Part 2 Overarching Tool s for Good Aquaculture Governance

The following are a broad category of tools that can and should be used for aquaculture development and overall good governance. Most are tools (also called instruments or approaches) to ensure the overall strategy for a country’s aquaculture development is managed in a coherent way at the national and local level. Other tools ensure the siting and zoning of aquaculture are done systematically and with due consideration of the environmental and social context.
All tools can be used to ensure the long-term sustainability of aquaculture using the ecosystem approach.

Stakeholder Engagement as a Tool

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) has developed the ecosystem approach to fisheries (EAF) toolbox, which contains a description of the four steps to implementation: (i) initiation and scope; (ii) identification of assets, issues and priorities; (iii) development of a management system; and (iv) implementation, monitoring and performance review. Within each of these steps, tools and advice are available to enable each of the steps to be carried out, with supporting documents for particular activities. Although this is for fisheries, much of the information present is useful for the development of aquaculture. An ecosystem approach to aquaculture (EAA) toolbox is in development by FAO. The key activity defined in the toolbox relates to stakeholder engagement means and methods as approaches for action research which stimulate data gathering through engagement and observation.

Rapid rural appraisal (RRA) and participatory rural appraisal (PRA) are two such techniques of stakeholder engagement. Often used in developing countries, much of the basic information needed for decision makers to understand a local situation is provided by these methods, including through structured interviews, questionnaires, working and focus groups, and other forms of stakeholder engagement; and also for the understanding of how aquaculture is facilitated in an area, how zoning may help or hinder production and development, and how these and siting issues might help support rural livelihoods. The reader is recommended to review RRA, PRA and other tools in the FAO EAF toolbox and further reading in its application.
On general principle, stakeholder engagement is critical in the assessment of zoning, site selection and area management under the EAA approach, and active participation of stakeholders is encouraged for all facets of the necessary activity needed to achieve quality and sustainable aquaculture production.

Web Resources

See EAF toolbox (www.fao.org/fishery/eaf-net/toolbox/en).

Further Reading

Ahmed N. 2009. The sustainable livelihoods approach
to the development of fish farming in rural Bangladesh.
Journal of International Farm Management,
4(4): 1–18.
Barman, B. K., Little, D. C. & Edwards, P. 2002.
Small-scale fish culture in Northwest Bangladesh:
A participatory appraisal focusing on the role of
tilapia. In P. Edwards, D. C. Little & H. Demaine,
eds. Rural Aquaculture. UK, CABI Publishing.
233 pp.
Pido, M. D., Pomeroy, R. S., Garces, L. R. & Carlos,
M. B. 1997. A rapid appraisal approach to evaluation
of community level fisheries management
systems: Framework and field application at
selected coastal fishing villages in the Philippines
and Indonesia. Coastal Management, 25(2):
183–204.
Tiller, R. & Richards, R. 2015. Once bitten, twice
shy: Aquaculture, stakeholder adaptive capacity,
and policy implications of iterative stakeholder
workshops; the case of Frøya, Norway. Ocean &
Coastal Management, 118(B): 98–109.
Townsley, P. Rapid rural appraisal, participatory rural
appraisal and aquaculture. FAO Fisheries Technical
Paper No. 358. Rome, FAO. 1996. 109 pp. (also
available at www.fao.org/docrep/006/W2352E/
W2352E00.htm#TOC).

Developing Strategic Planning for Aquaculture Development

Strategic planning in aquaculture results in the production of a document that outlines the overall vision, goals and guiding principles for how the aquaculture sector should develop within a country. Such a document should cover all forms of aquaculture following a systematic assessment. In outline, the document produced should contain the legislative background to the development of aquaculture; an analysis of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats to its development; should provide vision on how such activity will be implemented; and provide a clear plan on when it will happen through a set of clearly defined objectives and priorities. Such a document will also evaluate the linkage between research and production and sustainability for the long-term development and promotion of aquaculture products. Responsibility for strategic planning lies with national governments, who should undertake to review and update the plan at defined intervals once produced to ensure it takes into account recent developments and is current.
The strategic plan will allow regional and local authorities to understand government priorities and approach to aquaculture development; and will also allow developers/investors to understand the context within which their applications for fish farm sites are being made. This will ensure they comply with the overall master plan and for all parties to make environmentally and economically sustainable decisions when it comes to developing aquaculture zones and management areas. At the farm site level, the strategic plan should include the evaluation of applications, issuing of licences, monitoring of environmental impacts, managing facilities; and, more generally, developing aquaculture in an efficient and environmentally sustainable and socially acceptable manner.

