Shrimp Farming and the Environment - Library

framework for central and local authorities, as well as for investors and operators in shrimp aquaculture(Post & Lundin 1996). This issue is discussed further below.Conflict between law enforcement and other government functionsProblems may arise when government officials are simultaneously responsible for law enforcement andindustry development. In their role as industry development promoters, the government officials’success is measured by their ability to promote and expand activities like shrimp farming, and todiscuss issues such as marketing, pond management, and financing successfully with private sectorfarmers. The farmers are unlikely to discuss such matters with officials who are also responsible forlaw enforcement. District fisheries officers in Thailand are currently in such a situation, as oneexample. On the other hand, it is important that the promotion and control functions of government areclosely coordinated and do not work in opposition to each other.Ineffective or nonexistent law enforcementThere is a significant lack of necessary legislation to prevent or mitigate the impact of shrimp farming,and those laws that do exist are generally not enforced. There are many reasons for this, including lackof personnel and proper enforcement instruments, or insufficient motivation or skills on the part of lawenforcement officers. Regulations may also be well intended but have side effects that rendercompliance impossible. Furthermore, law enforcement requires at least a general absence of corruptionin the government, particularly among the administrative branch employees.Selected examples of legal intervention by governmentIn India, the Supreme Court has upheld the coastal zone regulations that restricts shrimp farming, asone example of governmental action (Murthy 1997). Among the proposed guidelines are requirementsthat no shrimp farms be built in mangrove areas, in sensitive wetlands, or on productive agriculturallands; and water from underground aquifers cannot be used in the aquaculture process. However, thereis considerable political disagreement on this issue, and in April 1997 the upper house of the legislativeassembly passed the Aquaculture Authority Bill, which would virtually nullify the Supreme Courtdecision. The legislation is still pending in the lower house, and the industry remains in limbo. One ofthe problems in this case was that shrimp farming had not been specifically taken into account indrawing up the original Coastal Zone Act.The Government of Ecuador has taken steps to address the environmental effects of shrimp farming.For example, mangroves have been designated as woodland to be protected, two reserves have beencreated covering approximately 55,000 hectares of mangroves, and rules were established for theconservation and protection of mangroves (Anon. 1996k).As early as 1991, the Thai Cabinet made several decisions to control the shrimp farming industry(Anon. 1996a). The cabinet:• Banned the use of mangrove areas for shrimp farming;• Encouraged participation of local authorities and people in preserving mangroves;• Planned documentation of all the mangrove areas in Thailand;• Initiated a periodic monitoring system for delineating borders and documenting them on mapsand day-to-day monitoring of mangrove areas;• Restricted loans for shrimp farming through the Royal Bank of Thailand;• Promoted zoning plans for coastal aquaculture; and• Initiated a pilot project to test a seawater irrigation system to supply offshore seawater for usein treating shrimp pond discharges.In addition, in 1996 the government completed a 20-year sustainable development plan that included anenvironmental plan for shrimp farming. The Thai government has also committed U.S.$40 million toconserve remaining mangroves. However, despite government will to improve regulation, lack of lawenforcement resources (untrained personnel and limited capacity of governmental agencies) is severelylimiting the effect of the regulations (MIDAS 1995).56