Planet over Profit

With the rising concerns about climate change, species extinction, and pollution it is safe to say that the “green” movement has gained great strides in recent years and continues to gain speed. Let’s face it, we all like the idea of being green and we all want to be able to say that we left the world a better place that when we entered it, but like the wise-man Kermit the Frog said, “it ain’t easy”.

Today, we are in unprecedented territory as more and more industries are committing to greening their businesses. In the seafood world, 90% of major seafood buyers have now made some public commitment to sustainability. Now the environmentalist’s who have advocated for decades on this issue and those industry members who have finally called uncle due to the pressure of these groups are sitting across the metaphorical table from each other thinking “now what?” Its no surprise as sustainability was never going to be an easy nut to crack. Now, these groups in their uncomfortable collaboration are struggling to implement the real world changes required to ensure that products that we consume are all really sustainable.

So what is sustainability and why is it hard? The theoretical definition is that sustainability is achieved when all three pillars (environmental, social, and economic) are in balance. Businesses in the last 100 years have on average not accounted for these “externalities” and this is why we see the environmental problems we have today. Yes it would be easy to blame the corporations, but before we grab our flames and torches and march to their head offices, let’s remember that this is more about the economic system itself rather than those who participate in it (although that is putting it very simply). It’s easy to see why the architects of the economic system didn’t place proper value on the use of natural resources as at that time there was a low human population and seemingly endless natural resources. Today, that misperception has caught up with us and we have the opposite situation (large human population and rapid diminishing resources) which leads us to the core challenge of the sustainability movement which is how do we reconcile the limits of the environment with the traditional needs of economics. Simply put, how must we do business differently to see the change we all want to see.

I have spent the last ten years working on sustainable seafood and the last five on reforming shrimp farming practices in Southeast Asia. I have seen that there is a large gap between the “desires” or good intentions of environmentalists and their buyer partners and the realities facing producers of seafood in developing countries. Sadly, current attempts to create sustainability in the seafood sector through various strategies are not succeeding to the level everyone is hoping for due to this gap. This is not to say that they are not creating change, but we cannot confirm that we are not simply rearranging deck chairs on the titanic with these efforts. Einstein famously said, “a problem cannot be solved with the same thinking that created it in the first place” and these words ring very true in this context.

What is needed is a critical evaluation of all factors that have contributed to the problem in the first place which could include examining what is the real cost of production, who is paying the most for this production, is someone absorbing this cost without being paid for it, among others. Solutions must be built across the supply chain and include every actor, which could mean a whole new way of doing business. At the end of the day we need to ensure that a healthy product is delivered to a consumer and that the consumer has paid a sufficient price to ensure that the environment was not harmed irreparably and that any persons involved in its creation are paid fairly. While I realize this may sound like a lot, I believe it possible with sufficient dedication and a willingness to face the problem. In closing, we simply need to remember the wise words of the Lorax who articulated the depth of this problem over 40 years ago when he said, “unless someone cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better, its not”.

“Salmon Confidential” is a new documentary by Twyla Roscovich, a documentary filmmaker from British Columbia. The film tells the story of how diseases from salmon farms may be affecting wild salmon and how the government of Canada appears to be doing everything they can to avoid addressing the problem.

For me, I started my career working on the environmental impacts of salmon farming as my master’s of science project examined the interactions between sea lice, salmon farms, and juvenile salmon. I call my experience a “baptism by fire” into the world of resource use conflict. My project was from 2002 – 2006 and I dealt with the same issues that are portrayed in this film. It saddens me a great deal to see that they same attempts to avoid acknowledging the problem are still happening.

In short, I believe one our greatest assets as a species is our ability to problem solve. However, if we don’t admit that there are problem’s in the first place, which is the case for salmon farming in BC when it comes to disease, then we cannot tap into this ability.

Check out the film at www.salmonconfidential.ca!!

That is the question when it comes to farmed shrimp. As referenced by many, there is a negative history of farmed shrimp production that is very serious and very real.  There is no question that the operation of too many farms in certain areas has resulted in the destruction of mangroves, pollution being released to the surrounding environment, and significant social impacts. In extreme cases, people have been killed in the heated conflicts that have taken place between shrimp farmers and the communities.