Main sources of information (general and example plans):
Brugère, C., Ridler, N., Haylor, G., Macfadyen, G. &
Hishamunda, N. 2010. Aquaculture planning:
policy formulation and implementation for sustainable
development. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture
Technical Paper No. 542. Rome, FAO. 70 pp. (also
available at www.fao.org/docrep/012/i1601e/
i1601e00.pdf).
EU Commission. 2012–2016. Multiannual national
strategic plans for the promotion of sustainable
aquaculture. In: European Commission Fisheries
[online]. Brussels. [Cited 12 January 2017].
http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/aquaculture/
multiannual-national-plans/index_en.htm.
European Commission. 2013. Strategic guidelines
for the sustainable development of EU aquaculture.
Communication from the Commission
to the European Parliament, the Council, the
European Economic and Social Committee and the
Committee of the Regions. Brussels. COM (2013):
229 final. (also available at http://ec.europa.eu/
fisheries/cfp/aquaculture/official_documents/
com_2013_229_en.pdf).
FAO . 2010. Aquaculture development. 4. Ecosystem
approach to aquaculture. FAO Technical Guidelines
for Responsible Fisheries No. 5, Suppl. 4.
Rome, FAO. 53 pp. (also available at www.fao
.org/docrep/013/i1750e/i1750e00.htm).
FAO . 2016. Regional strategy and action plan for
sustainable intensification of aquaculture in the
Asia-Pacific region. Bangkok, Thailand (also
available at: www.fao.org/3/a-i546 6e.pdf).
Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2010. National Aquaculture
Strategic Action Plan Initiative (NASAPI)
2011–2015. An initiative of the Canadian Council
of Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers (CCFAM).
20 pp. (also available at: www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/
aquaculture/lib-bib/nasapi-inpasa/Report-eng.pdf).
Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries Secretariat
of State for Fisheries. 2012. Timor-Leste
National Aquaculture Development Strategy
2012–2030. [online]. Timor-Leste. [Cited 12 January
2017]. http://pubs.iclarm.net/resource_centre/
WF_3602.pdf.
Ministry of Food and Agriculture, Fisheries
Commission. 2012. Ghana National Aquaculture
Development Plan [online]. Ghana. [Cited 12 January
2017]. http://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/gha149443
.pdf.
NOAA Fisheries. 2016. USA Marine Aquaculture
Strategic Plan 2016–2020. (also available at
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/aquaculture/docs/
aquaculture_docs/noaa_fisheries_marine_
aquaculture_strategic_plan_fy_2016-2020.pdf).

The Use of Strategic Environmental Assessment Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) is a systematic, analytical and participatory approach that aims to integrate environmental considerations into policies, plans and programmes, and evaluates the interlinkages with economic and social considerations. SEA confers specific requirements on national and local governments to consider the environmental implications, alternatives and measurable targets related to large and complicated infrastructural developments, for example. In an aquaculture context, the application of SEA forms part of the principles of applying the ecosystem approach to aquaculture by considering how any development activity fits into a country’s needs from a legislative, business, social, economic and environmental perspective.
SEA should be carried out in order to ascertain the impact of legislative and regulatory systems and practices on aquaculture development. This should be evaluated fully to identify where aquaculture-related legislation might be enacted, if appropriate. The SEA provides a clear context for development of the industry, having evaluated not only the regulatory framework but also the institutional capacity; existing and new market potential both internally and internationally; needs in terms of research, training, infrastructure and financial/business opportunities; opportunities in terms of food security and quality assurance; compliance with international Codes of Conduct, such as that issued by FAO for sustainable fisheries (including aquaculture); and an evaluation of social and economic requirements. More broadly, it will provide an overall framework for the development of the aquaculture industry, with an outcome of SEA being to support the completion of a strategic plan for aquaculture (see above). SEA can consider the cumulative impacts of more than one project or activity on the same environmental component.
SEA follows a similar path to environmental impact assessment (see below) in undergoing a scoping exercise to establish the requirements and encourage stakeholder engagement; screening to determine what areas will be considered and investigated; an analysis, covering those areas outlined above; and decision making based on that assessment, including development of the strategic plan. Some examples of the application of SEA to aquaculture development are included in the further reading.

