AGRICULTURE AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT 78823 N O T E S ISSUE 5 JUNE 2013 Growing Aquaculture in Sustainable Ecosystems BY RANDALL BRUMMETT KEY MESSAGES production system, having contributed 40 percent—some • Aquaculture is among the most sustainable of animal 60 million metric tons—to total supply in 2010 (FAO 2012). Nearly doubling in the 13 years from 1995 to 2007, protein production systems. aquaculture needs to nearly double again in the next 15 • Growth of aquaculture is needed to meet years to ensure the global seafood supply (OECD 2010). employment and food security targets in developing However, to secure the benefits of a robust aquaculture countries. sector over the long term, the industry must respect • Investment risk co-varies with environmental risk to ecological limits to growth. influence sustainability. Aquaculture involves a diverse array of production • Existing certification standards do not effectively schemes, technologies, and species, and thus it is address ecosystem sustainability. impossible to provide a single estimate for its ecological • Priorities of local communities should inform target footprint (Boyd et al. 2007; Lorenzen, Beveridge, and setting for employment and conservation. Mangel 2012) except at the coarsest of scales (Hall et al. • Locally adapted aquaculture zone management can 2011). Most of the available data, however, indicate that aquaculture compares favorably to other animal farming in reduce environmental and investment risk. terms of feed efficiency, eutrophying nutrients, freshwater Driven by increasing population, wealth, and the health consumption, and land use (see Table, below). benefits of seafood, demand for finfish and shellfish Nevertheless, increasing competition for land and water exceeds estimated total sustainable catch of wild fish by are driving intensification that sometimes push the limits nearly 100 percent (TEEB 2010). Due to high local demand of ecosystems to absorb impacts and thus increase the and temperatures, aquaculture is and will probably remain risk of catastrophic failure. It is in no one’s interest that a business dominated by developing countries, where aquaculture grows beyond the carrying capacity of the aquaculture employed an estimated 16 million people in local environment. To optimize the cost-benefit ratio of the value chain (0.3 pers-years per ton of fish delivered to investments in aquaculture development, one needs to market) in 2010, half of which were women. Aquaculture determine what kind of regulatory framework, institutional is already a credible economic engine and seafood TABLE. COMPARISON OF SUSTAINABILITY INDICATORS AMONG ANIMAL PROTEIN PRODUCTION SYSTEMS N emissions Food conversion Protein (kg/ton P Emissions Land Consumptive (kg feed/kg efficiency protein (kg/ton protein (tons edible freshwater edible weight) (%) produced) produced) product/ha) use (m3/ton) Beef 31.7 5 1,200 180 0.24–0.37 15,497 Chicken 4.2 25 300 40 1.0–1.20 3,918 Pork 10.7 13 800 120 0.83–1.10 4,856 Finfish (average) 2.3 30 360 48 0.15–3.70 5,000 * Bivalve mollusks not fed not fed -27 -29 0.28–20.00 0 *Note: Consumptive use is difficult to compare across the wide spectrum of aquaculture production systems. In the vast majority of cases, water outfalls from aquaculture are much cleaner and more easily recycled than for land animals. Source: Phillips, Beveridge, and Clarke 1991; FAO 2003; Hall et al. 2011; Bouman et al. 2013. arrangement, and monitoring of ecosystem sustainability make the INVESTING IN SUSTAINABILITY most sense for mitigating the impacts of our seafood production Aquaculture, as a relatively benign system for the production of system and managing risk. nutritious food, can make an important contribution to global food security, but new investment of $100 billion, at the very least,1 is needed to meet anticipated demand. The generally small scale and CERTIFYING SUSTAINABILITY organic growth of aquaculture has made it difficult to regulate and contributes to the high levels of risk perceived by potential new To guide consumers about sustainability, seafood certification investors. Because disease and negative environmental impacts, seeks to create market incentives designed to encourage the major exogenous risk factors in aquaculture, are determined producers to reduce environmental impacts. Aquaculture primarily by water management, production intensity, and certification schemes certify individual farms or, in a few cases, proximity of fish farms to one another, there are clear incentives collectives of small farms. However, the most significant negative for responsible aqua-farmers to support zoning and ecosystem ecological impacts of aquaculture—loss of biodiversity and monitoring to ensure sustainability and protect their investments. eutrophication—do not occur at the farm level, but rather reflect the collective impacts of all farms, certified or otherwise. An Useful sustainability indicators should reflect an understanding of objective determination of environmental sustainability needs how ecosystems function and the services that the public expects to move beyond the farm level to that of the larger aquatic functional ecosystems to generate. They should also be robust ecosystem, of which aquaculture forms only a part. and easy to monitor, and would necessarily be determined by the ecosystem and informed by local priorities rather than by farmed Systems to ensure ecosystem-level sustainability of aquaculture species or culture system. A definition of aquaculture sustainability should aim to sustain indigenous species abundance and that rings true with the larger society will capture complexity in diversity at desirable levels and will require (a) spatially explicit a relatively simple index comprising a limited number of iconic regulatory/zoning instruments to define the boundaries over indicators. which aquaculture sustainability should be assessed, and (b) sustainability