Most of this happened during the early 1990’s, during the shrimp gold rush, when shrimp prices were very high and many were trying to produce as much shrimp as quickly as possible. At that time, it was actually profitable to build a farm and produce only one crop out of it, often destroying the environment in the process, and then simply move on to a new site for the next crop.

But that was over 20 years ago and the question is how much of this still holds true today? Does shrimp farming have any hope for ever being a sustainable product?

For starters, let’s consider the biology of shrimp.  Shrimp are not top-level predators and are in fact bottom feeders that, if grown in the right densities, do not even require feed. Thus, they do not need lots of wild fish as fishmeal to be grown and, depending on the farming techniques, do not necessarily create pollution. It all comes to down to farm site location and how many are grown together. 

Furthermore, let’s consider how shrimp are farmed and what they are farmed in. As a general rule, anything can be produced very poorly or very well. Shrimp are no different. You can have anything from the ugly hard-core industrial feed lots that rely on heavy antibiotic use to ponds that have green banks and trees growing along side. Sometimes farms can also be integrated into mangrove areas, requiring no external inputs such as feed or chemicals – a technique known as a silvofishery. Shrimp can also be grown with other fish in polyculture systems.

Finally, there are currently over 300,000 producers in the world, most of which are actually quite small. This allows for ample opportunities to create collaborations that foster a sustainable shrimp industry, if the supply chain is willing to step up to the plate and provide the necessary support to allow such small players to have a chance at competing in the marketplace.

There is no doubt that working towards solutions is hard and westerners have a tendency to point out difficult problems, which is certainly important, but a harder action is take this knowledge and apply in such a way that works to foster solutions. We have reached a point as a species where our problems are very difficult and complicated and, therefore, will also be difficult and complicated to solve. These problems will NOT be solved overnight. It will take time and there will need to be a progression of steps towards a solution, the most important of which being consumers, buyers, and the entire supply chain taking responsibility for their part.

Today, the shrimp farming industry operates on very thin margins due to low prices compared to those of the early 1990’s, which, thankfully, has resulted in a cessation of the gold rush mentality that was to blame for many of the industry’s worst offenses.

In some cases, governments have made changes to address the problems that previously plagued the industry. In Thailand, for example, the government put in a standard called “Thai GAP” which is mandatory for all farms and seeks to control effluents, use of antibiotics, and other important factors. While it’s clear that this standard does not solve all of the issues, it is a step forward that deserves recognition for its improvement of the Thai shrimp industry, especially relative to other countries in the region such as China, Vietnam, and Indonesia that have done less to address these issues.

Finally, the shrimp aquaculture dialogue standards for the Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC) are soon to be finalized and farms are expected to be certified to these standards later this year or in early 2014. The ASC standards were developed by an unprecedented collaboration between industry players and environmental groups such as Oxfam, IUCN, WWF, and the Seafood Watch program. These standards will feature certain requirements for the first time, such as a Biodiversity Environmental Impact Assessment as well as a Participatory Social Impact Assessment. Farms certified to the ASC standard will be producing shrimp in the best way currently possible, giving consumers the information and power to make a better shrimp choice.

While it’s critical that we don’t forget the past, it’s equally critical that we do not obstruct the future by dwelling on the past, especially in areas where there has been acknowledgement of the issues and important steps have been taken to make improvements.  There is no inherent reason why shrimp farming cannot be sustainable, but there is also no question that this future will not be realized if effort is not put forth to find innovative solutions across the supply chain that ensure greater environmental and social sustainability of the industry.

In short, let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater. We need as many legitimate food productions systems that we can get and this can be one of them if the effort is put forth to realize this goal. Keep in mind that  no change is possible without the action of those who purchase these products. To support sustainable aquaculture, buy better shrimp!

The right location for aquaculture is highly dependent on the sensitivity of the ecosystem to impact from industrial activities. In nature, different locations have different susceptibilities that can be difficult to predict especially in highly variable environments like intertidal zones. Obviously, aquaculture needs certain biological characteristics for growing conditions but its clear that the vast majority of aquaculture siting to date has been based on factors such as convenience to market and minimizing operational costs rather than the potential for environmental impact. While this is changing as the pressure for responsible sourcing increases, in many cases the damage has already been done.

