FAO Fisheries Circular No. 886, (Revision.2) FIRI/C886 Rev.2) (En)

ISSN

REVIEW OF THE STATE OF WORLD AQUACULTURE

Copies of FAO publications can be requested from:Sales and Marketing Group

Information DivisionFAO

Viale delle Terme di Caracalla00100 Rome, Italy

E-mail: publications-sales@fao.orgFax: (+39) 06 57053360

FAO Fisheries Circular No. 886, Rev. 2 FIRI/C886(Rev.2) (En)

REVIEW OF THE STATE OF WORLD AQUACULTURE

by

Inland Water Resources and Aquaculture ServiceFishery Resources DivisionFAO Fisheries Department

FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONSROME, 2003

FAO 2003

The designations employed and the presentation ofmaterial in this publication do not imply the expression ofany opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food andAgriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city orarea or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation ofits frontiers or boundaries.

All rights reserved. Reproduction and dissemination of material in this information productfor educational or other non-commercial purposes are authorized without any prior writtenpermission from the copyright holders provided the source is fully acknowledged. Reproductionof material in this information product for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibitedwithout written permission of the copyright holders. Applications for such permission shouldbe addressed to the Chief, Publishing Management Service, Information Division, FAO, Vialedelle Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, Italy or by e-mail to copyright@fao.org

© FAO 2003

PREPARATION OF THIS DOCUMENT

The state of the world’s fish stocks and aquaculture is reviewed by the Fishery Resources Divisionevery two years for FAO’s Committee on Fisheries (COFI). The review formerly included allcapture fisheries, but for the Twentieth Session of COFI it was separated into two parts: theworld’s marine resources, and inland fisheries and aquaculture, identified respectively as Part 1and Part 2 of the FAO Fisheries Circular No. 710. Due to the increased importance of aquacultureproduction, the review was produced in three parts for the Twenty-first Session of COFI, March1995. Each part was a separate document, published under the same title: “Review of the State ofWorld Fishery Resources”. The document dealing with aquaculture was issued in 1995 as FAOFisheries Circular No. 886, and was revised/updated in 1997 as FAO Fisheries Circular No. 886,Revision 1. The present document is Revision 2 of the FAO Fisheries Circular No.886, and is partof the FAO Fisheries Department’s ongoing commitment to provide updated and enhancedinformation as it becomes available.

The various sections of this review have been produced by the authors indicated in the appropriatesections. Dr Rohana Subasinghe was responsible for the general co-ordination and final editingof this document, with assistance from Dr. Sharon McGladdery of the Department of Fisheriesand Oceans, Canada. Mr Felix Marttin and Mr J. Carlos Trabucco provided valuable assistancein graphic design.

FAO Inland Water Resources and Aquaculture Service.Review of the state of world aquaculture.FAO Fisheries Circular. No. 886, Rev.2. Rome, FAO. 2003. 95p.

ABSTRACT

This document is the second review of the Fisheries Circular 886 – Review of the State ofWorld Aquaculture. Taking into consideration various reviews and analyses of aquacultureproduction, development and management published by FAO over the past few years, theformat of the present revision of the Circular deviates slightly from the previous format. Itincludes a global review of aquaculture production and production trends, brief regionalproduction profiles based on national aquaculture statistics received from FAO membercountries up to 2000, an outlook for aquaculture development (major issues, opportunitiesand challenges), and a section discussing issues of current importance to global aquaculturedevelopment and management. The latter include inland fisheries and aquaculture: asynergy for sustainable food fish production, the role of aquaculture in rural development,recent technological innovations in aquaculture, and producer association and farmersocieties’ contribution to aquaculture development. Future revisions will address more issuesof interest for sustainable development and management of aquaculture, where appropriate.

III

CONTENTS

Introduction 1

Aquaculture Production Trends Analysis 5

An Outlook for Aquaculture Development:Major Issues, Opportunities and Challenges 31

Inland Fisheries and Aquaculture:A Synergy for Sustainable Food Fish Production 37

The Role of Aquaculture in Rural Development 47

Recent Technological Innovations in Aquaculture 59

Producer Associatons and Farmer Societies:Support to Sustainable Development andManagement of Aquaculture 75

V

1

Introduction

FAO Fisheries Circular 886 is a document which regularly updates and analyses aquacultureproduction statistics and trends, and discusses the issues related to global aquaculturedevelopment and management. The first issue of the Fisheries Circular 886 entitled “Review ofthe State of World Fishery Resources: Aquaculture” was published in 1995 (FAO, 1995). It wasrevised in 1997 (FAO, 1997) and the present document is the second revision of that Circular.

The purpose of the publication is to provide policy makers, aquaculture planners and managers,producers and other stakeholders, as well as the public at large, a comprehensive, objective andglobal review of aquaculture, including major development rends, issues and prospects. In viewof its narrow focus, the Circular provides much more detailed coverage of aquaculture thanFAO State of Fisheries and Aquaculture (SOFIA), where capture fisheries usually outweighaquaculture.

Over the past decade, aquaculture’s increasing contribution to global food security, povertyalleviation, rural livelihoods, employment and income generation has been duly recognised andone of the most significant endorsements of this recognition is the establishment of aSub-Committee on Aquaculture under the Committee on Fisheries in 2001 (FAO, 2000 and2001a). The first meeting of the Sub-Committee will be held in Beijing, China, in April 2002.While recognising the potential of aquaculture for human well-being, concerns have been raisedby various sectors over negative environmental, social and economic impacts of certain types ofaquaculture practices in certain parts of the world. It is, therefore, considered timely to revisitthe broad issues essential for sustainable development of the aquaculture food-producing sector.

Over the past few years, particularly during 1999-2000, there have been several efforts to analyseand review the status of world aquaculture. Many were aimed at generating an up-to-dateoverview of the status of world aquaculture for presentation and discussion at the Conference onAquaculture in the Third Millennium, held in Bangkok, Thailand, from 20-25 February 2000. Amongthese activities, the following are of major importance:

• A regional workshop to formulate the Asian aquaculture development strategy for 2000-2020, conducted by the Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia-Pacific (NACA) inKanchanaburi, Thailand in September 1999 (NACA, 1999);

• A review of South Pacific aquaculture conducted by the Secretariat of the Pacific Community(SPC) with the assistance of the World Fish Centre (ICLARM);

• Africa regional aquaculture review (CIFA/OP24, 2000);• The reviews on the state of, and trends in, aquaculture development in five other regions,

namely, Sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, Europe, the former SovietRepublics, the Near East and North America, that were facilitated and supervised by FAO;

• Fourteen thematic reviews, led by specialised expertise in policy, legal and technologicalissues, related to sustainable aquaculture development; and

• A global synthesis workshop, held at the FAO Regional Office in Asia-Pacific in October1999, that discussed the regional reviews of aquaculture development trends and synthesizedthese, along with other information, into a global review on the state of, and prospects for,sustainable aquaculture development.

The information generated through the above activities was presented and discussed at theConference on Aquaculture in the Third Millennium, which was jointly organised by NACA, FAOand the Thailand Department of Fisheries. The Conference produced three major reports:

• Bangkok Declaration and Strategy for Aquaculture Development Beyond 2000 (NACA/FAO, 2000).

2

• Report of the Conference on Aquaculture in the Third Millennium (FAO, 2001a) and• Aquaculture in the Third Millennium, the Technical Proceedings of the Conference on

Aquaculture in the Third Millennium (NACA/FAO, 2001).

The above three reports provide a wealth of knowledge on the past, present and future status ofaquaculture, in-depth discussion of experiences and ideas on achieving the goals and aspirationsfor the future of aquaculture.

Besides the above, four working documents have also been prepared recently by the FAODepartment of Fisheries, for the first meeting of the COFI Sub-Committee on Aquaculture.These working documents briefly discuss the current status and future prospects for aquacultureproduction and development trends, contribution of rural aquaculture to poverty alleviationand livelihoods, efforts in implementing the relevant provisions of the Code of Conduct forResponsible Fisheries, and aquaculture information, statistics and reporting1 .

Since all above-mentioned recent reports, documents and reviews have been widely distributedamong the FAO member countries, as well as to other interested parties, FAO FisheriesDepartment decided to update the previous format, for this second revision of the FisheriesCircular 886. A Draft was made available to the First Session of the COFI Sub-Committee onAquaculture, which was held in Beijing, China from 18-22 April 2002. The final version of theRevision 2 of the Circular 886 comprises of four main sections:

• A global review of aquaculture production and production trends, based on nationalaquaculture statistics received from the FAO member countries until the year 2000;

• An outlook for aquaculture development: major issues, opportunities and challenges;• Section discussing the synergies and interactions between aquaculture and inland fisheries

and their contribution to sustainable food fish production; and• Issues spanning three thematic areas of current importance to global aquaculture development

and management.

The production and trends review provides a global perspective of production and productiontrends, and the contribution of the aquaculture sector to food fish supply. It also analyses regionalaquaculture production trends, providing a brief profile on each region. The outlook sectionconsists of an overview of the important thematic areas pertaining to future aquaculturedevelopment and management. The last section discusses several issues of significance forsustainable aquaculture development, including: the role of aquaculture in rural development,recent technological innovations in aquaculture, and support from producer associations andfarmer societies for sustainable development and management of aquaculture. Future revisionswill address and discuss more issues of relevance to sustainable aquaculture development andmanagement, as they emerge.

The complexity of the aquaculture sector, and increasing needs for interdisciplinary and inter-sectoral efforts to ensure its effective development and management, have been fully recognised.During Revision 1 of Circular 886, efforts were made to incorporate both FAO information andthat from outside sources in its preparation. The same efforts have been pursued for thepreparation of this document. In some instances, professional colleagues from outside FAO,with specialised expertise in selected subject matter covered in the review, were invited toparticipate and prepare relevant sections of this document. FAO believes that this will enhancethe comprehensive scope, accuracy and value of the review.

Data on production (volume in metric tons, mt, and value in US dollars) are derived exclusivelyfrom the most recent FAO Aquaculture Production Statistics (FAO, 2001b), consisting of national

1 http://www.fao.org/fi/body/cofi/cofiaq/cofiaq.asp

3

data received from the reporting of FAO member governments. The Circular also draws upon,and cites information from, other FAO publications, unpublished FAO information and non-FAO information from conference proceedings, journals and books. Production and trends arecovered for the period 1970-1999, however, attempts have been made to concentrate on morerecent developments.

It is worth mentioning that there have been considerable improvements in the statistical database since the first publication of this circular in 1995. As mentioned in Revision 1, delivery ofdata from many countries has now being expedited by use of electronic media, greatly enhancingthe overall quality and comprehensive nature of the reports contained (fewer gaps). The completeseparation of the aquaculture and capture fisheries components of the data base has beencompleted for 1970 – 200 and disaggregation of statistics for the remaining period, 1950 – 1969,is near completion. The time series of aquaculture statistics has been extended backwards to1950. In addition, guidelines for the collection of quantitative structural data on aquaculturehave been prepared as a supplement to the “FAO World Census of Agriculture Programme”.However, many of the limitations discussed in Revision 1 of the Circular 886 remain and theirinvestigations into mechanisms for their resolution is ongoing.

References

CIFA/OP24. 2000. Africa regional aquaculture review, FAO Regional Office for Africa, Accra,Ghana , 50 pp.

FAO. 1995. Review of the state of world fishery resources: aquaculture. FAO Fish. Circ.No. 886, 127 pp.

FAO. 1997. Review of the state of world aquaculture. FAO Fish. Circ. No. 886, Rev. 1, 163 pp.FAO. 2000. Expert consultation on the proposed sub-committee on aquaculture of the

Committee on Fisheries. FAO Fish. Rep. No. 623, 36 pp.FAO. 2001a. Report of the Conference on Aquaculture in the Third Millennium, Bangkok,

Thailand, 20-25 February 2000. FAO Fish. Rep. No. 661, 97 pp.FAO. 2001b. Fishery Statistics: Aquaculture production, Vol. 88/2, 1999. FAO Fish. Ser. No. 58

and FAO Statistics Ser. No. 160, 178 pp.NACA. 1999. Report of the regional workshop to formulate the Asian aquaculture

development strategy for 2000-2020, Kanchanaburi, Thailand. Sept. 1999, 23 pp.NACA/FAO. 2000. Aquaculture Development Beyond 2000: the Bangkok Declaration and

Strategy. Conference on Aquaculture in the Third Millennium, 20-25 February 2000,Bangkok, Thailand. Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia-Pacific, Bangkok, Thailandand Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy, 27 pp.

NACA/FAO. 2001. Aquaculture in the Third Millennium - Technical Proceedings of theConference on Aquaculture in the Third Millennium, Bangkok, Thailand. 20-25February 2000. R.P. Subasinghe, P.B. Bueno, M.J. Phillips, C. Hough, S.E. McGladderyand J.R. Arthur. (eds.) 2002. Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia-Pacific, Bangkok,Thailand and Food and Agriculture Oorganization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy,471 pp.

5

Aquaculture Production Trends Analysis

Albert J. Tacon

Technical Director (Aquaculture Development)Aquatic Farms, 49-139 Kamehameha Highway

Hawaii 96744United States of America

FAO definitions employed in this report:

Aquaculture: the farming of aquatic organisms, including fish, molluscs, crustaceansand aquatic plants. Farming implies some form of intervention in the rearing processto enhance production, such as regular stocking, feeding, protection from predatorsetc. Farming also implies individual or corporate ownership of the stock beingcultivated. For statistical purposes, aquatic organisms harvested by an individual orcorporate body that has owned them throughout their rearing period contribute toaquaculture, while aquatic organisms that are exploitable by the public as a commonproperty resource, with or without appropriate licenses, are the harvest of fisheries.

Aquaculture production: specifically refers to output from aquaculture activitiesthat is designated for final harvest for consumption or other purposes (e.g. ornamentalpurposes). Output is reported in weight (generally in tonnes of live weight equivalentfor aquatic animals and in wet weight for aquatic plants). Aquaculture production isalso reported by three culture environments, namely fresh water, brackish waterand marine water:

Fresh water is water with a consistently negligible salinity.Brackish water is water that may reach high salinity levels, but this is notconstant. It is usually characterized by regular daily and seasonal fluctuationsin salinity due to freshwater and full strength marine water influxes. Enclosedcoastal and inland water bodies in which the salinity is greater than freshwater but less than marine water are also regarded as brackish.Marine water is coastal and offshore water in which the salinity is maximaland not subject to significant daily or seasonal variations.

Countries included in the Low Income Food Deficit (LIFDC) grouping are thoseclassified (i) by the World Bank as low-income in terms of Gross National Product(GNP) per caput, and (ii) by FAO as having a trade deficit for food in terms of calorificvalues. Countries that have formally objected to being included in this grouping arenot included (for a current listing see http://www.fao.org/spfs)

6

1.1 GLOBAL FISHERIES LANDINGS

Aquaculture’s contribution to total global fisheries landings continues to grow, increasing from5.3% in 1970 to 32.2% of total fisheries landings by weight in 2000 (Figure 1.1.1). Moreover,aquaculture continues to dominate all other animal food-producing sectors in terms of its growth.The sector has grown at an average Annual Percent Rate (APR – average annual compoundedgrowth rate in percent) of 8.9% per year since 1970, compared with 1.4% for capture fisheriesand 2.8% for terrestrial farmed meat production systems over the same period (Figure 1.1.1).

1.2 GLOBAL AQUACULTURE PRODUCTION

Total aquaculture production in 2000 was reported as 45.71 million metric tonnes (mmt) byweight and valued at US$56.47 thousand million (Figure 1.2.1), with production up by 6.3% byweight and 4.8% by value since 1999. Over half of the total global aquaculture production in2000 was in the form of finfish (23.07 mmt or 50.4% of total production), followed by molluscs(10.73 mmt or 23.5%), aquatic plants (10.13 mmt or 22.2%), crustaceans (1.65 mmt or 3.6%),amphibians and reptiles (100,271 metric tonnes (mt) or 0.22%) and miscellaneous aquaticinvertebrates (36,965 mt or 0.08%). Although crustaceans represented only 3.6% of totalproduction by weight, they comprised 16.6% of total global aquaculture by value in 2000 (Figure 1.2.1).

7

The growth of the different major species groups continues to be modest to good, with productionfrom 1999 increasing by 6.7% by weight in the case of finfish, 5.8% for molluscs, 6.1% foraquatic plants, 6.8% for crustaceans and 12.1% for amphibians and reptiles. However, productiondecreased by 15.2% in the case of miscellaneous aquatic invertebrates (includes sea squirts andsea urchins) over this period. Although the overall rate of growth of total aquaculture productionhas been steadily increasing (APRs of 7.5%, 8.6% and 10.5% between 1970 and 1980, 1980 and1990, and 1990 and 2000, respectively), this increase has not been uniform for all species groups.Crustacean and finfish growth (APR) has decreased from 23.5% to 8.1% and from 12.1% to10.3% from the eighties to the nineties, respectively (Figure 1.2.2).

Aquaculture species

In contrast to terrestrial farmingsystems, where the bulk of globalproduction is based on a limitednumber of animal and plantspecies, 210 different farmedaquatic animal and plant specieswere reported in 2000. Theseinclude 131 finfish species, 42molluscan species, 27 crustaceanspecies, eight plant species, andtwo amphibian and reptile species(Figure 1.2.3). The large number ofspecies cultivated reflects the widerange of potential candidatespecies available within thedifferent countries and regions ofthe world and the wide variety of production systems employed by farmers. However, it mustbe pointed out that this figure could be considerably higher, as over 9.7 mmt or 21.2% of globalaquaculture production was not reported to species level in 2000 (Figure 1.2.4). For example, atpresent China provides no statistical information to FAO concerning marine finfish speciesproduction; total marine finfish production was reported as being 426 957 mt in 2000, with nospecies breakdown provided.

8

Production by culture environment

Over half (54.9%) of global aquaculture production originated from marine or brackish coastalwaters in 2000, as compared with 45.1% for freshwater aquaculture production. The meanAPR (period 1970-2000) was highest for freshwater aquaculture production (9.7%), closelyfollowed by brackishwater production (8.4%) and mariculture (8.3%) (Figures 1.2.5 & 1.2.6).Although brackishwater production represented only 4.6% of total global aquaculture productionby weight in 2000, it contributed 15.7% of total production by value (Figure 1.2.6). The mainspecies groups reared in fresh water were finfish (97.7%). High value crustaceans and finfishpredominated in brackish water (50.5% and 42.7%, respectively), and molluscs and aquaticplants in marine waters (46.1% and 44.0%, respectively (Figure 1.2.6).

9

Production by species and species groups

Finfish

Inland freshwater species continued to dominate global finfish aquaculture productionin 2000 (10.80 mmt or 85.8% of total finfish production), followed by diadromousspecies (2.26 mmt or 9.8%) and marine species (1.01 mmt or 4.4%). Aquaculturecurrently provides 73.7%, 65.3% and 1.4% of total global landings of freshwaterfinfish species (Figure 1.2.7), salmonid diadromous finfish species (Figure 1.2.8)and marine finfish species (Figure 1.2.9), respectively. The observed growth rates ofthese different groups were very similar, the average APR (period 1970-2000) being9.9% for freshwater species, 10.6% for marine species and 10.6% for salmonidspecies.

The major finfish groups and species cultivated in 2000 are shown in Figure 1.2.10 and Table 1,and can be summarized by weight and value as follows:

Freshwater speciesCyprinids: 15 707 109 mt, valued at US$15 251 525 100 (Figure 1.2.11)Tilapia: 1 265 780 mt, valued at US$1 706 538 200 (Figure 1.2.12)Catfish: 421 709 mt, valued at US$655 419 500 (Figure 1.2.13)

10

Diadromous speciesSalmonids: 1 533 824 mt, valued at US$4 875 552,400 (Figure 1.2.15)Milkfish: 461 857 mt, valued at US$715 091 100 (Figure 1.2.15)Eels: 232 815 mt, valued at US$975 005 700 (Figure 1.2.15)

Marine speciesMarine fishes: 1 009 663 mt, valued at US$4 072 151 600 (Figure 1.2.16)

11

Of particular note is the fact that the top five cultivated species were cyprinids, representingover half of the total global finfish aquaculture production in 2000 (Table 1 see page 89). However,it is important to mention here that the growth of silver carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix) andbighead carp (Aristichthys nobilis) (both key filter-feeding species) has declined significantlyduring recent years compared with other cyprinid species (Figure 1.2.11).

Moreover, analysis of finfish feeding habits in 2000 indicated that 62.0% were omnivorous/herbivorous species (94.3% freshwater species, such as grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idellus),common carp (Cyprinus carpio), Crucian carp (Carassius carassius), Nile tilapia (Oreochromisniloticus), rohu (Labeo rohita), mrigal (Cirrhinus cirrhosus), White Amur bream (Parabramispekinensis), and channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus)); 25.0% were filter-feeding species (100%freshwater species, such as silver carp, bighead carp and catla (Catla catla)); and 13.0% werecarnivorous species (68% marine and brackishwater species, such as Atlantic salmon (Salmosalar), rainbow trout (Onchorhynchus mykiss), Japanese eel (Anguilla japonica), black carp(Mylopharyngodon piceus), Japanese amberjack (Seriola quinqueradiata), coho salmon (O. kisutch)and mandarin fish (Siniperca chuatsi)) (Figures 1.2.17 & 1.2.18). The relative growth of thesedifferent species groups is shown in Figure 1.2.19, with mean APRs approaching 10% withinall groups and markedly reduced growth for filter-feeding species during recent years. However,although carnivorous species represented only 13.0% of total global finfish production by weightin 2000, they comprised 34.3% of total production by value, the majority of carnivorous finfishspecies having considerably higher unit market values than their filter-feeding or moreomnivorous counterparts (Table 1 see page 89).

12

Crustaceans

As in previous years, marine shrimp continued to dominate crustacean aquaculture, with shrimpproduction in 2000 reaching 1 087 111 mt (66.0% of global crustacean aquaculture production)and valued at US$6 880 068 900 (73.4% of total value). Aquaculture currently provides justover a quarter (26.1%) of total global shrimp landings (Figure 1.2.20). The main cultivatedspecies are the giant tiger prawn (Penaeus monodon), the fleshy prawn (P. chinensis) and thewhiteleg shrimp (P. vannamei), these three species accounting for over 86% of total shrimpaquaculture production in 2000 (Figure 1.2.21, Table 2 see page 90). Although the giant tigerprawn only ranked 20th by weight in terms of global aquaculture production by species weightin 2000, it ranked first by value at US$4 046 751 000. In terms of growth, shrimp production hasdecreased to more modest levels over the last decade (averaging 5%) as compared to the doubledigit growth rates observed during the seventies (23%) and eighties (25%) ( Figure 1.2.21).

Other crustaceans farmed in 2000 included freshwater crustaceans (386 185 mt or23.4% of global crustacean production), and sea-spiders and crabs (140 256 mt or8.5% of global production (Figure 1.2.22, Table 2 see page 90). Of particular note hasbeen the recent appearance and rapid growth of the Chinese river crab (Eriocheir

sinensis), with production reportedly increasing from zero in 1998 to 232 391 mt in2000 (Table 2 see page 90). Equally impressive growth rates have also recently beenobserved for the giant river prawn (Macrobrachium rosenbergii), with production reaching118 501 mt in 2000 (Figure 1.2.22).

13

Molluscs

Total global mollusc production in 2000 topped 10.7 mmt (up 5.8% from the previous year) andwas valued at US$9 496 615 000 (Figure 1.2.23). The Pacific cupped oyster (Crassostrea gigas)was the second most widely cultivated farmed aquatic species by weight at 3 944 042 mt andrepresented over 36% of total mollusc aquaculture production in 2000 (Table 3 see page 91).Other major cultivated molluscan species in 2000 included the Japanese carpet shell (Ruditapesphilippinarum; 1 693 thousand metric tonnes (tmt)), the Yesso scallop (Pectin yessoensis; 1 132tmt), blue mussel (Mytilus edulis; 458 tmt) and the blood cockle (Anadara granosa; 319 tmt). Thegrowth of the sector has been steadily increasing, averaging 5.6% per year in the seventies, 7%in the eighties and 11.5% in the nineties (Figure 1.2.23).

Aquatic plants

Farmed aquatic plant production in 2000 reached 10.1 mmt (up 6.1% from the previousyear) and was valued at US$5 607 835 000 (Figure 1.2.24). The Japanese kelp(Laminaria japonica) remained the top farmed aquatic species by weight at 4 580 056mt and represented 45.2% of total aquatic plant aquaculture production in 2000(Table 4 see page 92). Other major aquatic plant species produced in 2000 includedlaver (Porphyra tenera; 1 011 tmt), cotoni (Eucheuma cottonii; 605 tmt) and wakame(Undaria pinnatifida; 311 tmt). The growth of the sector has been relatively steady,averaging at 8.2% per year from 1970 to 2000 (Figure 1.2.23).

14

1.3 COUNTRY AND REGIONAL AQUACULTUREPRODUCTION

Production by economic country groupings

Approximately 91.2% and 83.9% of total aquaculture production in 2000 was produced withindeveloping countries (41.68 mmt) and in particular, within Low-Income Food Deficit Countriesor LIFDCs (38.35 mmt) in 2000 (Figure 1.3.1). According to the FAO aquaculture database, 57LIFDC countries reported aquaculture production in 2000, including Africa - Burkina Faso,Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Congo Democratic Republic, Congo Republic,Cote d’Ivoire, Egypt, Ghana, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Morocco,Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Togo and Zambia;Americas – Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua; Asia - Armenia,Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, China, Georgia, India, Indonesia, Korea DPR,Kyrgzstan, Laos, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan andUzbekistan; Europe – Albania and Macedonia; and Oceania – Kiribati, Papua New Guinea andSolomon Islands (FAO, 2002).

Of particular significance is the fact that the growth of aquaculture production within developingcountries and LIFDCs has been steadily increasing. In the last decade, the aquaculture sectorwithin LIFDCs has been growing over seven times faster (over the period 1970 to 2000) than theaquaculture sector within developed countries (total production 4.03 mmt in 2000) (Figure 1.3.1).The bulk (93%) of the total finfish production within developing countries in 2000 was contributedby omnivorous/herbivorous and filter-feeding fish species (Figure 1.3.2). In contrast, 73.8% ofthe total finfish production within developed countries in 2000 was due to the culture ofcarnivorous fish species (Figure 1.3.3).

15

16

Production by country and region

By region, over 91.3% of the total aquaculture production by weight was produced within theAsian region (41.72 mmt) in 2000, followed by Europe (2.03 mmt or 4.4%), Latin America andthe Caribbean (0.87 mmt or 1.9%), North America (0.55 mmt or 1.2%), Africa (0.40 mmt or0.9%) and Oceania (0.14 mmt or 0.3% (Figure 1.3.4). Not surprisingly, the top nine aquaculture-producing countries were located within the Asian region, and included China (32.44 mmt or71.0% of total global aquaculture production), India (2.09 mmt), Japan (1.29 mmt), Philippines(1.04 mmt), Indonesia (994 tmt), Thailand (707 tmt), Korea (Republic of) (698 tmt), Bangladesh(657 tmt) and Viet Nam (525 tmt) (Table 5 see page 93).

It must be pointed out that the aquaculture production figures for China may need to be revisedfollowing a downward revision of the official Chinese statistics for terrestrial meat production(FAO, 2000). In fact, analysis of global aquaculture production excluding mainland China showedonly a modest growth, with production in the rest of the world increasing over six-fold, from2.23 mmt in 1970 to 13.27 mmt in 2000, and the growth of the sector decreasing from a high of7.4% during the seventies to 6.6% during eighties, and to 4.1% during the nineties (Figure 1.3.5).

17

The second top ten country aquaculture producers by weight in 2000 included Norway (488tmt), Korea DPR (698 tmt), the United States of America (428 tmt), Chile (425 tmt), Egypt (340tmt), Spain (312 tmt), France (268 tmt), Taiwan, POC (256 tmt), Italy (216 tmt), Malaysia (168tmt) and Brazil (153 tmt) (Table 5 see page 93).

Asia regional profile

Forty-two countries reported aquaculture production within the Asian region in 2000: Armenia,Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, China (Mainland),China (Hong Kong SAR), China (Taiwan), Cyprus, Georgia, India, Indonesia, Iran (IslamicRep. of), Iraq, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Korea (Dem. People’s Rep.), Korea (Republicof), Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Dem. Rep., Lebanon, Malaysia, Myanmar, Nepal, Oman,Pakistan, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Syrian Arab Republic, Tajikistan,Thailand, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Viet Nam (FAO, 2002).

The total reported aquaculture production within the region has increased 14-fold by weight,from 2 811 549 mt in 1970 (78.5% of total global production) to 41 724 469 mt in 2000(representing 91.3% of total global production) (Figure 1.3.4). The annual percent growth of thesector within the region has increased from 8.2% per year (period 1970-1980), to 8.9% per year(period 1980-1990), to 11.1% per year (period 1990-2000), with the sector displaying an overallgrowth of 9.4% per year for the period 1970-2000 (Figure 1.3.6).

