Environmental Strategies For Aquaculture

Environmental Strategies for aquaculture: Report for NEPAD PAF-AWG Page i
Partnership for African Fisheries (PAF) Aquaculture Working Group:

Environmental Strategies for Aquaculture: A Strategic review on
environmental capacity and management, climate change
response/adaptation and aquatic system health.

Contributors Neil Handisyde Sophie Fridman John Bostock

Authors Contact: neil.handisyde@stir.ac.uk

February 2014

Increasing cage culture across SS Africa putting demands on local environments, Jinja, Uganda.
Photo courtesy of Iain Gatwood

Environmental Strategies for aquaculture: Report for NEPAD PAF-AWG Page ii
Acknowledgements

This report was commissioned by NEPAD through the University of Stirling UK. Thanks are due to Mr.
John Bostock and William Leschen for contributions to editing.

Disclaimer

The information and views set out in this report are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect the official opinion of NEPAD or the University of Stirling. Neither NEPAD, the University of
Stirling, nor any person acting on their behalf may be held responsible for the use which may be
made of the information contained therein.

Environmental Strategies for aquaculture: Report for NEPAD PAF-AWG Page iii
Contents
CONTENTS ................................................................................................................................... II
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................. V
1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 AQUACULTURE/ENVIRONMENTAL INTERACTIONS .............................................................................. 1
1.3 SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA; REGIONAL RESOURCES AND FEATURES ............................................................ 2
1.4 AQUACULTURE; ENVIRONMENT AND SPECIES .................................................................................... 3
1.5 CURRENT AND EMERGING TOPICS ................................................................................................... 5
2 ENVIRONMENTAL CAPACITY AND MANAGEMENT ................................................................. 7
2.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 7
2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL INTERACTIONS WITH AQUACULTURE SYSTEMS .......................................................... 7
2.2.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 7
2.2.2 Land and water requirements ......................................................................................... 8
2.2.3 Sedimentation, effluent discharge, nutrient enrichment and eutrophication ................ 9
2.2.4 Chemical residues ............................................................................................................ 9
2.2.5 Inputs for aquaculture ..................................................................................................... 9
2.2.6 Impacts on wild populations and ecosystems due to escapes and disease .................. 10
2.2.7 Other impacts ................................................................................................................ 10
2.3 REVIEW OF ISSUES AND CURRENT THINKING ABOUT AQUACULTURE AND ENVIRONMENTAL CAPACITY IN
INLAND AND COASTAL SYSTEMS. ............................................................................................................... 11
2.4 MANAGEMENT APPROACHES ....................................................................................................... 14
2.5 DEFINING, MONITORING, AND MODELLING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND CARRYING CAPACITY .............. 2
2.6 SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. 4
3 THE CONCEPT AND PRACTICALITIES OF AQUATIC SYSTEM HEALTH WITH RESPECT TO
AQUACULTURE PRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 6
3.1 AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM HEALTH ........................................................................................................ 6
3.2 AQUACULTURE PRODUCTION SYSTEMS AND ENVIRONMENTS ............................................................... 7
3.2.1 Freshwater ...................................................................................................................... 7
3.2.2 Coastal i.e. marine and brackish water ........................................................................... 7
3.2.3 Recirculated aquaculture systems (RAS) ......................................................................... 8
3.3 RISKS AND THEIR MANAGEMENT .................................................................................................. 10
3.3.1 Ecosystem function and biodiversity ............................................................................. 10
3.3.2 Fish health ..................................................................................................................... 13
4 CLIMATE CHANGE AND AFRICAN AQUACULTURE ................................................................. 17
4.1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 17
4.2 THE ABILITY TO PREDICT CLIMATE CHANGE ..................................................................................... 17
4.3 PREDICTED CLIMATE CHANGES FOR AFRICA .................................................................................... 19
4.3.1 Temperature.................................................................................................................. 19
4.3.2 Rainfall .......................................................................................................................... 20
4.3.3 Extreme weather ........................................................................................................... 21
4.3.4 Sea level rise .................................................................................................................. 22
Environmental Strategies for aquaculture: Report for NEPAD PAF-AWG Page iv
4.4 POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGES ON AFRICAN AQUACULTURE ............................................. 23
4.4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 23
4.4.2 Temperature changes ................................................................................................... 25
4.4.3 Water availability changes............................................................................................ 26
4.4.4 Sea level rise .................................................................................................................. 28
4.4.5 Effects of extreme weather ........................................................................................... 29
4.4.6 Ocean acidification ........................................................................................................ 29
4.4.7 Indirect impacts ............................................................................................................. 30
4.5 ASSESSING VULNERABILITY ADAPTATION ....................................................................................... 30
5 DEVELOPING A SUSTAINABLE AND RESILIENT APPROACH TO AQUACULTURE DEVELOPMENT ...
.......................................................................................................................................... 32
5.1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 32
5.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT FOR AQUACULTURE GROWTH IN AFRICA .................................................. 32
5.3 FISH HEALTH AND WELFARE ISSUES AND MITIGATION MECHANISMS ................................................... 34
5.4 CLIMATE CHANGE AND RESPONSES ............................................................................................... 35
5.5 PRIORITISING DEVELOPMENTS IN AQUACULTURE IN SSA................................................................... 38
6 RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................................... 40
6.1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 40
6.2 POLICY PRIORITIES ..................................................................................................................... 40
6.2.1 Land and water ............................................................................................................. 40
6.2.2 Seed supply .................................................................................................................... 41
6.2.3 Feed and fertilisers ........................................................................................................ 42
6.2.4 Aquatic system health ................................................................................................... 42
6.2.5 Climate change and resilience ...................................................................................... 43
6.3 INTEGRATING POLICIES ............................................................................................................... 43
6.4 STRATEGIC ROLES ...................................................................................................................... 45
6.4.1 Private Enterprises ........................................................................................................ 45
6.4.2 NGOs ............................................................................................................................. 46
6.4.3 Governments/Public Sector Agents ............................................................................... 47
REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. 48
ANNEX 1 .................................................................................................................................... 56

Environmental Strategies for aquaculture: Report for NEPAD PAF-AWG Page v
Executi ve summary

It is well established that the world population is increasing as is the demand for aquatic food
products. For almost three decades fishing techniques have left the fisheries stocks from oceans,
lakes and rivers depleted. Aquaculture, in common with other agricultural sectors, uses natural
resources and interacts with the environment and it is now universally accepted that increasing
efficiency in resource use and minimising adverse environmental interactions are major goals for the
future. If, therefore, the sector is expected to expand as a response to the growing demand for fish,
there are, inevitably, a number of constraints limiting the expansion of aquaculture and questioning
its long-term sustainability. These broader issues concerning the interaction of aquacultural
operations with the environment may include a competition for land and water resources from
agricultural, industrial and domestic usage creating the potential for conflict between aquaculture
and competing users especially in areas where water is limiting. The effects of discharge of effluent
from aquacultural operations on the environment also pose a threat and may include both solid
wastes with high carbon load and soluble wastes with their dissolved nutrients in effluent water with
their compounding effects of eutrophication of surrounding ecosystems. Chemical residues
discharged from aquacultural operations resulting from the use of pest and disease controlling
agents, compounds used to reduce bio fouling, anaesthetics, and hormones used for inducing
breeding or sex reversal also impact their surrounding environment. In addition, the ecological
impact of escaped stock on local aquatic systems, especially when non-native species are farmed, is
significant and the introduction or increased prevalence of diseases resulting from aquacultural
activity similarly may show detrimental effects on the local fish stock and environment. The need for
higher quality feed inputs for intensive aquaculture operations raises further questions such as the
use of capture fisheries as a protein source or the cultivation (and associated land and water use) for
grain and oilseed ingredients. Additional challenges are posed by the threat of climate change and
the need for resilience.

Further research is needed to better understand the interactions and importance of each effect.
However, there is a growing appreciation that food production activities need to be better
integrated to make more effective use of ecosystem services and to provide better complementarily
at different ecological scales. In particular there is a need to match the waste outputs from one
process with the input needs of others, to minimise transport of intermediate products and to
promote appropriate system types according to the development of markets and infrastructures.
There is a growing body of work that defines the environmental impacts of aquaculture and hence
provides guidance on appropriate mitigation measures and increasingly accepted guidelines and
standards for operation and management. There is rather less work on aquaculture at the ecosystem
level and its interaction with other activities, but further international collaboration will build on this.

Strategic guidelines are increasingly in place to guide policy and government activity. Voluntary
standards and codes of practice are also available to producers to help improve management
practices and to guide future development. The main issues are probably developing capacity, both
in terms of expertise and facilities to undertake proper assessments and monitoring, and the
strength of governance to ensure that development is carried out responsibly. A greater
appreciation of aquatic ecosystem health issues are also needed throughout industry and society,
requiring promotion through education, NGO and marketing activities.
Environmental Strategies for aquaculture: Report for NEPAD PAF-AWG Page 1
1 Introduction

1.1 Introduction

It is well established that the world population is increasing as is the demand for aquatic food
products. For almost three decades fishing techniques have left the fisheries stocks from oceans,
lakes and rivers depleted. Guidelines often exist, however alleged breaches of regulation and
inadequacies in policy implementation have resulted in an over-exploitation of stock. This has had
apparent negative implications for food security through the reduction of social welfare in countries
around the world, especially in developing countries relying on fish as their main source of animal
protein and income from subsistence fisheries. Hand in hand with this decline a concomitant
increase in aquaculture derived foods has resulted in the formation of a globally important and
dynamic industry.

Aquaculture has been defined by the FAO (1990) as the farming of aquatic organisms including fish,
molluscs, crustaceans and aquatic plants and implies some kind of intervention in the rearing
process in order to enhance production e.g. regular stocking, feeding, protection from predators etc.
It is universally recognized that it can bridge this gap between declining capture fisheries output and
the rapidly increasing global demand for seafood. For several decades aquaculture has been the
fastest growing food production sector in the world, and worldwide production has been seen to
grow at an average annual rate of 8.1% since 1981. With poultry showing the next largest rate of
increase over this period at 5%, the global importance and vitality of the aquaculture industry clearly
stands out (FAO, 2008a). Indeed aquaculture production, excluding aquatic plants, has shown an
increase from c. 600 000 tonnes (t) in 1950 to 52.5 million t in 2008, accounting for around half of
fisheries products for human consumption (FAO, 2010b).

In 2009 Africas population passed 1 billion and with an estimated growth of 24 million a year, it is
expected to double by 2050. In sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) most commercial and artisanal capture
fisheries are either declining or are optimally exploited (FAO, 2005) and per capita fish consumption
has similarly been seen to decrease. This can only realistically be replaced with aquaculture-derived
products; in order to maintain the current per capita fish supply in SSA of 6.6 kg/person/year, a 20 %
increase in production within 10 years and a 32 % increase by the year 2020 is required (Delgado et
al., 2003; NEPAD, 2005). Therefore, combined with the high population growth rate, this shortfall of
fish emphasises the need for a rapid growth of the aquaculture sector. Availability of land in sub-
Saharan Africa in not a constraint for aquaculture development (Kapetsky, 1994) therefore the
potential clearly exists to significantly increase aquaculture production using existing bio-physical
resources (Aguilar-Manjarrez and Nath, 1998).

1.2 Aquaculture/environmental interactions

Aquaculture, in common with other agricultural sectors, uses natural resources and interacts with
the environment and it is now universally accepted that increasing efficiency in resource use and
minimising adverse environmental interactions are major goals for the future. If, therefore, the
sector is expected to expand as a response to the growing demand for fish, there are, inevitably, a
number of constraints limiting the expansion of aquaculture and questioning its long-term
sustainability. These broader issues concerning the interaction of aquacultural operations with the
environment may include a competition for land and water resources from agricultural, industrial
and domestic usage creating the potential for conflict between aquaculture and competing users
especially in areas where water is limiting. Whilst cage aquaculture, especially in a marine
environment, can be viewed as efficient in terms of water use when compared to other agriculture
sectors, the growth of freshwater, land based aquacultural facilities may be restricted if seen to
compete with other users.

The effects of discharge of effluent from aquacultural operations on the environment also pose a
threat and may include both solid wastes with high carbon load and soluble wastes with their
dissolved nutrients in effluent water with their compounding effects of eutrophication of
surrounding ecosystems. The impact of these effects depend largely on the scale of the aquaculture
facilities and may range from a relatively low discharge from extensive pond based operations to a
higher discharge from intensive systems with higher rates of water exchange, higher stocking
densities, and large inputs of feeds entering receiving waters (Pillay, 2004). Chemical residues
discharged from aquacultural operations resulting from the use of pest and disease controlling
agents, compounds used to reduce bio fouling, anaesthetics, and hormones used for inducing
breeding or sex reversal also impact their surrounding environment. In addition, the ecological
impact of escaped stock on local aquatic systems, especially when non-native species are farmed, is
significant and the introduction or increased prevalence of diseases resulting from aquacultural
activity similarly may show detrimental effects on the local fish stock and environment.

1.3 Sub-Saharan Africa; regional resources and features

The contribution of sub-Saharan Africa to global aquaculture production remains very small but is
increasing significantly; between 2000 and 2008 there was an increase in production from 55 802 to
238 877 tonnes (Table 1). Nigeria is consistently the largest producer of aquaculture products in sub-
Saharan Africa; in 2008 it accounted for 60 % of production by quantity (Table 1 and Figure 1) at 56%
of the total value. Other major producers are Uganda and Madagascar and these three countries
together contributed 86 % of the total production in SSA in 2008 (the first seven major producers
account for 93.7 % of total production in 2008 by quantity (Table 1)).

Table 1: Top seven aquaculture producers in sub-Saharan Africa (2000 and 2008) by quantity (in tonnes) and
by value (US$ '000). Source - FAO, 2010b
Country 2000 2008
(tonnes) (US$ 1 000) (tonnes) (US$ 1 000)
Nigeria 25 718 56 630 143 207 374 700
Uganda 820 820 52 250 118 770
Madagascar 7 280 14 773 9 581 41 014
Zambia 4 240 27 720 5 640 39 566
Ghana 5 000 9 404 5 594 19 555
Kenya 512 6 996 4 452 16 313
South Africa 2 807 1 026 3 215 13 354
Other 9 425 22 333 14 938 42 047
Total 55 802 139 701 238 877 665 389

Figure 1: Major aquaculture producers by quantity (%) in sub-Saharan Africa (2008).

1.4 Aquaculture; environment and species

It has been reported that about 30% of the land area in Africa is suitable for small-scale fish farming
and only 3.8% of Africas surface and groundwater is harnessed (Anguilar-Manjarrez and Nath 1998;
Kapetsky, 1995). It can be seen that existing aquaculture production in SSA predominates in
freshwater environments (Table 2). Whilst the National Aquaculture Sector Overview (NASO) data
shows that over 45 freshwater and brackish water fish species are used in African farms, however
Nigeria 60%
Uganda 22%
Madagascar 4%
Zambia 3%
Ghana 2%
Kenya 2%
South Africa 1%
Other 6%
the tilapias, catfishes and the cyprinids were the main contributors to production (Table 3)
accounting for over 92% of total production from fresh and brackish water. Indeed in 2008, catfish
contributed about 52% of the total production and interest in the culture of the species, for
domestic markets, intra- and interregional trade and exports overseas is still growing in several
countries.

Table 2: Aquaculture production in quantity (in tonnes) and value (US$ 1 000) by environment (2008).
Source: FAO, 2010b
2008
Quantity in tonnes Value in tonnes (US$ 1 000)
Freshwater 228 753 586 138
Brackish water 154 633
Marine 9 970 78 618
Total 238 877 665 389

Table 3: Production (in tonnes) for three major aquaculture species in sub-Saharan Africa (2008). Source:
FAO, 2010b. Symbols: nei = not elsewhere included
Cultured species 2008
North African catfish 76 601
Torpedo shaped catfishes nei 46 687
Nile tilapia 33170
Cyprinids nei 15 669
Tilapias nei. 10 352
Nile perch 8 584

Mariculture currently contributes only 2 % of the total production quantity and 5 % of the total value.
Fourteen marine species are currently listed as aquaculture species and the main species for which
production figures are available are listed below (Table 4). The most important producers of
seaweeds (over 1 000 tonnes in 2008) are Madagascar, South Africa and Zanzibar.

Table 4: Mariculture production by species in SSA (quantity and value) (2003 and 2008).
2003 2008
Quantity
(tonnes)
Value US$ 1 000 quantity value
Giant Tiger Prawn 8 257 45 915 7 340 37 792
Perlemoen abalone 515 18 465 1040 35 443
Mediterranean mussel 623 415 726 640
Red drum 213 1205 256 196
Pacific cupped oyster 289 904 236 889
Mediterranean mussel 623 415 726 640

1.5 Current and emerging topics

Many parts of SSA are facing freshwater shortage and an increased trend towards intensification and
diversification are emerging in SSA aquaculture. Integrated aquaculture including rice-based
aquaculture systems is presently practised in a few countries, but has great potential at the rural,
small-scale farmer level to contribute towards sustainable livelihoods by strengthening the ability of
farmers to respond to improve their resilience as well as increasing food security. Mariculture is an
emerging and promising sub-sector, and, in addition, farmers from inland areas are looking for more
efficient ways to increase production at reduced costs, to reduce growing time and also to culture
more value species e.g. freshwater prawn farms in Madagascar are intensifying their production
techniques and in both Madagascar and Mozambique operators are ensuring at the same time strict
environmental controls. Similarly cage culture in freshwater lakes and reservoirs are continuing to
expand in several countries e.g. Nigeria, Ghana, Cte dIvoire, Cameroon, Uganda, Zambia, Malawi,
Kenya, Madagascar and interest has been heightened following the organization of a regional
workshop on the subject in Entebbe, Uganda, in 2004 (Halwart and Moehl, 2008). Malawi and
Zambia have zoned areas for lacustrine cage culture (Hecht et al., 2006). Further research on the
production of tilapia in cages (Ofori et al., 2009) has been undertaken in Ghana.

Hand in hand with these initiatives, the emergence of private sector-led small- and medium-size
enterprises (SMEs) and the expansion of larger commercial ventures, stimulated in some cases by
growing public support and the inflow of foreign capital and expertise. International awareness and
interest in aquaculture spawned by the New Partnership for Africas Development (NEPAD) Fish for
All Summit in 2005and the implementation of FAOs Special Programme for Aquaculture
Development in Africa (SPADA) has also contributed to this development. The management
practices of some of these undertakings are vertically integrated, environmentally responsible and
socially acceptable. The operations adhere to standard sanitary operation processes and the
entrepreneurs are adopting strategies to safeguard producers and consumers. Products from some
of the enterprises are subject to labelling and certification. The successful cage culture initiative in
Lake Kariba, Zimbabwe, is summarized in Box 1.

Box 1: Lake Harvest Cage Culture on Lake Kariba - A model of large-scale aquaculture initiative in
Africa.
Lake Harvest Ltd. located in the Zimbabwean waters of Lake Kariba was established in 1997 and is
one of the single, largest aquaculture businesses currently operating in the region. The farm consists
of a 10 hectare pond-based hatchery unit which supplies seed to six cage sites, each with 14 cages
and capable of producing 800 tonnes/site/year. Nile tilapia are grown to 750 g and processed in a
EU-standard plant with a capacity of 15 tonnes of whole fish/day. The initial target market was
Europe, but local and sub-regional consumers currently account for the majority of production. This
farm can be seen as a model for economic viability of large-scale aqua-business in Africa and
although enterprises of this size require major investments, they can be scaled down.


Several SSA governments are recognizing the importance of state roles in facilitating and
coordinating aquaculture activities, adopting aquaculture specific policies and developing framework
strategies that attempt to provide a roadmap to guide development. A few governments have
provided soft credit lines in agricultural development and commercial banks but more often than
not, access to credit, with interest rates of 25 to 40%, the perpetual problem of seed and feed of
sufficient quantity and quality, coupled with land ownership or secure access to common property
resources, prove major constraints to the expansion and/or intensification of aquaculture
production. The characterization of species, selective breeding programmes and the production of
low-cost diets are the focus of research in a few centres. In the target countries, under the auspices
of SPADA, on-farm participation in research using model farms and private enterprises is resulting in
rapid diffusion of technologies through farmer-to-farmer pathway. Generally, extension services are
weak and inadequately resourced there is an urgent need to improve the individual services and also
strengthen the links between research and development.

To conclude, the development of the aquaculture sector in SSA will obviously face challenges such as
meeting the growing demand for capital, developing and maintaining both quantity and quality of
seed and feeds, strengthening the base for aquaculture management and facing the challenges of
increasingly severe competition for resources such as land and water. However, an increased private
sector involvement in the production and delivery of inputs e.g. seed and feed, the manufacture and
supply of aquaculture equipment in some countries and the emergence of producer associations at
both national and local level all play an important role in the development of the sector and could
suggest that the increase in production that has been witnessed in recent years is set to continue.

2 Environmental capacity and management

2.1 Introduction
Globally the aquaculture sector continues to show significant growth (FAO, 2010a). This trend holds
true for Africa where annual growth for the continent as a whole based on recorded production
statistics for aquatic animal species has averaged approximately 11.4% for the 2000 to 2008 period
(FAO, 2010b). Despite this growth aquaculture production in much of Africa is relatively low when
compared with many Asian countries and there would appear to be considerable potential for
further development.

Globally there is an Increasing awareness, and demand for, sustainable development. As aquaculture
has intensified it has attracted increased attention in terms of environmental concerns (Pillay, 2004).
Minimizing ecological impacts is often seen as posing a conflict of interest in relation to demands for
rapid economic development, increasing food demands and growing populations. This situation may
be especially true in developing countries where demand for improvement in living standards may
be high (Pillay, 2004).

Ultimately unsustainable consumption of biophysical resources by aquaculture will impact on
productivity and increase resource competition with other sectors (Hall et al., 2011). Understanding
how aquaculture interacts with the environment in which it operates should be seen as important in
allowing aquaculture to develop sustainably with minimal environmental impact while also meeting
the environmental needs of aquaculture itself. With this in mind issues of site selection, production
methods and scale of production become relevant in relation to carrying capacity which can be
defined as the level of resource use both by humans or animals that can be sustained over the long
term by the natural regenerative power of the environment (Ross et al. 2011).

2.2 Environmental interactions with aquaculture systems

2.2.1 Introduction
In common with all forms of food production, and human activity in general, there will always be
some form of interaction between aquaculture and the environment. Aquaculture interactions with
the environment are a two way process and while aquaculture has the ability to modify the
environment, the environmental its self plays a crucial role in supporting aquaculture. The ways in
which these interactions take place are often complex and while it is possible to make some
generalisations many issues will need to be viewed on a case by case basis.

Peoples views on how aquaculture and the environment affect each other are likely to be
influenced by their role in relation to aquaculture. For example environmental regulators often focus
on waste outputs from aquaculture facilities while others may focus more on competition for
resources such as land and water. Aquaculturists themselves are likely to be concerned with factors
that directly influence production such as availability of suitable areas for production, water
availability and quality, temperature and resources for inputs such as feeds.

2.2.2 Land and water requi rements
Perhaps the most obvious requirements for aquaculture are space in which to operate and a supply
of water. As the human population increases so does the requirement for fresh water for a range of
agricultural, industrial and domestic uses. This creates the potential for conflict between
aquaculture and competing users, especially in areas where the availability of water is limited.
Marine aquaculture can be viewed as very efficient in terms of freshwater use when compared to
other agriculture sectors especially in terms of producing animal protein. Cage culture in inland
systems such as the large lakes in Africa may also be viewed as neutral in terms of freshwater use
provided the quality of the water is not adversely affected.

Egypt is a water scarce country (less than 1000m
3
of freshwater per capita per year) with a growing
population. Egypt is also Africas largest aquaculture producer, with the majority of production
taking place in extensive or semi intensive earthen ponds, and provides a good example of conflicts
over water use that are highly significant for the aquaculture sector. Sherif (2011) notes how the
Nile supplies 97% of Egypts renewable water and that how this limited water supply in turn limits
food production. Only marine and brackish water, water from lakes and an agricultural drainage,
and infertile land is allowed to be used for aquaculture production with the use of freshwater
suitable for irrigation is prohibited (Sherif, 2011). Sherif (2011) also suggests that plans to improve
irrigation systems in some areas of Egypt will result in reduced quantities of increasingly saline water
being available for aquaculture affecting both species composition and production capacity.

Water quality issues have also affected cage culture in Egypts Nile River with many areas becoming
unsuitable for due to pollution of the water by inorganic nitrogen, organic substances, phosphorus,
and heavy metals (Sherif, 2011).

Egypt has seen an increase in intensive aquaculture production in desert areas that makes use of
ground water as well as agricultural drainage with a range of salinities. Most of the farms operate
flow through systems and are associated with agriculture where discharged water can be used for
producing crops and livestock. Sherif, (2011) suggests that even if agricultural production from such
schemes is relatively low they may still be viable as there is minimal competition in terms of other
potential uses of the land. It is also suggested that the waste water from aquaculture can be of
benefit to agriculture due to the enhanced nutrient content and that aquaculture can be viewed as
highly efficient in this context as it only uses the water rather and consuming it.

The fact that land based aquaculture needs a supply of water means that floodplains and wetlands
are often chosen for aquaculture sites (Pillay, 2004). Issues associated coastal wetlands such as salt
marshes and mangroves being converted into aquaculture ponds for species such as shrimp have
received considerable attention. Coastal wetland systems are often highly productive acting as
nursery and feeding grounds for a range of commercially significant fish and shellfish species while
also playing a significant role in nutrient cycling (Pillay, 2004). Madagascar is Africas largest
producer of shrimp. A study looking at change in mangrove forest cover in Madagascar between
1975 and 2005 found that overall loss of mangroves during that period was around 7% which is
lower than many other parts of the world. Aquaculture accounted for a relatively small proportion of
mangrove deforestation (3%) when compared with factors such as agriculture (36%) and logging
(16%) (Giri & Muhlhausen, 2008).

2.2.3 Sedimentation, effluent di scharge, nutrient enrichment and eutrophication
Pond based farms operating at low to moderate intensities may only discharge water periodically
such as before the harvesting of stock. Seeing that water quality in such farms has to be maintained
at a reasonable level for successful stock production, and much detritus that collects at the bottom
of the pond is removed manual whilst the pond is being prepared for new stock, the impacts of
infrequent discharge of water from such facilities may be quite small (Pillay, 2004). Pillay (2004) goes
on to discuss how for more intensive systems such as ponds, tanks and raceways with higher rates of
water exchange, higher stocking densities, and large inputs of feeds the situation can be very
different with significant quantities of solid and soluble wastes entering receiving waters. Cage
based aquaculture is typically highly intensive with waste products directly discharged into the
surrounding water body. In areas such as enclosed bays the rate of water exchange driven by
currents becomes significant and needs to be adequate for the quantity of aquaculture involved it
water quality in the area is to be maintained. Solid wastes tend to settle under or in the vicinity of
the cage with the degree of dispersion being influence by water depth and current velocity
(Beveridge, 2004).

Solid waste outputs from aquaculture largely consist of organic carbon with impacts on receiving
waters often being quantified, and in some cases regulated, in terms of biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD) (Pillay, 2004). Nitrogen and phosphorous compounds represent the soluble wastes of most
concern with increasing concentrations of dissolved nutrients in receiving waters being termed
hypernutrification. In areas where primary productivity of phytoplankton and aquatic plants is
nutrient limited then hypernutrification can lead to increases in primary productivity (eutrophication)
and ultimately potential ecosystem changes (Pillay, 2004).

2.2.4 Chemical residues
Chemical residues discharged from aquaculture facilities typically result from the use of pest and
disease controlling agents, compounds used to reduce bio fouling, anaesthetics, and hormones used
for inducing breeding or sex reversal. Alternatively aquaculture its self may be affected by chemical
residues from external sources such as those used in agriculture to control pests and diseases in
crops, or as result of industrial and domestic use (pillay, 2004).

2.2.5 Inputs for aquaculture
Aquaculture, especially in its more intensive forms, requires a range of inputs such as energy and
feeds that may have consequences for, or be affected by, the environment. Formulation of
aquaculture feeds for carnivorous finfish and shrimp tends to be associated with the use of fishmeal
and fish oil while in other cases wild fish is fed more directly to cultured species. The practice of
using wild fish stocks to feed farmed fish has been questioned in terms of impacts on wild stocks and
the efficient use of food resource (i.e. wild fish that could be used for direct human consumption
being turned in to aquaculture feeds). The implications for the poor and undernourished of using
wild fish in aquaculture feeds is reviewed by Wijkstrm (2009) who suggests that in a number of
Asian countries the impacts of using wild fish as feed are significant, providing livelihood
opportunities for some, while reducing potential food supply for others. However the author goes
on to point out that for Africa the situation is somewhat different and the use of fish for feed is
largely insignificant at the current time due to feed fisheries being uncommon and minimal use of
fish as feed for what is still a relatively small and emerging aquaculture industry in most areas of the
continent. It is perhaps worth considering how this situation may change if African regions start to
see a significant growth and intensification of the aquaculture sector (e.g. the increased exploitation
of small pelagic fish such as Rastrineobola argentea in Lake Victoria for aquafeed).

2.2.6 Impacts on wild populations and ecosystems due to escapes and disease
Escapes from aquaculture facilities result from human error along with events such as flooding of
ponds and failure of fish cages with the result of potentially large numbers of individuals entering
the local aquatic systems. The ecological impacts of such releases are likely to be most significant in
cases where non-native species are being cultured. The tendency for a non-native species to become
invasive will depend on the species in question as well as the ecology and environmental variables of
the aquatic system into which it is introduced. In areas where native species are being cultured there
may still be concerns over escapes due to the fact that many cultured species have undergone
significant selective breeding and thus may be genetically dissimilar and less diverse when compared
to wild populations. Along with ecological effects due to competition and predation by escaped
stock there is the potential for aquaculture activities to impact on wild population via the
introduction of, or increased prevalence of disease. For example in Scotland cage culture Atlantic
salmon in areas such as the UK and Norway has blamed for an increase in prevalence of fish lice in
wild stocks (e.g. Hansen & Windsor, 2006).

2.2.7 Other impacts
Visual impacts of aquaculture facilities are a significant issue in some parts of the world where they
are seen to impact on the scenic value of water front areas and may need to be evaluated as part of
an environmental impact assessment (EIA). In such cases conflicts of interest may occur between
those involved with aquaculture, local residents, and those whose livelihoods are linked with
tourism.

Interactions between aquaculture and birds or aquatic mammals are generally not well researched
although there may be negative impacts on some species due disturbance and anti-predator
measures adopted by farmers (Pillay, 2004). That said there are also examples of positive impacts as
a result of habitat modification such as increased perching and feeding sites for sea birds (Roycroft,
Kelly & Lewis, 2006). There may also be some ecological effects due to the attraction of predator
species to aquaculture sites and thus concentration of predator numbers in a localised area
(Buschmann, 2009).

There is the potential human health issues associated with aquaculture and the environment. Poorly
managed aquaculture facilities may lead to an increase in the transmission of water-borne disease
while on the other hand stocking of fish into waters such as in the case of integrated aquaculture
agriculture systems may reduce numbers of potentially disease carrying mosquitoes. Sapkota et al.
(2008) reviewed current knowledge of human health risks related to aquaculture and highlighted the
potential for increased levels of antibiotic residues, agro-chemicals, heavy metals, antibiotic
resistant bacteria, parasites and viruses in aquaculture products. Sapkota et al. (2008) also suggests
that individuals working with, or living in close proximity to, aquaculture may be at greatest risk. It is
also possible that risks may be greater in some developing countries where the use of various agents
may not be as tightly controlled. However it should be noted that Sapkota et al. (2008) state that
additional research is needed to understand health risks associated with aquaculture and develop
measures to reduce risks that may be found.

2.3 Review of issues and current thinking about aquaculture and
environmental capacity in inland and coastal systems.

While aquaculture development and its environmental consequences are viewed and regulated
differently in different regions, there is an increasing general acceptance that future aquaculture
development should be conducted in a more considered and sustainable way.

In 2006 the Fisheries and Aquaculture Department of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of
the United Nations started to develop an ecosystem approach to aquaculture EAA which was
defined by Soto et al., (2008) as a strategic approach to development and management of the
sector aiming to integrate aquaculture within the wider ecosystem such that it promotes
sustainability of interlinked social-ecological systems. The EAA represents a common framework for
sustainable aquaculture development and has three main principles which have been defined by
Soto et al., (2008) as; 1) Aquaculture development and management should take account of the full
range of ecosystem functions and services, and should not threaten the sustained delivery of these to
society, 2) Aquaculture should improve human well-being and equity for all relevant stakeholders
and 3) Aquaculture should be developed in the context of other sectors, policies and goals.

When considering the principles of an EEA, and environmental impacts in general, the question of
scale becomes important i.e. farm scale, waterbody/watershed scale, and global scale (Soto et al.,
2008). It has been suggested that there should be a move away from assessment and regulation on
a site by site basis with more focus on assessment at varied scales where issues such as cumulative
effects of multiple aquaculture operations along with other activities may be significant within a
region (Bermudez, 2011). This said assessment at the farm scale is still important, for example issues
relating to escapes and disease operate and are best managed at this scale (Soto et al., 2008). Table
5 gives examples of potential positive and negatives impacts of aquaculture at the farm, watershed
and global scales.

Table 5: Examples of potential positive and negative impacts of aquaculture at the farm, watershed, and
global scales. Adapted from: FAO (2010c)
Issues at
different scales
Farm Watershed Global
INPUTS
Collection of seed
from the wild

+ effects on local communities that
rely on this fishery
- effects on wild stocks

Production of seed
+ culture-based fisheries
+ restocking threatened species

Issues at
different scales
Collection of feed
(e.g. trashfish)

+ effects on local communities that
live on this fishery
- effects on wild stocks used as
feed (e.g. trashfish)

Production of feed
(e.g. pellets)

+ livelihoods in countries
that provide fishmeal
and fish oil
- effects on pelagic stocks
used to produce
fishmeal/ oil
Production of
local feeds
+ diminishing production costs + increased integration to other
sectors
+ increased livelihood
opportunities and
diversification

Labour + livelihoods and job
opportunities
- unfair wages
+ livelihoods and job
opportunities
- lack of social security
- lack of natural calamity
insurance

Infrastructure - impacts of large
construction in large farms
+ roads and communications
development by private
sector
- competition with fisheries
for jetty, port infrastructure

RESOURCE USE
Water - use of water surface
area
- reduces wild fishery
area
- hampers navigation
- competing with other sectors for
use of freshwater

Land/coastal
habitats
- conversion of sensitive
habitats for aquaculture
use in large farms
(mangroves, wetlands)
- conversion of sensitive
habitats for aquaculture
use (mangroves, wetlands)
- competition for coastal
resources
- conversion of rice fields and
other agricultural land to fish
ponds

Energy - use of energy for
pumping water and
aerators
- use of fuels for transport of
product to local market
- use of fuels for cold chain
and transport of product to
local market
OUTPUTS
Biomass + biomass production
for hunger
alleviation and food
security
+ biomass production for hunger
alleviation and food security
+ biomass production for
food security
- negative impact on
fisheries through
competition for common
markets
Income + provision of alternative
livelihoods and jobs
+ opportunities for family
labour

- unfair distribution of
incomes
+ provision of alternative
livelihoods and job
opportunities (direct and
indirect)
+ opportunities for women and
other minorities
- unfair distribution of incomes
and benefits

Issues at
different scales
Seed + supply to other on-
growing farms
+ restocking of waterbodies
(culture- based fisheries)

Nutrients + extractive species such
as molluscs and
seaweed reduce
nutrient loading
- anoxic sediments
below cages and in ponds
- add to nutrient loading
close to farm (fed
species)
+ provides additional nutrients
for increased primary
productivity
- impact on sensitive habitats
(corals, seagrasses, etc.)
- add to eutrophication
pressures

Escapees - economic loss to the
farm
+ potential for additional wild
fisheries
- potential carriers of disease
- potential to change genetics of
local strains
- spread of exotic species
Diseases - economic loss to the
farm
- escapees potential carriers of
disease for wild fish
- spread of exotic diseases
Chemicals - potential to impact local
fauna and flora

In common with other forms of food production there is always going to be some degree of
environmental impact resulting from aquaculture meaning the issue becomes one of what is an
acceptable level of impact for any given circumstance? Perceptions of what constitutes a reasonable
level of impact will vary considerably between regions and situations. A common concern is the
current state of the wider ecosystem in which aquaculture is to take place. This wider ecosystem can
range from more or less undeveloped to heavily modified which in turn is likely to influence societal
perceptions of what is an acceptable level of further modification. Opinions over the modification of
aquatic ecosystems by aquaculture will often contrast greatly with those relating to terrestrial
agriculture where heavily modified landscapes and ecosystems are generally viewed as the norm
(Soto et al., 2008).

In order to implement an EEA there is a need to understand the carrying capacity of the
environment i.e. its ability to support aquaculture and other activities without being unacceptably
affected. Current views and knowledge relating to carrying capacity and how they relate to the EAA
have been thoroughly reviewed by Ross et al. (2011).

Ross et al. (2011) define carrying capacity as; the level of resource use both by humans or animals
that can be sustained over the long term by the natural regenerative power of the environment,
while suggesting this is complementary to assimilative capacity; the ability of an area to maintain a
healthy environment and accommodate wastes, and to environmental capacity; the ability of the
environment to accommodate a particular activity or rate of activity without unacceptable impact.
Ross et al. (2011) go on to describe how the concept of carrying capacity has been developed into a
four component approach (physical, production, ecological, and social carrying capacity) in line with
definitions described by Inglis, Hayden & Ross (2000) and McKindsey et al., (2006) for bivalve culture
and applied to finfish culture by Geek & Legovi (2010). Definitions provided by Ross et al. (2011)
for the four components of carrying capacity are given in Box 2. Ross et al., (2011) note that a
hierarchical structure has been suggested by McKindsey et al. (2006) for the application of the
different components of carrying capacity with the initial stage involving the determination of
physical carrying capacity followed by the modelling of production capacity. Next further modelling
would be undertaken to provide estimates of ecological carrying capacity under a range of
increasingly large production scenarios. The final step would introduce social carrying capacity with
the aim of evaluating the potential scenarios based on the predicted outcomes from the modelling
of physical, production and ecological capacity in order to make decisions about what constitutes an
acceptable level of production when multiple interests are considered.

Application of the EAA principles will vary between world regions making it unrealistic to set a global
set of standards for limits and thresholds. Ross et al., (2011) suggest that this problem may be
approached by combining the principles of the EAA with those of carrying capacity in a way that
allows the four components of adaptive capacity to be weighted with different levels of significance
depending on the area and aquaculture systems in question. For example in the case of feed based
intensive cage aquaculture in areas such as the European Union and United States of America there
is a greater significance placed on the ecological effects of waste outputs whereas in some southeast
Asian regions and China there has been a greater focus on production capacity.

2.4 Management approaches
The EAA provides a framework by which to conceptualise the issues of environmental impacts and
sustainable development, but in order to be applied there is a need for quantification of impacts and
carrying capacities. This in turn can allow for informed policy making and strategy formation that will
allow for sustainable development and management of the aquaculture sector.

There are a large number of tools and approaches available to help assess environmental impacts of
development activities and a range of these are evaluated in Table 6. Environmental impact
assessment (EIA) is the most commonly used tool which in most instances is applied at the farm
scale. FAO (2010c) discusses the use of EIA as a contributor to an EAA and suggest that small scale
farms or those with low potential environmental impact should be exempt from the EIA process but
for large aquaculture operations or clusters of small farms then EIA may prove useful for; decision
making as to whether a project should go ahead or not, assessment of the extent and severity of
environmental impacts, assessment of socio-economic impacts, means of developing environmental
monitoring and/or management plans and associated mitigation measures.
Box 2. The four components of carrying capacity.
Physical carrying capacity: Suitability for development of a given activity, taking account of physical
factors of the environment and the farming system. In its simplest form it determines development
potential in any location but is not normally designed to evaluate that against regulations or limitations of
any kind. In this context this can also be considered as site identification, from which a subsequent more
specific site selection can be made for actual development.
Production carrying capacity: Estimates maximum aquaculture production and is typically considered at
the farm scale. However, production biomass calculated at production carrying capacity could be restricted
to smaller areas within a water basin so that the total production biomass of the water basin does not
exceed that of the ecological carrying capacity.
Ecological carrying capacity: The magnitude of aquaculture production that can be supported without
leading to significant changes to ecological processes, species, populations, or communities in the
environment.
Social carrying capacity: The amount of aquaculture that can be developed without adverse social
impacts.

Better management practices (BMPs) and codes of practice (COP) are currently the most realistic
means of reducing negative environmental impacts at the farm level, and potentially larger scales,
both in terms of cost and technical practicality. BMPs can involve aspects such as site selection,
feeds and feeding practices e.g. optimisation of feed conversion ratios, carful fertilisation, limiting
escapes, reducing potentially harmful effluents e.g. waste water and sediment treatment or increase
environmental capacity via the development of natural treatment systems, site rotation e.g.
fallowing in the case of cage culture to allow time for the benthos to recover, responsible use of
chemicals to control disease along with good aquatic animal and health management, facility
management, and processing and transport. BMPs are commonly voluntary in nature although they
typically involve input from governments in terms of policy, regulation, management and planning
while at the same time needing cooperation from the aquaculture industry. (FAO, 2010c).

Aquaculture management at the watershed scale differs from that of the farm scale in that there is
typically greater need for responsibility to be taken by institutions, representative bodies, etc. For
example in the United Kingdom the Area Management Agreements represent a framework that
allows control in areas such as enclosed bays for activities including disease control, harvesting, and
fallowing of cages. Using disease control as an example it is fairly easy to imagine how a coordinated
response by farms that share a waterbody could be beneficial in terms of reducing costs, increasing
production, and reducing environmental impacts via the most efficient use of disease controlling
agents (FAO, 2010c). Perhaps one of the biggest challenges facing regulation at the watershed scale,
and one that will need to be considered on a case by case basis, is that watershed or waterbody
boundaries may be distinct from political ones meaning they may encompass areas belonging to
different administrative regions or even countries.

