5 44.1 0.530 Belize Whiteleg shrimp 1 3 3 5 1 3 2.7 3.7 - 0.751 Brazil Cupped oysters nei 7 10 7 7 7 10 8.0 7.1 62.2 0.792 Brazil Groupers nei 9 1 5 5 5 4 4.8 5.2 62.2 0.792 Brazil Whiteleg shrimp 1 3 3 5 1 1 2.3 4.0 62.2 0.792 Cambodia Penaeus shrimps nei 5 3 1 3 1 1 2.3 3.5 50.1 0.583 Canada Atlantic bluefin tuna 10 10 5 1 3 1 5.0 5.0 64.5 0.950 Canada Atlantic cod 10 1 3 3 3 3 3.8 4.7 64.5 0.950 Canada Atlantic salmon (AU) 10 1 1 3 5 1 3.5 4.1 64.5 0.950 Canada Atlantic salmon (Pac) 1 3 2 3 3 2 2.3 3.4 64.5 0.950 Canada Blue mussel 10 10 9 8 8 10 9.2 8.2 64.5 0.950 Canada Coho(=Silver)salmon 10 2 1 5 3 3 4.0 4.1 64.5 0.950 Canada Pacific cupped oyster 1 10 1 5 7 10 5.7 6.1 64.5 0.950 Chile Abalones nei 1 10 1 7 3 3 4.2 3.9 53.6 0.859 Chile Atlantic salmon 1 1 1 1 1 2 1.2 2.5 53.6 0.859 Chile Coho(=Silver)salmon 1 1 1 S 1 2 1.8 2.8 53.6 0.859 Chile Gracilaria seaweeds 10 10 10 7 10 10 9.5 8.4 53.6 0.859 Chile Pacific cupped oyster 1 10 7 5 7 1 5.2 5.6 53.6 0.859 China Blood cockle 10 10 7 3 5 7 7.0 7.0 38.6 0.768 China Groupers nei 9 1 5 5 5 4 4.8 5.3 38.6 0.768 China Laver (Nori) 10 10 7 5 7 5 7.3 6.8 38.6 0.768 China Pacific cupped oyster 1 10 7 5 5 1 4.8 5.4 38.6 0.768 China Red drum 1 1 2 5 4 5 3.0 4.4 38.6 0.768 China Whiteleg shrimp 1 3 1 5 3 3 2.7 3.9 38.6 0.768 Colombia Cupped oysters nei 5 10 7 7 7 10 7.7 6.9 58.9 0.790 Colombia Whiteleg shrimp (Atl) 10 3 3 5 3 3 4.5 4.7 58.9 0.790 Colombia Whiteleg shrimp (Pac) 10 3 3 5 3 3 4.5 4.7 58.9 0.790 Costa Rica Whiteleg shrimp (Pac) (br) 10 3 '' 1 5 - 3 •5 4.5 5.0 59.6 0.841 Denmark Atlantic salmon 10 3-- •• 1 5 5 7 5.2 5.5 58.2 0.943 Denmark Blue mussel 10 10 9 8 7 10 9.0 8.1 58.2 0.943 Denmark European eel 10 3 3 3 6 7 5.3 5.9 58.2 0.943 Ecuador Red drum 1 1 3 5 5 5 3.3 4.5 52.4 0.765 Ecuador Whiteleg shrimp 10 3 5 5 1 3 4.5 4.7 52.4 0.765 Egypt European seabass 10 3 5 5 5 -5 5.5 5.8 44.0 0.702 Egypt European seabass (br) 10 3 5 5 5 ' 5 5.5 5.8 44.0 0.702 Egypt Flathead grey mullet 10 3 5 5 5 5 5.5 5.8 44.0 0.702 Egypt Flathead grey mullet (Med) 10 3 5 5 5 5 5.5 5.8 44.0 0.702 Egypt Gilthead seabream 1 1 1 5 3 1 2.0 ' 3.5 44.0 0.702 Egypt Gilthead seabream (br) 1 1 1 5 3 1 2.0 3.5 44.0 0.702 Egypt Penaeus shrimps nei 5 1 5 5 3 3 3.7 4.0 44.0 0.702 Faeroe Ils. Atlantic salmon 10 3 1 5 3 5 4.5 4.7 58.2 0.943 Finland Atlantic salmon 10 3 2 5 3 7 5.0 4.9 75.1 0.947 France Atlantic salmon 10 3 2 5 5 3 4.7 4.8 55.2 0.942 France Blue mussel 10 10 9 8 7 10 9.0 8.1 55.2 0.942 France Coho(=Silver)salmon 1 3 1 5 5 3 3.0 3.9 55.2 0.942 France European eel 10 3 3 3 6 7 5.3 5.9 55.2 0.942 France European flat oyster 10 10 7 5 7 10 8.2 7.3 55.2 0.942 France European seabass 10 3 5 7 5 5 5.8 5.7 55.2 0.942 France European seabass (br) 10 3 5 7 5 5 5.8 5.7 55.2 0.942 France Gilthead seabream 10 1 1 5 3 1 3.5 4.3 55.2 0.942 France Kuruma prawn 1 3 5 5 5 5 4.0 4.9 55.2 0.942 France Pacific cupped oyster 1 10 10 5 5 1 5.3 6.2 55.2 0.942 France Pacific cupped oyster (Med) 1 10 10 5 5 1 5.3 6.2 55.2 0.942 112 Appendix 2. Continued Country Sp. Native Introduced Fish meal usage Intensity level Hatchery vs wild Habitat alteration Waste water Treatement Ecological MSI ESI HOI Germany Blue mussel 10 10 9 8 7 10 9.0 8.1 56.9 0.932 Germany European seabass 10 3 5 7 5 7 6.2 6.2 56.9 0.932 Germany Pacific cupped oyster 1 10 10 5 7 1 5.7 6.4 56.9 0.932 Greece European eel (br) 10 3 3 3 6 7 5.3 5.9 50.1 0.921 Greece European eel 10 3 3 3 6 7 5.3 5.9 50.1 0.921 Greece European flat oyster 10 10 7 5 7 10 8.2 7.3 50.1 0.921 Greece European seabass (br) 10 3 5 5 5 1 4.8 5.0 50.1 0.921 Greece European seabass 10 3 5 5 5 1 4.8 5.0 50.1 0.921 Greece Flathead grey mullet (br) 10 3 5 5 5 3 5.2 5.7 50.1 - 0.921 Greece Flathead grey mullet 10 3 5 5 5 3 5.2 5.7 50.1 0.921 Greece Gilthead seabream (br) 10 1 1 3 3 1 3.2 4.1 50.1 0.921 Greece Gilthead seabream 10 1 1 3 3 1 3.2 4.1 50.1 0.921 Greece Kuruma prawn 1 3 5 5 5 5 4.0 4.6 50.1 0.921 Guatemala Penaeus shrimps nei 5 1 3 3 1 1 2.3 3.0 44.0 0.673 Honduras Penaeus shrimps nei 5 1 5 5 1 2 3.2 3.6 47.4 0.683 Iceland Abalones nei 3 7 7 7 7 5 6.0 6.4 70.8 0.960 Iceland Arctic char 10 3 5 8 6 5 6.2 6.9 70.8 0.960 Iceland Atlantic cod 10 4 5 8 6 5 6.3 7.0 70.8 0.960 Iceland Atlantic halibut 10 3 5 8 7 5 6.3 7.0 70.8 0.960 Iceland Atlantic salmon (br) 1 5 5 8 6 5 5.0 6.1 70.8 0.960 Iceland Atlantic salmon 1 5 5 8 6 5 5.0 6.1 70.8 0.960 Iceland Atlantic wolffish 10 3 5 8 7 5 6.3 6.7 70.8 0.960 Iceland Blue mussel 7 10 7 8 8 10 8.3 8.0 70.8 0.960 Iceland European seabass 5 5 8 7 5 5.0 6.2 70.8 0.960 Iceland Haddock 10 3 5 8 7 5 6.3 6.9 70.8 0.960 Iceland Rainbow trout 10 5 5 8 6 5 6.5 7.0 70.8 0.960 Iceland Spotted wolffish 10 3 6 8 7 5 6.5 6.9 70.8 0.960 Iceland Turbot 10 3 6 8 7 5 6.5 6.9 70.8 0.960 India Giant tiger prawn (East) 10 1 1 3 1 1 2.8 3.9 45.2 0.611 India " Giant tiger prawn 10 1 1 3 1 1 2.8 3.9 45.2 0.611 Indonesia Banana prawn (India) 10 4 4 3 3 3 4.5 4.5 48.8 0.711 Indonesia Banana prawn 10 4 4 1 3 3 4.2 4.4 48.8 0.711 Indonesia Barramundi (br) 10 3 1 1 3 1 3.2 3.6 48.8 0.711 Indonesia Barramundi 10 3 1 1 3 1 3.2 . 