indicators and monitoring systems in respect to the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) seeks to define sustainability in the local ecological carrying capacities of these zones. Institutional broad sense by comparing food production systems in terms of arrangements that assure compliance and transparency will be impact on processes that govern global biogeochemical cycles needed to operationalize the system. (Pelletier and Tyedmers 2008). Some LCA indicators (for example, acidification, ecotoxicity, eutrophication) are relevant at the Planning at the ecosystem level will simplify permitting and ensure ecosystem level (for example, Ford et al. 2012). Cury et al. (2011) that farms occupy less environmentally sensitive areas. Within and Smith et al. (2011) have explored trophic cascades that might zones, collective action among farms and with veterinary services be adaptable as local indicators of ecosystem stress. For these to control diseases would be made easier. Once established, zoned approaches, however, data and analysis to support a practical aquaculture areas could be certified collectively so that all farms local definition of ecosystem sustainability and cost-effective have access to markets. Norway and Scotland (salmon) and Ireland monitoring system are generally lacking. (bivalves) have pioneered user-friendly approaches to ecosystem- level management based on extensive, heuristic carrying capacity To be effective in project design and implementation, we datasets that could inform initiatives elsewhere. Australia and New need a narrower definition of sustainability that includes the Zealand are exploring aquaculture park leasing arrangements for establishment of a workable approach to ecosystem-level salmon and shellfish. management. This should be a joint effort between the public regulatory, research, and veterinary services and private sector With increasing wealth, health consciousness, and global investors. Concerted research that could establish a testable population, demand for seafood is increasing. At the same time, framework for ensuring aquaculture sustainability for piloting scarcities of water, arable land, and power, combined with unstable would: climates, will make growing food increasingly challenging and costly. Governments may be tempted to compromise long-term • Develop a simplified biodiversity/water quality index of sustainability to meet short-term employment and food security sustainability at the ecosystem level; targets. Sustainability should be defined in ways that the public understands so that policy makers and resource managers can fulfill their public trust responsibilities for safe seafood supplies, 1 Industry estimate of cost at 2012 prices of building typical aquaculture thriving communities, healthy ecosystems, and biodiversity. farms to double supply, not considering new technology. 2 WHAT’S IN IT FOR ME? Compliance with aquaculture zoning will depend upon the degree to which stakeholders perceive advantage in collective ecosystem management. Cost/benefit analysis must consider constraints imposed upon resource users as well as returns on investment in the conservation of ecosystem services. Costs will include limitations on farmer behavior within zones, scientific monitoring and the need for communication and collaboration among farmers and between farmers and regulators. Motivations to establish and operate sus- tainable aquaculture zones vary among stakeholders, but the benefits are many: What’s in it for farmers? • Reduce risk of poor stock performance, disease and fish kills; • reduce the cost and complexity of environmental impact assessment; • lay the framework for a new approach to certification and increase market access; • improve sustainability—economic, social and environmental—of aqua-businesses; • demonstrate good stewardship of the environment; • lower insurance rates and ease credit terms on demonstrably lower risk investments. What’s in it for regulators? • Credible scientific basis for decision-making on numbers, sizes, intensities of operations in a marine/aquatic space; • credible scientific basis for aquaculture governance and all interactions with civil society; • credible scientific basis to increase both local and export market access for “green� products. What’s in it for society? • Wise use of ecosystem services; • sustainably produced, nutritious seafood for those who need it most; • better and fairer management of resources used to produce aquatic food. What’s in it for the environment? • Assure that an assessment of sustainability captures the collective impacts of all aquaculture operations in a clearly defined area; • make sure that changes attributable to aquaculture are clearly related to changes in the ecosystem; • streamline regulation to be more cost-effective. • Adapt spatial planning to aquatic ecosystem delineation and without causing environmental degradation, a new approach to aquaculture zoning; and managing growth is needed. Spatial planning will identify best sites that are good for aquaculture, away from environmentally • Elaborate institutional frameworks for adaptive management, sensitive areas and amenable to appropriate monitoring. As monitoring, and enforcement. indicators of sustainability, existing certification systems are not adequate. Needed are objective indicators that take into account Ecosystems in which aquaculture and other human activities occur the collective impacts of aquaculture at the ecosystem level. will change, but not all change is bad. Well-managed aquaculture generates modest (relative to the goods and services it generates), Opportunities exist to learn from existing initiatives in Australia, often unnoticeable, changes that do not upset the natural balance Ireland, New Zealand, Norway, and the United Kingdom. These of the ecosystem. In many cases, impacts of aquaculture will be should be assessed for robustness and applicability across a range positive in terms of ecosystem services. Indicators of sustainability of likely ecosystems where aquaculture is practiced (for example, should capture these changes to enable sound management. tropical lagoons, floodplain rivers, coastal bays, estuaries, coral reefs, and so on). The level of impacts from aquaculture that is tolerable should be assessed for a range of ecosystem services considered indicative of ecosystem health and the wishes of CONCLUSIONS informed local communities. Reliability and practicality (including To improve the climate for aquaculture investment so as to cost-effectiveness) of measurements should be considered in the sustainably meet food security and economic development targets selection of indicators. 