ECONOMIC IMPACTS
As Ottolenghi et al. (2004) state, markets are the key drivers for capture-based aquaculture. The selection of species for culture reflects their acceptability and demand in local and international markets. Market requirements are determined primarily by people’s tastes and customs. As capture-based aquaculture potentially generates higher profits than other aquaculture systems and as the market demand for the products and species cultured remains high, it is likely that efforts to promote this activity will significantly increase.
The products of capture-based aquaculture have been able to be differentiated in the market. As the availability of cultured fish has increased, consumers have become more selective about quality and food safety issues, and farmers have sought to address consumer demand. Currently, a special brand of cultured Japanese amberjack will fetch a higher price than ordinary products. Product quality is obtained by discarding second grade fish and paying special attention to handling systems to maintain freshness. Sales have been expanded in supermarkets and retail fish stores through the marketing of special brands produced by Kagawa and Kagoshima Federation of Fisheries Cooperatives, amongst others (Nakada, 2000). Greater amberjack and yellowtail amberjack are becoming more popular than Japanese amberjack because they can be kept for more than three days under refrigeration without losing any of their flavour, colour, and firmness. Currently, the demand for them exceeds supply (Nakada, 2000).
The products of capture-based aquaculture will complement, but sometimes also compete with, those supplied from capture fisheries or other aquaculture systems. This will influence price and markets. Ottolenghi et al. (2004) report that the impact of capture-based farmed bluefin tuna on the Japanese market has been significant. Products are of the middle quality category, and fill the gap between top (pre-spawning bluefin tuna) and lower (smaller and post-spawned bluefin tuna) qualities. The availability of capture-based farmed products has expanded the range of products available in Japan, guaranteeing middle quality at a good price. The capture-based farmed tuna have provided the consumer with a fatty meat called “toro”, which only rich people could have afforded before (Miyake et al., 2003). Farmed tuna are now even sold in supermarkets and used in the popular, but inexpensive, “sushi” bars. The availability of this new category has forced prices down for both high and low quality tuna meat. The unique tuna markets of Japan, especially for tuna from capture-based aquaculture, is becoming risky for both fishermen and farmers. The high priced “sashimi” tuna market in 2002 has been strong, with relatively soaring demand despite the weakness of the Yen that has affected returns on investments. However, Japanese consumers have started changing their consumption habits, choosing less expensive products (de Monbrison and Guillaumie, 2003). Competition and substitution with other less expensive tuna species has already been observed in the market, with big eye (Thunnus obesus) and yellowfin (Thunnus albacares) being sold at US$5–11/kg in Japan versus bluefin tuna sold at US$30–60/kg.
Ottolenghi et al. (2004) state that the structure of the capture-based aquaculture industry may be described at a number of levels in the hierarchy of the system, from the local production scale to the macroeconomic scale of the international trade in capture-based aquaculture species. This incorporates all the aspects related to the profitability of capture-based species culture: “seed” availability, marketing from the local production level to customers (through middlemen, exporters and wholesalers) and market trends and influences. A limit to capture-based aquaculture will be the availability of the “seed” resource. From an economic point of view, a poor supply of “seed” is the greatest risk to production. For example, wild caught farm seed availability for European eels represents 50 percent of the total production costs at present, and if there is a continuing decline in availability, this will seriously affect the overall operating costs – and future profitability. In addition to seed availability, another factor affecting capture-based aquaculture will be the price of wild seed versus the price and availability of seed from hatcheries. As new hatcheries come on line, prices of seed should decline and become more available, causing a shift in source of seed for the farmer.
Phillips (2002) reports that in the case of cage culture in Cau Doc, An Giang Province, Viet Nam, the changing role of traders is of particular interest. Different trading networks supporting this cage culture emerged in parallel. The provision of small freshwater cyprinids from nearby traps reached around 1 000 tonnes per day in the wet season. This is traded through Cau Doc town on a daily basis to feed pangasiid and snakehead being raised in the surrounding area. Pangasius bocourti and snakehead (Channa spp.) fingerlings caught in dai traps, mainly in Cambodia, are also sold for grow-out in cage culture operations in Viet Nam. The trading networks that supply feed fish for aquaculture appear to have developed outside the table fish networks.
So Nam and Haing Leap (2006) described the general channels of distribution of fish seed collected from the wild in Cambodia. Fishers collected fry and/or fingerlings from lakes, reservoirs and/or rivers. The fishers stocked the fish seed in hapas set in large earthen ponds or rivers/lakes to hold the seed. Customers for the fish seed were middlemen, licensed companies and fish farmers. The majority of sales were to middlemen or traders, who bought fingerlings from fishers for resale.