Web Resources

Application of SEA to aquaculture development
in South Africa (http://aquasea.csir.co.za/
sea-process).
European Union with guidance on the application of
SEA (not aquaculture-specific) (http://ec.europa
.eu/environment/eia/sea-support.htm).
Environmental impact professionals (SEA and EIA)
(www.iaia.org/index.php).

Further Reading

Adi Associates Environmental Consultants Ltd. 2012.
Strategic Environmental Assessment on Malta’s
Aquaculture Strategy. Environmental report.
San Gwann, November 2012; viii 1 112 pp. 1
1 appendix. (also available at https://agriculture
.gov.mt/en/fisheries/Documents/Final%20
Environmental%20report%20%20Aquaculture
%20Strategy%20Oct%202013%20post
%20public%20c.pdf).
Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine.
2015. Strategic Environmental Assessment: SEA
statement—National Strategic Plan for sustainable
aquaculture development in Ireland. 76 pp.
(also available at www.agriculture.gov.ie/
media/migration/seafood/marineagenciesand
programmes/nspa/NSPASEAstatement181215.pdf).
Hutchings, K., Porter, S., Clark, B. M. & Sink, K.
2011. Strategic Environmental Assessment:
Identification of potential marine aquaculture
development zones for fin fish cage culture. 65 pp.
(also available at www.anchorenvironmental.
co.za/Documents/Pdfs/SEA%20MADZ/Draft%20
SEA%20Report%20for%20web.pdf).
Loughs Agency. 2010. Strategic Environmental
Assessment (SEA) of the Aquaculture and
Shellfisheries Management Strategy. Environmental
report, Loughs Agency. 92 pp. (also available
at www.balticlagoons.net/artwei/wp-content/
uploads/2011/04/SEA-of-aquaculture-in-TWsof-
Ireland.pdf).
Rosário Partidário, M. do. 2012. Strategic
environmental assessment better practice guide:
methodological guidance for strategic thinking
in SEA. 76 pp. (also available at http://ec.europa.
eu/environment/eia/pdf/2012%20SEA_Guidance_
Portugal.pdf).

Aquaculture Legislation and Regulations

Laws are written legislative acts of national government that set out the standards, procedures and principles that must be followed. They are enforceable through the judicial system whereby failure to comply can result in prosecution in court. Regulations are the tools that ensure that a law is put into effect with details about how this should be done, providing more detail about the activities to be undertaken or not undertaken to comply with the legal requirements.
There are probably many laws that are of general application to aquaculture without being aquaculture specific. A few examples include those on food safety and environmental protection, for example. Legislation and regulations developed specifically for aquaculture and aquaculture development are critical tools in correctly planning for and aiding the development of aquaculture at the national level. As a general rule, countries that have a well-developed aquaculture sector tend to have aquaculture specific legislation and regulations that have helped to support their welldeveloped sector.
Legislation tends towards having a general law for aquaculture development. Regulations tend towards relaying specific rules about specific subjects, such as environmental impact assessment, fish safety and welfare, use of drugs and other chemotherapeutants, and other aquaculture-specific areas of relevance.
Internationally, there are a number of binding instruments (e.g., the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, Ramsar, others) and nonbinding instruments (e.g., FAO codes of conduct, millennium goals and others) that govern sustainable aquaculture development, including spatial planning for aquaculture. Please refer to Annex 1 for a more detailed list.

Web Resources

See FAO . 2016. National Aquaculture Legislation
Overview (NALO) Fact Sheets. [online]. Rome.
[Cited 12 January 2017]. www.fao.org/fishery/
nalo/search/en.
These National Aquaculture Legislation Overviews
(NALOs) exist for 61 countries on this Internet site.

Further Reading

Abate, T. G., Nielsen, R. & Tveterås, R. 2016. Stringency
of environmental regulation and aquaculture
growth: A cross-country analysis. Aquaculture
Economics and Management, 20 (2): 201–221.
Hishamunda, N., Ridler, N., Bueno, P., Satia, B.,
Kuemlangan, B., Percy, D., Gooley, G., Brugere,
C. & Sen S. 2010. Improving aquaculture
governance: What is the status and options? In
R. P. Subasinghe, J. R. Arthur, D. M. Bartley,
S. S. De Silva, M. Halwart, N. Hishamunda,
C. V. Mohan & P. Sorgeloos, eds. Farming the
waters for people and food. Proceedings of the
Global Conference on Aquaculture 2010, Phuket,
Thailand. 22–25 September 2010. FAO, Rome and
NACA, Bangkok.
Sanchirico, J. N., Eagle, J., Palumbi, S. & Thompson
Jr, B. H. 2010. Comprehensive planning,
dominant-use zones and user rights: A new era
in ocean governance. Bulletin of Marine Science,
86(2): 273–285.

