Planning for Sustainable Aquaculture

Planning for Sustainable Aquaculture Tilapia Farming in the United States, China and Honduras

Marcella Bondie & Anna Wolf February 3, 2013

Bondie & Wolf Tilapia Farming in the U.S., China & Honduras February 3, 2013 UPP 570 Fall 2012

Page 2

1.0 Introduction

In 2006, an international group of scientists, ecologists, and economists concluded 29% of all

fished species had collapsed due to overfishing, and that this collapse will ultimately lead to the

collapse of many other species (Eilperin, 2006). Although others in the scientific community disagreed

with this finding, and despite continuing unsustainable subsidies for commercial fisheries, there has

been a significant global shift from capture fishing to aquaculture operations (Eilperin, 2006).

According to the 2012 report on the State of World Aquaculture, put forth by the Food and

Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), aquaculture production has increased from 47.3

millions of tons in 2006 to 63.6 millions of tons in 2011, whereas capture production has remained

constant from 2006-2011, at around 90.4 millions of tons (FAO, 2012). As aquaculture methods and

practices are further improved and applied, they can help reduce pressure on wild fish populations.

However, aquaculture can also create new farmed-food production problems.

This paper compares global aquaculture practices and policies, reviews sustainable aquaculture

certification programs, and suggests planning and policy mechanisms to support sustainable

aquaculture. The following section describes the general practices and impacts resulting from

aquaculture production of the tilapia fish. Because aquaculture practices vary by species, tilapia was

chosen as the focus of this paper, given the species widespread popularity in the global fish market.

Subsequently, aquaculture policies and practices for the United States, China and Honduras are

compared; these three nations represent prominent producers or consumers of tilapia.

2.0 Aquaculture Practices and Impacts

There are numerous aquaculture methods currently in use. This section will explain common

types of aquaculture systems and explore the resulting environmental, economic, and social impacts.


Page 3

2.1 Aquaculture Systems

Aquaculture refers to the controlled farming of aquatic organisms. Traditional aquaculture

operations are generally classified as extensive, semi-intensive, or intensive. The differences between

the classifications lie mainly in the species stocking density and amount of feed applied to the system.

Extensive cultures are characterized by production that uses the natural food web that exists

in the pond, lake, or reservoir (fishcount.org.uk, 2012). Extensive operations will occasionally

incorporate nutrient inputs from inorganic fertilizer or organic manure (ibid).

Semi-intensive operations also rely heavily on the surrounding ecosystems natural food web to

obtain nutrients, but fish are given supplementary feed to enable higher stocking densities and faster

growth (fishcount.org.uk, 2012). Semi-intensive operations are sometimes paired with other

agricultural systems, such as a poultry farm, rice paddy, or other plant farming. Semi-intensive

operations may also exist as a pond that is integrated with an industrial farm; the aquaculture operation

uses the farms runoff as nutrients for the fish (ibid).

Intensive operations rely almost entirely on manufactured feed to provide the fish with

necessary nutrients, as the farms are too crowded to be supported by the local ecosystem

(fishcount.org.uk, 2012). Most intensive aquaculture operations take place in large net pens or cages, or

in monoculture pond systems (ibid).

More advanced aquaculture technology includes Recirculating Aquaculture Systems (RAS) and

aquaponics. RAS reuse the farms water after it has been mechanically and/or biologically filtered

(Martins et al, 2011). According to Martins et al., research has suggested that recirculating the water

may lead to bioaccumulation of hormones released by stressed fish, although they did not find

conclusive evidence that this negatively impacts fish welfare (2011).

Aquaponics systems do not require much additional application of feed, but stocking densities

are generally higher than those in extensive and semi-intensive systems (GrowingPower, 2012).


Page 4

Aquaponics pairs hydroponic vegetable farming (e.g., micro greens) with fish farming (GrowingPower,

2012): as water moves from the fish tank into the hydroponics bed, the vegetation uses the fish waste as

a source of nutrients; the cleaned water is then returned to the fish tank (ibid). Both RAS and

aquaponics attempt to create a closed loop, zero-waste system.

It is important to distinguish between artisanal aquaculture that is produced for local

consumption, and industrial aquaculture that is intended for international trade and subject to the

regulations of the receiving market. There are also fundamental differences in aquaculture in developed

and developing countries, as developed countries generally use capital intensive and relatively

concentrated methods and produce mainly finfish and mollusks, while developing countries generally

use small scale and extensive methods and produce mainly carp, tilapia and shrimp (Organisation for

Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2010). As we will discuss, these differences in

aquaculture operation, scale, and culture result in varying environmental, social and economic impacts.

2.2 Aquaculture Impacts

In this paper, the sustainability of aquaculture practices is evaluated using the triple-bottom

line approach, which requires assessment of impacts on environmental, economic and societal

systems. Fish are crucial components of their environment, and it is therefore equally crucial for

humans involved in the production of fish to understand and respect these systems.

2.2.1 Environmental Impacts

Aquaculture shares some of the environmental concerns that accompany other traditional

terrestrial farming practices. In general, small farms have potential to be highly sustainable, while larger

farms are more likely to create adverse impacts such as high use of fossil fuels, additives and

medicaments; degraded water quality and habitat destruction; and fish disease (Grigorakis, K., & Rigos,

G. 2011).


Page 5

Fossil fuel is used to manufacture fish feed and transport fish to market (Li et al., 2007). When

semi-intensive and intensive aquaculture systems are used, the fish require large amounts of

manufactured feed. The fish feed may be made of corn, soy, or wild caught fish (Rosenthal, 2011). The

use of small aquatic species as fishmeal contributes to the ongoing overfishing of the seas. However,

because tilapia can survive on a vegetarian diet, tilapia aquaculture does not significantly contribute to

overfishing issues (Rosenthal, 2010).

Water quality can be degraded through the use of automated feed systems that place excess

amounts of nutrient into the farm (Grigorakis, 2011). Crowded farms also create high levels of fish

waste, which can overflow into adjacent bodies of water and create dead zones caused by the excess

nitrogen and phosphorous (Rosenthal, 2010).

Biodiversity is threatened when non-native species are used by the aquaculture farm. Tilapia,

which are native to Africa, are omnivorous and extremely adaptive (Rosenthal, 2010). They have a high

potential to out-compete native species. There are a number of documented instances in which pond-

farmed tilapia escaped the farm and destroyed the structure of the surrounding aquatic ecosystem.

Farms can attempt to control fish populations through the installation of well-designed cages (FAO,

2012), choosing native species, or hydrologically isolating the farm.

Biodiversity can also be threatened by diseased farms, when escaped fish infect the surrounding

ecosystem (Grigorakis, 2011). Disease is a common aquaculture problem, due to the crowded conditions

of tilapia farms. Much like the corn blight incident in the American Midwest in the 1970s, disease

spreads rapidly in a concentrated monoculture system. Aquaculture operations can prevent disease by

reducing the stocking density or by using a filtration method. Unfortunately, to keep up with the

increasing global demand for fish, many farms have resorted to the liberal application of antibiotics

(Walsh, 2011).

Finally, the construction of aquaculture operations can lead to habitat destruction, as wetland


Page 6

or other sensitive aquatic areas are converted to fishponds. Documented cases of habitat destruction

have occurred in Central America and Asia (International Resource Group, 2009; Walsh, 2011).