Ahmed et al. (2001) described the marketing of milkfish fry in the Philippines. In Sarangani and Antique, the fry catch was all purchased by the concessionaires. In Palawan, 88 percent of the catch was bought by concessionaires, while in Ilocos Norte and Bohol, gatherers could choose to sell to others. The pricing system varies, ranging from buyers dictating the price to sellers setting the price for their catch. In some cases, open bidding takes place. Fry is either picked up by the buyer, as in the case of Ilocos, Bohol, Antique, and Palawan, or delivered by the gatherers, as is the practice for Sarangani. In most cases, cash is paid on delivery. In general, fry price during lean months is higher than in the peak months. Price is relatively lower in Puerto Princessa, Philippines, and highest in Pandan, during peak months. Gatherers received the lowest price from concessionaires and the highest from dealers/brokers and runners. Gatherers in Puerto Princessa are members of the cooperative and thus received a low price while gatherers from Pandan enjoy an open access to their shoreline and could choose where to sell their catch. Fluctuations in prices are mostly attributed to the quantity of fry available in the market.
While decreased impacts to wild stocks have been hypothesized for food production aquaculture (such as declines of certain stocks, impacts on breeding populations, food web interactions, and introduction of pathogens), and can occur in ornamental production, the decreased impacts are not as dramatic as theorized. In the food production sector, wild harvests have not declined even with increasing aquaculture production (Naylor et al., 2000). In the ornamental fish industry, breeders (particularly those of cichlids) utilize wild stock every two to three generations (Dawes, 2001), thus there is a continued dependence on wild stocks. One of the main arguments against aquacultural production of seahorses (Hippocampus spp.) is that captive culture relies heavily on repeated removals of wild animals and thus, provides no net benefit to wild seahorse populations (Tlusty, 2002).
Capture-based aquaculture may develop or be constrained by the level of technology and investment. Grouper culture can be small-scale and family-owned and operated, while tuna culture is high tech and requires considerable investment, often by larger companies in partnership with local partners. Successful examples of where small-scale finfish culture has benefited poor coastal communities exist in Tubigon, Bohol, Philippines, where the small-scale cage culture of grouper was introduced by local government as an alternative to destructive fishing practices. There are now 141 grouper farmers organized into nine groups throughout several villages (Gonzales, 2006). Another Philippine example is the so-called “backyard type of grouper culture” such as in Day-asan, Surigao City. Here each farmer owns between two and four 3x3 m cages, each stocked with around 100 fish. These are fed wild caught fish as feed and cultured for a period of five to six months. Production costs are estimated at US$3.88 per kilogram, with farmers claiming it is more profitable than more familiar livelihoods such as backyard pig production. The average selling price ranges from US$7.77–19.42 per kilogram depending on the type of grouper and season. There are questions about the sustainability of this system due to the dependence on wild caught fish for feed (Gonzales, 2006).
However, there are also many potential constraints to finfish culture and its suitability as an alternative livelihood for poor fishers. These include the high-technology, capital intensive and long term payback characteristics of finfish farming, and the difficulty of uptake of mariculture, including breaking the cycle of debt among poor fishers, and persuading people to change vocations (Haylor et al., 2003). The development of small-scale or backyard hatcheries, however, can help alleviate this risk and still involve poor stakeholders in mariculture activities (Gonzales, 2006). Small-scale hatcheries are those where the capital costs are relatively low, technologies are accessible, and which focus on the larval rearing and nursery aspects of fingerling production. They do not hold broodstock; instead they purchase fertilized eggs from larger hatcheries. They offer the advantages of low capital costs, simple construction, ease of operation and management, flexibility and use for a range of marine fish species, and they offer quick economic returns (Sim et al., 2005).
In the Ilocos region of the Philippines, where the milkfish industry is concentrated, the production costs per cage are reported as US$23 504, although a profit of just over US$3 000 is expected (Gonzales, 2006). Such high costs have deterred small-scale fishers from investing in these technologies and the cages are owned by wealthier individuals (Gonzales, 2006).