The total number of reported cultured species within the region has increased from 55 in 1970to 107 in 2000 (FAO, 2002). The major species groups cultivated in 2000 included finfish (20.34mmt or 48.7%), aquatic plants (10.07 mmt or 24.1%), molluscs (9.69 mmt or 23.2%), crustaceans(1.47 mmt or 3.5%), amphibians and reptiles (99,499 mt or 0.24%) and miscellaneousinvertebrates (36,965 mt or 0.09%) (FAO, 2002). The top cultivated species in 2000 included theJapanese kelp (4 580 tmt or 11.0%), Pacific cupped oyster (3 741 tmt or 9.0%), silver carp (3 405tmt or 8.2%), grass carp (3 379 tmt or 8.1%), common carp (2 499 tmt or 6.0%), Japanese carpetshell (1 635 tmt or 3.9%), bighead carp (1 631 tmt or 3.9%), Crucian carp (1 379 tmt or 3.3%),Yesso scallop (1 133 tmt or 2.7%) and laver (nori: 1 011 tmt or 2.4%) (FAO, 2002).

18

The top ten country producers within the Asian region in 2000 included China (Mainland)(32.44 mmt or 77.7%), India (2.09 mmt or 5.0%), Japan (1.29 mmt or 3.1%), Philippines (1.04mmt or 2.5%), Indonesia (994 tmt or 2.4%), Thailand (707 tmt or 1.7%), Korea (Republic of)(698 tmt or 1.7%), Bangladesh (657 tmt or 1.6%), Viet Nam (525 tmt or 1.3%) and Korea (Dem.People’s Rep.) (468 tmt or 1.1%) (Figure 1.3.7).

By value, aquaculture production within the region has increased over four-fold, from US$9.4thousand million in 1984 to US$46.3 thousand million in 2000 (representing 82.1% of totalglobal aquaculture production by value). The main species groups by value in 2000 includedfinfish (US$23.7 thousand million or 51.2%), molluscs (US$8.3 thousand million or 18.0%),crustaceans (US$8.3 thousand million or 17.9%), aquatic plants (US$5.6 thousand million or12.0%), amphibians/reptiles (US$0.39 thousand million or 0.8%) and miscellaneous invertebrates(US$29 million or 0.06%). The top aquaculture species by value in 2000 included the giant tigerprawn (US$4.0 thousand million or 8.6%), Pacific cupped oyster (US$3.1 thousand million or6.8%), silver carp (US$2.9 thousand million or 6.4%), Japanese kelp (US$2.8 thousand millionor 6.1%), grass carp (US$2.8 thousand million or 6.0%), common carp (US$2.3 thousand millionor 4.8%), Japanese carpet shell (US$2.0 thousand million or 4.2%), Yesso scallop (US$1.5 thousandmillion or 3.3%), rohu (US$1.5 thousand million or 3.2%), bighead carp (US$1.4 thousand millionor 3.0%), fleshy prawn (US$1.3 thousand million or 2.8%) and the Japanese amberjack (US$1.2thousand million or 2.7%) (FAO, 2002).

The top ten country producers by value within the region in 2000 included China(Mainland) (US$28.1 thousand million or 60.7%), Japan (US$4.4 thousand million or9.6%), Thailand (US$2.4 thousand million or 5.2%), Indonesia (US$2.3 thousandmillion or 4.9%), India (US$2.2 thousand million or 4.7%), Bangladesh (US$1.2thousand million or 2.5%), Viet Nam (US$1.1 thousand million or 2.4%), China(Taiwan) (US$0.85 thousand million or 1.8%), Myanmar (US$0.81 thousand millionor 1.7%) and the Philippines (US$0.73 thousand million or 1.6%) (Table 5 seepage 93).

The total production of farmed aquatic meat (values calculated using mean conversion valuesof 1.15 for finfish, 2.8 for crustaceans and 9.0 for molluscs) within the region has increased 16-fold, from 1 127 548 mt in 1970 (94.1% finfish, 5.6% molluscs, 0.3% crustaceans) to 19 295 523mt in 2000 (91.7% finfish, 5.6% molluscs, 2.7% crustaceans). The calculated per capita productionof farmed aquatic meat within the region has increased nine-fold, from 0.54 kg in 1970 to 5.25kg in 2000.

19

China country profile

Total reported aquaculture production within mainland China has increased 25-fold by weight,from 1 294 180 mt in 1970 to 32 444 211 mt in 2000, with production up by 8.0% by weightsince 1999 (FAO, 2002). Annual percent growth has increased from 7.5% per year (period1970-1980), to 11.6% per year (period 1980-1990), and to 15.1% per year (period 1990-2000),with the sector displaying an overall growth of 11.3% per year for the period 1970-2000 (Table5 see page 93 & Figure 1.3.6).

The total number of reported cultured species within mainland China has increased from 14 in1970 to 21 in 2000 (FAO, 2002; Table 6 see page 95). The main species groups cultivated in 2000included finfish (15.17 mmt or 46.8% of total production; 96.1% freshwater finfish, 2.8% marinefinfish and 1.1% diadromous finfish), molluscs (8.61 mmt or 26.5% of total production), aquaticplants (7.86 mmt or 24.2%), crustaceans (0.71 mmt or 2.2%) and reptiles (92 tmt or 0.28%). Thetop cultured species in 2000 included the Japanese kelp (4 152 tmt or 12.8% of total production),Pacific cupped oyster (3 292 tmt or 10.1%), silver carp (3 228 tmt or 9.9%), grass carp (3 162 tmtor 9.7%), common carp (2 120 tmt or 6.5%), Japanese carpet shell (1 616 tmt or 5.0%), bigheadcarp (1 614 tmt or 5.0%), Crucian carp (1 375 tmt or 4.2%), Yesso scallop (920 tmt or 2.8%) andNile tilapia (629 tmt or 1.9%) (Table 6 see page 95). The above ten species/species groupsrepresented 68.1% of the total reported aquaculture production in mainland China in 2000.

However, 7 873 682 mt or 24.3% of the total reported aquaculture production in 2000 withinmainland China was not reported to the species level. This included other aquatic plants (3 229900 mt), other marine molluscs (1 492 691 mt), other freshwater fishes (1 477 534 mt), otherrazor clams (552 792 mt), other sea mussels (534 503 mt), other marine fishes (426 957 mt),other marine crabs (125 190 mt) and other marine crustaceans (34 115 mt). For example, apartfrom the Japanese eel, no cultivated marine or diadromous finfish species is currently reportedto FAO.

According to the above statistical information, mainland China produced 71.0% of the totalglobal aquaculture production by weight in 2000, including 65.8% of the total farmed finfish,80.2% of the total farmed molluscs, 77.6% of the total farmed aquatic plants and 42.9% of thetotal farmed crustaceans (FAO, 2002).

By value, aquaculture production within China has increased over six-fold, from US$ 4.1thousand million in 1984 to US$ 28.1 thousand million in 2000 (representing 49.8% of the totalglobal aquaculture production by value). The main cultivated species groups by value in 2000were finfish (US$ 13.2 thousand million or 47.1% of the total value of aquaculture production),molluscs (US$ 7.2 thousand million or 25.5%), aquatic plants (US$ 4.0 thousand million or14.2%), crustaceans (US$ 3.4 thousand million or 12.0%) and reptiles (softshell turtle) (US$ 342million or 1.2%) (FAO, 2002). The top aquaculture species by value in 2000 included the Pacificcupped oyster (US$ 2.6 thousand million or 9.4%), silver carp (US$ 2.6 thousand million or9.2%), grass carp (US$ 2.5 thousand million or 9.0%), Japanese kelp (US$ 2.5 thousand millionor 8.9%), Japanese carpet shell (US$ 1.9 thousand million or 6.9%), common carp (US$ 1.6thousand million or 5.6%), bighead carp (US$ 1.4 thousand million or 4.9%), fleshy prawn(US$ 1.3 thousand million or 4.6%), other aquatic plants (species not given) (US$ 1.3 thousandmillion or 4.6%) and the Yesso scallop (US$ 1.2 thousand million or 4.2%) (FAO, 2002).

The total production of farmed aquatic meat within mainland China has increased 27-fold,from 526 628 mt in 1970 (96.1% finfish, 3.8% molluscs) to 14 403 815 mt in 2000 (91.6% finfish,6.6% molluscs, 1.8% crustaceans). The calculated per capita production of farmed aquatic meatwithin mainland China has increased 17-fold, from 0.63 kg in 1970 to 11.23 kg in 2000.

20

Europe regional profile

Thirty-eight countries reported aquaculture production within the European regionin 2000, including Albania, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Bulgaria, Channel Islands,Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Faeroe Islands, Finland, France,Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia(Fmr Yug Rp of), Malta, Moldova (Republic of), Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal,Romania, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland,Ukraine, United Kingdom and Yugoslavia (Fed. Rep. of) (FAO, 2002).

The total reported aquaculture production within the region has increased overfour-fold by weight, from 497 898 mt in 1970 (13.9% of the total global production) to2 028 835 mt in 2000 (4.4% of total global production). The annual percent growth ofthe sector has decreased from 4.3% per year (period 1970-1980) and 7.8% per year(period 1980-1990), to 2.3% per year (period 1990-2000), with the sector displayingan overall growth of 4.8% per year during the period 1970-2000 (Figure 1.3.8).

The total number of reported cultured species within the region has tripled, increasing from 19in 1970 to 60 in 2000, with the main species groups cultivated in 2000 being finfish (1.25 mmt or61.8%), molluscs (769 tmt or 37.9%), aquatic plants (6,028 mt or 0.3%) and crustaceans (209mt) (FAO, 2002). The top cultured species by weight within the region in 2000 included theAtlantic salmon (615 tmt or 30.3%), blue mussel (435 tmt or 21.4%), rainbow trout (289 tmt or14.2%), Pacific cupped oyster (141 tmt or 6.9%), common carp (138 tmt or 6.8%), Mediterraneanmussel (Mytilus galloprovincialis) (115 tmt or 5.7%), gilthead seabream (Sparus auratus) (58,041mt or 2.9%), Japanese carpet shells (55,858 mt or 2.7%), European seabass (Dicentarchus labrax)(41,885 mt or 2.1%), silver carp (37,732 mt or 1.9%) and the European eel (Anguilla anguilla)(10,617 mt or 0.5%).

The top country producers within the region in 2000 included Norway (488 tmt or 24.0%),Spain (312 tmt or 15.4%), France (268 tmt or 13.2%), Italy (216 tmt or 10.7%), United Kingdom(152 tmt or 7.5%), Greece (80 tmt or 3.9%), Russian Federation (77 tmt or 3.8%), Netherlands(75 tmt or 3.7%), Germany (60 tmt or 2.9%) and Ireland (74 tmt or 2.5%) ( Figure 1.3.9 & Table5 see page 93).

21

By value, aquaculture production within the region has increased over three-fold, from US$1.42 thousand million in 1984 to US$ 4.63 thousand million in 2000 (representing 8.2% of thetotal global aquaculture production by value), with the main species groups being finfish (US$3.79 thousand or 81.9%) and molluscs (US$ 819 million or 17.7%). The top ten cultivated speciesby value in 2000 included the Atlantic salmon (US$ 1.77 thousand million or 41.6%), rainbowtrout (US$ 768 million or 16.6%), common carp (US$ 308 million or 6.7%), gilthead seabream(US$ 278 million or 6.0%), blue mussel (US$ 273 million or 5.9%), European seabass (US$ 226million or 4.9%), Pacific cupped oyster (US$ 214 million or 4.6%), Japanese carpet shells (US$165 million or 3.6%), European eel (US$ 85 million or 1.8%) and Mediterranean mussel (US$ 74million or 1.6 %).

By country, the top aquaculture producers by value in 2000 within the region included Norway(US$1.36 thousand million or 29.3%), United Kingdom (US$461 million or 10.0%), Italy (US$456million or 9.8%), France (US$434 million or 9.4%), Spain (US$382 million or 8.3%), Greece(US$287 million or 6.2%), Russian Federation (US$205 million or 4.4%), Denmark (US$147million or 3.2 %), Germany (US$118 or 2.5%) and the Netherlands (US$107 million or 2.3%)(FAO, 2002).

The total production of farmed aquatic meat within the region has increased seven-fold, from159 224 mt in 1970 (74.8% finfish, 25.2% molluscs) to 1 175 838 mt in 2000 (92.7% finfish, 7.3%molluscs). The calculated per capita production of farmed aquatic meat within the region hasincreased three-fold, from 0.35 kg in 1970 to 1.62 kg in 2000.

Latin America and Caribbean regional profile

Thirty-five countries reported aquaculture production within the Latin America and CaribbeanRegion in 2000, including Argentina, Bahamas, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, CostaRica, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Grenada, French Guiana,Guadeloupe, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Jamaica, Martinique, Mexico, Netherlands Antilles,Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Puerto Rico, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Suriname,Trinidad and Tobago, Turks and Caicos Islands, Uruguay and Venezuela (FAO, 2002).

22

Total reported aquaculture production within the region has increased over 714-foldby weight, from 1 221 mt in 1970 (0.03% of total global production) to 871 874 mt in2000 (representing 1.9% of total global production). The annual percent growth ofthe sector within the region has decreased from 34.4% per year (period 1970-1980)and 23.3% per year (period 1980-1990), to 14.2 % per year (period 1990-2000), withthe sector displaying an overall growth of 24.5% per year during the period 1970-2000 (Figure 1.3.8).

The total number of reported cultured species within the region has increaseddramatically, from eight in 1970 to 46 in 2000. The main cultivated species groupsin 2000 included finfish (624 tmt or 71.6%), crustaceans (153 tmt or 17.6%), molluscs(60 tmt or 6.9%), aquatic plants (34 tmt or 3.8%) and amphibians (772 mt or 0.09%).The top ten cultured species by weight within the region in 2000 included Atlanticsalmon (166 897 mt or 19.1%), whiteleg shrimp (139 264 mt or 16.0%), rainbow trout(97 479 mt or 11.2%), coho salmon (93 419 mt or 10.7%), tilapia (85 246 mt or 9.8%),common carp (62 241 mt or 7.1%), Gracilaria seaweed (33 642 mt or 3.8%), silver carp(30 000 mt or 3.4%), Chilean mussel (Mytilus chilensis) (23 477 mt or 2.7%) and thePeruvian calico scallop (Argopectin purpuratus) (21 295 mt or 2.4%) (FAO, 2002).

The top country producers within the region in 2000 included Chile (425 058 mt or48.7%), Brazil (153 558 mt or 17.6%), Ecuador (62, 11 mt or 7.1%), Colombia (61 786mt or 7.1%), Mexico (53 802 mt or 6.2%), Cuba (52 700 mt or 6.0%), Venezuela (12830 mt or 1.5%), Costa Rica (9 708 mt or 1.1%), Honduras (8 542 mt or 1.0%) andPeru (6 812 mt or 0.8%) (Figure 1.3.10).

By value, aquaculture production within the region has increased over eight-fold, from US$337million in 1984 to US$2.98 thousand million in 2000 (representing 5.3% of the total globalaquaculture production by value). The main species groups by value in 2000 were finfish(US$1.89 billion or 63.4%), crustaceans (US$0.94 billion or 31.5%) and molluscs (US$128 millionor 4.3%), with the top cultured species being the whiteleg shrimp (US$848 million or 28.4%),Atlantic salmon (US$567 million or 19.0%), coho salmon (US$346 million or 11.6%), rainbowtrout (US$291 million or 9.7%), tilapia (US$221 million or 7.4%), common carp (US$176 millionor 5.9%), Peruvian calico scallop (US$93 million or 3.1%), penaeid shrimp (species not given)(US$77 million or 2.6%), cachama (Colossoma) (US$75 million or 2.5%) and silver carp (US$21million or 0.7%).

23

The top country producers by value within the region in 2000 included Chile (US$1,266 millionor 42.5%), Brasil (US$617 million or 20.7%), Ecuador (US$324 million or 10.8%), Colombia(US$258 million or 8.6%), Mexico (US$181 million or 7.0%), Honduras (US$59 million or 2.0%),Cuba (US$47 million or 1.6%), Venezuela (US$43 million or 1.1%). Costa Rica (US$33 millionor 1.4%) and Peru (US$ 28 million or 0.9%).

The total production of farmed aquatic meat within the region has increased just under athousand-fold, from 612 mt in 1970 (86.5% finfish, 11.5% molluscs and 3.5% crustaceans) to604 168 mt in 2000 (89.8% finfish, 9.0% crustaceans and 1.1% molluscs). The calculated percapita production of farmed aquatic meat within the region has increased from 0.002 kg in 1970to 1.16 kg in 2000.

North America regional profile

Two countries reported aquaculture production within the North American region in 2000,Canada and the United States of America (USA). Total combined aquaculture production bythese countries has increased over three-fold by weight, from 172 272 mt in 1970 (4.9% of thetotal global production) to 551 559 mt in 2000 (representing 1.2% of total global production byweight). The annual percent growth of aquaculture within this region increased from <0.02%per year (period 1970-1980) to 7.6% per year (period 1980-1990), and then decreased to 4.4%per year (period 1990-2000), with the sector displaying an overall growth of 3.9% per year forthe period 1970-2000 (Figure 1.3.11).

The total number of reported cultured species within the region has doubled, increasing fromnine in 1970 to 19 in 2000, with the main species groups cultivated being finfish (430 905 mt or78.1%), molluscs (110 290 mt or 20.0%) and crustaceans (10 364 mt or 1.9%). The top culturedspecies within the region in 2000 included the channel catfish (269 257 mt or 48.8%), Atlanticsalmon (90 790 mt or 16.5%), Pacific cupped oyster (44 318 mt or 8.0%), rainbow trout (32 360mt or 5.9%), Northern quahog (= hard clam, Mercenaria mercenaria) (23 985 mt or 4.3%), bluemussel (23 535 mt or 4.3%), American cupped oyster (14 596 mt or 2.6%), tilapias (species notgiven) (8 051 mt or 1.4%), chinook salmon (8 000 mt or 1.4%), red swamp crawfish (Procambarusclarkii) (7 713 mt or 1.4%) and trouts (species not given) (6 407 mt or 1.25%) (FAO, 2002).

24

Total aquaculture production within the North American region in 2000 was reported to be428 262 mt in the USA (77.6% of the regional total) and 123 297 mt in Canada (22.4% of theregional total (Table 5 & Figure 1.3.11). By value, aquaculture production within the region hasincreased over two-fold, from US$498 million in 1984 to US$ 1.24 thousand million in 2000(representing 2.2% of total global aquaculture production by value). The main species groupscultivated by value in 2000 were finfish (US$1.0 thousand million or 85.0%), molluscs (US$140million or 11.2%) and crustaceans (US$46 million or 3.7%). The top cultivated species by valuein 2000 were channel catfish (US$447 million or 36.0%), Atlantic salmon (US$355 million or28.5%), rainbow trout (US$82 million or 6.6%), American cupped oyster (US$53 million or4.2%), golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas) (US$46 million or 3.7%), chinook salmon (US$37million or 3.0%), striped bass hybrid (Morone saxatilis x M. crysops) (US$29 million or 2.4%),northern quahog (=hard clam) US$28.1 million or 2.2%), red swamp crawfish (US$28 millionor 2.2%) and Pacific cupped oyster (US$27 million or 2.1%). The total value of aquacultureproduction in the United States of America and Canada in 2000 was reported to be US$870million and US$373 million, respectively (Table 5 see page 93).

The total production of farmed aquatic meat within the region has increased over eight-fold,from 47 587 mt in 1970 (68.1% finfish, 31.3% molluscs and 0.6% crustaceans) to 390 655 mt in2000 (95.9% finfish, 3.1% molluscs and 1.0% crustaceans). The calculated per capita productionof farmed aquatic meat within the region increased over six-fold, from 0.21 kg in 1970 to 1.24kg in 2000.

Africa regional profile

Thirty-eight countries reported aquaculture production within the African region in 2000,including Algeria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Congo (Dem.Rep. of the), Congo (Republic of), Côte d’Ivoire, Egypt, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Kenya, Lesotho,Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritius, Mayotte, Morocco,Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sudan,Swaziland, Tanzania (United Rep. of), Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe (FAO,2002).

Total reported aquaculture production within the region has increased over 38-fold by weight,from 10 271 mt in 1970 (0.3% of the total global production) to 399 390 mt in 2000 (representing0.9% of total global production by weight). The annual percent growth of aquaculture productionwithin the region increased from 9.8% per year (period 1970-1980) to 12.1% per year (period1980-1990), and then to 17.1% per year (period 1990-2000), with the sector displaying an overallgrowth of 13.0% per year for the period 1970-2000 (Figure 1.3.12).

25

The total number of reported cultured species within the region has increased sharply fromonly five in 1970 to 43 in 2000, with the main species groups cultivated in 2000 being finfish(384 337 mt or 96.2%), aquatic plants (7 177 mt or 1.8%), crustaceans (5 425 mt or 1.4%) andmolluscs (2 451 mt or 0.6% (FAO, 2002). The top cultivated species within the region in 2000included Nile tilapia (161 958 mt or 40.5%), flathead grey mullet (Mugil cephalus) (80 827 mt or20.2%), grass carp (66 531 mt or 16.6%), common carp (19 590 mt or 4.9%), European seabass(10 483 mt or 2.6%), gilthead seabream (9 681 mt or 2.4%), Eucheuma seaweeds (7 000 mt or1.7%), giant tiger prawn (5 225 mt or 1.3%), torpedo shaped catfish (4 201 mt or 1.0%) andtilapias (species not given) (3 820 mt or 0.9%; excludes three spotted tilapia at 2 750 mt or 0.7%)(FAO, 2002).

The top country aquaculture producers within the region in 2000 included Egypt (340 093 mtor 85.1%), Nigeria (25 718 mt or 6.4%), Madagascar (7 280 mt or 1.8%), Tanzania (7 210 mt or1.8%), Zambia (4 240 mt or 1.1 %), South Africa (4 108 mt or 1.0%), Morocco (1 847 mt or0.5%), Tunisia (1 553 mt or 0.4%), Cote d’Ivoire (1 197 mt or 0.3%) and Sudan (1 000 mt or0.25%) (Figure 1.3.12).

By value, aquaculture production within the region has increased over 32-fold, from US$29million in 1984 to US$951 million in 2000 (representing 1.7% of the total global aquacultureproduction by value), with the main species groups in 2000 being finfish (US$911 million or95.8%), crustaceans (US$30 million or 3.2%), molluscs (US$7.5 million or 0.80%) and aquaticplants (US$1.4 million or 0.14%). The top aquaculture species by value within the region in2000 were the flathead grey mullet (US$280 million or 29.4%), Nile tilapia (US$279 million or29.3%), grass carp (US$115 million or 12.1%), European seabass (US$73 million or 7.6%), giltheadseabream (US$61 million or 6.5%), common carp (US$28 million or 3.0%), giant tiger prawn(US$28 million or 2.9%), torpedo shaped catfishes (US$12.8 million or 1.3%), tilapias (speciesnot given) (US$7.4 million or 0.8%) and rainbow trout (US$6.6 million or 0.7%).

The top country producers by value within the region in 2000 included Egypt (US$815 millionor 85.7%), Nigeria (US$57 million or 5.9%), Madagascar (US$28 million or 2.9%), South Africa(US$14 million or 1.4%), Tunisia (US$7.1 million or 0.7%), Zambia (US$7.0 million or 0.7%),Morocco (US$4.8 million or 0.5%), Seychelles (US$4.1 million or 0.4%), Cote d’Ivoire (US$1.6million or 0.17%) and Sudan (US$1.5 million or 0.015%) (FAO, 2002).

The total production of farmed aquatic meat within the region has increased over 38-fold, from8 834 mt in 1970 (99.8% finfish, 0.2% molluscs) to 336 415 mt in 2000 (99.3% finfish, 0.6%crustaceans and 0.1% molluscs). The calculated per capita production of farmed aquatic meatwithin the region has increased from 0.02 kg in 1970 to 0.42 kg in 2000.

Oceania regional profile

Ten countries reported aquaculture production within Oceania in 2000: Australia, Fiji Islands,French Polynesia, Guam, Kiribati, New Caledonia, New Zealand, Palau, Papua New Guineaand the Solomon Islands.

Total reported aquaculture production within the region increased over 16-fold by weight, from8 421 mt in 1970 (0.2% of the total global production) to 139 432 mt in 2000 (representing 0.3%of total global production by weight). The annual percent growth of aquaculture productionwithin the region increased from 3.8% per year (period 1970-1980) to 14.6% per year (period1980-1990) and to 11.35 per year (period 1990-2000), with the sector displaying an overallgrowth of 9.8% per year for the period 1970-2000 (Figure 1.3.13).

26

The total number of reported cultured species within the region has increased from three in1970 to 30 in 2000, with the main species groups cultivated in 2000 being molluscs (95 576 mt or68.5%), finfish (28 763 mt or 20.6%), aquatic plants (10 020 mt or 7.2%) and crustaceans (5 073mt or 3.6%). The top cultivated species within the region in 2000 included New Zealand mussel(Perma canaliculus) (76 000 mt or 54.5%), Atlantic salmon (10 907 mt or 7.8%), Pacific cuppedoyster (10 773 mt or 7.7%), Eucheuma seaweeds (10 020 mt or 7.2%), southern bluefin tuna(Thynnus maccoyii) (7 803 mt or 5.6%), chinook salmon (6 140 mt or 4.4 %), Sydney rock oyster(Saccostrea commercialis) (5 584 mt or 4.0%), giant tiger prawn (2 654 mt or 1.9%), rainbow trout(1 949 mt or 1.4%) and Australian mussel (Mytilus planulatus) (1 771 mt or 1.3%).

By country, the top aquaculture producers within the region in 2000 included New Zealand (85640 mt or 61.4%), Australia (39 909 mt or 28.6%), Kiribati (9 509 mt or 6.8%), Fiji Islands (2 299mt or 1.6%), New Caledonia (1 754 mt or 1.3%), Guam (232 mt), French Polynesia (53 mt),Papua New Guinea (19 mt), Solomon Islands (15 mt) and Palau (2 mt) (FAO, 2002).

The total value of aquaculture production within the region has increased over nine-fold, fromUS$32 million in 1984 to US$319 million in 2000 (representing 0.5% of the total global aquacultureproduction by value), the main species by value in 2000 being finfish (US$202 million or 63.2%),molluscs (US$69 million or 21.7%), crustaceans (US$44 million or 13.9%) and aquatic plants(US$4.1 million or 1.3%). The top aquaculture species by value within the region in 2000 includedthe southern bluefin tuna (US$118 million or 36.9%), Atlantic salmon (US$49 million or 15.5%),New Zealand mussel (US$30 million or 9.5%), giant tiger prawn (US$22 million or 7.0%), Pacificcupped oyster (US$18 million or 5.8%), chinook salmon (US$18 million or 5.8%), Sydney rockoyster (US$17 million or 5.2%), penaeid shrimp (species not given) (US$12 million or 3.8%),rainbow trout (US$7.2 million or 2.3%) and Kuruma prawn (Penaeus japonicus) (US$5.9 millionor 1.9%).

By country, the top producers by value within the region in 2000 included Australia (US$246million or 77.0%), New Zealand (US$54 million or 16.9%), New Caledonia (US$12 million or3.8%), Kiribati (US$3.8 million or 1.2%) and the Fiji Islands (US$1.8 million (FAO, 2002).

The total production of farmed aquatic meat within the region has increased over 40-fold, from936 mt in 1970 (100% molluscs) to 37 442 mt in 2000 (66.8% finfish, 28.4% molluscs and 4.8%crustaceans). The calculated per capita production of farmed aquatic meat within the region hasincreased from 0.05 kg in 1970 to 1.23 kg in 2000.

27

1.4 CONTRIBUTION TO GLOBAL FOOD SUPPLY

In terms of global food-fish supply (i.e. the production of aquatic finfish and shellfish productson a whole live weight basis, and excluding aquatic plants), the aquaculture sector produced35.6 mmt of farmed aquatic products in 2000 (24.58 mmt from China and 11.00 mmt from therest of the world), compared with 61.1 mmt from capture fisheries (9.19 mmt from China, 51.93mmt from the rest of the world), destined for direct human consumption (Figure 1.4.1).

On the basis of the above figures, per caput foodfish supply from aquaculture has increasedeight-fold, from 0.71 kg in 1970 (0.9 kg fromChina, 0.6 kg from the rest of the world) to 5.87kg in 2000 (19.6 kg from China, 2.3 kg from therest of the world), with per caput global supplygrowing at an average compound rate of 7.3%per year (10.8% per year for China, 4.6% peryear for the rest of the world). In contrast, theper capita supply of food fish derived fromcapture fisheries (i.e. 61.1 mmt in 2000,excluding captured fish destined for reduction

into fishmeal) has remained relatively static, decreasing from 10.27 kg in 1970 to 10.09 kg in2000. On the basis of the above data, over 36.8% of total global food-fish supplies were suppliedby the aquaculture sector in 2000. However, separation of the data between China and the restof the world shows a completely different picture; per caput supply from capture fisheries inChina has increased from 3.0 kg in 1970 to 7.3 kg in 2000, whereas in the rest of the world it hasdecreased from 12.4 kg in 1970 to 10.8 kg in 2000. Moreover, whereas in China the totalreported per caput supply from capture fisheries and aquaculture totalled 26.9 kg in 2000(aquaculture’s share being 72.9%), in the rest of the world the total calculated per caput supplywas half this at 13.1 kg, and aquaculture’s share was only 17.5% (FAO, 2002).