Belton et al. suggest that extensive and semi-intensive cultures are the least fuel-intensive and

have the lowest risk for environmental degradation, because fish waste is either able to assimilate into

the ecosystem or is reused as nutrients for other livestock or vegetables (2009). Alternatively, closed-

loop systems such as RAS and aquaponics circumvent many environmental problems by eliminating

farm pollution discharges, but the initial capital investment is large, and so they may not be feasible for

producers in developing countries (Jenner, 2010).

2.2.2 Social Impacts

Aquaculture provides both social benefits and threats concerning public health and worker

conditions. Aquaculture provides a source of relatively cheap protein, important to low-income

individuals in both developing and developed nations (Dey & Ahmed, 2005; Baughman, 2011). In

developing Asian countries, urban aquaculture has been documented to fill an important domestic food

security role, as the short marketing chain and lower transportation cost results in a reliable, relatively

inexpensive supply of fresh food (Bon, Parrot, & Moustier, 2010).

Furthermore, worker conditions in aquaculture firms appear to be comparable to or somewhat

better than local standards, and women can be empowered through employment or informal home-

based farms (Stanley, 2002). When cities sprawl towards farming areas, agriculture supplements the

cities limited industrial and service jobs, and small-scale farming shifts from subsistence to capitalistic

operations (Bon, Parrot, & Moustier, 2010). Urban agriculture can also create market-supported

landscape and open space (i.e., a public good) and a place of social inclusion (Bon, Parrot, & Moustier,

2010), although this is less true for RAS and aquaponics systems.

However, research suggests that farmed tilapia have less nutritional benefit than other types of

fish, particularly concerning omega-3 fatty acids (Rosenthal, 2011). Because intensively-farmed tilapia


Page 7

are fed manufactured feed, rather than their more nutrient-rich natural diet, they have lower levels of

omega-3 fatty acids (Rosenthal, 2011). More importantly, food contamination is a documented problem

(Walsh, 2011). Therefore, a number of national food safety legislation and international agreements

have been created for aquaculture industry. As the OECD (2010) stated, Aquaculture destined for trade

is different as it is subject to stringent sanitary and hygiene rules to be able to enter those markets.

Finally, the mental health implications should be considered for aquaculture workers. Some of

the health effects of working in an abattoir include depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, an

increase in domestic violence, an increase in drug and alcohol abuse, social withdrawal, desensitization

to violence and other crimes (Williams, 2011). Though much of the literature on the psychological

effects of working in abattoir refers to those housing pigs, cattle, and poultry fish are slaughtered in

mass quantity, with some factories paying workers based on how many fish he or she kill and process in

a certain time frame (Einhorn, 2010). Artisanal farms are not typically prone to these types of mental

health effects, due to more ethical kill methods, and thus less human exposure to animal suffering

and/or pain (fishcount.org.uk, 2011).

2.2.3 Economic Impacts

When assessing the economic impact of aquaculture, it is important to separate regional

economic growth from national growth trends. Industry officials contend that aquaculture allows for the

utilization of unemployed labor and land, with multiplier effects on development, while critics argue

that it results in few permanent jobs, disproportionate land and income distribution, environmental

degradation, and displacement of the traditional activities performed by artisanal families (Stanley,

2002).

Stanley (2002) presents regional economic indicators as a series of linkages, based on economic

base theory, to determine whether the export industry promotes a growth pole resulting in multipliers

that create additional economic activity and employment in other geographic areas, or enclave


Page 8

development that does not create these multipliers and retains little revenue in the area. A growth

pole industry will use large amounts of local inputs and processing, pay substantial local and national

taxes, distribute proportionate compensation to high- and low-skilled workers, have mostly local

shareholders, reinvest profits in mostly local areas, provide transferable skills training, and undertake

corporate responsibility actions that assist local community development efforts. In Stanleys findings

for one region of Honduras, the shrimp aquaculture industry typified an enclave development pattern.

This methodology could be used to analyze the tilapia aquaculture industry in other producer regions.

Finally, fish farms, because of farm siting practices and densely stocked systems, are particularly

susceptible to economic loss due to disasters. China has suffered major production losses as a result of

natural disasters, disease outbreaks, and pollution (FAO, 2012). In Honduras, one study reported the

loss of all of broodstock1 due to a natural disaster, forcing the farmer to sell the farm (Martinez et al

2005). In addition to natural disasters, such as extreme storms, droughts, tsunamis, and landslides,

farms are also extremely sensitive to human- caused disasters, especially oil and chemical spills.

In summary, aquaculture often results in some level of environmental degradation, although

both the technologically advanced closed-loop systems and the traditional extensive systems (e.g., rice

paddy-fish system) have lesser environmental impacts. While aquaculture provides important social

benefits such as food security, potential adverse effects include food contamination and mental health

issues. Aquaculture can also be used as a strategy to reduce poverty and diversify household economies,

but it is unclear whether international aquaculture firms provide true economic growth in the regions

where farms are located. The following section will provide a more detailed examination of aquaculture

in the United States, Honduras and China.

1 Broodstock refer to fish used for breeding purposes.


Page 9

2.3 Regional Tilapia Aquaculture Practices and Policies

The specific aquaculture practices of a country have implications for policy-making, regulation,

planning, and sustainability assessment. This paper focuses on the United States, China, and Honduras,

which were chosen due to their importance to international aquaculture trade and established

involvement in the aquaculture industry. Table 1 summarizes Chinas and Hondurass export patterns to

the United States. China has been the leading exporter of fish since 2002 (FAO, 2012), and is responsible

for the majority of the increase in global fish consumption, due in part to its increasingly widespread use

of aquaculture systems (FAO, 2012). In 2011, Honduras surpassed Ecuador as the largest supplier of

fresh tilapia to the United States (FAO GlobeFish, 2012). The United States is the largest importer of

tilapia outside of Asia (FAO, 2012), and is arguably driving the increasing international aquaculture trade

market. American domestic production supplies approximately 16% of the U.S. market for tilapia; the

remaining 84% is imported.

Table 1. U.S. Tilapia Imports, Volume by Selected Sources (1,000 Pounds)

Total U.S. Imports

% of Fresh % of Frozen % of Total

2000 89,202 China N/A* 42% 33% Honduras 14% N/A 3%

2011 425,168 China N/A 65% 75% Honduras 39% N/A 4%

*N/A refers to negligible data Source: Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 11/13/2012

As of 2012, tilapia are approximately 11% of the freshwater fish traded internationally, and have

a high market value (FAO, 2012). In the 1990s, tilapia filled the growing demand for mild whitefish

(Monterey Bay Aquarium, 2009-20011, pp. 20-25). Between 1995 and 2010, the growth in tilapia

production and consumption was dramatic, and the species quickly secured a spot among the top five

most popular seafood species (Monterey Bay Aquarium, 2009-2011).

In addition to their economic value, tilapia are a popular choice for aquaculture because of their


Page 10

adaptability to farm environments. The species tolerates concentrated farming operations, thrives on a

vegetarian diet (Rosenthal, 2011), and grows quickly, making it easy to raise and an economically viable

crop for various socioeconomic groups. They are native to Africa and do very well in tropical climates,

and many of the most prolific farms are found in Asia and South America FAO, 2012). However, tilapia

are also farmed, with increasing prevalence, in the United States.