Developing Codes of Practice, Codes of Conduct and Best Management Practices

In recognition that laws and regulations need to be followed and complied with, and in areas where aquaculture is well developed, industry has tended to develop a non-mandatory set of guiding principles, often referred to as codes of practice (CoP), codes of conduct (CoC) and best management practices (BMPs).
These are non-mandatory in a legal sense, as CoCs/ CoPs/BMPs are generally voluntary schemes, often issued by aquaculture trade associations, certification schemes and other stakeholders, and provide a set of operating principles that “members” must comply with to be a “member” or achieve certification, for example. Compliance with CoCs/CoPs/BMPs can be laid down in aquaculture licences in some countries.
CoCs/CoPs/BMPs are useful tools to harmonize the operation of aquaculture production activities. These codes outline the standards of operation expected of the producer, designed to describe the best practices that should be undertaken. The ultimate aim is to provide reassurance to consumers on seafood products, that production conducted by those complying with the codes meet safety and environmental protection standards, have been produced ethically and use sustainable techniques.
Often CoCs/CoPs/BMPs at this higher-level result in aquaculture producers producing their own company-specific versions that detail the methods of operation for specific activities (i.e., standard operating procedures (SOPs) for farm workers to adhere to, providing an overall chain of good conduct. To give two examples: (i) in certain countries, such as the mariculture parks set up in the Philippines, (see case study summary in Table A4.1 and full case study in Annex 5), each park has a manual of operating procedures to which all operators within the park comply; and (ii) in Scotland, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (and in other European countries also), the trade body (Scottish Salmon Producers Organisation—SSPO) has issued a code of practice for Scottish salmon farmers, implementation of which is required for membership. The code is based on one produced at European level by the Federation of European Aquaculture Producers (FEAP). Each company has then developed its own code and standard operating procedures for on-site activity and management.
At a broad scale, guiding principles for sustainable production of aquaculture products have been issued by FAO, through the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (FAO, 1995), that define a number of articles that, if implemented, will lead to improved sustainability of aquaculture (and fisheries) production.
This has been augmented by the EAA (FAO, 2010), a strategy for the integrated management of land, water and living resources that promotes conservation, sustainable use and a fair and equitable sharing of the benefits of aquaculture development.
It should be noted that compliance with CoCs/CoPs/ BMPs issued by FAO or others as guidelines does not implicitly provide “certification” to aquaculture organizations. Certification is different in that it requires compliance with specific standards, which are not generally presented in guideline documents produced by FAO (Environmental Law Society, 2012).
Overall, codes of practice, codes of conduct and best management practices are management tools that aim to improve overall quality in production—not just in the final product, but in every activity undertaken to produce that aquatic product.

Further Reading

Aqvaplan Niva. 2008. Better Practice Guidelines
(BPGs) for marine pen and cage farmers for
responsible and sustainable production. (also
available at http://aquaculture.asia/files/online_03/
PHILMANAQ%20Better%20Practice%20
guidelines.pdf).
Arevalo, N. B., Donaire, T. C., Ricohermoso, M. A. &
Simbajon, R. Undated. Better Management
Practices for seaweed farming of Eucheuma and
Kappaphycus (in the Philippines). [online]. NACA.
[Cited 12 January 2017]. http://library.enaca.org/
bmp/manuals/seaweed-culture-bmp-manual.pdf.
Environmental Law Society. 2012. Seafood
certification based on FAO guidelines and code
of conduct: a credible approach? [online]. Environmental
Law Institute. [Cited 12 January 2017].
www.eli.org/sites/default/files/docs/
seafood-certification-july-2012.pdf.
FAO . 1995. Code of conduct for responsible fisheries.
Rome. 41 pp. (also available at www.fao.org/
docrep/005/v9878e/v9878e00.htm).
FAO . 2010. Aquaculture development. 4. Ecosystem
approach to aquaculture. FAO Technical Guidelines
for Responsible Fisheries No. 5, Suppl. 4. Rome.
53 pp. (also available at www.fao.org/docrep/013/
i1750e/i1750e00.htm).
FAO . 2011. Technical guidelines on aquaculture
certification. Directives techniques relatives à la
certification en aquaculture. Directrices técnicas
para la certificación en la acuicultura. Rome/
Roma. 122 pp. (also available at www.fao.org/
docrep/015/i2296t/i2296t00.htm).
FEA P. Undated. Code of conduct for European
aquaculture. Federation of European Aquaculture
Producers. 8 pp. (also available at www.feap.info/
shortcut.asp?FILE=1180).
Kusumawati, R. & Bush, S. R. 2015. Co-producing
Better Management Practice standards for shrimp
aquaculture in Indonesia. Maritime Studies, 14: 21.
doi:10.1186/s40152-015-0039-4.
Maine Aquaculture Association. Undated. Code
of Practice for Aquaculture in Maine. [online].
Sustainable Solutions for Maine’s Growing Future.
[Cited 12 January 2017]. http://maineaquaculture
.com/Code_of_Practice_v1.pdf.
National Marine Fisheries Service. Undated. A
Code of Conduct for responsible aquaculture
development in the U.S Exclusive Economic Zone.
44 pp. (also available at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/
trade/AQ/AQCode.pdf).
SS PO. 2015. Code of Good Practice for Scottish
Finfish Aquaculture. Scottish Salmon Producers
Organisation. [online]. Perth, Scotland. [Cited
12 January 2017]. http://thecodeofgoodpractice
.co.uk/chapters.