Table 6: Summary of approaches to quantifying environmental impact. (Adapted from Hall et al., 2011. Original source: Bartley et al., 2007)
Method Linkages to other
methods
Key attributes Strengths Weaknesses Scientific rigour Standardization of
methods
Ease of application
and
communicability
Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA)
CBA, RA Project-based, descriptive,
site-specific
Public planning and
transparent process; based
on multiple criteria and can
be used in sensitivity
analysis;identifies hazards
and impacts; allows redesign
of project to reduce impacts.
Does not quantify trade-offs
or effects: does not provide a
single performance indicator
for comparisons; problems
with how to interpret data
Variable (very high
to low); lots of
uncertainty due to
lack of data; often
time-constrained
due to development
deadlines
High (e.g. Europe)
but may vary across
sectors, regions and
in national
legislation
Good; often
figures
prominently in
decision-making
Risk Assessment or
Analysis (RA)
Should underpin all
other methods for
hazard identification
and understanding;
widely used in
toxicity analysis
Tool for understanding
environmental processes
Contributes to better
understanding of
environmental flows and
impacts: attempts to be
quantitative but can also be
qualitative; identifies hazards
and impacts.
Relies on qualitative
judgements and estimates
due to knowledge gaps;
limited comparative use
(some risks apply to some
sectors, others not)
Variable at present;
quantitative
measures need to be
developed
(environmental
indicators
High for procedural
aspects
Good; formalized
in legislation as
decision-making
tool
Material Flows
Accounting (MFA),
Mass balance, and
Input/Output models
(IO)
A first step towards
more complete
assessments using
EIA, RA, energy
analysis
Examines input and output
of key materials; accounts
for biological flows
associated with economic
activities; applicable to
systems at many scales
Quantifies levels of inputs
and outputs; can produce
comparable information over
time and space; used to
improve ecological efficiency;
well-known tool with
standard protocols.
Does not reflect
environmental effects;
snapshot picture of flows at a
specific point in time and
place.
High High Very good
Energy analysis (EA) Could be
incorporated into
MFA and used
complementarily with
CBA
Examines fossil fuel energy
used in food production
Produces a single measure,
which is a proxy for the other
components of the sector, for
comparison; good history of
analysis and data;
comparable at all levels.
Presents an incomplete
picture of the sector;
relevance is questioned
because energy (fuel) has a
market value that will
change; does not account for
the environmental effects of
fuel consumption.
High High Good; few
decisions are made
on EA alone
methods
methods
Ease of application
and
communicability
Human Appropriation
of Net Primary
Productivity (HANPP)
Can be used with
MAF, EA, EF
An indicator of
environmental effects
based on changes in
ecological flows of trophic
energy caused by land use
Aggregates information into a
single statistic for
comparison, e.g. land use
change; can examine
economic causes for change;
ecologically focused
indicator; comparable at
different scales, regions and
across time
Not well developed for
aquatic environments; does
not describe impacts and
does not address specific
local ecological changes;
limited expertise for HANPP
analysis; in some cases
analysis of secondary or
tertiary productivity would be
more informative
High Medium Easy to
communicate;
difficult to
interpret
Ecological Footprint
(EF)
LCA could be used as
an input (aggregation
of multiple units used
in LCA); could also be
used to present MFA
results
Method to aggregate
impacts into a single
statistic to address eco-
efficiency of human
activities; converts all
impacts to a measure of
area needed to support a
given activity
Provides a single indicator for
comparison; can be applied
to many levels and scales
(e.g. a footprint for an
individual to one for a
national economy); provides
accumulative/aggregated
effects
Does not include all
flows.Applications to food
production systems are not
obvious; method does not
deal well with water; does
not provide specific
information about impacts or
effects; does not address
specific effects in specific
environments; aggregated
statistic treats all
environments as
homogenous and equal
Low Low Easy to
communicate, but
statistic is often
misused or can be
mis-interpreted;
application is
constrained by
knowledge gaps on
environmental
differences among
habitats
Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) MFA, EA, for more
elaborate EIA
Examines a range of
impacts of food production
systems; product- oriented
environmental impact
assessment, with an earth-
to-earth (or cradle to
grave) perspective,
multiple criteria analysis;
quantifies potential
contribution to global
impacts
Allows hazards to be
identified and prioritized; can
build on previous work/data;
can compare between
products/processes/
alternatives and different
scenarios; basic method to
develop eco-labelling criteria
to support purchasing
decisions for consumers (ISO
14020 series); can provide
policy-relevant insights
Large data requirements;
some studies use different
functional units; results
address global impacts at
expense of local impacts;
some indicators may not be
appropriate for specific cases;
results are not directly
applicable unless conducted
for the specific comparison;
some standard impact
categories may not be
relevant to food product
systems, thus need to
develop new ones
High Very high, e.g. ISO
14040-14043;
streamlining LCA will
reduce data
requirements and
facilitate
comparisons;
specific impact
categories
associated with food
production not well
standardized;
Can streamline
LCA for specific
comparisons;
communication on
multiple criteria
may be difficult;
methods
methods
Ease of application
and
communicability
Cost benefit analysis,
including
environmental costs
(CBA)
EIA, RA, EA, EFA, LCA,
MFA
Uses valuation techniques,
for non-marketable goods,
e.g. contingent valuation,
willingness to pay, hedonic
pricing are techniques used
in CBA to compare net
result of activities of
different sector
Can compare production
systems; can be very inclusive
of many types of information,
including non-marketable
goods; long history and
familiarity with concept;
decision-makers need and
want to know this
information; C/B ratio and
Net Present Value provide
aggregate measures of the
relative performance of
various production systems
Environmental values hard to
determine; ecological
function changes hard to
predict; often environment is
not included; normally long
term sustainability issues not
addressed; discount rates are
arbitrary and may be
political; loses information
during aggregation
High Standardized in
theory, but often not
in practice
Results easily
communicated
and understood;
including
valuation of
environmental
goods and
services and non-
marketable goods
makes application
difficult
Private standards are becoming increasingly common in the capture fisheries and aquaculture
sectors and represent a means to encourage improvements in areas such as environmental
sustainability, food quality and safety. Examples of notable voluntary certification standards
applicable to aquaculture are briefly detailed in here in Box 3.

Private standards and eco labelling can perhaps be seen as especially relevant in regions where there
is a general perception that public regulation is insufficient. The demand for certification to private
standards is mostly driven by large-scale retailers and represent a means for retailers and brand
owners to pass on increasing consumer demand for ethically sourced products (Washington &
Ababouch, 2011).

Washington & Ababouch (2011) suggest that while developing countries remain underrepresented
in terms of private standards for capture fisheries the case for aquaculture is somewhat better with
proactive strategies to organise small farms into associations and self-help groups. While it has been
argued that private standards represent a barrier to trade for some developing countries, it has also
been suggested that most certification affects markets and species that do not form the bulk of
trade for developing nations. It is also likely that in many cases where developing countries are
aiming to export aquaculture products to developed areas such as Europe, then public standards for
such areas may pose a greater barrier than potential private standards (Washington & Ababouch,
2011).

Public regulation of aquaculture tends to be strongest in more developed countries. Examples of
current policy and legislation include The European Union Water Framework, Marine Strategy
Directives, the Canadian Oceans Act, and the US National Policy for the Stewardship of the Ocean,
Coasts, and Great Lakes which all require spatial planning for activities such as aquaculture along
with knowledge based approaches for decision making and ecosystem based approaches for
integrated management (Ross et al., 2011). As part of a review of aquaculture site selection and
carrying capacity for inland and coastal waters in West Africa Asmah (2011) summarises
environmental regulation and suggests that all countries within the region have some form of
environmental regulation and that in some cases there is potential for this to affect aquaculture. The
author goes on to point out that in many cases regulation such as the use EIA is limited to large
commercial farms. For example In Ghana fish farms considered to be small (no particular size
defined) are only expected to register their operations with the environmental protection agency
and dont need to submit an EIA report. In Nigeria only farms with an area greater than 50ha are
Box 3. Significant voluntary standards applicable to aquaculture.
GLOBALG.A.P. A private sector body that sets voluntary standards around the globe to certify
agricultural production processes including aquaculture. The GLOBAL G.A.P. standards functions as a
global reference system for other existing standards. GLOBALG.A.P. functions as a business to business
label and not directly visible to consumers.

Global Aquaculture Alliance (GAA) GAA is a non-profit international trade association that aims to
promote advancement in environmentally and socially responsible aquaculture. The GAA has produced a
number of Best Aquaculture Practices (BAP) certification standards for aquaculture products.
Aquaculture dialogues The Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC) is an independent non-profit
organisation. The ASC was founded in 2009 by the World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF) and the Dutch
Sustainable Trade Initiative (IDH) as a means of managing global standards for responsible aquaculture
that are being developed by the Aquaculture Dialogues. The ASC aims to offer a consumer facing label
that can be used by food producing companies and retailers for products that meet their standards.
expected to submit EIAs prior to commencing production. Most current farms in Nigeria are below
this size and thus exempt from the EIA process (Nugent 2009).

2.5 Defining, monitoring, and modelling environmental impacts and carrying
capacity
In order to set standards and control and develop aquaculture in an effective and sustainable way
there is a need to be able to define acceptable levels of environmental change and monitor progress
to ensure these levels are not being exceeded thus effectively working within the environments
carrying capacity. Biodiversity is often associated with ecological resilience and setting limits on
biodiversity impacts along with subsequent monitoring is a potential strategy for regulating
environmental impact that may form part of an EIA. In reality setting limits of acceptable change is
likely to be difficult due to lack of knowledge of ecological systems and associated obvious
thresholds, and varying views of what constitutes acceptable change. This said in some cases
defining thresholds to change may be easier. For example a given concentration of nutrients in
water that results in undesirable algae blooms (FAO, 2010c).

Being able to predict potential environmental change and model carrying capacity as accurately as
possible thus allowing proactive rather than reactive planning and regulation should be seen as the
way forward where possible and an important part of an EAA. Such approaches contribute towards
informed decision making and consequently best use of resources while hopefully minimising
negative environmental impacts. A large range of modelling tools are available and regulators are
often drawn to the idea of models providing definitive yes or no answers or outputs in terms of
exact values. In reality due to limitations in understanding, data, and resources environmental
modelling rarely lives up to such expectations and is potentially much less effective when viewed
and applied in such a way. In most cases the use of expert systems where modelling is used in
association with expert knowledge are generally the most cost effective and practical means of
decision support (McKindsey et al., 2006).

Among the many challenges that face those attempting model environmental impact and carrying
capacity is the choice of indicators and data. Availability and quality of data is often severely limited
but in some cases it may be possible to produce proxy data from other data sources. A good
example in the case of aquaculture would be the estimation of water temperature data based on
meteorological variables such as air temperature and wind speed (Ross et al., 2011 & Aguilar-
Manjarrez J. & Nath S., 1998). Ultimately choice of indicators should be based on practical
considerations and result from a consensus of opinions provided by experts (top down) and local
interests (bottom up) (Bell and Morse, 2008). Table 7 provides an example of some potential
indicators, approaches and tools associated with assessing physical, production, ecological, and
social carrying capacity.

Table 7: Examples of indicators for the four components of carrying capacity along with potential measures
and modelling tools. (Adapted from Ross et al., 2011. Original source: Ferreira et al., 2011)
Type of
carrying
capacity
Indicators Measures / approaches Models / tools
Physical Water availability
Water access
Water quality
Hydrography
Hydrodynamics
Inventory of aquaculture
Site selection
Zoning
Water management
ICZM, climate change RA
Transboundary
waterbodies / watersheds
GIS. e.g.:
Arc-info (ESRI),
IDRISI (Clark Labs)
Mapinfo (Pitney Bowes)
GRASS (grass.fbk.eu)
Google Earth (earth.google.com)
Surfer (Golden Software)
Production Intensity of production
Yield
Investment
Market value
Economic indicators
Optimisation
Management
Area Management
Cluster management
POND (www.longline.co.uk)
FARM (www.longline.co.uk)
Winshell (www.longline.co.uk)
INVESTMENT (FAO model)
Many proprietary model options (e.g.
operated by aquaculture companies)
Ecological Waste dispersion
Habitat deterioration
Dissolved nutrients
Eutrophication Benthic
hypoxia
Monitoring
Risk assessment
Biodiversity and Exotics
Resource (e.g. habitat)
mapping
DEPOMOD (Cromey et al., 2002,b)
STELLA (www.iseesystems.com)
Vensim (www.vensim.com)
Powersim (www.powersim.com)
GIS (see above)
Social Space conflict
Employment
Livelihood
Acceptability
Value to the
community
West: regulation
East: flexibility
Participatory
Transparency
Advocacy
Identify stakeholders
Based on perceptions
May be non-quantitative

The use of spatial planning tools such as Geographic Information Systems (GIS) has significant
potential in aquaculture planning and is viewed as an essential part of the EAA (FAO, 2010c & Ross et
al., 2011). The primary use of GIS in relation to aquaculture is to guide site selection by allowing
multiple data sources and considerations (e.g. environmental, physical, administrative and social) to
be combined and weighed against each other in a single system. Box 4 shows an example a complex
GIS based aquaculture site selection model that places considerable emphasis on environmental
capacity and impact.

Using GIS modelling has the potential to save considerable time, effort and expense by indicating
potential aquaculture sites thus reducing the risk of conducting detailed site specific investigations
for locations that may ultimately prove to be unsuitable. As well as general site suitability models GIS
and spatial analysis can be used to address specific issues ranging from relatively simple spatial and
distance questions such as quantity of production within a given area to more complex issues such
as analysis of visual impacts from potential aquaculture operations and modelling of waste
dispersion from fish cages (Corner et al., 2006 & Ross, Handisyde & Nimmo, 2009).


A good overview of the principles behind the use of GIS in relation to aquaculture is provided by
Nath et al. (2000). African specific examples include Aguilar-Manjarrez J. & Nath S. (1998) who used
a GIS based site selection model to assess potential site suitability for pond based aquaculture across
the entire continent. More recent African examples of GIS site suitability modelling for aquaculture
can be found for Ghana (Asmah, 2008) and Sierra Leone (Sankoh, 2009).

2.6 Summary
Aquaculture makes significant contributions to income and food security in many regions and is set
to continue to expand. There is also a trend for growing concern over environmental issues and an
increasing awareness of the need for sustainable development. Aquaculture production will always
result in some degree of environmental modification and if poorly managed there may be negative
consequences for ecosystems into which peoples livelihoods will be invariably linked. It should also
be remembered that aquaculture itself is dependent on the environment in which it operates and
may be vulnerable to environmental impacts such as contamination of water bodies by other users.
Box 4. Combination of several carrying capacity categories into a holistic decision support process for
salmon culture in cages. (after Hunter, 2009). The structural diagram shows primary data (pink) feeding into
sub-models (yellow) and then final models (blue) which address system-specific site selection (physical
capacity, and there sub-components of ecological capacity: biodiversity, waste dispersion and visual impact.
Each major component (blue) is a free-standing decision process but weighted combination of the model
outcomes (green) can drive the overall decision process.

Source of text and image: Ross et al. (2011)
Biodiversity
[Environmental
carrying
capacity]
Viewshed
[Social
carrying
capacity]
Waste
dispersion
[Environmental
carrying
capacity]
Site selection
[Physical
carrying
Capacity]
Overall
Decision
Support
process
PRIMARY DATA
P
R
I
M
A
R
Y
D
A
T
A
PRIMARY DATA
Wave Climate Currents Bathymetry Sediment Type
Protected
Areas
Endangered
Species
Species Sensitive
to Aquaculture
Habitat & Species
Distribution
Commercial
Fisheries
DEM VIEWPOINTS
Currents
P
R
I
M
A
R
Y

D
A
T
A
Bathymetry
Hydrography
Hydrological
Processes
Current thinking suggests that aquaculture along with other livelihood strategies do not operate in
isolation either from each other or the surrounding ecosystem. Therefore if development is to be
sustainable and not greatly benefit some at the expense of others then a considered and holistic
approach is needed such as that prescribed by the Ecosystem Approach to Aquaculture.

To support such an approach there is a need to understand and be able to estimate potential
impacts and the carrying capacity of the environment i.e. its ability to support the activity in
question without changing in a way that is considered unacceptable. A range of tools and
approaches exist that can help model and assess potential environmental impacts and in doing so
help guide aquaculture development to allow for best use of resources and thus greatest benefit at
least environmental cost. Hopefully increased environmental understanding will allow for successful
and sustainable development of the aquaculture sector through informed policy making and the
application of both private and public regulation and standards.

3 The concept and practicalities of aquatic system health
with respect to aquaculture production
3.1 Aquatic ecosystem health
The concept of aquatic ecosystem health with respect to aquaculture production is here used to
describe the impact of aquaculture processes on an aquatic ecosystem - a biological community and
its physical environment. The health or balance of an ecosystem is degraded when the ecosystems
ability to absorb or deal with external stressors has been exceeded. In an aquaculture context, these
may include physical changes in the form of topographic alterations to a water body or water flow
capacity and direction, chemical changes in the form of alterations in loading rates of biostimulatory
nutrients, oxygen consuming materials, chemical thereupeutants, toxins or variations in salinity and
biological alterations may include introduction of exotic species that affect the biodiversity of the
system.

Pullin et al. 2007 state that the history of aquaculture, like that of agriculture, has been responsible
for many examples of adverse environmental impacts and lack of sustainability and concludes by
saying that such a history cannot continue indefinitely. They suggest that aquaculture needs a
fundamental transition from management that is based solely on maximising the exploitable
biomass of target species to the transition to an integrated management of natural resources and
ecosystems that has a broader application and applies at farm level and also to entire watersheds,
coastal zones and open waters. In recent years the term sustainable development and its
application to aquaculture has recently come to the forefront (Folke and Kautsky, 1992; Pillay, 1997;
Naylor et al. 2000; Pullin et al., 2007). According to FAO (1988) sustainable development can be
defined as 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 of continued
satisfaction of human needs for present and future generations. Such sustainable development
conserves (land) water, plants and (animal) genetic resources, is environmentally non-degrading,
technologically appropriate, economically viable and socially acceptable. Three principles of
sustainability relating to the sound management of natural resources were further defined as the
need to: 1) conserve (and sustain) the multiple resource in its environment; 2) satisfy the social and
economic needs of human beings; 3) for management to guide the required changes in institutions
and technology.

Whilst, globally, aquaculture is dominated by smallholder and small company production in tropical
and sub-tropical countries, particularly in Asia where 92% of global aquaculture production occurs
(Tacon et al., 2010), it also encompasses billion dollar international companies. Such an evolution of
this diverse and varied sector presents negative impacts on the environment when unregulated and
badly managed and such a rapid growth naturally raises concerns about the environmental
sustainability of future industry growth. There are a number of key, specific issues or areas of risk
that exist highlighting perceived unsustainable aquaculture practices with potential negative impacts
and include the following;

Environmental impacts on ecosystem function and biodiversity
Food quality and contamination (food safety)
Pathogen diagnosis and control.

3.2 Aquaculture production systems and environments
Globally, the aquaculture sector shows a remarkable diversity (FAO, 2010a). Broadly speaking,
production environments can be divided into inland (freshwater) and coastal (marine and brackish
water) habitats and production systems can vary according to the intensity of stocking densities,
type of cultured species and amount of feed input (see Tables 8-11).

3.2.1 Freshwater
3.2.1.1 Ponds, tanks, raceways and cages
Freshwater aquaculture production includes a range of containment systems that range from static
water bodies e.g. ponds and lakes to high flow through systems, indeed freshwaters were the source
of 60% of global aquaculture production in 2008, despite the fact that they constitute only 3% of the
planets water. Of this, semi-intensive pond culture of carp and other cyprinids dominates this
category at 65.9% while highly stocked salmonid farming (mainly rainbow trout in freshwater) makes
up only 1.5%, typically in concrete raceways or other similar systems requiring high throughput of
water. Tilapia constituted 7.6% of freshwater production in a mix of system from extensive to highly
intensive. Cage-based aquaculture in freshwater lakes and rivers has expanded in recent years i.e. in
Egypt, Vietnam and most recently Ghana.

3.2.2 Coastal i .e. marine and bracki sh water
3.2.2.1 Ponds, tanks and raceways
Brackish water coastal ponds and lagoons are exploited for extensive fish, mollusc, crustacean and
seaweed production. They have also been used in temperate climates for brackish fish species and
also, more successfully, for intensive culture of penaeid species, who expansion in the last 30 years
has resulted in a production that now accounts for about 58% of aquaculture production from
brackish water. Coastal aquaculture using onshore tanks has recently developed e.g. South Korea,
Spain and Iceland using pumped water that flows directly out of the system into the environment
although the use of recirculation systems is developing (see Section 3.2.3).

3.2.2.2 Cages
Floating cages in a marine environment are used for mid to high value marine fish species across a
range of farm sizes and environments (Bostock et al., 2010). They offer an open exchange of water
through the nets which replenishes oxygen and removes dissolved and solid wastes and rely on
feeding with either complete pelleted diets or with trash fish. Cage unit size and arrangement is
flexible to meet farm requirements and require a high management cost, especially in more exposed
locations in the form of specialized service vessels and equipment and automated feeding systems.

3.2.2.3 Marine mollusks and aquatic plants
Extractive species that use nutrients and carbon directly from the environment such as bivalves and
macroalgae i.e. they do not require feed input. Therefore cultivation methods are simple however,
since the 1990s, a significant up scaling of production has been the result of the introduction of
specialized equipment and greater labour efficiencies.

3.2.3 Recirculated aquaculture systems (RAS)
RAS culture systems are typically land-based and use containment systems such as tanks or raceways
for the fish with a percentage of effluent water passed back through the system following treatment
and waste removal.

Table 8: The generic species groupproduction systems. The subscript c denotes a coastal system and i
denotes an inland (freshwater) system; ci indicates that the system occurs in both inland and coastal
systems. Adapted from Hall et al., 2011
Species Group Bottom
Culture
Off-Bottom
Culture
Cages &
Pens
Ponds Tanks and
raceways
Rirculated
aquaculture
systems
(RAS)
Bivalves x
c
x
c
x
ci

Carps x
i

Catfish x
i
x
i
x
ci

Crabs and Lobsters x
c
x
ci

Eels x
i
x
c
x
ci

Gastropods x
c

Other Finfish x
c
x
ci
x
ci

Other Invertebrates x
ci

Salmonids x
c
x
ci
x
ci

Shrimps and Prawns x
ci

Tilapias x
ci
x
ci
x
ci

Table 9: Summary of feed types used in aquaculture (After Neori et al., 2004; de Silva and Hasan, 2007).
From Hall et al., 2011
Feed category Description
Natural feeds Plant materials, mainly crop waste, used in combination with other material but with little
or no processing. The feeds vary in nutrient quality.
Trash feeds Small or lower value fish used for aquaculture feeds and fed directly into aquaculture
systems. This practice is common for marine fish cage production in Asia. Trash fish
require no processing energy (except occasionally for chopping before feeding).
Mash feeds Mixed materials with some processing; processing is on farm and specific to farmers
requirements. These are farm-made feeds and the major feed input for semi-intensive
aquaculture.
Pellet feeds Feed pellets are manufactured in industrial feed plants and distributed through conventional
market chains. The pellets are expected to completely fulfill all nutritional requirements of
species. The pellets are mainly used in intensive aquaculture operations.
Extracted food

Organic matter and nutrients for growth are assimilated from the environment through
autotrophic processes or filter feeding. This category applies largely to bivalves, aquatic
plants and some filter feeding fishes (e.g. silver carp).


