Foreword
The accompanying working paper, “Operating Principles for Sustainable Shrimp Culture” (Annex C), provides a broad framework for good management practices, identifying the main farm operations where good management practices might effectively be applied, and providing examples of specific practices that may be appropriate according to site, technology and local circumstances.
This document provides guidelines for the development and implementation of situation-specific GMPs at the national or sub-national level. These guidelines relate to, inter alia, the identification of situation-specific issues, the methodology for cost-benefit analysis of GMPs; stakeholder participation, a constraint analysis for the adoption of GMPs and how to overcome them, including strategies to support farmers and farmer organizations in implementing better management practices is also provide.
The working paper is based on discussion and development of a comprehensive draft document prepared before and subsequent discussions by working groups during the Expert Consultation. Many documents have served as resource material in the development of this paper, particularly those produced as part of the WB/NACA/WWF/FAO Consortium Programme on Shrimp Farming and the Environment.
Objectives for ‘good’ management practices
In the previous working paper, it is proposed that good management practices are those that make aquaculture more sustainable and more successful. The FAO definition of sustainable development is as follows:
Sustainable development is the management and conservation of the natural resource base and the orientation of technological and institutional change in such a manner as to ensure the attainment and continued satisfaction of human needs for present and future generations. Such sustainable development (in the agriculture, forestry and fisheries sectors) conserves land, water, plant and animal genetic resources, is environmentally non-degrading, technically appropriate, economically viable and socially acceptable.In order to promote sustainable development as defined here, the following objectives have been proposed by the Expert Consultation for different GMPs or sets of GMPs. These encompass the objectives implicit in the General Principles of the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. They are framed as objectives rather than principles so that progress or performance can be measured against them.
|
Objective 1: |
Use land and water which is suitable for sustained shrimp
production |
|
Objective 2: |
Conserve sensitive aquatic habitats and important ecosystem
functions |
|
Objective 3: |
Manage soil resources and earthworks to minimize impacts on
surrounding environments |
|
Objective 4: |
Minimize impacts on local water resources |
|
Objective 5: |
Avoid release or escape of exotic species and transgenics into
the environment |
|
Objective 6: |
Responsible use of chemicals that may impact adversely on
ecosystems and human health |
|
Objective 7: |
Maximize efficiency of resource use and minimize waste
outputs |
|
Objective 8: |
Reduce dependence on wild stocks for farmed shrimp
production |
|
Objective 9: |
Implement shrimp health practices to reduce risks of disease
in farmed and wild stocks |
|
Objective 10: |
Optimize social and economic benefits to the wider community
and country |
|
Objective 11: |
Conduct shrimp farm operations to minimize impacts on
surrounding resource users |
|
Objective 12: |
Ensure the rights and welfare of staff in farm
operations |
In some cases it may be necessary to adopt a suite of GMPs in order to meet one of these objectives. Conversely, some GMPs will contribute to several of these objectives.
Ideally, objectives to promote “sustainable” aquaculture would automatically lead to “successful” aquaculture. It is important to define clearly what is meant by “successful” aquaculture and to establish and agree realistic objectives for success, including the time frame for their impact. From a business standpoint, GMPs should preferably demonstrate a clear benefit, either tangible (reduced costs, higher profits) or intangible (better reputation, reduced potential for conflict). Business objectives[14] associated with the adoption of GMPs might include:
This document provides guidelines that can be used to take the operating principles based on these objectives to a more situation specific national or sub-national level.
How can GMPs be used?
A set of GMPs packaged together with statements of policy, principle and commitment may be developed as a code of conduct or code of practice (the latter implies something more detailed and practical than the former). Such a code may be used in various ways.
A farmer, or an association of farmers, may make a voluntary commitment to abide by a code. Typically this would be used to enhance the reputation of the farmer or association, and demonstrate social and environmental responsibility. This in turn may enhance the value of the company and the price of the product. This process may be formalized through certification and labeling. In this way GMPs can be used in the marketing of shrimp and shrimp products as an additional aid, assuring the consumer that the shrimp are being grown under conditions that are environmentally and socially responsible.
Government or NGOs may use a code to guide and influence the private sector. A code may be promoted through education and extension to raise standards and heighten awareness.