A financial feasibility analysis for the culture of E. coioides and E. malabaricus in the Philippines provided financial information on individual broodstock, hatchery/nursery, and grow-out stages and for an integrated broodstock/hatchery/nursery/grow-out system (Pomeroy, Parks and Balboa, 2006). The findings of the analysis indicate that, based on the assumptions, all four scenarios are financially feasible. However, the capital requirements for the broodstock, hatchery/nursery, and integrated system may be beyond the financial means of many small producers. A broodstock and hatchery/ nursery system in the Philippines has capital investment costs of US$68 400. The capital investment requirements for grow-out (not including purchase of transport boxes) would be US$1 470 in the Philippines and is within the financial means of small producers. The high cost of transport boxes (200 boxes at US$4 000) is a potential problem for the small producer, but could be shared with the fish buyer or the fish buyer could provide the boxes. A 6 cm fry in the Philippines cost US$0.23 to produce. This compares to an average price in the Philippines in 2002 of US$0.36–0.50 for a 6 cm fry caught from the wild. Seed cost was approximately 19–26 percent of total costs in grouper culture, depending upon stocking rate.
A financial feasibility analysis for the culture of the humpback grouper (Cromileptes altivelis) in Indonesia provided financial information on individual broodstock, hatchery/nursery, and grow-out stages (Pomeroy, Parks and Balboa, 2006). The findings of the analysis indicate that, based on the assumptions, all three scenarios are financially feasible. However, the capital requirements for the broodstock and medium-size hatchery/nursery scenarios may be beyond the financial means of many small producers. The broodstock scenario has capital investment costs of US$15 366 and a medium-size hatchery/nursery scenario of US$38 795. The small-size hatchery/nursery scenario has approximately one-tenth the capital investment cost (US$3 258) of a medium-size scenario. The capital investment cost for grow-out (US$1 010) (not including purchase of transport boxes) is within the financial means of many small producers. The high cost of transport boxes (200 boxes at US$4 000) is a potential problem for the small producer, but could be shared with the fish buyer or the fish buyer could provide the boxes. The total cost per 5 cm fry from the hatchery/nursery (medium-size: US$0.26 and small-scale: US$0.23) was less than the average selling price in Indonesia in 2002 of US$0.82 and the average price of US$0.49 for a 5 cm fry caught from the wild. Seed cost was approximately 50 percent of total costs in grouper culture.
In Thailand, revenue and profit of grouper capture-based aquaculture has average annual total production costs per farm of US$5 000, while the gross revenue was US$9 800, giving a net profit of US$4 800 to the farmer, with a 96 percent rate of return (net profit/total cost). Feed accounted for 57 percent of culturing costs, whereas “seed” accounted for 24 percent. Other costs (opportunity, depreciation, repairs, etc.) accounted for 19 percent (Boonchuwong and Lawapong, 2002).
The market for glass eels for direct human consumption is one of the main competitive problems affecting the availability of eel “seed” for capture-based aquaculture, since it forces the prices of glass eels upwards. Seed costs can be as much as 50 percent of the total production costs and in the future could limit the profitability of the eel farming industry. For example, American glass eel prices in the United States of America rose over 500 percent between 1994 and 1998. In the past 20 years, prices for live glass eels have been as high as US$2 000/kilogram, and this lucrative new market potential has been attractive to many countries, triggering a global eel industry. The market is not quite so lucrative now, due to the recent slump in the Asian economies and a slight recovery of native eel stocks (Tibbetts, Lall and Anderson, 2001).
The direct effect of the collection of wild seed – overfishing, bycatch and discards, ecological disturbance and habitat destruction – will lead to a conflict between short-term private economic benefits and longer term economic losses to society. Economic theory makes it possible to treat environmental externalities as economic externalities and to validate costs and benefits in money terms to different groups as part of an economic analysis. Environmental externalities may include obtaining fry for stocking from wild stocks. Capture-based aquaculture can serve as a good example in estimating environmental sustainability by evaluating each of the various sub
activities in relation to their resource use. If, for example, seed collection is operating at a level that permits sustainable use of the underlying resources, then the activity is environmentally sustainable. If seed collection is undertaken in a non-sustainable manner (e.g. large amounts of bycatch), substitution may be possible only for small
scale systems as the overall recruitment depends on large areas and is not hampered in principle. The collection and use of wild seed for capture-based aquaculture has implications in terms of economic values gained and lost. These losses have not been quantified to date but could be significant and far greater than the profits earned by those in the capture-based aquaculture industry. It will be important to assess capture-based aquaculture in terms of both its overall economic efficiency and its distributional implications.