3.6 48.8 0.711 Indonesia Giant tiger prawn (India) 10 1 1 3 1 1 2.8 3.8 48.8 0.711 Indonesia Giant tiger prawn 10 1 1 3 1 1 2.8 3.8 48.8 0.711 Indonesia Groupers nei 9 1 5 5 3 4 4.5 5.0 48.8 0.711 Indonesia Milkfish 10 7 10 3 3 3 6.0 5.9 48.8 0.711 Iran Indian white prawn 1 3 6 2 6 4 3.7 4.5 39.8 0.746 Ireland Atlantic salmon 10 3 3 5 5 5 5.2 5.4 59.2 0.956 Ireland Blue mussel 10 10 9 8 8 10 9.2 8.2 59.2 0.956 Ireland European flat oyster 10 10 7 5 7 10 8.2 7.3 59.2 0.956 Ireland Pacific cupped oyster 1 10 7 5 7 10 6.7 6.8 59.2 0.956 Italy Cupped oysters nei (br) 5 10 10 10 9 10 9.0 7.6 50.1 0.940 Italy Cupped oysters nei 5 10 10 10 9 10 9.0 7.6 50.1 ' 0.940 Italy European eel (br) 10 3 3 3 6 7 5.3 5.9 50.1 0.940 Italy European eel 10 3 3 3 6 7 • 5.3 5.9 50.1 0.940 Italy European flat oyster 10 10 7 5 7 10 8.2 7.3 50.1 0.940 Italy European seabass (br) 10 3 5 5 5 5 5.5 5.5 50.1 0.940 Italy European seabass 10 3 5 5 5 5 5.5 5.5 50.1 0.940 Italy Flathead grey mullet (br) 10 3 5 5 5 5 5.5 5.8 50.1 0.940 Italy Flathead grey mullet 10 3 5 5 5 5 5.5 5.8 50.1 0.940 Italy Giant tiger prawn 1 1 3 5 5 3 3.0 4.6 50.1 0.940 Italy Gilthead seabream (br) 10 1 " 5 5 3 1 4.2 4.9 50.1 0.940 Italy Gilthead seabream 10 1 ' 3 •5' - 3 1 3.8 4.7 50.1 0.940 Italy Gracilaria seaweeds 10 10 . 10 7 7 10 9.0 8.2 50.1 0.940 Italy Kuruma prawn (br) 1 3 5 5 5 7 4.3 4.8 50.1 0.940 Italy Kuruma prawn 1 3 5 5 5 7 4.3 4.8 50.1 0.940 Japan Coho(=Silver)salmon 10 1 1 5 3 5 4.2 4.4 57.3 0.949 Japan Flathead grey mullet 10 3 5 5 5 5 5.5 5.8 57.3 0.949 Japan Kuruma prawn 10 3 5 5 4 7 5.7 5.5 57.3 0.949 Japan Laver(Non) 10 10 • 7 5 7 7 7.7 7.0 57.3 0.949 Japan Pacific cupped oyster 10 10 7 3 5 10 7.5 7.1 57.3 0.949 Kiribati Milkfish 10 7 5 1 3 3 4.8 5.5 - 0.515 Korea, Dem. Gracilaria seaweeds 5 10 10 5 7 10 7.8 7.4 29.2 0.766 Korea, Dem. Laver (Nori) 10 10 7 5 7 5 7.3 6.8 29.2 0.766 113 Appendix 2. Continued Country Sp. Native introduced Fish meal usage Intensity level Hatchery vs wild Habitat alteration Waste water Treatement Ecological MSI ESI HDI Korea Abalones nei 10 5 3 7 5 5 5.8 5.0 43.0 0.912 Korea Blood cockle 10 10 7 3 5 7 7.0 7.0 43.0 0.912 Korea Flathead grey mullet 10 3 5 5 5 5 5.5 5.8 43.0 0.912 Korea Groupers nei 9 1 5 5 5 4 4.8 5.2 43.0 0.912 Korea Kuruma prawn 10 3 5 5 4 7 5.7 5.5 43.0 0.912 Korea Laver (Nori) 10 10 7 5 7 7 7.7 7.0 43.0 0.912 Korea Pacific cupped oyster 1 10 • 7 5 7 10 6.7 6.5 43.0 0.912 Madagascar Giant tiger prawn 10 i 3 5 . 1 ' 1 3.5 4.0 50.2 0.509 Malaysia Banana prawn 10 4 3 3 3 2 ' 4 . 2 4.4 54.0 0.805 Malaysia Banana prawn 10 4 3 3 3 2 4.2 4.4 54.0 0.805 Malaysia Barramundi (India) 10 1 1 1 3 3 3.2 3.6 54.0 0.805 Malaysia Barramundi 10 1 1 1 3 3 3.2 3.6 54.0 0.805 Malaysia Blood cockle (India) •10 . 10 ,' " 7 3 5 • "7 7.0 7.0 54.0 0.805 Malaysia Blood cockle . 10 10 7 3 . 5 7 7.0 7.0 54.0 0.805 Malaysia Cupped oysters nei (India) 5 10 7 5 6 10 7.2 6.7 54.0 0.805 Malaysia Cupped oysters nei 5 10 7 5 6 10 7.2 6.7 54.0 0.805 Malaysia Giant tiger prawn (India) 10 1 1 3 1 1 2.8 3.6 54.0 0.805 Malaysia Giant tiger prawn 10 1 1 3 1 1 2.8 3.6 54.0 0.805 Mexico Abalones nei 5 10 1 7 5 3 5.2 4.6 46.2 0.821 Mexico Atlantic bluefin tuna 10 5 3 1 3 1 3.8 4.6 46.2 0.821 Mexico Flathead grey mullet 10 3 5 5 5 5 5.5 5.8 46.2 0.821 Mexico Pacific cupped oyster (Atl) 1 10 10 3 7 10 6.8 6.6 46.2 0.821 Mexico Pacific cupped oyster 1 10 10 3 7 10 6.8 6.6 46.2 0.821 Mexico Whiteleg shrimp (br) 10 3 3 5 3 5 4.8 5.0 46.2 0.821 Mexico Whiteleg shrimp 10 3 3 5 3 5 4.8 5.0 46.2 0.821 Mexico Yellowfin tuna 10 1 1 1 3 1 2.8 4.1 46.2 0.821 Morocco Clams, etc nei 5 10 8 3 7 10 7.2 6.5 44.8 0.640 Morocco European eel 10 3 6 5 4 5 5.5 5.7 44.8 0.640 Morocco European flat oyster 10 10 7 3 7 10 7.8 6.9 44.8 0.640 Morocco European seabass 10 3 4 5 4 5 5.2 5.4 44.8 0.640 Morocco Gilthead seabream 10 3 4 5 4 5 5.2 5.5 44.8 0.640 Morocco Marine fishes nei 5 4 5 5 4 5 4.7 5.3 44.8 0.640 Morocco Mediterranean mussel 10 10 7 5 6 10 6.3 6.4 44.8 0.640 Morocco Pacific cupped oyster 1 10 7 5 7 10 6.7 6.3 44.8 0.640 Morocco Pacific cupped oyster (Med) 1 10 7 5 7 10 6.7 6.3 44.8 0.640 Morocco Penaeus shrimps nei 5 3 3 5 4 5 4.2 4.9 44.8 0.640 Morocco Yesso scallop 1 10 7 7 6 9 6.7 6.5 44.8 0.640 Myanmar Giant tiger prawn 10 1 1 3 1 1 2.8 3.7 52.8 0.581 Namibia Blue mussel 1 10 8 4 7 9 6.5 5.8 - 0.626 Namibia Gracilaria seaweeds 10 10 7 4 9 10 8.3 6.7 - 0.626 Namibia Pacific cupped oyster 1 10 7 4 7 9 6.3 5.5 - 0.626 Netherlands Blue mussel 10 10 9 8 7 10 9.0 8.1 53.7 0.947 Netherlands Cupped oysters nei 5 10 7 7 9 10 8.0 7.1 53.7 0.947 Netherlands European flat oyster 10 10 7 5 7 10 8.2 7.3 53.7 0.947 New Zealand Abalones nei 5 5 1 5 5 5 4.3 4.2 60.9 0.936 New Zealand Pacific cupped oyster 1 10 10 3 7 10 6.8 6.7 60.9 0.936 Nicaragua Whiteleg shrimp 10 3 1 5 3 3 4.2 4.8 50.2 0.698 Nigeria Bagrid catfish 10 9 3 3 4 3 5.3 5.5 45.4 0.448 Nigeria Freshwater fishes nei 5 5 5 3 5 3 4.3 5.0 45.4 0.448 Nigeria Mullets nei 5 7 3 3 4 3 • 4.2 4.8 45.4 0.448 Nigeria Snappers nei 5 7 3 3 4 3 4.2 4.9 45.4 0.448 Nigeria Tilapias nei 5 5 3 3 4 3  1 3.8 4.8 45.4 0.448 Nigeria Torpedo catfishes nei 5 5 3 3 4 3 3.8 4.6 45.4 0.448 Norway Atlantic cod 10 1 3 3 3 1 3.5 4.6 73.4 0.965 Norway Atlantic salmon 10 1 1 5 3' 1 3.5 4.0 73.4 0.965 Norway Blue mussel 10 10 9 8 7 10 9.0 8.1 73.4 0.965 Norway European flat oyster 10 10 7 5 7 10 8.2 7.3 73.4 0.965 Norway Pacific cupped oyster 1 10 7 2 7 10 6.2 6.6 73.4 0.965 Pakistan Marine crustaceans nei 4 3 5 3 5 3 3.8 4.3 39.9 0.539 Panama Whiteleg shrimp 10 3 1 5 5 5 4.8 5.3 57.7 0.809 Peru False abalone 10 10 7 7 7 5 7.7 7.2 60.4 0.767 Peru Gracilaria seaweeds 10 10 10 5 10 10 9.2 8.2 60.4 0.767 Peru Pacific cupped oyster 1 10 10 5 7 10 7.2 6.5 60.4 0.767 Peru Whiteleg shrimp 10 3 1 5 3 3 4.2 4.5 60.4 0.767 114 lix 2. Con t inued Country Sp. Native Introduced Fish meal usage Intensity level Hatchery vs wild Habitat alteration Waste water Treatement Ecological MSI ESI HDI Philippines Banana prawn (br) 10 4 • 5 3 3 1 4.3 4.5 42.3 0.763 Philippines Banana prawn 10 4 5 1 3 1 4.0 4.3 42.3 0.763 Philippines Barramundi 10 1 1 3 3 3 3.5 3.9 42.3 0.763 Philippines Giant tiger prawn (br) 10 1 1 1 1 1 2.5 3.5 42.3 0.763 Philippines Giant tiger prawn 10 1 1 1 1 1 2.5 3.5 42.3 0.763 Philippines Gracilaria seaweeds 10 10 10 5 7 10 8.7 7.8 42.3 0.763 Philippines Groupers, seabasses nei (br) 9 1 5 5 6 4 5.0 5.2 42.3 0.763 Philippines Groupers, seabasses nei 9 1 5 5 6 4 5.0 5.2 42.3 0.763 Philippines Milkfish (br) 10 7 7 1 3 3 5.2 5.7 42.3 0.763 Philippines Milkfish 10 7 7 1 3 3 5.2 5.7 42.3 0.763 Philippines Penaeus shrimps nei 5 3 5 3 1 1 3.0 3.9 42.3 0.763 Poland Freshwater fishes nei 5 5 5 6 5 5 5.2 5.4 45.0 0.862 Portugal Atlantic salmon 1 3 3 6 4 3 3.3 4.5 54.2 0.904 Portugal Brill 10 5 3 6 4 6 5.7 5.7 54.2 0.904 Portugal Common cuttlefish 10 5 5 6 7 7 6.7 6.5 54.2 0.904 Portugal Common edible cockle 10 10 7 6 9 6 8.0 6.9 54.2 0.904 Portugal Common sole 10 5 3 6 4 5 5.5 5.8 54.2 0.904 Portugal European eel 10 5 3 6 4 5 5.5 5.8 54.2 0.904 Portugal European flat oyster 10 . 