GMPs may be used by government as a regulatory tool. For example, agreement to a code, or specific GMPs, may be a pre-condition for a permit to use land/water for shrimp farming, or for a grant or credit offered as part of a development programme.
A code of practice, or a subset of GMPs, may be used in environmental impact assessment as a bench mark for screening and assessing location, design, technology and management for a proposed shrimp farm. Full and demonstrated compliance with a government-approved code might, for example, automatically exempt a proposal from full EIA, while partial compliance, or compliance with certain elements only might automatically require full EIA.
A set of GMPs, not packaged in any particular way, and not associated with statements of policy, principle or commitment, may serve as a “menu” which can be used by extension workers when discussing alternative approaches with shrimp farmers or would-be shrimp farmers. They may be used as an input to other environmental management initiatives (see below). Such a set might also be used as the benchmark for EIA as described above.
What is their relationship with other environmental management initiatives?
Compliance with environmental management standards and ISO standards is becoming increasingly common in many industries. These standards do not usually require adherence to specific practices, and are less prescriptive than GMPs. Typically they require members to demonstrate that they have established environmental management policy, procedures, monitoring, reporting and auditing systems. In some cases they are required to demonstrate steadily improved performance against their own environmental objectives. A code of practice, or a set of desirable GMPs, may be used as part basis for developing a specific environmental management policy and plan, and may therefore serve to strengthen EMS and ISO schemes.
Environmental management of shrimp farming may also be promoted through integrated coastal management plans, or aquatic resources development and management plans related to a specific area. GMPs and codes of practice may be developed as a key element in such schemes, or where GMPs already exist, as an input to be further developed and adapted in line with the objectives of the plan.
What benefits can they bring?
To the individual farmer compliance with well-formulated GMPs should lead to:
and may lead to:
To groups of farmers sharing land and/or aquatic resource, farmer, compliance with well-formulated GMPs should lead to:
To other resource users sharing land and/or aquatic resources, the compliance of shrimp farmers with well-formulated GMPs should ensure:
To local people generally, and to the nation as a whole the compliance of shrimp farmers with well formulated GMPs should ensure:
To the region or world, the compliance of shrimp farmers with well-formulated GMPs should ensure:
In practice the adoption of GMPs at farm level alone may not be enough to deliver the potential benefits listed above. External or uncontrollable factors such as availability of good quality feeds and postlarvae, new challenges to shrimp health and changing market conditions could interfere and prevent the benefits from being realized. This wider context should always be borne in mind when developing GMPs, and where necessary they should be supplemented by other sector management initiatives to ensure that all the stakeholders effectively capture potential benefits.
Constraints to effective compliance
Knowledge and understanding of natural resources, and resource functions and values, will be essential for rational and effective compliance with GMPs. Unquestioning compliance with codes as “operational rules” may yield temporary benefits, but will not promote the more subtle objectives of sustainable development.
Some desirable GMPs may require short-term investment to achieve longer term goals, or may require investment by an individual farmer for the good of a group of farmers and/or society at large. The extent of compliance will depend upon the differential between the benefits that the individual farmer can capture and the costs of implementing a GMP or set of GMPs.
Capturing benefits from compliance with some GMPs (such as those designed to improve water quality and reduce disease incidence) will depend upon compliance by all farmers utilizing a specific aquatic system. In many situations this will not be easy to achieve, and the incentive will therefore be weak unless universal compliance can be guaranteed. This problem will be compounded where water quality (for example) is significantly affected by other water resource users, such as processing or manufacturing plants, or intensive agriculture. Without corresponding initiatives across all resource users, there will be little incentive for action.
Many of the benefits to be derived from adopting GMPs can only be realized through effective organization, co-ordination of good practice, and direct access to markets where producer image and environmental/social issues are high on the consumer agenda. This explains why the main private sector driven initiatives (GAA code; organic certification) have come from large-scale producers and processors in the Americas. Such initiatives are less likely in Asian developing countries where the dominant producers are mostly small farmers, who are relatively poorly organized.