2.3.1 United States

American aquaculture operations range in size and type, from large-scale federally mandated

hatcheries required to mitigate the effects of dam projects (NOAA, 1998), to small-scale operations in

urban centers. While not all U.S. farms are small-scale, most operations occur in closed environments

due to the climate requirements for tilapia. Though pond aquaculture systems can be used in the

southwest United States, much of the countrys domestic production comes from RAS and aquaponics

(Fitzsimmons, 2000). The indoor production of tilapia in unfavorable climates may reflect the relative

availability of capital intensive technology, the highly urbanized national landscape, and an American

consumer preference for mild fish.

The United States is a leader in aquaculture technology advancement. Recently, innovative

urban aquaculture projects have been developed as a means to combat social problems such as food

deserts and unemployment. According to Martin Schreibman, an aquaculture farmer in Brooklyn, New

York, [urban aquaculture] is the future, and will continue to grow as consumers become more aware

of the unsustainable practices of large-scale wild catch and aquaculture operations (Baughman, 2011).

Schreibman utilizes an aquaponics system to support the locavore movement in his neighborhood and,

though admitting that these systems are sometimes prohibitively expensive, suggests that increasing

their presence in the local food market will make systems more economically feasible (Baughman,

2011). In another example, the Urban Food Lab of Philadelphia transformed an abandoned storefront

into an experimental urban aquaculture facility. The communitys residents are primarily South and


Page 11

Central American, and they crave fresh tilapia but only have access to frozen fish (Schaefer, 2012).

This operation not only makes use of previously abandoned space, but educates and encourages

involvement from community members, supports the local food economy and culture, and encourages

transparency in the food production and distribution process.

American aquaculture operations are supported and controlled by a number of environmental

and food policies and regulations. The U.S. National Aquaculture Development Act of 1980 created a

national aquaculture policy, declaring, Congress declares that aquaculture has the potential for

reducing the United States trade deficit in fisheries products, for augmenting existing commercial and

recreational fisheries and for producing other renewable resources, thereby assisting the United States

in meeting its future food needs and contributing to the solution of world resource problems. It is,

therefore, in the national interest, and it is the national policy, to encourage the development of

aquaculture in the United States. As stated, the emphasis is on the trade deficit, resource use, and food

security. However, as shown by the current trade balance, these goals have not yet been met.

Numerous international agreements and federal and state regulations control the American

aquaculture industry. Access to land and water resources are mainly obtained through state and local

procedures, with the exception of federal lands. Aquaculture facilities are subject to environmental and

other requirements of the Clean Water Act (CWA); the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service; the

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA); and the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA) (U.S. EPA, 2006), and other associated regulations. The United States Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) strongly regulates environmental discharges such as aquaculture effluent. In 2004, EPA

issued standards for wastewater discharges from concentrated aquatic animal production facilities,

defined as 100,000 pounds or more of aquatic animals per year Concentrated aquatic animal production

point source category, 2012). Effluent limitation guidelines, or ELGs, are individually issued to specific

facilities, and require management practices and record-keeping activities, rather than numerical


Page 12

limits (U.S. EPA, 2006, p. 2-2). Additional limits may be set by the National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System (NPDES) permit program or other regulations. Although the Marine Protection

Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (Ocean Dumping Act) bans municipal waste, a permit is not

required for dumping fish waste except when waste would be deposited into harbors or other

protected coastal waters, or where the EPA finds a potential danger to human health, the environment,

or ecological systems (FAO, 2006). This appears to be an important oversight of the regulations,

especially given the high nutrient load, and possibly additive and medicatements, found in fish waste.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is responsible for regulating transport, inspection,

animal feed and drugs, and other food safety issues for aquaculture fish products, primarily under the

Federal Food Drug & Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) and Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA) (FAO, 2006).

The FDAs requirements apply to imported fish product, and therefore all producer nations must comply

with these regulations. The FDA requires seafood processors to implement a Hazard Analysis Critical

Control Point (HACCP) plan that identifies specific hazards for each fish species and process (FAO, 2006).

The FDA is also responsible for the regulations of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). It is currently

reviewing a proposal to genetically engineer salmon to shorten maturation time, against the concerns of

environmental groups that the GMO fish could escape aquaculture facilities and eventually out-compete

wild fish (Walsh, 2011).

The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Aquaculture Policy of 1998

identified several gaps hindering the sustainable development of the U.S. aquaculture industry,

including the need for national environmental standards and regulation, advancements in open ocean

and urban aquaculture technology, management tools for natural resource user conflicts, and a survey

of suitable aquaculture areas. NOAA indicated that U.S. aquaculture development has also been stunted

by a lack of investment capital (1998). While progress has been made in some areas, particularly

technology development and the creation of specific environmental standards, the remaining


Page 13

recommendations remain largely unimplemented.

2.3.2 China

Unlike the United States, which mainly imports fish product despite using advanced aquaculture

technology, China is the largest global producer of fish product but lacks the aquaculture technology

advancements and skills found in other leading producer countries (Li et al, 2011). This is, in part, due to

the high investment that comes with the adoption of new technology. It may also stem from poor

aquaculture planning on a local, municipal, and state level, as well as directly relating to the ratio of

small farms to large farms. Small farms are less likely to have the capital to invest in new technology.

Thus, they do not have access to genetic improvement technology, high quality feed (resulting in the

increased application of antibiotics and fertilizers), and new, more environmentally sound vaccines and

drugs to apply to systems in which disease might prove problematic (Li et al, 2011). This is especially

problematic because over 80% of the aquaculture systems are open-water (Li et al, 2011), suggesting

that these low-quality feeds are prone to leach into surrounding ecosystems. These issues are self-

perpetuating: without access to genetic improvement technology, these systems may have to apply

unsafe chemicals to the farms to prevent disease outbreaks, leading to lower products values, and

again, less access to new technology.

In addition to the environmental, social, and economic impacts that stem from lack of access to

new technology, there are number of other problems that accompany Chinas position at the top of the

aquaculture production food chain. Many Chinese aquaculture systems are intensive, relying on the

heavy application of manufactured feed and a high stocking density. Though tilapia can survive in

crowded environments, disease spreads quickly and aggressively in these conditions, requiring heavy

application of antibiotics to prevent potential devastating disease outbreaks (Rosenthal, 2011). For

example, Chinese farmed fish exports periodically show evidence of the banned potential carcinogen


Page 14

malachite green, an antifungal agent (Walsh, 2011). These impacts have led to the decision of

some American distributors, namely Costco, to only purchase non-Chinese tilapia, and others require

third-party certification of the fish in order to ensure adequate food quality.

Other unsustainable aquaculture practices have come to light. According to one American

aquaculture company, admittedly one in competition with Chinese aquaculture operations, there have

been cases of rural Chinese farmers cutting costs by withholding manufactured feed until tilapia reach

maturity (Einhorn, 2010). These farmers have purportedly thrown manure into the pond cultures when

the fish were young, allowing fish to feed from the algal bloom (or eutrophication) that results from the

excess nitrogen and phosphorous (Einhorn, 2010). The president of the American aquaculture company

has spoken out about these unfair advantages, due to the fact that his company cannot participate in

these cost-cutting tactics while following international certification standards (Einhorn, 2010).