Spatial Planning for Aquaculture under the Ecosystem Approach to Aquaculture

Around the globe, the availability of and access to aquaculture zones and sites with favourable characteristics, including those areas that minimize interactions and conflicts with other activities, represent constraints for the expansion of the sector. The selection of the spatial area designated for aquaculture development and careful selection of farm sites are essential first steps to ensure the success and sustainability of aquaculture. They should be carried out in accordance with the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and the ecosystem approach to aquaculture.
Spatial planning for aquaculture zoning, site selection and the design of aquaculture management areas should consider the social, economic, environmental and governance objectives of sustainable development.
This is especially relevant when aquaculture takes place in common properties such as shared water resources. The Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries encourages the concept of sustainability in aquaculture planning and management. It urges states to produce and regularly update aquaculture development strategies and plans to ensure that aquaculture development is ecologically sustainable

Further Reading

Aguilar-Manjarrez, J., Kapetsky, J. M. & Soto, D.
2010. The potential of spatial planning tools to
support the ecosystem approach to aquaculture.
FAO/Rome. Expert Workshop. 19–21 November
2008, Rome, Italy. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture
Proceedings No.17. Rome, FAO. 176 pp. (also
available at www.fao.org/docrep/012/i1359e/
i1359e00.htm).
FAO . 2010. Aquaculture development. 4. Ecosystem
approach to aquaculture. FAO Technical Guidelines
for Responsible Fisheries No. 5, Suppl. 4. Rome.
53 pp. (also available at www.fao.org/docrep/013/
i1750e/i1750e00.htm).
FAO . 2013. Applying spatial planning for promoting
future aquaculture growth. Seventh Session of
the Sub-Committee on Aquaculture of the FAO
Committee on Fisheries (COFI). St Petersburg,
Russian Federation, 7–11 October 2013. Discussion
document: COFI:AQ/VII/2013/6. (also available at
www.fao.org/cofi/43696-051fac6d003870636160
688ecc69a6120.pdf).
FAO . 2016. Report of the FAO workshop launching
the Blue Growth Initiative and implementing an
ecosystem approach to aquaculture in Kenya.
Mombasa, Kenya, 27–31 July 2015. FAO Fisheries
and Aquaculture Report No. 1145. Rome. (also
available at www.fao.org/3/a-i5997e.pdf).
Sanchez-Jerez, P., Karakassis, I., Massa, F.,
Fezzardi, D., Aguilar-Manjarrez, J., Soto, D.,
Chapela, R., Avila, P., Macias, J. C., Tomassetti, P.,
Marino, G., Borg, J. A., Frani ˇcevi ´ c, V.,
Yucel-Gier, G., Fleming, I. A., Biao, X.,
Nhhala, H., Hamza, H., Forcada, A. &
Dempster, T. 2016. Aquaculture’s struggle for
space: the need for coastal spatial planning and
the potential benefits of Allocated Zones for
Aquaculture (AZAs) to avoid conflict and promote
sustainability. Aquaculture Environment Interactions,
8: 41–54. (also available at www.int-res
.com/articles/aei2016/8/q008p041.pdf).

