suitable for human consumption or for which <strong>the</strong>re is limited dem<strong>and</strong>, or from waste products from fishprocessing for human consumption (Pike 1998).Only where locally sourced “trash” fish is used for aquaculture, in areas where a poor population relieson such fish as a source of cheap high-quality nutrition (such as Vietnam), may <strong>the</strong> use of fishmeal leadto a reduction in food security or availability to poor people. Ironically, in <strong>the</strong>se places, using fishmealimported from developed countries such as Sc<strong>and</strong>inavian nations, Japan, <strong>and</strong> Chile ra<strong>the</strong>r than locallysourced fishmeal for aquaculture is <strong>the</strong> best way to maintain food security, maximize cheap foodavailability for <strong>the</strong> poor, <strong>and</strong> minimize pressure on local fish stocks in developing countries. Muchfishmeal is produced in Ecuador, Peru, <strong>and</strong> Chile because of <strong>the</strong> abundance of coastal anchoveta in <strong>the</strong>sou<strong>the</strong>rn/central eastern Pacific Ocean. However, much of <strong>the</strong> high-quality fishmeal used inaquaculture comes from Nor<strong>the</strong>rn European countries.The argument that <strong>the</strong> conversion of fish from one form into ano<strong>the</strong>r is fundamentally wasteful is alsoopen to question. The logic of this argument implies that to eat anything o<strong>the</strong>r than primary productionis wasteful. Is <strong>the</strong>re any fundamental difference between eating wild or farmed carnivorous fish in thisrespect? In practice, <strong>the</strong> basis of much economic activity is <strong>the</strong> conversion of low-value materials intohigher-value materials—with, ideally, a recycling of waste back into primary production.Notwithst<strong>and</strong>ing <strong>the</strong>se points, it is in <strong>the</strong> industry’s interest to seek cheaper alternatives from moresustainable sources. Although <strong>the</strong>re is no clear consensus on how much fishmeal can be substitutedwith o<strong>the</strong>r protein sources from a technical or nutritional point of view, <strong>the</strong>re is little doubt that it canbe reduced substantially. As <strong>the</strong> price of fishmeal <strong>and</strong> oils rises, <strong>the</strong> incentive to replace <strong>the</strong>m willincrease rapidly. Ultimately, it may be fish oils that are limiting, but progress in biotechnology mayprovide solutions in this area (Tacon 1994; Wijkström & New 1989).It can also be argued that fishmeal may not become a limiting factor, at least for some time. Today, avast resource of unused marine biomass is discarded at sea, thrown away as offal, or wasted in o<strong>the</strong>rways. This biomass has been estimated by <strong>the</strong> FAO to constitute some 25 to 30 million MT per year(FAO 1997). Much of this waste could be converted into fishmeal, if it were technically <strong>and</strong>economically feasible. Also, alternatives to fishmeal as a protein source should be researched forshrimp diets, such as single-cell proteins. In China, fishmeal used in <strong>the</strong> feed formulated for freshwaterfish has been greatly reduced, much of it replaced with yeast. There is great scope for research in all of<strong>the</strong>se areas.Conclusions <strong>and</strong> recommendationsLike most human activity, shrimp farming has created many different environmental impacts. Theseverity <strong>and</strong> significance of <strong>the</strong>se impacts is extremely variable both within <strong>and</strong> between countries,depending on factors as diverse as hydrology, management practices, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> nature of <strong>the</strong> localeconomy. In general, <strong>the</strong>se impacts are similar to those caused by agriculture; <strong>the</strong>y are mainly relatedto habitat conversion (more serious with extensive shrimp farming); increased nutrient loads added to<strong>the</strong> environment (usually more severe in <strong>the</strong> case of intensive farming); <strong>and</strong> use of chemicals to combatdisease (generally used more in intensive systems). Particular attention has been drawn