However, a number of small-scale aquaculture operations have been successful in China,

especially systems which integrates fish ponds with rice paddies (FAO, 2012). The fish-paddy system

covers about 1.3 million hectares of rice fields, producing 1.2 million tons of fish in 2010 (FAO, 2012).

Furthermore, there may be signs of improved food safety in response to more stringent internal

standards. According to a study performed by a Dutch company promoting investment in Chinese

aquaculture, the Chinese government has focused its attentions on the following issues:

Educating rural farmers on food safety and the appropriate use of antibiotics and chemicals in

fisheries; in some cases, local governments have held educational sessions for those in the region

(NBSO, 2010).

Building a traceability system to increase accountability and increase the transparency between

producers and suppliers; products are given lot numbers, which can be traced back to specific

farms, and the supply chain for many aquaculture operations has changed

from farmers to brokers to processors to farmers to processors, encouraging accountability of


Page 15

product (NBSO, 2010).

Improved testing and monitoring for food safety (NBSO, 2010).

Given Chinas strong economic interest in aquaculture, it is unsurprising that it is a leader in

supportive aquaculture policy. Chinas Fisheries Law of 2000 (amended 2004) requires a national policy

of simultaneously developing capture fishing and aquaculture industries. The Bureau of Fisheries is the

central government body responsible for overseeing fisheries and aquaculture, as directed by the

Fisheries Law and associated regulations (FAO, 2004). The Sea Area Use Management Law of 2002

provides for the creation of Marine Functional Zonation Schemes to define uses of sea areas, including

aquaculture.

Access to land and water, all of which are State-owned, is granted under the Land

Administration Law of 1997 and Water Law of 1988 (amended 2002), as administered by the Ministry of

Land and Natural Resources and the Ministry of Water Resources, respectively (FAO, 2004). The

Regulation for the Implementation of the Fisheries Law requires State and collectively-owned units to

apply to the county-level peoples government for a license to perform aquaculture in state owned

water bodies and tidal flats; water rights conflicts between counties are resolved through consultation

or the next highest level of government (FAO, 2004). Thirty-year peasant contracts can be issued to

individual farmers for specific land parcels, and withdrawal permits are issued for water resources.

However, natural spawning, breeding and feeding grounds and migration passages of aquatic animals

and plants may not be used for aquaculture.

Chinese aquaculture is regulated under the Environmental Protection Law of 1989, the Law on

the Prevention and Control of Water Pollution of 1984 (amended 2008), the Marine Environment

Protection Law of 1982 (amended 1999), and the Environmental Impact Assessment Law of 2002, and

the associated regulations (FAO, 2004). The Water Quality Standards for Fisheries (1989) provide

numerical standards for water pollution in fishing areas. Environmental standards may also be set by the


Page 16

provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities; environmental monitoring is performed by the State

Oceanic Administration (SOA) and State Environmental Protection Authority (SEPA). The Bureau of

Animal Production and Health, under the Ministry of Agriculture, and local government bodies

implement laws to control animal disease, feed and drugs (FAO, 2004). The Department of Public Health

administers the Food Hygiene Law of 1995 and associated regulations (FAO, 2004). However, as we have

seen, implementation and compliance with regulations can be weak, particularly when aquaculture

operations are small-scale and decentralized.

2.3.3 Honduras

The evolution of aquaculture in Honduras is rather different from both the United States and

China. In the 1960s and 1970s, Honduran aquaculture farms were developed as a cheap domestic

protein source meant to encourage food security (Fitzsimmons, 2000). Farms often formed as a cluster

of communities, such as the example of the Olancho region. Olancho initially consisted of individual

subsistence farmers in regions that were geographically amenable to tilapia production (Martinez et al,

2004). Olancho became a cluster of small-scale semi-intensive and intensive farms producing for the

domestic market. The community eventually formed something akin to a cooperative, in which some

farmers were in charge of raising the fingerlings and broodstock, while others sold their farms to start a

local restaurant, supporting the remaining farms in the region. The success of this cluster community

enabled a dissemination of technical information, as regional and international non-governmental

organizations and universities began provided research and development support for Honduran

aquaculture (Martinez et al, pp. 287-288).

In addition to economic benefits, the Honduran cluster farm approach provides other

community resilience benefits. Despite the devastation that many Honduran fish operations

experienced after Hurricane Mitch in 1998, national production surpassed pre-hurricane levels by 2000

(Fitzsimmons, 2000), due in large part to the cluster communities and cooperatives that share costs and


Page 17

allow for localized technology transfers (Martinez et al, 2004). As climate change science predicts

increased extreme storm events in the future, this type of planning will be an important adaptation

strategy.

Honduras is also the home of first tilapia farm to attain a third-party certification of sustainable

practices through the international Aquaculture Stewardship Council (SeafoodSource, 2010). This

vertically-integrated farm, Aquafinca, is owned by an American fisheries company whose mission is to

present business as an effective long-term goal for healthy development (Regal Springs, 2003-2012).

The farm is internationally recognized for its clean, large-scale cage-raised tilapia production methods

and ethical employee management (Chuck, 2008). The farms production manager stated, We try to do

basically everything to make [the thousands of employees] feel like they are partners not workers.

Everybody is on bonus system [sic]; everyone can basically gain more from the companys success, so

everybody feels like its their project (Chuck, 2008). The firm states it emits zero net waste to the lake

where the fish are farmed (Chuck, 2008), and they use all parts of the fish for various products (Regal

Springs, 2003-2012).

Honduran aquaculture operations are affected by a number of policies and laws. The General

Environmental Law of 1993 created the Secretariat of Natural Resources and Environment (SERNA), an

Environmental Prosecutors Office, and established the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process

(Cordero & Carabaguas, 2004). Other relevant laws include the Water Law of 1927, the Health Code,

and the Potable Water and Sanitation Sector Framework Law (Cordero & Carabaguas, 2004)

However, a 2004 report to the United States Agency for International Development (USAID)

characterized the General Environmental Law as lacking implementation mechanisms, resulting in weak

compliance (2004). Similarly, SERNA, which is charged with developing and implementing environmental

policies performed a self-evaluation in 2007 and identified several institutional weaknesses, including

the omission of wetlands from the Honduran National Environmental Policy, scarce federal funding for


Page 18

conservation, and the lack of a Honduran university-level program in limnology, freshwater ecology and

marine biology (International Resource Group, 2009). Furthermore, SERNAs Directorate of

Environmental Quality (DECA) lacks the resources to effectively monitor the implementation of ongoing

environmental mitigation activities, and focuses instead on reviewing EIAs of proposed projects.

Likewise, local governments, which were required by the Municipality Law of 1990 to take a larger role

in protecting and enhancing their natural resources, lack the necessary technical and financial resources.

A lack of governmental coordination is apparent in the structuring of agency responsibilities.