10 7 6 8 6 7.8 6.9 54.2 0.904 Portugal European seabass (br) 10 3 3 6 4 4 5.0 5.2 54.2 0.904 Portugal European seabass 10 3 3 6 4 4 5.0 5.4 54.2 0.904 Portugal Flat and cupped oysters nei 10 10 7 6 7 9 8.2 7.0 54.2 0.904 Portugal Freshwater fishes nei 5 5 5 5 5 5 5.0 5.4 54.2 0.904 Portugal Gilthead seabream (br) 10 3 3 6 4 3 4.8 5.1 54.2 0.904 Portugal Gilthead seabream 10 3 3 6 4 3 4.8 5.3 54.2 0.904 Portugal Grooved carpet shell (br) 10 10 7 7 8 9 8.5 7.2 54.2 0.904 Portugal Grooved carpet shell 10 10 7 7 8 9 8.5 7.3 54.2 0.904 Portugal Kuruma prawn 1 3 3 6 4 3 3.3 4.6 54.2 0.904 Portugal Marine fishes nei 5 5 5 6 4 5 5.0 5.4 54.2 0.904 Portugal Marine molluscs nei 5 5 5 6 4 5 5.0 5.3 54.2 0.904 Portugal Mullets nei 5 5 5 6 4 5 . 5.0 5.4 54.2 0.904 Portugal Octopuses nei 5 5 5 6 8 5 5.7 5.7 54.2 0.904 Portugal Pacific cupped oyster 1 10 7 6 8 9 6.8 6.3 54.2 0.904 Portugal Pullet carpet shell 10 10 7 6 8 9 8.3 7.0 54.2 0.904 Portugal Razor dams nei 5 10 7 6 8 9 7.5 6.5 54.2 0.904 Portugal Sargo breams nei . 6 3 3 6 4 3 4.2 4.8 54.2 0.904 Portugal Sea mussels nei ' 5 10 . 7 6 7 8 7.2 6.5 54.2 0.904 Portugal Turbol 10 3 3 6 4 5 5.2 5.3 54.2 0.904 Russian Fed. Atlantic salmon 1 3 3 6 3 4 3.3 4.1 56.1 0.797 Russian Fed. Brown seaweeds 10 10 10 8 8 10 9.3 7.4 56.1 0.797 Russian Fed. Brown seaweeds (Pac) 10 10 10 8 8 10 9.3 7.3 56.1 0.797 Russian Fed. Flatfishes nei ' '5 •' 3 4 5 :' 4 '5 - "4.3 4.6 56.1 0.797 Russian Fed. Marine fishes nei 5 3 4 5 4 '5 4.3 4.7 56.1 0.797 Russian Fed. Mediterranean mussel 10 10 7 6 7 8 8.0 6.5 '56.1 0.797 Russian Fed. Mullets nei 5 5 5 5 4 5 4.8 4.9 56.1 0.797 Russian Fed. Sea mussels nei 5 10 7 5 7 8 7.0 6.5 56.1 0.797 Russian Fed. Sea mussels nei (Pac) 5 10 7 5 7 8 7.0 6.4 56.1 0.797 Russian Fed. Sea trout 10 3 3 6 3 5 5.0 5.2 56.1 0.797 Russian Fed. Sea trout (med) 10 3 3 6 3 5 5.0 5.3 56.1 0.797 Russian Fed. Sea urchins nei 5 5 7 5 7 5 5.7 5.7 56.1 0.797 Russian Fed. Silver carp 10 5 3 6 4 5 5.5 5.5 56.1 0.797 Russian Fed. Sturgeons nei 5 5 6 6 4 5 5.2 5.2 56.1 0.797 Russian Fed. Yesso scallop 10 10 7 7 7 7 8.0 6.9 56.1 0.797 Saudi Arabia Barramundi 5 1 1 3 3 1 2.3 3.5 37.8 0.777 Saudi Arabia Flathead grey mullet 10 3 5 5 5 5 5.5 5.7 37.8 0.777 Saudi Arabia Giant tiger prawn 10 1 1 3 5 1 3.5 4.2 37.8 0.777 Saudi Arabia Groupers nei 9 1 5 5 5 4 4.8 5.2 37.8 0.777 Senegal Blackchin tilapia 10 5 3 7 5 5 5.8 5.9 51.1 0.460 Senegal Cupped oysters nei 5 10 7 4 7 8 6.0 5.7 51.1 0.460 Senegal Gasar cupped oyster 10 10 7 4 7 8 7.7 6.5 51.1 0.460 Senegal Giant river prawn 1 3 3 4 4 4 3.2 4.0 51.1 0.460 Senegal Nile tilapia 1 5 6 4 5 6 4.5 4.8 51.1 0.460 Senegal Pacific cupped oyster 1 10 7 4 7 8 6.2 5.8 51.1 0.460 115 Appendix 2. Continued Country Sp. Native Introduced Fish meal usage Intensity level Hatchery vs wild Habitat alteration Waste water Treatement Ecological MSI ESI HDI South Africa Aquatic plants nei 7 10 7 6 8 10 8.0 6.9 46.2 0.653 South Africa Carpet shells nei 7 10 7 6 7 8 7.5 6.5 46.2 0.653 South Africa European flat oyster 1 10 7 7 7 8 6.7 6.1 46.2 0.653 South Africa Giant tiger prawn 1 3 3 7 5 5 4.0 4.7 46.2 0.653 South Africa Gracilaria seaweeds 10 10 7 6 8 10 8.5 7.3 46.2 0.653 South Africa Indian white prawn 1 3 3 7 5 5 4.0 4.6 46.2 0.653 South Africa Kuruma prawn 1 3 3 7 5 5 4.0 4.7 46.2 0.653 South Africa Mediterranean mussel 1 10 7 7 7 9 6.8 6.2 46.2 0.653 South Africa Mullets nei 5 5 4 6 5 6 5.2 5.4 46.2 0.653 South Africa Pacific cupped oyster 1 10 7 7 7 9 6.8 6.1 46.2 0.653 South Africa Perlemoen abalone 10 5 7 6 7 8 7.2 6.7 46.2 0.653 South Africa Red bait 1 5 4 7 5 6 4.7 5.0 46.2 0.653 South Africa Sea mussels nei 5 10 7 7 7 8 7.3 6.5 46.2 0.653 South Africa Smooth mactra 10 10 7 6 7 7 7.8 6.7 46.2 0.653 Spain Atlantic salmon 10 1 2 3 3 1 3.3 3.5 48.8 0.938 Spain Blue mussel 10 10 9 8 7 10 9.0 8.1 48.8 0.938 Spain Cupped oysters nei 5 10 10 7 8 10 8.3 7.2 48.8 0.938 Spain European eel 10 3 3 3 6 7 5.3 5.9 48.8 0.938 Spain European flat oyster 10 10 7 5 7 10 8.2 7.3 48.8 0.938 Spain European seabass 10 3 5 5 5 5 5.5 5.7 48.8 0.938 Spain Flathead grey mullet 10 3 5 5 5 5 5.5 5.8 48.8 0.938 Spain Gilthead seabream 10 1 1 3 3 1 3.2 4.2 48.8 0.938 Spain Kuruma prawn 1 3 5 5 5 7 4.3 4.8 48.8 0.938 Spain Pacific cupped oyster 1 10 7 5 7 10 6.7 6.4 48.8 0.938 Spain Tuna-like fishes nei 10 1 3 1 5 1 3.5 4.5 48.8 0.938 Sri Lanka Giant tiger prawn 10 1 1 1 1 1 2.5 3.8 48.5 0.938 Sweden Atlantic salmon 10 3 3 8 5 .5 5.7 6.0 71.7 0.951 Sweden Blue mussel 7 10 7 7 7 6 7.3 6.7 71.7 0.951 Sweden European flat oyster 10 10 7 8 7 8 6.7 6.3 71.7 0.951 Sweden Rainbow trout 1 3 3 8 5 5 4.2 5.2 71.7 0.951 Taiwan Abalones nei (br) 5 5 1 5 5 3 4.0 3.9 32.7 0.925 Taiwan Abalones nei 5 5 1 5 5 3 4.0 3.9 32.7 0.925 Taiwan Barramundi (br) 10 1 1 3 3 1 3.2 3.6 32.7 0.925 Taiwan Barramundi 10 1 1 3 3 3 3.5 3.9 32.7 0.925 Taiwan Blood cockle 10 10 7 3 5 7 7.0 7.0 32.7 0.925 Taiwan Flathead grey mullet (br) 10 3 5 5 5 3 5.2 5.5 32.7 0.925 Taiwan Flathead