16 DECEMBER 2013 • WORLD AQUACULTURE • WWW.WAS.ORG (USA) and demonstrated against the negative impacts of aquaculture. This event was the catalyst for formation of the Global Aquaculture Alliance (GAA) as an aquaculture industry advocacy group to promote sustainable aquaculture — the organization was actually formed during the Seattle meeting through the leadership of Dr. George Chamberlain, who was at the time working for RalstonPurina. During the next few years there was much concern about how the focus of eNGOs on aquaculture would impact markets, and many aquaculture industry advocates developed codes of conduct and codes of practice. They also wrote publications and posted information on websites about best management practices (BMPs) for lessening negative environmental impacts of aquaculture, improving food safety, minimizing and resolving social conflicts, and assuring animal welfare. Some large-scale importers of seafood products made sourcing policies with standards for how aquaculture products that they would purchase should be produced as an effort to satisfy their environmentally- and socially-conscious consumers, and also to minimize the risk of becoming involved in food safety-related events. The GAA started an aquaculture ecolabel certification effort known as Best Aquaculture Practices (BAP) certification with standards for several major species. The Thailand Department of Fisheries developed a code of conduct for marine shrimp produced in that country, and began certifying shrimp farms that were in compliance with the requirements of the program. Some aquaculture producers obtained environmental certification by the International Standards Organization (ISO), several organizations that certified agricultural products extended their programs to aquaculture, such as EUREGAP (now GlobalG.A.P.) and Label Rouge. In addition, governments in many countries began to make or strengthen environmental regulations about aquaculture. For example, the United States Environmental Protection Agency made an aquaculture effluent rule (Federal Register 2004). The eNGOs did not have much confidence in the efforts by the commercial production sector or governments to improve the environmental performance of aquaculture. They felt that the industry was profit motivated and would not make changes that cut into profits. Governments of developing countries were considered to have a conflict of interest because of the income from exported aquaculture products. Moreover, governments in developing countries often do not enforce environmental regulations, and even in developed countries such as the USA, enforcement may be inconsistent or influenced by political pressure. The eNGOs continued the effort to alert consumers about the various ills of aquaculture and they did not endorse the responsible aquaculture programs initiated by the commercial production sector or governments. Some eNGOs and large public aquaria began to distribute small “stoplight” cards to inform consumers about which seafoods — including aquaculture products — are the best environmental choices. These cards are frequently updated, and millions of them apparently have been distributed in the US. As eNGOs learned more about aquaculture, several decided that the ills of aquaculture could be remedied, while those of capture fisheries probably could not. Also, it was obvious that capture fisheries were not sufficient to meet the demand for aquatic food, and some eNGOs came to recognize aquaculture as a necessary component of the world food production system. Several eNGOs are now working with seafood buyers to develop sourcing policies, and the US office of the World Wildlife Fund involved aquaculture industry representatives in developing ecolabel certification standards for several major species that are traded internationally. This program is now operated by an independent organization known as the Aquaculture Stewardship Council. In addition, some eNGOs such as Friends of the Sea have developed certification programs — but without significant industry input. Organizations such as Fish Choice assist large-scale buyers in procuring seafood — including aquaculture products — from responsible sources. The responsible aquaculture movement has been going on for at least 20 years, and there have been positive outcomes with respect to attitudes. Aquaculture producers in developed countries as well as those who operate in developing countries and export to developed countries realize the market importance of improving production practices to lessen environmental effects, improve food safety, use resources more conservatively, and avoid social conflicts. Several of the major eNGOs have become more comfortable with aquaculture and accept it as a necessary human endeavor. Consumers in developed nations also seem to have a better knowledge about aquaculture. There is also tangible evidence of the movement. It is possible to purchase certified aquaculture products in many countries and governments in some countries, including the USA, require seafood products to be labeled as to country of origin and method of production (wild-caught versus farmed). Governments in 55 countries are listed by FAO as having aquaculture environmental regulations. The FAO developed guidelines for aquaculture certification in a lengthy process involving a wide range of stakeholders, and aquaculture certification programs have made an effort to adjust their programs to conform with FAO guidelines. FIGURE 3. Tilapia cages at Castanhão Reservoir, Nova Jaguaribara, Ceará, Brazil. Detail of the service barge used to harvest fish cages and other services like storage of fish feed and other materials used during the fish culture cycle. Photo: João Manoel Cordeiro Alves.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjExNDY=