Report of the Ad hoc Expert Meeting on Indicators and Criteria of Sustainable Shrimp Culture.

Rome, Italy, 28-30 April 1998.

 

FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS
ROME, 1998

1. The Bangkok FAO Technical Consultation on Policies for Sustainable Shrimp Culture held from 8 to 11 December 1997² recommended, inter alia, that FAO specifically request governments of countries engaged in shrimp culture to report on progress in implementing the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries in relation to shrimp culture activities to the Committee on Fisheries (COFI) at its next and subsequent sessions. To assist this process, the Consultation recommended that FAO develop appropriate criteria and indicators to assess progress made in the process of national shrimp culture development. Such criteria and indicators should be established to reflect the following aspects taking into account the practicality for countries to compile such information:

Provisions of coastal zone planning, legislation and implementation or plans for same;

Laws and regulations applicable to shrimp culture in place or planned, and their enforcement;

Effects of shrimp virus or other disease on production;

Relative use of hatchery and harvested post larvae seed stocks;

Requirements for environmental impact assessments and their provisions;

Farm licensing requirements and percentage of total farms subject to licensing and actually licensed;

Use of chemicals and drugs and their regulations;

Status of mangrove protection programmes and impact of all users on mangroves;

Benefits of shrimp culture, including foreign exchange, employment, production;

Government expenditure on research and types of research being conducted;

Applicable food safety requirements;

Effects of shrimp culture on water quality;

Socio-economic impacts both positive and negative.

2. The present ad-hoc meeting of experts has been convened in pursuance of the Bangkok FAO Consultation�s recommendation that FAO convene a meeting of technical experts to assist in the establishment of criteria and indicators for monitoring the sustainability of shrimp culture. The meeting also discussed related aspects including the available experiences on the compilation and use of data on shrimp culture and means of information acquisition and dissemination . The list of participants is given in Appendix B.

3. The meeting was opened by Dr Serge Garcia, Director, Fisheries Resources Division and Officer-in-Charge, Fisheries Policy and Planning Division, who welcomed the participants to the FAO Fisheries Department on behalf of Mr Moritaka Hayashi, Assistant Director-General, and on his own behalf. He noted the relevance of this meeting in the context of on-going efforts at the international and national levels to develop sustainability indicators in pursuance of the recommendation of the 1992 United Nations Rio Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED). He also informed the participants of the planned FAO/Australia meeting in 1999 on sustainability indicators for marine capture fisheries.

4. Dr Yugraj Singh Yadava was elected Chairman. In thanking participants for his election, Dr Yadava noted the timeliness and relevance of the present meeting and the Bangkok FAO Consultation to assist FAO member countries in addressing issues related to the sustainable development of shrimp culture.

The agenda was adopted and is reproduced in Appendix A.

5. This item was introduced by Dr Michael Phillips based on a joint paper with Mr Uwe Barg. At the international level, Chapter 40 of UNCED Agenda 21 calls for the development of indicators of sustainable development. Indicators are being used as tools for measuring key features in a 'system' and frequently as a means to measure progress (e.g. progress towards sustainable development). Sustainability indicators look at economic, social, and environmental information, as well as institutional capacities and are useful for measuring key features of shrimp culture development. Indicators can provide crucial information for improved shrimp culture management to governments, private sector organizations, research institutes and regional and international organizations. An especially useful framework for a system of indicators is the Pressure-State-Response (PSR) framework which linkes pressures on the environment from human activities with changes in the state (condition) of the environment including land, water, fisheries resources etc. and with policy responses which feed back to reduce or mitigate pressures on the environment.³

Increasing interest in sustainability indicators will require:

Better information collection and reporting systems, particularly for natural resources.

Closer integration of environmental, social and economic indicators into planning.

Reporting regularly and reliably on conditions and trends.

6. Indicators are one potentially useful tool for assessing progress and opportunities for improving sustainability of shrimp culture. Indicators can provide assistance in decision-making at various levels including farmers and farm managers, private sector investors, project planners and development agencies, and government and non-government organisations. More specifically, indicators can be used to reveal and monitor the conditions and trends in the performance of shrimp culture practices as well as of the shrimp culture sub-sector. As such indicators may assist the decision-making process by:

assisting governments, regional/international organisations, financing institutions, farmers, producers associations, and private sector in general, to measure performance and assess progress and investment decisions;

providing an information basis to financially assist sustainable management; and

facilitating the assessment of the effectiveness of management interventions, and for defining areas of necessary research and development efforts.

7. Indicators must be practical and cost-effective, and ideally integrated within existing data collection programmes. This usually calls for a small number of well-designed indicators which are clearly linked to specific criteria, and which have properly defined objectives.

8. Support to capacity building and use of appropriate methodologies are very important elements of a successful assessment programme involving indicators.

9. In introducing this agenda item, Mr Jason Clay pointed out the important role which indicators have played in monitoring and analysis of issues such as demographic and consumption trends and climate change. He noted, however, that in spite of concerted international efforts, the quality and reliability of data underlying these indicators continue to be controversial.