The Honduras Secretary of Agriculture and Livestock (SAG) contains the Directorate General of Fisheries

and Aquaculture (DIGEPESCA) (Bustillo Pon, 2001). However, mangroves are administered by the

Secretariat of Tourism, which has historically authorized the conversion of mangroves for shrimp

aquaculture (International Resource Group, 2009). The National Institute of Conservation and Forests,

Protected Areas and Wildlife Development (ICF) has authority over marine protected areas, although it

is primarily a forestry organization without special expertise in marine ecology (International Resource

Group, 2009).

Other challenges concern the distribution of land. Land use is governed by the Land Zoning Act

and the General Planning and Human Settlement Act for Sustainable Development, which is intended to

incorporate environmental concerns into land use decision making (Cordero & Carabaguas, 2004). The

2004 report to USAID indicates that there are ongoing land rights challenges from the indigenous

peoples and campesinos movements (2004).

2.4 Sustainability Analysis

Each of the three countrys aquaculture practices and policies have been evaluated through a

high-level Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) analysis. As shown in Figure 1, the

strengths of the tilapia aquaculture in the U.S. include high-technology systems, particularly in closed-

loop and urban aquaculture. U.S. aquaculture is also characterized by high food safety and limited


Page 19

environmental pollution, due in large part to comprehensive regulations and strong enforcement. The

industry also benefits from strong domestic food distribution networks and immediate proximity to one

of the worlds largest seafood markets. Finally, the U.S. has a growing niche food culture that is willing to

pay premium for locally-produced and sustainably farmed food.

However, as a developed nation with strong labor regulations, the U.S. has high labor costs in

comparison to developing nations. Furthermore, its innovative technology has been deployed mainly in

experimental small-scale domestic operations. The U.S. major trade deficit in the global fish market

creates low food security, and seafood prices are expected to be highly influenced by international

transportation costs. Furthermore, despite national policies supporting aquaculture, federal and state

agencies have followed recommendations to develop the domestic aquaculture industry, such as a

survey of suitable aquaculture sites and creation and resource conflict tools. Future threats include the

increasing use of energy-intensive soy and corn based fish feed, and the lower nutritional benefits

offered by farmed fish in comparison to wild-caught fish.

Though the U.S. domestic industry is underdeveloped, there are potential opportunities for

American aquaculture. The U.S. could invest in large-scale closed-loop systems, perhaps by taking

advantage of unutilized manufacturing sites and other brownfields.

Finally, the U.S., as a major consumer, has a unique ability to incentivize its suppliers to comply

with standards and sustainability certification programs. This position becomes especially relevant

within vertically integrated systems.2 An increasing number of aquaculture companies are

headquartered in the United States and operate farms in developing nations, allowing greater control

2 Vertical integration refers to a business model in which one firm owns or controls all steps in the production and

distribution of a good or service. The primary benefit of this management style is that the owner has greater

control over its inputs and outputs (The Economist, Idea, 2009).


Page 20

over the production and distribution process. Many of the industrial scale aquaculture operations in

Honduras are owned by U.S. companies, and though not as prevalent within the Chinese aquaculture

market, some U.S. controlled operations exist (Einhorn, 2010).

Figure 1. SWOT Analysis, Tilapia Aquaculture in the U.S.

Figure 2 presents a SWOT analysis for the aquaculture industry in China. Strengths include low

labor costs, in comparison to developed nations, and an established industry that draws on Chinas

historical fishing culture. As the world leader in fish production, China enjoys high food security and

strong food distribution networks. Aquaculture provides about one-third of Chinas animal protein

supply, and has been especially effective in producing a source of income for rural farmers (Einhorn,

2010).

Chinas policy and planning has been extremely supportive of the domestic aquaculture

industry. China has a balanced approach that explicitly forbids siting aquaculture farms in areas that will

negatively impact capture fisheries operations. Furthermore, because Chinas land and water resources

are state-owned, user conflicts might be more easily minimized through central planning than they

might be in either the U.S. or Honduras.

Unfortunately, although China has policies and laws regarding environmental protection and

food safety, there have been ongoing problems with compliance. This may be due to the high economic


Page 21

demand for tilapia, which can outpace the ability of farmers to responsibly manage their operations.

Finally, given the distance to the United States, China has relatively high transportation costs to that

market. Of course, China also has much lower transportation costs to Asian markets.

Threats to Chinas aquaculture industry include the environmental impact of Chinas intensive

aquaculture farms. Because of limited environmental and animal health compliance, these farms can

suffer from disease outbreaks, and poorly sited and operated farms can introduce invasive species and

cause environmental degradation. Poorly sited farms are also susceptible to natural and man-made

disasters.

Opportunities for Chinese aquaculture primarily lie in the growing demand for seafood; China is

poised to maintain its dominant position in global fish trade. China can more sustainably meet demand

by taking advantage of technology transfer, such as closed-loop systems. If this technology became

better developed and less expensive, China could prevent many of its environmental degradation issues.

Furthermore, China could take advantage of the new certification schemes to move current operations

towards more sustainable methods. China can use multi-scale operations, from the small-scale fish-

paddy to the vertically integrated firm, to include more people in its industry.

Figure 2. SWOT Analysis, Tilapia Aquaculture in the People's Republic of China

Lastly, Figure 3 presents an analysis of the Honduran aquaculture industry. Honduras analysis is


Page 22

very similar to China. This is somewhat unsurprising, as they are both developing nations with an

established aquaculture industry. The differences between China and Honduras are largely one of scale,

and result from similar issues with regulatory compliance.

Honduras does differ from China, however, in the relative prominence of large foreign-owned

aquaculture firms. This has important implications for the economic impacts of aquaculture. In an

evaluation of the shrimp aquaculture industry in one region of Honduras, Stanley found that income and

land distribution was skewed in favor of the large foreign firm and high-level foreign workers (2002).

Though the firm did provide benefits to the region and community as well, it was not perceived as

adequate compensation (2002). Stanley predicted that the industry will increasingly have to rely on

imported inputs in response to environmental degradation, disease and natural resource depletion,

which is aggravated by small operators forced to use marginal land such as wetlands.

Figure 3. SWOT Analysis, Tilapia Aquaculture in Honduras

3.0 Sustainability Assessment and Certification

Although a SWOT analysis of national trends can reveal the general sustainability of the

aquaculture industry in a given country, metrics-based assessment is necessary to evaluate specific

aquaculture operations. Therefore, a number of conservation organizations and academic professionals

have been at the forefront of the development of sustainability assessment and certification tools for


Page 23

aquaculture production.

3.1 Sustainability Assessment Tools

Life cycle assessment (LCA) and ecological footprint analysis (EF) are two prominent tools used

for assessing and monitoring aquaculture sustainability (Samuel-Fitwi et al. 2012). LCA measures

materials and energy flows in and out of the life of a good or service (Theis & Tomkin, 2011). In

aquaculture, LCA examines the incoming processes, such as fish feed, and the out-going flow, such as

pollution emissions and fish fillets. Properly performing an LCA requires the selection of appropriate

impact categories and a descriptive link between those categories and aquaculture impacts (Samuel-

Fitwi et al. 2012). Samuel-Fitwi et al. (2012) recommend the following Impact categories:

Global warming

Acidification

Eutrophication

Aquatic/terrestrial/human (eco)toxicity

Energy use

Abiotic/biotic resource use

Ozone depletion

However, because the diversity of culture species, the use of varied functional units, diverse farming

systems, and the influence of farm-level management practices, influence the outcome of the LCA, this

method has limited use for aquaculture systems (Samuel-Fitwi et al., 2012, p. 187).