The total global production of farmed aquaticmeat (i.e. finfish – gutted, head on; crustaceans– tails/meat, peeled; molluscs – meat, withoutshells, fresh weight basis) increased 15-fold,from 1.43 mmt in 1970 (0.39 kg per caput) to21.84 mmt in 2000 (3.61 kg per caput).Moreover, farmed aquatic meat productionhas been growing at an average APR of 9.5%(period 1970-2000) (Figure 1.4.4), or over threetimes faster than total terrestrial meatproduction (APR 2.8%) (Figure 1.1.1) over thesame period.

28

Although aquaculture currently ranks fourth in terms of global farmed meat production (21.8mmt in 2000) after pig meat (89.6 mmt), chicken meat (58.2 mmt) and beef and veal (56.5 mmt(Figure 1.4.5), in China it ranks second to pig meat production (Figure 1.4.6).

29

Figure 1.4.7 Contribution of food fish to the human diet: 2000

21.1

23.3

19.4

10.3

9.4

7.1

5.7

12

18.8

20.6

15.9

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

China

Asia

Africa

Europe

Oceania

North & Central America

South America

Developed Countries

Developing Countries

LIFDCs*

World

Fish as percentage of total animal protein intake* including China

In terms of animal protein supply, food fish (from capture fisheries and aquaculture) represented15.9% of the total supply in 2000. In general, people living within Asia and Africa (includingLIFDCs) are much more dependent on fish as part of their daily diets than people living withinmost developed countries and other regions of the world (Figure 1.4.7). For example, figures for2000 show that while fish represented only 5.7% of the total animal protein supplies in SouthAmerica, 7.1% in North and Central America, 9.4% in Oceania, and 10.3% in Europe, theyprovided 19.4% of total animal protein supplies in Africa, 21.1% in China and 23.3% in Asia(FAO, 2002).

31

An Outlook for Aquaculture Development: Major Issues,Opportunities and Challenges1

Rohana P. SubasingheSenior Fishery Resources Officer (Aquaculture)

FAO Fisheries DepartmentRome, Italy

Introduction

Aquaculture is one of the fastest growing food producing sectors of the world and has achieveda reputation as a significant contributor to poverty alleviation, food security and incomegeneration. The decision to establish the Sub-Committee on Aquaculture under the Committeeon Fisheries (COFI) reflects the importance that FAO Member Governments attach to aquaculturedevelopment. Nevertheless, some forms of production practice have, justifiably, been identifiedas unsustainable and the cause of negative environmental and socio-economic impacts. Thisdisparity indicates the need to further discuss issues relating to sectoral sustainability, with aview to ensure that the aquaculture sector provides a fair and equitable contribution tohumankind. The section examines major issues of sustainability, discusses prospects andchallenges for improving aquaculture’s contribution towards reducing poverty, improving foodsecurity, assisting rural livelihoods and enhancing national income generation.

Aquaculture is an important domestic provider of much needed, high quality, animal protein,generally at prices affordable to the poorer segments of society. It is also a valuable provider ofemployment, cash income and foreign exchange, with developing countries contributing over90% of the total global production. When integrated carefully, aquaculture also provides low-risk entry points for rural development and has diverse applications in both inland and coastalareas. While export-oriented, industrial and commercial aquaculture practices bring muchneeded foreign exchange, revenue and employment, more extensive forms of aquaculture benefitthe livelihoods of the poor through improved food supply, reduced vulnerability to uncontrollablenatural crashes in aquatic production, employment, and increased income. Fisheriesenhancements using appropriate culture techniques also provide important opportunities forresource-poor people to benefit from enhanced use of under-utilized, new or degraded resources.Such culture-based fisheries have considerable potential to increase fish supplies from bothfreshwater and marine fisheries, with concomitant income generation in rural inland and coastalcommunities.

The challenge is to create an enabling environment for optimising the potential benefits andcontribution that aquaculture and culture-based fisheries can make to rural development, foodsecurity and poverty alleviation. Improved participatory farming/production practices withinthe framework of sustainable, integrated, co-management of natural resources will improvetheir use. People-centered development and extension management approaches, ensuringcapacity building that focuses on culture systems for aquatic species feeding low in the foodchain, also provide the low-cost products favored by poorer rural communities.

______________________________

1 This section of the Circular 886, Revision 2 has been drawn heavily from the Working Documents 2 of the COFI Sub-Committee on Aquaculture, entitled Aquaculture Development and Management: Status, Issues, and Prospects, preparedfor the First Session to be held in Beijing, China from 18-22 April, 2002.

32

Major Issues of Regional and Global Significance

During the past three decades, aquaculture has expanded, diversified, intensified and advancedtechnologically. The potential of this development to enhance local food security, povertyalleviation and improve rural livelihoods has been well-recognized. The Bangkok Declarationand Strategy (NACA/FAO, 2000) emphasizes the need for the aquaculture sector to continuedevelopment towards its full potential, making a net contribution to global food availability,domestic food security, economic growth, trade and improved living standards. In order toachieve this potential, aquaculture should be pursued as an integral component of communitydevelopment, contributing to sustainable livelihoods for, promoting human development andenhancing social well-being of poorer sectors. Aquaculture policies and regulations shouldpromote practical and economically viable farming and management practices that areenvironmentally sustainable and socially acceptable. If aquaculture is to attain its full potential,the sector may require new approaches in the coming decades. These approaches willundoubtedly vary in different regions and countries, and the challenge is to develop approachesthat are realistic and achievable within each social, economic, environmental and politicalcircumstance. In an era of globalization and trade liberalization, such approaches should notonly focus on increasing production, they should also focus on producing a product that isaffordable, acceptable and accessible to all sectors of society.

Considerable political will is required to establish effective, sustainable approaches to aquaculturedevelopment. Appropriate mechanisms are needed and institutional capacities must bestrengthened to assure better planning and management. This involves the adoption of variouspolicy measures which may include extensive consultation with, and/or participation of, thoseaffected by the proposed policy measures, strict adoption of the principles of inter-generationequity, and recognition of the need to devolve management to the lowest practical level ofresponsibility. Appropriate legal frameworks, new skills and improved capacities, especially forpolicy analysis at the sectoral and project levels, as well as new and efficient means ofcommunication, are necessary. Institutional strengthening and local training are also importantto enable decentralized management.

The major issues and concerns that need to be addressed to ensure overall sustainability of theaquaculture sector include:• providing an enabling environment for sectoral sustainability with appropriate, and well-

linked, technology, policy, legal and institutional frameworks;• involvement of stakeholders in the overall process of drafting and reviewing the regulatory

processes which govern the aquaculture sector;• involving all stakeholders in decision making, policy planning, development and

management of the sector;• facilitating access to key resources, including physical, monetary, and information/

knowledge;• achieving responsible management and efficient use of common resources, such as water

and land;• integrating aquaculture into coastal and inland watershed management plans and adoption

of integrated planning and co-management of common resources with relevant stakeholders.• effectively integrating aquaculture into pro-poor national development plans;• stimulating investments and private-sector participation in commercial and industrial

aquaculture development, where appropriate;• supplying products for specific consumer preferences and complementing the efforts of

other food production sectors;• promoting closer cooperation among stakeholders, countries and regions in the overall

development process; and• investment by both the public and private sector in aquaculture development at both small-

scale and commercial/industrial levels, which are aimed at sustainable development.

33

Creating an Enabling Environment

Historically, most aquaculture practices around the world have been pursued with significantsocial, economic and nutritional benefits, and with minimal environmental costs. However, thesector has been the focus of recent public debate related to negative environmental and socialimpacts. There is some basis for these accusations - in certain parts of the world and in certainaquaculture sectors, there have been some inadequately-planned and inappropriately managedforms of aquaculture that have created significant social and environmental problems. Typically,these impacts arise from weak regulatory frameworks and increased commercial potential ofsome high value species.

Globally, aquaculture is still predominantly rural, producing species low in the food chain thatrequire little or no inputs or capital investment (over 80% of total global finfish production iscyprinid fishes). This means aquaculture makes a significant, grass-roots, contribution toimproving livelihoods among the poorer sectors of society. Pressure to overexploit resourcesunder such circumstances has been as significant in aquaculture development as it has beenhistorically in capture fisheries. However, it is important to examine the lessons learnt from pastexperience and develop strategies for improved sustainability of this important sector. Reductionof externalities and negative social and environmental impacts, through consultative planning,and dedicated co-management will ensure sustainable benefits.

Policy and institutional and legal environment

The need to develop and adopt policies and practices that ensure environmental sustainability,requires environmentally sound technologies and farming systems based on solid scientificknowledge. Increasing the efficiency of resource use, and productivity at the farm level,contributes significantly to sectoral sustainability. Adoption of a ‘systems approach’ tomanagement, improved water management, better feeding strategies, more environmentallyfriendly feeds, genetically fit stocks, improved health management, integration with agricultureetc., are all important. The Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (CCRF) includes provisionsfor sustainable development and management of aquaculture. The FAO Technical Guidelinesfor Responsible Fisheries (FAO, 1997) provides annotations to the principles of Article 9 -Aquaculture Development of the CCRF, intended to facilitate its implementation. Developmentof, and support for, implementation of improved management practices and codes of goodpractice for aquaculture sectors, supported by enforceable regulations and policy, are essentialfor sectoral sustainability.

One of the key factors that support creation of an enabling environment is strong institutionalcapacity, that is, the ability of countries and organizations to strengthen and implement policyand regulatory frameworks that are both transparent and enforceable. The Conference onAquaculture in the Third Millennium identified several key recommendations that would helpdevelop conducive institutional and policy environments. These include:

• developing clear aquaculture policy with a clearly defined lead agency with adequateorganizational stature to play a strong coordinating role;

• developing comprehensive and enforceable laws, regulations and administrative proceduresthat encourage sustainable aquaculture and promote trade in aquaculture products, witha stakeholder participatory approach;

• targeting organizations and institutions dealing with administration, education, researchand development, that represent the private sector, non-governmental organizations (NGOs),consumers and other stakeholders, in addition to government ministries and public-sectoragencies;

• developing mechanisms and protocols for the timely collection and reporting of relevantdata;

34

• sharing information on policies and legislation, rules and procedures that encompass goodmanagement practices in aquaculture;

• clarifying legal frameworks and policy objectives regarding access and user rights forfarmers; and

• improving the capacity of institutions to develop and implement strategies that target theaquaculture development needs of poorer communities.

Technology

Appropriate technologies contribute to aquaculture sustainability with a variety of mechanismsthat can meet the needs of the local environment. Delivery of such techniques requires effectivecommunication networks, reliable data and a decision-making process that ensures aquacultureproducers choose the best production systems and species for their environment. Science andtechnology provide ongoing ‘new’ opportunities for aquaculture development including:techniques for sustainable stock enhancement, ranching programs and open ocean aquaculture;use of aquatic plants and animals for nutrient stabilisation; integrated systems to improveenvironmental performance, such as, recirculating systems, integrated water use, artificialupwelling and ecosystem food web management. Although considered to be a relatively novelconcept, some biotechnologies have a long history of application, e.g. fertilization of ponds toincrease feed availability. Others are more modern, based on rapidly evolving knowledge ofmolecular biology and genetics, e.g., genetic engineering and DNA-probe development for diseasediagnostics. The application of gene biotechnology in aquaculture focuses primarily on increasinggrowth rates, but also addresses enhancement of disease resistance, production of sterile stocksand physiological tolerance of environmental extremes (See Section on Recent TechnologicalInnovations in Aquaculture in this volume for details).

Product quality, safety, and trade

Quality, safety and trade of aquaculture products are important aspects of a sustainable industry.It is therefore appropriate to mention that the importance of attaining sustainable aquaculturewith negligible/minimal environmental or socio-economic impacts is forcing many exportingcountries to adopt and implement more sustainable production practices. This is especiallyimportant where aquaculture is perceived to be a non-traditional food-producing sector. Safetyassessments, based on risk assessment and the precautionary approach, for example, are nowbecoming more common, before pursuing production of new or exotic species, or productsfrom modern biotechnology.

The role of aquaculture in international trade is increasing, both in the relative and absolutesense. This is a result of increasing aquacultural production in general and of high-valuecommercial export-directed production in particular. As international trade statistics do notdenote production methods of fishery products (capture or aquaculture), it is not possible todetermine the exact share of aquaculture products in most commodity trade. However, recentlegislative iniatives, such as new labeling requirements to distinguish farmed and wild products,introduced in 2002 by the European Community, coupled with increased demands fortraceability of food products for food safety reasons, should improve the quality of internationaltrade data and facilitate better and more accurate aquaculture trade analysis. While the prosand cons of labeling and certification schemes are still under debate in many international fora,some governments and several industry organizations and NGOs are pursuing the establishmentof procedures based on good management practices, codes of conduct and farm-levelmanagement practices.

A trend towards consumer preference for organically produced aquatic products is increasing.The aquaculture sector lags behind agriculture in terms of the quantities and diversity of certified“organic” produce - reflecting a lack of accepted international/regional/national standards

35

and accreditation criteria for organic aquaculture produce. Existing certifying bodies and organicaquaculturists are, primarily, restricted to a handful of organizations in developed countries ofEurope, Oceania and North America, all of which contributed less than 10% to the globalaquaculture production in 1999. Although no official statistics are available for global productionof certified organic aquaculture products, it is estimated that such production in 2000 was onlyabout 5,000 mt, primarily from European countries. This represents a mere 0.01% of total globalaquaculture production and 0.25% of European aquaculture production. The total volume oforganic aquaculture products marketed in Europe in 2000 is estimated at between 4,400 and4,700 mt. Negligible production data is available for countries outside Europe. Organiccertification and other “eco-certification” programs are being discussed and established by variousagencies and groups. These empower consumers to chose aquaculture products with perceivedhigher quality or health attributes and grown in an environmentally sound manner. Pricepremiums for organically grown food products generally range between 10 to 50 percent aboveconventional products. Higher prices give aquaculturists incentives to produce organic products,but incur higher production costs associated with environmental protection measures. Wherecertification is non-discriminatory and based on sound science-based technical standards, itcan help consumers use their purchasing power to encourage environmentally sound productionpractices. The issue is to ensure the process is based on sound scientific evidence, is fair andnon-discriminatory.

Awareness of, and sensitivity to, environmental and welfare issues is increasing, particularly indeveloped countries where purchase decisions can be influenced by adverse publicity or a lackof information. As livestock farmers, aquaculture producers are increasingly required to act inline with standards expected of the livestock industry. At a national level, safety and qualitymanagement systems should be put into place to ensure production, distribution and sale ofaquaculture products are safe and of high quality. Such measures require competent professionalassociations that work in close association with the legal authority, in order to be successful.

Information

Access to, and effective dissemination of, reliable information is needed for informed decision-making and responsible actions at all levels. High-quality information supports policy andplanning, improves application of research results, increases farmers’ capabilities to addresssustainable development and public awareness of achievements. Establishing effective nationaland regional information systems, with clear understanding of the role of the information formanagement of the sector is vital. Effective tools and methods to manage and analyze data(disciplinary, interdisciplinary and inter-sectoral) and information systems, are required.Examples of the requisite information systems include: i) The FAO World Fisheries andAquaculture Atlas (ATLAS)2 and ii) the Fisheries Global Information System (FIGIS)3 .

At present, limited statistical information exists on the scale and extent of rural or small-scaleaquaculture development within most developing countries and LIFDCs. Likewise there is littledata concerning the direct/indirect social and economic impacts of aquaculture development,in these sectors. Due to the limitations of conventional methods of assessment, the reliability ofthis information is also questionable. As a result, the role of small-scale aquaculture and aquaticresources management in rural livelihoods is generally underestimated. Quantitative andqualitative information on the impacts of more commercial-scale farming activities and assistanceprojects on food security and poverty alleviation is also missing. These shortfalls need urgentrectification.

Considerable information on various aspects of aquaculture exists, however, much of this is inthe grey literature. Although some information for sustainable development and managementof aquaculture requires research investigation, priority should be given to the collation and

2 http://www.fao.org/fi/atlas/w fi aq/w/fi aq.asp3 http:// www.fao.org/fi/atlas/w fi aq/w fi aq.asp

36

References

FAO Fisheries Department. 1997. Aquaculture development. FAO Technical Guidelines forResponsible Fisheries No. 5, Rome, Italy, 40 pp.

NACA/FAO. 2000. Aquaculture Development Beyond 2000: the Bangkok Declaration andStrategy. Conference on Aquaculture in the Third Millennium, 20-25 February 2000,Bangkok, Thailand. Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia-Pacific, Bangkok,Thailand and Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy,27 pp.

assessment of existing information and, where necessary, repackaging into more accessibleformats. In the short term, it is important to collect available national information on economicand social aspects of aquaculture, resource use and efficiency, employment benefits, beneficiariesand other attributes of major aquaculture production. This is needed to enable rational decision-making on aquaculture integration into resource management plans, agriculture and ruraldevelopment. This information should be packaged in a form of direct use to decision-makers(e.g., in the form of quantifiable indicators). The specific nature and amount of information tobe collected, the frequency of updating, and cost-effective methods for doing this, also requirealso require special attention.

37

Inland Fisheries and Aquaculture:A Synergy for Sustainable Food Fish Production1

Sena S. De Silva,School of Ecology & Environment,

Deakin University, PO Box 423, Warrnambool,Victoria, Australia 3280

John Moehl,FAO Regional Office for Africa

Benedict Satia, Devin Bartley and Rohana Subasinghe,

FAO Fisheries Department

Introduction

Inland capture fisheries and aquaculture have a number of divergent as well as overlappingrelationships. In general, fishers are hunter/gatherers and socio-culturally quite distinct fromfish farmers. The essential components of these cultures influence the way they view theirrespective environments and its resources. Institutionally, fisheries output is often controlled bymanaging the fishers, directly (via numbers of fishers, size of boats, etc.) and/or indirectly (viatotal permissible catch, etc), while aquaculture output is likely to be controlled by managing theaquatic environment. Within this concept, an important difference between inland capturefisheries and aquaculture is the question of ownership, official or customary. Aquaculture involvesan acceptance of ownership of products and often, production facilities, while capture fisheriesexploit common property. Typically, capture fisheries utilize open access resources in whichthe only human intervention is the harvesting of wild fish stocks. Aquaculture, on the otherhand, involves systems where the grower exerts control over both the cultured organism andthe culturing environment. Cutting across the disciplines of capture fisheries and aquacultureare practices known as culture-based and enhanced fisheries.

Culture-based fisheries refers to fisheries which are maintained by stocking with material(postlarvae, fry, fingerlings, etc.) originating from aquaculture installations, i.e., hatcheries and/or nurseries, into water bodies that hitherto did not support fishery activities. Enhanced fisheriesrefers to activities aimed at supplementing or sustaining the recruitment of one or more aquaticorganisms and raising the total production or the production of selected elements of an existingfishery to or beyond a level which is normally sustainable by natural processes.

Culture-based and enhanced fisheries are existing components of aquatic production systemsin many parts of the world. Traditional knowledge and practices of enhanced fisheries, such asthe brush parks or Acadja systems, have existed for a long time (Welcomme, 2002). Many ofthese practices are complex, involving different forms of resource access and allocation, and arecharacteristically based on established and accepted values and beliefs. Culture-based andenhanced fisheries are regarded as aquaculture if the stocked material is accepted as owned byan individual or a group (i.e., the “growers”) throughout the grow-out period until harvested.

1 This chapter also draws information and data from the paper entitled “Interactions between inland capture fisheriesand aquaculture and their contribution to food security and poverty alleviation in sub-saharan Africa”, prepared forthe Twelfth Session of the Committee for Inland Fisheries for Africa (CIFA), held in Yaounde, Cameroon, from 2-5

December 2002.

______________________________

38

Commonalties and Synergies

The common denominator between inland fisheries and aquaculture is food fish production.Institutionally, in most cases this translates into both activities being overseen by the samegovernment agency (e.g., Departments of Fisheries). However, the dissimilarities between thetwo interventions have led to institutional segregation in some cases where, for example,aquaculture is linked to animal husbandry and inland fisheries to forestry and wildlife. Fishersand fish farmers often require different forms of technical support. Moreover, whereas fishersare more-or-less concentrated along the margins of surface waters, fish farmers can be widelyscattered and difficult to reach. Where inland fisheries officers are occupied with regulationand control, there is an added dimension whereby government staff are seen as constabularyand not as development assistants. Institutional complexity can, at times, be simplified andmonitoring improved through co-management strategies for inland fisheries management whichare becoming an increasingly preferred option, particularly in Asia (Amarasinghe and De Silva,1999; Middendorp et al., 1999; Sverdrup-Jensen, 2002), as well as in Africa

2.

Culture-based fisheries can offer advantages over other forms of traditional aquaculture practices.The most obvious advantages are:

• Culture-based fisheries are a non-consumptive water user, as opposed to some semi-intensive or intensive culture systems which require fresh supplies of water at regularintervals in order to maintain the growth and well being of the stock.

• Culture-based fisheries are a secondary user of existing water resources, natural and/orquasi natural, and will rarely have to compete with the primary users of the waterresource, as opposed to water reserves which are established specifically for aquacultureproduction and may compete for water with other potential users e.g., agriculturists,horticulturists, etc.

• Culture-based fisheries activities require minimal skill levels and minimal capitalinvestment in contrast to those required in intensive and/or semi-intensive culturepractices, and as such, the dissemination of the former is easier and is often attractive,even to the poorer sectors of a community.

• The types of water bodies suitable for culture-based fisheries are often located in ruralareas and are often common property resources. Utilization of these water bodies forculture-based fisheries development, therefore, has to be carried out at a communitylevel, through appropriate institutions, and will have a direct influence on povertyreduction.

• In general, culture-based fisheries will not involve external feed inputs, except for grassif grass carp is stocked, thereby making it a totally ‘non-polluting’ activity, the stockedfish being dependent on the natural food production in the water body.

The culture-based fisheries also have some disadvantages:• Culture-based fishery practices are totally climate dependent and often have no discretion

on the water management schedules, and therefore, aquaculturists generally have lesscontrol on production, and consequently production can vary widely from year to year,making it difficult to develop marketing strategies.

• In culture-based fisheries, harvesting of several water bodies in a given area or regionmay need to be done within a narrow time frame (because of climatic factors and similarhydrological regimes). This could result in an over supply of fish, creating marketingproblems and reducing the return to the producer.

• Culture-based fisheries are generally practiced in communal water bodies, often withfree access. As such, adequate and effective community management structures andinstitutions have to be in put in place prior to embarking on the aquaculture activity.

2 The Sustainable Fisheries Livelihood programme funded by the Department of Interntional Development of theUnited Kingdom and executed by FAO in 25 West African Countries is presently undertaiking pilot projects on inlandfisheries co-management in Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, and Mali.

39

Interactions

Worldwide, water is becoming a limited resource, and activities that rely on aquatic environmentshave the potential to develop competition as the resource base shrinks and/or demand expands.Hence, both inland fisheries and aquaculture are competing for scarce resources, sometimes atthe same place and same time. Competition can take several forms in addition to competitionfor water; inland fisheries and aquaculture share government coffers for their support, alongwith sharing users’ time and consumers’ capital. These various interactions can be synergistic,antagonistic or neutral.

Inland fisheries and aquaculture also have the potential to impact each other at the resourcelevel in a number of ways. Farmed fish may either purposefully or accidentally enter naturalwater bodies and compete with, prey on, or disturb the habitat of local fishery resources. In thecase of enhanced fisheries or culture-based fisheries, the enhanced fishery may promote additionalfishing pressure that could impact non-enhanced fisheries. Disease transmission from farmedto wild fish may also occur. The reverse contamination is possible when wild fry (early lifehistory stages) are collected for on-growing in aquaculture facilities. Wild and domestic stockshave further interactions, as the former provide the basic genetic diversity that is necessary forgenetic improvement programmes, while aquaculture facilities may be used to increase numbersof rare or threatened wild aquatic species. The use of introduced or alien species, includingalien genotypes, i.e., genetically altered fish, has the additional potential to impact fisheries.

Both inland capture fisheries and aquaculture require environments conducive to the well beingof the stocks, although interactions between fisheries and aquaculture appear different withrespect to land and water use. Changes in use patterns can have long-term effects on primaryresources. By converting mangrove areas to ponds, shrimp farmers have reduced the ecosystemservices that many users rely upon, especially coastal fisheries. Such changes to natural habitatsmay cause changes to the diversity of aquatic life that depends on the mangroves and otherhabitats as breeding and nursery areas. These ecological changes can be accompanied by equallysignificant, or even more serious, socio-economic changes. Changing livelihoods through a shiftin resource use can have important ramifications which, if unheeded, can result in seriousconflicts and even exacerbate the conditions of those already disadvantaged.

There are many facets to the relationships at the resource level. In the past five decades, theinland aquatic environment has been subjected to far reaching changes arising from humanactivities, particularly damming and wetland reclamation for agriculture. These interventionsmay result in interactions between inland capture fisheries and aquaculture. The primaryobjectives for damming have been hydroelectric power generation and the promotion ofirrigation agriculture. The conversion of river fisheries into reservoir fisheries generally resultsin changes in catch composition and diversity. To compensate for the loss (under certainconditions) and to take advantage of a lacustrine habitat, as well as to provide alternativelivelihoods for persons displaced by impoundment of agricultural land, aquaculture is oftenestablished. In addition to large dams, impoundments and small reservoirs cumulativelyaccounting for a large surface area have been created in many countries, primarily for small-scale irrigational purposes (FAO, 1999).

Spatial interactions can be more direct in both influence and competition. Aquaculture facilitiescan compete directly with those of fisheries. In some instances shore-based fish farms can competewith fishing communities and fishing grounds. In more obvious cases, cage-culture operationscan be found in water bodies with important inland fisheries. In this latter case, there may wellbe positive interactions on one front where wild fish populations may benefit from feed intendedfor the cultured species. However, on another front, accumulation of feed below cages couldhave an overall negative environmental impact, in extreme instances resulting in regular fishkills of both the cultured and naturally recruited stocks. Pond construction close to rivers andlakes may alter aquatic habitats in profound ways. Clearance of terrestrial and littoral plants to

40

open up pond areas may have consequences on local biodiversity; diversion of water by dammingor through channels alters hydrological patterns in ways that may have consequences for thesurrounding natural environment and the fisheries that depend on it. Besides physical changesin habitat, aquaculture may discharge effluents that may include metabolic wastes, unconsumedfeed, pathogens and even alien species (escapees) that could impact the chemical and biologicalnature of the ecosystem.

Inland fisheries and aquaculture also interact at the social and economic levels. In response todecreased catch and income from capture fisheries, governments are turning to aquaculture asa source of livelihood. In many instances, high value aquaculture products are targeted andregarded as export commodities. This has led to formerly open-access fishing grounds thatsatisfied many customary needs being owned or controlled by commercial producers orcorporations which may be from outside of the local area, i.e., groups of absentee fish farmers.This shift can be further complicated by the aforementioned socio-cultural elements wheredifferent segments of society catch and raise fish. As catch declines and governments look toaquaculture to fill the gap, aquaculture may be seen as a means of livelihood for former fisherswho can no longer be supported by the fishery. However, if these individuals cannot adaptsocio-culturally from hunting to growing, they will not successfully make the transition. Thereare notable illustrations of fishers not satisfactorily converting to fish farmers. Over the lastthree decades, for example, governments have been encouraged to provide initial support forestablishment of aquaculture practices (cage culture) as an alternate livelihood for personsdisplaced from impoundment of reservoirs. However, the relatively high capital and recurrentcosts for inputs needed for aquaculture often tempt these persons to sell their “leases” tocommercial producers and/or corporations, opening another avenue for absentee fish farmers.

The subsectors furthermore interact in regards to price and marketability of fish. In areas wherecapture fisheries are prominent, consumers may prefer wild to farmed fish, and the price ofwild fish is often lower. In areas away from established capture fisheries where farmed productswould be more competitive, there may not be the tradition of eating fish and therefore, fisheryproducts are not well received. Additionally, surplus catch from especially good fishing yearscan find its way into local markets quite remote from the capture fishery and may furtherdepress market price for farmed fish. In the reverse scenario, a case in point is the salmonindustry in Europe and North America, where increased production efficiency has lead toinexpensive farmed fish lowering the price of wild fish. Although this is good for the consumer,fishers suffer financially. Thus there is potential for conflict among stakeholders who mustcompete for land and water and in the market place. In developing countries in the tropics,however, most inland fisheries in lacustrine waters are artisanal, and cater to the daily needs ofthe communities that live within a narrow radius of the water body (Murray, et al., 2001‘). Fishoriginating from such inland fisheries generally do not compete with cultured products, whichtend to be centrally marketed for an entirely different clientele, including export.