grey mullet 10 3 5 5 5 3 5.2 5.5 32.7 0.925 Taiwan Giant tiger prawn 10 1 1 1 1 1 2.5 3.5 32.7 0.925 Taiwan Groupers nei (Pac) (br) 9 1 5 5 3 4 4.5 5.0 32.7 0.925 Taiwan Groupers nei (br) 9 1 5 5 3 4 4.5 5.0 32.7 0.925 Taiwan Groupers nei 9 1 5 5 3 4 4.5 5.0 32.7 0.925 Taiwan Kuruma prawn (br) 10 3 1 5 1 3 3.8 4.6 32.7 0.925 Taiwan Kuruma prawn 10 3 1 5 1 3 3.8 4.6 32.7 0.925 Taiwan Laver (Nori) 10 10 7 5 7 5 7.3 7.0 32.7 0.925 Taiwan Milkfish (br) 10 7 7 5 3 3 5.8 5.9 32.7 0.925 Taiwan Milkfish 10 7 7 5 3 3 5.8 5.9 32.7 0.925 Taiwan Pacific cupped oyster (br) 1 1 7 5 7 10 5.2 5.7 32.7 0.925 Taiwan Pacific cupped oyster 1 1 7 5 7 10 5.2 5.7 32.7 0.925 Taiwan Whiteleg shrimp 1 3 1 5 1 3 2.3 3.6 32.7 0.925 Thailand Banana prawn 10 4 4 1 3 1 3.8 4.1 50.3 0.784 Thailand Barramundi (Ind) 10 1 1 3 3 1 3.2 3.7 50.3 0.784 Thailand Barramundi 10 1 1 3 3 1 3.2 3.7 50.3 0.784 Thailand Blood cockle (Ind) 10 10 7 3 5 7 7.0 7.0 50.3 0.784 Thailand Blood cockle 10 10 7 3 5 7 7.0 7.0 50.3 0.784 Thailand Cupped oysters nei (Ind) 5 10 7 5 6 10 7.2 6.7 50.3 0.784 Thailand Cupped oysters nei 5 10 7 5 6 10 7.2 6.7 50.3 0.784 Thailand Giant tiger prawn (Ind) 10 1 1 1 1 1 2.5 3.5 50.3 0.784 Thailand Giant tiger prawn 10 1 1 1 1 1 2.5 3.5 50.3 0.784 Thailand Groupers nei (Ind) 9 1 5 5 3 4 4.5 5.0 50.3 0.784 Thailand Groupers nei 9 1 5 5 3 4 4.5 5.0 50.3 0.784 Thailand Penaeus shrimps nei 5 3 1 3 1 2 2.5 3.5 50.3 0.784 Thailand Whiteleg shrimp 1 3 1 3 1 1 1.7 3.0 50.3 0.784 Tonga Milkfish 10 7 10 1 5 3 6.0 6.4 - 0.815 Turkey Atlantic salmon 1 3 3 8 5 5 4.2 4.7 46.6 0.757 Turkey Com.2-banded seabream 10 3 3 7 5 6 5.7 5.3 46.6 0.757 Turkey Gilthead seabream 8 3 3 7 5 6 5.3 5.1 46.6 0.757 Turkey Mediterranean mussel 10 10 7 6 7 8 8.0 6.6 46.6 0.757 116 lix 2. Con t inued Country Sp. Native Introduced Fish meal usage Intensity level Hatchery vs wild Habitat alteration Waste water Treatement Ecological MSI ESI HOI Turkey Natantian decapods nei 5 5 5 6 5 5 5.2 5.1 46.6 0.757 Turkey Seabasses nei 5 3 3 6 5 6 4.7 4.8 46.6 0.757 Turkey Trouts nei 5 3 3 5 5 5 4.3 4.8 46.6 0.757 Ukraine Baltic prawn 10 3 3 6 5 5 5.3 5.2 44.7 0.774 Ukraine Flatfishes nei 5 3 3 6 5 6 3.8 4.4 44.7 0.774 Ukraine Gobies nei 5 5 3 5 5 6 4.0 4.5 44.7 0.774 Ukraine Mediterranean mussel 10 10 7 6 7 8 8.0 6.9 44.7 0.774 Ukraine Mullets nei (br) 5 10 5 5 5 5 5.8 5.6 44.7 0.774 Ukraine Mullets nei 5 10 5 5 5 5 5.8 5.6 44.7 0.774 Ukraine Silversides nei 10 5 5 6 5 6 6.2 6.0 44.7 0.774 Ukraine So-iuy mullet 1 5 5 8 5 6 5.0 5.3 44.7 0.774 Ukraine Sturgeons nei 5 5 5 6 5 7 5.5 5.6 44.7 0.774 - United Kingdom Atlantic cod 10 1 3 3 3 1 3.5 4.6 50.2 0.940 United Kingdom Atlantic salmon 10 1 2 3 3 5 4.0 4.3 50.2 0.940 United Kingdom Blue mussel 10 10 9 8 8 10 9.2 8.2 50.2 0.940 United Kingdom Cupped oysters nei 5 10 7 6 8 10 7.7 6:9 50.2 0.940 United Kingdom European flat oyster 10 10 7 5 7 10 8.2 7.3 50.2 0.940 United Kingdom European seabass 10 3 5 7 5 5 5.8 6.0 50.2 0.940 United Kingdom Pacific cupped oyster 1 10 7 5 7 10 6.7 6.7 50.2 0.940 U.S. of America Abalones nei 10 5 1 5 5 5 5.2 5.6 52.9 0.948 U.S. of America Atlantic salmon 10 1 '1 5 3 5 4.2 4.5 52.9 0.948 U.S. of America Blue mussel 10 10 " 8 8 7 10 8.8 7.9 52.9 0.948 U.S. of America Coho(=Silver)salmon 10 1 1 5 3 5 4.2 4.4 52.9 0.948 U.S. of America Cupped oysters nei 5 10 7 10 8 10 8.3 7.2 52.9 0.948 U.S. of America European flat oyster 1 10 7 5 7 10 6.7 6.5 52.9 0.948 U.S. of America Flat oysters nei 5 10 7 7 7 9 7.5 7.4 52.9 0.948 U.S. of America Pacific cupped oyster 1 10 7 7 7 10 7.0 7.0 52.9 0.948 U.S. of America Whiteleg shrimp 1 3 1 5 5 5 3.3 4.7 52.9 0.948 Venezuela Whiteleg shrimp 1 3 3 7 3 5 3.7 4.7 48.1 0.784 Viet Nam Banana prawn 10 4 3 3 3 3 4.3 4.5 42.3 0.709 Viet Nam Giant tiger prawn 10 1 1 1 1 1 2.5 3.5 42.3 0.709 Viet Nam Gracilaria seaweeds 10 10 10 5 7 10 8.7 7.9 42.3 0.709 Viet Nam Whiteleg shrimp 1 1 7 3 1 3 2.7 3.8 42.3 0.709 117 Appendix 2. Continued (socio-economic scores). Country Sp. Export domestic Nutrition Protein Antibiotic Drug use Mol- Blol GMO Code-practice CoC Traceability Employment Soclo-eco MSI Argentina Blue mussel 5 5 10 7 3 5 7 6.0 7.1 Argentina Pacific cupped oyster 5 4 7 7 5 5 7 5.7 6.4 Argentina River Plata mussel 5 5 10 7 5 5 7 6.3 7.0 Australia Atlantic salmon 7 9 1 5 5 3 5 5.0 3.7 Australia Barramundi 1 10 1 5 5 6 5 4.7 4.0 Australia Cupped oysters nei 5 4 10 3 7 7 7 6.1 7.1 Australia Flat oysters nei 10 1 4 10 6 7 : 8 6 . 7.3 7.4 Australia Giant tiger prawn (br) 5' 10 1 7 7 7 . • 5 6.0 4.9 Australia Giant tiger prawn 5 10 1 7 7 7 5 6.0 4.9 Australia Kuruma prawn 5 9 3 5 5 5 3 5.0 5.0 Australia Pacific cupped oyster (br) 5 4 10 7 6 7 6 6.4 7.0 Australia Pacific cupped oyster 5 , 4 --• . , 10 . ', 7 6 7 6 6.4 7.2 Australia Southern bluefin tuna 5 10 3 • ,10". 7 3 3 5.9 4.1 Bangladesh Penaeus shrimps nei 5 10 1 6 4 1 5> 4.6 3.5 Belize Whiteleg shrimp 5 10 1 5 7 3 5 5.1 3.7 Brazil Cupped oysters nei 5 4 10 3 7 7 7 6.1 7.1 Brazil Groupers nei 5 9 3 7 5 5 5 5.6 5.2 Brazil Whiteleg shrimp 5 10 1 6 7 5 5 5.6 4.0 Cambodia Penaeus shrimps nei 5 10 1 6 4 1 5 4.6 3.5 Canada Atlantic blueftn tuna 5 10 10 7 3 5 3 6.1 5.0 Canada Atlantic cod 7 9 1 10 5 4 3 5.6 4.7 Canada Atlantic salmon (Atl) 7 9 1 5 5 3 3 4.7 4.1 Canada Atlantic salmon (Pac) 3 9 1 5 5 3 5 4.4 3.4 Canada Blue mussel 7 5 10 10 5 7 6 7.1 8.2 Canada Coho(=Silver)salmon 5 9 1 3 3 5 3 4.1 4.1 Canada Pacific cupped oyster 5 4 10 7 7 7 6 6.6 6.1 Chile Abalones nei 3 7 3 3 5 5 5 4.4 3.9 Chile Atlantic salmon 1 9 1 5 3 3 5 3.9 2.5 Chile Coho(=Silver)salmon 3 9 1 3 3 3 4 3.7 2.8 Chile Gracilaria seaweeds 7 2 10 8 8 10 6 7.3 8.4 Chile Pacific cupped oyster 3 4 10 7 6 6 6 6.0 5.6 China Blood cockle 5 9 10 10 5 5 5 7.0 