In a discussion of a related method, social lifecycle assessments (SLCA), Samuel-Fitwi et al.

suggest that aquaculture primarily supports a local economy, indicating the need to evaluate systems

with regard to social impact, especially at a local level (2012, p. 188). By combining LCA with SLCA,

one can evaluate the socio-economic impacts of aquaculture production, rather than only the

environmental impacts (Samuel-Fitwi et al., 2012). In general, efforts toward the successful

implementation of SCLA should focus on the development of impact indicators looking closely at


Page 24

trade-offs between stakeholders and the triple-bottom line (Samuel-Fitwi et al., 2012, p. 188).

The second method, EF, compares the amount of human appropriation with the amount of

global bio-capacity to regenerate each year, and when applied to aquaculture systems, reveals varying

impacts of different production systems (Samuel-Fitwi et al, 2012, pp. 184-186). For instance, semi-

intensive systems require much less space for phosphorous assimilation and oxygen production than

intensive systems. However, because EF analysis refers to product-specific land use, it is difficult to

predict levels of impact on ecologically and geographically different areas (Samuel-Fitwi et al., 2012).

Samuel-Fitwi et al. conclude that decision making in aquaculture should first and foremost be

location- and geography-specific, incorporating feedback and social learning processes (2012). They

suggest the concurrent use of multiple assessment methods to obtain a better evaluation of how farms

are performing (Samuel-Fitwi et al., 2012).

3.2 Sustainability Certification Programs

Metrics similar to those discussed above have been incorporated into voluntary sustainability

certification programs for the international aquaculture industry. Unlike fish produced for domestic

consumption in developing countries, where organic or integrated pest management (IPM) certifications

have been administered by local government or eco-volunteer organizations (Bon, Parrot, & Moustier,

2010), more formalized methods are needed when fish is produced for export and consumption in

developed countries. In the first case, the physical proximity between the farmer and buyer allows

consumers to exert more control over and have more confidence in food production methods. But when

fish is shipped to another country, this consumer confidence disappears. Proponents and opponents of

aquaculture alike have argued that, an internationally recognized certification schemeis urgently

needed to alert consumers to the sustainability (or otherwise) of the farmed fish that they are

eatingonly then will it be clear how green is the blue revolution (The Economist, 2003).

One of the most prominent certification programs is administered by the Aquaculture


Page 25

Stewardship Council (ASC). The ASC aquaculture certification program uses independent fish farm

inspections based on species-specific standards to determine whether to award the label responsibly

farmed (Rosenthal, 2011). The certification requirements were developed in compliance with Food and

Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) guidelines that identify minimum criteria for

credible aquaculture certification programs in the areas of animal health and welfare, food safety,

environmental management, and socioeconomic concerns (Aquaculture Stewardship Council, 2012a;

FAO Technical Guidelines on Aquaculture Certification, 2011).

The ASC certification program provides sustainability indicators for a number of aquaculture

planning, development and operation issues. According to the ASC (2012a), Planning includes farm

siting; resource use or extraction; and assessment of environmental, social and cumulative impacts.

Development includes construction, habitat alteration and access to public areas by other resource

users. Operation includes effluent discharge, working conditions, use of antibiotics and other chemicals,

as well as feed composition and use. The ASC certification standard for tilapia aquaculture (2012b)

requires documentation for the following indicators:

National and local legal compliance for land and water use (e.g., permits lease), taxes, labor laws

and regulations, and water quality impacts permits and regulations

Environmental Impact Assessment of farm siting/ expansion

Tilapia population is native or was historically established

Ongoing water quality sampling for receiving waters and groundwater, with results within

established parameters

No wetland conversion

Quantity of phosphorous and nitrogen applied to and released from the operation

Methods to prevent escape and mating of tilapia in receiving waters

No transgenic tilapia culture

No killing of predator species

Fish Feed Equivalency Ratio: the amount of wild fish used in feed, per quantity of fish produced

No use of endangered species in fish meal and fish oil


Page 26

Use of feed from sustainable manufacturers

Ongoing monitoring of energy consumption

Fish health management, including mortality rate, therapeutants prescribed by a fish health

professional, and no banned chemical/therapeutants or prophylactic antibiotics

No child labor, no workplace discrimination, no abuse of overtime/ workhours, and no forced,

bonded or compulsory labor

Health and safety worker training, incident reporting and employer insurance for workplace

accidents; presence of emergency response plan

Employee wages meet basic needs; employee housing is clean, sanitary and safe

Employee freedom to associate and bargain collectively

No abusive disciplinary actions

No restriction of community access to public land or water resources

Additional details concerning the quantification and rationale of the indicators are included in the ASC

standard.

Ben Belton et al. (2009) criticize the ASC certification programs near-exclusion of socioeconomic

issues. However, though only one of ASCs seven principles applies to socioeconomic concerns, (Be

Socially Responsible), this principle contains one-third of the total sustainability criteria and 18 of the

61 sustainability indicators. Belton et al. (2009) also criticize the ASC program for catering to large-scale

producers, to the exclusion of small-scale farmers. The ASC program is admittedly intended for

internationally traded fish (Aquaculture Stewardship Council, 2012b). However, fish farmers in

developing nations, producing for domestic markets, may not find this type of intensive third-party

certification economically necessary.

The Sustainable Livelihoods Approach, promulgated by the Department of International

Development, is proposed by Belton et al. (2009), as an alternative to the ASC certification program. This

method is a measure of social resilience, meaning whether a livelihood can cope with and recover

from stresses and shocks and maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets, without undermining the

natural resource base (Belton, Little, & Grady, 2009). Belton et al. (2009) proposes the use of these


Page 27

financial indicators for sustainable livelihoods:

Land area

Product yield

Product value

Input costs such as feed, labor and equipment

Initial construction costs

Risk of product loss, as determined by aquaculture method

Opportunity cost

Diversification of product

Market demand

According to this model, more economically sustainable livelihoods will create a higher return

on investment with lower exposure to product loss, fluctuations in market value and demand, and

opportunity cost. However, Belton et al. (2009) acknowledge that this method is prone to

overemphasize the household economy, at the expense of the larger economic impact.

3.3 Towards a Comprehensive Assessment of Aquaculture Sustainability

Based on the review of available sustainability assessment tools, it appears that there are

significant opportunities for improvement. The globalization of the fish trade market has encouraged

fish farms to adopt more environmentally sensitive methods and seek sustainability certifications

(Rosenthal, 2011). However, these sustainability assessment tools do not address in detail how to plan

for sustainable aquaculture. One major weakness of the ASCs program is that it does not provide full

guidance on how the farm should be integrated into the fabric of the surrounding community and

region. For example, while it requires an EIA for the watershed, it does not require a specific alternative

selection process or state how the findings will be judged.