Although growth and diversification in farmed marine finfish species generate certain benefits to the aquaculture industry, governments (in the form of foreign exchange earnings) and consumers (in terms of a wider selection of seafood products at lower prices), there are also ecological and resource costs. In contrast to the majority of freshwater farming systems, almost all aquaculture production of diadromous and marine finfish species is dependent on capture fisheries for essential inputs, such as seed and feed. The increased production from the culture of juveniles should at least offset any loss in yield from the wild stocks, and collection should not affect wild populations negatively or disadvantage other users of the resource. As this segment of the aquaculture industry continues to expand to satisfy market demand, more pressure will likely be placed on marine ecosystems and, subsequently, more pressure will be placed on the industry to undertake sustainable practices from environmental groups and governments.
The future of capture-based aquaculture will be influenced by improving the environmental sustainability of aquaculture through the use of market-based approaches, including the certification of products produced by sustainable means, and the ecolabelling of products from certified farms. The intention is to use the power of markets as an incentive to induce more sustainable aquaculture and to highlight the products to consumers.
Case study: Live reef fish, specifically groupers, in Palawan and the Calamianes Islands, Philippines
A case study of grouper in the Philippines further describes the role of economics and markets in driving capture-based aquaculture.
In many Asian regions, there is a focus on the capture-based aquaculture of groupers. Globally the grouper market is not large and the market demand/supply relationship can seriously influence prices, making it very sensitive due to the high exclusivity of the product (Svennevig, 2002). In Asia, there was a falling market trend (1995–1999) in the consumption of live seafood (Pawiro, 2002), especially for high-value species such as grouper. The markets for “luxury food items” such as live fish is determined by the strength of the economy, in particular the level of disposable incomes, and the prevailing exchange rate between the exporting and the importing country.
The economics of marketing capture-based aquaculture products in Asia, such as live grouper, functions at two levels, namely local and export. The local level involves the collectors and brokers. Collectors, either in the local area or from the region, are responsible for the collection of fish from the local small-scale farmers for the market. Brokers are responsible for the monitoring and movement of prices, informing farmers, and contacting collectors and wholesalers. The export level consists of marketing involving agencies or network companies. The marketing margin (the difference between the purchasing price and the selling price after the deduction of sales costs) for exporters is much higher than that for the collectors, even though the sales costs of exporters are higher. Boonchuwong and Lawapong (2002) calculated that the rate of return on total costs was as high as 94.4 percent for exporters and 49.2 percent for collectors. Exporters receive the highest returns of all traders involved in the live grouper marketing system, as they must carry all of the risks during the collection and export of the live fish – fish deaths, damage, packaging and other export costs.
While the live reef fish trade (LRFT) operates throughout the Philippines, the Calamianes Group of Islands in the northern part of Palawan is the centre of the live food fish trade fishery. According to Padilla et al. (2003), “Initially, fishermen from the distant provinces of Surigao, Bohol and Leyte were brought to the area to fish and to train locals in catching live fish. The activity slowly grew among fishing communities. Fish soon replaced lobster as the main live aquatic product in trade. By late 1990s, 60–70 percent of fishing communities were engaged in live reef fish collection”. It is estimated that there are about 1 000 fishers that target live reef fish. Over time, hook and line replaced fish traps. Many fishers eventually shifted to using cyanide. It is estimated that up to 50 percent of the fishers use cyanide. There are three categories of fishers operating in the area: (1) fishers who own their own boat and sell their fish to a dealer offering the highest price; (2) fishers who own their own boat but because of debt are obliged to sell to a certain dealer and accept the price offered; and (3) fishers who work on boats owned by dealers (about 80 percent of the fishers).
The live food fish trade in the Calamianes is characterized by dynamic arrangements between and among fishers, boat owners/operators, traders/middlepersons, financiers, and exporters. Most of the LRFF trade middlepersons in the area own multiple boats. Fishers are often indebted to them in a suki (regular customer) relationship. Transactions take place in four geographical stages – in the islands, in the town of Coron, in Manila and eventually in China Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (Padilla et al., 2003). The majority of fish are shipped by air to Manila. Most live fish in the Calamianes are held in indoor “aquarium” tanks. Only undersized fish are impounded in floating cages.
Although the live reef food fish trade has been operating for several decades, economic and trade information is scant. Price and volume data are collected and reported by municipality in Palawan Province by the Palawan Council for Sustainable Development (PCSD) and the Palawan Provincial Fishery Office, BFAR-Region
TABLE 1
Quantity and value of exports of live grouper, Philippines, 1991–2004
Source: National Statistics Office and Bureau of Agricultural Statistics, Quezon City, Philippines.
No. IV-B. PCSD reports on key status indictors by municipality for the live reef fish for food industry such as reef status, total production, shipment, number of accredited actors in the industry and cyanide detection test incidence.
Export data on a national level is collected and reported by the National Statistics Office and the Bureau of Agricultural Statistics. The quantity and value of exports of live grouper from 1991 to 2004 are reported in Table 1.
The imports of live grouper into China Hong Kong SAR from the Philippines was 1 200 963 kg (10.25 percent of all live grouper imports) in 2001, 1 425 664 (12.52 percent) in 2002 and 1 578 384 (13.27 percent) in 2003. The leopard coral trout and the green grouper were the two top imported live grouper species into China Hong Kong SAR.
Prices paid to the fisher or fishing company that caught the fish are generally in the range of 2–4 times the prices paid for the same fish when dead. Higher-value fish are usually graded as undersize (<500 g), good or “plate” size (500 g to 1 kg), oversize (>1 kg), or per piece (>1.5 kg). In the Philippines, where size limits are not enforced or not in place, all fish are purchased and fish that are undersize or not ready for market are moved to grow-out cages where they are held until they reach plate size.
Two characteristics of the trade are its volatility and its geographic expansion. Prices and consumption vary substantially by season, especially with the arrival of important holidays in consuming countries. Prices in Coron, Philippines, for example, peak in December–February, with lower prices occurring during April–August. Less predictable factors that have strongly impacted demand in recent years have been the state of the economy; the occurrence of health issues, such as ciguatera; and the occurrence of red tides in the vicinity of fish holding and culture facilities. Fisheries have started and stopped several times in source countries for various reasons, including decisions by governments and communities, and civil unrest. Traders are constantly seeking new sources of fish and the frontier of the fishery has continually expanded in the last 25 years (Graham, 2001).
Muldoon, Peterson and Johnston (2004) reported that in general the market for LRFF has contracted over the past five years, becoming more focused on fewer species (primarily high and medium-value groupers). The following are thought to be the main causes of these shifts:
1. Overall improvements in transport technology and access to air transport that have helped to increase imports of high-value species. This has been reinforced by relative increases in operating costs for transporting fish by sea.
2. A decline of 40 percent in the LRFF market since 1998. This falling demand has led to weaker retail prices, making purchase and transport of lower-value fish unviable.
3. Increased aquaculture production of lower-value groupers in Southeast Asia from wild-caught fish. The increase in grow-out from hatchery production is seen as a positive industry development, but there is growing concern over the parallel increase in grow-out of wild-caught juveniles for market.
4. Downturn in general business because of international health scares, such as the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and ciguatera poisoning.
The decrease in the China Hong Kong SAR consumer price index from the end of 1997 to the end of 2002 was accompanied by falls in wholesale and retail prices for LRFF. There is a growing market expansion for LRFF in the China with increasing incomes. Source countries have experienced decreasing prices for LRFF in recent years, but the impact of these price declines has been mitigated by favourable exchange rates fluctuations. Padilla et al. (2003) reported that the Philippines has a comparative advantage in the constantly growing fish trade. The government provided a supportive trade policy environment, particularly in the export of various fish products, to harness such potential. This resulted in such economic benefits as foreign exchange earnings, jobs and higher income for those directly involved in the export industry.
Padilla et al. (2003) found that for the live food fish trade, the premium price on preferred size of fish results in the targeting of young and sexually immature fish, which in turn leads to recruitment overfishing. Second, the significantly higher price of live fish drives the collection of fish well beyond limit and without regard to the capacity of the stock to regenerate. Third, cheap capital from traders and exporters further fuels the fishing trade. International demand accounts largely for the unsustainable path of the industry. Traders and exporters move fishing operations in response to shifting supply in the country.
Padilla et al. (2003) report that economic indicators also support the result that the industry is “mining” and degrading the resource base, greatly compromising its current and future regenerative capacity. Income from fishing has been dissipated by declining catches due to overfishing and to the growing number of fishermen. Returns from capital and labour have been greatly diminished over time, despite the increase in price of fish in nominal peso terms. The reason why fishers remain in the fishery is primarily the lack of non-fishing employment alternatives in the remote islands.