The development aspects of inland capture fisheries/aquaculture interactions are considerable.This often leads to commercial aquaculture being proposed as a development strategy. However,this development scenario, which is based on theoretical economic gains and experiences inother parts of the world, often has not adequately considered the contribution that inland fisheriesmakes to food security and rural livelihoods. Often the value of ecosystem services provided bymany inland water bodies has not considered and resource issues have not been adequatelyaddressed.

In the tropics, there are large numbers of small-sized water bodies (< 100 ha), natural (e.g.oxbow lakes in Bangladesh) or man-made, for various purposes, primarily for small-scaleirrigation. These water bodies are mostly non-perennial, retaining water only 6-10 months ofthe year, and the natural recruitment of fish species into these waters is limited and ofteninadequate to support even subsistence capture fisheries. On the other hand, such water bodiesare ideally suited for development of culture-based fisheries. The choice of species for such

41

fisheries is based on market demand and socio-cultural preferences, and complementaritybetween food habits of the individual species, when a mix of species that feed on different foodtypes that are naturally produced in the water body is utilized. The yields, by and large, are aresult of the quality and quantity of seed stocked and the natural productivity of the waterbody.

Contribution to Food Fish Production

The relative contribution of inland capture fisheries to world inland fish production over thelast 20 or so years has remained relatively static (Fig. 1; FAO, 2001). The increase in worldinland fish production over these two decades is primarily a reflection of the increased inlandaquaculture production. This trend is most clearly evident when inland fish production in Asia,the mainstay of world aquaculture, is taken into consideration (Subasinghe et al., 2001). InAsia, there had been a paucity in inland capture fisheries, and its relative contribution to inlandfish production has been decreasing, as opposed to that of inland aquaculture production(Fig. 2). This lack of a significant increase in inland capture fisheries production is probably dueto such reasons as: (a) a decline in riverine fish stocks due to various causes, such as dammingwhich had effected several fisheries (E.g. hilsa - Tenualosa spp.), pollution, etc.; (b) the reportedcatch data being lower than the actual in major river systems (e.g., Sverdrup-Jensen, 2002); (c)the lack of commercial fisheries for food-fish species as opposed to recreational fisheries in

5857

53 52

48

4240

36 35 35 35 34

30 2927 26

24 23 23 23 23

-

5

10

15

20

25

30

198

0

198

1

198

2

198

3

198

4

198

5

198

6

198

7

198

8

198

9

199

0

199

1

199

2

199

3

199

4

199

5

199

6

199

7

199

8

199

9

200

0

Pro

du

cti

on

(m

illio

n t

)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Pe

rcen

t

Asia Inland total Asian Inland Capture % Capture in Inland

Figure 2. The total inland fish production, and the inland capture fisheryproduction in Asia, and the per cent contribution of the latter to the total (based onFAO statistics, 2002).

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Pro

du

ctio

n (

mil

lio

n

t)

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

Per

cen

t C

on

trib

uti

on

World Inland total

World Inland Capture

% Inland Capture

Figure 1. Total world inland capture fisheries prduction, and contribution ofthe latter to the total (based on FAO statistics, 2002).

42

lacustrine waters in most developed countries (Welcomme and Bartley, 1998; Miranda, 1999);and (d) development of fisheries in large, inland, lacustrine waters in developing countriesbeing relatively more recent (Huang et al., 2001), and management of such fisheries not beingoptimal in most instances (De Silva, 2001).

Inland cultured finfish production in developing nations is dominated by cyprinids and tilapias,approximately in the ratio of 25:1 (FAO, 2001). Chinese and Indian major carps are indigenousto China, and India and Bangladesh, respectively. These two groups of carps, stockedindividually or in various combinations, and at times augmented with tilapias, are known togive the highest production in culture-based fisheries (Thayaparan, 1982; Middendorp et al.,1999; Quiros and Mari, 1999). All other countries which plan to develop culture-based fisheriesmay have to depend on selected species from these two groups of carps, and some tilapia speciesaugmented by a very few indigenous species, if available. As such, in a global perspective,culture-based fisheries can be considered to be relatively more dependent on exotic than indigenousspecies.

In most developing countries, culture-based fisheries are in an early developmental phase,although its potential as a major strategy for food fish production was recognized almost twodecades ago in some countries, such as Sri Lanka (Thayaparan, 1982; De Silva, 1988). Currently,culture-based fisheries are most developed in PR China, where an estimated production of overa million MT was achieved in 1997, with a mean yield of 743 kg ha-1 yr-1 (Fig. 3). The Chineseculture-based fisheries practices are also exceptional, in that China is one nation where thefisheries are based entirely on indigenous species, the Chinese carps and Wuchang fish.

The recent developments in oxbow lakes in Bangladesh (Middendorp et al., 1999) and smallwater bodies in Cuba (Quiros, and Mari, 1999), Laos PDR (Lorenzen et al., 1998a), Sri Lanka(Pushpalatha, 2001), Thailand (Lorenzen et al., 1998b) and Vietnam (Nguyen et al., 2001) arevery encouraging. In most countries, the developments are community based; groups ofindividuals leasing (from relevant governmental authorities) and/or managing individual waterbodies for fishery activities. It has been emphasized that a key to the development of culture-based fisheries is community organization resulting in the establishment of relevant institutionalstructures. Establishment of appropriate harvesting and marketing strategies is also crucial to

Figure 3. Yearly (1980 to 1997) fish production in thousands of tons from theculture-based fishery and the mean yield per ha (in kg) in reservoirs in China(based on data from Song, 1999)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Year (1980 to 1997)

Pro

duction (x 1

000 m

t) o

r Yie

ld (kg/h

a)

Production (x 1000 mt)

Yield (kg/ ha)

43

the long-term sustainability of culture-based fisheries, to ensure reasonable returns to theproducers and avoid over supplies within a narrow time frame.

It is estimated that in Asia alone there are about 66 million ha of water bodies suitable forculture-based fisheries (FAO, 1999). De Silva (2003) estimated that a 5% usage of this acreagefor culture-based fisheries development, in the ensuing ten years, at a production level comparableto that obtained in China (Song, 1999) should yield 2.5 million MT, providing a significant boostto inland aquaculture production. It is also foreseeable that in most countries, correspondingseed supply facilities, operated privately, would develop as culture-based fisheries activitiesintensify, adding an extra dimension to rural development.

Challenges and Prospects

The synergies and interactions described above include institutional, social, economic,environmental and bio-technological aspects - areas for complementarity and areas of possiblecompetition. The crosscutting issue is one of finite resource availability in a world of increasingpopulation and declining environmental quality. The challenge today is how to balance thesefactors to optimize the synergistic interactions while minimizing the potentially antagonisticones. Acknowledgement of these interactions offers opportunities for sectoral development forincreasing food security, reducing poverty and improving rural livelihoods. The challenge is tofind ways to ensure that the mutual benefits to inland fisheries and aquaculture accrue withincommon aquatic environments. The two subsectors need to form partnerships, as both dependon healthy aquatic environments and both are impacted by other development activities. This isa multifaceted task. It involves appropriate selection of natural species and their responsibleadaptation to culture conditions.

Joint use of the environment and sustainable sharing of resources to the ultimate benefit ofcommunities require that individual action not be treated in isolation, but as part of a muchlarger entire hydrological system. This approach necessitates an understanding of the largersystem, including an intimate awareness of the intricate interactions that make it sustainable.For many inland fisheries and aquaculture systems, this dictates a watershed approach todevelopment; charting the detailed webs of these biospheres. In some cases, for large inlandwaters it may be more effective to take an integrated shoreline approach, particularly wherethere are urban centres competing for resource use. Although catching and farming fish producea similar end product, the process and activities reaching that end are different. Women andchildren have important roles to play as harvesters, processors and distributors of fish. As manyareas promote aquaculture as an alternative to fishing, the roles of all stakeholders need to beconsidered to avoid displacing certain members of society and to ensure that new opportunitiescan be realized.

To meet the challenge, governments, in collaboration with stakeholders, must have a clear andcomprehensive strategy for the development of their aquatic resources. This should take a holisticapproach, given the multifaceted nature of resource use and the potential for conflict andcompetition. This strategic framework is all the more important as fiscal and human resourcesfor many countries are becoming more and more limited and the public sector is asked to domore with less, frequently in close collaboration with the private sector. This strategy mustunambiguously identify the roles of all stakeholders, assigning responsibilities and benefits. Itshould take an ecosystem approach, in most cases revolving around the watershed as thegeographic area of delimitation. Governments, development agencies and other stakeholdersshould accept that there could be merit in incorporating traditional knowledge within fisheriesand aquaculture development programmes. Thus, studies should be undertaken to expand theknowledge base of existing traditional knowledge in fisheries and fishery enhancements, toimprove understanding of the complexities of resource utilization. Efforts should be made tobuild on existing enhancement practices or to merge them with modern know-how andtechnology.

44

Through these processes there is an inherent dependence on information. Effective and currentinformation channels are necessary for the full spectrum of players involved in aquatic resourcemanagement to be able to make meaningful decisions and fully appreciate the involvedness ofthe aquatic systems in question. Information technology has rapidly developed globally, butthere are still real and apparent difficulties in information flow from rural areas and ruralcommunities. This implies that continuing research needs to be done to understand the dynamicsand limitations of any ecosystem intervention that originates from inland fisheries andaquaculture. There is a need to better understand, for example, effects of escapees and biodiversitychanges, and the consequences of pollution and habitat degradation on local ecosystems.Governments should implement Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) prior to embarkingon activities that impact aquatic environments and should continue to monitor the ecosystemchanges.

States and other stakeholders should work to effectively implement the provisions of the Codeof Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and to apply, as appropriate, the elements in the Guidelinesfor Inland Fisheries and Aquaculture. The contribution of inland fisheries and aquaculture tofood security and poverty alleviation has to be made more visible and stakeholder participationimproved. The potential role of inland fisheries and aquaculture in the economy should bestressed to promote cooperation of private and public interests. Capture fisheries and aquaculturedevelopment have to be seen and approached as an integral part of rural development usingthe Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and, as appropriate, the Sustainable LivelihoodsApproach, as useful tools.

The increasing importance of aquaculture in the fish food supplies is widely acknowledged.Further improvements in aquaculture practices and new developments have to confront adifferent set of problems to those encountered in the second half of the last century or so, foremostof these being the increasing competition for primary resources such as land and water. Thesituation is further exacerbated as the bulk of aquaculture production occurs in the developingworld, and in some of the most populous nations in the world such as China, India, etc., whereland and water are at a premium. In such a context, the utilization of the vast acreage of waterbodies available in the developing world, for fish production, through the development of culture-based fishery activities has considerable potential. Development efforts should give carefulconsideration to the subtle interactions, commonalties, differences, and synergies that existbetween aquaculture and culture-based fisheries.

References

Amarasinghe, U.S. and S.S. De Silva. 1999. The Sri Lankan reservoir fishery: a case forintroduction of a co-management strategy. Fish. Manag. Ecol. 6: 387-400.

De Silva, S.S. 1988. Reservoirs of Sri Lanka and their fisheries. FAO Fish. Tech. Pap. 298, 128 pp.

De Silva, S.S. 2001a. Reservoir fisheries: broad strategies for enhancing yields. In S.S. De Silva,(ed.), Reservoir and Culture-based Fisheries: Biology and Management. ACIARProc. No. 98, Canberra, Australia, pp. 7-15.

De Silva, S.S. 2001b. A global perspective of aquaculture in the new millennium. In:R.P. Subasinghe, P.B. Bueno, M.J. Phillips, C. Hough, S.E. McGladdery and J.R. Arthur.(eds.), Aquaculture in the Third Millennium, Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia-Pacific, Department of Fisheries, Thailand, and the Food and AgricultureOrganization of the United Nations, Bangkok, Thailand, pp. 231-262.

De Silva, S.S. 2003. Culture-based fisheries; an under-utilised opportunity in aquaculturedevelopment. Aquatic Resources: Management and Culture (in press).

FAO. 1994. Aquaculture production 1986-1992. FAO Fish. Circ. No. 815 Rev 6, 214 pp.FAO. 1999. Irrigation in Asia in figures. Water Rep. 18, FAO, Rome, Italy, 112 pp.FAO. 2001. Fishstat Plus (v.2.30). FAO, Rome, Italy.

45

Huang, D., J. Liu and C. Hu. 2001. Fish resources in Chinese reservoirs and their utilization. InS.S. De Silva, (ed.), Reservoir and Culture-based Fisheries: Biology and Management.ACIAR Proc. No. 98, Canberra, Australia, pp. 16-21.

Lorenzen, K., C.J. Garaway, B. Chamsingh and T.J. Warren. 1998a. Effects of access restric-tions and stocking on small water body fisheries in Laos. J. Fish Biol. 53 (Suppl. A):345-357.

Lorenzen K., J. Juntana, J. Bundit and D. Tourongruang. 1998b. Assessing culture fisheriespractices in small waterbodies: a study of village fisheries in north-east Thailand.Aquacult. Res. 29: 211-224.

Lorenzen K., U.S. Amarasinghe, D.M. Bartley, J.D. Bell, M. Bilio, S.S. de Silva, C.J. Garaway,W.D. Hartmann, J.M. Kapetsky, P. Laleye, J. Moreau, V.V. Sugunan and D.B. Swar.2001. Strategic review of enhancements and culture-based fisheries. In R.P. Subasinghe,P.B. Bueno, M.J. Phillips, C. Hough, S.E. McGladdery and J.R. Arthur, (eds.),Aquaculture in the Third Millennium, 221-237. Network of Aquaculture Centres inAsia-Pacific, Department of Fisheries, Thailand, and the Food and AgricultureOrganization of the United Nations, Bangkok, Thailand.

Middendorp, H.A.J., P.M. Thompson and R.S. Pomeroy. (eds.) 1999. Sustainable inlandfisheries management in Bangladesh. ICLARM Conf. Proc. 58, Manila, Philippines,280 pp.

Miranda, L.E. 1999. Recreational catfish harvest in reservoirs in the USA. Fish. Manag. Ecol. 6:499-514.

Murray, F.J., S. Koddithuwakku and D.C. Little. 2001. Fisheries marketing systems in SriLanka and their relevance to local reservoir fishery development. In S.S. De Silva, (ed.),Reservoir and Culture-based Fisheries: Biology and Management ACIAR Proc. No. 98,Canberra, Australia, pp. 287-308.

Nguyen, H.S., B.T. Anh, L.T. Luu, T.T.T. Nguyen, and S.S De Silva. 2001. The culture-basedfisheries in small, farmer-managed reservoirs in two provinces of northern Vietnam;an evaluation based on three production cycles. Aquacult. Res. 32: 975-990.

Pushpalatha, K.B.C. 2001. Community-based freshwater fish culture in Sri Lanka. In S.S.De Silva, (ed.), Reservoir and Culture-based Fisheries: Biology and Management ACIARProc. No. 98, Canberra, Australia, pp. 266-273.

Quiros, R. and A Mari. 1999. Factors contributing to the outcome of stocking programmes inCuban reservoirs. Fish. Manag. Ecol. 5: 241-254.

Song, Z. 1999. Rural aquaculture in China. RAPA Publ. 1999/22. RAPA, FAO, Bangkok, 71 pp.

Subasinghe, R.P., P.B. Bueno, M.J. Phillips, C. Hough, S.E. McGladdery and J.R. Arthur. (eds.)2001. Aquaculture in the Third Millennium. Network of Aquaculture Centres inAsia-Pacific, Department of Fisheries, Thailand, and the Food and AgricultureOrganization of the United Nations, Bangkok, Thailand.

Sverdrup-Jensen, S. 2002. Fisheries in the lower Mekong Basin; status and perspectives. MRCTech. Pap. No. 6, Mekong River Commission, Phnom Pemh, Cambodia, 103 pp.

Thayaparan, K. 1982. The role of seasonal tanks in the development of fresh-water fisheries inSri Lanka. J. Inl. Fish., Sri Lanka, 1: 133-152.

Welcomme, R.L. 2002. An evaluation of tropical brush and vegetation park fisheries. Fish.Manag. Ecol. 9: 175-188.

Welcomme, R. L. and D. M. Bartley. 1998. Current approaches to the enhancement of fisheries.Fish. Manag. Ecol. 5: 351-382.

47

The Role of Aquaculture in Rural Development

Matthias Halwart1, Simon Funge-Smith2 and John Moehl3

1Fishery Resources Officer (Aquaculture)FAO Fisheries Department

Rome, Italy

2Regional Aquaculture OfficerFAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific

Bangkok, Thailand

3Regional Aquaculture OfficerFAO Regional Office for Africa

Accra, Ghana

Introduction

Rural development, the process of sustained growth of the rural economy and improvement ofwell-being of rural men, women and children, has various dimensions, but it is particularly thedevelopment of the agricultural sector, which is widely believed to provide the main impetusnot only for reducing poverty and hunger but also for ensuring food security for all. Only ifmore rapid agricultural growth takes place in countries with impoverished rural populations,can rural farm and non-farm incomes rise sufficiently to enable the rural poor to become morefood secure.

Various types of aquaculture form an important component within agricultural and farmingsystems development. These can contribute to the alleviation of food insecurity, malnutritionand poverty through the provision of food of high nutritional value, income and employmentgeneration, decreased risk of monoculture production failure, improved access to water,enhanced aquatic resource management and increased farm sustainability (e.g. FAO 2000a,Prein and Ahmed 2000).

Global aquaculture is now the fastest growing food production sub-sector in many countries.The production of all cultured aquatic organisms reached almost 43 million metric tonnes (mmt)in 1999 (FAO 2001), and it is expected that this trend will continue despite several constraints,which may become more challenging in the future.

FAO supports this process by promoting sustainable aquaculture development in its membercountries and aims to assist them in achieving an increased contribution of this sector to ruraldevelopment.

The purpose of this paper is to analyse the role of aquaculture in rural development, through itsrelationship to food security and poverty alleviation, its contribution to rural development, andto indicate strategies that could increase this contribution. It covers both inland areas and coastalzones and has no distinct geographical focus. However, the overall emphasis is on developingcountries, which are the source of over 80% of world aquaculture production and where almost75% of the poor live in rural areas.

48

Food Security, Rural Development and Poverty Alleviation

Food security, rural development, and poverty alleviation are closely linked. The FAO State ofFood Insecurity Report 2000 estimates that 792 million people in 98 developing nations are notgetting enough food to lead normal, healthy and active lives. Even in industrialized nations andcountries in transition (those in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union), the number ofundernourished remains significant at 34 million children, women and men (FAO 2000b).

Food demand will continue to rise significantly. Expanding populations and changing eatinghabits will make a doubling of food output imperative within the next thirty years. The problemin the modern world is not the lack of a sufficient quantity of food but rather the disparities inglobal food availability and growing inequalities within and between regions. The recent reporton the right to food by the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights points outthat the “remarkable developments in agriculture and nutrition science over the last twenty years haveclearly so far failed to reduce malnourishment and malnutrition for the poorest populations”, and that“a different model of development is needed, one that is focused on local-level food security” (Ziegler2001). There are several fundamental reasons why local food demand should be met by localfood production to the greatest extent possible. These are:

• that agriculture is the foundation of rural development and the most important provider ofgainful employment in rural areas,

• that local food production is the basis for sustaining and caring about landscapes and theenvironment,

• that food demand has not and cannot be met logistically from surpluses elsewhere, and• that the availability of foreign exchange is expected to remain a major problem for most

poor countries.

Rural development and, in particular, a prosperous smallholder agricultural economy, is widelyregarded as the cornerstone in a multi-pronged strategy aimed at reducing poverty and hungerand ensuring food security for all.

Mainstream thinking anticipates no major obstacle to producing sufficient quantities of food fora growing world population for at least the next 25 years, but this does not address the issues offood security. In the words of the World Food Summit: “Poverty is one of the major causes of foodinsecurity and sustainable progress in poverty alleviation is critical to improved access to food.” Povertyis linked not only to poor national economic performance but also to political structures thatrender poor people powerless. Thus, appropriate policy, developed through good governance,is of overriding importance for food security.

Alleviation of poverty is central to the concept of rural development. Different emphases andapproaches to rural development have been followed in the past thirty years, variously focussingon the provision of basic needs, a joint social and economic sector approach, and employmentcreation through establishment of small enterprises in rural areas. A general consensus emergedfrom this experience - whatever the sectoral emphasis, rural development requires greaterparticipation of the rural population and involvement of the people in planning for their owndevelopment. People’s participation and ‘bottom-up’ planning were identified as essentialelements of the development process.

In the agricultural sector, increased participation of stakeholders in decision making andplanning processes was reflected in the emergence and evolution of the Farming SystemsApproach (FSA). Previously it had been assumed that agricultural scientists were the key actorsin improving productivity and that technical innovation within research stations could solvethe problems of rural hunger and poverty. Although the technology of the ‘Green Revolution’made significant production increases possible (in Asia in particular), it was also recognised

49

that this technology had little impact on poorer farmers, especially in resource-poor environments.FSA attempted to reverse the research-development process by emphasising the need to startwith careful analysis of the real conditions of small-scale farmers, to understand farms as complexintegrated plant-animal-fish systems with multiple goals and multiple livelihoods, and tounderstand the links between external services and internal functions of the farm system.

Aquaculture development followed a similar pattern. Starting in the 70’s there was substantialassistance for developing the sub-sector in Latin America, Asia and Africa. The tendency ofthese development initiatives was to focus overly on large infrastructure development, technicalpackages and technical training, without paying sufficient attention to the role of these, oftennew, production systems in the livelihood or farming system of the intended beneficiaries. Alltoo often, the result was lack of adoption by one of the intended target groups – the rural poor.As a result of the apparent inability to impact the rural poor, donor support for aquaculturedevelopment has declined in the past 10 years. Paradoxically, the progress made in Asianaquaculture during this time saw a tremendous boom in commercial scale aquaculture byhouseholds with better resource bases, hand in hand with the economic expansion of the region,opening markets and increasing the flow of cash economies to rural areas.

Poverty is a complex phenomenon, which cannot be understood in purely sectoral terms. Aseries of consultations on small-scale rural aquaculture concluded that aquaculture should notbe viewed as an isolated technology but be considered as one aspect of rural development andform part of a holistic approach to development (e.g. Martinez-Espinosa 1996, APFIC 2000).Interdisciplinary approaches were seen as an essential prerequisite.

More recently, there has been a re-evaluation of the role of small-scale aquaculture in rurallivelihoods and its importance in poverty alleviation and household food security, particularlythe mechanisms by which the rural poor can access and benefit from aquaculture. It is alsoincreasingly realised that rural people do not depend for their livelihood on the agriculturalsector alone, but rather on a range of livelihood options, which together offer their families foodsecurity and reduce vulnerability to conditions over which they have no control. Such optionsmay be found in the diversification of activities in the agricultural sector, through the use ofopen access or common property resources in the natural environment and off-farm employment,whether close to home or far away in the cities. Different members of the family may be involvedin each of these options, to varying degrees and at different times of the year. Rural poor peoplein resource poor environments tend to have a broader range of livelihood strategies, preciselybecause their situation is one of insecurity. A recent FAO/World Bank Farming Systems studynoted the importance of five major household strategies for escaping poverty for 70 farmingsystems across the world: intensification, diversification, increased asset base, increased off-farm income, and exit from agriculture. Diversification, which includes aquaculture, was judgedto be the single most promising source of farm poverty reduction in the coming years (Dixon etal. 2001).

The shift to a broader goal of improved livelihoods and greater household food security has ledto the emergence of the concept of sustainable (rural) livelihoods as a framework for analysis ofpoverty, and possible interventions for its alleviation (Carney 1998). This framework sees theposition of rural households depending on the availability of various capital assets, includingnatural, physical, human, financial, and social capital. These basic assets may be threatened bytwo sets of factors:

1) vulnerability to sudden shocks in the physical environment (drought, flood, or typhoons, orlonger term trends in the economic environment or resource stocks, both of which can reducethe assets normally available to the household; and

50

2) the structures and processes in the institutional environment, which encompasses both publicand private institutions. These include laws and policies which can work positively ornegatively to affect access to capital and maintenance of it.

It is in response to their asset situation, in the context of the various vulnerability factors and theprevailing transforming structure and processes, that the livelihood strategies of the rural poordevelop. The challenge for aquaculture is whether it can help strengthen the assets available torural households, so that they are better able to withstand shocks, become less vulnerable torelated losses, and are better able to influence the policy/institutional environment in theirfavour (Demaine 2001, STREAM 2001).

The Contribution of Aquaculture to Rural Development

Aquaculture comprises diverse systems of farming plants and animals in inland and coastalareas, many of which have relevance for the poor. FAO defines aquaculture for statistical purposesas the “farming of aquatic organisms, including fish, molluscs, crustaceans and aquatic plants. Farmingimplies some form of intervention in the rearing process to enhance production, such as regular stocking,feeding, protection from predators, etc.. Farming also implies individual or corporate ownership of thestock being cultivated“ (FAO 2001). In the context of the rural poor, aquaculture often complementscatches from traditional fisheries. The latter continue to play an important role and, in manyareas, remain adequate to satisfy subsistence needs and provide a valuable source of cash incomefor farmers. In many cases, the capture or culture of aquatic species forms the basis for foodsecurity, enabling the use of livestock or cultured fish as a source of income generation.Aquaculture becomes an attractive and important component of rural livelihoods in situationswhere increasing population pressures, environmental degradation or loss of access, limit catchesfrom wild fisheries (IIRR et al. 2001).

Aquaculture Production Intensity, Risks, and Benefits

Extensive to semi-intensive aquaculture systems still produce the bulk of aquaculture products.Extensive farming usually involves unsophisticated methods, relies on natural food and has alow input to output ratio. As production intensity increases, fish are deliberately stocked andthe natural food supply is enhanced by using organic and inorganic fertilizers and low-costsupplemental feeds derived from agricultural by-products. The system found most frequently isthe farming of fish in ponds, however rice-fish farming or the stocking of fish into natural orimpounded water bodies are also included as aquaculture systems (FAO 2000a). It is extremelydifficult to estimate the contribution of this type of aquaculture production, since small-scaleand dispersed production data do not appear in official statistics and the produce is typicallyconsumed or traded locally (STREAM 2001). Specific examples of aquaculture activities thathave positive impacts on the rural poor include: fry nursing and the development of nursingnetworks, the integration of fish farming with rice crops in floodplains and the more remotemountainous areas in Asia, sustaining and restoring aquatic biodiversity through simpleenhancement management methods. In coastal areas, the farming of mudcrabs, oysters, mussels,cockles, shrimps, fish and seaweeds provides employment for the rural poor, mainly for directlabour inputs, as well as seed and feed collection (Edwards 1999, Tacon 2001). Intensiveaquaculture systems yield more output from a given production unit, using technology and ahigher degree of management control. This, typically, involves facilities deliberately constructedfor the purpose of aquaculture, which are operated with higher stocking densities and usecompound manufactured feed and chemotherapeutant intervention on a regular basis. Intensiveinland and coastal cage aquaculture of high-value salmonids has been encouraged and supportedto develop remote rural areas in Europe and South and North America. Similar systems haveemerged in Asia and Australia for warm-water piscivorous fish, such as groupers, yellowtail,snappers and sea bass. Coastal shrimp farming has raised particular interest throughout thetropics because of its high value and opportunities for export and earning foreign exchange.

51

Whilst increasing the cash economies of many coastal areas and stimulating local development,there have been wide ranging negative social and environmental impacts as a result of someforms of aquaculture development. This situation is under increased scrutiny for remediation.

The benefits of aquaculture in rural development relate to health and nutrition, employment,income, reduction of vulnerability and farm sustainability. Aquaculture in small farmer systemsprovides high quality animal protein and essential nutrients, especially for nutritionally vulnerablegroups, such as pregnant and lactating women, infants and pre-school children. It also providesthis protein at prices generally affordable to the poorer segments of the community. It creates‘own enterprise’ employment, including jobs for women and children, and provides incomethrough sale of what can be relatively high value products. Employment income opportunitiesare possible on larger farms, in seed supply networks, market chains and manufacture/repairsupporting services. Indirect benefits include increased availability of fish in local rural andurban markets and possible increase in household income through sales of other incomegenerating farm products, which will become available through increased local consumption offish. Aquaculture can also benefit the landless from utilization of common resources, such asfinfish cage culture, culture of molluscs and seaweeds, and fisheries enhancement in communalwater bodies (Edwards 1999, IIRR et al. 2001, Tacon 2001).

An important, though often overlooked, benefit which is particularly relevant for integratedagriculture-aquaculture systems, is their contribution to increased farm efficiency andsustainability (FAO et al. 2001). Agricultural by-products, such as manure from livestock andcrop residues, can serve as fertilizer and feed inputs for small-scale and commercial aquaculture.Fish farming in rice fields not only contributes to integrated pest management, but alsomanagement of vectors of human medical importance (Halwart 2001). Furthermore, pondsbecome important as on-farm water reservoirs for irrigation and livestock in areas where thereare seasonal water shortages (Lovshin 2000).