Therefore, it is clear that ASCs program would benefit from a more robust incorporation of

social and economic indicators. Currently, ASCs standard requires only the minimum conditions needed

for a firm to be considered non-exploitive and abusive of its workers. The economic and social analysis


Page 28

performed by Stanley (2002) would complement ASCs biophysical indicators by shedding light on the

regional impacts of the aquaculture farm. This would enable consumers to consider whether the

products meet fair trade standards. Specifically, certification standards should consider incorporating

an evaluation of how much of the farm inputs are obtained locally; how much of the farm produce is

processed locally; the amount of local and national taxes are paid by the firm; whether the payroll is

well-distributed among all workers; whether profits are retained by local investors; whether workers

acquire transferable skills; and whether the firm assists in larger community efforts (Stanley, 2002).

The Sustainable Livelihoods Approach championed by Belton et al. (2009), while less suitable for

certification purposes, would be very useful for local planning efforts. Since SLA is geared towards

determining whether aquaculture would be likely to succeed long-term for a small producer, it could be

used successfully to evaluate operations such as the Olancho cluster community. This would help

municipalities and regions determine whether and how to invest in the aquaculture industry.

Finally, though highly involved methods such as LCA and EF are not feasible for a certification

process, they can illuminate the ways in which a full accounting of global food trade can have both

positive and negative environmental, economic and social consequences. In particular, these methods

would provide detailed insight into previously unvalued environmental costs and benefits. Firms may

find the methods useful when seeking ways to increase sustainability and find inefficiencies in the

product chain.

4.0 Planning and Policymaking for Sustainable Aquaculture

The final section of this paper will address the underlying planning and policies that may support

a more sustainable aquaculture industry. One of the primary shortfalls evident in the literature on global

aquaculture production is the business as usual approach taken by most large producers, distributors,

and research groups. In fact, many of the reviewed studies (Fitzsimmons, 2000; Food and Agriculture

Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, 2004; Einhorn, 2010; Dey and Ahmed, 2005; Aquaculture


Page 29

Stewardship Council, 2012) describe the growing global demand for fish protein and the resulting

unsustainable practices of large scale aquaculture operations, but offer no discussion questioning the

continuation of this large consumption of fish protein. This is particularly egregious in the United States,

where many have relatively cheap and easy access to different types of animal protein. The United

States has maintained its position as the third highest consumer of all animal protein per capita,

preceded only by Luxembourg and Hong Kong (FAO, 2009).

According to an FAO publication on global meat consumption, impoverished young children and

women in developing nations do not consume enough animal-based product, while, unsurprisingly,

people in developed nations consume too much (FAO, 2009). These data are not new, and numerous

global poverty and hunger eradication programs exist, some of which encourage local aquaculture

operations (Fitzsimmons, 2000). However, the overconsumption of animal-based products in developed

nations must be addressed also.

As many studies assert, the United States is the largest Western importer of tilapia, China is the

largest global exporter of tilapia, and both will continue to be so into the future. This suggests that

contemporary food systems are primarily influenced by global market forces and large food distributors,

such as Wal-Mart and Costco. These distributors, though in a position to incentivize aquaculture

producers to practice sustainable methods, merely react to current unsustainable practices, rather than

taking a proactive approach to avoiding unsustainable practices at the start.

To counter this trend of importing unsustainably farmed fish, countries that have the economic

means and the need to increase food security should encourage legislation that enables municipalities

and regional areas to participate in the creation and support of local aquaculture systems. The growth

of small, local aquaculture operations will allow consumers a healthy supply of fish protein and may

reduce the global market share of Chinese aquaculture. This is likely to result in reducing the often-

unavoidable unsustainable practices that stem from large-scale production and export of fish product.


Page 30

4.1 Regional Aquaculture Opportunities and Challenges

Regional growth in aquaculture production can be accomplished through several methods,

dependent upon the current constraints on local production. Production can be increased by using

improved technology, more efficiently using current resources, and intensifying inputs (i.e., feed) (Dey &

Ahmed, 2005). However, industry growth may be in conflict with sustainability goals, as increased

production can create environmental degradation and may not be financially feasible for low-income

farmers (Dey & Ahmed, 2005). Furthermore, climate change science predicts major impacts on coastal

areas (United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) & World Trade Organization (WTO), 2009),

which suggests that land-based pond or recirculating systems will be most resilient to future climate

impacts. Therefore, it is recommended that producing regions promote the use of these types of

systems. Through policies supporting public and private investment, the United States can be a leader in

global equity and sustainability by developing and transferring affordable closed-loop systems to

developing producer nations.

Small-scale aquaculture farmers seeking to join the global fish trade face additional challenges.

These small-scale extensive systems, which are the majority of the worlds producers, represent a

significant opportunity to promote economic development through highly environmentally sustainable

aquaculture practices. Supportive policies are needed to help these producers meet stringent

international regulations, trade requirements and certification standards (Dey & Ahmed, 2005).

Domestic or international development organizations assist artisanal producers by clustering small

farms and building co-operative marketing centers, developing suitable finance mechanisms such as

microfinance banks, offering creating extension services that offer technical support, and improving

transportation and storage facilities (OECD, 2010). It is important to remember, however, that the

interests of domestic food security and international trade must be balanced when making policy and


Page 31

investment decisions in aquaculture.

4.2 Local Planning for Sustainable Aquaculture

Urban aquaculture can provide several public health, economic, social and

environmental benefits to a community. All these benefits must be considered if the public sector is to

perform a full-cost accounting to determine whether urban land should be developed or farmed. Local

governments and planners should work with community farmers and other stakeholders to plan for

aquaculture systems, by preparing an inventory, land suitability analysis, market analysis, goals,

objectives, action strategies, zoning ordinances, capital improvement programs and a development

review process.

Planning should begin with an inventory of the community. Local community planners

should gather information regarding the current state of aquaculture in the area. The inventory should

include a comprehensive list of farms, their size and culture types, the site locations, the current supply

chain, and the distribution of the farms. Mapping software, such as Geographic Information Systems

(GIS), can be very useful in visually organizing these data to inform future aquaculture planning

ventures.

The results of the inventory can be evaluated by performing a land suitability analysis to

determine which land area is viable for aquaculture systems. The land suitability analysis should be used

to inform the EIA process for specific aquaculture operations. The analysis will be very different when

evaluating indoor closed-loop facilities versus outdoor pond-based systems, for example. A land

suitability analysis should be performed in each case. For outdoor farms ponds or other bodies of

water, the factors influencing land use will be much more varied.

A market analysis should also be performed to identify current and future demand and

supply of aquaculture products in the local and regional market. The analysis should also identify

transportation networks and nodes that will provide for the distribution of products. In addition,


Page 32

opportunities for linkages to related business should be assessed.

The community should set sustainable aquaculture goals and objectives using best

practices such as the criteria put forth by the Aquaculture Stewardship Council or similar organization.

Goals and objectives for sustainable aquaculture development should aim to support the social and

economic livelihoods of all stakeholders involved in the process, maintain environmentally sound

practices, and produce a marketable, healthy fish product for local or global consumption. Before

permitting a farm, it should be required to clearly define their primary market and practices. Table 2 is

an example of a list of goals and objectives that might fulfil the four categories: Natural Resources, Land

Use, Economic Base, and Community Facilities.

Table 2. Sample Small-Scale Sustainable Aquaculture Operation Goals and Objectives

Natural Resources

Goal To conserve the natural habitat within which the aquaculture system is to be placed.