7.0 China Groupers nei 5 9 3 7 5 5 6 5.7 5.3 China Laver(Nori) 5 3 10 7 7 5 7 6.3 6.8 China Pacific cupped oyster 3 4 10 7 6 6 6 6.0 5.4 China Red drum 5 10 4 5 6 5 6 5.9 4.4 China Whiteleg shrimp 5 10 1 5 3 5 7 5.1 3.9 Colombia Cupped oysters nei 5 4 10 3 7 7 7 6.1 6.9 Colombia Whiteleg shrimp (Atl) 5 10 1 5 3 5 5 4.9 4.7 Colombia Whiteleg shrimp (Pac) 5 10 1 5 3 5 5 4.9 4.7 Costa Rica Whiteleg shrimp (Pac) (br) 5 10 5 5 5 5 3 5.4 5.0 Denmark Atlantic salmon 3 9 5 6 7 6 5 5.9 5.5 Denmark Blue mussel 7 5 10 10 5 7 6 7.1 8.1 Denmark European eel 7 9 5 7 5 5 7 6.4 5.9 Ecuador Red drum 5 10 5 6 4 5 5 5.7 4.5 Ecuador Whiteleg shrimp 5 10 1 5 3 5 5 4.9 4.7 Egypt European seabass (br) 5 9 5 3 7 7 7 6.1 5.8 Egypt European seabass 5 9 5 3 7 7 7 6.1 5.8 Egypt Flathead grey mullet (Med) 5 9 4 7 5 5 7 6.0 5.8 Egypt Flathead grey mullet 5 9 4 7 5 5 7 6.0 5.8 Egypt Gilthead seabream (br) 1 9 1 5 5 6 8 5.0 3.5 Egypt Gilthead seabream 1 9 1 5 5 6 8 5.0 3.5 Egypt Penaeus shrimps nei 5 10 3 5 3 2 3 4.4 4.0 Faeroe lis. Atlantic salmon 1 9 1 7 6 5 5 4.9 4.7 Finland Atlantic salmon 1 9 1 6 7 5 5 4.9 4.9 France Atlantic salmon 1 9 4 5 5 5 5 4.9 4.8 France Blue mussel 7 5 10 10 5 7 6 7.1 8.1 France Coho(=Silver)salmon 3 9 4 3 5 5 5 4.9 3.9 France European eel 7 9 5 7 5 5 7 6.4 5.9 France European flat oyster 5 4 10 7 7 5 7 6.4 7.3 France European seabass (br) 5 9 3 5 5 7 5 5.6 5.7 France European seabass 5 9 3 5 5 7 5 5.6 5.7 France Gilthead seabream 1 9 1 5 5 7 7 5.0 4.3 France Kuruma prawn 7 9 4 5 5 7 3 5.7 4.9 France Pacific cupped oyster 5 4 10 7 8 8 7 7.0 6.2 France Pacific cupped oyster (Med) 5 4 10 7 8 8 7 7.0 6.2 118 A p p e n d i x 2. Con t inued Country Sp. Export domestic Nutrition Protein Antibiotic Drug use Mol- Blol GMO Code-practice CoC Traceability Employment Soclo-eco MSI Germany Blue mussel 7 5 10 10 5 7 6 7.1 8.1 Germany European seabass 5 9 5 5 7 7 5 6.1 6.2 Germany Pacific cupped oyster 5 4 10 7 9 9 6 7.1 6.4 Greece European eel (br) 7 9 5 7 5 5 7 6.4 5.9 Greece European eel 7 9 5 7 5 5 7 6.4 5.9 Greece European flat oyster 5 4 10 7 7 5 7 6.4 7.3 Greece European seabass (br) 5 9 3 3 5 5 6 5.1 5.0 Greece European seabass 5 9 3 3 5 5 6 5.1 5.0 Greece Flathead grey mullet (br) 5 9 4 7 5 7 7 6.3 5.7 Greece Flathead grey mullet 5 9 4 7 5 7 7 6.3 5.7 Greece Gilthead seabream (br) 3 9 1 5 5 5 7 ' 5.0 4.1 - Greece Gilthead seabream 3 9 1 5 5 5 7 5.0 4.1 Greece Kuruma prawn 6 9 1 5 5 7 3 5.1 4.6 Guatemala Penaeus shrimps nei 5 10 1 5 1 1 3 3.7 3.0 Honduras Penaeus shrimps nei 5 10 1 5 2 2 3 4.0 3.6 Iceland Abalones net 1 8 7 9 7 10 5 6.7 6.4 Iceland Arctic char 5 9 9 9 7 10 5 7.7 6.9 Iceland Atlantic cod 5 9 8 9 7 10 5 7.6 7.0 Iceland Atlantic halibut 5 9 8 9 8 10 5 7.7 7.0 Iceland Atlantic salmon (br) 5 9 8 7 7 10 5 7.3 6.1 Iceland Atlantic salmon 5 9 8 7 7 10 5 7.3 6.1 Iceland Atlantic wolffish 1 7 10 • 9 7 10 5 7.0 6.7 Iceland Blue mussel 10 5 8 7 8 10 5 7.6 8.0 Iceland European seabass 5 9 8 8 7 10 5 7.4 6.2 Iceland Haddock 5 8 8 9 7 10 5 7.4 6.9 Iceland Rainbow trout 5 10 8 7 7 10 5 7.4 7.0 Iceland Spotted wolffish 5 7 8 9 7 10 5 7.3 6.9 Iceland Turbot 5 8 8 8 7 10 5 7.3 6.9 India Giant tiger prawn (East) 1 10 1 7 4 5 7 5.0 3.9 India Giant tiger prawn 1 10 1 7 4 5 7 5.0 3.9 Indonesia Banana prawn (India) 5 9 2 6 3 2 5 4.6 4.5 Indonesia Banana prawn 5 9 2 6 3 2 5 4.6 4.4 Indonesia Barramundi (br) 1 10 1 5 3 3 5 4.0 3.6 Indonesia Barramundi 1 10 1 5 3 3 5 4.0 3.6 Indonesia Giant tiger prawn (India) 1 10 1 7 4 3 7 4.7 3.8 Indonesia Giant tiger prawn 1 10 1 7 4 3 7 4.7 3.8 Indonesia Groupers nei 5 '9 3 7 5 3 6 5.4 5.0 Indonesia Milkfish 3 10 5 8 5 " 3 7 5.9 5.9 Iran Indian white prawn 1 9 5 5 5 6 7 5.4 4.5 Ireland Atlantic salmon 1 9 5 7 7 5 5 5.6 5.4 Ireland Blue mussel 7 5 10 10 5 7 6 7.1 8.2 Ireland European flat oyster 5 4 - .10 7 7 5 7 <• 6.4 7.3 Ireland Pacific cupped oyster 5 4 ' 10 • 7 ' ' 8 8 6 6.9 6.8 Italy Cupped oysters nei (br) 5 4 10 3 7 7 7 6.1 7.6 Italy Cupped oysters nei 5 4 10 3 7 7 7 6.1 7.6 Italy European eel (br) 7 9 5 7 5 5 7 6.4 5.9 Italy European eel 7 9 5 7 5 5 7 6.4 5.9 Italy European flat oyster 5 4 10 7 7 5 7 6.4 7.3 Italy European seabass (br) 5 9 3 3 7 5 7 5.6 5.5 Italy European seabass 5 9 3 3 7 5 7 5.6 5.5 Italy Flathead grey mullet (br) 5 9 4 7 5 7 6 6.1 5.8 Italy Flathead grey mullet 5 9 4 7 5 7 6 6.1 5.8 Italy Giant tiger prawn 10 10 1 7 5 5 S 6.1 4.6 Italy Gilthead seabream (br) 5 9 1 5 5 7 7 5.6 4.9 Italy Gilthead seabream 5 9 1 5 5 7 7 5.6 4.7 Italy Gracilaria seaweeds 10 2 10 8 7 10 5 7.4 8.2 Italy Kuruma prawn (br) 7 9 1 5 5 7 3 5.3 4.8 Italy Kuruma prawn 7 9 1 5 5 7 3 5.3 4.8 Japan Coho(=Silver)salmon 7 9 1 3 5 4 3 4.6 4.4 Japan Flathead grey mullet 5 9 4 7 5 7 5 6.0 5.8 Japan Kuruma prawn 7 9 1 5 5 7 3 5.3 5.5 Japan Laver(Nori) 5 3 10 7 7 8 5 6.4 7.0 Japan Pacific cupped oyster 5 4 10 7 7 9 5 6.7 7.1 Kiribati Milkfish 5 10 5 8 5 3 7 6.1 5.5 Korea, Dem. Gracilaria seaweeds 5 2 10 8 7 10 7 7.0 7.4 Korea, Dem. Laver (Nori) 5 3 10 7 7 5 7 6.3 6.8 1 19 A p p e n d i x 2. Con t inued Country Sp. Export domestic Nutrition Protein Antibiotic Drug use Mol- Blol GMO Code-practice CoC Traceability Employment Socio-eco MSI Korea Abalones nei 5 8 5 2 4 5 4.1 5.0 Korea Blood cockle 5 9 10 10 5 S 5 7.0 7.0 Korea Flathead grey mullet 5 9 4 7 5 7 5 6.0 5.8 Korea Groupers nei 5 9 3 7 5 5 5 5.6 5.2 Korea Kuruma prawn 7 9 1 5 5 7 3 5.3 5.5 Korea Laver (Nori) 5 3 10 7 7 8 5 6.4 7.0 Korea Pacific cupped oyster 5 4 10 7 7 7 S 6.4 6.5 Madagascar Giant tiger prawn 1 10 1 7 3 . 