to <strong>the</strong>environmental impacts of aquaculture because its financial attractiveness has encouraged extremelyrapid, <strong>and</strong> in most cases unplanned <strong>and</strong> unregulated, development; <strong>and</strong> because it has been developed(<strong>and</strong> was originally widely promoted) in mangrove <strong>and</strong> estuarine systems, which are already undersevere development pressure.The environmental impacts of shrimp culture can be greatly reduced through a range of practicalmeasures, as discussed in this chapter. Some of <strong>the</strong>se are relatively simple to implement, while o<strong>the</strong>rsare much more difficult. It is likely that ra<strong>the</strong>r few will be adopted without significant governmentintervention <strong>and</strong>/or market incentives, discussed fur<strong>the</strong>r in Chapter 7.The various measures for reducing environmental impacts may be classified as follows:• Site selection;• Scale <strong>and</strong> extent;• Design;• Technology <strong>and</strong> research;35
• Farm-level management; <strong>and</strong>• Industry-level management.Recommendations for each of <strong>the</strong>se are summarized on <strong>the</strong> following pages.Site selectionSite selection is of great importance, not only for ensuring appropriate soil <strong>and</strong> water regimes for <strong>the</strong>farm, but also because of broader issues such as <strong>the</strong> proximity of o<strong>the</strong>r farms <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> carrying capacityof <strong>the</strong> environment. If carrying capacity is exceeded <strong>and</strong> water quality <strong>and</strong> ecological degradationensue, this will affect both shrimp farmers <strong>and</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r users.Appropriate siting of shrimp farming can help:• Minimize critical natural habitat destruction;• Minimize destruction of, or adverse effects on, o<strong>the</strong>rwise productive l<strong>and</strong>;• Minimize <strong>the</strong> impacts of shrimp farm effluents (for example, by siting adjacent to areas withhigh assimilative capacity—such as mangrove or well-flushed coastline);• Minimize <strong>the</strong> spread of disease (by maintaining adequate separation between farms <strong>and</strong>adequate separation between influent <strong>and</strong> effluent waters);• Prevent saline contamination of groundwater, agricultural l<strong>and</strong>, <strong>and</strong> freshwater irrigationsystems—which can result from withdrawal, discharge, or seepage; <strong>and</strong>• Maximize <strong>the</strong> productivity of shrimp farming itself (by siting on suitable soils <strong>and</strong> in locationswith access to high-quality water supply).While rational site selection may be possible—<strong>and</strong> is indeed an essential part of project planning <strong>and</strong>feasibility studies for large shrimp farming projects—smaller <strong>and</strong> poor farmers generally choose siteson <strong>the</strong> basis of availability ra<strong>the</strong>r than suitability. Some form of government intervention may <strong>the</strong>reforebe required to restrain development in unsuitable areas <strong>and</strong>/or to facilitate development in suitableareas. If <strong>the</strong> issues discussed above are to be fully addressed, this will require a comprehensiveassessment of natural resources <strong>and</strong> l<strong>and</strong> use potential, leading to l<strong>and</strong> use planning policies, possiblyincorporating zoning, <strong>and</strong> implemented through a set of powerful incentives <strong>and</strong> constraints.Extent of shrimp farmingImpacts on <strong>the</strong> natural environment may be reduced by limiting <strong>the</strong> area that shrimp farming canoccupy. If <strong>the</strong> objective is to maximize production with minimal habitat destruction or l<strong>and</strong> useconversion, <strong>the</strong>n <strong>the</strong> intensification of existing farms ra<strong>the</strong>r than <strong>the</strong> development of new farms may bean appropriate strategy (Hambrey 1996b; Menasveta 1997), if <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r potential problems associatedwith