In view of all these benefits, it is perhaps not surprising that aquaculture production has grownrapidly since the 1970s, and has been the fastest growing food production sector in manycountries for nearly two decades; the sector exhibiting an overall growth rate of over 11.0% peryear since 1984, compared with 3.1% for terrestrial farm animal meat production, and 0.8% forlandings from capture fisheries (Tacon 2001). By 1999, the production of all cultured aquaticorganisms reached 42.8 million mt (FAO 2001). A total of 262 fish, crustacean, and molluscspecies, represent the most important animals used in aquaculture world-wide, are listed in arecent survey (Garibaldi 1996). Although not all aquatic organisms are suitable for culture, thevariety of cultured species is still increasing. Freshwater finfish, particularly Chinese and Indiancarp species, account for the greatest share of total aquaculture production in 1999. This isfollowed by molluscs and aquatic plants, mostly kelp, the majority of which come from China.

FAO’s latest studies on future demand for, and supply of, fish and fishery products predict asizeable increase in demand for fish (FAO 2000c). The majority of this increase will result fromexpected economic development, population growth, and changes in eating habits. Fish supplyfrom capture fisheries in most countries is expected to remain constant, or decline, since catcheshave either reached, or are close to, maximum sustainable yield.

Inland fisheries may yet be able to yield more fish as effort increases, but the increased effortrequired will become increasingly challenging. Inland fisheries are also vulnerable toenvironmental impacts, such as watershed degradation, development of water control structuresand pollution. All features of the changing rural environment. Thus, aquaculture has animportant role to play in meeting the increasing demand for fish. Indeed, the growth of globalaquaculture is forecasted to continue for some time (FAO 2000c).

52

Aquaculture Intensification and Expansion

The current trend of increased production can be maintained, either through intensification orexpansion of areas under aquaculture production. Generic technologies for intensification ofexisting production systems are in place, and it is mainly socio-economic and institutional issuesthat will be the most important constraints for a greater contribution by aquaculture to ruraldevelopment. The expansion of land-based culture systems in inland areas has the greatestpotential because aquaculture can be integrated with agriculture on current agricultural landin smallholder and commercial farms (Edwards 1999). Considerable potential lies in theintegration of aquaculture and irrigation systems (e.g. Fernando & Halwart 2000, Moehl et al.2001), and aquaculture can make also use of land that is unsuitable for agriculture, such asswamps or saline marsh areas. In addition, there is a wide diversity of inland and coastal aquaticresources including rivers, floodplains, lakes, reservoirs, rice fields, estuaries, lagoons, coral reefs,mangroves, and mudflats, that provide opportunity for the integration of well-controlled,sustainable aquaculture, enhancement or other form of aquatic animal management, into ruraldevelopment (IIRR et al. 2001).

Increasing yields through intensified production requires increased use of feeds and/or fertilizers,which may be derived from on- or off-farm sources, or a combination of the two. Developmentof infrastructure can reduce external costs, such as feed and fertilizers, allowing farmers tointensify production. Since this requires increased investment in the production system, otherenabling features include the development of markets and access to finance. As mentionedpreviously, many of the technical aspects of aquaculture are relatively well developed, howeverthere is a knowledge gap between what is known globally and what is available to farmers.Weak rural extension systems and a lack of local examples of intensified aquaculture limit farmers’ability and willingness to risk intensification.

Biotechnology in aquaculture represents a range of opportunities to increase the growth rate infarmed species, improve nutritional value of aquafeeds, improve fish health management, restoreand protect environments, extend the range of aquatic species and to improve the managementand conservation of wild stocks.

There is significant potential to improve production through genetic improvement programmes.Selective breeding programmes have yielded significant and consistent gains of 5-20% pergeneration in species of inter alia Atlantic salmon, catfish, and tilapia. Improved breedingcapabilities, larval nutrition, and advances in genetic technologies now permit a wide range ofgenetic manipulations to be performed on aquatic species. The restocking of natural water bodieswith indigenous and/or endangered species is another example of a situation where attentionmust be paid to the genetic aspects of the breeding programme.

Due to the high cost of modern biotechnological development, most biotechnological innovationsare developed for farming systems with high inputs of feed, labour, and husbandry. Manybiotechnologies could also be directed at low-input systems, farming systems in marginal areas,or to meet other needs specific to a given rural community, however, the requirement forrecouping development costs of biotechnology generally puts this approach to aquaculture outof reach of most aqua-farmers. Furthermore, the application of biotechnologies often also requiresa certain level of scientific support capacity and resources.

Small hatchery operations increase the local supply of fingerlings and can enable farmers toenter aquaculture as an activity. Such hatcheries are essential for the development of ruralaquaculture but often have limited pond areas or water availability, hence may be unable tomaintain the genetic quality of their broodstock and over a period of time lose genetic qualityand performance. In such situations, intervention by government hatcheries or larger scalecommercial hatcheries, are required. In each case, consideration must be given to the specific

53

stage of rural development in a given area, extension programmes and how to integrate suchactivities within prevailing livelihood strategies.

The introduction of exotic species is another strategy used to increase value from farming systemsin rural areas, for example, tilapia production is much higher in Asia than in its native Africa.Introduced species often are genetically improved or domesticated species, to some extent, andshare many of the same opportunities and risks.

Strategies for an Increased Contribution by Aquaculture to RuralDevelopment

In a contribution to the FAO 1999 State of Food and Agriculture on the integration of fisherieswith agriculture, approaches to enhanced integration at different levels of development havebeen considered, as outlined below (Willmann et al. 1999).

Human resource development and institutional strengthening are widely held to be the principalrequirements for improving integration at the level of individual farms and communities, inriver basin and coastal area management, and at the level of sectoral and macroeconomic policies.At the farm level, attention needs to focus first on resource use efficiency and the economic orlivelihood incentives that influence farmers decisions on cropping patterns, the use of water,feeds, fertilizer, chemical treatments and other inputs. Next, the emphasis should be on farmers’knowledge of available production and pest management options, as well as on their ability toapply these. Agriculture and aquaculture offer a large variety of cropping patterns under differentclimatic and soil conditions. If they have the right skills, together with access to the necessaryinputs, farmers will adopt the farming or aquaculture system that is most suitable to their specificsituation. Since farmer’s management strategies are not based solely on economic criteria, butalso include minimization of risk, cropping flexibility, cultural preference for species, time andlabour requirements, extension and training. Farmer participation in these processes are crucialfor informed decision-making. The presence of an enabling infrastructure, such as availabilityof inputs, markets and financial or credit facilities, are indispensable for optimal developmentand integration of farming and aquaculture systems.

Co-management and community-based management approaches to use of common propertyresources have received increasing attention in recent years because of assumed improvedefficiency and prevention of undesired distributional implications. Factors that the users identifyas important for successful resource management include: small group size (which facilitatesthe formulation, observance and monitoring of a collective agreement); social cohesion; resourcecharacteristics that facilitate control of outsiders access; and visible signs of successful collectivemanagement. These factors could well apply to a number of fisheries in reservoirs and othersmall water bodies, where the potential for self-management, is not currently implemented.This is because responsibility is not delegated to the local level and collective rights areinsufficiently protected. Similar favourable conditions exist in other situations, such as seasonalwetlands, swamps, flooded forests and mangrove forests where, again, the potential for effectivemanagement has yet to be realized. In addition to the recognition of common rights, community-based and co-management need support through extension and training services and solidscientific assessment of resource abundance. The capacity to deliver such support is lacking inmost countries, as it requires significant modification of working practices to allow a moreinteractive, participatory approach to the management of collective resources, as well as accessto requisite scientific expertise.

At the level of river basins and coastal areas, integration is aimed at managing sectoralcomponents as parts of a functional whole, explicitly recognizing that management needs tofocus on human behaviour, not just physical stocks of natural resources such as fish, land or

54

water. Integrated river basin and coastal area management employs a multi-sectoral strategicapproach to the efficient allocation of scarce resources among competing users and theminimisation of unintended natural resource and environmental impacts. Land use planningand zoning, together with environmental impact assessment procedures, are vital tools forreducing or rationalizing the conflicts between resource users, minimizing negative environmentalimpacts and enhancing sustainable development. The effective participation of fisheries agenciesin these planning activities is absolutely essential.

The participation of all resource users and other stakeholders at an early stage is indispensablefor effective land use planning and zoning, not least because of their intimate knowledge oflocal socio-economic conditions and the state of natural resources. At the government level, thefunctions of the various agencies with regulatory and development mandates need to be wellco-ordinated. Two broad distinctions can be made in the wide range of possible institutionalarrangements for integrated river basin and coastal area management:

1 Multisectoral integration - involves co-ordinating the various agencies responsible for riverbasin and coastal management on the basis of a common policy, and bringing together thevarious government agencies concerned, as well as other stakeholders, so that they canwork towards common goals by following mutually agreed strategies; and

2 Structural integration - an entirely new, integrated institutional structure is created by placingmanagement, development and policy initiatives within a single institution.

Multi-sectoral co-ordination tends to be preferred, since line ministries are typically highlyprotective of their core responsibilities, which relate directly to their power base and funding.The establishment of an organization with broad administrative responsibilities overlappingthe traditional jurisdictions of line ministries – as would be the case if management, policy anddevelopment functions were integrated within a single institution – is often likely to meet withresistance rather than co-operation.

However, experiences to date indicate that cross-sectoral planning and institutional coordinationare often difficult to achieve and can entail significant costs. The difficulties and costs relate tothe often cumbersome bureaucratic structures and procedures of government agencies; thecomplexity of the scientific, technical and economic issues involved; and the potentially largenumber of informed decisions that need to be taken. In addition to high administrative costs,the decision-making process could be protracted and may slow down economic development.

Many river basin and coastal management issues can be addressed through sound sectoralmanagement, but must take into account the impacts of, and interdependencies with, othersectors and ecosystem processes, such as; the provision and enforcement of environmentallegislation; the need for a transparent and consultative process of land use planning and siting;and the design of major infrastructure projects such as dams. The costs of a formal process forthe preparation of a river basin or coastal area management plan are most likely to be justifiedin areas where intense multisectoral resource utilization either exists or is planned.

At the macro level, economic policies, such as subsidies for production inputs and import andexport duties, can have profound impacts on the characteristics and level of resource use, aswell as on the occurrence of undesirable environmental effects. The advantages of subsidisingchemical inputs, such as fertilizer and pesticides, need to be weighed against the potential harmthey can do to aquatic environments and to fishery resources, which provide food for fishersand fish consumers alike.

55

The way forward

Recent meetings and consultations organized and supported by FAO and partner organizations(including inter alia Martinez-Espinosa (comp.), 1996; Edwards and Demaine, 1997; APFIC,2000; FAO/NACA, 1999; FAO-RAF, 1999; FAO, 1999; DFID/FAO/NACA/GoB, 2000; FAO,2000d; Haylor and Bland, 20001; Tacon, 2001) have reached a number of conclusions andrecommendations aimed at increasing the sustainable contribution of aquaculture to ruraldevelopment. Land-based culture systems in inland areas have the greatest potential becauseaquaculture can be integrated with the existing agricultural practice of small-scale farminghouseholds. Coastal aquaculture also contributes to rural development by enabling diversificationof subsistence fishery sectors. Differences between countries and regions, with regard to physicalresources, norms and traditions, as well as economic conditions, are significant, hence thedevelopmental status of aquaculture differs widely. The areas and means of intervention formore or less intense aquaculture development also need to be separated. The conclusions andrecommendations listed below, therefore, need to be seen in the context that there is no singleacceptable aquaculture development strategy for all.

In the past decades, there has been a move away from a predominantly top-down view,dominated by technical issues, to a more holistic perspective of improved livelihoods and greaterhousehold food security. Social, economic and institutional issues have been recognized to bethe most important constraints to enhanced contributions by aquaculture to rural development.However, the impact of aquaculture on food security and poverty alleviation in rural areas ispoorly documented and understood. There is a need to assess the impacts of aquaculture onsustainable livelihoods and for advocating products and benefits. Advocacy issues include:

• raising awareness amongst policy makers of the role of small-scale rural aquaculture andaquatic resource management in rural livelihoods, including actual contributions andunfulfilled potential of aquatic resource management, including aquaculture, to sustainablerural development;

• documenting indigenous aquaculture systems and farmer-proven examples of aquaculture;• developing indicators for monitoring aquatic resource management and aquaculture impacts

on food security and poverty alleviation ;• encouraging and promoting consumption of aquaculture and inland fishery products; and• publicising and promoting benefits of sustainable aquaculture enterprises, aquatic resource

management and their products.

Governments should address the design and implementation of policy, ensuring feedbackmechanisms to allow the poor to influence development. This may be done through theestablishment of a multi-sectoral co-ordinating process both at sectoral policy formulation leveland at the extension service level. Aquaculture development should complement or substitutewild fisheries, as needed. Negative impacts of aquaculture projects on the food supplies of thepoor should be avoided. Other recommendations aimed at improved planning and policiesinclude:

• Establishing national aquaculture development and inland fisheries management plansand policies in consultation with stakeholders; and

• Integrating aquaculture planning into water resource management planning for inlandareas and into coastal management planning in coastal areas, as well as into other economicand food security interventions for rural areas.

Generic technologies for sound aquaculture production exist. Some of the indigenous systemsrequire further studiy and more detailed documentation. More emphasis is needed to:

56

• favour systems which use readily available species and local materials;• decentralized seed production and seed nursing and trading networks;• improving culture systems for aquatic species feeding low in the food chain and that are

preferred for local consumption; and• adapt and improve these systems through farmer based learning, and promoting the results

through participatory approaches.

Governments should aim to providing services and facilitate access to inputs. The rural poorneed to be provided, at least initially, with public sector support, while commercial aquaculturerequires less intervention. In the longer term, aquaculture has to function on a self-financingbasis within the private sector. Necessary actions include:

• focussing limited public resources on strategic government infrastructure and flexible andefficient extension services that meet producers’ needs;

• promoting and facilitating the private sector production of feed and seed;• encouraging credit for medium- and large-scale producers;• facilitating the formation of farmers’ associations and encourage community production;

and• encouraging investment in building the institutional capacity and knowledge base

concerning sustainable aquaculture practices to manage the sector.

Positive examples and case studies of traditional and other aquaculture systems that have provento be sustainable should be promoted and disseminated. In doing so:

• Promote collaboration, co-ordination and information exchange between national andregional aquaculture institutions and agencies; and

• Develop strategies for an effective transfer of aquaculture know-how into areas and regionswhere it has no tradition.

Acknowledgement

The authors acknowledge valuable contributions to this document from D. Bartley, J. Jia,M. Martinez, F. Marttin, R. Subasinghe, and A. Tacon.

References

APFIC (Asia-Pacific Fishery Commission). 2000. Report of the Ad Hoc Working Group ofExperts in Rural Aquaculture. Bangkok, Thailand, 20-22 October 1999, FAO Fish. Rep.No. 610., 22 pp.

Carney, D. 1998. Sustainable rural livelihoods. Department for International Development,London, United Kingdom.

Demaine, H. 2001. The role of small-scale aquaculture in rural development, In UtilizingDifferent Aquatic Resources for Livelihoods in Asia: a Resource Book. InternationalInstitute of Rural Reconstruction, International Development Research Centre, Foodand Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Network of Aquaculture Centersin Asia-Pacific and International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management,pp. 3-10.

DFID/FAO/NACA/GoB. 2000. Primary aquatic animal health care in rural, small-scaleaquaculture development. Report of an Asia Regional Scoping Workshop held in Dhaka,Bangladesh, from 27 to 30 September 1999. Department for InternationalDevelopment, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and theNetwork of Aquaculture Centres in Asia-Pacific, 36 pp.

57

Dixon, J., A Gulliver and D. Gibbon. 2001. Global Farming Systems Study: challenges andpriorities to 2030. Synthesis and global overview. FAO and World Bank, Rome, Foodand Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.

Edwards, P. 1999. Aquaculture and poverty: past, present and future prospects of impact. Adiscussion paper prepared for the Fifth Fisheries Development Donor Consultation,Rome, Italy, 22-24 February 1999 available at http://www.sifar.org/Presentation%20Documents/aqua-poverty.html

Edwards, P. and H. Demaine. 1997. Rural aquaculture: overview and framework for countryreviews. FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok, Thailand, RAPPubl. 1997/3, 61 pp.

FAO. 1999. Report of the Fifth Fisheries Development Donor Consultation, http://www.sifar.org/FDDC%20report.htm

FAO. 2000a. Small ponds make a big difference. Integrating fish with crop and livestock farm-ing. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy, 30 pp.

FAO. 2000b. The state of food insecurity in the world 2000., Food and AgricultureOrganization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy, 31 pp.

FAO. 2000c. Agriculture towards 2015/30. Technical Interim Report, April 2000. GlobalPerspectives Study Unit. , Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,Rome, Italy.

FAO. 2000d. Report of the workshop on participatory approaches in aquaculture. Bangkok,Thailand, 28 February - 1 March 2000. FAO Fish. Rep. No. 630, 48 pp.

FAO. 2001. FAO Yearbook. Fishery statistics. Aquaculture production 1999. Vol. 88/2. , Foodand Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy, 178 pp.

FAO/ICLARM/IIRR. 2001. Integrated agriculture-aquaculture: a primer. FAO Fish. Tech. Pap.No. 407, 149 pp.

FAO/NACA. 1999. Report of the FAO/NACA Consultation on Aquaculture for SustainableRural Development. Chiang Rai, Thailand, 29-31 March 1999. FAO Fish. Rep.No. 611, 34 pp.

FAO-RAF. 1999. Africa Regional Aquaculture Review. CIFA Occas. Pap. No. 24, 50 pp.Fernando, C.H and M. Halwart 2000. Possibilities for the integration of fish farming into

irrigation systems. Fish. Manag. Ecol. 7: 45-54.Garibaldi, L. 1996. List of animal species used in aquaculture. FAO Fish. Circ. No. 914.Halwart, M. 2001. Fish as biocontrol agents of vectors and pests of medical and agricultural

importance,. In Utilizing Different Aquatic Resources for Livelihoods in Asia: aResource Book. International Institute of Rural Reconstruction, InternationalDevelopment Research Centre, Food and Agriculture Organization of the UnitedNations, Network of Aquaculture Centers in Asia-Pacific, and International Center forLiving Aquatic Resources Management, pp. 70-75.

Haylor, G. and S. Bland 2001. Integrating aquaculture into rural development in coastal andinland areas. In R.P. Subasinghe, P.B. Bueno, M.J. Phillips, C. Hough, S.E. McGladderyand J.R. Arthur, (eds.) Aquaculture in the Third Millennium. Technical Proceedings ofthe Conference on Aquaculture in the Third Millennium, Bangkok, Thailand, 20-25February 2000. Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia-Pacific, Bangkok, Thailandand Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy, pp. 73-81

IIRR, IDRC, FAO, NACA and ICLARM 2001. Utilizing Different Aquatic Resources forLivelihoods in Asia: a Resource Book. International Institute of Rural Reconstruction,International Development Research Centre, Food and Agriculture Organization ofthe United Nations, Network of Aquaculture Centers in Asia-Pacific, and InternationalCenter for Living Aquatic Resources Management, 416 pp.

Lovshin, L.L., N.B. Schwartz and U. Hatch 2000. Impact of integrated fish culture on resourcelimited farms in Guatemala and Panamá. International Center for Aquaculture andAquatic Environments, Auburn University, USA, 29 pp.

Martinez-Espinosa, M. (comp.) 1996. Report of the Expert Consultation on Small-scale RuralAquaculture. FAO Fish. Rep. No. 548, 182 pp.

58

Moehl, J.F., I. Beernaerts, A.G. Coche, M. Halwart and V.O. Sagua 2001. Proposal for anAfrican network on integrated irrigation and aquaculture. Proceedings of a Workshopheld in Accra, Ghana, 20-21 September 1999. FAO, 75 pp.

NACA/FAO 2001. Aquaculture in the Third Millennium. R.P. Subasinghe, P.B. Bueno, M.J.Phillips, C. Hough, S.E. McGladdery and J.R. Arthur, (eds.), Technical Proceedings ofthe Conference on Aquaculture in the Third Millennium, Bangkok, Thailand. 20-25February 2000. Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia-Pacific, Bangkok, Thailandand Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy, 471 pp.

Prein, M. and M. Ahmed, 2000. Integration of aquaculture into smallholder farming systemsfor improved food security and household nutrition. Food Nutr. Bull. 21: 466-471.

STREAM 2001. Support to Regional Aquatic Resources Management. Department forInternational Development, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,Volunteer Services Overseas, and Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia-Pacific,16 pp.

Tacon, A.G.J. 2001. Increasing the contribution of aquaculture for food security and povertyalleviation. In R.P. Subasinghe, P.B. Bueno, M.J. Phillips, C. Hough, S.E. McGladderyand J.R. Arthur, (eds.), Aquaculture in the Third Millennium. Technical Proceedings ofthe Conference on Aquaculture in the Third Millennium, Bangkok, Thailand,20-25 February 2000, pp. 63-72. NACA, Bangkok, Thailand and FAO, Rome, Italy.

Willmann, R., M. Halwart and U. Barg. 1999. Integrating fisheries and agriculture to enhancefish production and food security. FAO Aquacult. Newsl. 20: 3-8.

Ziegler, J. 2001. Preliminary report of the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on HumanRights on the right to food. General Assembly, United Nations, New York, USA.

59

Recent Technological Innovations in Aquaculture

Rohana P. Subasinghe1, David Curry2, Sharon E. McGladdery3 and Devin Bartley4

1Senior Fishery Resources Officer (Aquaculture)FAO Fisheries Department

Rome, Italy

2Old Farmhouse, CarnboKinross, KY13 0NX

United Kingdom

3Aquatic Animal Health, Oceans and Aquaculture ScienceDepartment of Fisheries and Oceans Canada

200 Kent Street (8N180)Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0E6

Canada

4 Senior Fishery Resources Officer (Inland Fisheries)FAO Fisheries Department

Rome, Italy

Introduction

Aquaculture faces many challenges over the next decade, notably, combating diseases andepizootics, broodstock improvement and domestication, development of appropriate feeds andfeeding mechanisms, hatchery and grow-out technology, as well as water-quality management.These all present considerable scope for biotechnological and other technology interventions.Aquaculture biotechnology can be described as the scientific application of biological conceptsthat enhance the productivity and economic viability of its various industrial sectors (Liao andChao, 1997). The Convention on Biologicial Diversity defines Biotechnology as, “any technologicalapplication that uses biological systems, living organism, or derivatives thereof, to make or modiyproducts or processes for specific use”. Biotechnology encompasses a wide range of approachesthat can improve subsistence and commercial aquaculture production and management.Although some biotechnologies are modern and novel, others have a long history of application,e.g. fermentation and fertilization of ponds to increase feed availability. Many modernbiotechnologies are based on rapidly evolving knowledge of molecular biology and genetics.The major biotechnology sectors involved in aquaculture are similar to those for agriculturalsectors. Development of the knowledge required to optimise safe biotechnological innovation inaquaculture is of particular significance, and presents a unique set of challenges, due mainly tothe diversity of species cultured and production systems used. A key consideration behind alltechnology transfer to the aquaculture sector is that it should be used with due consideration tothe protection of wild aquatic diversity and potential impacts on the autonomy and economy ofrural and subsistence populations. The emphasis on biotechnology and its contribution to foodsecurity, poverty alleviation, and income generation is increasing and we need to be preparedto address the challenges this will bring, and develop these technologies in a responsible manner.

60

Reproduction Innovations

The application of genetic principles to increase production from aquatic animals currently lagsfar behind that of the plant and livestock sectors. Only a small percentage of farmed aquaticspecies have been subject to genetic improvement programmes (Gjedrem 1997); however,biotechnology and genetics have great potential to increase production and enhance ecologicalsustainability. Biotechnology can be applied to enhance reproduction and early developmentsuccess of cultured organisms, as well as expand periods of gamete and fry availability. Geneticsalso have the potential to satisfy new markets for farmed products, e.g., for specific markettastes or aesthetics. Likewise, biotechnology may provide avenues for improving the reproductivesuccess and survival of endangered species, thereby helping to identify and conserve aquaticbiodiversity. Transgenic technologies can enhance growth rates and market size, feed conversionratios, resistance to disease, sterility issues and tolerance of extreme environmental conditions.In the shrimp aquaculture sector, transgenic shrimp have been reported (Mialhe et al., 1995),but there has been no successful development to date for commercial culture (Bachère et al.,1997; Benzie, 1998). However, the use of transgenic organisms in aquaculture (as in other sectors)is controversial and issues of consumer education and acceptance must be addressed.

Carp and tilapia culture in Asia is benefiting from genetics research in a number of areas,including genetic sequencing and the development of specific genetic markers. Markers areshort unique pieces of genetic code that can help locate genes that are important for growth, sexdetermination factors or disease susceptibility (Kocher et al., 1998). Such techniques have alreadyresulted in genetic improvements in some fish being cultured. The traditional technique usedfor many generations by farmers throughout Asia has been selecting fish by desirable phenotypictraits for breeding, on an ad hoc basis. This has led, in many cases, to in-breeding and suppressionof optimum production performance (Chen Defu and Shui Maoxing, 1995). Improving geneticunderstanding across millions of small-scale farms in the Asia region is a difficult challenge,especially since traditional approaches have focussed on improvement of core stocks that canthen be distributed to farmers.

The GIFT (Genetic Improvement of Farmed Tilapia) project in Asia is an example of a programmeaimed at examining the genetics of an important farmed fish species. The GIFT project has beenworking with Nile tilapia hybrids and strains in culture around the region, with a view todevelopment of pure-bred lines and the distribution of strains of improved performance tofarmers. The programme is a collaborative effort between ICLARM (International Centre forLiving Aquatic Resources Management) headquartered in Malaysia and research institutionsin Malaysia, Philippines, UK and USA. The programme has not yet reached the fully commercialphase and the ‘improved’ tilapia in most of the participating countries are still under evaluationby fisheries scientists. The program has, however, shown considerable potential for improvingfarm production (http://www.iclarm.org/resprg_1f.htm. Similar breeding programmes forcommercially important carps could bring comparable benefits; indeed, because carp fryproduction is typically more centralised than is the case for tilapia, the spread of improvedstocks could occur more readily.

For many species of farmed freshwater fish, there are differences in growth rate between thesexes. Consequently, the development of techniques to produce monosex populations continuesto be important. Historically, farmers have mainly depended on the use of hormones to triggersex-reversal, or on the use of particular hybrid crosses that give skewed sex distributions in theiroffspring, in order to produce fish of all one sex, e.g., in tilapias. However, these techniques bothhave drawbacks. The use of hormones in food animals is increasingly being questioned byconsumers and hybrid crosses that give skewed sex distributions may not be the best hybrids forfarm productivity. Alternative methods for producing monosex populations include cloning bynuclear transplantation and gynogenesis. Cloning has been possible for carp for more thanthirty years (Zhu et al., 1985) and can form a useful basis for producing all female fry. In several

61

commercially important carp species, females grow faster than males for the first years of life,so farmers prefer all-female populations. All-female offspring can be produced from certaincarp species, such as the silver crucian carp (Carassius auratus gibelio), which can reproducegynogenetically (monosex female reproduction). Artificially induced gynogenesis has also beenused successfully for many years in China to produce pure lines of common carp, silver carpand ornamental colour carp (Cyprinus carpio) (Jian-Fang Gui and Qi-Ya Zhang, 2000).

In the case of tilapia, males are preferred for culture as they grow faster than females. Recentlyall male populations of tilapia fry have been produced through use of YY chromosome malefish, sometimes termed ‘supermales’. These are the offspring of a normal male, bred with afemale produced by hormonal sex reversal of genetic male. A quarter of the offspring from sucha mating typically have a YY configuration of their sex chromosomes, instead of the normal XY.When a YY male is crossed with a normal XX female it produces a high percentage of XY (male)offspring (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Production of all male offspring via YY males.

Sex differentiation does not dependentirely on the XY/XX chromosomes, soa small percentage (normally less than5%) of the offspring are female, but thistechnique allows breeders the freedomto work with the best culture speciesand to avoid the use of hormones in theproduction of food fish (Mair et al.,1999). This technology is now welldeveloped for tilapia and research isongoing for a number of other fishspecies. Since consumer resistance to‘hormone’ treated fish is unlikely todisappear, technologies such as that ofthe ‘supermale’ will become increasinglyimportant, especially for fish producedfor export markets. The production of‘superfemales’ by a complimentarytechnique to that used for ‘supermales’may also be feasible.

In some farmed fish species, earlymaturation and breeding beforeattaining market size is a significantconstraint on production. Energy is usedfor egg production at the expense ofgrowth and, in some cases, such as withtilapia, ponds can become filled withundersized fish. This is a notableproblem in Africa with the Nile tilapia.In such cases, stocking with sterile frywould be useful. Techniques used toachieve this include the production of

62

fish with extra sets of chromosomes, i.e., polyploid (triploid and tetraploid) fish (Thorgaard,1986), or shock treatment using temperature or pressure during early embryo development tocause retention of multiple sets of chromosomes in each cell and, in most cases, sterility. Artificialtriploids and tetraploids have been induced in many farmed fish species, including cruciancarp (Carassius auratus), bighead carp (Aristichthys nobilis), silver carp (Hypophthalmichthysmolitrix) and common carp (Cyprinus carpio) (Jian-Fang Gui & Qi-Ya Zhang, 2000).