Management of seed fisheries
As capture-based aquaculture is an overlap between fisheries and aquaculture, the management of the resources and the species involved must take into account the requirements of both practices. Aquaculture production methods are constantly changing with new technologies being introduced. An issue in managing capture-based aquaculture, which operates in many locations within a country, is the inadequacy of existing legislation to address the many aspects of this aquaculture practice. Countries need to create or amend the comprehensive regulatory framework to ensure that the sector develops in a sustainable manner. In most fishery management laws there are minimum sizes on harvested species, and often restrictions on the harvest of spawning adults. In some situations, governments have tried to outlaw such fisheries, but these attempts have mostly not been supported by scientific data, and have generally been unsuccessful due to inadequate enforcement (FAO, 2006). Management of seed fisheries requires a sound knowledge base and a decision-making process based on the participation of the different stakeholders.
FAO (2006) states that responsible application of aquaculture based on seed fisheries requires that juveniles are caught before they experience severe mortality, recruitment must be sufficient to ensure that fisheries targeting adults are compensated, and capture methods must minimize bycatch of non-target species and may not damage supporting habitats.
A number of measures have been developed to manage seed fisheries:
– Many collecting localities currently limit either the number of fish or the number of species taken, or both. The Bahamian government has a limit of 50 individuals per permitted species, the Florida Keys, United States of America, has imposed size restrictions on 49 species of fish, while Brazil allows only 180 species to be exported.
– Traditionally, river catfish culture systems in Viet Nam relied entirely on wild caught fry, with 200–800 million fry being caught annually. In the process of catching catfish fry, unwanted fry of other species were also caught, which were then discarded. This made the fishery for river catfish fry highly destructive. An estimated 5–10 kg of other fish species were killed for each kilogram of river catfish fry caught. The quantity of wild-caught river catfish fry declined tenfold in a decade because of overfishing for fry. Recognition of this problem and the successful artificial spawning of river catfish led to the banning of the fishery for wild river catfish fry in both An Giang and Dong Thap provinces in February 2000 (Trong, Hao and Griffiths, 2002).
– In the northeast region of the United States of America, dramatic declines in eel populations in the 1990s and increasing harvest pressure on all life stages prompted most states to tighten the regulatory control of these fisheries. Minimum size limits of 4–6 inches (10–15 cm) and moratoria on elver collection are now in effect. In addition, many states have gear fees, harvest locality limitations and restrictions on or banning of certain fishing gears. Stocks have begun to recover. The Queensland government in Australia manages the collection of glass eels and does not permit their export. The impact on eel fisheries globally caused by farming activities is already evident, with a decline in eel catches from 18 600 tonnes in 1994 to 12 700 tonnes in 2000 (Ottolenghi et al., 2004). It is possible that the capture and export of elvers for seed may become totally banned.
– In a report on the AdriaMed Expert Consultation on interactions between aquaculture and capture fisheries (FAO, 2003), it was recommended that tools to regulate the use of wild seed/juvenile/sub-adult and adult collection for farming include quotas and licenses for collection. It was also recommended that there be the development of specific legislation to inform the consumer on the traceability of fish products.
– In 2004, the International Standard for the Trade in Live Reef Food Fish was produced. This voluntary LRFF Standard was produced through an international consultation process and covers the capture of wild live reef food fish; the aquaculture of live reef food fish; and the handling, holding distribution and marketing of live reef food fish. It is aimed at being a standard to which all responsible members of the LRFF trade will adhere so as to enable the trade to continue. The LRFF Standard aims to promote a “sustainable fishery”, i.e. one in which the harvesting of the target species is conducted in such a way, and at a rate, that 1) it does not threaten the health of the stock and the ecosystem on which it depends, or 2) it does not inhibit recovery of the stock or the ecosystem if it has previously been reduced below appropriate levels.
The Standard1 makes specific reference to seed fisheries in section 3. Requirements of Live Reef Food Fish Aquaculture, 3.1 Management Requirements, 3.1.2 Limits to harvesting wild caught fry, fingerlings and juveniles:
a) The harvesting of wild-caught fry and fingerlings shall occur only when it can be demonstrated that it does not damage or negatively impact the sustainability of wild stocks.
b) Aquaculture farms that use wild-caught fry, fingerlings and juvenile must have a programme in place to eliminate their use for LRFF aquaculture.
1 http://www.livefoodfishtrade.org/aquaculture/part1/requirement1_2/index.htm
The LRFF Standard provides interpretation of this management requirement by stating that where wild-caught fry and fingerlings are harvested, best-practices with respect to fishing gear should be adhered to so that: a) bycatch and waste are minimized, and b) mortality of target and non-target fish are minimized.
The LRFF Standard states responsible practice should include:
• Capture of pre-settlement fry/juvenile fish. Aquaculture should reduce its reliance on the capture of wild-caught reef fish to remove pressures on wild stocks. Harvesting of wild-caught fry and fingerling should only be carried out where it can be shown not to damage of affect sustainability of wild stocks.
• Reduction of post-harvest mortality. Fishing gears used in the fishery should minimize bycatch and waste and minimize the mortality of target and non-target species. Post-capture, handling and transportation practices should likewise reduce current mortality levels.
• Limits on exports of fry and fingerlings. Limits should be considered for the volume of fry and fingerlings able to be exported as well as specific measures to restrict exports of endangered species or fish which are under given minimum.
• Ongoing government endorsed research. A present lack of knowledge of the impacts of harvesting at different sizes/stages of life history, which fishing gears can reduce mortalities and mortality rates caused by capture and handling highlights the need for further research to identify best practices.
• Improve fisher and farmer awareness of current practices. There is a lack of awareness by fishers and farmers on post-harvest mortality, bycatch, and impacts of catching immature fish. This constraint calls for hands on extension and demonstration could be more effective in some cases. This manual should raise awareness of the issue of resource wastage.
– Several potential problems will need to be overcome with grouper aquaculture. The future of the industry will depend on having a regular supply of hatchery-raised seed and fry. The collection of seed and fingerlings from the wild is not sustainable in the long term and the export of wild-caught grouper seed needs to be regulated or prohibited. Cultured grouper can be certified for quality and good culture practices. Grouper grown from hatchery reared seed, as compared to wild-caught seed and fingerlings, can be certified. Sadovy (2000), in a survey of grouper fry/fingerling supply in Southeast Asia, made several recommendations in relation to the seed fishery and in respect to future development of mariculture in the region:
1) Prohibit all export of wild-caught grouper seed. Grouper should be cultured to market-size within the source countries.
2) Develop and implement careful and controlled studies on selected grouper seed fisheries in major producing areas, whereby information is integrated on catches, socioeconomics, market forces, associated adult fisheries, and habitats.
3) Reduce or eliminate the use of destructive (of habitat) or particularly wasteful (producing high mortality in, or damage to, target and/or non-target species) fishing gears or methods (like adding lights) and carry out studies on preferred gears to ensure that their operation does not incur greater waste or damage than is absolutely necessary.
4) Ensure better use of existing resources and reduce wastage of grouper seed biomass (and bycatch) arising from unnecessary mortality from harvest, transport and culture.
5) Examine, scientifically, the possibility of focusing the capture fishery on the smallest seed available and improve the means of nursing this phase to one suitable for widespread, small-scale culture.
6) Develop management approaches to protect key seed settlement and nursery habitats, such as mangrove areas and seagrasses in river mouths and estuaries, and protect the production of those seed by safeguarding the spawning adults (i.e. in spawning areas or spawning aggregations).
7) Provide government assistance both in terms of incentives, or low-interest loans, to enable small-scale fishers to enter the culture sector to produce low intensity, high quality, cultured grouper, in suitable grow-out areas, and in terms of training in post-capture handling to reduce mortalities, and in nursing.
8) Develop certification systems for quality and good practice. For example, a distinction between hatchery produced and wild-caught and reared seed could provide incentives for producing good seed quality and good-quality cultured (i.e. ciguatera-free, not caught with cyanide, etc.) fish, as well as for good aquaculture practices.
9) Examine the role of hatcheries in supplying grouper seed for culture.
10) Promote the active application of the precautionary principle in the exploitation of grouper resources and the adoption by Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) member economies of the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (CCRF).
– Sadovy (2000) compiled information on the status of regulation on grouper “seed” capture and exports that concern capture-based aquaculture. The People’s Republic of China limits the number of grouper seed fishers and the quantities of grouper seed captured. A license is needed for transporting marine seeds and this export is prohibited. In West Malaysia, the fishing of seed is not allowed during November and December; it is permitted during the peak season from January to April. No export of seeds smaller than 15 cm is permitted. In the Philippines, the use of scissor nets and fyke nets has been banned. The Philippines Fisheries Code of 1998 prohibits the export of seed milkfish and prawns but its application to grouper is not clear. In Penghu Island, Taiwan Province of China, fisheries are not permitted to catch any grouper seed of <6 cm. In Thailand, the use of push nets and fyke nets is limited.