10. As regards shrimp culture, the identification of indicators is complicated by the fact that there is generally no agreed upon operational definition of sustainability. Further, indicators tend to measure known problem areas whereas unforeseen impacts on the environment cannot be excluded.

11. In view of the costliness of data collection, emphasis needs to be placed on a limited numbers of indicators each of which can show trends of several sustainability issues with a clear emphasis on national and eco-regional indicators. The main eco-system and bio-physical issues associated with shrimp culture are related to consequences of land conversion, species introduction, loss of bio-diversity and water quality. He suggested that specific indicators may include the following:

Geographic location and area of shrimp ponds in use and not in use.

Net conversion of mangroves and wet lands.

Percentage of ponds located in tidal areas and/or within a certain stretch of the coast.

Water use and water quality.

Capture of wild post larvae (or an estimate based on sales of hatchery reared post larvae and average stocking density).

Sales of feed and its composition.

Disease outbreaks in reared stocks and incidence of diseases in wild stocks.

Use of chemicals (or as an related indicator chemical residues in processed shrimp).

12. Mr Rolf Willmann introduced this agenda item. Taking as basis FAO�s definition of sustainable development⁴, he noted that economic and social indicators should allow to assess the economic viability and social acceptability of shrimp culture under the requirement that not only present but also future generations benefit from this economic activity. The concern for the well-being of future generations is usually expressed by the call for preserving and enhancing future development opportunities. From this view point, special attention is directed on maintaining and enhancing the stocks of (a) physical man-made capital (e.g. roads, machinery), (b) renewable and non-renewable natural capital (e.g. fish stocks; mineral resources), (c) human capital (e.g. skills and human health) and (d) social capital (institutional and cultural basis of societies). The concept of weak sustainability requires that the total aggregate stock of capital is at least maintained without prescribing its composition. Strong sustainability calls for maintaining (or increasing) distinctly each category of capital. The underlying idea is that the various kinds of capital are complements rather than substitutes.

13. Notwithstanding the problem of equivalence in measuring the stocks of different categories of capital, there is an international consensus, as expressed by the Rio Declaration, of the inadequacy of the concept of weak sustainability. There is also widespread recognition of the central role of human and social capital in the development process.

14. Referring specifically to shrimp culture, Mr Willmann argued that in many instances the price and/or lease value of land in present or prior use or earmarked for shrimp culture is a useful measure of income flow and capital stocks. A condition is that land sale and lease markets are not grossly distorted due to, for example, the granting of subsidies, the occurrence of high cost externalities or a significant discrepancy between private and social discount rates. Other economic indicators might include value added and its various components measuring income generation and distribution. These, however, may be costly to collect in practice. Gross and net foreign exchange earnings and domestic resource cost per unit of net foreign exchange earnings are suitable indicators to assess the macro-economic benefits of shrimp culture.

15. The extent of economic benefits at community and local levels are likely to strongly influence social acceptability and could be captured through indicators related to employment and wages. External environmental and social costs might need to be assessed through specific targeted surveys. In areas of high concentration of shrimp culture, broader-based social impacts might be monitored through the classical set of human development indicators (e.g., life expectancy; literacy rate; etc.).

16. Mrs Annick Van Houtte-Sabbatucci, FAO Legal Office, introduced this agenda item. She described the concepts and the characteristics of legal and institutional indicators and provided a set of indicators which may denote a sign of sustainability or non-sustainability. Legal and institutional indicators could be either indicators of pressure (direct and indirect) or driving forces affecting the resource system e.g. the quantity of authorisations issued to operate a shrimp farm or indicators of response i.e. reflecting actions taken by the government (laws and regulations) or the industry (codes of practices) or other interested parties to mitigate, reduce, eliminate or compensate for the stress caused by the development and management of shrimp culture. She emphasized that legal and institutional indicators are pointers which are likely to reveal and monitor trends in the sector provided they are not used in isolation. It is therefore essential to establish links with other pressure, state or response indicators, as the case may be.

17. She then considered different "classes" of legal indicators: (i) general legal indicators which may denote signs of sustainability, (ii) planning oriented legal indicators, (iii) farm management oriented legal indicators and (iv) legal indicators of implementation of sustainable management practices. Institutional indicators centred on the role of governments (central vs. local), the participation of social groups in decision-making and the role of NGOs.

18. In concluding her presentation, Mrs. Van Houtte-Sabbatucci reiterated that legal and institutional indicators in shrimp culture pose an important challenge to develop because they may not in a straight forward manner be valuable, accurate and measurable performance indicators predicting positive and negative trends. Further, as shrimp culture may depend on a complex network of laws and regulations, the major role of specific legislation i.e. a tool whereby a government implements and communicates its policy decisions to society, is slowly gaining acceptance. Finally, as many of the issues related to sustainability involve different inputs into shrimp culture (e.g. feed , seed, water, land, etc.) as well as other sectors (forestry, health management, etc.) linkages are imperative with other bio-physical, social and economic indicators. Hence, the expert meeting should prioritize the legal and institutional indicators in the light of the selected bio-physical, social and economic indicators.