more intensive systems can be addressed. Where shrimp production is seasonal, total productionper unit area may be increased by growing an alternative crop in <strong>the</strong> less suitable season (e.g., rice,finfish, Macrobrachium, Artemia, or salt depending on local circumstances).DesignGood design of shrimp ponds—in particular, design of water supply <strong>and</strong> discharge systems—can havea major impact on sustainability. Good design can:• Ensure high-quality water supply <strong>and</strong> optimal pond water conditions;• Reduce <strong>the</strong> likelihood of disease <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> use of undesirable chemicals;• Minimize effluent quantity <strong>and</strong>/or maximize effluent quality; <strong>and</strong>• Prevent salinization of adjacent agricultural l<strong>and</strong>s, groundwater, or freshwater irrigationsystems.Principles of pond design can be found in many st<strong>and</strong>ard texts (Fast & Lester 1992). However, tominimize <strong>the</strong> environmental impact of semi-intensive <strong>and</strong> intensive shrimp farming, <strong>the</strong> followingprinciples should be adhered to wherever feasible:• Settling ponds suitable for both routine <strong>and</strong> harvest effluents should be constructed;• Reservoirs for water storage <strong>and</strong> treatment should be included; <strong>and</strong>36
- Page 7 and 8: sensitivity analysis should include
- Page 9 and 10: ABBREVIATIONSMTkgmcmhaozPUDFOBCIFC&
- Page 11 and 12: ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORTIn Chapte
- Page 13 and 14: same time, development is necessary
- Page 15 and 16: Current shrimp farming practice inc
- Page 17 and 18: Current status of the industryToday
- Page 19 and 20: In recent years, several major crop
- Page 21: CHAPTER 2: SHRIMP FARMING SYSTEMSSh
- Page 24 and 25: FeedsHatcheries use a combination o
- Page 26 and 27: FIGURE 8. CONTINUUM OF DIFFERENT SH
- Page 28 and 29: TABLE 3. COMPARISON OF INPUTS FOR T
- Page 30 and 31: Shrimp farming systems vary greatly
- Page 32 and 33: creeks, and sea-grass beds, fulfill
- Page 34 and 35: arrangement in Thailand, for exampl
- Page 36 and 37: capacity is not exceeded, the nutri
- Page 38 and 39: shrimp or high-value finfish produc
- Page 40 and 41: In more immediately practical terms
- Page 42 and 43: Disease prevention and managementDi
- Page 44 and 45: (Raa 1996) indicates that it is pos
- Page 48 and 49: • Supply and effluent canals shou
- Page 50 and 51: CHAPTER 4: SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPA
- Page 52 and 53: opportunities would need to be iden
- Page 54 and 55: 26 workdays per hectare, and an ext
- Page 56 and 57: One of the key elements for success
- Page 58 and 59: Minimizing negative social repercus
- Page 60 and 61: CHAPTER 5: FINANCIAL RISKS ASSOCIAT
- Page 62 and 63: Credit riskAccess to credit at fair
- Page 64 and 65: Natural factorsShrimp diseaseThe ou
- Page 66 and 67: CHAPTER 6: PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT
- Page 68 and 69: Planning and resource managementIna
- Page 70 and 71: Such initiatives have been or are b
- Page 72 and 73: Conclusions and recommendationsReco
- Page 74 and 75: equired to promote sustainability a
- Page 76 and 77: CHAPTER 7: PROJECT PLANNING AND ASS
- Page 78 and 79: • Appraisal and supervision missi
- Page 80 and 81: The structure of the executive summ
- Page 82 and 83: CHAPTER 8: CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDAT
- Page 84 and 85: • Requirements and guidance for f
- Page 86 and 87: EmploymentAs mentioned in the repor
- Page 88 and 89: ANNEX 1: A BLUEPRINT FOR FEASIBILIT
- Page 90 and 91: • Sensitivity calculations and an
- Page 92 and 93: Table A4: World shrimp farming prod
- Page 94 and 95: ANNEX 4: CASE STUDIES UNDERTAKEN BY
- Page 96 and 97:
ColombiaThe Adoption of Good Manage
- Page 98 and 99:
LocationAppendix A--Meetings Held o
- Page 100 and 101:
LocationAppendix A--Meetings Held o
- Page 102 and 103:
LocationAppendix A--Meetings Held o
- Page 104 and 105:
BIBLIOGRAPHYAdger, W.N. 1998. Susta
- Page 106 and 107:
Claridge, G. 1996. Legal approaches
- Page 108 and 109:
Hambrey, J.B., M. Phillips, K. Chow
- Page 110 and 111:
Phillips, M.J., & D.J. Macintosh. 1
- Page 112:
World Commission on Environment and