Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
February 2014
Increasing cage culture across SS Africa putting demands on local environments, Jinja, Uganda.
Photo courtesy of Iain Gatwood
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
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
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.
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 Africa’s 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).
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
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.
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)).
Nigeria 60%
Uganda 22%
Madagascar 4%
Zambia 3%
Ghana 2%
Kenya 2%
South Africa 1%
Other 6%
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 Africa’s 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
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
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 Value US$ 1 000 quantity value
(tonnes)
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
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, Côte d’Ivoire, 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 Africa’s Development’ (NEPAD) Fish for
All Summit in 2005and the implementation of FAO’s ‘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.
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.
2.1 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).
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 it’s 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.
People’s 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
Egypt is a water scarce country (less than 1000m3 of freshwater per capita per year) with a growing
population. Egypt is also Africa’s 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 Egypt’s 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 Egypt’s 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 Africa’s 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
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).
2.2.6 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).
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
While aquaculture development and it’s 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
Farm Watershed Global
different scales
INPUTS
Collection of seed + effects on local communities that
from the wild rely on this fishery
- effects on wild stocks
Production of seed + culture-based fisheries
+ restocking threatened species
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 Geček & Legović (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
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.
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.
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.
Method Linkages to other Key attributes Strengths Weaknesses Scientific rigour Standardization of Ease of application
methods methods and
communicability
Environmental Impact CBA, RA Project-based, descriptive, Public planning and Does not quantify trade-offs Variable (very high High (e.g. Europe) Good; often
Assessment (EIA) site-specific transparent process; based or effects: does not provide a to low); lots of but may vary across figures
on multiple criteria and can single performance indicator uncertainty due to sectors, regions and prominently in
be used in sensitivity for comparisons; problems lack of data; often in national decision-making
analysis;identifies hazards with how to interpret data time-constrained legislation
and impacts; allows redesign due to development
of project to reduce impacts. deadlines
Risk Assessment or Should underpin all Tool for understanding Contributes to better Relies on qualitative Variable at present; High for procedural Good; formalized
Analysis (RA) other methods for environmental processes understanding of judgements and estimates quantitative aspects in legislation as
hazard identification environmental flows and due to knowledge gaps; measures need to be decision-making
and understanding; impacts: attempts to be limited comparative use developed tool
widely used in quantitative but can also be (some risks apply to some (environmental
toxicity analysis qualitative; identifies hazards sectors, others not) indicators
and impacts.
Material Flows A first step towards Examines input and output Quantifies levels of inputs Does not reflect High High Very good
Accounting (MFA), more complete of key materials; accounts and outputs; can produce environmental effects;
Mass balance, and assessments using for biological flows comparable information over snapshot picture of flows at a
Input/Output models EIA, RA, energy associated with economic time and space; used to specific point in time and
(IO) analysis activities; applicable to improve ecological efficiency; place.
systems at many scales well-known tool with
standard protocols.
Energy analysis (EA) Could be Examines fossil fuel energy Produces a single measure, Presents an incomplete High High Good; few
incorporated into used in food production which is a proxy for the other picture of the sector; decisions are made
MFA and used components of the sector, for relevance is questioned on EA alone
complementarily with comparison; good history of because energy (fuel) has a
CBA analysis and data; market value that will
comparable at all levels. change; does not account for
the environmental effects of
fuel consumption.
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.
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).
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.
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).
PRIMARY DATA
Site selection
[Physical
carrying
Capacity]
Protected Bathymetry
Areas
Species [Environmental
carrying Support [Environmental
PRIMARY DATA
capacity] carrying
Species Sensitive
process capacity] Hydrological
to Aquaculture Processes
DEM VIEWPOINTS
PRIMARY DATA
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.
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.
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;
3.2.1 Freshwater
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.
Table 8: The generic species group—production 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 Off-Bottom Cages & Ponds Tanks and Rirculated
Culture Culture Pens raceways aquaculture
systems
(RAS)
Bivalves xc xc xci
Carps xi
Catfish xi xi xci
Crabs and Lobsters xc xci
Eels xi xc xci
Gastropods xc
Other Finfish xc xci xci
Other Invertebrates xci
Salmonids xc xci xci
Shrimps and Prawns xci
Tilapias xci xci xci
Table 9: Summary of feed types used in aquaculture (After Neori et al., 2004; de Silva and Hasan, 2007).
From Hall et al., 2011
Table 11: Typical aquaculture resource demands by species. Adapted from Bostock et al. 2010
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.
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
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
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
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
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 OIE‘s International Aquatic Animal Health
Code and the World Trade Organization’s 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,
4.1 Introduction
There is now a general consensus within the scientific community that the world’s 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.
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 4th ipcc assessment report have range of equilibrium
climate sensitivities where a doubling of atmospheric CO2 results in average global temperature
increases ranging from 2.1°C to 4.4°C with a mean value of 3.2°C (IPCC, 2007). It has been suggested
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
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 IPCC’s 4th 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.
4.3.1 Temperature
th
The 4 IPCC assessment report (IPCC, 2007) suggests that it is very likely that Africa will become
warmer during the 21st 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 1.5oC and 3oC 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 Average for Average for March, Average for June, July, Average for
global December, January, April, May August September, October,
warming February November
o
Plus 1.5 C
o
Plus 3 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
1
generated using the MAGICC/SCENGEN climate modelling package and an ensemble of all 20 available GCMs.
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 1.5oC and 3oC 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.
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.
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
4.4.1 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)
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 20th century conditions and for
projected 1.5oC and 3oC 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.
Figure 12: Modelled temperature of typical aquaculture ponds under late 20th century conditions and for
o o
1.5 C and 3 C warmer worlds*
*
Pond temperature modelling follows the method described by Nath (2006) and involves an energy balance approach with
th
the assumption of a fully mixed water column. For the late 20 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
th
modeled 20 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
th
20 century observed values for solar radiation, wind speed and humidity.
Figure 13 shows modelled average annual water balance (precipitation minus evaporation) for late
20th century conditions as well as modelled 1.5oC and 3oC 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.
A B C
Figure 13: Average annual water balance (precipitation minus potential evaporation) in mm per year for; A)
o 2 o 2
late 20th century values1, B) a modelled 1.5 C warmer world , and C) a modelled 3 C warmer world
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
th
ensemble of all 20 available GCMs. Relative differences between a modeled 20 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.
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 Egypt’s 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.
Figure 15 indicates cyclone hazard based on a global data set of more than 1600 storm tracks over a
21 year period from the 1st January 1980 through to 31st 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 country’s 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).
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 20th
century (O’Reilly 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.
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).
‘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’.
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.
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
UNECA/AU (2009) reported that only 3.8% of Africa’s 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.
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).
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.
Impacts on
conflict
Impacts on
Inter-sectoral competition
Economic
recession
Health
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:
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
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 60–90 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.
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
• 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.
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
• 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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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 fisheries 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, 527–547.
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. 6–8 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., Brugère, 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 fisheries 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. 6–8 December 2010, Stirling,
United Kingdom. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Proceedings, No. 21. Rome, FAO.
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):130–143, 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: 299–311.
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
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.
Marbà & I. Karakassis), pp. 87–116. 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. 118–14.
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 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, 5–24.
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).
Geček, S. & Legović, 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.
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.
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
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.
O’Reilly, 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., Telfer, T.C., Soto, D., Aguilar-Manjarrez, J., Falconer, L., Asmah, R., Bermudez, J., Clément,
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. 6–8
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. 6–8 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., Brugère, 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. 7–11 May 2007, Palma de Mallorca, Spain.
FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Proceedings. No 14. Rome, FAO. 221 pp.
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, 94–105. UNECA. 2002.
“Contribution towards the agriculture strategy of the New Partnership for Africa’s 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.
Wijkström, 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. 371–407.
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.
Objectively Verifiable
Intervention Sources and Means of
Indicators of Assumptions
Logic Verification
Achievement
Overall objective (Goal)
• The development • Increased per capita • FAO reports • Continued
of a sustainable fish production and • National statistics stability of the
and resilient consumption • Individual project repots region; politically,
aquaculture domestically/ nationally • Institutional & other economically and
sector scaled to • Sustainability, resilience independent research environmentally
make a and ecosystem health • Media reports • Continued political,
substantial criteria established for community and
contribution to different aquaculture individual support
national and systems and and interest for
regional food implemented in national African aquaculture
security and and local planning and • Continued African
economic regulatory strategies and global appetite
development for fish
• improving capacity
for environmental
assessment
Project Purpose
• To establish a • Strategic guidance • Governmental and • Commitment of
strategic provided by NEPAD intergovernmental African
framework with • National strategy plans publications governments and
objective criteria published • Reports from agencies to
to guide • Strategy implemented international agencies sustainable and
regulation and by national and regional resilient
development government through development
investment for planning, regulatory and • Available resources
sustainable and development financing for developing
resilient African aquaculture
aquaculture strategies
• Governance
structures for policy
implementation
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