Table 10: Summary of production systems
Production
intensity
Environment
type i.e. fw or
marine/bw
Production
system
Species Description/feed input
Extensive Fw and
marine/bw
Earthen ponds Finfish,
molluscs
shrimps
prawns
Extensive production relying on natural
productivity, but maybe supplemented
by locally available crop wastes etc.
little or no processed feeds used.
Semi-intensive Fw and
marine/bw
Ponds Finfish,
molluscs
shrimps
prawns
Natural productivity is augmented with
fertilizers and farm made or industrially
produced feeds.
Intensive Fw and
marine/bw
Ponds,
raceways,
cages

Finfish,
shrimp,
prawns
Intensive systems are mostly supplied
with complete industrially produced
pellet feeds that meet all of the
nutritional requirements of the culture
species.

Table 11: Typical aquaculture resource demands by species. Adapted from Bostock et al. 2010
Species Production per
unit area (land
or water) t ha
-1

Water use per unit
of production
000 m
3
tonne
-1

System features

Salmon, trout and other salmonids 1750 2260
a
Intensively fed cage/ponds
Sea bass, bream and similar 1125 2500 Intensively fed cages
Cod, haddock, hake, etc. 1200 2500 Intensive onshore cages
Carp, tilapia, catfish 2 5
a
Fertilized ponds
Eels, sturgeon, perch, zander, etc. 190 0.1
a
Extensive stocked water
bodies
Tuna 300 3000 Intensively fed cages
Mussels 76 3000 Raft or longline systems
Oysters and scallops 25 2000 Rafts, longlines or
lanterns
Clams, cockles, etc. 0.5 2000 Extensive coastal beds
New non-fish aquaculture sp. 150 0.2 Range of systems
Aquatic plants 1 2000 Coastal beds/stakes and
lines
a
Water consumption is mainly of concern in freshwater systems (the category salmon and trout covers a mix of
both freshwater and seawater). These figures contrast with those of Verdegem and Bosma (2009) who estimated
total water withdrawal for freshwater aquaculture at16 900 m3 tonne21, although this does not take account of
water returned to the aquifer.

3.3 Risks and their management

The finite nature of available resources has long been recognised (Pullin et al., 1993). The evolution
of modern aquaculture has resulted in a rapid expansion of cultivated areas and has brought with it
a higher density of aquaculture operations and resulting infrastructures using a wide use of feed
resources often produced outside of the immediate culture area. The resulting pressure of
exploitation with a range of environmental consequences, as outlined in Section 3.1., has shaped
and constrained the global development of the sector within the last decade. A significant factor in
the further development of the aquaculture sector both at a localized level and also, more broadly,
in terms of inspiring confidence for further investment and development is the identification of the
risks involved. It is therefore necessary to define their nature and source, to anticipate changes that
aquaculture ventures may have on the severity or overall impact of the risks and, ultimately, to
develop appropriate management strategies or practical responses to reduce or eliminate these
risks.

3.3.1 Ecosystem function and biodiversity

It is not commonly recognized that aquaculture globally is dominated by smallholder and small
company production in tropical and sub-tropical countries (Lazard et al., 2010) and rely on
low/uncosted environmental goods and services (Bostock et al., 2010). It is likely that this type of
small-scale aquaculture will remain important in many developing countries such as SSA for decades
to come (Bostock, 2010). Considering that a supply of clean, well-oxygenated water is a key
requirement in any aquaculture operation and a key feature of any aquaculture operation is the
intrinsic degradation of that water resulting in higher concentrations of organic and inorganic
nutrients and reduced levels of oxygen, aquaculture operations can have serious environmental
impacts on ecosystem health in both areas of ecosystem function and disruption of local biodiversity.

Measurable changes to the biota at local scales is obviously relative to the type of culture system
used, the type of species farmed and also to the scale or size of the operation. As can be seen in
Table 4, species requirements and the related intensity of their production systems is reflected in
production per unit area and their water requirements. Production systems that have a greater
water requirements will therefore produce greater volume of potentially damaging effluent,
however the impact of this effluent is a reflection of stocking density i.e. production per unit area
which is in turn proportional to feed input. Therefore species that rely on extracted feeds e.g.
aquatic plants or extractive species such as bivalves with a low production per unit area and a high
water requirement offer very little risk to the surrounding ecosystem compared with highly stocked
and intensively fed culture of salmonid species with a high production per unit area and a high water
consumption where the high-input-high-output systems discharging high levels of suspended solids
and nutrient and organically enriched effluent can lead to the build-up of anoxic sediment, changes
in benthic communities and eutrophication of recipient waters. However a caveat exists in this
assumption as each example is site specific and the size of the surrounding water body which could
potentially absorb this effluent should be considered when assessing risk of a particular aquaculture
venture. For example the environmental impacts of an intensive culture system in an open ocean
setting are mitigated due to the size of the surrounding water body and its resulting ability to absorb
nutrient loading and oxygen depletion and conversely low input extensive mollusc culture could
potentially cause changes to benthic communities and siltation.

The impact of extensive or semi-intensive pond aquaculture used for carps and other cyprinids and
tilapia spp. with no or minimal water input from external water sources is low, relying on controlled
eutrophication for productivity with the use of organic and inorganic fertilizers and supplementary
low-protein feedstuffs. These systems can be beneficial to water management and ecosystem health
as they can catch and store surface water, both rain and run-off, and solid waters can be removed
from the pond bottom and used as fertilizers for other crops. However a potential problem exists
with dissolved nutrients from aquaculture operations and ensuing eutrophication if local
environments are oligotropic or mesotrophic and risks are site specific and should be assessed
accordingly. Damage to ecosystem health is of special relevance in intensive, high flow-through tank
or raceway systems which involve intake of water from the environment and a post-production
effluent stream (Bostock et al. 2010). The development of Recirculation Aquaculture Systems (RAS),
offering a degree of control from an environmental stand-point, reduces water consumption and
waste discharge and allows production closer to markets. Indeed these may be of special interest in
urban areas (Costa-Pierce et al. 2005). The disadvantages are that RAS are highly complex with high
capital and operational expenditure, high energy demands that restricts them to culture of higher
value species or early life stages where control over environmental variables is more vital. However
the development of standard, mass-produced low-cost systems could broaden the uptake of such
systems (Bostock et al. 2008) and extend its use into developing countries.

In addition, conflicts often exist between the impact of cage farming or coastal pond and pump-
ashore tank systems and other coastal based activities such as boating, navigation or tourism
activities. In Europe these issues are considered through a licensing process or through the
development of coastal zone plans however in areas where there is an abundance of land suitable
without any prior claim for any of these activities such systems may be appropriate. In cage farming,
effects are relative to the size of the production unit i.e. modest scale cages would have minimal and
localized changes to sediment beneath the cages. However, on a larger scale, the potential for
release of nutrients or chemical wastes directly into the environment is greater, which could in turn
offer substantial risk in some freshwater or highly sensitive inshore marine environments where the
existing flushing rates of the water bodies or current speeds are directly related to the removal of
solid wastes (Dempster and Sanchez-Jerez, 2008). Coastal zone farming is frequently in competition
with other uses for the resources which may take preference e.g. tourism, port development and
shipping activities. Also the development of coastal brackish water ponds had come under scrutiny
due to over-exploitation of ecosystem and destruction of mangrove resources, with its long-term
impact on recruitment of many fish species whose early life stages make use of these
systems/natural resources. Overexploitation of for example the expansion of shrimp ponds inland
has affected agriculture by saline intrusion into soils.

Direct interactions between aquaculture stock and wildlife can disrupt the biodiversity i.e. natural
predators of aquaculture species attracted to farms prompting a range of deterrent or control
methods which can be disruptive e.g. loud bird scarers, or destructive e.g. shooting predating birds,
seals etc. A range of technological solutions have been developed e.g. protective barriers although
offer variable effectiveness (Quick et al. 2004) and can also be limited by cost or availability. Another
potential direct impact of aquaculture operations is the disruption of the natural ecosystem through
accidental escapes of cultured stocks. This can have serious consequences on native stocks through
predation, displacement through habitat invasion, transmission of disease and changes in habitat
e.g. burrowing, plant removal, sediment mobilisation and resulting turbidity. To use an example in
SSA, major changes in the ecosystem of Lake Victoria are have resulted from the introduction of the
exotic fish species such as Nile perch (Lates niloticus) and exotic tilapias spp. i.e. Oreochromis
niloticus and the progressive formation of physical and chemical changes such as the development
of a seasonal and lake-wide anaerobic hypolimnion which now threatens the integrity and
biodiversity of the lake. The endemic fish community of haplochromids underwent a notable
reduction in abundance and species diversity. The introduced Nile perch came to dominate the
commercial catch together with the Oreochromis niloticus and the endemic cyprinid Rastrineobola
argentea raising serious concern about the environment in the lake and the impacts of development
activities in the lake basin (Ochurnba, 1987). In practice however, particularly for developing
countries, monitoring and enforcing these can be extremely difficult and in many locations stocks
are moved freely without inspection or certification.

Recently a growing importance of the global consolidation of the market chains has emerged with
the formation of major international aquaculture companies (Olson and Criddle, 2008) as has been
seen in the pangasius industry in Vietnam, where a clear strategy exists for the strengthening of
smaller aquaculture enterprises throughout the value chain by technology transfer and
modernization (Zhou and Chan, 2010). Benefits include the enhancing of productivity and efficiency
through vertically integrated companies and the promotion of sustainability. However these code
and certification programmes have usually focused on production levels and as such have usually
ignored the wider ecosystem largely ignoring the stake-holders further down the value chain i.e. the
farmers (Costa-Pierce, 2002; Rey-Valette et al., 2008). Therefore the development of a sustainable
development programme with mitigating effects on farm level environmental impacts is not all
encompassing. It is suggested (Lazard et al., 2010) that the aquaculture sector should broaden its
scale of analysis and to consider interactions with the territories where aquaculture farms are
established using a large and representative diversity of aquaculture systems.

In an attempt to mitigate these threats to ecosystem security, in 2006 the Aquaculture Service (FIRA)
of the FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department initiated an effort to investigate the development
and application of the ecosystem approach to aquaculture (EAA) defined by Soto et al., (2008)The
primary goal of EAA was to overcome the sectoral and intergovernmental fragmentation of
resources management efforts and to develop institutional mechanisms for effective coordination
among various sectors active in the ecosystems in which aquaculture operates and between the
various levels of government with an outcome to promote a truly sustainable aquaculture sector.
Following an initial workshop (Palma de Mallorca, Spain) in May 2007 and a strategy was agreed
upon that used a broad approach to the planning and running of aquaculture along sustainable lines
that was defined as An ecosystem approach for aquaculture (EAA) is a strategy for the integration of
the activity within the wider ecosystem in such a way that it promotes sustainable development,
equity, and resilience of interlinked social and ecological systems.

Food safety The untargeted effects of chemical treatments for disease control i.e. disinfectants,
therepeutants or contamination which can be especially problematic in coastal areas when poor
control over industrial effluent raw materials puts food safety in doubt. Food safety standards have
been designed to protect buyers from exposure to potentially harmful residues however such
standards are more widely used by developed countries and for products from developing countries
for export, but many developing countries must apply similar domestic regulations to protect their
own consumers. Regular screening and laboratory detection methods are mitigation methods that
allow assessment and monitoring but feasibly cannot be widespread due to cost and lack of
infrastructure. A case study of the certification processes of farmed pangasius spp. in Vietnam is
shown in Box 5.

3.3.2 Fish health
Disease has for some time been identified as a primary constraint to sustainable aquaculture
production and product trade, with the sector facing significant problems with disease outbreaks
and epidemics which have caused significant economic losses (Subasinghe et al., 2001). As
Box 5: Pangasius farming in Vietnam
The Vietnamese government's policies for an export-led economy that have supported the
rapid growth of Pangasius production in the Mekong Delta of Vietnam at an average annual
rate of 35% since 2003, leading to a range of concerns over the environmental impact of both
production and processing. The Pangasius supply chain in Vietnam is predominantly export
oriented and as a result, trade makes up approximately 91.3% of total production and targets
well established markets such as the Eureopean Union and the United States, as well as
emerging markets such as Russia. The Pangasius processing firms developed rapidly and
within a 10-year period (19972007) 40 processing plants with a combined capacity of up to
3,500 tonnes of raw fish daily were established. In Vietnam, the state authority NAVIQAVED,
under the auspices of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD), took the
lead in developing a Pangasius brand in 2006 to better capture the market niche that the fish
holds in world markets. As part of this brand, the Swiss multinational Socit Gnrale de
Surveillance (SGS), a third party auditor specializing in food quality and safety systems such as
Safe Quality Food (SQF) standards based on the HACCP system, provided support to improve
the quality, safety and traceability of the product in the supply chain. However, because
contaminations typically occur through the application of chemicals and anti-biotics during
production the industry is also moving to certify farmers through the SQF 1000 standards.
These standards assure traceability through each stage of production from hatcheries to
growth in ponds.In general, certification schemes are used by large-scale rather than small-
scale producers because of the high cost involved in certification. Currently, three standards
are used in Pangasius farming: SQF 1000CM, Naturland organic and Bio Suisse. In addition
several new standards are in progress: Global-GAP (testing phase), BAP, Vietnam-GAP, and a
standard through WWFs aquaculture dialogue, BMPs for Pangasius aquaculture that are
currently being developed and refined for Pangasius in the Mekong Delta. In addition, a
national institution, the Vietnamese Association of Seafood Exporters and Processors (VASEP),
which has a strong record for proactively and effectively promoting Pangasius in international
markets has been particularly effective in supporting the industrys development, may also
have an important role to play in helping to direct its course in future.

aquaculture production methods are increasingly intensifying, this spatial concentration increases
risk for the spread of aquatic diseases (Pulkkinen et al., 2010) and, in addition, the increase in the
movement of aquatic animals through inter-regional trade and the introduction of new species and
strains to meet economic and market demand similarly poses significant risk of pathogen spread. A
global estimate of disease losses to aquaculture by the World Bank in 1997 was in the range of US$3
billion per annum. More recent estimates suggest that between one third to a half of fish and
shrimps put into cages or ponds are lost due to poor health management before they reach
marketable size (Tan et al., 2006).

Although the translocation of pathogens and diseases through the movement of their aquatic hosts
is not a new phenomenon (Hoffman, 1970), in the last three decades the expansion, intensification
and diversification of the industry, encouraged by the trend in world trade liberalization and
improved transportation efficiency, relying heavily on the movement of live aquatic animals and
animal products e.g. broodstock, seed and feed has contributed to the spread of diseases into new
populations and directions. The maintenance of effective biosecurity in aquaculture is becoming
increasingly essential with the use of sound epidemiological principles and logical and science-based
approaches to identify and manage risks. Indeed it is estimated that there will be an increasing
demand for aquatic animal epidemiologists and well as regional epidemiological tools and resources
(Subasinghe, 2007).

Major stock losses have been caused by viral diseases especially in the shrimp and salmon sectors
and similarily bacterial, parasite and fungal problems have also impacted fish production in a
number of species. Sensitive early life stages are particularly vulnerable and outbreaks in hatchery
and nursery systems can seriously affect future grow-out supplies. Major advances in the successful
diagnosis and treatment of fish diseases have been made in recent years and, as a result,
aquaculture producers have improved their husbandry practices with a greater focus on fish welfare.
Control of many serious diseases has been achieved through new medicines and vaccines, especially
for bacterial diseases such as furunculosis and vibriosis - the cause of major losses in the salmon
industry. Advancements in disease treatments currently include recombinant DNA technology and
the use of proteomics and epitope mapping for the identification of vaccine antigens as therapies for
fish viral diseases and parasites, and aquaculture diets as a method of immunostimulant delivery and
increasing probiotic effects. In addition, new diseases are emerging which require ongoing vigilance.

Treatments can vary from simple measures to improve water quality and reduce stress levels, the
elimination of contaminants or disease agents and the application of drugs and chemicals, either
orally, by immersion and injection or vaccination. For particularly dangerous pathogens complete
eradication of stocks may be required. The severity of disease outbreaks can vary according to
production system type. Intensive systems often present in a higher incidence of stress-related
disease due to high stocking density and fast spread of pathogens, however disease and fish welfare
problems can be more easily recognised and treated due to a greater level or management and
visibility of the cultured stock. In tanks and raceways water flow can be stopped whilst smaller
volume of water used means less chemicals are required therefore lower treatment costs and, in
addition, effluent can be more easily managed. The treatment of disease outbreaks in cages present
their own problems due to the nature of the containment system; cages can be enclosed for
application of drugs and chemical by immersion however this requires a greater infrastructure and
related management costs however the more recent introduction of well boats as a means to give
fish bath treatments allows a simpler approach. However less intensive and lower value aquaculture
sectors are not without their related health problems. Epidemics of White Spot virus in marine
shrimps and Epizootic Ulcerative Syndrome (EUS) in freshwater fishes have already caused
substantial losses. A lower stocking density and reduced visibility of fish can mean health problems
go undetected and larger volume of culture water to treat can result in an expensive use of
chemotheurapeutants and a related environmental impact of high volume of treated effluent.

In recent years several regional and international organisations have been developed to help
national governments to meet the international standards set by the World Trade Organization
(WTO) under the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS
Agreement). For animal (including aquatic animal) health and zoonoses, the WTO recognises the
standards developed by the World Organisation for Animal Health (Office International des
Epizooties, or OIE) as a reference within the SPS Agreement. The OIE has developed documents i.e.
the Aquatic Animal Health Code (Aquatic Code) and the Manual of Diagnostic Tests for Aquatic
Animals (Aquatic Manual) in order to protect international trade in aquatic animals and their
products providing general and disease specific provisions that OIE member countries can adopt to
prevent and control aquatic disease. The national strategic plan usually identifies the roles and
responsibilities of different stakeholders at the state and national levels into the following key
components:

A competent authority (CA) e.g. national veterinary service that has the responsibility and
competence for supervising the implementation of the recommended aquatic animal health
measures working under the guidelines of the the OIEs International Aquatic Animal Health
Code and the World Trade Organizations Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and
Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement)).
Legislative support in the form of written legal documents outlining the powers of the CA to
facilitate implementation of national aquatic animal health strategies e.g. aquatic animal
movement, import-export, quarantine and health certification procedures, destruction of
diseased stock, compensation, etc.
The National Advisory Committee for Aquatic Animal Health or a forum for communication
and coordination among government, academia, industry, private sector and other
concerned groups for consideration of issues of aquatic animal health, disease control, and
welfare
The national list of diseases or list of diseases of national importance for the purpose of
developing national disease control strategies, and complying with regional and
international disease reporting requirements.
Surveillance and disease reporting as a systematic collection, analysis and dissemination of
health information of a given population of aquatic animals contributing to improved
disease diagnosis and development of an early warning and emergency preparedness
system.
Emergency preparedness and contingency planning for an emerging disease threat and an
agreed management strategy and set of operational procedures adopted in such an event.
Quarantine and health certification The purpose of applying quarantine measures is to
facilitate trans-boundary trade in living aquatic animals, while minimizing the risk of
spreading infectious diseases involving pre-border, border and post-border activities,
including pre-movement certification, movement, confinement on arrival, checking during
confinement, releases, and subsequent monitoring as appropriate.

4 Climate change and African aquaculture

4.1 Introduction
There is now a general consensus within the scientific community that the worlds climate is
changing in association with an increase in average global temperature. It is also largely accepted
that anthropogenic causes such as emissions of greenhouse gases and deforestation at least partially
responsible (Houghton, 2009). There is also an increasing body of work suggesting that changes in
climate are having effects at the ecosystem level with observed changes on all continents and in
most oceans (IPCC, 2007). With this in mind the question of climate change has very much moved
from whether it is a real phenomenon to one of extent and likely impacts.

In contrast to capture fishery production which has shown only slight growth, African aquaculture
production has increased rapidly during the last decade. Estimated production for 2008 stood at
944,440 tonnes (excluding aquatic plants) representing around 11.4 percent of total fisheries
production (FAO, 2010b). Given this recent growth and considering that compared to other
continents, notably Asia, aquaculture production in Africa is still relatively small and has
considerable scope for expansion it is imperative that along with other food production sectors
careful consideration is given to how changing climatic conditions may influence future aquaculture
development.

4.2 The ability to predict climate change
The ability to predict future climate is steadily improving in association with a greater understanding
of the of the climate system its self, increases in computing power, a growing number of ever more
sophisticated climate models, and an increasing number and variety of experiments being conducted.
Although significant improvements are being made in the area of climate modelling a degree of
uncertainty remains. This uncertainty can be broadly considered as relating to; a) the modelling
process its self i.e. the sensitivity of a model to changes in atmospheric green house gas
concentrations, and b) uncertainty relating to human development i.e. future greenhouse gas
emissions and atmospheric concentrations.

In an effort to address this uncertainty a broad range of scenarios were developed for the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES).
These scenarios form the basis of much climate modelling work and consider a range of differing
assumptions relating to human activity such as economic and population growth, energy production
and technological change. Table 12 shows predicted changes in average global temperatures
between the base period 1980-1999 and 2090-2099. The message for those concerned with impact
assessment is that there is a wide range of future scenarios to consider and a precautionary
approach should be adopted.

There is also a considerable variability between climate models in terms of sensitivity to increasing
greenhouse gases and therefore predicted global warming. The 23 Atmosphere-Ocean Global
Circulation Models AOGCMs used for the 4
th
ipcc assessment report have range of equilibrium
climate sensitivities where a doubling of atmospheric CO
2
results in average global temperature
increases ranging from 2.1C to 4.4C with a mean value of 3.2C (IPCC, 2007). It has been suggested
that a large part of this variation can be attributed to uncertainties about feedbacks with cloud
feedbacks being most significant (Webb et al., 2006).