19. Noting the difficulty of defining not only sustainable shrimp culture but also sustainable aquaculture or agriculture, Prof. Claude Boyd remarked that a sustainable shrimp culture project would score highly on indicators of profitability, environmental friendliness, and productivity. It also would contribute to the national and regional economy. The project must also last for a long time and not seriously deplete its resource base.

20. Based on the experience with channel catfish farming in the United States, the primary measures needed to improve prospects for sustainability would include careful site selection avoiding wetlands; use of moderate production intensity; conservative use of water and other resources; use of high quality feeds when available and good feed management to minimize feeding wastes; acceptable procedures of pond water quality and bottom soil management; discharge of effluents through wetlands or settling basins if possible; and participation by managers in activities to improve their management skills.

21. Whereas one could not expect farmers to share a great deal of information about their financial situation, Prof. Boyd noted that the following indicators might suggest a shrimp farm is profitable: (1) the farm has been in operation for many years; (2) the farm infrastructure has been maintained in good condition; (3) variation in production from year to year is low; (4) the owner is willing to cooperate and reveal production data; (5) the farm has not changed ownership often; (6) the farm has plans for improvement or expansion and (7) the farm contributes to the national income (taxes).

22. The current national status and constraints of monitoring the shrimp culture sub-sector was discussed by experts from Bangladesh, Ecuador and India.

23. Dr Jorge Calderon described the primary characteristics of Ecuador�s shrimp culture sub-sector including the importance and roles of large-sized farms in facilitating data collection and in industry co-operation in research and environment management. He noted the on-going efforts by farmers to reduce operating costs through measures such as reduced water exchange and feeding with trays which at the same time reduce environmental impacts. He explained the research programme of his institute and the cooperation with the private sector through information exchange.

24. Mr Masudur Rahman explained the shrimp culture situation in Bangladesh and recent government policy responses, in particular the creation of three committees at divisional, district and local level to decide on site selection, ensure environmental protection, resolve local disputes, avoid damages in the collection of shrimp fry and ensure security to property and life. The committees would also collate data on the characteristics of shrimp farms. The present information base for policy making and monitoring offered scope for improvements.

25. Dr Yugaraj Singh Yadava referred to the present institutional and legal arrangements for the development of sustainable shrimp culture in India. He mentioned the recent creation of the Aquaculture Authority whose responsibility includes the review and granting of permits for shrimp culture operations under India�s environmental management laws. The issuance of permits is, inter alia, subject to farmers following specific guidelines for brackishwater aquaculture developed in 1995. The permitting process as well as the data collection efforts by various central and state agencies provided a rich source of information on the shrimp culture sector in future. Furthermore, adjustments are made, for example, to the five-yearly census on livestock and animal husbandary, to improve the coverage of shrimp culture in it both in terms of data coverage and quality.

26. Dr Krishen Rana explained that since 1984 FAO has systematically, collated, analysed and disseminated global aquaculture production information by weight and value. In the face of a rapidly expanding sector, the mechanisms for collecting data, and the coverage and quality of data on production from aquaculture collected by countries and those reported to FAO are under review with the aim of improving their quality and relevance to future national, regional and international needs.

27. The overall framework for collecting production statistics on fisheries has been principally established to collect data from the major and minor inland and marine fishing areas set up by the Co-ordinating Working Party on Fishery Statistics (CWP). The key questionnaires are the National Summary (NS) questionnaires and the questionnaire on aquaculture (FISHSTAT AQ) sent to all countries. The procedure for estimating production from capture fisheries and aquaculture separately is currently under review and work is in progress to separate capture fisheries and aquaculture database back from 1983 to 1950.

28. At present the questionnaire (FISHSTAT AQ) on reporting production from aquaculture requests national data on the method of culture (eg pond, cages etc.) by major groupings of aquatic organisms (e.g. finfish, crustaceans, molluscs, plants, etc.), and for each category the area (ha) or volume (m³ ) and production (tonnes) is requested for culture in marine, brackish and freshwater environments. In addition, the live weight of species and average price of end product harvested from each method of culture and environment is requested. Information on hatchery output such as species and the number released for aquaculture and to the "wild" are also sought. These together with their ratios can be used as indicators for monitoring elements of the bio-physical and economic environment of shrimp culture sub-sector.

29. Although countries report several of the parameters mentioned above, the quality of the information provided is unclear and, therefore, at present FAO disseminates aquaculture production information by weight and value only. Low priority, limited funding, and inadequate equipment together with poorly qualified staff for data collection, shortage of manpower coupled with staff turnover, and minimal motivation and understanding on the methods and purpose of collecting data, often reduce the accuracy of collected data. Moreover, the coverage of data and its reporting to FAO is often constrained by the lack of appropriate co-ordination and collaboration of departments monitoring aquaculture development.

30. It may be possible to bridge some of these concerns by supporting and strengthening producer organisations who in term can interact with mandated institutions for collecting information thus ensuring anonymity to the information. In addition, such organisations together with related groups such as NGO�s and co-operatives can in turn collate such information for dissemination to the information providers, thus providing incentives for supplying the information. The probability of such a feedback system succeeding may be increased by truly integrating data collection into national policy on aquaculture development and utilising a national harmonised reporting system in which the feedback to information suppliers can be rapid.

31. The meeting prioritized and prepared a recommended short-list of the criteria and indicators which should form the basis for regular reporting by countries to the FAO Committee on Fisheries (COFI). The meeting concluded that the regular collation of these indicators would greatly benefit the planning and management of shrimp culture development in the countries. In drawing up this list, the group was guided primarily by the specific areas listed in paragraph 64 of the Bangkok FAO Consultation and its call for practicality for countries to compile such information (see first paragraph of the Introduction to this Report). The latter was of primary importance to the group which felt that governments should not be over-burdened with an excessively long list of data requirements. The group also recognized that time may be required to develop and implement monitoring programmes based on these indicators, and special assistance to developing countries may be required in support of such programmes. This approach is also in line with Article 5 of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries which calls on States, relevant inter-governmental and non-governmental organizations and financial institutions to adopt measures to address the needs of developing countries, especially in the areas of financial and technical assistance

32. In the case of a few areas listed by the Bangkok Consultation for coverage through indicators, the group concluded that no internationally comparable and satisfactory indicators could be identified at the national level. These areas would need to be covered by eco-regional or local level indicators which went beyond the recommended national reporting by governments to COFI. The areas in question are indicators for effects of shrimp culture on water quality and local level positive and negative socio-economic impacts.

33. Regarding indicators for effects of shrimp culture on water quality, the group recognized that water quality is often influenced significantly by many types of uses including shrimp farming and is subject to seasonal and inter-annual variability caused by oceanographic and climatic factors. In addition, changes in water quality resulting from human activities may or may not incur significant adverse ecological effects. No satisfactory quantitative indicators could be identified which could be used for the purpose of regular reporting on water quality changes or on other effects on the aquatic environment. In their absence, the group concluded that countries should be requested to indicate if an environmental monitoring system is in place in the coastal areas which would allow to assess, among other aspects, changes in environmental quality including water quality.

34. As regards socio-economic aspects, some positive impacts can be measured and reported in quantitative terms at the national level such as employment figures relating to the numbers of shrimp farmers and employed household members and permanent and occasional labourers. Structural data on the size distribution of shrimp farms by total surface area do convey information on the distribution of benefits derived from shrimp farming. Other positive impacts such as, for example, infrastructure development, including construction of roads, schools, hospitals, or increase in local trade and services, which are often associated with development of rural areas where shrimp farming has been established, are very location-specific, and therefore, difficult to determine in the context of country-wide assessments.

35. Similar difficulties arise with the quantitative assessment of negative socio-economic impacts of shrimp culture at the national level because these are generally also location-specific and related to aspects such as salination of well water; seepage of saltwater into fields adjacent to shrimp ponds which can reduce yields of paddy, vegetables or fruit trees; reduced access to common grazing lands; and others. The group concluded that while there is clearly a need to quantitatively assess the socio-economic impacts of shrimp culture, data and information on most of the related indicators would need to be collated at the sub-national and local levels.

36. The list of indicators recommended by the ad-hoc expert group is presented in Attachment 1 in questionnaire format. The structure of presentation adopted is to first state the scope of monitoring or assessment with reference to the areas suggested by the Bangkok Consultation (see Introduction) , followed by the criterion or criteria for establishing the relevance of the selected indicator(s). An annotation of the rationale for selecting an indicator has been made where appropriate.

37. A distinction has been made on the collection and reporting frequency of different indicators. Whereas most of them should be collected on an annual basis and reported bi-annually to COFI, several legal and institutional and structural indicators should be collected and reported at larger time intervals of between 4 and 6 years.

38. In addition to these recommended indicators, the participants considered several other desirable criteria and indicators which they felt were also highly useful but for the time being were difficult to collect and collate for most shrimp producing countries. With respect to legal and regulatory issues, participants felt that some additional information would be useful to monitor the extent of enforcement and compliance with laws, rules and regulations. Information on the nature, structure and staffing of the regulatory and enforcement authority or authorities would also be desirable.

39. With respect to economic indicators, prices and lease fees of land used for shrimp culture provide suitable indicators of financial performance where land and lease markets are not grossly distorted,⁵. An indication of financial performance may also be obtained from loans made available to shrimp farmers by public and private banks. Where the incidence of cost externalities⁶ is low or absent, land prices and lease fees are also good indicators of economic performance⁷ of shrimp culture over time.

40. The expert group agreed that once experience has been made with the collation of data and information on the recommended indicators, a review be undertaken to examine any desirable revisions and amendments.

41. The meeting had limited time to consider this agenda item. Participants were conscious of the difficulties and costs associated with detailed data collection and analysis and information dissemination. In the first instance, thus, there was an emphasis on identifying sustainability indicators which could be derived from statistics already available in many shrimp producing countries. The meeting noted, however, that in many countries policy-making for sustainable shrimp culture development and its planning and management would greatly benefit if governments and industry had access to a wider set of data than presently collected in most countries. Expanded data collection for a comprehensive system of sustainability indicators for shrimp culture, thus, should be tied as closely as possible to existing national/sub-national information systems to avoid creating additional burdens. An initial survey of existing information systems and capacities could be helpful in many instances to determine how data gaps on shrimp culture could be filled in the most cost-effective manner while ensuring high data quality. Pilot studies might also be undertaken for assessing the practicality of deriving potential indicators, determining the best way of communicating results to farmers and government agencies, and evaluating the usefulness of various indicators for improved shrimp culture management by private and public sectors. These could also serve as guidance for other types of aquaculture requiring a high level of integration with other users of natural resources, especially agriculture.

42. The meeting also observed that in many instances, closer cooperation between government agencies and the private shrimp culture sector including associations of small farmers, could greatly enhance information availability and dissemination among concerned stakeholders. While farm level sustainability indicators were not extensively discussed in the meeting, the group recognized that such indicators would help track the implementation of codes of practice. Investments into improved information acquisition capacity by public and private sectors were considered yielding high dividends because farm operations would become more efficient and external costs would be minimized thereby maximizing the contribution of shrimp culture to national economic development.

43. The meeting noted the available opportunities of improving data coverage on shrimp culture within existing agricultural surveys and census at low additional costs. In this connection, specific reference was made to the often long experience with existing crop assessment surveys in agriculture whose scope and methodology might be adapted for monitoring shrimp culture. Reference was also made to the collection of structural data on aquaculture including shrimp culture within the forthcoming World Census of Agriculture 2000. FAO has prepared detailed guidelines for including aquaculture within this census⁸.

44. The meeting observed that many shrimp producing countries presently lacked sufficient financial and human resources to adopt a comprehensive statistical system for their shrimp culture sub-sectors. Due to the latters� often high contribution to foreign exchange earnings and rural income and employment, and their particular planning and management requirements, there was abundant justification for strengthening the statistical and information acquisition capacity of countries through external assistance programmes which might include the provision of training, preparation of guidelines and data storage and processing equipment. In this regard, the meeting felt it important that shrimp producing countries be given the opportunity to report to COFI on ways and means on how their information and statistical systems could benefit from external assistance. Consequently, this important point has been incorporated in the questionnaire addressed to governments which is further explained below.

45. The meeting concluded that it would be premature at this stage to request governments to report actual data on the indicators identified and recommended by this expert group to the next session of COFI, 15-19 February 1999.

46. The questionnaire shown in Attachment 2 has been elaborated to allow governments prior to COFI a detailed review of the list of indicators identified by the expert group and an opportunity to comment on their present and future ability to acquire the data and information for the envisaged regular reporting exercise. Moreover, governments are invited to indicate the nature of assistance deemed desirable to facilitate future reporting. Based on the returns of completed questionnaires, the Fisheries Department and the Legal Office of FAO will prepare and make available a summary of the responses by governments of farmed shrimp producing countries at the next session of COFI.

ATTACHMENT 1: DRAFT QUESTIONNAIRE ON RECOMMENDED INDICATORS^9,10

Criteria: Coastal zone planning, and laws and regulations applicable to shrimp culture reveal existence of a policy of a central or local government and are thus tools whereby a government, whether centralised or not, communicates its policy decisions to society. They indicate also the state�s willingness to implement its policy decisions. Likewise codes, guidelines or manuals, will show the government�s and the industry�s willingness to regulate shrimp culture development and management.

1. Are there coastal zone management plans which encompass the management of shrimp culture? Yes No

2. Is there coastal land use planning incorporating shrimp culture? Yes No

3. Is there a coastal environment monitoring programme? Yes No

* 4. Is there any principal or subordinate legislation in your country regulating specifically aquaculture activities. If yes, please list important laws, acts, orders, statutes, administrative circulars, etc. below¹¹ (use separate sheet if the provided space is insufficient):

* 5. Is there any principal or subordinate legislation in your country regulating specifically shrimp culture. If yes, please list important laws, acts, orders, statutes, administrative circulars, etc. below¹² (use separate sheet if the provided space is insufficient):

6. Are there any codes of practice, guidelines (general and technical guidelines) or manuals relating specifically to shrimp culture. If yes, please list them below specifying the title and the originator(s)/author(s)¹³ (use separate sheet if the provided space is insufficient):

* 7. Is there any important legislation (central/provincial) relating specifically to coastal aquaculture and/or to shrimp culture or any code of practice, guidelines, etc. currently being prepared. If yes, please provide a brief description¹⁴ thereof below (use separate sheet if the provided space is insufficient):

8. Are shrimp farmers organized in associations? Yes No

8(a). If yes, what is the percentage of the farmers who are organized? �� (%)

Criterion: EIA is a process whereby environmental information useful for decision-making in the planning process for shrimp culture operations is obtained to anticipate possible changes in the environment which are likely to occur with the introduction of shrimp culture operations.

9. Is the establishment of a shrimp farming operation subject to an environmental impact assessment procedure? Yes No

��.. (nos.) in the period since ��. (year)¹⁵

10(b). Total land and water surface area for which EIAs were undertaken ��..(hectares) in the period since ��� (year)¹⁴

Criterion: An authorisation/ licensing process allows governments to direct shrimp culture projects towards suitable locations, to prevent the establishment of undesirable shrimp culture projects, to resolve in advance claims on water and land use , to require appropriate design and construction techniques within the shrimp farms.