Possible negative impacts
Increasing international environmental and social awareness, coupled with the availability of certified products from well organized large scale producers, may force the price down of non-certified products. It will be more difficult for small-scale producers in developing countries to comply with codes of conduct and practice and they may therefore suffer a price drop. They may lack the necessary awareness, organization, reporting and marketing skills to participate in certification and labeling schemes. Great efforts will be required to enhance organization and co-ordination of small-scale producers if they are to compete. Having said that, the price differential itself will prove to be a major incentive to farmers to move towards more professional association and the implementation of GMPs.
Where no price differential exists, and where the costs of compliance add to, rather than reduce, costs, there is a danger that the market may be distorted so that compliance effectively carries a penalty. To avoid this, it is important that the mechanism of implementation of GMPs be structured to provide some tangible benefit to the producer.
If codes of practice are over-prescribed, in the sense that they promote a specific technical solution rather than promote a variety of solutions to achieve a specific outcome, then they will restrict innovation and discriminate unnecessarily against some producers. This is particularly the case for small-scale farmers where a particular GMP may have been handed down based on a highly technological approach. It is essential therefore that codes of practice are flexible and adaptable, while strongly promoting the sustainability objectives set down above.
Guidelines for development of GMPs
Key issues and guiding principles
Taking into account the uses, potential benefits, and possible constraints to compliance, the following are the guiding principles for the development and implementation of situation specific GMPs:
Process for Site Specific GMPs
The steps involved in developing a set of GMPs are relatively straightforward and follow the same process as for any systematic problem solving process.
1. Problem identification
The particular problem or issue to be addressed by the GMPs needs to be identified. The identification process should be consultative and would involve not only farmers but other stakeholders.
2. Identify level of approach
The appropriate level at which to approach the problem needs to be addressed (i.e. farm level, sector level, national level, international level)
3. Identify impact required
The required impact should be identified (i.e. the outcome). Where possible this should be measurable (preferably quantifiably although this may not always be possible)
4. Consultation
If at sector level, a further process of consultation should be considered to ensure that all are agreed on the desired impact and the measurement of the impact of the GMP
5. Decide what options are available to meet the objective
Will the outcome require a single GMP or a system of GMPs? How have the same or similar problems been approached in other situations (e.g. agriculture, water treatment, soil engineering). Are they appropriate for use in the aquaculture context?
6. Identify resource requirement
Will the selected option require specific resources or expertise? Where is this expertise available? Can it be accessed?
7. Assessment of identified GMPs
Of the GMPs identified, which are likely to be most effective in view of the available resources? Which are achievable and is there a need to prioritize? If the BMP is not a practical option, what are the best alternatives?
8. Consultation
Another round of consultation of the GMPs identified needs to take place before a decision is made on the GMPs to be adopted and the implementation strategy
9. Decide on good management practice(s) to be adopted and implemented
10. Finalize the implementation strategy
Initiation and participation
There are no rules as to who initiates. GMPs and codes of practice may be initiated and driven by:
The fact that all these stakeholders are currently interested in GMPs and codes of practice implies significant momentum for the idea. It also means that whoever initiates the development of locally specific GMPs should be able to co-ordinate and balance the various interests, and gain broad support and agreement. Who is best placed to do this will vary from country to country.
Whoever initiates the process, the participation of all the stakeholders, and crucially, effective and full participation of the shrimp farmers themselves, will be essential if there is to be any sense of ownership, responsibility and chance of implementation.
The words effective and full are important, especially in developing countries and in the case of large numbers of small farms. Approaches involving the imposition of GMPs in this situation are unlikely to succeed and may simply result in farmers actively seeking ways to avoid compliance. The involvement of a few major producers is unlikely to provide the majority of small farmers with a sense of ownership and responsibility unless they are seen as opinion leaders or innovators in the private sector. A first step in developing local GMPs may indeed be to promote improved organization and representation of small farmers, so that they can take a full and effective part in developing GMPs. Also, group compliance - required to achieve some of the common benefits (improved water quality, reduced pathogens) -is much more likely where there is effective farmer organization and communication.
In all cases, the participation of major buyers and retailers is also important. Buyers will have a good grasp of consumer demands, and a better idea of the possible value of different GMPs in the market place - which is where some of the benefits will be realized. Similarly, involving major suppliers of goods and services to farmers will also ultimately benefit the process through improving their awareness and ultimately the goods and services they supply.
