Aquaculture has a high profile because it usually is densely concentrated in specific areas and because profits can be much greater than for traditional agricultural crops.
It has attracted the attention of powerful environmental groups in developed countries, and these groups have worked hard to convince governments to impose environmental regulations.
In developing countries, environmental groups have focused almost entirely on aquaculture for export and mainly on shrimp farming.
They have complained to local governments, but the focus has been on trying to convince consumers in developed countries that imported shrimp, salmon, and certain other aquatic products have a bad environmental record (Naylor et al., 1998, 2000).
Developed nations have either already developed or are developing aquaculture effluent regulations. Environmental advocacy groups will make sure that the regulations will be enforced.
In a few years, most farms in developed countries will have to comply with the regulations. Of course, it is likely that farms below a given size, or farms operated by certain methods, may be exempt from effluent regulations.
The situation in developing nations is much less certain, and most of the world’s aquaculture is in these nations. In spite of the recent worldwide concern over environmental issues in aquaculture, the preparation of codes of conduct by many organizations, and the development of aquaculture effluent regulations by several nations, relatively little has changed.
Some large farms have been issued effluent permits, a few farms have voluntarily adopted BMPs, and even fewer farms have been certified for environmentally responsible operation.
It is likely that many large fish and shrimp farms producing export products will adopt BMPs and some of these businesses also will seek environmental certification from one or more certifying bodies in order to protect their image among environmentally aware consumers.
Some governments, such as Thailand, may succeed in enticing small-scale shrimp and fish farmers to produce certified aquaculture products for export. It seems unlikely that governments in developing countries soon will be able to regulate aquaculture effluents effectively through effluent permits with standards or by mandated adoption of BMPs.
Most of the world’s aquaculture is in Asia and is directed to domestic markets. Consumers in these markets have much less interest in the environmental record of a product than in its cost. The powerful environmental NGOs have scant interest in domestic markets in developing nations. There is little opportunity for funding such efforts, and their image would suffer if they were perceived to interfere with the livelihood of small-scale farmers.
Moreover, governments simply do not have the resources necessary to undertake the task of regulating effluents from many small farms. The United States and most other developed nations will regulate aquaculture effluents.
If this process is not done in a fair and reasonable manner, it could force many producers out of business. This would increase the demand for imported aquaculture products, and increase the possibilities for negative environmental impacts in tropical nations.
Of course, the environmental NGOs will continue to complain, but they only will be able to influence aquaculture operations in developed countries and possibly the markets for shrimp, salmon, and other imported species.
Nevertheless, there are some positives related to aquaculture and the environment. Because of the controversy, producers are becoming more environmentally aware. I have seen many instances of farmers using better practices because they became aware of the consequences of their former methods.
These farmers usually are leaders, and some of their neighbour may follow them. Nevertheless, there has been considerable effort in the United States and other countries to encourage the adoption of BMPs in traditional agriculture, and similar problems can be expected in aquaculture.
Discussions with experts on BMPs for row-crops revealed that adoption of BMPs does not occur spontaneously. Farmers tend to be reluctant to change management practices, and they do not respond well to coercion.
Fear of failing to comply with regulations (breaking the law) or threats of market losses because of consumer rejection of products produced by practices harmful to the environment have not resulted in willing and widespread adoption of BMPs.
Even inducements based on subsidies to offset the cost of implementing BMPS often do not result in satisfactory implementation of BMPs.
The best inducement is when adoption of BMPs clearly increases profit. Thus, BMPs should be related back to farm economic performance. For example, suppose that the BMPs are to lower stocking rates and use better feed management.
The lower stocking rates and smaller feed inputs will result in better water quality, less stress, faster growth, better feed conversion ratios, and less waste produced.
However, this scenario also will increase efficiency and profits. Another example is the storage of rainfall in ponds to avoid overflow. Less overflow means that less water will need to be pumped into ponds to maintain water levels.
A reduction in pump operation will reduce costs and increase profits. Probably, the most beneficial approach to encouraging use of BMPs is to promote better environmental education of producers rather than to try to regulate effluents.
The education should consider the environmental benefits of BMPs, but it should focus on the greater profits that would accrue to farmers. This is certainly the case in developing nations.
Author:
Claude E. Boyd