* 11. Before establishing a shrimp farm, is there a requirement to obtain a specific authorisation¹⁶ from the Government? Yes, since ��.(year when authorization procedure was introduced) No

*11(a). If yes, please specify under which current conditions shrimp farms require an authorisation:

11(b). Please provide the number of authorizations granted for setting up a shrimp farm in the years: 1995 ��.. (nos.); 1996 ����. (nos.); and 1997 ���� (nos)

12. Please provide the total number of shrimp farms not yet authorised but required to obtain authorization (licensed, registered, etc.)? ����.. (nos.)

13. Please provide the number of applications refused for authorisation for setting up a shrimp farm in the years¹⁷: 1995 ���� (nos.);

1996 ���. (nos.); and 1997 �����.. (nos.)

15. Is the authorisation given on a permanent basis? Yes No

If no, please provide the duration of validity: ��.. (months)

Criteria: Sustainable development is commonly associated with increasing well-being of present and future generations. Increased shrimp production and production efficiency, higher earnings of foreign exchange and more employment opportunities can all contribute to improved well-being. Higher levels of benefits are often associated with a stable positive trend in production and production efficiency over time. The tenure/ownership structure and size distribution of shrimp farms can influence employment generation and income distribution. The terms of tenure (e.g. its duration) can influence the extent to which the tenant takes care of the long term sustainability of the operation. The parameters listed below allow for the calculation of various ratios which can serve as indicators of production efficiency (e.g. production per unit area), labour intensity (output per employed person) and other aspects.

16. What has been the total farmed shrimp production? Year¹⁸ ��.. Quantity ���.. (tonnes)

17. What has been the total export quantity of domestically farmed shrimp?

Year ��� ��..��.. (tonnes in live weight equivalent)

18. What has been the total export value (FOB)¹⁹ of domestically farmed shrimp?

19 What is the total shrimp farm area?

19(a). Total land and water surface area: ��.(hectares)

19(b).Total water surface area �����. (hectares)

20. What is the total number of shrimp farms? �����(numbers)

* 21. Is information available on the size distribution of shrimp farms by total surface area? Yes No

* 21(a). If yes, please provide information on the size classification and distribution:

a) Shrimp farms below �.ha: Numbers���Total surface area ��(hectares)

b) Shrimp farms from � ha to <�� ha: Numbers ��. Total surface area ��..(hectares)

c) Shrimp farms from �..ha to <�� ha: Numbers ��. .Total surface area ��.(hectares)

d) Shrimp farms from �..ha to <�� ha: Numbers ��. .Total surface area ��.(hectares)

e) Shrimp farms of ��. ha or more Numbers ��. .Total surface area ��.(hectares)

*22. How many farms are owner-operated? Numbers��.. Total surface area ��(hectares)

* 23. How many farms are rented/leased?

* 23(a). From government: Numbers ���. Total surface area ���� (ha) Average duration of lease: ������ (months)

* 23(b). From private parties²⁰: Numbers ����Total surface area ����. (ha)

Average duration of lease: ������. (months)

24. How many household members of the farm holders²¹ are engaged in shrimp farming? ���(numbers)

25(a). Number of permanent²² workers/labourers employed during the year? ���. (numbers)

25(b). Number of occasional²³ workers/labourers employed during the year? ���.. (numbers)

26(a). Daily pay for a male unskilled worker: ��� (Currency: ����..)

26(b). Daily pay for a female unskilled worker: ��.. (Currency: ����..)

Feeding efficiency²⁴

Criterion: Pellet feed, imported and/or manufactured domestically, is an important production input. Efficient feed use has three inter-related benefits: cost-saving; reduction of organic waste in effluent, and improved feed conversion ratio (FCR), especially of valuable animal protein. Also the share of fishmeal & oil in shrimp feed can be estimated.

27. What has been the total consumption of pellet feed in domestic shrimp culture?

Year � From domestic pellet feed production ��� (tonnes)

From imports ���. (tonnes)

28. What has been the total weight of fish meal and fish oil utilized in the pellet feed used in domestic shrimp culture? Year ��

28(a). Quantity of fish meal & oil in domestic pellet feed: ����.. (tonnes)

28(b). Quantity of fish meal & oil in imported pellet feed: ����. (tonnes)

Criterion: Reduction of disease incidences to improve productivity and economic performance

29. Is there a reporting system on disease incidence? Yes No

30. Is there a law requiring shrimp and fish health certification and quarantine? Yes No

31. Has there been a major disease outbreak during last year? Yes No

Criterion: Reduced dependence on seed supply from the wild. The dependency can be expressed through the calculation of the following two indicators: total domestic supply of hatchery-grown post larvae per unit of production of farmed shrimp or per unit of pond area.

32. What has been the production of shrimp post larvae in domestic hatcheries?

Year ��. Numbers produced �����

33. Has there been any reported trade in shrimp post larvae? Yes No

33(a). If yes, provide the following details:

Year ��. Numbers exported ����..Numbers imported ����.