3 6 4.4 4.0 Malaysia Banana prawn 5 9 2 5 3 3 5 4.6 4.4 Malaysia Banana prawn 5 9 2 5 3 3 5 4.6 4.4 Malaysia Barramundi (India) 1 10 1 5 3 3 5 4.0 3.6 Malaysia Barramundi 1 10 1 5 3 3 5 4.0 3.6 Malaysia Blood cockle (India) 5 9 10 10 5 5 5 7.0 7.0 Malaysia Blood cockle 5 9 10 10 5 5 5 7.0 7.0 Malaysia Cupped oysters nei (India) 5 4 10 3 7 7 7 6.1 6.7 Malaysia Cupped oysters nei 5 4 10 3 7 7 7 6.1 6.7 Malaysia Giant tiger prawn (India) 1 10 1 7 3 3 6 4.4 3.6 Malaysia Giant tiger prawn 1 10 1 7 3 3 6 4.4 3.6 Mexico Abalones nei 3 7 5 3 5 5 5 4.7 4.6 Mexico Atlantic bluefin tuna 5 10 10 7 1 5 3 5.9 4.6 Mexico Flathead grey mullet 5 9 4 7 5 5 7 6.0 5.8 Mexico Pacific cupped oyster (Atl) 5 4 10 7 6 6 6 6.3 6.6 Mexico Pacific cupped oyster 5 4 10 7 6 6 6 6.3 6.6 Mexico Whiteleg shrimp (br) 5 10 3 5 5 5 3 5.1 5.0 Mexico Whiteleg shrimp 5 10 3 5 5 5 3 5.1 5.0 Mexico Yellowfin tuna 5 10 3 10 1 3 5 5.3 4.1 Morocco Clams, etc nei 3 3 8 9 5 6 7 5.9 6.5 Morocco European eel 3 9 4 7 5 6 7 5.9 5.7 Morocco European flat oyster 3 4 8 8 5 7 7 6.0 6.9 Morocco European seabass 3 9 4 5 5 6 8 5.7 5.4 Morocco Gilthead seabream 3 9 5 5 5 6 8 5.9 5.5 Morocco Marine fishes nei 3 8 5 7 5 6 7 5.9 5.3 Morocco Mediterranean mussel 3 5 8 9 5 7 8 6.4 6.4 Morocco Pacific cupped oyster 3 4 8 8 5 6 7 5.9 6.3 Morocco Pacific cupped oyster (Med) 3 4 8 8 5 6 7 5.9 6.3 Morocco Penaeus shrimps nei 3 10 4 5 5 6 7 5.7 4.9 Morocco Yesso scallop 3 7 8 9 5 7 6 6.4 6.5 Myanmar Giant tiger prawn 1 10 1 7 4 3 6 4.6 3.7 Namibia Blue mussel 1 5 8 8 3 5 6 5.1 5.8 Namibia Gracilaria seaweeds 1 2 10 8 3 5 6 5.0 6.7 Namibia Pacific cupped oyster 1 4 8 8 3 5 3 4.6 5.5 Netherlands Blue mussel 7 5 10 10 5 7 6 7.1 8.1 Netherlands Cupped oysters nei 5 4 10 3 7 7 7 6.1 7.1 Netherlands European flat oyster 5 4 10 7 7 5 7 6.4 7.3 New Zealand Abalones nei 3 8 5 3 4 6 5 4.9 4.2 New Zealand Pacific cupped oyster 3 4 10 7 8 7 7 6.6 6.7 Nicaragua Whiteleg shrimp 5 10 5 5 3 5 5 5.4 4.8 Nigeria Bagrid catfish 8 9 4 8 3 5 3 5.7 5.5 Nigeria Freshwater fishes nei 7 8 4 8 4 5 3 5.6 5.0 Nigeria Mullets nei 6 9 4 8 3 5 3 5.4 4.8 Nigeria Snappers nei 6 9 4 8 4 5 3 5.6 4.9 Nigeria Tilapias nei 8 8 4 8 4 5 3 5.7 4.8 Nigeria Torpedo catfishes nei 6 8 4 8 4 5 3 5.4 4.6 Norway Atlantic cod 7 9 1 8 5 7 3 5.7 4.6 Norway Atlantic salmon 1 9 1 5 5 5 5 4.4 4.0 Norway Blue mussel 7 5 10 10 5 7 6 7.1 8.1 Norway European flat oyster 5 4 10 7 7 5 7 6.4 7.3 Norway Pacific cupped oyster 5 4 10 7 8 8 7 7.0 6.6 Pakistan Marine crustaceans nei 3 8 4 5 5 5 3 4.7 4.3 Panama Whiteleg shrimp 5 10 5 5 5 5 5 5.7 5.3 Peru False abalone 5 8 7 7 7 8 5 6.7 7.2 Peru Gracilaria seaweeds 5 2 10 10 7 10 6 7.1 8.2 Peru Pacific cupped oyster 3 4 10 7 5 5 7 5.9 6.5 Peru Whiteleg shrimp 5 10 | 3 3 3 5 5 4.9 4.5 120 Appendix 2. Continued Country Sp. Export domestic Nutrition Protein Antibiotic Drug use Mol- Blol GMO Code-practice CoC Traceability Employment Soclo-eco MSI Philippines Banana prawn (br) 5 9 2 6 3 2 5 4.6 4.5 Philippines Banana prawn 5 9 2 6 3 2 5 4.6 4.3 Philippines Barramundi 3 10 1 5 3 3 5 4.3 3.9 Philippines Giant tiger prawn (br) 1 10 1 7 3 3 6 4.4 3.5 Philippines Giant tiger prawn 1 10 1 7 3 3 6 4.4 3.5 Philippines Gracilaria seaweeds 3 2 10 10 7 10 7 7.0 7.8 Philippines Groupers, seabasses nei (br 5 9 3 7 5 3 6 5.4 5.2 Philippines Groupers, seabasses nei 5 9 3 7 5 3 6 5.4 5.2 Philippines Milkfish (br) 5 10 5 8 5 3 7 6.1 5.7 Philippines Milkfish 5 10 5 8 5 3 7 6.1 5.7 Philippines Penaeus shrimps nei 5 10 3 5 3 2 5 4.7 3.9 Poland Freshwater fishes nei 8 8 4 4 5 6 4 5.6 5.4 Portufjal Atlantic salmon 5 9 4 5 6 7 4 5.7 4.5 Portufjal Brill 5 8 4 8 6 5 4 5.7 5.7 Portugal Common cuttlefish 5 8 8 8 6 6 4 6.4 6.5 Portugal Common edible cockle 5 8 4 8 6 6 4 5.9 6.9 Portugal Common sole 5 9 4 8 6 6 4 6.0 5.8 Portugal European eel 5 9 4 8 6 6 4 6.0 5.8 Portugal European flat oyster 5 4 8 8 6 7 4 6.0 6.9 Portugal European seabass (br) 5 9 '4" - 5 6 5 4 5.4 5.2 Portugal European seabass 5 9 4 5: 6 5 6 • 5.7 5.4 Portugal Flat and cupped oysters nei 3 4 8 8 6 7 5 5.9 7.0 Portugal Freshwater fishes nei 5 8 4 8 6 5 4 5.7 5.4 Portugal Gilthead seabream (br) 5 9 4 5 6 5 4 5.4 5.1 Portugal Gilthead seabream - 5 9 4 5 6 5 6 5.7 5.3 Portugal Grooved carpet shell (br) 4 5 '8 8 _•- 6 6 - * 4 - 5.9 7.2 Portugal Grooved carpet shell 4 5 8 8 6 ' 6 " ' 6 6.1 7.3 Portugal Kuruma prawn 3 9 4 8 6 * '7 4 5.9 4.6 Portugal Marine fishes nei 5 8 4 8 6 5 4 5.7 5.4 Portugal Marine molluscs nei 5 7 4 8 6 5 4 5.6 5.3 Portugal Mullets nei 5 9 4 8 6 5 4 5.9 5.4 Portugal Octopuses nei 5 8 4 8 6 5 4 5.7 5.7 Portugal Pacific cupped oyster 3 4 8 8 6 7 4 5.7 6.3 Portugal Pullet carpet shell 3 5 8 8 6 5 4 5.6 7.0 Portugal Razor clams nei 3 4 8 8 6 5 4 5.4 6.5 Portugal Sargo breams nei 5 9 4 5 6 5 4 5.4 4.8 Portugal Sea mussels nei 5 5 8 8 6 5 4 5.9 6.5 Portugal Turbot 5 8 4 5 6 5 5 5.4 5.3 Russian Fed. Atlantic salmon 5 9 3 5 3 5 4 4.9 4.1 Russian Fed. Brown seaweeds 3 2 10 8 4 6 5 5.4 7.4 Russian Fed. Brown seaweeds (Pac) 3 2 10 8 4 6 4 5.3 7.3 Russian Fed. Flatfishes nei 3 8 4 5 4 5 5 4.9 4.6 Russian Fed. Marine fishes nei 5 8 4 5 4 5 5 5.1 4.7 Russian Fed. Mediterranean mussel 5 5 4 8 4 5 4 5.0 6.5 Russian Fed. Mullets nei 3 9 4 5 4 5 5 5.0 4.9 Russian Fed. Sea mussels nei 5 5 10 8 4 5 5 6.0 6.5 Russian Fed. Sea mussels nei (Pac) 5 5 10 8 4 5 4 5.9 6.4 Russian Fed. Sea trout 5 10 4 5 4 6 4 5.4 5.2 Russian Fed. Sea trout (med) 5 10 4 5 4 6 5 5.6 5.3 Russian Fed. Sea urchins nei 3 7 8 8 4 5 5 5.7 5.7 Russian Fed. Silver carp 5 8 8 5 4 5 4 5.6 5.5 Russian Fed. Sturgeons nei 3 9 4 6 4 7 4 5.3 5.2 Russian Fed. Yesso scallop 3 7 8 8 4 5 5 5.7 6.9 Saudi Arabia Barramundi 1 10 1 5 5 5 5 4.6 3.5 Saudi Arabia Flathead grey mullet 5 9 4 7 5 5 6 5.9 5.7 Saudi Arabia Giant (iger prawn 1 10 1 7 3 5 7 4.9 4.2 Saudi Arabia Groupers nei 5 9 3 7 5 5 5 5.6 5.2 Senegal Blackchin tilapia 8 8 4 6 4 6 6 6.0 5.9 Senegal Cupped oysters nei 3 4 8 8 4 6 5 5.4 5.7 Senegal Gasar