The rationale for some GMPs is to take account of the interests of other resource users. Clearly then, they should be involved from the start,
Issues identification
Once there is adequate commitment on the part of the main stakeholders to identify GMPs and to find ways of implementing them, there needs to begin a rigorous process of issues (problems, constraints, solutions, opportunities) identification. It is probable that most issues will fall within the framework of sustainable development objectives or the list of social and environmental problems associated with shrimp farming. These may be used as check-lists - but they should not be considered exhaustive: all local social and environmental issues associated with shrimp farm development should be identified and characterized, in terms of their immediate and secondary causes. In this regard the interactions between the local environment (its values and functions), local resource users, and shrimp farming location, technology and management will need to be explored in detail. This will provide the first insights into the kinds of GMP that might be required.
This process of issues identification will be mainly one of meetings, possibly supplemented by some research based mainly on existing information. Where farmers and other affected resource users are small scale and poorly organized, with limited access to information, there may need to be a significant participatory rural appraisal (PRA) process. This should serve to:
Important tools which can help in issues identification include matrices (e.g. sustainability objectives X farming practices); ranking exercises (using the output from the matrices to determine relative importance of the issue/problem/opportunity. These techniques not only aid issues identification, they also provide a clear framework for their subsequent communication, presentation, and further discussion.
Maximum stakeholder involvement should continue through the stages described below. This process will be more difficult, and requires greater resources where farmers are poor, poorly organized and widely dispersed. It is very unlikely that small farmer interests will be adequately represented at a few central meetings. A regular series of field workshops and structured farmer meetings in key locations and over an extended period will normally be required. It is also likely that practical demonstrations of the benefits of the GMPs will need to be undertaken, preferably on a key opinion leader’s own farm.
Establishing agreement on how GMPs will be used
Having identified the issues, the possible means of addressing them should become clearer. GMPs (arising from the solutions and opportunities) can be developed and used in a variety of ways:
i. A package or menu of “good management practices” which can be used in extension and awareness raising, and ultimately to increase income;The first four are all essentially voluntary approaches, which promote self-regulation of the private sector. Agreement to i above should be almost universal. Agreement to ii and possibly iii above is likely to be favored in those situations where shrimp culture is highly organized and managed (typically large scale producers/developed country producers). Agreement to iv above would allow shrimp farmers easier access to the benefits associated with various international environmental management standards.ii. Components in codes of practice adopted by industry associations;
iii. Components in codes of practice for product certification and labeling;
iv. Components in environmental management schemes;
v. Individual or collective conditions in licensing and permitting procedures;
vi. Elements in specific regulatory procedures;
vii. Assessment criteria for EIAs;
viii. Components of comprehensive management plans with corresponding packages of incentives and constraints; and
ix. As a basis for investment or purchase screens.
Points v to vii above imply some level of enforcement by the Governments. This will generally not be welcomed by well-organized industry associations. Indeed the possibility of this route being taken may stimulate industry organizations to initiate their own self-regulation initiative. These approaches may however be necessary where the shrimp farming sector is poorly organized, where social and environmental issues have become critical, and where self-regulation has failed or proven inadequate, or where there is no obvious mechanism for self-regulation.
Point viii above is an intermediate solution for situations where the existing capacity for self-regulation and environmental management is limited, and where environmental and social issues are less pressing. In these situations a more comprehensive environmental planning and management process may be initiated. This will take significant time and resources, but should eventually deliver a package of incentives and constraints, and develop capacity, to meet agreed social, economic and environmental objectives in relation to specific aquatic resources systems. GMPs would form a part of this package, and incentives or constraints to maximize compliance would be developed and agreed.
Point ix above is receiving increasing interest.
Allocating responsibility
At this point agreement on the mechanism for developing and implementing GMPs should be reached. Agreement would be required for example in respect of:
In all cases specific responsibility for key tasks should be assigned, and a schedule of activities drawn up.
In practice, and especially in developing countries, the role of government is crucial in co-ordinating initiatives related to GMPs with other environmental management initiatives.
Refining objectives and operating principles
On the basis of a full understanding of local farming systems and the social and environmental context, it should be possible to prioritize and supplement the objectives and the operating principles according to local problems and values and the agreed purpose and use of GMPs.