Criterion: Safe and effective use of antibiotics. One quantitative indicator of antibiotic application in shrimp culture is the ratio between the quantity of medicated feed used and the total production of farmed shrimp.

34. Is there a system of quality control measures in shrimp processing plants? Yes No .

35. Are there existing guidelines on the use of antibiotics for shrimp culture? Yes No

36. What has been the total use of medicated feeds (i.e. containing antibiotics) in shrimp farming? Year ���� Quantity ��� (tonnes)

Criterion: Mangrove forests can supply a variety of benefits for marine fisheries and local communities including aquaculture and aquaculture farmers. They are ecologically, economically and socially important coastal environments which should be managed.

37. Have there been any new shrimp farms established in mangrove areas or have existing farms expanded their area during recent years? Yes No

37(a). If yes, please provide the following details:

Year 1995 Mangrove area converted: ���� (hectares)

Year 1996 Mangrove area converted: ���� (hectares)

Year 1997 Mangrove area converted: ���� (hectares)

38. Have there been conversions of mangroves areas for uses other than shrimp culture?

38(a). If yes, please provide the following details:

Year 1995 Mangrove area converted: ���� (hectares)

Year 1995 Mangrove area converted: ���� (hectares)

Year 1995 Mangrove area converted: ���� (hectares)

39. Is there a mangrove management programme? Yes No

40. Are there programmes of rehabilitation of mangrove areas which have been in prior use for shrimp culture? Yes No

40(a). If yes, does the rehabilitation include the planting of mangroves? Yes No.........

Criterion: Shrimp culture and its related activities are based on technologies and techniques which are believed to offer significant opportunities for improvements leading to higher efficiency in the use of production inputs and thus cost-savings and resources management. Expenditures by government and private sector for shrimp culture research provide an indication of the importance given to achieving such improvements.

41. What have been the expenditures for shrimp culture-specific research? Year

41(a). Government expenditures: �����.. Currency �������

41(b). Private sector expenditures: �����.. Currency ������...

ATTACHMENT 2: DRAFT QUESTIONNAIRE ON PRESENT DATA COLLECTED ON THE SHRIMP CULTURE SUB-SECTOR, ON RELATED ASSISTANCE NEEDS AND ON RECOMMENDED INDICATORS AS IDENTIFIED BY THE AD-HOC EXPERT GROUP²⁵

Background: The background to this questionnaire is given in the Report of the Ad-hoc Expert Meeting on Indicators and Criteria of Sustainable Shrimp Culture, Rome, Italy, 28 to 30 April 1998, see especially sections 1 and 14.

C. Comments on Recommended Indicators

Please provide below your comments, if any, on the recommended indicators listed in Attachment 1 of the Report of the Ad-hoc Expert Group Meeting.

Please use the serial number shown in Attachment 1 to identify the indicators.

Please list below those recommended indicators for which your Government is presently unable to provide the required data and information. Please use the serial number shown in Attachment 1 to identify the indicators.

Please list below those recommended indicators for which your government is presently unable but can in future provided the required data and information. Please provide the year from which onwards the data and information can be provided.

Please specify below the nature of desired assistance to improve and facilitate the collection of data and information for the recommended indicators

 

APPENDIX A

Agenda

Tuesday, 28/4/98

Opening

Election of chairman

Adoption of agenda

The concept and role of sustainability indicators: an introduction

Eco-system and bio-physical indicators

Economic and social indicators

Legal and institutional indicators

Farm-level indicators (bio-physical; technical; financial)

Wednesday, 29/4/98

Experiences with the compilation and use of data and information on shrimp culture

Collation of aquaculture statistics by FAO

Review and short-listing/prioritization of indicators and criteria

Thursday, 30/4/98

Review and short-listing/prioritization of indicators and criteria (cont.)

Discussion on ways and means of information acquisition and dissemination

Discussion of contents of annotated questionnaire addressed to governments

APPENDIX B

List of Participants

External Experts

BOYD, Claude
Consultant to the Global Aquaculture Alliance (GAA)
Auburn University
P.O. Box 3074
Auburn, Alabama 36849-5419
USA
Tel: (334) 844-4075 (O), 844-4078
Fax: (334) 844-9208, (334) 887-8012 (H)
e-mail: [email protected]

CALDERON, Jorge
Director
Centro Nacional de Acuicultura e Investigaciones Marinas (CENAIM)
Campus Prosperina
P.O. Box 09-01-4519
Guayaquil
ECUADOR
E-mail: [email protected]

CLAY, Jason
Senior Fellow (Consultant)
World Wide Fund for Nature
1250 24th Street NW
Washington, D.C. 20037
USA
Tel. 202-778-9691
Fax: 202-293-9211
e-mail: [email protected]

LIU, Xiaobing
Bureau of Fisheries
Ministry of Agriculture
China

PHILLIPS, Michael
Environment Specialist
Network of Aquaculture Centres in
Asia and Pacific (NACA)
P.O. Box 1040
Kasetsart Post Office
Bangkok 10903
Thailand
Tel: +66-2-561-1728/9
Fax: +66-2-561-1727
e-mail: [email protected]