cupped oyster 3 4 8 8 4 5 6 5.4 6.5 Senegal Giant river prawn 3 8 4 5 4 5 5 4.9 4.0 Senegal Nile tilapia 3 8 4 6 4 5 6 5.1 4.8 Senegal Pacific cupped oyster 3 4 | 8 8 I 6 5 5.4 5.8 121 A p p e n d i x 2. Con t inued Country Sp. Export domestic Nutrition Protein Antibiotic Drug use Mol- Biol GMO Code-practice CoC Traceability Employment Socio-eco MSI South Africa Aquatic plants nei 5 6 10 9 6 6 5 6.7 6.9 South Africa Carpet shells nei 3 3 8 8 6 6 5 5.6 6.5 South Africa European flat oyster 3 4 8 8 6 5 5 5.6 6.1 South Africa Giant tiger prawn 3 10 3 5 6 6 S 5.4 4.7 South Africa Gracilaria seaweeds 3 2 10 9 6 7 5 6.0 7.3 South Africa Indian white prawn 3 9 3 5 6 6 5 5.3 4.6 South Africa Kuruma prawn 3 9 3 5 6 7 5 5.4 4.7 South Africa Mediterranean mussel 3 5 8 7 6 5 5 5.6 6.2 South Africa Mullets nei 5 9 4 6 6 5 5 5.7 5.4 South Africa Pacific cupped oyster 3 4 8 7 6 ;. 5 5 1 5.4 6.1 South Africa Perlemoen abalone 3 8 8 7 6 " 7 5 6.3 6.7 South Africa Red bait 3 8 4 6 6 5 5 5.3 5.0 South Africa Sea mussels nei 5 5 8 6 6 5 5 5.7 6.5 South Africa Smooth mactra 3 5 8 7 6 5 5 5.6 6.7 Spain Atlantic salmon 1 9 . ' .-' 1 •5 .. 3 ' 4 3 ' 3.7 3.5 Spain Blue mussel 7 • 5 10 10 5 7. - . 6 7.1 8.1 Spain Cupped oysters nei 5 4 10 3 7 ' .7 7 •6.1 7.2 Spain European eel 7 9 5 7 5 5 7 6.4 5.9 Spain European flat oyster 5 4 10 7 7 5 7 6.4 7.3 Spain European seabass 5 9 3 5 5 7 7 5.9 5.7 Spain Flathead grey mullet 5 9 4 7 S 7 5 6.0 5.8 Spain Gilthead seabream 3 9 1 5 5 7 7 5.3 4.2 Spain Kuruma prawn 7 9 1 5 5 7 3 5.3 4.8 Spain Pacific cupped oyster 3 4 10 7 6 7 6 6.1 6.4 Spain Tuna-like fishes nei 5 10 5 10 3 1 5 5.6 4.5 Sri Lanka Giant tiger prawn 1 10 1 7 4 5 7 5.0 3.8 Sweden Atlantic salmon 7 9 4 5 8 6 5 6.3 6.0 Sweden Blue mussel 5 5 8 7 8 5 5 6.1 6.7 Sweden European flat oyster 5 4 8 7 8 5 5 6.0 6.3 Sweden Rainbow trout 6 10 4 5 8 6 5 6.3 5.2 Taiwan Abalones nei (br) 5 8 3 3 4 4 5 4.6 3.9 Taiwan Abalones nei 5 8 3 3 4 4 5 4.6 3.9 Taiwan Barramundi (br) 1 10 1 5 3 3 5 4.0 3.6 Taiwan Barramundi 3 10 1 5 3 3 5 4.3 3.9 Taiwan Blood cockle 5 9 10 10 5 5 5 7.0 7.0 Taiwan Flathead grey mullet (br) 5 9 4 . 7 5 5 6 5.9 5.5 Taiwan Flathead grey mullet 5 9 4 7 5 5 6 5.9 5.5 Taiwan Giant tiger prawn 1 10 1 7 3 4 6 4.6 3.5 Taiwan Groupers nei (Pac) (br) 5 9 3 7 5 3 6 5.4 5.0 Taiwan Groupers nei (br) 5 9 3 7 5 3 6 5.4 5.0 Taiwan Groupers nei 5 9 3 7 5 3 6 5.4 5.0 Taiwan Kuruma prawn (br) 5 9 1 5 3 7 7 5.3 4.6 Taiwan Kuruma prawn 5 9 1 5 3 7 7 5.3 4.6 Taiwan Laver(Nori) 5 3 10 7 7 8 7 6.7 7.0 ' Taiwan Milkfish (br) 5 10 5 8 4 3 7 6.0 5.9 Taiwan Milkfish 5 10 5 8 4 3 7 6.0 5.9 Taiwan ' Pacific cupped oyster (br) 3 4 10 7 7 5 7 6.1 5.7 Taiwan Pacific cupped oyster 3 4 10 7 7 5 7 6.1 5.7 Taiwan Whiteleg shrimp 5 10 1 5 3 3 7 4.9 3.6 Thailand Banana prawn 5 9 2 5 3 2 5 4.4 4.1 Thailand Barramundi (Ind) 3 10 1 5 3 3 5 4.3 3.7 Thailand Barramundi 3 10 1 5 3 3 5 4.3 3.7 Thailand Blood cockle (Ind) 5 9 10 10 5 5 5 7.0 7.0 Thailand Blood cockle 5 9 10 10 5 5 5 7.0 7.0 Thailand Cupped oysters nei (Ind) 5 4 10 3 7 7 7 6.1 6.7 Thailand Cupped oysters nei 5 4 10 3 7 7 7 6.1 6.7 Thailand Giant tiger prawn (Ind) 1 10 1 7 3 4 6 4.6 3.5 Thailand Giant tiger prawn 1 10 1 7 3 4 6 4.6 3.5 Thailand Groupers nei (Ind) 5 9 3 7 5 3 6 5.4 5.0 Thailand Groupers nei 5 9 3 7 5 3 6 5.4 5.0 Thailand Penaeus shrimps nei 5 10 1 5 4 1 5 4.4 3.5 Thailand Whiteleg shrimp 5 10 1 4 4 1 5 4.3 3.0 Tonga Milkfish ' 10 10 5 8 5 3 7 6.9 6.4 Turkey Atlantic salmon 3 9 3 5 5 6 5 5.1 4.7 Turkey Com.2-banded seabream 3 9 4 5 4 5 5 5.0 5.3 Turkey Gilthead seabream 3 9 4 5 5 3 5 4.9 5.1 Turkey Mediterranean mussel 3 5 8 7 4 5 5 5.3 6.6 Turkey Natantian decapods nei 3 9 4 5 5 4 5 5.0 5.1 Turkey Seabasses nei 3 9 4 5 4 5 5 5.0 4.8 Turkey Trouts nei 3 9 4 5 5 I 6 5 5.3 4.8 122 Appendix 2. Continued Country Sp. Export domestic Nutrition Protein Antibiotic Drug use Mol- Biol GMO Code-practice CoC Traceability Employment Socio-eco MSI Ukraine Baltic prawn 3 9 3 5 5 6 5 5.1 5.2 Ukraine Flatfishes nei 3 8 4 5 5 5 5 5.0 4.4 Ukraine Gobies nei 3 8 4 5 5 5 5 5.0 4.5 Ukraine Mediterranean mussel 5 5 8 7 5 5 5 5.7 6.9 Ukraine Mullets nei (br) 5 9 4 5 5 4 5 5.3 5.6 Ukraine Mullets nei 5 9 4 5 5 4 5 5.3 5.6 Ukraine Silversides nei 5 9 4 6 5 7 5 5.9 6.0 Ukraine So-iuy mullet 5 9 4 6 5 5 5 5.6 5.3 Ukraine Sturgeons nei 3 9 4 7 5 7 5 5.7 5.6 United Kingdom Atlantic cod 7 9 1 8 5 7 3 5.7 4.6 United Kingdom Atlantic salmon 3 9 1 5 6 4 4 4.6 4.3 United Kingdom Blue mussel 7 5 10 10 5 7 6 ' 7.1 8.2 United Kingdom Cupped oysters nei 5 4 10 3 7 7 7 6.1 6.9 United Kingdom European flat oyster 5 4 10 7 7 5 7 6.4 7.3 United Kingdom European seabass 5 9 5 5 7 7 5 6.1 6.0 United Kingdom Pacific cupped oyster 5 4 10 7 8 8 5 6.7 6.7 U.S. of America Abalones nei 7 8 5 2 7 7 6 6.0 5.6 U.S. of America Atlantic salmon 7 9 1 5 5 4 3 4.9 4.5 U.S. of America - Blue mussel 7 5 10 10 5 7 5 7.0 7.9 U.S. of America Coho(=Silver)salmon 7 9 1 3 5 4 3 4.6 4.4 U.S. of America Cupped oysters nei 5 4 10 3 7 7 7 6.1 7.2 U.S. of America European flat oyster 5 4 10 7 7 5 7 6.4 6.5 U.S. of America Flat oysters nei 10 4 10 6 7 - 8 6 7.3 7.4 U.S. of America Pacific cupped oyster 7 4 10 7 8 8 5 7.0 7.0 U.S. of America Whiteleg shrimp 10 10 5 3 7 5 3 6.1 4.7 Venezuela Whiteleg shrimp 5 10 3 5 7 5 5 5.7 4.7 , Viet Nam Banana prawn 5 9 2 5 3 2 7 4.7 4.5 Viet Nam Giant tiger prawn 1 10 1 7 3 3 7 4.6 3.5 Viet Nam Gracilaria seaweeds 3 2 10 10 7 10 8 7.1 7.9 Viet Nam Whiteleg shrimp 5 10 1 5 3 3 7 4.9 3.8 123 Appendix 3. Primary production required (PPR) indicator This indicator was not used in the mariculture sustainability analysis because it requires information that is specific to the diet of each species. The composition of diets used