Broad consensus and agreement should be developed in relation to these objectives and principles, to be certain that stakeholders “buy in” to the rationale and make a commitment in principle. This should reduce argument and conflict over the need for particular GMPs, and should maximize awareness, responsibility, and the likelihood of implementation. The criteria associated with each operating principle (see other working paper - Annex C) should also be discussed critically and agreed.
Drafting specific GMPs
The foregoing process will have set the scene for proposing and exchanging ideas on specific locally appropriate GMPs that meet the requirements of the (agreed) operating principles. These GMPs may be based on existing practice, new practices, or practices known from elsewhere.
There are two main approaches to specifying GMPs. One approach critically appraises existing or possible specific farm practices in terms of their compatibility with operational guidelines, and their ability to promote sustainability objectives. The other focuses on individual farm or sector level[15] outcomes, and specifies, in more general terms, the kind of practice that would best deliver these outcomes. Clearly the latter is a more flexible approach, which allows for, and indeed stimulates, innovation. It focuses on what is to be achieved rather than how to get there. However, effective implementation will require sophisticated monitoring of impact/outcomes, rather than simple checking or reporting of practice. There are two problems associated with monitoring outcomes rather than practice. There may be many other factors affecting the outcome criteria, and the measurement of the outcome criteria might be expensive. Overall the strengths and weaknesses of these approaches will depend on the local situation (e.g. the immediacy of the problems; the capacity and organization of the farmers; the nature of compliance mechanisms) and in particular how immediate, critical and obvious the problems and solutions are.
Whichever approach is used, a proposed GMP or related set of GMPs should be assessed systematically:
It may be appropriate to grade practices as base, standard and best[16]. This assessment should ideally be undertaken with maximum involvement of stakeholders - using for example matrix discussion and presentation at field workshops and working meetings.
Sector management needs
Many of the objectives and operating principles require collective action or sector level management to address common resource issues (e.g. biodiversity conservation; staying within environmental capacity; minimizing disease). These are often the most difficult to implement - but in terms of overall sustainability may be the most important[17].
The limitations of the evolving set of farm level GMPs should therefore be assessed to identify where and how they can be strengthened at the sector level, and what management practices, and associated management mechanisms (organization, co-ordination, information exchange, monitoring, reporting etc) are required to comply with the operating guidelines and address specific local problems. The setting of standards appropriate to particular aquatic systems and undertaking monitoring which is adequate but simple and cost effective will require particular attention.
In addition to these organizational and common resource issues, the need to link farm or farm group level initiatives with improved management practices in the input supply and market distribution chains will need careful attention. Low FCR depends partly on feed quality; low disease depends partly on seed quality; high farm gate value (especially if linked to management practices) depends upon efficiency, quality management, and traceable custody throughout the distribution, processing and marketing network. Without improvements across the board, GMPs will be more difficult to implement, and the benefits more difficult to capture.
Integrated resource management
Beyond the aquaculture sector level, the activities of other sectors and their impact on common resources will need to be examined. It is pointless - and indeed unfair -to develop GMPs in relation to water quality of shrimp farm effluents if the main impact on water quality comes from processing, manufacturing or agriculture. If this is the case, the development of GMPs and common standards and monitoring requirements for all these activities should be initiated and co-ordinated - usually by the Governments.
Funding the process
The shrimp farming sector itself increasingly bears the costs of developing and implementing standards. This has already happened for salmon, and for shrimp in the case of the Global Aquaculture Alliance initiative. The latter was driven by a few well organized large-scale producers or processors, well placed to recoup their investment in the long term. Yet again, raising the funds, and recouping the investment will be more difficult and risky for small scale and poorly organized farmers. A significant organizing and funding role for government and/or aid agencies will therefore be required in many developing country situations.
There is potential for raising taxes that might be used for environmental management. These may include taxes on exports or feeds for example. It is important however that such taxes are allocated to the needs of shrimp farming.
In many cases better organization of existing resources (such as government fisheries officers) may be necessary or reduce costs.
Implementing GMPs
There has been considerable work carried out on preparation of codes, BMPs and GMPs, but so far little experience on their implementation, particularly on small-scale farms. Compliance will arise from a combination of awareness, knowledge, a sense of responsibility and incentives (related to financial return, peer pressure, government persuasion and market demand). The requirement for a nature of incentives will vary greatly according to circumstances.
Analysis of costs and benefits
Understanding the nature and distribution of costs and benefits arising from the implementation of specific GMPs will be essential for assessing the desirability of a particular GMP and the need or otherwise for compliance incentives. Ideally the following should be assessed:
In practice it will be relatively easy to estimate the costs, but more difficult to estimate benefits associated with a particular GMP or set of GMPs, especially as we move up from individual farmers to society at large. This immediately signals a problem: to many small-scale farmers the costs will be more obvious than the benefits, especially for some GMPs, and incentives/constraints will need to be devised. These may be market or government driven as discussed below.
In practice, for many GMPs, and for the purposes of taking the process forward, the priority will be to quantify the costs and benefits to the individual farmer with a view to assessing compliance needs. It should be possible to assess the costs associated with disease incidence with some accuracy; although the contribution of specific GMPs to reduced disease incidence (the benefits) will be harder to measure. However, “guesstimates” of the overall benefits of a suite of GMPs designed to reduce disease incidence should provide useful information. The costs and benefits associated with GMPs designed to conserve biodiversity will typically be more difficult to assess, and will have a significant subjective element.
A matrix of costs and benefits associated with different GMPs may be a useful way of organizing and presenting this information.
Compliance mechanisms
While some GMPs may be associated with reduced cost or increased production (in the long term) some will probably be associated with increased cost, and will not be adopted in the absence of some form of incentive. Depending on the way in which the GMPs are to be packaged and promoted, and taking into account constraints to compliance and in particular the nature of the costs and benefits, all possible opportunities for promoting compliance should be examined. These might include, for example:
Different approaches may be needed for different GMPs or sets of GMPs depending on the distribution of costs and benefits to the farmer and society as a whole.
Incentives to promote compliance at provincial or national level in respect of sector level management practices should also be considered. For example, pressure may be exerted on governments at national or provincial level to develop strategies to address biodiversity conservation or environmental capacity issues. This pressure may derive from international commitments, negative publicity, and in extreme cases, trade embargoes on unsustainably farmed shrimp - and such embargoes typically impact all shrimp produced by a country.
It may be more difficult for different producers in different areas to meet standards. It is important that improvement rather than meeting absolute standards is used as a criterion for effective compliance. Stepped or graded standards may also be considered.
Awareness and knowledge
The process of developing GMPs described above will in itself make a substantial contribution to awareness raising and the exchange of knowledge and ideas. Once these are formulated and published they can be further used through formal and informal channels to raise awareness. This argues strongly for well designed and presented GMPs. Crucially the rationale and the expected outcomes associated with specific GMPs must be clearly communicated.
Organization and ownership: promoting responsibility and developing capacity
Stakeholder involvement as described above, coupled with increased awareness, should promote increased responsibility. A sense of “ownership” of the GMPs or the package will promote interest and enhance compliance. A financial return will guarantee it.
“Ownership” of the resources affected by shrimp farm activity is also important. If a single large farm dominates (and in some cases legally owns) an aquatic system, it will be clearly in its interests to maintain water quality within that system. If many small independent farmers operate within such a system, individually they will have very little influence on the quality of that system, and their interest and commitment will be correspondingly more limited. If other resource users also have a significant impact on the system (e.g. processing plants etc) their interest will be further diminished. Association and organization is the only practical means to gain greater control and therefore responsibility.
Farmer organization, and in some cases government intervention will be essential requirements to address this problem. In Sri Lanka, emphasis is being place on the need for promoting the cluster concept - organizing small farms into groups with a common interest (Siriwardene et al, 2000). Several possible routes are suggested for this, ranging from registered associations, through the “nucleus estate” type model, to contract farming. In all these cases, great care is required to ensure that the interests of individual farmers coincide with the interests of the association, the “mother farm” or the contractor. Many of these models have failed in the past because of conflicting interests.
Farmer organization will probably also be a key element in enabling compliance in terms of reporting on outcomes related to common resources and capturing the possible benefits from environmental labeling schemes. Such organizations will themselves come up against issues of ensuring compliance among their members.