Table 12: Estimated average global warming under a range of emissions scenarios between the periods
1980-1999 and 2090-2099. Source: Solomon et al., 2007. Page 70

Change in global average temperature C between the base
period 1980-1999 and 2090-2099
a
Best estimate Likely range
Constant year 2000
concentrations
b
0.6 0.3 - 0.9
B1 scenario 1.8 1.1 - 2.9
A1T scenario 2.4 1.4 - 3.8
B2 scenario 2.4 1.4 - 3.8
A1B scenario 2.8 1.7 - 4.4
A2 scenario 3.4 2.0 - 5.4
A1F1 scenario 4.0 2.4 - 6.4
a These estimates are assessed from a hierarchy of models that encompass a simple climate model, several Earth Models
of Intermediate Complexity (EMICs), and a large number of Atmosphere-Ocean Global Circulation Models (AOGCMs).
b Year 2000 constant composition is derived from AOGCMs only.

Climate models have the ability to predict some variables better than others with a common method
of evaluating their performance being though the simulation of climate during a recent time period
for which observed values are available. Although there is a slight tendency for underestimate in
non-polar regions, The current generation of climate models have the ability to simulate annual
mean temperature patterns with a reasonable degree of accuracy, especially when ensembles of
outputs from multiple models are considered. The spatial representation of the annual cycle of
temperature variation, and therefore seasonal changes, are also simulated with a good degree of
accuracy although the simulation of diurnal temperature range over some continental areas does
not perform so well with some models underestimating by as much as 50%, this said the models do
generally indicate greater fluctuation, as would be expected, over dryer clearer areas (IPCC, 2007).

The prediction of future precipitation patterns is more problematic. It is likely that global warming
will result in a slight overall increase in average global precipitation levels and that there will be
changes in seasonality and spatial variability with some regions becoming wetter while others
become dryer. When the outputs from the 21 models that contributed to IPCCs 4
th
assessment
report (IPCC, 2007) are viewed as an ensemble they capture some large scale global patterns quite
well although there are also notable inaccuracies. It is also worth considering that many of the skills
demonstrated by the multi model ensemble may not be demonstrated when individual models are
considered alone with substantial differences between models in some cases (ipcc 2007 wg 1 p611).
In terms of impact assessment this is significant and great care should be taken in terms of drawing
firm and singular conclusions from modelled precipitation data, especially where a limited number
of climate simulations are involved.

4.3 Predicted climate changes for Africa
4.3.1 Temperature
The 4
th
IPCC assessment report (IPCC, 2007) suggests that it is very likely that Africa will become
warmer during the 21
st
century and that this warming will be greater than the global average with an
increase of approximately 1.5 times the global average being suggested by many models. Projected
increases in global average temperatures under a range of emissions scenarios are shown in figure 2
while the images in figure 3 give an indication of projected regional changes in temperature
throughout an average year in modelled 1.5
o
C and 3
o
C warmer worlds.

Figure 2: Projected average surface warming projected by an ensemble of climate models under different
emissions scenarios (B1, A1B, B1) relative to the 1980-1999 base period. The grey bars indicate the likely
range of change under 6 scenarios. Source: IPCC (2007), page 14.

Average
global
warming
Average for
December, January,
February
Average for March,
April, May
Average for June, July,
August
Average for
September, October,
November
Plus 1.5
o
C

Plus 3
o
C

Figure 3: projected seasonal surface air temperature changes over Africa under 1.5oC and 3oC average
global warming scenarios relative to a late 20th Century base period (1980-1999) Projections were
generated using the MAGICC/SCENGEN climate modelling package and an ensemble of all 20 available GCMs.
1

1
MAGICC/SCENGEN can be downloaded freely at http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/wigley/magicc/

4.3.2 Rainfall
For inland aquaculture, and food production in general, changing patterns of rainfall can be highly
significant. In terms of the more robust projections for precipitation change over Africa the IPCCAR4
suggests a drying trend in southern Africa as well as in the Mediterranean region and for increasing
rainfall in Eastern Africa.

Figure 4 shows average annual observed precipitation values for the commonly used 1961-1990
base period. Figures 5 and 6 show projected changes in mm per year for 1.5
o
C and 3
o
C warmer
worlds respectively. When evaluating projections of changing precipitation patterns for Africa it is
important to note that there is considerable disagreement among climate models. This is illustrated
in figure 7 that shows the signal to noise ratio for the ensemble of 20 climate models used produce
precipitation projections. In contrast the level of agreement between models when projecting
temperature changes is good, suggesting more confidence in this respect (figure 8). A potential
approach for impact assessment when faced with disagreement between climate models is to
establish the probability of the direction of change in precipitation (i.e. more or less) based on the
model ensemble. The results of this approach are demonstrated in figure 9 where a high probability
of increased rainfall in east Africa contrasts with very low probability and hence a drying trend in the
Mediterranean region and south.

Figure 4: Average annual
precipitation (mm) for the base
period 1961 -1990.
1

Figure 5: Projected change in
annual precipitation (mm) in a
1.5
o
C warmer world.
2

Figure 6: Projected change in
annual precipitation (mm) in a 3
o
C
warmer world.
2

1
Values represent averages from the 1961-1990 time period and are obtained from the CRU CL 2.0 data set (New et al.,
2002).
2
Projections of change were produced using the MAGICC/SCENGEN climate modelling package and an ensemble of all 20
available GCMs


Figure 7: Inter-model signal to
noise ratio of a 20 model
ensemble when projecting
precipitation change in a 1.5
o
C
warmer world*
Figure 8: Inter-model signal to
noise ratio of a 20 model
ensemble when projecting
temperature change in a 1.5
o
C
warmer world*
Figure 9: Probability of
precipitation increase in a 1.5
o
C
warmer world

*
Inter-model signal to noise ratio = change in mean state divided by inter-model standard deviation (independent of
time).

4.3.3 Extreme weather
In terms of extreme events the IPCC (2007) point out that there is only a limited amount of research
specific to Africa that looks at changes to climate extremes but suggest that there is expected to be a
general increase in rainfall intensity in Africa in association with increasing atmospheric water
vapour, a trend expected in many areas globally. The IPCC (2007) also suggest that in areas where an
average drying trend is expected there will be a larger decrease in the number of rainy days and
that this indicates compensation between frequency and intensity of precipitation. With this in
mind areas currently at risk from flooding, especially where precipitation is expected to increase,
should be evaluated carefully in relation to future flood risk as further developments in climate
modelling become available. A similar approach should also be considered in relation to drought,
and while the current generation of climate models mostly struggle to simulate the observed
interannual variability and drought seen in Africa during the 20
th
century (IPCC, 2007), areas that are
projected to dry in association with warming temperatures should be considered at increased risk of
drought (Dai, 2011).

When considering Africa specifically the IPCC (2007) state that there is little guidance from the
models in relation to cyclone activity affecting Africa but suggest that same arguments would apply
to Africa as they do to other regions. More general findings in the ipcc report suggest that model
results thus far indicate that under a warmer future climate tropical cyclones may see increases in
peak wind speed along with increased mean and peak precipitation intensities. There is also
suggestion that while the number of intense hurricanes may increase it is possible that the number
of weaker ones will decrease. Overall it is projected that the total global number of cyclones will
decrease. The report also notes that while the apparent increase in the proportion of very intense
hurricanes experienced in some regions since 1970 is in the same direction as projected by
theoretical models the change is much larger than predicted.

4.3.4 Sea level rise
Figure 10 shows recorded and projected sea level rise and future projections under a mid range
emissions scenario (SRES A1B). There is considerable uncertainty in relation to future sea level rise
with some authors suggesting that IPCC projections of, depending on emissions scenario chosen, a
19 to 59cm increase between the periods 1980-1999 and 2090-2099 are too low. For example
Rahmstorf (2007) used a semi-empirical approach linking global mean temperature and sea level to
predict an increase in sea level of between 50 and 140cm over the 1990 2100 time period.
Vermeer and Rahmstorf (2009) updated Rahmstorfs previous projections to a larger increase of
between 75 and 190cm over the same time period. Church et al. (2011) provide a summary of recent
advances in the science of sea level change. The authors point out that while significant progress has
been made over the past decade significant deficiencies in understanding remain meaning that
current projections still cover a wide range of projected increases regardless of which emissions
scenarios are used. Church et al. (2011) also suggest while recent satellite based observations
suggest sea level is currently rising at a rate close to the upper end of the IPCC projections it is worth
being cautious when interpreting the results from semi-empirical models, such as those outlined
here, that predict large increases. Church et al. (2011) argue that while such models may potentially
be valuable there are concerns in relation to inadequate representation of non-climate related
contributions to sea level rise and non-linear relationships between sea level rise and factors such as
the reduced efficiency of ocean heat uptake and the reduction in the size of glaciers, both factors
that would reduce estimates by semi-empirical models.

Another consideration in relation to sea level rise is that increases will not be uniform globally with
above and below average increases associated with factors such as Salinity, ocean dynamics and
wind effects all of which are likely to change in association with global warming. Church et al. (2011)
suggest that regional variation is likely to be around a quarter of total average sea level increase but
point out that there is little agreement between models at this stage as to the exact nature of this
distribution. In summary the IPCC projections are probably a good starting point when evaluating
potential sea level rise while adopting a precautionary approach and considering scenarios greater
increase.

Figure 10: Observed sea level change during the 20th century and projected sea level change under SRES
scenario A1B. The green line towards the end of the 20th century shows observed values from satellite
altimetry. Source: IPCC (2007), page 409

4.4 Potential Impacts of climate changes on African aquaculture

4.4.1 Introduction
Climate related drivers of change that are likely to directly affect aquaculture production systems
can generally be grouped as: changes in air and inland water temperatures, changes in solar
radiation, changes in sea surface temperature, changes in other oceanographic variables (currents,
wind velocity and wave action etc.), sea level rise, changes in frequency or intensity of extreme
events, and water stress. The effects of these changes can be considered in terms of; physiological
(growth, development, reproduction, disease), ecological (organic and inorganic cycles, predation,
ecosystem services) and operational (species selection, site selection, sea cage technology etc.)
impacts (Handisyde et al., 2006). A range of potential routes of impact are summarised here in Table
13.

Table 13: Potential pathways by which increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations may influence
aquaculture systems (adapted from Handisyde et al., 2006)
Drivers of change Impacts on culture systems Operational impacts
Sea surface
temperature
changes

Increase in harmful algal blooms that
release toxins in the water and
produce fish kills
Decreased dissolved oxygen
Increased incidents of disease and
parasites
Enhanced growing seasons
Change in the location and/or size of
the suitable range for a given species
Lower natural winter mortality
Enhanced growth rates and feed
conversions (metabolic rate)
Enhanced primary productivity
(phostosynthetic activity) to benefit
production of filter-feeders
Altered local ecosystems - competitors
and predators
Competition, parasitism and predation
from exotic and invasive species
Changes in infrastructure
and operation costs
Increased infestation of
fouling organisms, pests,
nuisance species and/or
predators
Expanded geographic
distribution and range of
aquatic species for culture
Changes in production
levels

Damage to coral reefs that may have
helped protect shore from wave action
may combine with sea level rise to
further increase exposure
Increased chance of
damage to infrastructure
from waves or flooding of
inland coastal areas due to
storm surges
Change in other
oceanographic
variables (variations
in wind velocity,
currents and wave
action)
Decreased flushing rate that can affect
food availability to shellfish
Alternations in water exchanges and
waste dispersal
Change in abundance and/or range of
capture fishery species used in the
production of fishmeal and fish oil
Accumulation of waste
under pens
Increased operational costs
Seal level rise Loss of areas available for aquaculture
Loss of areas such as mangroves that
may provide protection from
waves/surges and act as nursery areas
Damage to infrastructure
Changes in aquaculture
zoning
Competition for space with
that supply aquaculture seed
Sea level rise combined with storm
surges may create more severe
flooding.
Salt intrusion into ground water
ecosystems providing
costal defence services (i.e.
mangroves)
Increased insurance costs
Reduced freshwater
availability
Lowering of Ocean
pH
Reduced growth and survival of
calcifying organism such as bivalves
Changes in level of
production and potential
profit
Increase in
frequency and/or
intensity of storms
Large waves
Storm surges
Flooding from intense precipitation
Structural damage
Salinity changes
Introduction of disease or predators
during flood episodes
Loss of stock
Damage to facilities
Higher capital costs, need
to design cages moorings,
jetties etc. that can
withstand events
Negative effect on pond
walls and defences
Increased insurance costs
Higher inland water
temperatures
(Possible causes:
changes in air
temperature,
intensity of solar
radiation and wind
speed
Reduced water quality especially in
terms of dissolved oxygen
Increased incidents of disease and
parasites
Enhanced primary productivity may
benefit production
Change in the location and/or size of
the suitable range for a given species
Increased metabolic rate leading to
increased feeding rate, improved food
conversion ratio and growth provided
water quality and dissolved oxygen
levels are adequate otherwise feeding
and growth performance may be
reduced
Changes in level of
production
Changes in operating costs
Increase in capital costs
e.g. aeration, deeper
ponds
Change of culture species
Floods due to
changes in
precipitation
(intensity, frequency,
seasonality,
variability)
Salinity changes
Introduction of disease or predators
Structural damage
Escape of stock
Loss of stock
Damage to facilities
Higher capital costs
involved in engineering
flood resistance
Higher insurance costs
Water stress (as a
gradual reduction in
water availability
due to increasing
evaporation rates
and decreasing
rainfall)
Decrease water quality leading to
increased diseases
Reduce pond levels
Altered and reduced freshwater
supplies greater risk of impact by
drought if operating close to the limit
in terms of water supply
Increased drought risk
Costs of maintaining pond
levels artificially
Conflict with other water
user
Loss of stock
Reduced production
capacity
Increased per unit
production costs
Change of culture species
Drought (as an
extreme event , as
opposed to a gradual
reduction in water
availability)
Salinity changes
Reduced water quality
Limited water volume
Loss of stock
Loss of opportunity
limited production
(probably hard to insure
against)
4.4.2 Temperature changes

Increasing temperatures equate to both positive and negative impacts for aquaculture. Figure 11
illustrates how assuming a normal distribution of temperature the probability of experiencing
extremely hot days increases with an increases in mean temperature. It is these unexpected hot
spells that are likely to pose greatest risk. Mechanisms by which high temperature can negatively
affect production include; direct loss of stock as a result of poor water quality or exceeding thermal
tolerances of the culture species, and increased stress leading to disease. The type and scale of
aquaculture system is significant in terms of temperature impacts with shallow ponds with limited
water exchange probably being most at risk. Water depth plays an important role with shallow
ponds being much more prone to exceeding critical temperature throughout their whole water
column during the hottest part of the day or during periods of unusually warm weather. With this in
mind areas where water shortage is common, and perhaps set to increase along with rising
temperatures, should be seen as especially at risk.

Figure 11: An illustration of the probability of experiencing extreme temperatures in relation when average
temperatures increase, assuming a normal temperature distribution. Source: Solomon et al., 2007, page 53

Figure 12 shows modelled aquaculture pond temperature under late 20
th
century conditions and for
projected 1.5
o
C and 3
o
C warmer worlds. The modelling process makes some significant
assumptions
*
but provides a useful indication of spatial distribution of temperatures throughout the
year. It is important to remember that the modelled temperatures represent seasonal means and
that there are likely to be periods of extremes that are considerably outside average values.

Cages in larger bodies of water are probably at less risk from temperature extremes and in some
cases commonly cultured species such as tilapias that have a preference for higher temperatures
may experience improved production, especially in areas where temperatures are below optimum
for at least part of the year.

Average
global
warming
December, January,
February March, April, May June, July, August
September, October,
November
L
a
t
e

2
0
t
h

c
e
n
t
u
r
y

P
l
u
s

1
.
5
o
C

P
l
u
s

3
o
C

Figure 12: Modelled temperature of typical aquaculture ponds under late 20th century conditions and for
1.5
o
C and 3
o
C warmer worlds*

*
Pond temperature modelling follows the method described by Nath (2006) and involves an energy balance approach with
the assumption of a fully mixed water column. For the late 20
th
century period observed data values obtained from the
CRU CL 2.0 data set (New et al., 2002). For the warming scenarios temperature change values were obtained from
MAGICC/SCENGEN climate modelling package using an ensemble of all 20 available GCMs. Relative differences between a
modeled 20
th
century base period and warming scenarios where applied to the CRU data to represent change in relation to
actual observations while providing a higher spatial resolution. Only temperature estimates were available from the
MAGICC/SCENGEN package meaning that change data for Solar radiation, humidity and wind speed could not be included.
As a result modeling of pond temperature under warming scenarios relied on changing air temperature only while applying
20
th
century observed values for solar radiation, wind speed and humidity.

4.4.3 Water availabi lity changes
Reduced annual rainfall in combination with higher temperatures and evaporation rates pose
potential threats to aquaculture especially when considered in relation other competing uses of
water for agricultural, industrial and domestic purposes.


In areas of marginal water availability culture in small ponds, that may be associated with poorer
farmers , is perhaps at greatest risk with potential for reduced harvests, shorter growing seasons,
and increased limitations in terms of choice of species and harvest size (Allison , Andrew, & Oliver,
2007; Handisyde, 2006). Potential change in inter-annual variability, and thus reliability, of rainfall
should also be considered especially in relation to areas that require seasonal heavy rainfall or
flooding, such as in wetland areas, to fill ponds.

Figure 13 shows modelled average annual water balance (precipitation minus evaporation) for late
20
th
century conditions as well as modelled 1.5
o
C and 3
o
C warmer worlds. Bearing in mind the
previously discussed difficulties in modelling many climate variables, especially precipitation, the
results suggest reduced water balance in the already dry Mediterranean area and south of the
continent while in much of east Africa there is relatively little change due to projected increases in
rainfall.

Figure 13: Average annual water balance (precipitation minus potential evaporation) in mm per year for; A)
late 20th century values1, B) a modelled 1.5
o
C warmer world
2
, and C) a modelled 3
o
C warmer world
2

1
Values represent averages from the 1961-1990 time period and are obtained from the CRU CL 2.0 data set (New et al.,
2002).
2
Based on temperature and precipitation values obtained from the MAGICC/SCENGEN climate modelling package and an
ensemble of all 20 available GCMs. Relative differences between a modeled 20
th
century base period and warming
scenarios where applied to the CRU data to represent change in relation to actual observations while providing a higher
spatial resolution. Potential evaporation was estimated using a simplified Penman evaporation equation (Valiantzas, 2006).
It should be noted that only precipitation and temperature estimates are available from the MAGICC/SCENGEN package
meaning that change data for Solar radiation, humidity and wind speed were unavailable. The decision was made to
substitute observed values where necessary and estimate water balance change on projected changes in temperature and
precipitation only. An alternative option would be to use a simpler method of evaporation estimation that is solely based
on temperature but such methods generally assume a relationship between temperature and solar radiation and as such
will tend to become inaccurate and overestimate evaporation under global warming scenarios (Burke et al., 2006). Given
these points and the already discussed limitations of GCMs in modeling many climate variables including precipitation the
method here should be viewed only as indicative and as a way of estimating direction of change.

A B C
4.4.4 Sea level rise
Changes in sea level will be gradual and will impact through loss of land and erosion that in turn
increase the risk of inundation for aquaculture. This may mean increased costs in terms of defences
against flooding and greater risks in terms of stock losses and introduction of predators, pests, and
disease, with some areas ultimately becoming unsuitable. Salination of ground water may also be
relevant in some low lying areas, reducing the availability of freshwater for aquaculture and other
uses (IPCC, 2001). This said changing conditions resulting from sea level rise may create new
opportunities for aquaculture in some areas, especially in brackish conditions, or allow aquaculture
to provide an alternative where previous livelihood strategies have been affected through processes
such as salination.

Coastal systems such as mangroves and salt marshes may also be lost as they struggle to adapt to
the speed of sea level increase and/or are unable to retreat inland due to developed land behind
them (IPCC, 2001). Such coastal systems can be important in terms of costal defence against
extreme weather as well as providing spawning and nursery grounds for species that may be
important in terms of fisheries recruitment or supplying aquaculture seed.

Within Africa Egypts Nile delta provides a good example of a densely populated low lying coastal
area at risk from sea level rise. A significant proportion of aquaculture production within Egypt takes
place within the delta area with much taking place in brackish water. Nile Tilapia, Mullet and
Cyprinids are the most important species to date. Much of the land in the delta is more or less at sea
level. This is highlighted in figure 14 which shows elevation data obtained from the Shuttle Radar
Topography Mission (SRTM) (Farr et al., 2007). Areas highlighted in red are those with a recorded
elevation of 2 metres or less. In common with many river deltas worldwide the effects of sea level
rise for the Nile delta will be enhanced due to subsidence caused by upstream dams and reduced
sediment delivery meaning that effective sea level rise for the region will be larger than the actual
sea level rise itself (Hereher, 2010).

Figure 14: Low lying areas of the Nile delta displayed using data from the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission
(SRTM). Areas in red represent land with a recorded elevation of 2 metres or less.

4.4.5 Effects of extreme weather
As previously mentioned future predictions for changes in extreme weather for Africa in the form of
tropical storms and cyclones are limited. However with the suggestion of potential increasing
intensities during cyclone events it is worth considering regions currently affected with the view that
they may be prone to greater impacts under future conditions. Flooding due to storm surge is one of
the most destructive elements of cyclone and storm events and here sea level rise may also
influence risk by decreasing height above sea level and potentially damaging coastal defences
including natural barriers such as mangroves.

Figure 15 indicates cyclone hazard based on a global data set of more than 1600 storm tracks over a
21 year period from the 1
st
January 1980 through to 31
st
December 2000. Madagascar and
Mozambique are noticeably affected with both of these countries having significant aquaculture
sectors with the majority of production taking place in coastal systems. Madagascar is the largest
producer of the two with aquaculture making a significant contribution to the countrys economy
with the majority of income coming from shrimp production.

Figure 15: Cyclone hazard based on recorded storm tracks over a 21 year period from 1980 to 2000 (data
obtained from: CHRR. Center for Hazards and Risk Research. Columbia university)

Heavy rainfall during intense storms can also present a significant risk through localized flooding and
lowering of salinity. For example during a cyclone event in Madagascar heavy rain caused the
diversion of a river upstream from a shrimp farm resulting in the farms pumping station having to
be moved to a new location at considerable expense (WMO, 2010).