Marine Spatial Planning

There are many definitions of marine spatial planning (MSP). A useful one is the one given by Douvere and Ehler (2009), who describe MSP as “a public process of analysing and allocating the spatial and temporal distribution of human activities in marine areas to achieve ecological, economic, and social objectives that are usually specified through a political process.” MSP can be considered as a strategic planning process, undertaken through a consistent and agreed upon framework that enables integrated, future looking and consistent decision making on the spatial use of the sea.
Marine spatial planning considers and systematically integrates all uses and users of selected space, while retaining and improving ecological services provided by habitats, species and the environment, through coordinated management, planning and implementation.
An overall spatial plan for a large area allows for development of regional, national, subnational and local spatial plans through a participatory and coordinated approach.
Marine spatial planning, specifically, supports zoning for aquaculture in the marine environment through an evaluation of appropriate locations in marine space, taking account of environmental and social suitability and other use, users and sectorial interests while resolving or minimizing conflicts. There is a direct link between having an overall strategic plan for aquaculture, as defined above, and the implementation of this in a systematic way through good spatial planning.
Zoning is one of the main management measures used in implementing MSP, with virtually all marine spatial plans containing zoned areas and maps for specific activities. However, MSP is not just the production of maps, or a plan or zoning—as well as these, it is the development of a longer-term strategic process and management system whose aims are to best develop the marine area for the benefit of all.
Marine spatial planning as a tool is a defined methodological process of investigation, data collection, stakeholder engagement, analysis and decision making that provides zones and management areas for marine development, including aquaculture along with other important sectors that use land and marine space.
MSP is a large subject that cannot be elaborated here in detail, but further reading is recommended below.
An atlas of potential areas for aquaculture is an example of “spatial planning for aquaculture (or aquaculture spatial planning)” in which the analysis is primarily focused on aquaculture, whereas marine spatial planning is a cooperative approach that integrates all marine users in identifying issues, opportunities and challenges to securing the sustainable use of marine space. Clearly, aquaculture spatial planning contributes to MSP, and likewise other stakeholder groups such as the military, navy and navigation authorities might have their own spatial plans all of which contribute to development of MSP and the overall marine spatial plan.

Further Reading

Douvere, F. & Ehler, C. 2009. Ecosystem-based marine spatial management: an evolving paradigm for the management of coastal and marine places. Ocean Yearbook, 23: 1–26.
Meaden, G. J., Aguilar-Manjarrez, J., Corner, R. A., O’Hagan, A. M. & Cardia, F. 2016. Marine spatial planning for enhanced fisheries and aquaculture sustainability—its application in the Near East.
FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 604. Rome, FAO. (also available at www.fao .org/3/a-i6043e.pdf).

The second document, in particular, contains an annex with a comprehensive listing of additional information about MSP, including worldwide examples where MSP has been applied under varied local conditions at highly variable geographic scales.

Use of Environmental Impact Assessment

Environmental impact assessment (EIA) can be defined as “The process of identifying, predicting, evaluating and mitigating the biophysical, social, and other elevant effects of development proposals prior to major decisions being taken and commitments made” (IAIA, 1999). In an aquaculture context, EIA is a process that occurs typically at the individual site level, but increasingly so at the area and zonal level.
EIA is a systematic assessment of the proposed aquaculture development in terms of infrastructure to be deployed, production and growth cycles of species to be placed on site; an evaluation of the outputs, in terms of solid and dissolved wastes and chemical use (e.g., plans for treating disease), for example; and an assessment of impacts of farm activities on the ecosystem, local environment and on relevant biodiversity. Often, EIAs will contain a summary of the economic impacts, including summaries of likely local employment and contribution of the development to the local economy.
EIA, as a tool, generally follows a distinct sequence of activities: (i) screening to determine whether an EIA is needed; (ii) scoping to determine what should be evaluated; (iii) undertaking environmental studies; and (iv) writing an environmental impact statement that aims to show possible impacts and how these will be prevented, offset or otherwise mitigated using a precautionary approach to reduce any negative impacts from the aquaculture development. Activities (iii) and (iv) often require collection of primary and secondary data (e.g., baseline conditions in the local environment), and the application of computer models to determine the likely impacts and engagement with local stakeholders and the public. The EIA should aim to address public concerns about the development.
This is followed by statutory and non-statutory stakeholder consultation and feedback to the competent authority, and overall consideration of the merits of the development by the competent authority, who makes a final decision to approve the EIA or not. EIA is generally part of the wider licencing procedures, and approval of the EIA leads to the issuance of a licence to produce. Other licence requirements (e.g., planning, municipality approval, licence to discharge wastes) may also be required before final approval is given, however.
The application of EIA at the site level implements a thorough assessment of all likely significant impacts that an aquaculture site, or mariculture park, will have on the local ecosystem, and should indicate the risks and mitigation of those risks. EIA should be implemented prior to the site being given permission to operate. The site or park should be monitored subsequently to ensure the impacts of the site or park are not any worse than what was predicted in the EIA.
Post-operational monitoring is a critical phase in the EIA process.