Building on supply and purchasing networks
Large numbers of small farmers are influenced very effectively by good marketing efforts. Suppliers of feeds, chemicals and other products do manage to both reach large numbers of small-scale farmers and influence their behavior. In Thailand, for example, the speed with which certain farm practices become adopted can be quite impressive. Also, the influence of the market itself can be an important factor for change. Witness the dramatic reduction in antibiotic usage in the early 1990s in Thailand when exporters started to reject tainted shrimp.
The threat of regulation
The threat of government restriction and regulation has been used to stimulate self regulation of many industries world-wide, and has often been highly effective.
Establishing an industry or association compliance committee
The British Columbia Salmon Farmers Association has adopted its own code of practice that applies to all its members (probably anticipating government regulation or consumer backlash). Compliance is enforced primarily through comprehensive reporting systems and public complaints, which are channeled to a compliance committee, which includes both members of the association and “public interest bodies” (2 members).
Economic incentives
A wide range of economic instruments has been proposed to encourage compliance with socially and environmentally desirable practices. These include, for example, taxes on polluting inputs or outputs; fines related to breaches of specific standards; subsidies related to siting, design, technology etc, and sale or allocation of environmental goods and services, such as high quality water, or environmental capacity. Ideally any tax or fining system should be balanced by a subsidy so that there is no net loss to the sector as a whole - unless its activities amount to a cost on other economic activities.
Permits and licences conditional on compliance
Perhaps the easiest approach to enforcing compliance is to have a permit or licensing system for shrimp culture, and to make issue of a permit conditional on adherence to a code or set of core GMPs. Clearly this requires substantial agreement on the code and GMPs as well as some form of auditing to report on compliance. Auditing in turn will be far easier if effective reporting procedures are in place (as set down in the operating principles).
Farm gate value
The most effective incentive to compliance will always be farm gate value. Linking higher farm gate value with compliance to GMPs will depend upon product identification and tracking through the supply chain, coupled with a “willingness to pay a premium” on the part of identified wholesalers, retailers and consumers. This will require that either:
Participation of small farmers in environmental labeling initiatives will require significant organization - to guarantee that GMPs related to common resource management are effectively implemented; to generate adequate scale of production so that the costs of auditing, certification, product tracking and identification etc can be minimized; and to liaise with buyers to define production practices that can be linked to a market premium. Government and/or aid projects may need to intervene to facilitate this process.
Alternatively, a buyer may contract a small farmer, or a group of small farmers, to produce a product in compliance with buyer specifications, and might facilitate such compliance in various ways. Increasingly, buyers are becoming interested in the source of shrimp they purchase and the means by which they are produced. It would be of significant benefit to the adoption of GMPs if they could be used as a means to extend the value chain from producer through to the consumer (the “pond to plate” concept).
Where labeling schemes are being considered, potential buyers might become closely involved in the drafting of the code of practice and individual GMPs. The role of third parties in verification or certification of such labeling schemes also may need to be explored.
Monitoring, evaluation and adaptation
Monitoring impact
The impact of a GMP or a set of GMPs in terms of moving towards a sustainability objective can be measured in different ways at different levels:
Ideally a comprehensive programme should be undertaken (by the implementing group) to address monitoring at all these levels. Again, effective record keeping and reporting (which should figure strongly in GMPs themselves) coupled with some way of synthesizing these reports in a cost effective way are essential conditions for long terms success.
Adapting/refining/supplementing GMPs
The technology associated with shrimp farming, and the conditions under which it is undertaken are changing rapidly. GMPs - especially those which are relatively prescriptive - will need regular review and adaptation, based on effective monitoring.
Environmental values will also change, especially in relation to the shifting pattern and abundance of coastal resources, and this again will have implications for the nature of GMPs.
Changes in market dynamics will also inevitably require some adjustment of GMPs to maintain their cost-effectiveness.
The means of promoting compliance may need to be adjusted if it is found to be inadequate to meet objectives.
GMPs overall may be found to be wanting, and alternative approaches, based, for example, around integrated coastal management, or aquaculture development land, may be required to supplement GMPs more effectively.
References
Although only some are referred to in the text, all of the following documents have served as basic resource material in the preparation of this discussion paper.