Snapper (mainly Lutjanus spp.) culture has been limited by the availability of supplies from wildfisheries. Researchers in the southern USA, however, have made considerable recent advancesin hatchery production of one species, the mutton snapper, L. analis, and are proceeding toongrowing trials (Benetti et al., 2001). At the University of Miami egg production by this specieshas been achieved for the first time using environmental manipulation, rather than hormoneinjection. It is hoped that this technique will allow year-round egg production. A similar advancehas been reported by the Hawaii-based Oceanic Institute with the red snapper L. campechanus(Oceanic Institute News, 2000).

Molecular techniques also show significant promise for aquaculture application, in that theyhelp provide more accurate information on the genetic diversity of natural stocks and allowgenetic tagging of animals in breeding programmes (Subasinghe et al., 2000). Effective breedingprogrammes need to identify and track the pedigrees of individual organisms. Physical taggingof early life-history stages of many aquatic species is difficult, thus, non-invasive, genetic markersusing microsatellite DNA, and AFLP’s (amplified fragment length polymorphisms) have beendeveloped to track pedigrees and provide linkage maps to identify quantitative trait loci (QTL’s– genes coding for characters that have production value, such as growht rates, disease resistanceor cold tolerance) (Garcia et al., 1996, Benzie, 1998, Moore et al., 1999; Agresti et al., 2000).

Increased attention is being directed towards domestication of shrimp species. In order tominimise environmental impacts and optimise use of genetic diversity, shrimp culture must,however, break its current dependence on wild post-larvae for stocking (Wang 1998). Wildlarvae may currently be more economical and perform better than some hatchery producedpost-larvae, but there is a constant (and inevitable) risk of introducing pathogens into the cultureenvironment. Furthermore, there is a significant by-catch of other aquatic organisms. Recentimprovements in husbandry, larval rearing, and larval nutrition, as well as genetic improvementof farmed shrimp, all have the potential to significantly reduce dependence on wild-caughtpostlarvae in the future. For example, considerable success has already been achieved withshrimp species, such as Penaeus vannamei, in development of specific pathogen free (SPF)broodstock and some of these broodstock are now becoming commercially available. Similarwork is being undertaken for domestication of giant tiger shrimp (P. monodon) but onlypreliminary progress has been made to date.

Endocrine regulation of reproduction has been effectively applied across a broad range of culturedfish species, however, advancements have been slow with shrimp and molluscs. Recent researchhas shown that there is potential for chemical treatment of shrimp gonad inhibitingneurohormone (GIH) that could promote reproduction without the negative side effects of eyestalk ablation (Keeley 1991; Wang et al., 2000). Research on shrimp GIH isolation is still ongoingbut elucidation of the structure and function of shrimp GIH, using peptide biotechnology-basedapproaches, shows promise for countering the reproductive inhibitory effects of GIH. Furtherresearch in this area is needed, and collaboration between researchers, shrimp culturists, andresource providers from different regions could expedite its achievement.

63

Disease Management

Production of specific pathogen free (SPF) and specific pathogen resistant (SPR) stocks are twocomplementary objectives being developed through shrimp broodstock managementprogrammes. The specific pathogens for these programs are those listed as ‘notifiable’ by theOIE, representing direct trade concerns, as well as, significant threats to optimal production(OIE, 2000, 2001). SPF shrimp are produced by selecting animals shown to be free of specificpathogens, using them as broodstock, and raising their offspring under strictly controlled sanitaryconditions. SPF shrimp are of value for trade to countries or areas that are free of the specificdisease agent, or for restocking ponds following a disease outbreak and disinfection. By contrast,SPR shrimp are developed through selective breeding of individuals that have survivedchallenges/infections by specific pathogens. These, therefore have great potential to enhanceproduction in waters endemic for the specific diseases, but are inappropriate for use in non-endemic waters, as they may carry sub-clinical infections of the pathogen in question. Thesespecific pathogen approaches are now being applied to shrimp stocking in countries like theUSA, Venezuela and French Polynesia using shrimp species such as P. vannamei and P. stylorostris(Bedier, 1998). Both approaches produce ‘high health’ (HH), however, many SPF stocks performpoorly when challenged by other pathogens , since their production under sterile conditionsimpedes development of acquired resistance to common, but normally less significant, pathogens(Browdy, 1998). If the immune or physiological traits of SPR strains are heritable, this has thepotential to confer significant performance improvement at the farm level. Taking this technologybeyond specific pathogens, there is exciting potential for this approach to be adapted to sselectionof lines with high non-specific immunity or high tolerance of physiological stresses that facilitateopportunistic infections or other pathology (Bedier, 1998). Considering the major contributionof P. monodon to the global shrimp production and the economic losses encountered due to bothfacultative and opportunistic disease outbreaks; it is appropriate and timely to concentrate furtherresearch to develop specific and non-specific resistant broodstock – especially for P. monodon.

Infectious disease is currently the single most devastating problem in shrimp culture and presentsongoing threats to other aquaculture sectors. In addition, there is increasing concern over theconsequences of newly emerging diseases in aquaculture. Conventional methods of controllingsuch diseases, such as chemotherapeutants, are ineffective for many new pathogens (notablyviruses), thus, molecular techniques are receiving increasing attention for pathogen screeningand identification. In addition, these techniques are providing significant insights intopathogenesis (disease development), showing strong potential for disease control and preventionprograms, as well as for treatments of diseases (e.g., DNA vaccines). The increased sensitivityand specificity conferred by nucelic acid (DNA or RNA) based probes has provided significantinroads for early detection of diseases and identification of sub-clinical carriers of infections.This has had a direct effect on enhancing preventative management and control of disease incultured species. Concomitant with this has been a decrease in the need for reactive treatmentsusing traditional methodologies such as antibiotics, or culling and disinfection. This has beenparticularly successful for shrimp broodstock selection and breaking the infection cycleperpetuated for years by accidental broodstock transmission of viral pathogens to developingoffspring.

In shrimp aquaculture, commercially available molecular probes have been developed forIHHNV and type-A baculovirus (Durand et al., 1996), whereas commercial probes for otherviral pathogens, such as white spot, SEMBV, MBV, TSV, HPV, YHV are still under development.As noted above, nucleic acid probes are extremely sensitive and can detect microbial infectionsbefore they progress to produce clinical signs. In addition, such probes can be designed to behighly specific, thereby allowing more accurate identification of pathogens than was possiblewith many non-molecular techniques (Walker and Subasinghe, 1999). This clearly helps withdifferentiation between significant and closely related infectious agents, which in turn helpsfocus disease management intervention and reduce control costs. Increased efficiency in detecting

64

early stages of pathogen development also reduces reliance on prophylactic and active use ofantibiotics to control disease under culture conditions.

In vitro tissue culture for detection and isolation of pathogenic viruses and intracellular bacteriaare currently available for many fish species (FAO and NACA, 2001; OIE, 2000; Groff and LaPatra, 2000; Chi et al., 1999), although these still require specialised maintenance and qualityassurance to ensure optimum application to fish health needs (Lorenzen et al., 1999; Ariel andOlesen, 2001). No self-replicating cell-lines currently exist for aquatic invertebrates. Considerableresearch has gone into the development and maintenance of crustacean cell cultures but successhas, so far, been marginal (Shimizu et al., 2001; Wang et al., 2000; Walton and Smith, 1999;Ghosh et al., 1995; Toullec, 1995). Many researchers have managed to develop primary cellcultures, but most have failed to subculture or maintain them (Le Groumellec et al., 1995). Thesituation is similar for molluscan cell-lines (Buchanan et al., 1999, 2001; Cheng et al., 2001;LaPeyre and Li, 2000). Further research efforts to develop and maintain crustacean andmolluscan cell cultures is required, in order to provide equitable culture options for study ofintracellular infectious agents to those possible for many finfish pathogens.

Transboundary movements of aquatic animals have in some cases lead to the spread of aquaticanimal diseases. Reliable and sensitive diagnostic techniques and standards are required toensure such movements of live aquatic animals does not also include the dispersion of theirpathogens. Once DNA probes are field validated and refined for non-specialist use, these willbe particularly valuable tools for this purpose (FAO 2000). For example, once appropriate DNAprobes are developed for specific shrimp pathogens, live and processed shrimp could be certifiedto be free of specific pathogens, thus promoting confidence in the shrimp culture industry, andfacilitating access to wider international markets.

Besides screening for pathogens, biotechnological methods can be used to ascertaining otherhealth parameters, including haematocrits, leucocrits, blood cell differentials, neutrophil oxidativeradical production, myeloperoxidase activity and phagocytic functions. Such techniques can beapplied to quantitative protein, immunoglobulin, lysozyme, cortisol and ceruloplasmin analysisfrom plasma samples. Methods such as agglutination tests to assay antibody after immunisationcan now be supplemented with immunoassays, such as fluorescent antibody test (FAT) andenzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) (e.g., Bachère et al., 1995; Noel et al., 1996; Austin1998; Mishra, 1998; Crawford et al., 1999; Romalde, 1999; Pernas et al., 2000; Meloni andScapigliati, 2000; Munoz et al., 2000; Nadala and Loh, 2000: Shelby et al., 2001). Also leucocytesamples from fish blood or haematopoietic organs can be assayed by haemolytic plaque assayor an enzyme labelled tag (ELISPOT) to determine levels of antibody (plaque-forming cells).ELISPOT can be used to accurately quantify numbers of immunoglobulin or non-specificantibody-secreting cells (Anderson, 1995) and are used in immunodiagnosis.

One of the most urgent needs for aquaculture health management is establishment of standardsfor quantitative assessment of health status in the broad range of species under culture. Progressin this regard is being made for certain finfish, however, knowledge of shrimp and molluscanhealth (and stress) are still relatively undeveloped. The above mentioned techniques could beused to develop simple and rapid predictive health tests for use under field conditions by fieldtechnicians, veterinarians and the farmers themselves. Bearing in mind the extensive literatureapplied to physiological indices of aquatic animals (especially molluscs) as indicators ofenvironmental quality (Handy and Depledge, 1999), such tests could provide an invaluableearly warning of stress under hatchery production conditions, where disease losses are usuallyacute and catastrophic (e.g., Weirich and Reigh, 2001).

Harnessing the host’s specific and non-specific defence mechanisms in an effort to control aquaticanimal diseases has considerable potential for reducing the impact and losses from diseases.Immunostimulants and non-specific immune-enhancers are being incorporated into diets toboost protection. Such methods, however, are still very limited, especially for shrimp, however,

65

the large number of commercial immunostimulants available on the market clearly reflects theinterest in this area as an alternative method to enhance survival from disease challenges. Todate, however, results from biological trials of these commercial products have been highlyvariable, thus, further research is required to determine the precise mechanisms of their actionand assess their cost-benefit value (Flegel, 1996; Subasinghe et al., 1998).

Probiotics are generally administered as live microbial feed supplements which affect the hostanimal by improving the intestinal microbial balance to optimise the presence of non-toxic species.A stable gut microflora helps the host resist pathogenic invasions, particularly via the gastro-intestinal tract. Antibiotics reduce specific or broad-spectrum gut microflora and probioticsmay have post-antibiotic treatment potential for restoring the microbial balance. Probiotics arewidely used in animal husbandry but their use in aquaculture is still relatively new. However,there are increasing reports of potential probiotics for shrimp aquaculture, which has beenplagued by opportunistic bacteria, such as the luminescent Vibrio harveyi, and, in some cases,probiotics have been reported to significantly reduce antibiotic use in shrimp hatcheries.Suppression of proliferation of certain pathogenic bacteria (e.g., Vibrio spp.) in shrimp hatcherieshas been achieved by introducing (inoculating) non-pathogenic strains or species of bacteria,that compete for microbial metabolite resources. This procedure shows promise to be effectiveand economical, however, further refinement of administration and concentration loads requiredfor effective pathogen suppression is required. Effective and economically viable probiotics alsorequire greater research into optimal strains of probiotic micro-organisms and stringent evaluationunder field conditions of their economic feasibility.

Beside producing aquatic organisms for food, aquaculture has other important purposes whichhelp human well-being. Aquatic organisms are often adapted to extreme environments, andcan, therefore, provide unique models for research on biological and physiological processes.Furthermore, studies of the developmental, cellular, and molecular aspects of aquatic organismscould provide insights into the basis of disease mechanisms and pathogenesis in humans (Wrightet al., 2000).

Feed Technologies

Currently, one of the most heated debates concerning aquaculture development is the use offishmeal and other animal proteins in aquafeeds (Naylor et al., 2000; Forster and Hardy, 2001).Although fishmeal is used for its high quality protein content, it has several disadvantages,including high cost and instability of supply. Wild fish catches are on the decline and there areincreasing environmental concerns (eutrophication, pollution associated with excess nutrientwaste), ethical concerns over feeding fish to non-piscivorous fish, and social concerns over usingaquatic protein to feed fish that could be used for human nutrition (especially in nutritionally-deficient areas of the world) . Although, the major users of fishmeal is terrestrial agriculture,and the salmon, bream, bass and shrimp farming sectors are using species that would notnormally be used for human consumption, the concerns of consumers provide a strong impetusto find ways to replace fish meal with vegetable protein from more sustainable sources.Biotechnology offers opportunities for development of alternatives to fishmeal, especially plant-based protein sources, by enhancing production and processing techniques. Other technologiesalso offer potential for enhancing the efficacy of feed delivery.

Plant protein has significant potential for addressing the problem of phosphorus pollution, sinceplants do not contain the high levels of phosphorus found in animal protein. The use of plantprotein in aquafeeds also helps reduce pressure on wild fish stocks. Research in this area isfocusing on the investigation of various plant species and plant-animal protein mixes, as newsources for protein for aquafeeds for shrimp (Mendoza et al., 2001); molluscs (Shipton andBritz, 2000) and finfish (Ogunji anf Wirth, 2001). In addition, brewers yeast is another proteinsource under investigation for finfish (Oliva-Teles and Goncalves, 2001), along with plant lipid

66

substitutes for fish oils (Ng et al. 2000). One of the difficulties in using plant proteins in aquafeedsis the need for proper processing to destroy anti-nutritional compounds which may harm the fishonce fed. Researchers are looking at the possibilities of dealing with anti-nutritional factors byproducing feed enzymes to counteract them. Phytase is one example. This enzyme helps fishmake optimal use of the phosphorous available in plant-protein based feeds (Papatryphon andSoares, 2001; Vielma et al., 2000; Van Weerd et al., 1999; Papatryphon et al., 1999; Storebakkenet al., 1998).

Dependable availability of quality fry to stock grow-out production systems has been one of themost critical factors affecting commercial success of fish and shellfish production (Sorgeloos,1995). Although nutritional and dietary requirements of most fish and shellfish species havebeen identified, large-scale hatchery production of most aquatic species still depends on livefeeds, such as selected species of microalgae, the rotifer Brachionus and the brine shrimp Artemia.

More than 15 species of diatoms and green algae are used for first-feeding of hatchery producedfish fry and shrimp larvae. Selection of these species has been done mainly by trial and error,rather than on a nutritional scientific basis. The live feed production systems used in mostdeveloping countries are still labour intensive. This lowers cost efficiency and poses manyproblems for consistent mass production, including optimal nutritional quality and preventionof microbial contamination. These problems have created a whole new area of biotechnologicalresearch aimed at finding cost effective and efficient supplements to live microalgae, commercialproduction of freeze-dried algae, microencapsulated diets, and manipulated yeasts. Results ofmuch of this work have shown significant success (Garcia-Ortega et al., 2001; Oliva-Teles andGoncalves, 2001). This area requires further research and shows considerable potential forreducing reliance on live microplankton in fish and shrimp hatchery production.

Artemia nauplii are the most widely used live feed in shrimp aquaculture (Sorgeloos and Leger,1992). Considerable progress has been made in improving the dietary value of this planktoniccrustacean through selection of traits and batches, efficient cyst disinfection and decapsulation(Garcia-Ortega et al. 2001), nauplius hatching, and enrichment and cold storage (Sorgeloos,1995). Improvement of the nutritional quality of Artemia through bioencapsulation (enrichment),especially with highly unsaturated fatty acids and vitamins, has improved larviculture outputsin terms of quality, survival, growth, and stress resistance (Merchie et al., 1995). Bioencapsulationhas also been applied for oral delivery of vaccines, vitamins, and chemotherapeutants (Lavenset al., 1995; Robles et al., 1998), notably for hatchery developmental stages of finfish (Majack etal., 2000; Touraki et al., 1996, 1999) and shrimp ((Uma et al., 1999). Research intobioencapsulation and use of live feed as a means of oral delivery for compounds to enhancesurvival and fitness of larval stages of aquatic organisms merits further research priority.

Future aquaculture development ultimately depends on the ability of farmers and processors toproduce a product acceptable to consumers. Increasing consumer demands for quality and safeproducts have to be recognised and addressed. Biotechnology also shows promise in this area,especially for assessing and improving safety, freshness, colour, flavour, texture, taste, nutritionalcharacteristics, and shelf-life of cultured food products. Tools are already under development,or commercially available, that can detect and assay toxins, contaminants, and residues in aquaticproducts (Jellet et al., 1999; Quilliam, 1999; Marr et al., 1992, 1994; Pleasance et al. 1992).

Biotechnology tools can also be used to identify and characterize important aquatic germplasmresources, including those of endangered species. The genetic make-up of aquatic species cannow be analysed, characterised and quantitative trait loci identified that code for phenotypiccharacters that are beneficial for culture (e.g., fast growth, disease resistance and cold tolerance).The study of biotechnology can also improve understanding of gene regulation and expression,sex determination and definition of species, stocks, and populations (Alcivar-Warren, 2001;Agresti et al., 2000; Davis and Hetzel, 2000; Ward et al., 2000; Moore et al., 1999; Sakamoto etal., 1999; Liu et al., 1999Cross et al., 1998; Poompuang and Hallerman, 1997). This can be achieved

67

by marker-assisted gene selection techniques, transgenic manipulations and improvedcryopreservation of gametes and embryos.

Progress in this arena will require sophisticated molecular biology technologies to be adapted toaquatic organisms, in order to enhance understanding of their biological processes. For example,approaches for gene transfer into eggs have been developed for many terrestrial organisms andmany freshwater species, but not for most marine species. This technology is needed for analysesof gene regulatory systems and gene expression. In addition, methods need to be developed forculturing tissues from marine organisms. Cultured cell lines will provide opportunities for genetransfer and gene expression studies and enhance the usefulness of marine species as biomedicalresearch models.

Bioremediation is another promising biotechnological approach for degradation of hazardouswaste to environmentally safe levels using aquatic microorganisms, or other filtering macro-organisms (Srinivasa Rao and Sudha, 1996). Although this procedure has been used in varioussituations, such as sewage treatment, application to shrimp and other aquaculture wastes isfairly novel. There are a lot of commercial products on the market, mainly bacterial preparations,but the mode of action and efficacy of many of these have yet to be scientifically measured. Inaddition to microbes, bivalves, seaweeds, holothurians (sea cucumbers), etc., have been testedto assess their ability to reduce organic loading, or reduce excess nutrients produced duringculture production. Various bioremediation preparations have also been developed with theview to remove nitrogenous and other organic waste in water and bottom sludge, to reducechemically-induced physiological stress, e.g., in pond-reared shrimp. More products willundoubtedly emerge with continued research in this field, however, controlled field trials areurgently needed to determine the cost-benefit and effectiveness of these products under cultureconditions.

Concomitant with bioremediation is enhanced feed delivery. Aquaculture development in recentyears has, therefore, included investigation into methods for more efficient feeding. Underwaterclosed circuit television is in use to record when fish are satiated (no longer feeding), so feedingcan be halted, and also to monitor the accumulation of wastes under moored cages. More recently,research organisations, such as IFREMER1 , have been looking into the use of demand feeders,where the fish trigger feeding by learning to push a lever. This method has shown some successand may have potential for many farmed fish species. IFREMER reported a notable variation infeed demand by European seabass on a daily and monthly scale (IFREMER, 2000). Training fishto trigger feeding when hungry offers strong potential to lower feed costs, raise conversionefficiency and reduce wastage and pollution. IFREMER are also looking to develop faecalstabilisers for species such as turbot and seabass that have rather liquid waste. Feed additivesthat would stabilise the faecal matter would benefit surrounding water quality in sea-cage rearingsituations.

Holding Systems

A notable technology-based development in the US freshwater farming sector has been asignificant expansion tilapia production using indoor closed-recirculation systems. This Americanproduction, however, is still dwarfed by imports from countries such as China, Costa Rica,Ecuador and Honduras, where production can be achieved using less capital investment.Although this makes long-term sustainablility of tilapia farming in the US uncertain, there isongoing interest in diversifying to other species, such as carp, bass and perch that can takeadvantage of lower ambient temperatures.

Recent technological advances in the salmon farming have been particularly in sea-cage design.In the past, the industry had typically used steel-framed rectangular support structures for thenet cages, with walkways around them as work platforms. With the exception of the pondrearing of some marine species practised in Asia, this general cage design has also typified the

1 Institut français de recherche pour l’exploitation de la mer

68

commercial culture methods used for most other sea fish, including Asian grouper and snapper,and the Mediterranean seabass and bream. In recent years, however, there has been a move inthe salmon farming industry towards the use of circular cages with plastic support structuresand incorporating no walkway. Instead the cages are dependent on boats for maintenance. Thefeeding of the fish, instead of being carried out by hand or by cannon/blower, is by automaticcage-mounted machines with a capacity of up to 100 mt of feed. Visits by farm staff can thus bereduced, lowering costs. As salmon prices have slipped lower, these technology shifts, and amove towards amalgamation of companies, are allowing the industry to cut operating costsand retain profitability. The change towards boat-maintained circular cages with plastic supportstructures has not yet been seen in Europe’s seabream or seabass industry but it may be a trendthat will develop in these sectors in coming years.

If the commercial aquaculture of marine finfish is to continue expanding, it will likely take placein more offshore locations than have traditionally been used. Atlantic salmon have been farmedalmost exclusively in sheltered nearshore waters, but this has been linked to production,environmental and aesthetic problems. At offshore sites, removal/dilution of wastes is facilitatedby greater water exchange and volumes. In addition offshore sites offer greater salinity stability.Cages developed specifically for offshore culture, such as the Ocean Spar® rectangular SeaCage design and the innovative double cone SeaStationTM Sea Cage, have been put intocommercial use in recent years. The Oceanic Institute of the US, in Hawaii, has developed asimilar bi-conical offshore cage design to that of Ocean Spar®, named the SeaStation 3000™(Oceanic Institute 2001).

The double cone shaped net is suspended on a central floating vertical support column and canbe permanently submerged, with feed administered through a pipe from the surface. Access isvia zippered doors underwater and daily net cleaning is carried out by divers. In times of severestorms, the structures can be sunk below the high-energy surface waves. An Oceanic Institutecage 24m in diameter and 15m deep, moored 10m down and 3 km offshore in 30m of water,has been used to grow batches of 70,000 Pacific threadfin or ‘moi’ (Polydactylus sexfilis) fingerlingsto 3-400g size in 4-5 months. In the USA, a recently formulated national aquaculture policy hasspecifically identified open ocean aquaculture as one of two main areas for research anddevelopment. The second being closed system (or “urban”) aquaculture, including research onrecirculating technologies for inland facilities (NOAA, 2001).

Technology from the oil industry has supplied some of the background for the design of suchoffshore cages. Another cross-over with the oil industry has been interest in conversion of disusedoil platforms for use as offshore fish farms. The high cost of decommissioning oil drilling andpumping platforms at the end of their service life makes this an interesting proposition, thoughto date, the costs and problems of conversion have proven to be formidable obstacles (Bugrov etal., 1994; Osborn and Culbertson, 1998). In the USA, recently formulated national aquaculturepolicy has specifically identified open ocean aquaculture as one of two main areas for researchand development. (The second being closed system (or “urban”) aquaculture, including researchon recirculating technologies for inland facilities (NOAA, 2001)). This emphasises the likelyfuture direction of aquaculture.

Another recent development in holding technology has been in closed-circulation systems. Thesesystems have shown great potential for reducing fishmeal consumption compared with open-field farming. Although experiments rearing shrimp without water exchange date back to the1970’s in Tahiti, and to the 1980s in Hawaii and South Carolina, USA, pilot projects have notmoved to commercial realisation. A commercial shrimp farming project in Belize in 1998 - initiallyaiming to isolate the farm from the danger of disease introduction - took the technology to anew level by keeping particulate matter aerobic and in suspension in the growout pond. Thisfacilitated nitrification of waste products (essential to a healthy rearing environment) by thebacteria in the pond. As long as the system is aerated, pond conditions can be kept suitable forshrimp to thrive and the flocculent bacteria and organic matter that form in the water contribute

69

directly to the food of the shrimp. As a result, protein and fishmeal contents of the feed can beconsiderably reduced. Closed systems of this kind can also be housed inside buildings and thereare currently numerous projects at early stages of testing in the Americas and Asia to developthis technology further.

The higher dissolved oxygen requirement of many finfish culture species makes it more difficultto use similar systems to reduce protein demand in fish feeds but the production of catfish inclosed ponds is one example where closed systems can maximise the feed use and reduce theneed for outside protein inputs (Boyd and Tucker, 1995; Tucker et al., 1996).

Aquaculture Related Enhancement Technology

Sea ranching, where juveniles are produced in hatcheries and then released to the sea to grow,dates back over one hundred years. There have been some notable successes, for instance withthe Japanese flounder (Paralichthys olivaceus), but there have also been failures where factorsaffecting recruitment and loss from the fishery were not properly understood (Howell et al.,1999). As understanding of the factors affecting the success of ranching programmes hasimproved, interest in this technique has spread to new areas and targeted at new species.Countries such as Norway, USA, Australia and China have all launched stock enhancementprojects. on a variety of species. To promote a more effective exchange of information, the FirstInternational Symposium on Stock Enhancement and Sea Ranching was arranged in Norwayin 1997 (Howell et al., 1999) and a second symposium is to be held in Kobe, Japan in January2002. Sea-ranching can be one useful approach to increasing overall landings, provided habitatis adequate and that fishing is prudently regulated (Welcomme and Bartley, 1998)

Pre-Market Conditioning

An interesting sector which has opened up in recent years is the temporary holding of bluefintuna (Thunnus thunnus) to improve meat quality. The early development of this activity began inAustralia with the southern bluefin tuna (Thunnus maccoyii), in response to falling catches fromthe South Australian wild fishery. Australian landings of this migratory species reached a peakof 21,500 mt in 1982 but increasingly lower quotas had to be introduced, dropping to 5,265 mtby 1989. The quality of the product being landed was poor which diminished export value,thus, fishing/farming companies began holding 2-4 year old fish in cages for 3-5 months forconditioning. This enhanced meat quality and enabled them to sell to high-value sushi marketsin Japan at prices of around US$18 per kg, or up to US$620 per fish. By 1997, tuna ‘fattening’had become Australia’s most valuable single aquaculture sector (Brown et al., 1997).

Similar techniques were adapted by fishermen in the Mediterranean (Malta, Croatia and Turkey)over the last few years, holding Atlantic bluefin tuna captured during the limited fishing season(May-July). The fish are on a spawning migration at this time, thus flesh quality is poor, andmeat prices are depressed. The fish are held in floating cages until November or December andfed on mackerel and herring. By then end of the holding period the fish improve in conditionand meet high market price quality for export to Japan. The cages used to hold and transportthe fish are large structures of up to 100 m in circumference and it can take a week or more totow them as much as 300 km from the fishing grounds to the holding area.

The capture of bluefin tuna from the declining, and possibly threatened, stocks in the Atlantichas caused some controversy, thus, there interest in further development of this technology fortrue farming – and reduce reliance on wild captured stocks. In addition, there is controversyover the amount of fish required to feed the tuna during the ‘fattening’ process, especially sincethese are species also used for human consumption in the Australian and Mediterranean (cfdiscussion under “Feed Technologies” above). This presents a significant challenge, howeverfor this highly piscivorous migratory species.

70

Conclusion

Aquaculture biotechnology and other technological innovations are showing a positive impacton aquaculture diversification success, investment potential, and international technologyexchange. The development of biotechnology in aquaculture should provide a means of producinghealthy and fast growing animals, through environmentally friendly means. However, thisdevelopment will largely depends on the desire and willingness of the producers to work hand-in-hand with scientists and the international donor community to assist developing counties inrelated research, capacity building and infrastructure development. Improved exchange ofinformation and discussion between scientists, researchers, and producers from different regionson their problems and achievements will undoubtedly help this important sector to furtherdevelop with the view to increasing sustainable aquatic animal production globally.

References

Alcivar-Warren, A. 2001. ShrimpMap: A genetic approach to understand immune response anddisease resistance in shrimp. In Aquaculture 2001: Book of Abstracts, WorldAquaculture Society, Baton Rouge, LA, USA, p. 11. (abstract only).

Agresti, J.J., S. Seki, A. Cnaani, S. Poompuang, E.M. Hallerman, N. Umiel, G. Hulata, G.A.E. Galland B. May. 2000. Breeding new strains of tilapia: development of an artificialcentre of origin and linkage map based on AFLP and microsatellite loci. Aquaculture,185: 43-56.