4.4.6 Ocean acidification
Increasing concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide are having a direct influence on ocean pH.
Models suggest a decrease of between 0.14 and 0.35 pH units under the range of SRES scenarios
(IPCC, 2007). The ecological consequences of this and thus indirect impacts on aquaculture may be
significant with potential changes in primary productivity of calcifying plankton (Farby et al., 2007;
Gangstoe, Joos & Gehlen, 2011). In terms of direct impacts on aquaculture, potential economic
losses from bivalve production have been predicted (e.g. Gazeau, F. et al., 2007).

4.4.7 Indirect impacts
Aquaculture and its associated livelihoods do not operate in isolation from other sectors and in
addition to the direct influences of changing climate that are outlined in table 13 it is highly likely
that climate change will affect aquaculture indirectly. Examples of potential indirect impacts include
changes in the availability and cost of inputs such as feed ingredients like fishmeal, changes in the
costs of other inputs and services such as energy and transportation, and changes in demand as a
result of climate related effects on the availability and cost of alternative products such as those
produced by the capture fishery and agriculture industries (Delgado et al., 2003). Conflicts over
water use and management are also likely to be significant. Along with the potential to directly
affect water consumption by other users such as agriculture, climate change may also lead to
changes in flood defences and water management that will in turn affect water availability for
aquaculture or have more indirect consequences via changes in capture fishery production.

In reality indirect impacts on aquaculture and those who depend on it may be subtle, complex and
hard to identify or quantify. Impacts may take place over a range of scales from local to global and in
many cases community level studies will probably be needed to unpick the pathways involved
(Handisyde, et al., 2006).

Inland capture fisheries are very significant throughout many regions of Africa with its extensive
river systems, floodplains and lakes. Potential changes in precipitation, both in terms of timing and
extent, that in turn affect timing and extent of floodplain coverage and dry season low water levels,
have the potential to strongly influence fish stocks through impacts on recruitment and survival
(Welcomme et al., 2010). In the case of large lakes increasing temperature and changes in wind
regimes have the potential to alter stratification and mixing patterns and hence primary productivity.
This has been demonstrated in lake Tanganyika where increased temperatures and weaker winds
have reduced mixing depth and resulted in an estimated 30% reduction in fish yields during the 20
th

century (OReilly et al., 2003).

Aquaculture in many African countries is becoming more commercialized and intensive with
increasing demand for energy inputs, services such as transportation, and formulated feeds that are
either produced on site or bought as a commercial product. Hasan et al., (2007) review the use of
feeds in African aquaculture and make a number of recommendations in relation to improving
utilization of resources such as evaluating alternative feed ingredients and inclusion rates. Such
knowledge is likely to prove valuable in adapting to changes in supply.

While there are a huge number of unknowns in terms of how climate change and future
development will affect the cost and availability of aquaculture inputs and services, strategies that
increase general efficiency and identify and reduce reliance on potentially at risk inputs should be
seen as important in terms of adaptation.

4.5 Assessing vulnerability Adaptation
There are a broad range of approaches to vulnerability assessment (Adger, 2006). The definition of
vulnerability as a function of exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity has been used to assess
vulnerability of aquaculture to climate change at the national level (Handisyde et al., 2006) with a
similar approach being adopted for capture fisheries (Allison et al., 2005 & 2009). The findings of
these studies suggest that a number of African countries are likely to be vulnerable due to a limited
capacity to adapt to change. It should be remembered that a large amount of uncertainly remains in
relation to climate change both in terms of the climate its self as well as environmental and human
response to potential changes. There will almost certainly be numerous unanticipated consequences
and in this sense good governance and policy that promote capacity building and thus encourage
adaptation to changes should be seen as vital (FAO, 2008b & 2011).

De Silva, S.S. and Soto, D. 2009. Provide perhaps the most up to date and complete review of
potential climate change impacts for aquaculture along with adaptation and mitigation options. In
their report the authors stress the importance of institutional and policy measures and suggest the
implementation of an ecosystem approach to aquaculture (EAA) where aquaculture development is
integrated in a sustainable way with other sectors such as fisheries, agriculture and urban
development that share common resources such as land, water and inputs such as energy, feeds and
fertilizers. The authors go on to stress implementing the EAA approach at the waterbody scale as
being particularly relevant in terms of adapting to climate change while also highlighting the
potential issue of administrative boundaries often being different from watershed boundaries when
it is watershed management that is likely to be needed in some cases.

Research that aims to identify mechanisms of risk, opportunity, and adaptation for aquaculture
should be encouraged with the understanding that many impact pathways are likely to be location
and situation specific. Research that encourages technological adaptation through improved
production methods, aquaculture strains and feeding practices should also be seen as important and
worthy of potential investment.

It is important to remember that not all impacts on aquaculture will be negative, increasing average
temperatures and changing rainfall patterns will mean that some areas may see improved
production. A key advantage of aquaculture when compared to reliance on capture fisheries is that
to a greater or lesser extent aquaculture represents a controlled environment. In this sense
adaptation can be considered in terms of promoting species and culture methods that are suitable
to a specific site and situation. Further aquaculture promotion and development should involve
careful site selection where climatic and environmental conditions are taken into consideration
along with access to necessary goods and services. The use remotely sensed data and geographic
information systems can prove highly useful in this respect (e.g. Nath et al., 2000; Aguilar & Nath,
1998).

Finally aquaculture its self should be considered as a potential adaptive option. By adopting an
integrated approach it may be possible to promote aquaculture in areas and circumstances where
previously undertaken livelihood and food production strategies have been adversely affected, or as
a method to provide increased resilience such as in the case of integrated aquaculture agriculture
systems (Dey et al., 2007).

5 Developing a sustainable and resilient approach to
aquaculture development

Sustainable aquaculture is the aquaculture that provides animal protein for human
consumption indefinitely, is based on good practices, uses resources in a responsible
manner, does not have irreversible or significant impact on the surrounding
environment, while promoting social development and economic growth.

Definition of sustainable aquaculture arising from the CONSENSUS consultation (2005).

5.1 Introduction
It has already been established that the finite nature of available natural resources has long been
recognised (Pullin et al., 1993). The evolution of modern aquaculture has resulted in a rapid
expansion of cultivated areas and has brought with it a higher density of aquaculture operations and
connected infrastructures and the resulting pressure of exploitation has shaped and constrained the
global development of this sector within the last decade. Therefore a significant factor in the further
growth of the aquaculture sector in Africa both at a localised level and also, more broadly, in terms
of inspiring confidence for further larger-scale investment and development is the identification of
the nature and source of the key issues that may affect this development. These include the existing
natural resource or environmental capacity for aquaculture in Africa and any limitations or
constraints that may hamper its expansion, secondly the maintenance of a sustainable and healthy
aquatic system and, finally, the impact of the potentially compromising effects of climate change on
aquaculture development.

5.2 Environmental context for aquaculture growth in Africa

Aquaculture production relies upon the use of natural resources such as land and water.
Aquaculture systems can be divided into extensive, semi-intensive, or intensive and measures of
intensity include stocking density, production by area, feeding regimes, input costs i.e. the degree of
control within the production process. Whilst the development of new technologies and
intensification of culture techniques have significantly increased the production potential of
aquaculture and high-intensity and large-scale operations are important in achieving the most
efficient production, these techniques can also be misused and lead to unsustainable practices due
to their greater potential for detrimental environmental effects. However, in principal, the higher
degree of control over the production process does, on the other hand, enable farmers a better
opportunity to also control the negative effects of their production (Asche, 2008).

It has been argued in the last two decades that aquaculture growth will be constrained by local
environmental factors and the carrying capacity of the environments where production occurs
(Hempel, 1993) and various management approaches to ensuring sustainability have been discussed
in Section 2 above. There are no physical and technological barriers to a major expansion of
sustainable aquaculture in SSA. Indeed many parts of SSA have the basic physical requirements such
as ample land and water; it has been reported that about 30% of the land area in Africa is suitable
for small-scale fish farming (Anguilar-Manjarrez and Nath, 1998; Kapetsky, 1995). However
limitations exist in the use of these resources. Soil degradation, mainly caused by loss of vegetation
and land exploitation such as overgrazing and deforestation, is associated with low productivity
(UNECA, 2002); now SSA accounts for 27 % of the worlds degraded land surface with some 500
million hectares being described as moderately or severely degraded. As a result traditional
agricultural systems would become increasingly uneconomic and as a result these lands may be
converted to aquaculture or the practitioners may wish to integrate aquaculture into existing
farming systems.

UNECA/AU (2009) reported that only 3.8% of Africas surface and groundwater is harnessed.
However, in the absence of national plans for land and water use, as well as specific zoning for
aquaculture, access to these resources by small-scale farmers is especially difficult. Acquisition of
land often relies on lineages, and, in many cases, the land may not be suitable for aquaculture
production due to its bio-physical characteristics or location, or large enough for the investment the
prospective farmer wishes to make. The availability of sites for freshwater aquaculture can be
limited due to the increasing shortage of freshwater resources and as the possibility of exploiting
non-agriculture land is restricted due to competition from other users. The use of reservoirs and
lakes on a community basis has been tried in some countries but this has not always been successful,
due mainly to organizational constraints and the lack of fish seeds for restocking (FAO, 2008a).
Small-scale aquaculture and aquaculture integrated with other farming practices generally makes
more efficient use of available natural resources, reduces costly and sometimes harmful external
farming inputs and enhances the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity (Miller, 2009).

Indeed efforts are being made in some SS countries with regards to improving environmental
stewardship. The recent series of national reviews by FAO entitled National Aquaculture Legislation
Overview (NALOs) illustrate that some countries have incorporated specific regulations to promote
environmental management of aquaculture i.e. Uganda and Mozambique. See Box 6 for case study
of environmental control of aquaculture operations in Mozambique.

Box 6; Case study Shrimp culture in Mozambique (FAO, 2006).

Allows only the culture of indigenous species.
All shrimp enterprises, irrespective of size, are obligated to prepare an environmental
impact assessment (EIA).
Farms required to provide a confidential annual farm audits that help enforce a code of
conduct and promote mitigation measures with respect to environmental measures.
An emergence of self-regulatory instruments, for example, the Code of Conduct for the
Development of Responsible and Sustainable shrimp aquaculture in Madagascar
(Madagascar and GAPCM, 2005).
An on-going dialogue piloted by the Shrimp Farming and Fishing Industry Association of
Madagascar (GAPCM) and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) to provide a
certification of shrimp aquaculture farms.


5.3 Fish Health and welfare issues and mitigation mechanisms

The complexity of the aquatic environment makes it hard to find the underlying cause of a disease
outbreak, which is often the end result of a series of linked events that include environmental
factors, health conditions of the stock, presence of an infectious agent and/or poor husbandry. In
addition, practical management approaches to pathogen diagnosis and control is clearly limited
according to available resources. In developing countries, such as SSA, aquatic animal health is not a
key priority and information flows largely absent. Lack of technical resources and skills and an under-
developed diagnostic capability resulting in an untimely or ineffective response to a disease threat
are clearly problematic if aquaculture continues to commercialise.

More recently, the aquaculture industry and other organisations such as the OIE (World
Organization for Animal Health) standards recognize the need for effective environmental standards
for many of the compounds used as medicines by aquaculture, Food safety standards, designed to
protect consumers from exposure to potentially harmful medicinal and other chemical residues are
driving more responsible use and are more widely used for products from developing countries for
export. However many developing countries will need to apply the same or similar regulations to
protect their domestic consumers. Industry codes of practice may help, but legislation and its
implementation, combined with capacity building, are also needed.

In some SSA countries, an emerging awareness of fish health issues and the importance of
strengthening its diagnostic capacity and safety of fish products both for domestic and foreign
markets has resulted in the establishment of the standard sanitary operation process (SSOP) and
HACCP programmes developed within the framework of capture fisheries, however fewer countries
have aquaculture-specific facilities. According to the FAO (2010) Regional review on status and
trends in aquaculture development in sub-Saharan Africa some countries are currently working to
meet European Union regulations on safety and quality control, which will be an essential for their
emerging export sector. The major exporting countries, mainly Nigeria, Uganda, and Mozambique
as well as a number of other countries are also aware that biosecurity and aquatic animal health
management are critical and essential requirement for the sustainability of their industry and are
taking steps to address the issue (Box 7).


5.4 Climate change and responses

Climate change has the potential of becoming the most important driver of change to inland aquatic
ecosystems in SSA and therefore, on aquaculture development in the region, where more than 95%
of production is from fresh water environment (FAO, 2010b). As has already been outlined in Section
4, climate change may increase global seawater temperature and combined with sea level rises,
expected changes will occur in inshore salinities, currents and seawater mixing patterns and wind
speeds and direction. These physiochemical environmental alterations will impact ecosystem
structure and function, particularly coastal areas and estuaries, in turn affecting fish species
recruitment and distribution and incidences of harmful algal blooms. A higher incidence of extreme
weather events with changes in precipitation levels may increase inland flooding or drought and
impact groundwater and surface water resources. Temperature rises will increase evaporative water
losses affecting stratification and mixing patterns of inland water bodies, which will in turn impact
aquatic community composition and productivity (for reviews see Handisyde et al., 2006; Allison et
al., 2009; Brierley and Kingsford, 2009; Cheung et al., 2009; Beveridge et al., 2010). An analysis done
by Allison et al., (2009) showed that among the 33 countries most vulnerable to climate induced
changes in the fisheries sector, two thirds were African countries, such as Niger, Malawi, Mali,
Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe, major inland fish producing countries, as well as Nigeria and Ghana
which are relying more and more on their aquaculture sector.

Box 7; Aquatic animal health management case studies in SSA

Catfish Farmers in Nigeria are pressurising the competent authorities to institute
more stringent measures on the importation of aqua-feeds due to their concern
with the apparent increase in the outbreak of fish diseases in the country, the
poor quality of imported aqua-feeds and the potential problems related to
biosafety hazards is pressing. In addition, the Nigerian Institute for Oceanography
and Marine Research (NIOMR) recently organized a workshop for farmers on fish
diseases.
Following confirmation of the occurrence of the epizootic ulcerative syndrome
(EUS) in Botswana in July 2007, FAO is providing various technical assistance
including training and the organization of workshops, among others: basic aquatic
animal health management and EUS diagnosis, the development of Aquatic
Biosecurity Framework for Southern Africa and training on the World
Organization for Animal Health standards (OIE) (FAO, 2008a).
In Uganda the establishment of a Fish Health Laboratory constructed at the
Aquaculture Research and Development Centre, in partnership with the public-
private sector, carries out epidemiology, pathogen diagnosis and the development
of appropriate management strategies as well as conducting regular surveillance
of economically important fish diseases and yield losses of economically
important disease on fish farms throughout the country. In addition the Faculty of
Science and Veterinary Medicine at Makerere University, Uganda runs a national
fish health course.

There is a two way interaction between climate change and aquaculture; Figure 16 illustrates how
the impact of climate change on the sector and those who depend on it and vice-versa is moderated
by a range of other external factors which may be occurring at the same time (Beveridge and Phillips,
2010).

Figure 16: The relationship between aquaculture and climate change. (From Beveridge and Phillips, 2010)

Cochrane et al., (2009) have outlined three main pathways of climate change impact that are seen to
affect aquaculture and inland fisheries and their dependent communities and their economic
activities. These pathways include:

Direct physical pathway impact

Flooding, storm impacts, severe droughts; variations in river flow patterns can cause flooding which
can both affect incoming water quality and also destroy existing fish ponds and other inland

CLIMATE CHANGE AQUACULTURE
Population
growth
Energy prices Environmental
deterioration
Economic
recession
Health
Inter-sectoral competition
Trade restrictions
conflict
Impacts on
Impacts on

aquaculture infrastructures, whilst drought similarly can negatively affect production. Rising ocean
levels are causing salinization of large coastal aquifers, lagoons and other freshwater resources
therefore restricting available land and water resources for aquaculture usage.

Biological and ecological pathway impacts

Productivity and ecosystem stability; Increased water temperature will impact not only on the
aquatic environments but also on the aquaculture operations themselves. This can have both
positive and negative effects; it may increase growth rate if temperature are still within the optimum
physiological limits of the farmed species. However fish physiological processes are affected by rising
temperatures and above critical point elevated temperatures will stress aquatic animals sufficiently
to impact survival, reproduction, growth, production and ultimately profit requiring the
development of heat tolerant species or strains. Warmer water can also accelerate decomposition of
organic material leading to hypoxia or even anoxic conditions that can cause mortality to farmed and
wild fish. The incidence of harmful algal blooms, however, is also likely to increase, limiting bivalve
and other types of culture.

Pathogen levels and impacts; Climate change can also exacerbate the sensitivity of farmed fish to
existing pathogens and can also facilitate the spread of new diseases thus increasing the exposure of
aquaculture.

Species abundance and stock locations; Captured-based aquaculture, where seeds and juveniles
harvested from the wild are raised extensively in captivity, is important in some parts of sub-Saharan
Africa, e.g. Clarias catfishes. Such fish farming depend on the status of the wild stocks and is
therefore, strongly connected with inland fisheries. Climate induced changes on inland fisheries,
such as changes in capture, fluctuations in stock distribution and abundance, production,
fluctuations in flood patterns increased risk of species invasions, loss of biodiversity and vector-
borne diseases could have consequences on culture-based aquaculture. Indeed projections show
that climate change may cause losses of over 25% of agricultural productivity in Southern and
Western Africa whilst losses of 5 to 25% are projected for countries in Eastern and Central Africa
(APN, 2008). Dione (2007) forecasted that there would be reduced productivity of c.10% in rain-fed
agriculture in SSA and an increase in aridity affecting 6090 million hectares. These foreseen changes
would adversely affect aquaculture development in terms of surface available to aquaculture, in
terms of water supply and feed ingredients such as fishmeal and feed components derived as by-
products of agriculture.

Indirect wider social and economic pathway impacts

Freshwater use conflict; the establishment of new or expanding existing reservoirs, irrigation
schemes, hydroelectric dams and flood protection, leading to habitat degradation and loss of
connectivity. Intensification of agriculture that uses more intensive fertilizers and pesticides can also
be expected with negative consequences for water quality and aquaculture production.

Allison et al. (2009) cites adaptive capacity i.e. the ability of individuals or public institutions to adjust
to climate change through reactive and anticipatory actions and to take advantage of new
opportunities that may arise from these changes as a key feature in reducing vulnerability to the
negative impacts. Some possible adaptation and mitigation mechanisms are summarized below.

Relocation of aquaculture production to less exposed or affected sites

The promotion of an ecosystem approach to aquaculture (EAA) (see Section 2) enabling the
conservation of biodiversity, as well as the adoption of appropriate policy and legal
framework.

The promotion of good governance in aquaculture, the construction of reservoirs for
irrigation, hydroelectric generation (with possibility of using them for cage culture) and the
adoption of appropriate policy and legal framework, that take into account the needs of
resource-poor and marginalized groups, including women (Dulvy and Allison, 2009), as well
as the promotion of international cooperation especially in the management of shared
water bodies.

5.5 Prioritising developments in aquaculture in SSA

However plentiful physical resources alone are not sufficient for an aquaculture industry to thrive.
Past programmes of aquaculture development failed in SSA for a number of reasons. Few were
sustainable as reliable feed supply, central hatcheries supplying seed and extension services failed
once central support was removed. Issues concerning resource access, equity and policy support
were often overlooked at initial planning stages. Emphasis was often placed on small-scale
integrated aquaculture ventures i.e. fish with family-supported mixed farming activities with little or
no understanding of local markets, logistics and economic returns. Indeed a lack of strategic
approaches such as pooling of knowledge and appropriate management responses to disease or risk
or market advice resulted in aquaculture rarely gaining enough impetus to encourage segmentation
i.e. service suppliers such as specialised seed supply. As a result private investment was constrained
and with it the growth of a commercially viable sector backed by a sustainable public and private
services.

If aquaculture development in SSA is to take off, it is recognised that a concerted effort is required if
aquaculture is to be mainstreamed into agriculture and rural development plans, into coastal zone
management, into industrial planning and into water resource allocation (World Bank, 2008). The
CONSENSUS multi-stakeholder workshop (2005) Defining standards for Sustainable Aquaculture
Development in Europe identified a number of indicators of sustainability by theme that could
encourage a more sustainable and resilient approach to aquaculture (see Box 8)

FAO (2010d) identified a number of problems arising from any future growth of the aquaculture
industry in SSA. Issues over environmental sustainability would increasingly need to be addressed
with intensification of production and it is suggested that countries should take a proactive stance in
addressing the following key concerns;

Zoning of aquaculture activities and specific integration with coastal and river basin planning
and including provision making for undertaking the required environmental and social
impact assessments.
Coherent poverty-focus aquaculture development to assist disadvantaged groups to have
access to the factors of production and participate in the overall governance process.
Ensuring that research is effectively linked in those areas where environmental management
and performance can be improved.
Devoting effort to the implementation and scaling-out of the integrated
agriculture/aquaculture and integrated irrigation-aquaculture models developed in the
region to allow multi land and water resource use.
The effective monitoring and control of introductions and translocations of aquatic
organisms and capacity building to develop and implement better health management
practices.
Coherent poverty-focus aquaculture development to assist disadvantaged groups to have
access to the factors of production and participate in the overall governance process.

Box 8; The most relevant indicators of sustainability i.e. environmental, biodiversity, use of
resources and health and welfare as agreed by the various working groups during the
CONSENSUS a platform for sustainable aquaculture in Europe - multi-stakeholder
workshop on Defining Indicators for Sustainable Aquaculture Development in Europe in
Oostende (2005);
On environmental standards
transparent site selection process
comprehensive marine spatial planning
effective management of farms (i.e. waste, welfare conditions etc.)

On threats to biodiversity (i.e. escapees) being avoided by
No or minimal use of exotic species
Locally farmed strains and no genetically modified fish
Alternative production methods, such as closed (recirculation) systems

On fish health and welfare
Good fish health is important, but also optimal welfare conditions can deliver high
quality products
Welfare should not be limited to slaughter
6 Recommendations

6.1 Introduction
The sustainable development of SSA aquaculture must take place within the wider policy context for
environmental management and economic development. At the local level there will frequently be
potential conflicts of interest over the way in which specific resources are utilised and by whom. A
clear, and as far as possible equitable policy that encourages responsible, sustainable and resilient
use of natural resources for aquaculture development should be a primary goal.