Further Reading

Corner, R. A., Siriwardena, S. N. & Fersoy, H. 2013.
Guidelines on the application of the environmental
impact assessment procedure in aquaculture
in the Central Asia and Caucasus region. FAO,
Ankara. 71 pp.
FAO . 2009. Environmental impact assessment and
monitoring in aquaculture. FAO Fisheries and
Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 527. Rome.
Includes a CD-ROM containing the full document.
648 pp. (also available at www.fao.org/
docrep/012/i0970e/i0970e00.htm).
IAIA , International Association for Environmental
Assessment. 1999. Principles of environmental
impact assessment best practice. 4 pp. (also available
at www.iaia.org/uploads/pdf/principlesEA_1
.pdf).

Evaluation of Carrying Capacity

The evaluation of carrying capacity for aquaculture is a relatively new area of activity within aquaculture, and has the aim of assessing the maximum limits on aquaculture production in a given area based on environmental limitations and social acceptability.
Carrying capacity is most typically evaluated through modelling owing to the multifactorial nature of the environment, where there is a need to consider hydrodynamics (water current flows and speeds, tidal changes and waves), impacts on water quality and waters ability to assimilate dissolved wastes, impacts on sediment quality and its ability to assimilate particulate wastes, impacts on wild species, and cultured species growth, and culture practices. These incorporate the environmental changes brought about by the cultured and wild species (biological component) and changing chemical processes as a result of the addition of nutrients to the environment (chemical component), and establishing the spatial extent of impacts through water movement (physical component). The extent to which each component has an effect on limiting capacity is to some extent dependent on the local environmental conditions and on the species being grown, so there is no single approach that is typical of the models developed. Also, models developed as a general application will often require local calibration and validation before use.
It is worth noting that no aquaculture production is “zero impact.” Carrying capacity assessment carries with it a social component through adoption of acceptable limits of impact and the development of environmental quality standards, for example. The development of integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA) has the potential to offset some of the nutrient loading from fish culture by growing extractive species, such as shellfish, algae and deposit feeders.
Nutrients added to the environment by fish production are used by the other aquaculture species for growth, lowering the overall environmental load. It is, however, unlikely that the introduction of IMTA would reduce the net nutrient load to zero.
Most activity and model development has focused on assessing carrying capacity for specific individual sites in open marine environments. This has primarily been done for species with the highest production internationally, such as salmon and sea bream, mussels and oysters. There has also been some evaluation of carrying capacity for tilapia and carp in freshwater cage production systems. Carrying capacity estimation for pond systems is less critical; except when water is released to the environment into rivers, lakes or the sea during harvest activity, which can have negative consequences for the receiving ecosystem. This is not to say that carrying capacity assessment in freshwaters is any less important than for marine systems. It is perhaps more important, especially for reservoirs and lakes, given the fragility of many freshwater ecosystems and the additional resources they provide (power, drinking water, water for crops and so on); it is especially so in lakes that have a long water residence time.
There are a number of models that assess carrying capacity for individual sites, and further details on some of these are elaborated below for reference.
There are only a few examples of models that assess carrying capacity at the area and zonal scale and these are also highlighted below. The use of geographic information systems (GIS) (see section below on GIS) in assessment of site suitability at various geographic scales is widely used, but not ubiquitous, and development of GIS capacity and use in aquaculture development is encouraged.
Ultimately, assessment of carrying capacity is a significant undertaking conducted by specialists in the field and requires time and money: to collect needed field data, to develop the model or models, and for calibrating and validating these before results from the modelling are used. Fundamentally, however, the ssessment of carrying capacity is the ultimate tool that will determine the overall production potential, and assessment of carrying capacity will provide for the long-term sustainability of the aquaculture sector.