in production are generally not published for many species, especially for feed of the higher-valued species (e.g. salmon, shrimps, etc.). Such information is only available for a few species-county combinations. In the future, the use of this indicator may be possible, and therefore described below. The type and proportion of dietary inputs (e.g. aquafeeds and supplements) required to sustain current levels of mariculture production was investigated. Specific diet compositions based on aquafeed formulae for farmed organisms were gathered where available and categorized by origin of feed component (e.g. plant crops, animal meals, fishmeal, fish discards and bycatch) and converted into grams of carbon per kilogram (gOkg"1) of product. This was converted into the net primary productivity (NPP) required to produce one kilogram of plant or animal biomass (Tables A 3.1 and A 3.2), i.e., the carbon content in a kg of dietary inputs. An estimate of the NPP to sustain the farmed organisms, can ultimately contribute to estimating a country's ecological footprint. The primary productivity required (PPR), measured in (gC-kg"1), to sustain a farmed species was estimated by back-calculating the net primary productivity (NPP) required to produce the food items that make up the diet of the farmed organisms (e.g. wheat, soybean, rapeseed, corn etc.) based on Table A 3.1. The PPR for vegetal items were calculated at (gC-kg"1) of dry weight. Similarly, the gC-kg"1 of wet weight for animal products was also back-calculated based on Table A3.2. 124 Table A 3.1 Net primary productivity (NPP) required to produce one kg o f a plant crop in (gC-kg"1) dry weight. The N P P of plants and oi l components o f the feeds are derived from Canadian Agricultural Statistics (1992 - 1996) and reported in Tyedmers (2000). Plant crop NPP (gC-kg') Wheat 460 Soybean 528 Rapeseed 607 Corn Grain 465 Linseed 565 Table A 3.2 Net primary productivity required to produce one kg of fishmeal and fish o i l , assuming a 9:1 ratio for the conversion o f wet weight to carbon (gC-kg" 1), for fish (adapted from Tyedmers 2000). Fish meal/oil source Fishmeal NPP (gC-kg1) Fish oil NPP (gC-kg"1) Norwegian 22170 37024 Peruvian 13988 23360 Danish 26654 44512 French 70106 117077 S A Fmeal 12956 21636 B C Herring 3956 6607 Mex M oi l not available 2660 B C oi l not available 20000 Estimates o f P P R for mariculture are based on 2-step method used by Pauly and Christensen (1995) for the primary productivity required to sustain global fisheries. First, the grams of carbon that must be fixed by autotrophs annually was estimated by assuming an average transfer efficiency between trophic levels of 10% (Pauly and Christensen 1995) and a conservative 9:1 conversion ratio from wet weight of organism to carbon content (Strathmann 1967) (see Equation 1). 125 P = ( M / 9 ) x 1 0 ( T - 1 ) E q . l (from Tyedmers 2000) Where: P = primary productivity required, expressed in gC-kg"1 fixed; M = the wet weight mass, in g, of the organisms for which an ecosystem support area is being calculated, and T = is the mean trophic level at which the organism(s) feeds using a scale in which autotrophs are assigned a trophic level of 1.0 by default. Step two, estimated the trophic levels by averaging the respective feed items' trophic levels by using equation 2 (see also Table 3.3) • T X ^ l . O + I T j C P i j ) Eq.2 Where: TL = the average trophic at which the organism 'i' feeds on "j"; Tj = the mean trophic level of the feed item(s) 'j' and P,j = the proportion of each type of feed for a specific organism. Fishmeal and fish oil are assigned trophic level 3 since the average trophic level of small pelagic fish used in fishmeal is approximately 3 from (Froese and Pauly 2000); ruminant livestock are assigned level 2; and plant components are assigned level 1. Table A 3.3 Example of the trophic level for the species-country combination based on the feed components. Group/species C o u n t r y Y e a r T L F i s h meal F i s h o i l l ivestock plants T o t a l feed M a r i n e component of diet (%) Abalone Australia 2000 2.38 0 20 329 627 - 976 2 Anguilla australis Australia 2001 3.15- 530. . 44 0 427 1000 57 Barramundi Australia 2000 3.46 414 118 413 65 1010 53 Barramundi Australia 2003 3.50 470 150 210 134 964 64 Giant Tiger Prawn Australia 1999 2.90 310 38 200 449 997 35 Murray Cod Australia 2002 3.60 730 50 0 . 195 975 80 126 The trophic levels of the farmed species estimated in this study were significantly different than those reported for wild capture fish (Pauly and Christensen 1995, Stergiou and Karpouzi 2002, Pinnegar etal 2003). These differences are a result of different inputs consumed in farmed versus natural conditions. Upon examination of feed compositions for aquaculture it was evident that higher-valued omnivorous and carnivorous fish species are converging to a similar trophic level of 3.1, irrespective of their natural diet trophic levels (Figure A3.1). TROPHIC LEVEL BOTTLENECKING 5 Q. s I- Atlantic Salmon Barramundi Gilthead seabream • s * — — Giant tiger prawn _ _ — — — Milkfish time Fig. A3.1 Converging trophic levels in six farmed fish species 127

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
United States 31 2
China 9 2
Canada 8 0
Malaysia 4 0
France 3 0
Greece 3 0
British Virgin Islands 3 0
Austria 2 0
United Kingdom 2 0
India 2 0
Germany 2 9
Indonesia 2 0
Taiwan 2 0
City Views Downloads
Unknown 17 12
Washington 16 0
Guelph 7 0
Ashburn 4 0
Kuala Lumpur 4 0
Alexandria 4 0
Birmingham 3 0
Putian 3 0
Beijing 3 0
Qingdao 2 2
Vienna 2 0
Kansas City 2 0
Jakarta 2 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}

Share

Share to:

Comment

Related Items