Chair: Colin Price
Co-chair: Suraphol Pratuangtum
Rapporteurs: Uwe Barg and Greg Paust
23. The session opened with a presentation by Mr Rolf Willmann (FAO) on the background to this Expert Consultation, in particular the recommendations of the Bangkok Consultation on Policies for Sustainable Shrimp Culture, Bangkok, Thailand, 8-11 December 1997, requesting FAO to convene: (1) a technical consultation on the legal and regulatory framework for coastal aquaculture; and (2) a technical consultation on best practices for shrimp culture.
24. Owing to the close relationship between the two subject matters and in order to make efficient use of funds, the decision was taken to consider them in one joint consultation. Mr Willmann also explained that the title ‘Good Management Practices’ rather than ‘Best Management Practices’ was adopted because the large variety of culture systems and local and national conditions did preclude the identification of any one best management practice.
25. Subsequent discussions focused on the use of the term “Good management practices”- GMPs. Alternative terms might be “Best management practices and “Better management practices” - BMPs. It was noted that the recommendation from the FAO Bangkok Technical Consultation had used the term “Best practices”. Some participants felt that “Better management practices” would be the preferred term, because this term conveyed the sense and opportunity for further improvement. “Good” and “Best” were more static terms. It was decided to retain the term GMPs, recognizing that these differences in terminology and opinions exist.
26. Two working papers were introduced and discussed.
27. Operational principles for sustainable shrimp culture - Dan Fegan and John Hambrey. A working paper on Operational Principles for Sustainable Shrimp Culture was presented. A definition of the objectives, operating principles, Good Management Practices (GMPs), measurable performance criteria, and constraints to adoption were provided in the presentation. The paper presented formed a basis for subsequent deliberations by the Expert Consultation Working Groups 1 and 2.
Discussion points
28. Participants raised the following points during the subsequent discussion.
29. The costs and benefits of compliance actions and incentives can fall unevenly. The way the shrimp market chain works can mean that the benefits and costs are not necessarily captured or borne at the correct level. The example given was that the cost of health testing of post larvae had resulted in the demise of some hatchery businesses.
30. It was stated that whilst there are real differences in the structure of the shrimp industries in Latin America and Asia the general principles (objectives) for sustainable shrimp culture can be the same. The difference will be in the approaches to implementation of general principles. It was emphasized that it is essential to have standards and a compliance or auditing plan. The priority should be the development of compliance plans ahead of the production of more GMPs. The level of sophistication (literacy and education) of some small farmers in Asia would have a substantial impact on the ability for governments to achieve outcomes. The meeting generally agreed that the need was to focus much more on implementation issues.
31. The issue of feed supply and its impacts where discussed. In India, farmers receive feed supplied on credit up to the point of harvest. The impact of such systems on farmers adopting GMPs was acknowledged. Further, the selections of feed source [given that the formulations are similar] are often on the basis of the credit arrangements offered by the feed supplier.
32. It was noted that the focus in the working paper was on new shrimp farming proposals. The approach to achieve improvements in existing shrimp farm operations should also be considered. The views expressed were that the existing farmers need to focus on adoption of GMPs. However this is unlikely to result in a perfect outcome as it may be impossible to remedy previous poor decisions, for example due to poor site selection, in the short to medium term.
33. The view that GMPs were the final management solution was discussed. It was agreed that the GMPs should not be taken as an end point and there is a need for continuous improvement.
34. In Australia, license arrangements have been adopted to enforce compliance of farms against operating standards. It was elaborated that whilst such arrangements had worked well in Australia, where compliance programmes have been implemented, for a range of reasons [including cultural and political] it is unlikely to be the complete solution in many Asian countries. Education will be very important in achieving change. Market feedback such as occurred with antibiotic residues in shrimp will also drive the adoption of alternative practices. It is also important that the whole production chain addresses the issue rather than one part of the chain, such as the grow-out sector, if good outcomes are to be achieved.
35. Good legal and institutional arrangements for sustainable shrimp culture - A. VanHoutte and S. Sen. A detailed paper on good legal and institutional arrangements for sustainable development of shrimp culture was presented. This paper was used as a background paper for expert deliberation in Working Group 3.
36. The role of good legal and institutional arrangements is to reduce uncertainty by encouraging sustainable development of shrimp culture and protecting interested parties against negative social, environmental and economic impacts. They are closely related to good management practices in shrimp culture as they depend on, inform and support each other.
37. There are three aspects of legal and institutional arrangements: rules, interested parties and processes. Rules legally include binding and non-binding instruments; interested parties include participants, those who can influence the rules and those who are affected by the rules; and processes include methods which improve co-operation and seek adherence to the rules. The types of interested parties that emerge from the establishment of shrimp culture and how they evolve are fundamentally influenced by rules and processes. In turn, interested parties influence how rules and processes evolve.
38. The approach used to identify elements of good legal and institutional arrangements was based on the review of the surveys of national legislation carried out under the auspices of the FAO Legal Office and any case studies that were available. The target audience for these “elements” was primarily governments. The purpose was not to be too prescriptive and to serve as a discussion document for Working Group 3.
39. Experience suggests that the weakest components of legal and institutional arrangements in shrimp culture have not been the rules per se but the processes and parties supporting the development, implementation and enforcement of the rules. For this reason, the presentation and Working Paper 3 addressed these issues first.
40. Processes included reviews of legal and institutional arrangements, consultation with interested parties, environmental impact assessments, extension and training and information dissemination. Key elements of interested parties included criteria for identification, institutional responsibilities and specialist bodies. Rules included land tenure and location licensing as well as continuing controls on shrimp culture.
41. The consultation was asked to review Working Paper 3 to address three aspects: what elements is there consensus on, what elements do participants disagree with, and on what elements is further work required.
Discussion Points
42. The following points were raised during subsequent discussions.
43. The usefulness of the survey of countries’ institutional arrangements for the control of aquaculture in terms of identifying models, which have been successful and could be considered for adoption by other governments, was discussed. It was considered that the survey, because it only focussed on the legislative environment and not the effectiveness of the overall management regime, could not by it self be used to determine a preferred model.
44. Ms Van Houtte expressed concern that in the last 10 years there had been little progress in having legislation specific for aquaculture enacted. She considered that linkage of coastal aquaculture with fisheries management legislation was not helpful while the link was essential with coastal zone management legislation or environment legislation.
45. The need for consideration of a range of approaches [rather than just government regulation] such as involvement of industry and co-operative organizations to achieve compliance was discussed. The need to review effectiveness of approaches and make adjustments based on experience was considered to be essential. The use of incentives rather than regulation was discussed.
46. It was pointed out that care would have to be taken in the design and specification of legal and institutional arrangements to minimize the scope for corrupt practices. It was also suggested that civil society organizations could play a useful ‘watchdog’ role to deter and eliminate corrupt practices where these might be a concern.
47. The need was also identified for regulations that actually protect aquaculturists from the adverse impacts of developments in other sectors. Urban, industrial, agricultural, as well as other aquaculture ventures, can have a detrimental impact on the sustainability of existing farms and render shrimp culture economically unsustainable.
48. The need for shrimp farmers to have secure rights in relation to land and water was seen as critical to achieving long term commitments from farmers to invest in achieving improved environmental management and performance and responsible stewardship of natural resources. Without ownership or quality tenure it was unlikely that the farmers would commit scarce resources to longer-term sustainability objectives. On the other hand, where secure real rights are granted in isolation from an effective regulatory framework, it could open avenues for abuse and irresponsible behaviour.
49. Participants were invited to consider these issues during the Working Group discussions.