Anon. 2000. Shrimp Culture Renovation in Rushan, Shandong Province, China -- a case study report. Component of the WB/NACA/WWF/FAO Programme on Shrimp Farming and the Environment
Anon. Thematic Review on Management Strategies for Major Diseases in Shrimp Aquaculture. A Component of the WB/NACA/WWF/FAO Programme on Shrimp Farming and the Environment. Report of the Workshop held in Cebu, Philippines from 28-30 November 1999
Anon. 2000. Working paper for discussions on a code of practice for Malaysian Shrimp farmers. Prepared for National Workshop, 9-11 June 1998, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia organized by the Department of Fisheries of Malaysia supported by FAO - TCP/MAL/6611 Legislative Assistance in the Preparation of Regulations of Aquaculture Practices”
Anon. Organic Certification in Aquaculture
Anon. 1996. The Choluteca Declaration. A statement by Non-Governmental Organizations from Latin America, Europe, and Asia at a Forum on “Aquaculture and its Impacts”, in Choluteca, Honduras 16 October 1996Anon. Economic guidelines for NACA case studies. Component of the WB/NACA/WWF/FAO Programme on Shrimp Farming and the Environment
Anon. Thematic Review on Coastal Wetland Habitats and Shrimp Aquaculture. Component of the WB/NACA/WWF/FAO Programme on Shrimp Farming and the Environment Draft Concept Paper
Boyd, Claude E. and John A. Hargreaves. Codes of Practice for Marine Shrimp Farming. Component of the WB/NACA/WWF/FAO Programme on Shrimp Farming and the Environment
Boyd, Claude E. and Jason Clay. 2000. Evaluation of Belize Aquaculture, Ltd. a super-intensive Shrimp Aquaculture System in Belize. Component of the WB/NACA/WWF/FAO Programme on Shrimp Farming and the Environment
Boyd, Claude E. and Bartholomew W. Green. Coastal Water Quality Monitoring in Shrimp Farming Areas with an Example from Honduras. Component of the WB/NACA/WWF/FAO Programme on Shrimp Farming and the Environment
British Columbia Salmon Farmers’ Association Code of Practice
Dewalt, Billie R., Lorena Noriega, Jaime Renán Ramírez Zavala Rosa Esthela González. Shrimp aquaculture, people and the environment in coastal Mexico. Component of the WB/NACA/WWF/FAO Programme on Shrimp Farming and the Environment
FAO, Fisheries Department. Aquaculture development I. Good Aquafeed manufacturing Practice. FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries. No. 5. Suppl. I. Rome, FAO. 2001. 47p.
Marine Stewardship Council. Principles and Criteria For Sustainable Fishing. Airlie House Draft
Marine Shrimp Culture Industry of Thailand Code of Conduct - Policy Statements
Pednekar, Sunil S., Nguyen Huu Thien, Pham Le Thong, Truong Hoang Dan. Mixed Shrimp Farming-Mangrove Models in the Mekong Delta: A Socio-economic Study. Component of the WB/NACA/WWF/FAO Programme on Shrimp Farming and the Environment
Schwab, Barbara; Michael Weber; Bernard Lehmann. Key Management Challenges for the Development and Growth of a Shrimp Farm in Northeast Brazil: A Case Study of “Camanor Produtos Marinhos Ltda.”. Component of the WB/NACA/WWF/FAO Programme on Shrimp Farming and the Environment
Siriwardena P.P.G.S.N. 2000. Draft report on the code of best practices for shrimp aquaculture in Sri Lanka. Component of the WB/NACA/WWF/FAO Programme on Shrimp Farming and the Environment. National Aquatic Resources Research and Development Agency
Tobey, J., J. Clay, and P. Vergne (1998), “A Difficult Balance: The Economic, Environmental, and Social Impacts of Shrimp Farming in Latin America,” Coastal Management Report #2002, The Coastal Resources Center, University of Rhode Island, Narraagansett
Tookwinas Siri, Randy Show, Waraporn Prompoj, Surasak Dirakkiat Wichai Lapjatupon. The Marine Shrimp Culture Industry of Thailand Code of Conduct
Tookwinas Siri, Surasak Dirakkait, Waraporn Prompoj, Claude E. Boyd Marine Shrimp Culture Industry of Thailand; Operating Guidelines for Shrimp Farms
Tookwinas Siri, Mali Boonyaratpalin, Chamaiporn Choongam and Jamaree Poongern. On-Farm Quality Assurance for Shrimp Production in Thailand.