Further Reading

Byron, C. J. & Costa-Pierce, B. A. 2013. Carrying
capacity tools for use in the implementation
of an ecosystems approach to aquaculture. In
L. G. Ross, T. C. Telfer, L. Falconer, D. Soto &
J. Aguilar-Manjarrez, eds. Site selection and
carrying capacities for inland and coastal aquaculture.
FAO/Institute of Aquaculture, University of
Stirling, Expert Workshop, 6–8 December 2010.
Stirling, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture
Proceedings No. 21. Rome, FAO. 46 pp. Includes a
CD–ROM containing the full document. 282 pp.
(also available at www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3322e/
i3322e.pdf).
Campuzano, F. J., Gutiérrez, J. M., Senabre, T.,
Mateus, M. D., Perán, A., Belmonte, A.,
Aliaga, V. & Neves, R. 2015. A modelling
approach to estimate the environmental and
productive carrying capacity for a Mediterranean
coastal marine culture park. Journal of Aquaculture
Research and Development, 6: 373.
doi:10.4172/2155-9546.1000373.
Cubillo, A. M., Ferreira, J. G., Robinson, S. M. C.,
Pearce, C. M., Corner, R. A. & Johansen, J.
2016. Role of deposit feeders in integrated
multi-trophic aquaculture—a model
analysis. Aquaculture, 453: 54–66. doi:10.1016/j.
aquaculture.2015.11.031.
David, G. S., Carvalho, E. D., Lemos, D., Silveira, A. N. &
Dall’Aglio-Sobrinho, M. 2015. Ecological carrying
capacity for intensive tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus)
cage aquaculture in a large hydroelectrical reservoir
in Southeastern Brazil. Aquacultural Engineering,
66, 30–40.
Ferreira, J. G., Grant, J., Verner-Jeffreys, W. &
Taylor, N. G. H. 2013. Carrying capacity for
aquaculture, modelling frameworks for the
determination of. In P. Christou, R. Savin, B. Costa-
Pierce, I. Misztal & B. Whitelaw, eds. Sustainable
Food Production, pp. 417–448.
Ferreira, J. G., Hawkins, A. J. S., Monteiro, P.,
Moore, H., Service, M., Pascoe, P. L., Ramos, L. &
Sequeira, A. 2008. Integrated assessment of
ecosystem-scale carrying capacity in shellfish
growing areas. Aquaculture, 75: 138–151.
Ferriss, B. G., Reum, J. C. P., McDonald, P. S.,
Farrell, D. M. & Harvey, C. J. 2016. Evaluating
trophic and non-trophic effects of shellfish
aquaculture in a coastal estuarine foodweb. ICES
Journal of Marine Science, 73 (2): 429–440.
doi: 10.1093/icesjms/fsv173.
McKindsey, C. W., Thetmeyer, H., Landry, T. &
Silvert, W. 2006. Review of recent carrying
capacity models for bivalve culture and recommendations
for research and management.
Aquaculture, 261(2): 451–462.
Ross, L. G., Telfer, T. C., Falconer, L., Soto, D.,
Aguilar-Manjarrez, J., Asmah, R., Bermúdez, J.,
Beveridge, M. C. M., Byron, C. J., Clément, A.,
Corner, R., Costa-Pierce, B. A., Cross, S.,
De Wit, M., Dong, S., Ferreira, J. G.,
Kapetsky, J. M., Karakassis, I., Leschen, W.,
Little, D., Lundebye, A.-K., Murray, F. J.,
Phillips, M., Ramos, L., Sadek, S., Scott, P. C.,
Valle-Levinson, A., Waley, D., White, P. G. &
Zhu, C. 2013. Carrying capacities and site selection
within the ecosystem approach to aquaculture.
In L. G. Ross, T. C. Telfer, L. Falconer, D. Soto &
J. Aguilar-Manjarrez, eds. Site selection and carrying
capacities for inland and coastal aquaculture,
pp. 19–46. FAO/Institute of Aquaculture, University
of Stirling, Expert Workshop, 6–8 December 2010.
Stirling, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture
Proceedings No. 21. Rome, FAO. 282 pp. (also
available at www.fao
.org/docrep/018/i3322e/i3322e.pdf).
Soto, D., ed. 2009. Integrated mariculture: a global
review. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical
Paper No. 529. Rome, FAO. 183 pp. (also available
at www.fao.org/docrep/012/i1092e/i1092e00.htm).
There are a number of approaches to evaluate carrying
capacity; too many to mention here. A useful means
to gain further information is to conduct a Web search
for “aquaculture carrying capacity.” Some tools and
models are detailed below.