3 Where there are existing data, pilot projects with the private Ford, J. S., N. L. Pelletier, F. Ziegler, A. J. Scholz, P. H. Tyedmers, U. Sonesson, sector could be launched to field-test this new monitoring S. A. Kruse, and H. Silverman. 2012. Proposed local ecological impact categories and indicators for Life Cycle Assessment of aquaculture. and evaluation strategy within two years. Key elements would Journal of Industrial Ecology 16(2):254-265. include the following: Hall, S. J., A. Delaporte, M. J. Phillips, M. Beveridge, and M. O’Keefe. 2011. Blue frontiers: Managing the Environmental Costs of Aquaculture. Ecological Issues • WorldFish Center, Penang, Malaysia. Siting: Identify zones that are good for aquaculture (for Lorenzen, K., M. C. M. Beveridge, and M. Mangel. 2012. Cultured example, access to markets and production infrastructure, fish: Integrative biology and management of domestication and deep water, fast currents, protected from storms, interactions with wild fish. Biological Reviews 87(3):639-660. unpolluted) and that are away or downstream from OECD. 2010. “Advancing the aquaculture agenda: Workshop proceedings.� important ecosystem and biodiversity assets (from, coral Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD reefs, beaches, eel grass beds). This is roughly the subject Publishing, Paris, France. matter of spatial planning. Pelletier, N., and P. Tyedmers. 2008. Life cycle considerations for improving • Carrying Capacity: Measure exactly what is happening in sustainability assessments in seafood awareness campaigns. Environmental Management, DOI 10.1007/s00267-008-9148-9. the ecosystem and how fast collective production within Phillips, M. J., M. C. M. Beveridge, and R. M. Clarke. 1991. Impact of the zone is approaching some limit. This is mostly basic aquaculture on water resources. In Aquaculture and Water Quality, ecological research. edited by D. R. Brune and J. R. Tomasso. World Aquaculture Society, Baton Rouge, LA, USA. Institutional Issues Smith, A. D. M., C. J. Brown, C. M. Bulman, E. A. Fulton, P. Johnson, I. C. • Setting Limits: Establish with the local community and other Kaplan, H. Lozano-Montes et al. 2011. Impacts of fishing low-trophic key stakeholders the main criteria for impact assessment level species on marine ecosystems. Science 333:1147-1150. and acceptable limits of ecosystem change in light of the TEEB. 2010. Rethinking Global Biodiversity Strategies: Exploring Structural local culture and economy. Changes in Production and Consumption to Reduce Biodiversity Loss. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity Project (TEEB), • Enforcement: Establish a regulatory framework based on Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, The Hague/Bilthoven. the above, giving authority to some local agency to enforce rules. This also requires some kind of aquaculture trade association that represents the interests of the aquaculture Contributors2 value chain to government and competing industries, and Michael Tlusty (New England Aquarium), George Chamberlain exercises a useful level of control over its members. (Global Aquaculture Alliance), Chris Mann (Pew Environment Group), José Villalón (Worldwide Fund for Nature), Frank Asche (University of Stavanger), Doris Soto (UN Food and Agriculture Organization), Jean-François Baroiller (Centre International de References Recherche Agronomique pour la Développement), Claude Bouman, A.F., A. H. W. Beusen, C. C. Overbeek, D. P. Bureau, M. Pawlowski, Boyd (Auburn University), John Hargreaves (World Aquaculture and P. M. Gilbert. 2013. Hindcasts and future projections of global Magazine), John Forster (Freelance Consultant), Barry Costa- inland and coastal nitrogen and phosphorus loads due to finfish aquaculture. Reviews in Fisheries Science 21(2):112-156. Pierce (University of New England), Kai Lorenzen (University of Florida), Ian Boyd (UK Department for Environment, Food and Boyd, C. E., C. Tucker, A. McNevin, K. Bostick, and J. Clay. 2007. Indicators of resource use efficiency and environmental performance in fish and Rural Affairs), Max Troell (Beijer Institute of Ecological Economics), crustacean aquaculture. Reviews in Fisheries Science 15(4):327–360. Villy Christensen (University of British Columbia), Dave Little Cury, P. M., I. L. Boyd, S. Bonhommeau, T. Anker-Nilssen, R. J. M. Crawford, (University of Stirling), Yngve Torgersen (Norwegian Ministry of R. W. Furness, J. A. Mills et al. 2011. Global seabird response to forage Fisheries and Coastal Affairs), Malcolm Beveridge (WorldFish fish depletion: One-third for the birds. Science 334:1703-1706. Center), Simon Bush (University of Wageningen), Peter Mumby FAO. 2003. Agriculture Food and Water. Food and Agriculture (University of Queensland), Les Kaufman (Boston University), Organization of the United Nations, Rome. Anton Immink, (Sustainable Fisheries Partnership). ———. 2012. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture. Food and 2 This opinion was elaborated through an extended dialogue among Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. the contributors and does not necessarily reflect the positions of the institutes with which they are affiliated. 1818 H Street. NW Washington, DC 20433 www.worldbank.org/rural