Anderson, D.P. 1995. Novel techniques in fish disease diagnosis. In Diseases in Asian AquacultureII. M. Shariff, J.R. Arthur and R.P. Subasinghe, (eds.), Fish Health Section of the AsianFisheries Society, Manila, Philippines, pp. 27-42.

Ariel, E. and N.J. Olesen. 2001. Assessment of a commercial kit collection for the diagnosis of thefish viruses: IHNV, IPNV, SVCV and VHSV. Bull. Euro. Assoc. Fish Pathol. 21(1):6-11.

Austin, B. 1998. Biotechnology and diagnosis and control of fish pathogens. J. Mar. Biotech.6: 1-2.

Bachère, E., E. Mialhe, D. Noel, V. Boulo, A. Morvan and J. Rodriguez. 1995. Knowledge andresearch prospects in marine mollusc and crustacean immunology. Aquaculture,132(1-2): 17-32.

Bedier, E., J.C. Cochard, G. Le Moullac, J. Patrois and Aquacop. 1998. Selective breeding and pathologyin penaeid shrimp culture: the genetic approach to pathogen resistance. World Aquacult.29 (2): 46-51.

Benetti, D., J. Alarcón, O. Stevens, G. Banner-Stevens, F. Rotman, M. Feeley, W. Matzie,R. Orbun and B. O’Hanlon. 2001. Marine fish culture prospects in Latin American andCaribbean countries: review of candidate species and technological advances.Proceedings of the Sixth Central American Symposium on Aquaculture, Tegucigalpa.

Benzie, J.A.H. 1998. Penaeid genetics and biotechnology. Aquaculture, 164: 23-47.Browdy, C.L. 1998. Recent developments in penaeid broodstock and seed production technologies:

improving the outlook for superior captive stocks. Aquaculture, 164: 3-21.Buchanan, J.T., J.F. LaPeyre, R.K. Cooper and T.R. Tiersch. 1999. Improved attachment and

spreading in primary cell cultures of the eastern oyster, Crassostrea virginica. In Vitro Cell.Dev. Biol. Anim. 35(10): 593-598.

Buchanan, J.T., Y. Li and J.F. LaPeyre. 2001. The influence of substrates and culture media formula-tions on the attachment and spreading of eastern oyster cells in primarycultures. In Aquaculture 2001: Book of Abstracts, World Aquaculture Society, Baton Rouge,LA, USA, p. 95.

Bugrov, L.Y., W.B. Murav’ev and O.M. Lapshin. 1994. Alternative using of petroleum-gasstructures in the Caspian and Black seas for fish-farming and fishing: real experience andrigs conversion prospects. Bull. Mar. Sci. 55(2-3): 1331-1332.

Cheng, T.C., J.F. LaPeyre, J.T. Buchanan, T.R. Tiersch and R.K. Cooper. 2001. Cryopreservation ofheart cells from the eastern oyster. In Vitro Cell. Dev. Biol. Anim. 37(4): 237-244.

71

Chi, S.C., W.W. Hu and B.J. Lo. 1999. Establishment and characterisation of a continuouscell-line (GF-1) derived from grouper, Epinephelus coicoides (Hamilton): a cell line susceptibleto grouper nervous necrosis virus. J. Fish Dis. 22(3): 173-182.

Crawford, S.A., I.A. Gardner and R.P. Hedrick. 1999. An enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay(ELISA) for detection of antibodies to channel catfish virus (CCV) in channel catfish.J. Aquat. Anim. Health, 11(2): 148-153.

Cross, T.F., P. Galvin and E. Dillane. 1998. The use of molecular markers in aquaculturegenetics. ICES Theme Session on the use of Genetics in Aquaculture. International Councilfor the Exploration of the Sea, Copenhagen, Denmark, 11 pp.

Davis, G.P. and D.J.S. Hetzel. 2000. Integrating molecular genetic technology with traditionalapproaches for genetic improvement in aquaculture species. Aquacult. Res. 31(1): 3-10.

Durand,-S.; D.V. Lightner, L.M. Nunan, R.M. Redman, , J Mari.and ,J.-R. Bonami. 1996.Application of gene probes as diagnostic tools for white spot baculovirus (WSBV) of penaeidshrimp. Dis. Aquat. Org. 27(1): 59-66.

FAO. 1997. Review of the state of world aquaculture. FAO Fish. Circ. No. 886, Rev. 1, 163 pp.FAO. 2000. DNA-based molecular diagnostic techniques. In P. Walkerand R.P. Subasinghe, (eds.),

Research needs for standardization and validation of the detection of aquatic animal patho-gens and diseases. Report and proceedings of the Expert Workshop on DNA-based Molecu-lar Diagnostic Techniques, Bangkok, Thailand, 7-9 February 1999, FAO Fish. Tech. Pap. No. 395, 93 pp.

FAO and NACA. 2001. Asia Diagnostic Guide to Aquatic Animal Diseases. FAO Fish.Tech. Pap. No. 402/2, 237 pp.

Flegel, T.W. 1996. A turning point for sustainable aquaculture: the white spot virus crisis in Asianshrimp culture. Aquaculture Asia, July-September 1996. NACA, Bangkok,Thailand, pp 29-34.

Forster, J. and R. Hardy. 2001. Measuring efficiency in intensive aquaculture. World Aquacult. 32(2):41-45.

Garcia, D.K., A.K. Dhar, and A. Alciva-Warren. 1996. Molecular analysis of PAPD marker (B20)reveals two microsatellite and differential mRNA expression in Penaeus vannamei. Mol. Mar.Biol. Biotech. 5: 71- 83.

Garcia-Oretga, A., E.A. Huisman, P. Sorgeloos and J. Verreth. 2001. Evaluation of proteinquality in microbound starter diets made with decapsulated cysts in Artemia and fishmealfor fish larvae. J. World Aquacult. Soc. 32(3): 317-329.

Ghosh, D., A.K. Dasmahaptra and A.K. Ray. 1995. Primary culture of prawn hepatocytes in serumfree media. In Vitro Cell. Dev. Biol. Anim. 31(11): 811-813.

Gjedrem, T. 1997. Selective breeding to improve aquaculture production. World Aquacult.28: 33 – 45.

Gjerde. B. and M. Rye. 1998. Design of breeding programmes in aquaculture species:possibilities and constraints. In D. Bartley and B. Basurco, (eds), Genetics and breeding ofMediterranean aquaculture species. Cahiers OPTIONS Méditerranéennes Vol 34. Zaragoza,Spain. pp. 181–192.

Groff, J.M. and S.E. La Patra. 2000. Infectious diseases impacting the commercial cultureof salmonids. J. Appl. Aquacult. 10(4): 17-90.

Handy, R.D. and M.H. Depledge. 1999. Physiological responses: their measurement and use asenvironmental biomarkers in ecotoxicology. Ecotoxicoloy, 8(5): 329-349.

Howell, B.R., E. Moksness and T. Svåsand. (eds.) 1999. Stock Enhancement and Sea Ranching: Pro-ceedings of the First International Symposium on Stock Enhancement and SeaRanching, Norway. Fishing News Books, Oxford, United Kingdom, 672 pp.

IFREMER. 2000. Self-service sea bass. Press release, October 2000. http://www.ifremer.fr/anglais/actual/presse/medias.htm#sea bass (updated 04-10-01).

Jellett, J.F., E.R. Belland, L.I. Doucette, A.J. Windust, S. Gallagher and M.A. Quilliam. 1999.Validation of the Maritime In Vitro Shellfish Test (MISTTM) kits for marine biotoxins. Can.Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2261: 120. (abstract only).

LaPeyre, J.F. and Y. Li. 2000. Isolation and primary culture of eastern oyster haemocytes.J. Shellfish Res. 19(1): 646. (abstract only)

Lavens, P., P. Sorgeloos, P. Dhert and B. Devresse. 1995. Larval foods. In N.R. Bromage, andJ.R. Roberts, (eds.), Broodstock Management and Egg and Larval Quality. Blackwell ScienceLimited. Oxford, United Kingdom, p. 373.

72

Le Groumellec, M., C. Martin, P. Haffner, B, Martin and Aquacop. 1995. Cell culture from tropicalshrimp. J. Aquacult. Trop. 10: 277-286.

Liao, I.C. and N.H. Chao. 1997. Developments in aquaculture biotechnology in Taiwan. J. Mar.Biotechnol. 5: 16-23.

Liu, Z., P. Li, H. Kucuktas, A. Nicols, G. Tan, X. Zheng, B.J. Argue and R.A. Dunham. 1999.Development of amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP) markers suitablefor genetic linkage mapping of catfish. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 128(2): 317-327.

Lorenzen, E., B. Carstensen and N.J. Olesen. 1999. Inter-laboratory comparison of cell-lines forsusceptibility to three viruses: VHSV, IHNV and IPNV. Dis. Aquat. Org. 37(2): 81-88.

Majack, T.J., M.B. Rust, K.C. Massee, G.W. Kissil, R.W. Hardy and M.E. Peterson. 2000.Bioencapsulation of erythromycin using brine shrimp, Artemia franciscana (Latreille).J. Fish Dis. 23(1): 71-76.

Marr, J.C., T. Hu, S. Pleasance, M.A. Quilliam and J.L.C. Wright. 1992. Detection of new7-0-acyl derivatives of diarrhetic shellfish poisoning toxins by liquid chromatography – massspectrometry. Toxicon, 30(12): 1621-1630.

Marr, J.C., L.M. McDowell and M.A. Quilliam. 1994. Investigation of derivitisation reagents for theanalysis of diarrhetic shellfish poisoning toxins by liquid chromatography withfluorescence detection. Nat. Toxins, 2(5): 302-311.

Meloni, S. and G. Scapigliati. 2000. Evaluation of immunoglobulins produced in vitro byhead-kidney leucocytes of sea bass Dicentrarchus labrax by immunoenzymatic assay. Fish Shell-fish Immunol. 10(1): 95-99.

Mendoza, R., A. De Dios, C. Vasquez, E. Cruz, D. Ricque, C. Aguilera and J. Montemayor. 2001.Fishmeal replacement with feather-enzymatic hydrolyzates co-extruded withsoya-bean meal in practical diets for the Pacific white shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei). Aquacult.Nutr. 7(3): 143-151.

Merchie, G., P. Lavens, P. Dhert, M. Dehasque, H. Nelis, A. DeLeenheer and P. Sorgeloos. 1995.Variation in ascorbic acid content in different live food organisms. Aquaculture,134(3-4): 325-337.

Mialhe, E., E. Bachere, V. Boulo, J.P. Cadoret, C. Rousseau, V. Cedeno, E. Saraiva, L. Carrera andR.R. Colwell. 1995. Future of biotechnology-based control of disease in marine invertebrates.Mol. Mar. Biotechnol. 4: 275-283.

Mishra, S.S. 1998. Use of immunoassay for rapid detection of pathogenic bacteria Vibrio alginolyticusand Aeromonas hydrophila from shrimp and fishes. Indian J. Mar. Sci. 27(2): 222-226.

Moore, S.S., V. Whan, G.P. Davis, K. Byrne, D.J. S Hetzel and N. Preston. 1999. The developmentand application of genetic markers for the Kuruma prawn Penaeus japonicus. Aquaculture,173(1-4): 19-32.

Munoz, M., R. Cedeno, J. Rodriguez, W.P.W. van der Knapp and E. Mialhe. 2000.Measurement of reactive oxygen intermediate production in haemocytes of the penaeid shrimp,Penaeus vannamei. Aquaculture, 191(1-3): 89-107.

Nadala, E.C.B. Jr. and P.C. Loh. 2000. Dot-blot nitrocellulose enzyme immunoassays for the detec-tion of white spot virus and yellow head virus of penaeid shrimp. J. Virol. Methods, 84:175-179.

Naylor, R.L., R.J. Goldburg, J.H. Primavera, N. Kautsky, M.C.M. Beveridge, J. Clay, C. Folke,J. Lubchenko, H. Mooney and C. Troell. 2000. Effect of aquaculture on world fishsupplies. Nature, 405(6790): 1017-1024.

Ng, W., M. Tee and P. Boey. 2000. Evaluation of crude palm oil and refined palm olein as dietarylipids in pelleted feeds for a tropical bagrid catfish Mytsus nemurus (Cuvier& Valenciennes). Aquacult. Res. 31(4): 337-347.

NOAA 2001. NOAA’s Aquaculture Policy. http://swr.ucsd.edu/fmd/bill/aquapol.htmNoel, T., J.L. Nicolas, V. Boulo, E. Mialhe and P. Roch. 1996. Development of a colony-blot ELISA

assay using monoclonal antibodies to identify Vibrio P1 responsible for ‘brown ring disease’in the clam Tapes philippinarum. Aquaculture, 146(3-4): 171-178.

Oceanic Institute News. 2000. Oceanic Institute Achieves Breakthrough by Spawning Red Snapper.http://www.oceanicinstitute.org

Ogunji, J.O. and M. Wirth. 2001. Alternative protein sources as substitutes for fishmeal in the diet ofyoung tilapia Oreochromis niloticus (Linn.). Isr. J. Aquacult. 53(1): 34-43.

73

OIE. 2000. Diagnostic Manual for Aquatic Animal Diseases. 3rd edn. Office International desEpizooties, Paris, France, 237 pp.

OIE. 2001. International Aquatic Animal Health Code. 4th ed. Office International des Epizooties,Paris, France, 155 pp.

Oliva-Teles, A. and P. Goncalves. 2001. Partial replacement of fishmeal by brewers yeast (Saccaromycescerevisae) in diets for sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) juveniles. Aquaculture, 202(3-4): 269-278.

Osborn, H.R. and J.C. Culbertson. 1998. Mariculture options with Texas rigs to reefs. Sea GrantCollege Program Publication. Texas A&M University, pp. 47-51.

Papatryphon, E. and J.H. Soares. 2001. The effects of phytase on apparent digestibility of fourpractical plant feedstuffs fed to striped bass, Morone saxatilis. Aquacult. Nutr. 7(3): 161-167.

Papatryphon, E., R.A. Howell and J.H. Soares Jr. 1999. Growth and mineral absorption by stripedbass Morone saxatilis fed a plant feedstuff based diet supplemented with phytase. J. WorldAquacult. Soc. 30(2): 161-173.

Pernas, M., B. Novoa, C. Tafalla and A. Figueras. 2000. Efficiency of different monoclonal antibod-ies in immunological assays developed for the detection of Marteilia sp. isolated from Mytilusgalloprovincialis. Bull. Euro. Assoc. Fish Pathol. 20(5): 193-198.

Pleasance, S., J. Kelly, M.D. LeBlanc, M.A. Quilliam, R.K. Boyd, D.D. Kitts, K. McErlane, M.R. Baileyand D.H. North. 1992. Determination of erythromycin A in salmon tissue by liquidchromatography with ionspray mass spectrometry. Biol. Mass Spectrom. 21(12): 675-687.

Quilliam, M.A. 1999. Recent developments in analytical chemistry of marine toxins. Can. Tech. Rep.Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2261, p. 120 . (abstract only)

Robles, R., P. Sorgeloos, H. Duffel and H. Nelis. 1998. Progress in biomedication using live foods.J. Appl. Ichthol. 14(3-4): 207-212.

Romalde, J.L. 1999. Assessment of a magnetic bead-EIA based kit for rapid diagnosis of fishpasteurellosis. J. Microbiol. Methods, 38(1-2): 147-154.

Saakamoto, T., R.G. Danzmann, N. Okamoto, M.M. Ferguson and P.E. Ihssen. 1999. Linkage analysis of quantitative trait loci associated with spawning time in rainbow trout(Oncorhynchus mykiss). Aquaculture, 173(1-4): 33-43.

Shelby, R.A., C.A. Shoemaker, J.J. Evans and P.H. Klesius. 2001. Development of an indirect ELISAto detect humoral response to Streptococcus iniae of Nile tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus. J. Appl.Aquacult. 11(3): 35-44.

Shimizu, C., H. Shike, K.R. Klimpel and J.C. Burns. 2001. Hemolymph analysis and evaluation ofnewly formulated media for culture of shrimp cells (Penaeus stylirostris). In Vitro Cell. Dev.Biol. Anim. 37(6): 322-329.

Shipton, T.A. and P.J. Britz. 2000. Partial and total substitution of fishmeal with plant proteinconcentrates in formulated diets for the South African abalone, Haliotis midae. J. ShellfishRes. 19(1): 534. (abstract only)

Sorgeloos, P. 1995. Bioengineering of hatcheries for marine fish and shellfish. J. Marine Biotechnol.3: 42-45.

Sorgeloos, P. and P . Leger. 1992. Improved larviculture outputs of marine fish, shrimp, and prawn.J. World Aquacult. Soc. 23 (4): 251-264.

Sriniwasa Rao, P.S. and P.M. Sudha. 1996. Emerging trends in shrimp farming. Fishing Chimes,16(3): 25-26.

Storebakken, T., K.D. Shearer and A.J. Roem. 1998. Availability of protein, phosphorus and otherelements in fish meal, soy-protein concentrate and phytase-treated soy-protein-concentrate-based diets to Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar. Aquaculture, 161(1-4): 363-377.

Subasinghe, R.P., U. Barg, M.J. Phillips, D. Bartley and A. Tacon. 1998. Aquatic animal healthmanagement: investment opportunities within developing countries. J. Appl. Ichthyol. 14(3-4): 123-129.

Toullec, J.Y. 1995. Crustacean cell cultures: state of the art. In Biology of Protozoa, Invertebratesand Fishes. In vitro experimental models and applications. Actes Colloq. IFREMER No. 18,pp.43-47

Touraki, M., S. Mourelatos, G. Karamanlidou, S. Kalaitzopoulou and C. Kastritsis. 1996.Bioencapsulation of chemotherapeutics in Artemia as a means of prevention and treatment ofinfectious diseases of marine fish fry. Aquacult. Eng. 15(2): 133-147.

Touraki, M., I. Niopas and C. Kastritsis. 1999. Bioaccumulation of trimethorpim, sulfamethoxazoleand N-aceytl-sulfamethoxazole in Artemia nauplii and residual kinetics in seabasslarvae after repeated oral dosing of medicated nauplii. Aquaculture, 175(1-2): 15-30.

74

Uma, A., T.J. Abraham and V. Sundararaj. 1999. Effect of a probiotic bacterium, Lactobacillus plantarumon disease resistance of Penaeus indicus larvae. Indian J. Fish. 46(4): 367-373.

Van Weerd, J.H., K.A. Khalaf, F.J. Aartsen and P.A.T. Tijssen. 1999. Balance trials with Africancatfish Clarias gariepinus fed phytase-treated soybean meal-based diets. Aquacult. Nutr.5(2): 135-142.

Vielma, J., T. Makinen, P. Ekholm and J. Koskela. 2000. Influence of dietary soy and phytase levelson performance and body composition of large rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) andalgal availability of phosphorus load. Aquaculture, 183(3-4): 349-362.

Walker, P. and R. Subasinghe. (eds.) 2000. DNA-based molecular diagnostic techniques: researchneeds for standardisation and validation of the detection of aquatic animal pathogens anddiseases. Report and proceedings of the Expert Workshop on DNA-based MolecularDiagnostic Techniques: Research Needs for Standardization and Validation of the Detectionof Aquatic Animal Pathogens and Diseases. Bangkok, Thailand, 7-9 February 1999, FAOFish. Techn. Pap. No. 395, 93 pp.

Walton, A. and V.J. Smith. 1999. Primary culture of the hyaline haemocytes from marine decapods.Fish Shellfish Immunol. 9(3): 181-194.

Wang, C.H., H.N. Yang, C.Y. Tang, C.H. Lu, G.H. Kou and C.F. Lo. 2000. Ultrastructure of whitespot syndrome virus development in primary lymphoid organ cell cultures. Dis. Aquat. Org.41(2): 91-104.

Wang, Y. 1998. Utilization of genetic resources in aquaculture: a farmer’s view for sustainabledevelopment. Paper presented at the Bellagio Conference, Towards Policies forConservation and Sustainable Use of Aquatic Genetic Resources. FAO/ICLARM, Bellagio,Italy, 14–18 April, 1998.

Ward, R.D., L.J. English. D.J. McGoldrick, G.B. Maguire, J.A. Nell and P.A. Thompson. 2000.Genetic improvement of the Pacific oyster Crassostrea gigas (Thunberg) in Australia. Aquacult.Res. 31(1): 35-44.

Weirich, C.R. and R.C. Reigh. 2001. Dietary lipids and stress tolerance of larval fish. In C. Lim andC.D. Webster, (eds.), Nutrition and Fish Health, Food Products Press, 10 Alice StreetBinghamton NY 13904-1580, USA, pp. 301-312.

Welcomme, R.L. and D.M. Bartley. 1998. An evaluation of present techniques for the enhancementof fisheries. In T. Petr, (ed.), Inland Fishery Enhancements. FAO/ODA Expert Consultationon Inland Fishery Enhancement, April 7 - 11, 1997, Dhaka, Bangladesh. FAO Fish. Tech. Pap.No, 374, pp.1-35.

Wongteerasupaya, C, S. Wongwisansri, V. Boonsaeng, S.,Panyim, P. Pratanpipat, G.L. Nash, B.Withyachumnarnkul and T.W. Flegel. 1996. DNA fragment of Penaeus monodon baculovirusPmNOBII gives positive in situ hybridization with white spot viral infections in six penaeidshrimp species. Aquaculture, 143: 23-32.

Wright, J. Jr., A. Bonen, J.M. Conlon and B. Pohajdak. 2000. Glucose homeostasis in the teleost fishTilapia: Insights from Brockman body xenotransplantation studies. Am. Zool. 40(2): 234-245.

75

Producer Associations and Farmer Societies: Support toSustainable Development and Management of

Aquaculture

Courtney Hough1 and Pedro Bueno2

1Federation of European Aquaculture Producers (FEAP)30 rue Vivaldi, 4100 Boncelles

Belgium

2Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia-Pacific (NACA)Suraswadi Building, Department of Fisheries

Kasetsart Campus, Ladiao, JatujakBangkok 10900

Thailand

Introduction

The role of Associations within professional life can vary, but is generally one of uniting theviews and actions of a profession for the common good. This paper tries to demonstrate howdifferent types of Associations can play a significant part in support of the sustainabledevelopment and management of aquaculture.

As aquaculture develops in many countries, it is playing an important and complementary roleto traditional fisheries and providing increasing amounts of food products for consumption inlocal and international markets. While providing significant potential for poverty alleviationand improved human nutrition in the developing countries, the sector is required to do this in asustainable manner, as described in the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Theaquaculture sector produces approximately one third of the world’s food fish supply, a levelthat is also reflected in different regions. For example, the European Union’s aquaculturecontribution equates to 30% of all fisheries products1 .

The principal region of aquaculture production is Asia and the majority of aquaculture products(>80%) are produced in low-income food-deficit countries (LIDFCs). While aquaculture isanticipated to contribute significantly to food security and poverty alleviation in the LIDFCs,aquaculture is perceived in the developed regions as being able to offset fisheries catch reductionsand provide food of high nutritional quality. Additional benefits include the creation of year-round employment in rural and coastal areas and providing a counter to urban migration.

Semi-intensive production techniques are widespread in the LIDFCs while finfish productionin the developed countries has focused primarily on higher value species produced in intensiveconditions. While integrated agriculture-aquaculture techniques may be appropriate for LIDFCs,these are rarely practical within the economic conditions experienced in the developed countries.Indeed, while increasing production may be the foremost consideration in the LIDFCs, marketstability, food safety and environmental acceptance are more important to the aquaculturists inthe developed countries.

Nonetheless, producers outside the developed countries are attracted to export markets, asdemonstrated by the growth in the production and trade of, for example, tropical shrimp, tilapia,salmon, eels and an increasing number of ‘new’ species. Neither should one ignore the growingtrade of aquaculture products between developing countries. Following the adoption of the

1 “Facts and Figures on the CFP”, European Commission 2001 (ISBN 92-894-1842-7)

76

Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, specific issues and challenges for attaining the long-term sustainability of aquaculture have been recognised. These include several important areaswhere associative professional structures have an important role to play, notably, the following:

• Comprehensive policies and a supportive legal and institutional framework that supportsustainable development cannot be developed without communication and consultationwith the major stakeholders, the producers.

• Enhanced participation and consultation of all stakeholders in the planning, developmentand management of aquaculture, including the promotion of codes of practice and goodmanagement practices.

• Promotion of the appropriate and efficient use of resources, including water, sites, seedstock and other inputs.

• Human resource development and capacity building, where training, technology transferand the provision of and access to information are the most important components.

• Voluntary self-regulatory mechanisms for attaining best practices.

A survey conducted by the Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia-Pacific (NACA) from 1997-98 that covered about 400 farmer associations, groups and structures involved in aquaculturein 16 countries of the region identified the following general classification of activities of theseassociations:

• Highlighting farmer problems• Mobilising public and

institutional support for farmers• Protecting the interest of the

association• Providing technical services to

members• Getting organised to resist

exploitation by middlemen andlocal pressure groups

• Mobilising credits• Influencing policy decisions

Local and national associations werecovered by the survey. In the Asianregion there is no regional structuresuch as a federation of aquaculturefarmers.

From the perspective of governmentsof developing countries, particularlyin Asia, aquaculture farmersorganisations are seen to facilitate theprovision of extension services, creditand market information. In somecases, they are used as soundingboards for policy formulation. Togovernments, farmers associations areseen as partners in progressing andimplementing policies andprogrammes, which makesgovernment efforts and use of oftenscarce resources more cost-effective.

Box 1: Excerpt from the Aquaculture SustainabilityAction Plan (ASAP) Section on “Policy”

Farmer Associations and the Private Sector

“Farmer associations or groups are gaining acceptance andstrength in many countries. The Workshop emphasized thatcontinued and membership, capability and capacity of suchassociations is an integral part of promoting sustainabledevelopment. The role of farmers and private sector industrieshas been highlighted in connection with several activities inthe Action Plan.

• Farmer associations should be established orstrengthened where necessary and encouraged to voicethe problems and concerns of farmers and act as amechanism for dissemination of information.

• NACA should assist in the formation of regional andnational farmer associations or centres to act as nodes inits network.

• Regional and national farmer associations should takean active role in assisting in the guidance and financingof research and development activities.

• NACA and other agencies should assist in the transferof appropriate technology through farmer groups.

• Farmer associations should consult and actively engage

local communities in the development of farming projects.

77

The need for a regional organization in Asia was first expressed at a regional workshop convenedby ADB and NACA in 1995 in Beijing which, among others, formulated the AquacultureSustainability Action Plan (ASAP) for Asia-Pacific. Representatives of farmer and producersassociations from the various countries approached Asian Development Bank (ADB) and NACAfor assistance in forming a “regional aquafarmers network,” the broad idea being for suchnetwork to work in partnership with NACA. The response of NACA was to conduct theregional survey. The Aquaculture Sustainability Action Plan (ADB/NACA March 1996)included a section on Farmer Association and the Private Sector under the “Policy” element ofthe Plan (see Box 1).

More recently, at the regional AquaFarmers/AquaBusiness Seminar and Exhibit (AFBiS 2002)organized by NACA and the Government of Malaysia concurrent with NACA’s 13th GoverningCouncil Meeting, a joint of session of the delegates of the Governing Council and participantsof AFBiS 2002 developed a set of recommendations that included the formation of an AsiaRegional Aquaculture Producers Association (ARAPA). The conclusions and recommendationsfrom the seminar (held 15-18 January 2002 in Malaysia) are given in Box 2.

•Box 2: Conclusions and Recommendations of the Joint Meeting of the delegates of Asian Regional AquaBusinessSeminar (AFBiS 2002) and the 13th NACA Governing Council Meeting

Discussion, on the final day of the Aquabusiness Seminar 2002, by the participants of the themes and topics of theSeminar focused on potential actions by Government, International Organizations and Producers led to thefollowing conclusions and recommendations:

• The aquaculture production sector is diverse in nature and structure both in Nations and throughout the

Region. This diversity means that both the conditions and the needs of the sector are highly variable. The

production sector is perceived as urgently requiring:

- Educational and training facilities- Access to reliable information supply- Basic and detailed information that assists production and sales- Technical recommendations on product use

• Common standards are needed for:- Use of chemicals and drugs- Overall approach to production standards- Best Operating Practices

• Furthermore, there is the scope for identifying additional common interests that will help sectoraldevelopment

• The state of Producer Associations is highly inconsistent, again reflecting the diversity of needs withindifferent Nations, and where strengthening is seen as necessary at both the local and national levels.

• Actions required of such Associations should include:- Providing a forum for producers- Providing the opportunity to access information and technology- Improving the communication flow to the ‘grass roots’- Demonstration of the benefits of being in Association

• Producers must play a strong participative role in sectoral development but the conditions for an effectivestakeholder position have yet to be fulfilled.

• The establishment of Regional aquaculture producer representation is seen as the right move, whilerecognizing that this may take time to develop. The benefits are recognized and these could be achievedthrough the formalization and function of an appropriate representative body.

• It is recommended that NACA be used as a catalyst for such development, facilitating the possibility for aRegional Aquaculture Producers Organization.