Such a strategy should envisage a role for large, medium and small-scale commercial enterprises, as
well as the up-grading of existing subsistence farming to greater levels of productivity. A critical
consideration is an understanding of how the local and regional African markets are developing and
the way in which this might drive the development of aquaculture production. There are many
examples of relatively efficient market chains involving a large number of participants, but
globalisation pressures are tending to favour a smaller number of large commercial enterprises in
many countries (i.e. as this model attracts substantial inward investment). One advantage that this
brings is that such companies have a high public profile and can be under greater pressure to ensure
compliance with ethical standards, particularly with respect to environmental management.
However, this requires relatively well-informed consumers who have an ability to express a choice,
so cannot be taken for granted. Fostering smaller-scale development can potentially bring
significant environmental and social benefits, but rarely attracts commercially-based inward
investment. Micro-finance promoted by NGOs or sometimes commercial entities can be a
constructive way forward in some contexts, although by its nature is a long-term and incremental
strategy. Traditional forms of national and international development assistance have often failed to
deliver the desired outcomes, with sustainability beyond the period of funding being one of the
major issues.

If African countries continue on current development trajectories, following patters seen in most
other continents, there will be increasing urbanisation with food production gradually becoming a
minority rather than majority occupation. This may not be inevitable, given the pressures of climate
change and future fuel shortages for instance; but must currently be considered as the most likely
scenario. Experience elsewhere has shown that a move towards monocultures reduces resilience to
external (social, economic or environmental) events, so policies should take this into account.

6.2 Policy priorities

6.2.1 Land and water
The broad perspective is that African land and water resources are under-utilised compared with
other continents. Various constraints have limited exploitation in the past, particularly lack of capital,
poor infrastructure, limited access to technology and other key inputs. This is changing somewhat
with both local and especially foreign investment which in many places is bringing the sector
towards a critical mass needed for full commercial development.

Until now, the global economy has placed little economic value on unexploited natural resources,
and in particular the associated biodiversity and wider ecosystem services that they may provide.
Unless this changes, it will be difficult for African policy makers to resist the pathway of development
that values them on the basis of the economic goods that they can produce. International
agreements that help Africa to adopt policies for long term welfare rather than short-term gain
would be preferable, but failing that, responsible and sustainable exploitation should be the primary
target. Key issues include:

Social equity where land with traditionally common access is privatized or fishers are
excluded from lake and coastal zones converted to aquaculture. Land purchase programmes
can also disadvantage traditional communities in some circumstances
Protection of biodiversity
Stress on ecosystem services e.g nutrient and solid waste discharge, change in dissolved
gasses
Resilience against climatic variation
Displacement of other crops/services that have lower economic, but perhaps higher social
benefit
Potential for pollution and degradation of resources for other users
For most developments, any planning controls in place will be exercised at a local or regional level,
so a national strategy framework can provide useful guidance. Given the diversity of aquaculture
species and systems, it is important that any strategy takes this into account as the implications for
each of the above factors can be radically different.

It is common to consider the production or profit potential of an area of land or less commonly an
area of water body or a water supply as a guide to appropriate use, or indicator of potential rental
value (productive capacity). However, taking account of sustainability also encourages consideration
of the assimilative capacity (ability to absorb and process waste without substantive change to the
environment). As discussed earlier, balancing these and other stakeholder priorities gives at least
four different dimensions of carrying capacity (physical, productive, ecological and social). Obtaining
sufficient data to measure these accurately is a major challenge, so criteria based assessments can
be used in the first instance and developed as further data becomes available.

6.2.2 Seed suppl y

For species with closed cycle production (such as tilapia), the main environmental issue is the
potential loss of biodiversity/genetic diversity if selectively bred fish displace natural populations.
However, poor broodstock management can also lead to inbreeding and a reduction of the gene
pool for aquaculture production. Of greater concern to many people would be any use of genetic
modification in aquaculture products. This is not a significant issue at present, but may become so in
the future as further advances are made in fish genomics.

The collection of shellfish spat for ongrowing is considered more environmentally benign than the
collection of wild crustaceans (shrimp) or fish larvae as the techniques used (providing a substrate
for settlement) does not create a by catch of non-target species, or otherwise alter the natural
environment. Where technically and economically feasible, the use of hatcheries is usually
preferable to the collection of wild seed.

6.2.3 Feed and fertilisers

Small scale pond aquaculture has been limited in many places by low availability/comparatively high
price of nutrient inputs. This includes inorganic fertilizer, manures, compost and supplementary
feeds such as grains and seed cakes. Similarly, intensive aquaculture has been limited by low
availability of high quality compounded feeds (or high price of imported products). However, this is
changing as commercial aquaculture develops and investment in local feed plants becomes easier to
justify. With further growth in this sector, attention will move to the sourcing of feed ingredients.
Fishmeal is a highly suitable ingredient, but can be controversial if it leads to wild stocks being over
exploited, or diverts fish from use as human food. More robust regulation may be required to
ensure sustainability and equity as demand rises.

The major proportion of compounded diet is generally cereals, and these potentially have the
greatest environmental and resource considerations. Grains and oilseed crops when grown as
monocultures have the potential to reduce biodiversity and have land equity issues when cultured
on a large-scale. Perhaps more significant are the freshwater requirements and how this is sourced
and the implications of fertilizer and pesticide use. Nevertheless, the increased opportunity for the
expansion of commercial agriculture will have benefits for employment and infrastructure
development.

Lifecycle Analysis is proving a useful approach for comparing systems, but lack of comprehensive
data is a constraint to using it for policymaking. However, in most cases a basic impact assessment
can be carried out and decision criterions developed and weighted to aid decision making.

6.2.4 Aquati c system health

Maintenance of aquatic system health implies consideration of productivity, nutrient cycling,
biodiversity, aquatic animal health and welfare. Aquatic animal diseases have caused substantial
economic losses in major aquaculture industries around the world. Avoiding the conditions which
lead to major outbreaks should be a policy priority for regulators and for a mature industry. This is
challenging to achieve, but lessons can be learned from experiences around the world and
supportive and collaborative international networks exist for professionals in the field.

Perhaps the most essential step is to establish adequate monitoring of indicators of aquatic system
health. These include water quality, benthic and pelagic biota and aquatic animal health. This will
provide a firm basis for policy decisions, but also allow for rapid action to be taken if conditions
rapidly deteriorate for any reason. Collaboration and data sharing between institutions and
countries could greatly enhance the effectiveness of these efforts as more comprehensive models
can be developed and validated from larger datasets.

6.2.5 Climate change and resili ence
Global temperatures are rising and this is expected to lead to a variety of impacts including more
extreme weather events, rising sea levels, changes in rainfall patterns and in some cases changing
water chemistry. This will lead to ecosystem changes as different species will thrive and overall
balances may shift. The impacts on aquaculture may be direct (e.g. water shortages, increased
disease problems, changes in breeding cycles etc.) or indirect (impact on feed availability, damage to
infrastructure, reduced capacity of environmental services etc.). Whist some elements of this can be
predicted to some extent, the actual impacts at a local scale are much harder to foresee. In some
circumstances, climate change may enhance productivity (e.g. higher average temperatures could
benefit fish growth in many areas). Since timescales are relatively long compared with individual
culture cycles, adaptation to trends is feasible, but potentially disruptive.

Given the uncertainty of climate change impacts, policies that promote a diversity of production
systems and products should lead to greater economic and social resilience than specialisation on a
small range of products and systems (basic risk management approach). However, a conventional
cost-benefit analysis will normally dictate the latter on grounds of production efficiency and scale
economies. For policy makers a key question may be the geographic scale at which risks can be
managed and mitigated. Crop failures over large areas may be acceptable if compensatory capacity
exists within the national plan. Where communities are expected to be more self-reliant, then risks
should be appropriately scaled.

A more diverse set of production activities is also likely to benefit environmental sustainability,
especially where complementarity can help with waste recycling and reduced demands for fossil
fuels. There is some potential for the value of this to be reflected in the market through eco-labelling,
but governments can also provide encouragement through financial support instruments or taxation
policies.

6.3 Integrating policies

The above policy priorities are brief summaries from the more substantive discussions in previous
sections. The challenge for policy makers in Africa is not only how these objectives can be translated
into practice, but also how any conflicts between objectives can be resolved. There is a
strengthening trend in development agencies and government departments from livelihood based
development interventions to the facilitation of commercial development. In the agro-food sector
this is also being accelerated by external investors who now see food security as an attractive
investment opportunity and the resources in Africa as comparatively low price. This is positive for
economic development, but likely to place greater stresses on the environment if developments are
allowed to proceed based only on (relatively) short-term financial considerations.

Methodologies for integrating objectives into strategies and workplans are readily available and
many government departments have formal procedures. The purpose of this section is therefore to
provide a few additional ideas for discussion and use as appropriate.

Input to other policies
At present the aquaculture sector is relatively small in most African countries. Traditionally
aquaculture policy and management has been included with Fisheries, or occasionally agriculture.
Even when it is developed separately, it is likely to be in competition with much larger areas of
government activity for legislative time or financial resources. Whilst the development and
implementation of an aquaculture policy will mean that other areas of government have to take
account of this, in some circumstances it may be quicker and more effective to lobby for the
inclusion of aquaculture and aquatic environment considerations in other areas of policy and
legislation. Examples of this might include:

Inclusion of aquatic resources in priorities for research funding
Eligibility of sustainable aquaculture for business incentive schemes
Inclusion of aquaculture in structural and zonal planning
Corporate tax benefits for environmentally beneficial aquaculture or aquatic resource
management schemes
Ensuring conservation policy does not unintentionally prevent shellfish farming for instance
Supporting food certification schemes
Ensuring aquatic animals are properly included (and not discriminated against) in veterinary
health policies

Adjust existing regulations
Depending on how existing regulations are framed, there can be scope to introduce variations in
conditions or make exemptions to include or exclude aquaculture and aquatic resources in various
ways. This particularly relates to aquaculture site licensing, but may include adding aquatic animal
diseases to annexes of animal health legislation, or aquatic animal feeds to compounded feed
regulations.

Seeking complementarities
Commercial aquaculture develops where there are suitable natural resources and good scope for a
profit. Governments may seek to encourage aquaculture to address food security, employment,
economic growth, or other goals considered important for social welfare. However, there may be
scope for aquaculture to be the solution to other problems. For instance where cereal crops are
developing on a large scale, encouraging the parallel development of intensive compound diet fed
aquaculture could increase quality protein production and assist with economic diversity. Similarly,
aquaculture can be integrated into developments using irrigated water for the same purposes.
Extractive aquaculture (e.g. bivalves, plants and algae) can be encouraged in suitable areas that are
subject to nutrient loading from livestock, fish farms, or more intensive agriculture. Pond-based
aquaculture might be encouraged in areas subject to flash floods as a means of managing scarce
water resources better and providing some protection. Training in urban aquaculture and
aquaponics could provide new opportunities for unemployed young people and enhance general
quality of life. Developing materials on aquatic ecosystems and aquaculture for use in schools or
other community contexts (including Internet social media) could help to educate current and future
consumers in a way that would create a market pull for sustainably produced aquatic foods.
Ensuring government funding for advanced equipment and research facilities include access for
scientists working in aquaculture and aquatic ecosystem health would also be beneficial.

Involving business
Ultimately, it is the attitudes and actions of the industry (whether comprising many small-scale
operations or fewer large scale ones) that will dictate progress on environmental sustainability
objectives. As development strategies focus more on commercial developments, this may become
easier as new businesses tend to be more flexible whilst larger business are more concerned about
reputation and therefore more willing engage with quality management and best practice principles
and implement certification schemes. Encouraging commercial companies to engage with strategic
planning from an earlier stage could help both in terms of ensuring eventual strategy and regulations
are adopted by industry, but also may well lead to implementation ahead of formalisation by
government. Fostering industry associations that are able to represent their members can be a very
useful first step.

Global standards and knowledge transfer
Whilst strategies must always be developed for local contexts, advantage should be taken of
developed international standards and codes of practice as they will already have undergone a
refinement process and have credibility and acceptance that can help speed up implementation.
Within the aquaculture sector this could mean Global Gap, Aquaculture Stewardship Council, GAA
Best Aquaculture Practices and the underlying work on best practices (ecosystem management,
fisheries, aquaculture etc.) from the FAO. For further evidence-based policy development,
international collaborations on knowledge and data sharing will be vital to help overcome
constraints of budget and time. This is being facilitated through organisations such as FAO and
WorldFish, although interfacing with activity outside the aquaculture and fisheries sector is also
important (such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).

6.4 Strategic roles

The following sub-sections aim to identify areas of responsibility, or potential contributions that
could be made to enhancing sustainable aquaculture production and managing ecosystem health.

6.4.1 Private Enterprises

Producer level:
Conduct environmental impact appraisal (at appropriate level of complexity) to identify
short and long-term goals for improvement, e.g. with respect to output of wastes, sourcing
of inputs and overall efficiencies
Adopt feasible and appropriate codes of practice and standards that contribute to improved
sustainability
Participate in field level research and contribute to regional and national initiatives,
especially producer associations and other knowledge-sharing networks
Community Level:
Seek new complementarities between business activities, particularly to recycle wastes and
increase efficiency, e.g. in transport
Engage with active community groups with concerns over environmental and social issues to
discuss perceived problems and possible solutions
Engage in offset activities where certain impacts are unavoidable
Contribute to school and community education on aquaculture and aquatic resources
management issues

National Level:
Formation or strengthening of national associations able to represent the interests of
aquaculture producers (value chain) and engage with government on policy issues affecting
the sector
Encouragement of innovation to improve sustainability through investment in research and
other incentive/reward schemes
Support for individual producers in training and implementation of better management
practices and certification schemes
Joint marketing to demonstrate the sectors commitment to sustainability and maintenance
of ecosystem health

6.4.2 NGOs

Producer Level:
Support for individual producers in training and implementation of better management
practices and certification schemes

Community Level:
Promoting cooperation between potentially complementary businesses that might improve
efficiencies, lower impacts and increase recycling

National Level:
Constructive engagement to help define sustainable aquaculture practices and systems and
possibly to help with inspection and certification
Funding and other incentives for positive innovations
Collaboration on the production of education and training materials for industry and public

6.4.3 Governments/Public Sector Agents

Producer Level:
Ensure incentives for business promote and do not penalize sustainable development
Ensure training and advisory support is available to individual producers/Entrepreneurs
Ensure access to credit for initiatives that meet strategic objectives
Encourage the uptake of voluntary standards and certification
Encourage producers to be data providers and participants in development solutions
Community Level:
Facilitate synergies between different economic and social actors to promote innovative
solutions to sustainable production
Promote the development of local area development and/or management plans for multi-
use natural resources
Promote school/community learning in natural resource management
National Level:
Assess and develop national strategy for sustainable aquaculture, aquatic ecosystem health
and climate change adaptation
Recognition of the diversity of aquaculture systems and the positive role many can play in
ecosystem management
Work with all branches of government to ensure aquaculture and aquatic resources issues
are incorporated into policy and other initiatives wherever appropriate
Ensure the necessary expertise and facilities are embedded within government agencies
through investment in training and capacity
Outsource specialist expertise, survey and monitoring where appropriate for speed and
flexibility
Develop flexible legislation proportionate to different scales and types of operation
Ensure appropriate interdisciplinary research is supported, including capacity building
measures
Engage with international initiatives for collaboration on standards and strategies and the
sharing of knowledge and data
Recognize and promote international standards schemes where appropriate
Strengthening governance to support and protect responsible and sustainable development

References

Adger, W.N., 2006. Vulnerability. Global Environmental Change, 16(3), pp.268-281.
Aguilar-Manjarrez, J. & Nath, S.S. 1998. A strategic reassessment of fish farming potential in Africa.
CIFA Technical Paper. No. 32. Rome, FAO. 170p.
Aguilar, M.J. and Nath, S.S. (1998). A strategic reassessment of fish farming potential in Africa. Food
and Agriculture Organisation , Rome, Italy.
Allison, E.H., A.L. Perry, M-C. Badjeck, W.N. Adger, N.L. Andrew, K, Brown, D, Conway, A. Halls, G.M.
Pilling, J.D. Reynolds & N.K. Dulvey. 2009. Vulnerability of national economies to potential impacts of
climate change on fisheries. Fish and Fisheries 10 (2), 173-196.
Allison EH, Andrew NL, Oliver J. Enhancing the resilience of inland sheries and aquaculture systems
to climate change. Journal of Semi-Arid Tropical Agricultural Research 2007;4(1).
Allison, E.H., Adger, W.N. and Badjeck, M.-C., et al. (2005) Effects of Climate Change on the
Sustainability of Capture and Enhancement Fisheries Important to the Poor: Analysis of the
Vulnerability and Adaptability of Fisherfolk Living in Poverty. Fisheries Management Science
Programme, DfID, UK. No. R4778J, http://www.fmsp.org.uk , 174 pp.
Asche, F. 2008. Farming the sea. Marine Resource Economics, 23, 527547.
Asmah, R. 2011 Aquaculture Site Selection and Carrying Capacity Estimates for Inland and Coastal
aquaculture West Africa. In L.Ross, T.C. Telfer, D. Soto and J. Aguilar-Manjarrez (eds). Site selection
and carrying capacity for inland and coastal aquaculture. FAO/Institute of Aquaculture, University of
Stirling Expert Workshop. 68 December 2010, Stirling, United Kingdom. FAO Fisheries and
Aquaculture Proceedings, No. 21. Rome, FAO.
Asmah, R.2008. Development potential and financial viability of fish farming in Ghana. Institute of
Aquaculture, University of Stirling, Scotland, UK. (Ph.D.Thesis).
Bartley, D. M., Brugre, C., Soto, D., Gerber, P. and Harvey, B. (Eds) (2007). Comparative assessment
of the environmental costs of aquaculture and other food production sectors: methods for
meaningful comparisons. FAO sheries proceedings No. 10. FAO: 241 pp. Rome.
Bell, S. & Morse, S. 2008. Sustainability indicators: measuring the immeasurable., Earthscan, London.
240 pp.
Bermudez, J. 2011. Legal and policy components of the application of the ecosystem approach to
aquaculture to site selection and carrying capacity. In L.Ross, T.C. Telfer, D. Soto and J. Aguilar-
Manjarrez (eds). Site selection and carrying capacity for inland and coastal aquaculture.
FAO/Institute of Aquaculture, University of Stirling Expert Workshop. 68 December 2010, Stirling,
United Kingdom. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Proceedings, No. 21. Rome, FAO.
Beveridge, M., 2004. Cage Aquaculture 3rd ed., Wiley-Blackwell.
Beveridge, M. and Phillips, M. (2010). Aquaculture and climate change: what are the challenges for
the WIO region?
Beveridge, O., Humphries, S. and Petchey, O. (2010). The interacting effects of temperature and food
chain length on trophic abundance and ecosystem function. Journal of Animal Ecology 79(3), 693-
700.
Bostock, J., Muir, J., Young, J., Newton, R. & Paffrath, S. 2008. Prospective Analysis of the
Aquaculture Sector in the EU. Part 1: Synthesis Report (Ed. I. Papatryfon). European Commission
Joint Research Center Institute for Prospective TechnologicalStudies. EUR 23409 EN/1. Luxembourg:
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
Bostock, J. McAndrew, B. Richards, R., Jauncey, K., Telfer, T., Lorenzen, K., Little, D., Ross, L.,
Handisyde, N., Gatward, I & Corner, R. 2010. Aquaculture: global status and trends. Philosophical
transaction of the Royal Society B. 365, 2897-2912.
Brierley, A. and Kingsford, J. 2009. Impacts of climate change on marine organisms and ecosystems.
Current biology 19(14), 602-614.
Burke, E.J., Brown, S.J. & Christidis, N., 2006. Modeling the Recent Evolution of Global Drought and
Projections for the Twenty-First Century with the Hadley Centre Climate Model. Journal of
Hydrometeorology, 7(5), pp.1113-1125.
Buschmann, A.H. et al., 2009. Salmon aquaculture and coastal ecosystem health in Chile: Analysis of
regulations, environmental impacts and bioremediation systems. Ocean Coastal Management, 52(5),
pp.243-249.
CHRR. Center for Hazards and Risk Research. Columbia university. URL:
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/chrr
Church, J.A., J.M. Gregory, N.J. White, S.M. Platten, and J.X. Mitrovica. 2011. Understanding and
projecting sea level change. Oceanography 24(2):130143, doi:10.5670/oceanog.2011.33.
Cochrane, K; De Young, C.; Soto, D.; Bahri, T., eds. 2009. Climate change implications for fisheries
and aquaculture. Overview of current knowledge . FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper.
No. 530, Rome, FAO, 2009. 212 pp.
Corner, R.A., Brooker, A.J., Telfer, T.C. & Ross, L.G., 2006. A fully integrated GIS-based model of
particulate waste distribution from marine fish-cage sites. Aquaculture., 258: 299311.
Cheung, W., Lam, V., Sarmineto, J., Kearney, K., Watson, R. and Pauly, D. 2009. Projecting global
marine biodiversity impacts under climate change scenarios. Fish and Fisheries 10, 235-251