– Many shrimp farmers in South and Central America, Bangladesh and India depend on wild-caught post-larvae shrimp, usually harvested by local fishers. In Bangladesh, the shrimp culture industry used to be entirely dependent on natural shrimp fry collected from coastal rivers, estuaries and mangrove areas. About 400 000 people are said to be engaged seasonally in fry collection activities, most of them are women and children. According to a recent survey by DOF (2004), there are 40 Upazilas (sub
districts) under 12 coastal districts along the 710 kilometres long coastal area where shrimp fry are collected. The fry collection is not their permanent or main occupation, rather it is a seasonal opportunity to earn money. Shrimp fry collection is a recent occupation in the last two decades. The demand for shrimp fry has tremendously increased with the rapid expansion of the shrimp industry after the mid-1980s. Many coastal people have taken this up as an alternative option for their livelihoods. But the increased fishing pressure to collect more fry is thought to be contributing to the gradual decline of abundance and distribution of mother shrimp and shrimp fry, thereby causing serious damage to the productivity of coastal and marine fisheries resources. Moreover, the huge numbers of bycatch, such as eggs, larvae and juveniles of non-target fish and shrimp during shrimp fry collection are mostly discarded on the land after sorting of target fry. It is reported that coastal biodiversity has been decreasing (DOF, 2004).
The Government of Bangladesh made a decision to impose a ban on shrimp fry collection (DOF, 2004). To address the issue of displaced fry collectors, the government initiated a programme on alternative livelihoods. Two groups of fry collectors (including males, females and children) were targeted. The non-migratory fry collectors live in cluster villages and slums around the polders. They are organized into groups by non
governmental organizations (NGOs) to provide training. The other group is migratory and used to live in temporary huts during collection season and move to other areas when shrimp fry are less abundant. Rapid rural appraisals are being undertaken of this group by NGOs . Suggested alternative livelihood options include:
1. operation of shrimp fry nursery;
2. shrimp fry trading;
3. making fishing traps and gears;
4. operation of fish feed mills;
5. shrimp de-heading for processing;
6. crab fattening;
7. hogla and mat making;
8. bee keeping;
9. coir industry;
10. tree plantation;
11. horticulture; and
12. tailoring and knitting, etc.
– In 1966, the Japanese Fisheries Agency (JFA) imposed regulations limiting the number of amberjack fry (2.5–5 cm long called “mojako”) that can be caught annually for aquaculture purposes to about 40 million in order to protect the resource. Allocations are made to each prefecture by the Japan Seawater Fishery Culture Association. Each prefecture government decides on the allowable period for catching mojako and allots the number of fish allowed to be caught to the individual Federation of Fisheries Cooperatives in the prefecture (Ottolenghi et al., 2004).
Currently, most legal frameworks do not provide for the zoning of aquaculture areas to reduce user conflicts, and for holding consultations to resolve conflicts. Zoning can control the distribution of fishing effort. Areas can be closed seasonally or permanently as protected areas. Given capacity limitations in many countries, the use of closed areas to protect juveniles and immature fish may be easier to enforce than size limits or gear restrictions (Sadovy, Donaldson and Graham, 2003). However, past conflicts seem to indicate that these approaches are not always adequate. These conflicts usually arise because rights over access and use of resources are not well defined or equitably applied. The conflicts may be minimized and resolved through sensitive application of appropriate laws and regulations and stakeholder participation.
Lack of institutional and enforcement capacity and a limited willingness on behalf of responsible authorities to impose management restrictions remain a key impediment to successfully managing seed fisheries in many countries. Conflicts of interest and corruption are common.
Codes of practice and industry standards can improve the conduct of the industry and move toward industry sustainability. Standardization results from consensus agreements reached between all players in the industry, both private and government. As described above, one such set of standards has been developed for the live reef food fish trade.
In the long term, the capture-based aquaculture of selected species of finfish may have to be prohibited, through legislation, if it is viewed as a threat to fisheries, to natural recruitment in the wild and perhaps to the very existence of certain species. Fry collectors will be displaced as a result of legislation to end seed fisheries. This could potentially have impacts on the livelihoods and incomes of hundreds of thousands of people in developing countries that rely on seed fisheries for part or all of their income. To address the issue of displaced fry collectors, a programme on alternative livelihoods may be initiated to assist households in the transition to other livelihood opportunities.