• For this to be achieved, better knowledge of the activities and importance of existing Associations is needed,particularly where there is interplay with other Community organizations and Councils.

• Action needs to be taken both at strengthening the local and National Associations, while developing sucha Regional Organization, noting that the identification of clear goals and common actions is needed.

• It is felt that developing an autonomous Regional Aquaculture Producer Organization would take time andthat NACA could provide a degree of support (preliminary infrastructural services) that should be limitedin the time and scope.

• Integral to this effort would be the definition of the exact structure, statutory constitution, membershipconditions and responsibility of a Regional Producer Organization, established in consultation with Nationaland Regional stakeholders.

• Assistance was also requested for the establishment of an aquafeed network

78

The position of aquaculture as an important supplier of nutritious and desirable food has beenconsolidated by unsustainable overfishing practices. The need to develop aquaculture to thepoint where it can contribute significantly to global food security has to be accompanied by theadoption of sustainable practises and the assumption by the production sector of theresponsibilities expected of it. In responding to the challenge of assuring sustainable aquaculture,the production sector has to be organised efficiently for the implementation of the requirementsanticipated, be they oriented towards technology or policy implementation. While the debateon the sustainability of aquaculture covers many different technical and environmental questions,it must also include economic and marketing issues as well, subjects that the profession probablyknows better than most.

To these purposes, the use of Associations, at the National and Regional levels, provides thebasis and the practical means of 2-way communication with the sector that will lead to theimprovements in resource and sectoral management that are anticipated.

The need for Associations

Associations that group members of a profession have existed for centuries, where discussionon common issues, for development or for identifying solutions to common problems, providedthe incentive for association. Doctors, engineers and architects provide classic early exampleswhere the pooling of knowledge within a common forum was an additional reason forassociation. These reasons hold good today, particularly where additional stakeholders, includingauthorities and the public, anticipate dialogue with a profession and where the professionconcerned interacts with the public. For aquaculture, the reasoning goes even further becauseof its interaction with the environment and its production of, primarily, food products destinedfor human consumption.

One of the earliest associative bodies concerning aquaculture is the ‘Confrérie des Chevaliers dela Truite’ (the Brotherhood of the Knights of the Trout), which started as the ‘Brotherhood ofthe Fishermen of the King’s Waters’ in France in 1158. However, the first modern aquacultureAssociations started in the second half of the 20th century following the expansion of carp andtrout farming. If one looks at the parallel with agricultural farming in Europe, one can see thatagriculture developed its representative bodies much more rapidly and in line with its evidentimportance in contribution. Aquaculture has a lot in common with agriculture due to the ruralnature of its activity and, hence, the geographic spread of the profession.

The dispersion of agriculture combined with the localisation of important markets gave rise tospecific entities for the common trade of produce, where co-operative structures became commonplace within the profession. Aquaculture has always suffered by comparison to both agricultureand fisheries in that the smaller volumes produced were largely inadequate to justify either thedevelopment of cooperatives or common companies for marketing purposes. While agriculture’sinterests were increasingly represented through National Unions (such as the National Farmers’Unions that exist in most countries), aquaculture did not attain the ‘critical mass’ required forsuch representation until recently.

Furthermore, aquaculture’s expansion in the developed countries came at the same time thatmultiple retail stores (supermarkets) started to consolidate their position within the consumermarket. Changing patterns of retail sales have affected almost every supply profession andnotably those that provide fresh and chilled food. New requirements for food processing, leadingto the development of rigorous standards, combined with ever-changing logistical requirements(e.g. for deliveries and distribution) make food production and supply one of the hardest andmost competitive businesses today. The advent of E-commerce and easier internationaldespatching are recent additions to this observation, where today’s client demands a fresh,hygienic, nutritious product, which is produced without harming the environment and, of course,at the cheapest price.

79

Evidently, this position reflects primarily the situation of the markets and trends in the developedcountries, which are increasingly a preferred target of the produce of global aquaculture.However, there is no reason to believe that the patterns seen in these Regions will not be repeatedelsewhere.

As aquaculture has expanded its activities, legislation has also adapted to accommodate thesector. Nonetheless, development plans and strategies for aquaculture are recent innovationsand, in many cases, aquaculture has developed without clear legislative guidance. The legislationthat is applied to aquaculture encompasses a wide range of topics, including water management,environmental issues, animal welfare, organic and ecolabelling conditions, work responsibilities,food processing etc. Effective representation of the interests of the profession is often requiredand requested by government or authoritative bodies (e.g. organisations charged with monitoringthe environment). Legislation that incorporates the results of constructive consultation is generallysatisfactory to all sides and much easier for general acceptance and implementation by theprofession.

Increasingly, the topic of self-regulation and/or governance is raised, particularly where thedecentralisation of authority is discussed. Achieving effective degrees of consultation and movingtowards successful self-regulation can only be achieved through having an associative bodythat is authoritative and representative of the profession.

A tendency in Asian developing countries where democratic processes are in place but suchprocesses are influenced by the elite or interest groups is for farmer associations to emphasisetheir role in policy formulation. For such a group to have any influence at all, it has to be large,although it is also ironic that these farmer groups are led by members of the elite who tend touse the group to advance their political and economic agenda. The organisation thus becomesanother power group, enjoying a privileged status by being turned into a so-called “partner”(in reality another agency of the ruling elite) to government. There are however associations ornational federations of farmers that take the advocacy and even adversarial stance togovernments, but these are rare in aquaculture or even in the larger fisheries sector. Development,whether this is expansion of the activity or, for example, the incorporation of new technologies,requires access to research and training for the development of skills. Linking the productionand research sectors is a priority for continuous and good development, particularly during theperiods of high growth seen for the global aquaculture sector. It is essential that an efficientbridge is provided to achieve this and associations are one of the important foundations of thisprocess.

The findings of the NACA survey generally supports the above observations. But there theredegrees of emphasis of objectives. There was a tendency for farmer groups in countries wherethe market economy is prone to distortion to include in their statement of purposes acounterweight to these distortions e.g. “getting organized to resist exploitation by middlemenand local pressure groups”. The common purposes among the surveyed groups are those thathave to do with provision of services to members, mobilizing credit and other institutionalsupport, and having their problems highlighted and then drawing support for their resolution.In the more developed economies in the region, the associations tend to have more focus on afewer objectives such as technological services and responding to market requirements.

The main conclusion drawn is that modern aquaculture cannot develop successfully withouthaving adequate and representative associative structures that act not only to promote anddevelop aquaculture but also to provide a pivotal communication centre for the profession. Thishas to work in both the upstream and downstream directions, providing information from andto the profession. Most importantly, such structures must have the capacity for being able todevelop the opinions and actions required of the profession. While the need for nationalassociations are well recognized, some governments go to the extent of themselves establishing

80

a national organization and assigning government officials to administer them. In some countries,the government allows the establishment of a national farmers organization whose remit is thebroad aquaculture sector (thus including fisheries and aquaculture) and provides assistance aswell as regulatory guidance through an Authority.

Establishment of Associations

The creation of an Association can be done for several reasons where the primordial one is theaddressing of issues common to the profession in order to identify appropriate solutions. Thenature of the issues and the responsibilities assumed by the profession determines the role andscope of the Association.

For example, if the common organisation of the sale of the product of the profession is required,a structure such as a co-operative company may be required. Such a company would probablybe limited geographically to producers within a certain zone. The core financing for the companywould be made by members (the capital structure) with the retention of a proportion of thesales revenue to assure operations and corporate development.

Where the profession has to link to civil society, including government authorities, the structureforeseen is that of a professional association that is usually incorporated as a non-profit makingorganisation. The creation of such Associations may be at a local (i.e. a zone within a country)or at a National level (i.e. covering the whole country’s production). Financing is generallyobtained solely from membership fees.

In the case where several local Associations exist within a Nation, these may be grouped withina Federation (of Associations) that acts as the representative body for the country. Most NationalAssociations are, however, the product of several local Associations. In fact, they can even bethe result of the fusion of (previously) local Associations. In such a case, a hierarchy is establishedwhere it is the National Association or National Federation that is the voice for the profession atthe National level. The financing of a Federation of Associations is primarily from subscriptionsprovided by the Member Associations.

The case exists where several National Associations wish to group in order to address commonissues and the solution provided is that of an International Federation composed of NationalAssociations; this is the case for the Federation of European Aquaculture Producers (FEAP)which is composed of the National Aquaculture Associations in Europe and the InternationalSalmon Farmers Association (ISFA). The financing position is the same as in the previous case.

In recent times, attention has also been given to the creation of inter-professional Associations,incorporating different stake-holders within a sector. In Europe, one of these is the ComitéInterprofessionnelle des Produits de l’Aquaculture (CIPA), which incorporates representativesfrom the production sector, feed suppliers, anglers, material supplies and processors. At theregional level, the closest to this position is the Global Aquaculture Alliance (GAA -www.gaalliance.org). These organisations confirm an encouraging trend towards improvedintra-sectoral cooperation.

Efficiency and stability are the foremost requirements for organisational purposes; while efficiencyis obtained mostly from practical aspects, stability comes from the commitment of the Membersof the Association and, importantly, an adequate financial base for assuring operation. If theserequirements are not satisfied, planning for the realisation of effective actions is extremely difficult.Inevitably, with the evolution of such structures and the hierarchy developed, the nature of theissues addressed changes, as do the responsibilities and competence required at each level. Inorder to develop the subject of this paper, reference will be made to practical experience and thecircumstances that contribute to effective actions. It is often said that “it only counts if it works

81

and it only works if it counts” and assuring that Associations both work and count is a vitalissue within the successful management and development of aquaculture.

Incorporation of an Association

Associations are officially-recognised structures that have to be incorporated on the basis ofstatutes that are acceptable to and agreed by the founder members. These are usually verysimple in terms of the goals (e.g. providing a common forum) but due care and considerationhave to be given to:

• The Membership structure foreseen, including procedures for candidature and expulsion• The nature and frequency of statutory meetings• The operating structure envisaged• The responsibilities of members, office-holders and Association staff• The nature of elections of office-holders• Finance – fees and how they will be calculated

An Association should incorporate members who have a similar or identical legal status andwho share common goals and activities. While there may be considerable variation in the scaleof operation represented, the goals of a small farmer are very similar to those of a large corporateproducer. This is the position of most local and National associations that are responsible foraquaculture. Most Associations are incorporated as non-profit making organisations, so budgetsare geared primarily to annual operating costs rather than medium term development. As inany organisation, accurate budget estimations are important since many Associations collecttheir funds once per year.

Generally, an Association will have a Management Committee or a Board of Directors, which iselected by the Members, and include, at least, a President who is often the sole legal representativeof the Association. Office-holders usually provide their work contributions on a voluntary unpaidbasis. Small Associations (i.e. a local producer association or farmers’ society) rarely have thefinancial resources to be able to employ professional staff and are generally entirely voluntaryoperations. At a national level, where more important production levels are represented andwhere the responsibilities of the Association may include linking to government and promotionalactivities, professional personnel are usually required in order to achieve the tasks established.

Association Management

Finance

The core finance of the Associations comes from Membership fees which must be fair andaffordable for the members. While there are different methods for calculation of this, the mostcommon technique appears to be a calculation based on 2 parts.

• A basic Membership fee• A production-related contribution

The funds obtained for this have to be put solely towards Association operations and actions.

In the case of the FEAP, no single Member is allowed to contribute more than 20% of the budgetobtained from such fees. This means that should an important financial subscriber leave theFederation, it will not collapse financially. In addition, a member that wishes to leave theAssociation has to give one year’s notice (and the reasons) prior to departure.

82

The operations of an Association can best be compared to those of a small business that has alarge number of shareholders. Money is often short but many actions are anticipated and a lotof people have valid (and sometimes contradictory opinions). Furthermore, when all is well,members will easily support the Association but when finance is tight, the membership feebecomes of lesser importance. This is also the time that the Association is expected to workhardest. This conundrum can only be resolved by the Association having adequate reserves tooperate properly in hard times. While a strong financial base is a luxury that few Associationspossess, it is essential to have a regular review of operations, strengths and weaknesses,achievements and failures, in order to improve and to build strength and influence. Skilldevelopment within the Association is extremely important, particularly when it is chargedwith issues that (may) include marketing, consultation with governmental services, publicrelations and topics related to crisis management.

Management

All Associations should have a transparent structure for their management and administration.This is normally a Board of Directors or, at least, a Management Committee, which is appointedby the Assembly.

In the case of the FEAP, the management structure is composed of a Federal President, assistedby 3 Vice- Presidents, who are all or have been Presidents of their own National Associationand who act as a Board of Directors for the management of the Federation, with the assistanceof the General Secretary. These posts are all voluntary, with the exception of the General Secretaryand staff who are charged with organising all the administrative and operating aspects of theFederation. This type of structure is mirrored by most Associations. It goes without saying thataccess to skilled and experienced office-holders is an important management consideration.While Association office-holders tend to be active and successful in their profession, it is importantto be able to access skills in the topics covered by the Association’s work. The appointment of,for example, experienced scientific or veterinary advisers is a regular occurrence for most NationalAssociations.

Awareness, experience and skills related to the prime issues that concern the profession are, ofcourse, required and, if these are not available or adequately represented within the membership,recourse to outside assistance should be made. For example, many Associations have specialistscientific (from the academic world) and public relations advisers in order to address researchand marketing issues in the best manner.

Building the capacity and the capabilities of an Association are integral to its success in promotingand assisting development. In the ‘information’ age, establishing an efficient network for cost-effective and competent communication has become much easier but also requires goodinformation management, providing neither too little nor too much.

Decision-taking

Decisions have to be taken and the appropriate conditions for voting must be anticipated. Whilegeneral management matters are usually the responsibility of the Association Director or itsManagement structure, important decisions are usually put to the Assembly of the Associationmembers. While many Associations have a “one man, one vote” structure, this may not alwaysbe the case. Within the FEAP, for example, the allocation of voting rights is related to theimportance of production. Such conditions must always be agreed by the Assembly andincorporated either into the Statutes or the by-laws of the Association.

Providing the ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ response to an issue can be subjective but, in an Association, itis essential that the views of all members are taken into consideration before a public position is

83

taken. Guaranteeing a fair hearing or consultation is one of the golden rules of operating anAssociation although, practically, this is not always achievable.

Association work

Since much of the work done within an Association is voluntary, where the participants areactive professionally, attention is given to the best use of skills within committees that are allocatedspecific tasks. For example, the FEAP has several active working groups that cover issues ofimportance to its members, covering notably:

• The development of a Code of Conduct• A review of European Fish Health Legislation• Monitoring of the development of Mediterranean Aquaculture

The GAA developed a Responsible Aquaculture Programme2 whose goal is to certify BestAquaculture Practices at farm level; evidently, it had to develop the guidelines and conditionsof certification by using professionals and expert advice and approval is made by a CertificationCommittee. While such groups have specific tasks to perform, their work has to be transparentand reported to the Assembly for approval. This method of working is very common withinAssociations and often provides excellent results.

By including expertise that is required for the specific topics (e.g. qualified Delegates and expertadvisors), the results and actions, without doubt, can be of very high quality.

Reporting

Many Associations have accurate data on the production and prices of the products of theirmembers and are often very aware of what is going on within the marketplace. Indeed, theyoften serve to provide National authorities with information of this nature. As a regional example,the FEAP collates data reported for production and (annual average) ex-farm prices for thespecies represented by its members; this data being seen as being the most accurate and up-to-date information for the Associations. In addition, all meetings are fully minuted and these aremade available to all Member Associations. In certain circumstances, copies of selected materialsare provided to third parties on request.

A very important tool that is available to Associations, particularly if they have been accordedliaison status with governmental authorities, is that of the Resolution. On matters of urgency,the Resolution (that has to be approved by the Assembly) is a firm declaration of opinion that isaddressed to authorities and that should have the weight of well-researched arguments andreferences.

These actions provide accounted transparency within the sector and are of considerable benefitin demonstrating the responsibilities assumed by the professional sector in addition to the supportgiven to the actions required for assuring the development of sustainable aquaculture.

Additional actions

Research, Training and Development

At the National level, most Associations establish links with national Universities for the purposesof research work. While few Associations are able to afford full-blown research programmes,they are often able to assist with the organisation of field trials and on-site training programmes.Evidently, this should work in both directions – farmers helping students or farmers being trainedin new technology.

2 http://www.gaalliance.org/resp.html

84

In some cases, Association representatives have been appointed to Institution Committees forthe guidance of long-term research policy. Furthermore, there is an increasing requirement forthe production sector to provide information on its needs and requirements for the future andthe FEAP will be organising species-specific workshops on this issue during 2002-2003 in Europe.

Within Europe, the existence of several important RTD programmes, grouped within the EuropeanFramework Programme for Research, has allowed the FEAP to develop an active role within arange of projects. The common them is that the goals and results of such research are applicableto the whole of the European fish farming sector, as represented by the FEAP. Such projectsinclude:

• ‘Aquaflow’3 – the dissemination of the results of EU sponsored research projects onaquaculture (EU RTD project)

• ‘Maraqua’4 – a review of environmental legislation and issues affecting Europeanaquaculture (EU RTD project)

• Assisting the development of training programmes and skill development (AquaTnet5 andPisces) (EU Leonardo da Vinci programme)

While the FEAP has been the manager of some projects, generally it is incorporated as a partnerin order to assure communication to the production sector, as an information disseminationactivity. Providing this facility, access to and communication with the profession, is anincreasingly important role for the Federation and provides an important model for such regionalor national activities. Assuming an active position within RTD actions is an essential job for aprofessional association.

Association-led actions

For Associations to develop their position in society, they cannot be passive and there are manyactions that can be undertaken by Associations, for example in the form of projects or studies,that can be of immense use to their members and the sector that they represent. The developmentof Codes of Best Practice has been done by Associations at the local, national and regional levelsand these are important actions for the development of self- and third-party regulatedenvironmental and quality schemes.

The FEAP led the development of a project for managing price and production data within theEuropean aquaculture sector in order to collate the data from the different countries undercommon conditions (condition and value). Data from this facility is used for the development ofthe FEAP reports on this subject. Association websites provide a public window on their activitiesfor professionals and the public alike. This is an essential part of the public presence required ofall Associations and Federations.

Perhaps the most important element developed recently by the FEAP is an action entitled‘Aquamedia’, a project which is being developed for the purpose of informing the general publicof what aquaculture really is, does and contributes. This project has been started using financesolely from within the industry and is a truly international action. Its activities will be wider-ranging and cover ‘products’ that will be provided on the Internet as well as paper and CD-ROM support.

Providing and promoting access to and communication with the profession is an increasinglyimportant role for the Federation and provides an important model for such regional or nationalactivities.

3 www.aquaflow.org4 Journal of Applied Ichthyology. Vol 17 N°4 pp 137-194 (2001)5 www.aquatnet.org

85

The Scope of an Association

An Association’s field of action or scope is defined by its statutes and the nature of its membership.Experience shows that it probably better to build on or expand an existing structure than to betoo ambitious at the start. For example, many National Associations are the result of groupingexisting local Associations. The first aquaculture Associations were species-oriented, e.g. a troutor catfish association, whose focus was localised and limited to the geographic area covered.As aquaculture developed and expanded, such Associations usually grouped themselves withina National structure that was either species or sector-oriented, including all or most aquacultureproducers.

The scope of the different structures changed with the evolution of National Associations sincethese rapidly assumed the position for relations with government and actions taken at a nationallevel. A National Association should have privileged links to its own National authorities andbodies, such as Universities and Environmental agencies, and be able to provide authoritativeinformation about the operations and structure of the sector that it represents. These will usuallybe the voice for informing the National authorities about the state of the profession and itsneeds for development. In addition, National Associations are often the organiser of genericmarketing campaigns that are made within the country and even in export markets. Furthermore,the National Association should be the coordinator of efforts for public relations, particularlywhere the sector may come under public criticism.

The goals and scope of action for a regional Federation are quite different since the practicalissues addressed by the National Associations are not so evident to achieve at the regional level.In each case, however, growth of the representative activity and the development of influencetake time and effort.

A regional Federation rarely has the contact privileges of a local or National Association, partlybecause of the absence of corresponding regional structures but also because its initial reasonfor being is usually less directly practical in nature and more one of communication and liaisonwith its members. It is important for a regional Federation to recognise the interlocutors that areappropriate to its function and to take the steps necessary for the establishment of its owncontribution and authority.

The initiative for creating an international aquaculture Federation in Europe originated in 1968,following the creation of the Common Market by 6 European Nations. 4 National Fish FarmingAssociations (all involved with trout production) created the Federation Européenne deSalmoniculture (European Federation of Trout Growers). By 1990, this had expanded to includesalmon farmers and 12 Nations. Following the adhesion of the countries producing seabass andseabream, the Federation rapidly grew to incorporate most of Europe, counting 30 Associationsfrom 22 countries in 2002.

The primary goal of the FEAP is to provide a forum for the debate of issues (concerning Europeanaquaculture primarily) common to its members and to communicate the results of such discussionto the appropriate authorities. Providing this possibility for fair and equitable debate to sectoralrepresentatives gave the basis for the initial development of the Federation, reinforcing thepotential for efficient communication between the Member Associations and developing clearopinions and arguments on matters of importance to the profession. One of the key objectives isthe effective communication of these opinions to the authorities, which vary, dependent on thetopic, and cover all aspects of aquaculture operation.

For example, one of the most important for the FEAP is the Commission of the EuropeanCommunity, particularly the Directorate General (DG) for Fisheries, which has a specific briefconcerning European aquaculture. However, other DGs, which have responsibility for Sanitary

86

and Consumer issues (DG SANCO), the Environment (DG Environment) and Trade (DG Trade)also have direct relations with the aquaculture sector.

In Europe, many countries that are neighbours to those which are Member States of the EuropeanUnion have adopted much of the harmonised legislation, a factor that reinforces the positionand the reason for being of the Federation. Other international Associations include theInternational Salmon Farmers’ Association (ISFA), which groups Salmon Producer Associationsaround the world (including the European countries, Canada, the USA, Chile, Australia andNew Zealand), and the Global Aquaculture Alliance. The Global Aquaculture Alliance focusesmore on tropical shrimp production and its membership covers Associations, private productioncompanies and product importers. Its goal is to advocate aquaculture as an answer to globalfood needs and to educate producers, consumers and the media in regard of this, while furtheringenvironmentally responsible aquaculture.

It is important for any regional Association/Federation to recognise the interlocutors that areappropriate to its function and to take the steps necessary for the establishment of its owncontribution and authority. For example, outside of the links established with the EuropeanCommission, the FEAP also maintains liaison status with the FAO of the United Nations,particularly for the purposes of the European Inland Fisheries Advisory Committee and theAquaculture section of the General Fisheries Council of the Mediterranean. The establishmentof the Aquaculture sub-Committee of the Committee on Fisheries is of evident interest to allregional aquaculture bodies.

These links allows regional Associations and their members to be informed on many of thewider issues affecting the sector and often provide access to specialist professional input. Onthe other hand, there has been a significant increase in the requirement for consultation withthe professional aquaculture sector in recent years, reflecting changes in government policiesand the requirements of governance, for which a recent White Paper was published by theEuropean Commission, where the higher involvement of stakeholders and the move towardsself-regulation are important issues.

This attitude is also reflected in the development of international and interprofessional networks,which may be thematic or specific in nature and where input from the professional sector isrequired. More recently, it has been realised that market expansion and globalisation imposesbetter understanding of the markets and increased marketing efforts, particularly for theattainment of improved market stability and where the public image of a sector is increasinglyimportant within an overall development scheme.

When issues such as international trade and market stability, sustainability, development ofstandards (including organic farming and ecolabelling issues), governance and self-regulationhave to be debated, with the professional point of view in mind, this cannot be done in a vacuum.These are topics that pass frontiers and need consultation within the profession on an internationalbasis. For the voice of the producer to be heard, it is essential to be able to provide a defendablesectoral opinion that has authority and cannot be accused of simply defending national interests.A Regional Association must be able to provide apolitical positions, based on science and/orgood sense, which support the sector and its development.

Both the GAA and the FEAP have been active in promoting Codes of Conduct and Good Practiceand, since each has direct access to producers, this activity has been quite successful intransposing the desires of government into practical actions at farm level. The development ofinternationally-acceptable standards may also be seen as an activity that could be developedthrough regional cooperation between such bodies.

87

Benefits of a Federation

The benefits of establishing a regional Association or Federation are not immediately clear atthe start since its actions tend to be more general and medium to long term in effect. Fororganisations such as the FEAP and the GAA, the immediate advantages to their Membersinclude the ability to meet and discuss issues of common interest on an international basis.

The key benefit of a Federation is to be able to give to its members the facility for informeddebate and a platform for unified opinion. The cornerstone of any Association or Federation isthe statutes; these have to demonstrate equity in structure and decision, enabling the authorityof opinion.

The advantage of providing a common voice for a Regional sector is self-evident, particularly inEurope where the European Commission plays such an important role in determining legislationand actions that directly affect aquaculture within the European Union. The creation by DGFish of the Advisory Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture (ACFA), a body that allowsdirect consultation with the Commission, has placed increased importance on the views of theFEAP, which in turn has imposed increased responsibility on the development of its opinionsand the professionalism of the delegates.

Establishing and maintaining links with international organisations involved with aquacultureprovides the information and awareness of important topics that affect (or will affect in thefuture) the profession. Providing information on these to members should also be seen as apriority for a Federation, preparing for debate where necessary. The involvement in researchand training programmes is made for a similar reason, while improving the speed and efficiencyof the transfer of results to the profession must be seen as a key goal. As the sector has developedin Europe, it has been increasingly recognised as an important player and contributor to thefisheries sector. It is the sector’s responsibility to ‘stand and be counted’ and it is the FEAP’sresponsibility to facilitate this position.

To be brief, this means knowing what has happened, is happening and is going to happen – adifficult task, but one where the Federation’s Members are uniquely placed to be able to providethe answers.

A Federation also allows the achievement of projects or work of a scope that a NationalAssociation cannot undertake. Projects such as ‘Aquamedia’ or international informationdissemination are typical of this position and it is the role of a Federation to identify such actionsand whether they are appropriate to follow. There is no doubt that by widening the activity ofthe FEAP to include practical, wide-ranging actions as a supplement to its forum activities hasincreased its strength and influence.

The lessons learnt

Establishing, operating and managing an Association requires commitment, finance and results.Since seed finance has to come from within the sector, a Federation of Associations has to befinanced from the individual Association budgets, which are in turn usually financed by theindividual farmers. This means that the Federation budget is unlikely to be important – at thebeginning. While this may limit the fixed structure of the Federation, it should not inhibit thebasic goals targeted. The provision of a common voice is one of the important benefits of aFederation but this can only be obtained within an equitable forum. Providing the opportunityfor the smallest Association to voice its opinion alongside the largest has to be respected. Itshould also be noted that within the FEAP, whose members speak 17 different languages, themeetings are held in one language (English). Although this can create some difficulties andmisunderstandings, it has proven to be a cost-effective and efficient way of working.

88

The development of projects that involve the Federation can provide additional finance but aFederation’s existence cannot be based solely on projects. It is essential to have a good balancebetween core activities and projects in order to respect the basic reasons for creating theFederation. Development has to be placed after achievement of the initial goals. It is importantto recognise the actions and the links that can provide a service to the Members and which theycould not obtain themselves individually. As an example of this, the FEAP has established stronglinks with the European Aquaculture Society and AquaTT (Aquaculture Technology andTraining) which are reflected in a number of different ways – participation in joint networkprojects, distribution and dissemination of information, participation and development ofworkshops and conferences.

The success of a regional Federation can also be measured in terms of participation, encouragingthe involvement of Member Associations and their representatives, without aspiring to becompetitive to the function of the Members. Maintaining a complementary balance betweenobjectives and actions and providing the services anticipated are integral to successful operation.

After 33 years of existence, the forefathers of the FEAP have recognised the benefits of theirforesight. The Federation provides their platform for developing and resolving internationalissues that affect their activity, it gives them a common and important voice of opinion andallows the sector to move forward in ways they did not envisage at the time. While no crystalball is perfectly accurate, one has to foresee that the global aquaculture sector must change andadapt to new circumstances, on many different fronts, and that effective and successful regionalFederations are needed by the profession in order to assist the long term sustainability of theaquaculture profession.

In the Asian context, farmer associations should be considered as one of the institutions for abroader community development. As such there is need to foster a basic rapport and workingrelations among governments, NGOs, and even short-term development projects so that theseinstitutions could work in harmony. The more fundamental need is strengthening of farmersassociations so that they can perform their core objectives without dependence (at best) orbeing reduced to another compliant tool (at worst) for perpetuation of vested national or sectoralinterests. The foregoing discussion on professionalising the associations covers this issue.

89

Ref

erre

d t

o i

n p

age

9 an

d 1

1

90

Ref

erre

d t

o i

n p

age

12

91

Ref

erre

d t

o i

n p

age

13

92

Ref

erre

d t

o i

n p

age

13

93

Ref

erre

d t

o i

n p

ages

16,

17

and

19

94

Ref

erre

d t

o i

n p

age

19

95