CONSENSUS Sustainable aquaculture in Europe - Defining Indicators for Sustainable Aquaculture
Development in Europe. 2005 FP6 COORDINATION ACTION EC contract Oostende, Belgium April 23-
25, 2008.
Costa-Pierce, B.A. (Ed.). 2002, Ecological aquaculture: The eveolution of the blue revolution. Malden,
MA, Blackwell Science Ltd.
Costa-Pierce, B.A., Desbonnet, A., Edwards, P. & Baker, D. (Eds.) 2005. Urban aquaculture. CABI
Publishing Co., Wallingford, U. K
Dai, A., 2011. Drought under global warming: a review. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate
Change, 2(1), pp.45-65.
De Silva, S.S. and Soto, D. 2009. Climate change and aquaculture: potential impacts, adaptation and
mitigation. In K. Cochrane, C. De Young, D. Soto and T. Bahri (eds). Climate change implications
for fisheries and aquaculture: overview of current scientific knowledge. FAO Fisheries and
Aquaculture Technical Paper. No. 530. Rome, FAO. pp. 151-212.
Delgado, C.L., Wada, N., Rosegrant, M.W., Meijer, S., & Ahmed, M. (2003). Fish to 2020: Supply and
demand in changing global markets, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) and
WorldFish Center, Washington, D.C., Penang, Malaysia.
http://www.ifpri.org/pubs/books/fish2020book.htm
Dempster, T. & Sanchez-Jerez, P. 2008. Aquaculture and coastal space management in Europe: an
ecological perspective. In: Aquaculture in the Ecosystem (Eds. M. Holmer, K. Black, C. M. Duarte, N.
Marb & I. Karakassis), pp. 87116. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Springer.
Dey, M.M., Kambewa, P., Prein, M., Jamu, D., Paraguas, F.J., Briones, R., Pemsl, D.E., 2007. Impact of
the development and dissemination of integrated aquaculture-agriculture (IAA) technologies in
Malawi. In: Waibel H., Zilberman, D. (Eds.), International Research on Natural Resources
Management: Advances in Impact Assessment. CAB International, Oxfordshire, UK, pp. 11814.
Dione, J. 2007. Presentation on climate change, agriculture and food security in Africa. UNECA, Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia.
Dulvey, N. & Allison, E. 2009. A place at the table? Nature reports climate change, VOL 3, online. 28
May. DOI:10.1038/climate 2009.52 www.nature.com/reports/climatechange.
Fabry, V.J. et al., 2008. Impacts of ocean acidification on marine fauna and ecosystem processes.
ICES Journal of Marine Science: Journal du Conseil, 65(3), pp.414 -432.
FAO , 2011. Strategy for fisheries, aquaculture and climate change: Framework and aims 2011-16.
FAO, 2011 (Available via http://www.fao.org/fishery/topic/13788/en and at
ftp://ftp.fao.org/Fi/DOCUMENT/aquaculture/aq2010_11/root/2011/climate_change_2011.pdf)
FAO. 2010a. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2010. Rome, FAO. 2010. 19p.
FAO. 2010b. FishStat Plus Universal software for fishery statistical time series. Version 2.3.
Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,
Rome. (Available at www.fao.org/fishery/statistics/software/fishstat).
FAO. 2010c. Aquaculture development. 4. Ecosystem approach to aquaculture. FAO Technical
Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries. No. 5, Suppl. 4. Rome, FAO. 2010. 53p.
FAO 2010d. Regional review on status and trends in aquaculture developments in sub-saharan Africa
2010. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Circular No. 1061/4.
FAO, 2008a. Intersessional aquaculture Activities, Committee for Inland Fisheries and Aquaculture of
Africa, Document CIFFAA/XV/2008/Inf.5 presented at the Fifteenth Session of the Committee, 9-12
December 2008, Lusaka, Zambia.
FAO, 2008b. Report of the FAO Expert Workshop on Climate Change Implications for Fisheries and
Aquaculture, Rome, 7-9 April 2008. FAO Fisheries Report No. 870 (FIEP/R870 (En)). (Available at
ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/i0203e/i0203e00.pdf)
FAO. 1988. Aspects of FAO's policies, programmes, budget and activities aimed at contributing to
sustainable development. Ninety-fourth Session of the FAO Council, CL94/6. Food and Agriculture
Organization, Rome.
Farr, T.G. et al., 2007. The Shuttle Radar Topography Mission. Reviews of Geophysics, 45, p.33 PP.
Folke, C. & Kautsky, N. 1992. Aquaculture with its environmental prospects for sustainability. Ocean
and Coastal Management. 17, 524.
Gangstoe, R., Joos, F. & Gehlen, M., 2011. Sensitivity of pelagic calcification to ocean acidification.
Biogeosciences [Biogeosciences]. Vol. 8, (2), pp.433-458.
Gazeau, F. et al., 2007. Impact of elevated CO sub(2) on shellfish calcification. Geophysical Research
Letters [Geophys. Res. Lett.]. Vol. 34, (2007).
Geek, S. & Legovi, T., 2010. Towards carrying capacity assessment for aquaculture in the Bolinao
Bay, Philippines: A numerical study of tidal circulation. Ecological Modelling, 221(10), pp.1394-1412.
Giri, C. & Muhlhausen, J., 2008. Mangrove Forest Distributions and Dynamics in Madagascar (1975
2005). Sensors, 8(4), pp.2104-2117.
Handisyde, N.T., L.G. Ross, M-C. Badjeck & E.H. Allison (2006). The effects of climate change on
world aquaculture: a global perspective. Final Technical Report, Stirling Institute of Aquaculture,
Stirling, U.K., 151 pp.
Hall, S.J., A. Delaporte, M. J. Phillips, M. Beveridge and M. O'Keefe. 2011. Blue Frontiers: Managing
the Environmental Costs of Aquaculture. The WorldFish Center, Penang, Malaysia.
Hansen, L.P. & Windsor, M.L., 2006. Interactions between Aquaculture and Wild Stocks of Atlantic
Salmon and other Diadromous Fish Species: Science and Management, Challenges and Solutions.
ICES Journal of Marine Science: Journal du Conseil, 63(7), pp.1159 -1161.
Hasan, M.R.; Hecht, T.; De Silva, S.S.; Tacon, A.G.J. (eds). Study and analysis of feeds and fertilizers
for sustainable aquaculture development. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 497. Rome, FAO. 2007.
510p.
Hempel, E. 1993. Constraints and possibilities for developing aquaculture. Aquaculture International
1(1), 2-19.
Hereher, M.E., 2010. Vulnerability of the Nile Delta to sea level rise: an assessment using remote
sensing. Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk, 1(4), pp.315-321.
Hoffman, G.L. 1970, Intercontinental and transcontinental dissemination and transfaunation of fish
parasites with emphasis on whirling disease (Myxosoma cerebralis). Pp. 69-81 in A Symposium on
Diseases of Fishes and Shellfishes (Ed. S. F. Snieszko). Special Publication No. 5, American Fisheries
Society, Washington: 528 pp.
Houghton, J., 2009. Global Warming: The Complete Briefing 4th ed., Cambridge University Press.
Hunter, D.C. 2009. A GIS-based decision support tool for optimization of marine cage siting for
aquaculture: A case study for the Western Isles, Scotland. Institute of Aquaculture, University of
Stirling, Scotland, UK. (Ph.D.Thesis).
Inglis, G.J., Hayden, B.J. & Ross, A.H. 2000. An overview of factors affecting the carrying capacity of
coastal embayments for mussel culture. NIWA Client Report; CHC00/69 Project No. MFE00505.
National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd. Christchurch, New Zealand. 31 pp.IPCC,
2001. McCarthy, J., Canziani, O.S., Leary, N., Dokken, D., & White, K., eds. (2001). Climate change
2001: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Third
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
IPCC, 2007: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the
Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin,
M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 996 pp.
Lazard, J., Baruthio, A., Mathe, S., Rey-Valette, H., Chia, E., Clement, O., Auvbin, J., Morissens, P.,
Mikolasek, O., Legendre, M., Lavage, P., Blancheton, J-P. & Rene, F. 2010 Aquaculture ststem
diversity and sustainable development: fish farms and their representation. Aquatic Living Resources
23, 187-198.
McKindsey, C.W., Thetmeyer, H., Landry, T., & Silvert, W. 2006. Review of recent carrying capacity
models for bivalve culture and recommendations for research and management. Aquaculture., 261
(2): 451-462.
Miller, J.W. 2009. Farm ponds for water, fish and livelihoods. FAO Diversification Booklet 13. FAO,
Rome. 62pp.
Nath, S.S, Bolte, J.P., Ross, L.G. and Aguilar-Manjarrez, J. 2000. Applications of Geographical
Information Systems (GIS) For Spatial Decision Support in Aquaculture. Aquacultural Engineering. 23:
233-278.
Nath, S.S. 1996. Development of a decision support system for pond aquaculture. PhD Dissertation,
Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. 273 pp.
Naylor, R.L., Goldberg, R.J. Primavera, J.H. Kautsky, N., Beveridge, M.C.M., Clay, J., Folke, C.,
Lubchenco, J., Mooney, H. & Troell, M. 2007. Effects of Aquaculture on world fish supplies. Nature.
405, 1017-1024.
New, M., Lister, D., Hulme, M. and Makin, I., 2002: A high-resolution data set of surface climate over
global land areas. Climate Research 21
Nugent, C. 2009. Review of environmental impact assessment and monitoring in aquaculture in
Africa. In FAO. Environmental impact assessment and monitoring in aquaculture. FAO Fisheries and
Aquaculture Technical Paper. No. 527. Rome, FAO. pp. 59151.
Ochumba P. B. O., 1987. Periodic massive fish kills in the Kenyan part of Lake Victoria. Wut. Quul.
Bull., 12, 119-122.
Olson T.K. & Criddle, K.R. 2008. Industrial evolution: a case study of Chilean salmon aquaculture.
Aquaculture Economics and Management. 12, 89-106.
OReilly, C.M. et al., 2003. Climate change decreases aquatic ecosystem productivity of Lake
Tanganyika, Africa. Nature, 424(6950), pp.766-768.
Pillay, T.V.R., 2004. Aquaculture and the environment, John Wiley & Sons.
Pulkkinen, K., Suomalainen, L.R., Read, A.F., Ebert, D., Rintamaki, P. & Valtonen, E.T. 2010. Intensive
fish farming and the evolution of pathogen virulence: the case of columnaris disease in Finland.
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Science 277, 593-600.
Pullin, R.S.V., Rosenthal, H. & Maclean, J.L. (Eds). 1993. Environment and Aquaculture in Developing
Countries. ICLARM Conference Proceedings 31, 359 pp. International Center for Living Aquatic
Resources Management, Manila.
Pullin, R.S.V., Froese, R. & Pauley, D. 2007. Indicators for the sustainability of aquaculture. In:
Ecological and Genetic Implications of Aquaculture Activities (Ed. T.M. Bert) pp. 53-72. Methods and
Technologies in Fish Biology and Fisheries . Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Quick, N.J., Middlemas, S.J. & Armstrong, J.D. 2004. A survey of antipredator controls at marine
salmon farms in Scotland. Aquaculture 230 pp. 169-180.
Rahmstorf, S., 2007. A Semi-Empirical Approach to Projecting Future Sea-Level Rise. Science,
315(5810), pp.368 -370.
Rey-Valette , H., Clement, O., Aubin,J., mathe, S., Chia, E., Legendre, M., Caruso, D., Mikolasek, O.,
Blancheton, J.P., slembrouck, J., Baruthio, A., Rene,F., Levang, P. , Morissens, P. & Lazard, J. 2008.
Guide to the co-construction of sustainable delevlopment indicators in aquaculture. Montpellier,
Cirad.
Ross, L.G., Handisyde, N. & Nimmo, D.C. 2009. Spatial decision support in aquaculture: the role of
geographical information systems and remote sensing. In Burnell, G (editor). New technologies in
aquaculture: Improving production efficiency, quality and environmental management. Woodhead
Publishing Limited.
Ross, L.G., Telfer, T.C., Soto, D., Aguilar-Manjarrez, J., Falconer, L., Asmah, R., Bermudez, J., Clment,
A., Corner, R.A., Costa-Pierce, B., A., Cross, S., De Witt, M., Ferreira, J., Kapetsky, J.McD., Karakassis,
I., Little, D.C., Lundebye-Haldorsen, A-K., Sadek, S., Scott, P., Valle-Levinson, A., White, P. & Zhu, C.
2011. Carrying capacities and site selection within the Ecosystem Approach to Aquaculture. In L.Ross,
T.C. Telfer, D. Soto and J. Aguilar-Manjarrez (eds). Site selection and carrying capacity for inland and
coastal aquaculture. FAO/Institute of Aquaculture, University of Stirling Expert Workshop. 68
December 2010, Stirling, United Kingdom. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Proceedings, No. 21. Rome,
FAO.
Roycroft, D., Kelly, T.C. & Lewis, L.J., 2006. Behavioural interactions of seabirds with suspended
mussel longlines. Aquaculture International, 15(1), pp.25-36.
Sankoh S.K. (2009) Traditional farming systems and market oriented aquaculture development in
Sierra leone. Institute of Aquaculture, University of Stirling, Scotland, UK. (Ph.D.Thesis).
Sapkota, A. et al., 2008. Aquaculture practices and potential human health risks: current knowledge
and future priorities. Environment International, 34(8), pp.1215-1226.
Sherif, S. 2011. Aquaculture site selection and carrying capacity estimates for inland and coastal
waterbodies in Egypt. In L.Ross, T.C. Telfer, D. Soto and J. Aguilar-Manjarrez (eds). Site selection and
carrying capacity for inland and coastal aquaculture. FAO/Institute of Aquaculture, University of
Stirling Expert Workshop. 68 December 2010, Stirling, United Kingdom. FAO Fisheries and
Aquaculture Proceedings, No. 21. Rome, FAO.
Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, R.B. Alley, T. Berntsen, N.L. Bindoff, Z. Chen, A. Chidthaisong, J.M.
Gregory, G.C. Hegerl, M. Heimann, B. Hewitson, B.J. Hoskins, F. Joos, J. Jouzel, V. Kattsov, U.
Lohmann, T. Matsuno, M. Molina, N. Nicholls, J. Overpeck, G. Raga, V. Ramaswamy, J. Ren, M.
Rusticucci, R. Somerville, T.F. Stocker, P. Whetton, R.A. Wood and D. Wratt, 2007: Technical
Summary. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to
the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D.
Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
Soto, D., Aguilar-Manjarrez, J., Brugre, C., Angel, D., Bailey, C., Black, K., Edwards, P., Costa-Pierce,
B., Chopin, T., Deudero, S., Freeman, S., Hambrey, J., Hishamunda, N., Knowler, D., Silvert, W., Marba,
N., Mathe, S., Norambuena, R., Simard, F., Tett, P., Troell, M. & Wainberg, A. 2008. Applying an
ecosystem-based approach to aquaculture: principles, scales and some management measures. In D.
Soto, J. Aguilar-Manjarrez and N. Hishamunda (eds). Building an ecosystem approach to aquaculture.
FAO/Universitat de les Illes Balears Expert Workshop. 711 May 2007, Palma de Mallorca, Spain.
FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Proceedings. No 14. Rome, FAO. 221 pp.
Subasinghe, R.P., Barg, U., Phillips, M.J., Bartley, D. & Tacon, A. 2007, Aquatic animal health
management: investment opportunities within developing countries. Journal of Applied Ichthyology
14, 123-129.
Tacon, A.G.J., Metian, M &, Turchini, G.M. 2010. Responsible aquaculture and trophic level
implications to global fish supply. Reviews in Fisheries Science. 18, 94105. UNECA. 2002.
Contribution towards the agriculture strategy of the New Partnership for Africas Development
(NEPAD). UNECA, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
UNECA/AU. 2009. Economic Report on Africa 2009. Developing African Agriculture through regional
Value chains.
Valiantzas, J.D., 2006. Simplified versions for the Penman evaporation equation using routine
weather data. Journal of Hydrology, 331(3-4), pp.690-702.
Verdegem, M.C.J. & Bosma, R.H. 2009. Water withdrawal for brackish and inland aquaculture, and
options to produce more fish in ponds with present water use. Water Policy 11, 52-68.
Vermeer, M. & Rahmstorf, S., 2009. Global sea level linked to global temperature. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, 106(51), pp.21527 -21532.
Washington, S.; Ababouch, L. 2011. Private standards and certification in fisheries and
aquaculture: current practice and emerging issues. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper.
No. 553. Rome, FAO. 2011. 181p.
Webb, M.J. et al., 2006. On the contribution of local feedback mechanisms to the range of climate
sensitivity in two GCM ensembles. Climate Dynamics, 27(1), pp.17-38.
Welcomme, R.L. et al., 2010. Inland capture fisheries. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society
B: Biological Sciences, 365(1554), pp.2881 -2896.
Wijkstrm, U.N. 2009. The use of wild fish as aquaculture feed and its effects on income and
food for the poor and the undernourished. In M.R. Hasan and M. Halwart (eds). Fish as feed inputs
for aquaculture: practices, sustainability and implications. Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical
Paper. No. 518. Rome, FAO. pp. 371407.
WMO, 2010. Guide to Agricultural Meteorological Practices (GAMP) 2010 Edition (WMO-No.134).
Available at: http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/wcp/agm/gamp/gamp_en.php
World Bank, 2006. Aquaculture: Changing the Face of the Waters -Meeting the Promise and
Challenge of Sustainable Aquaculture. 2006. The World Bank. Report No. 36622 - GLB
Zhou, Y. & Chan, X. 2010. Notes of study on development strategy of Chinese fishery to 2030. In.
Sustainability in Food and Water: An Asian Perspective (Eds. J. Kauffman, A. Sumi, K. Fukushi, R.
Honda & K. Hassan), pp. 167-176. Alliance for Global Sustainability Book Series 18. Dordrecht, The
Netherlands: Springer.
Annex 1

Logical Framework. Environmental Strategies for Aquaculture

Intervention
Logic
Objectively Verifiable
Indicators of
Achievement
Sources and Means of
Verification
Assumptions
Overall objective (Goal)
The development
of a sustainable
and resilient
aquaculture
sector scaled to
make a
substantial
contribution to
national and
regional food
security and
economic
development

Increased per capita
fish production and
consumption
domestically/ nationally
Sustainability, resilience
and ecosystem health
criteria established for
different aquaculture
systems and
implemented in national
and local planning and
regulatory strategies

FAO reports
National statistics
Individual project repots
Institutional & other
independent research
Media reports
Continued
stability of the
region; politically,
economically and
environmentally
Continued political,
community and
individual support
and interest for
African aquaculture
Continued African
and global appetite
for fish
improving capacity
for environmental
assessment
Project Purpose
To establish a
strategic
framework with
objective criteria
to guide
regulation and
development
investment for
sustainable and
resilient African
aquaculture
Strategic guidance
provided by NEPAD
National strategy plans
published
Strategy implemented
by national and regional
government through
planning, regulatory and
development financing

Governmental and
intergovernmental
publications
Reports from
international agencies

Commitment of
African
governments and
agencies to
sustainable and
resilient
development
Available resources
for developing
aquaculture
strategies
Governance
structures for policy
implementation

To improve
research capacity
on environmental
capacity, health
and resilience

Increased research
effort by government,
academic and
potentially private
organizations on
environmental
interactions
Improved networking
and coordination
between research
centers to minimize
duplication and enhance
effectiveness
Increased research
outputs with clear
dissemination and
exploitation strategies
National research audits
and funding agency
reports
FAO and other
international agency
reports
Monitoring by interested
associations or NGOs
Improving
environment for
African research
funding and activity
Improving Trans-
Africa
communication
facilities
To improve the
management of
aquatic
ecosystem health
Establish centres of
expertise with
appropriate facilities for
testing and advising on
environmental and
aquatic animal health
management
Establish appropriate
legislative frameworks
for implementing
ecosystem health
management
Governmental and
intergovernmental
publications
Reports from
international agencies
Stable governments
for legislative
progress
Finance for
implementing
testing and training

To improve
training and
education
provision to build
capacity in
aquatic
ecosystem health
managment
Ensure basic
environmental and
ecosystem awareness is
included in school
curricula including
examples of aquatic
systems
Ensure aquatic systems
are incorporated into
relevant university level
science courses
Develop post-graduate
courses in specialist
topics and/or promote
study in other countries
Promote international
collaboration between
universities, research
institutes and industry
associations
Government
commissioned reports
FAO and other
reports
Monitoring by interested
academic bodies,
industry associations or
NGOs
Adequate finance
for programmes
Economic stability
Outputs
Expanding
market-led
aquaculture
industry within a
framework of
sustainability and
resilience
Rising aquaculture
production data
Improved balance of
trade in aquatic food
products
Improving performance
on sustainability and
conservation criteria

Government statistics
Industry association
reports
FAO and other
reports
Academic, NGO and
other sector studies
Increasing
prosperity and
availability of capital
project financing
Coherent
supporting policies
and government
actions

Strategies for
sustainable and
resilient
aquaculture
production
implemented
Strategies published and
relevant legislation
enacted or modified
Government or
reports
Academic and other
surveys
Increasing capacity
and resources of
government
agencies
Research outputs
with appropriate
dissemination to
inform
policymakers and
commercial
operators such
that they are able
to select the most
appropriate
aquaculture
species and
systems for
individual
Increase in published
scientific research
carried out in Africa
relating aquatic
ecosystem health and
sustainability
Better availability of
extension and other
training materials and
courses to disseminate
research findings and
enable them to be put
into use
Promotion of data
National and
international studies of
research activity and
outputs in this sector
Development of
international databases
relevant to aquatic
ecosystem management
Utilisation of research by
commercial developers
Surveys of relevant
publications and Internet
based resources
Further
development and
funding of national
strategies to
enhance the quality
of education and
research
Strengthening of
African and wider
international
collaborative
networks in
research
Availability of
locations sharing and information
integration mechanisms
at national and
international levels
suitable
dissemination
channels for
research results
Communications
infrastructure

For any further correspondence related to this report please contact:

Neil Handisyde neil.handisyde@stir.ac.uk

NEPAD can be contacted through Sloans Chimatiro sloansc@nepad.org and their website
http://www.nepad.org/

For the Institute of Aquaculture, University of Stirling UK please contact John Bostock
j.c.bostock@stir.ac.uk www.aqua.stir.ac.uk

Environmental Strategies For Aquaculture

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Environmental Strategies For Aquaculture

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Environmental Strategies for aquaculture: Report for NEPAD PAF-AWG Page i

Partnership for African Fisheries (PAF) Aquaculture Working Group:

Anda mungkin juga menyukai