RAHMAN, Md Masudur
Director (Marine)
Department of Fisheries
Park Avenue, Ramna
Matsha Bhaban
Dhaka 1000, Bangladesh
Tel: 9561355, 9561715-509002 (res.)
Fax: 9568393

YADAVA, Yugraj Singh
Fisheries Development Commissioner
Krishi Bhavan
Ministry of Agriculture
New Delhi-11001, India
Tel:+91-11- 3386379; Fax: +91-11-3384030

ZWEIG, Ronald
Senior Aquaculturist
The World Bank
1818 H Street, NW
Washington, DC 20433
USA
Tel: (202) 458-2174
Fax: (202) 522-1664
e-mail: [email protected]

FAO Staff
(Viale delle Terme di Caracalla
00100 Rome, Italy)

BARG, Uwe
Fishery Resources Officer
Fishery Resources Division
Tel: +39-6-57053454
Fax: +39-6-57053020
e-mail: [email protected]

RANA, Krishan
Fishery Statistician (Aquaculture)
Fishery Information, Data and Statistics Unit
Tel: +39-6-57052259
Fax: +39-6-57053605
e-mail: [email protected]

SHEHADEH, Ziad
Senior Fishery Resources Officer
Inland Water Resources and Aquaculture Service
Tel: +39-6-57054795
Fax: +39-6-57053020
e-mail: [email protected]

SUBASINGHE, Rohana
Fishery Resources Officer
Fishery Resources Division
Tel: +39-6-57056473
Fax: +39-6-57053020
e-mail: [email protected]

VAN-HOUTTE-SABBATUCCI, Annick
Legal Officer
Legal Office
Tel: +39-6-57054287
Fax: +39-6-57054408
e-mail: annick.vanhoutte@fao

WILLMANN, Rolf
Senior Fishery Planning Officer
Fishery Policy and Planning Division
Tel: +39-6-57053408
Fax: +39-6-57056500
e-mail: [email protected]

---

1		The report in English and Spanish has been published as FAO Fisheries Report No. 572.
2		The report in English and Spanish has been published as FAO Fisheries Report No. 572. The English version can be found on the Internet at the home page of the FAO Fisheries Department:fi.
3		This framework is described in greater detail in OECD. 1993. Core Set of Indicators for Environmental Performance Reviews. A Synthesise Report by the Group on the State of the Environment. Paris. 35p. It has been adopted by many OECD countries and by the World Bank for environmental reporting.
4		The FAO definition of 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."
5		Financial performance refers to the profitability of shrimp culture from the point of view of the private investor or farm owner.
6		An externality arises when the production activity by one economic unit (e.g. one shrimp farm) has a direct effect on the welfare of another economic unit (e.g. an other shrimp farm or a paddy farm). An external cost reduces welfare (profit/income) of the other economic unit.
7		Economic performance refers to the profitability of shrimp culture from the point of view of society.
8		Rana, K.J. 1997. Guidelines on the collection of structural aquaculture statistics. Supplement to the Programme for the World Census of Agriculture 2000. FAO Statistics Development Series No. 5b. Rome.
9		The indicators are grouped according to the areas of coverage recommended in paragraph 64 of the Report of the Bangkok FAO Technical Consultation on Policies for Sustainable Shrimp Culture, No. 572.
10		The questions marked with an asterisk (*) should be answered at a minimum periodicity of six years; if governments wish to report changes at a shorter periodicity, they may do so. All other questions should be answered at a minimum periodicity of two years.
11		Only those to be included which specifically deal with aquaculture.
12		Only those to be included which specifically deal with shrimp culture.
13		originator(s)/author(s): codes, guidelines and manuals may have been prepared and issued by central or local government, by the shrimp industry and also, as the case may be, by a combination of both.
14		description: please provide the full title and a summary of the purposes of the documents/texts under preparation.
15		Please provide aggregate data for the period as far back as information is available.
16		The authorisation (i.e. permit, licence or registration) referred to in this and in the following questions is specific to shrimp culture and distinct from possible authorisation, permit, concession or license required in order to have access to the water or land.
17		Refusals on purely procedural grounds should not be reported.
18		Wherever quantitative information is requested, please provide it for the most recent year for which data are available.
19		FOB = free on board value and excluding costs of freight and insurance.
20		Leave blank if information is not available.
21		The holder of an agricultural or shrimp farm is a civil or juridical person who makes major decisions regarding resource use and exercises management control over the holding operation. The holder has technical and economic responsibility for the holding and may undertake all responsibilities directly, or delegate responsibilities related to day-to-day work management to a hired manager.
22		Permanent workers/labourers are those whose services are utilized regularly and continuously for aquaculture work on the farm but may work less than six months during the aquaculture year.
23		Occasional workers/labourers work one or more times during the year but are not expected to work regularly or continuously on the farm.
24		Feeding efficiency is not listed in paragraph 64 of the Report of the Bangkok Consultation.
25		This does not show the final lay-out of the questionnaire.