Objective Use protective measures between the farm site and any environment it may come into contact with: for instance, cages have been successful in preventing tilapia from escaping into foreign pond environments.

Land Use Goal To protect sensitive landscapes and promote compact development.

Objective Aquaculture sites should be directed away from wetland areas, and should ideally be incorporated with other agribusinesses, to minimize fish effluents and maximize reuse of animal waste.

Economic Base

Goal To support an equitable distribution of income and encourage the growth of small local businesses.

Objective Encourage clustering communities or cooperatives for farms that might not otherwise be able to afford high technology costs and production costs.

Community Facilities Goal To protect the quality of the community water supply.

Objective Regularly test water in the vicinity of aquaculture operations, to ensure no contamination.

Following the preparation of goals and objectives, action strategies should be devised. These

strategies should provide specific suggestions on the implementation of aquaculture development for


Page 33

interested farmers, such as the following.

Hold public meetings to discuss the implications of a local aquaculture site

Educate interested individuals and empower community members to stay involved and active

throughout the local production process of a community protein source

Provide networking events for community farmers to share the realistic successes and

challenges of aquaculture operations

Engage networks of interested farmers cluster communities to help decrease start-up costs and

provide a support system for farmers

Adopt necessary zoning ordinances to increase success of operation

Municipalities should provide for urban aquaculture in the zoning map and ordinance.

Aquaculture operation should comply with all federal, state, and local zoning ordinances in place.

Municipal ordinances should also be coordinated with international requirements such as the Hazard

Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) process (Fitzsimmons, 2000). However, to continue to support

aquaculture development, zoning overlays can be used to diversify the zoned land use. If there are

multiple farms in fairly close proximity (2-4 miles), overlay zones allowing for food production and

distribution can help maintain the economic livelihoods of the farmers in the region. In urban settings,

zoning ordinances can allow for mixed-use space, and with proper health code law compliance, urban

dwellers can successfully implement aquaculture facilities.

Particular zoning and ordinance concerns include property and resource rights conflicts,

especially in areas where mega-cities sprawl towards the hinterlands and blur the distinction between

rural and urban (Bon, Parrot, & Moustier, 2010). Odor, health and waste concerns can be addressed

though municipal regulation of animal species and quantity, disease control methods, farm discharges

and cleaning, and water use (Bon, Parrot, & Moustier, 2010). Finally, in urban areas where

environmental emissions are highly regulated, the municipality may require the use of expensive but

low-pollution recirculating systems (Fitzsimmons, 2000).


Page 34

The development review process for proposed aquaculture operations should align with the

goals and objectives set by the community, and at a minimum meet the standards set by the ASC

certification program. Table 3 presents a checklist for compliance with zoning codes, and other

regulations.

Table 3. Checklist of Sustainable Aquaculture Issues in a Development Review 1 Does the farm comply with national and state land and water use? 2 Did the farm do a proper land suitability analysis, including EIA? 3 Is the farm sited away from wetland areas? 4 Will methods of feed applied to system cause ecosystem degradation?

5 Does the farmer cite proper measures he/she will take in keeping fish from escaping the enclosed area (is it situated in a natural body of water)? 6 Is the farmer properly educated on best handling and farming techniques for aquaculture? 7 Has the farm attained the necessary permits for the farm site?

8 Is the farmer working with community members and other business owners to ensure proper demand and participation in local food economy?

Finally, urban aquaculture can be supported through the municipalitys Capital Improvement

Program (CIP). For example, in more rural settings, CIPs can divert sewer systems and major roads away

from aquaculture operations, minimizing exposure to pollutants and human waste. Schools and other

public institutions could identify funding sources to develop water-recycling infrastructure that would

support the integration of recirculating aquaculture systems with greywater within buildings, or provide

land for educational aquaculture operations. Sustainable aquaculture operations can also be

encouraged by investing in technology research and transfer, providing marketing and local certification

schemes, and financial incentives and grants (Bon, Parrot, & Moustier, 2010). Public-private

partnerships, such as exchanging land for farm produce supplied to state-run facilities, multi-stakeholder

planning, and local urban agriculture zoning, have all been implemented successfully in Latin America

and Africa (Bon, Parrot, & Moustier, 2010). With proper planning and policy, sustainable aquaculture

can be developed in a wide range of rural and urban settings.


Page 35

References

Aqua Vita Farms. (2011). Aqua vita farms. Retrieved November, 2012, from: http://www.aquavitafarms.com/index.php?Option=com_content&view=featured&Itemid=435

Aquaculture Stewardship Council. (2012a). ASC farm certification and accreditation requirements version 1.0. The Netherlands: Aquaculture Stewardship Council.

Aquaculture Stewardship Council. (2012b). ASC tilapia standard version 1.0. The Netherlands: Aquaculture Stewardship Council.

Ashley, P. J. (2007). Fish welfare: Current issues in aquaculture. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 104(3/4), 199.

Barboza, D. (December 15, 2007). In china, farming fish in toxic waters. The New York Times. Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/15/world/asia/15fish.html?Pagewanted=all&_r=0

Baughman, Brent. (July 3, 2011). Urban Fish Farming: wave of the future? NPR-All Things Considered. Accessed December 2012, from http://www.npr.org/2011/07/03/137588931/urban-fish-farming-wave-of-the-future.Belton, B., Little, D., & Grady, K. (2009). Is responsible aquaculture sustainable aquaculture? WWF and the eco-certification of tilapia. Society and Natural Resources, 22(9), 840-855.

Blue Ridge Aquaculture, I. (2012). Blue ridge aquaculture: The Worlds largest sustainable indoor fisheries. Retrieved November, 2012, from: http://www.blueridgeaquaculture.com/index.cfm.

Bon, H., Parrot, L., & Moustier, P. (2010). Sustainable urban agriculture in developing countries. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 30(1), 21-32. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?Direct=true&db=lhh&AN=20103088047&site=ehost-live; http://www.edpsciences.org/agro/; http://search.ebscohost.com.proxy.cc.uic.edu/login.aspx?Direct=true&db=lhh&AN=20103088047&site=ehost-live

Brander, K. M. (Received for review, March 6, 2007). Global fish production and climate change. Copenhagen V, Denmark: International Council for the Exploration of the Sea.

Bustillo Pon, J. (2001). Biodiversity assessment: USAID/honduras report. (). San Pedro Sula, Honduras. Retrieved from: http://transition.usaid.gov/locations/latin_america_caribbean/environment/docs/ho2002.pdf

Carsten Schulz, e. A. (2012). Sustainability assessment tools to support aquaculture development. Journal of Cleaner Production, 33, 183.

Chuck. (September 25, 2008). Aquafinca Farms Fish in Honduras. Retrieved December 2012, from: http://agwired.com/2008/09/25/aquafinca-farms-fish-in-honduras/.


Page 36

Concentrated aquatic animal production point source category, 40 CFR 451 (2012). Retrieved from: http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.cc.uic.edu/lnacui2api/api/version1/getdoccui?Lni=56C9-22K0-008H-01WS&csi=5154&hl=t&hv=t&

Planning for Sustainable Aquaculture

Documents

aquaculture production

aquaculture policies

global aquaculture practices

numerous aquaculture

state of world aquaculture

tilapia fish

bondie wolf tilapia

china honduras