So what is the right location for aquaculture, in short its one that considers how to integrate itself into the surrounding ecosystem. The concept of Ecosystem based management is one that is slowly becoming established into the language of NGO’s and even some governments. The idea is that development must maintain or enhance ecosystem services. Clearly if it can be done successfully then some markets are highly likely to reward those industries.

I believe that aquaculture that finds the right combination of the right species, location, and scale could become an interesting vehicle for the application of ecosystem based management especially for extensive farms where inputs are low and the ability to integrate the operation into the surrounding ecosystem is much higher. Perhaps the best example, I have heard about this is the mangrove shrimp productions that exist in Vietnam and Indonesia. I have not visited these systems myself but will be doing so early in 2012 and will offer some pictures and further perspectives at that time.

Ok so I lied, I thought it might be good to talk about salmon farming at this point but as I wrote the post I realized I could write a whole series on that topic so I am going to save it until I finish this string.

You may recall a few posts back that I said aquaculture can have a bright future in our world so long as the right combination of species, location, and scale is discovered. When aquaculture operates in the wrong location its activities can alter or impact the ecosystem in a negative way. From my experience, there is no better example of this than shrimp farming and its removal of mangrove forests to construct farms (I will cover all the issues with shrimp farming extensively in the future).

Mangrove forests are arguably one of the most important ecosystems on the planet as they protect coastlines from the effects of storms and tsunami’s, provide excellent habitat for many coastal marine species, and support the economies of local communities. During the shrimp farming boom of the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, the price of shrimp was so high that farms were being developed as fast as possible to take advantage of the market. Farmers believed that growing shrimp in mangrove areas would work well due to its proximity to the sea and the fact that shrimp grew in the mangrove forests naturally. As a result aquaculture became a significant factor in the deforestation of mangroves in tropical countries, in some cases accounting for at least 1/3 of the removal of mangroves. The negative effect on mangrove forests was further exacerbated when high nutrient water that was sometimes loaded with chemicals used to control disease was discharged into the mangroves after the shrimp were harvested.

This effect has been a major black eye for the shrimp farming industry and it has been seen in  almost every country where shrimp farms operate near mangrove forests.

This picture was taken in Thailand and it shows a farm built right in a mangrove forest. What you are seeing in the pumping station that pumps water into the farms. You can be sure that the area where the farm is built was formerly a mangrove forest.

To challenge the idea that farming a native species is better, consider the example of farming Atlantic salmon in British Columbia which was began in the early 1980’s. Atlantic salmon were preferred for farming over Pacific’s because of the existing husbandry knowledge, success of farming Atlantic’s in Europe, and the challenges (e.g. aggressiveness) associated with domesticating local species such as Chinook salmon.

As I mentioned, the introduction of exotic species is the 2^nd leading cause of species extinction worldwide. When I heard that the salmon farming industry was based on an exotic species it made absolutely no sense to me given the passionate lectures I had witnessed from ecology professors on this topic. I couldn’t believe that the Canadian government would allow this to happen, but it made good sense economically so the Canadian environment was put at risk by short sighted government managers.

The government denied that there would be any problem with farming Atlantic salmon stating publicly “don’t worry they won’t escape”. Atlantic salmon were soon found to be escaping and the government said “they won’t survive”. Atlantic started showing up in the catches of fisherman as far away as Alaska (where salmon farming is banned) and were observed in rivers near the farms (I have seen Atlantic salmon swimming in rivers myself on the west coast of Vancouver Island). Next the government said “they will not spawn in the wild.” Juvenile Atlantic salmon were observed in 3 rivers in BC. Finally, the government said “they won’t establish a self sustaining population”. So far there is no evidence that Atlantic salmon are establishing a population in BC, however one wonders how long it could take when there continues to be a supply of healthy adult Atlantic salmon escaping and entering rivers where other escaped Atlantic salmon are present. It is important to note that just because a species is exotic does not mean it will establish a population and have an impact. But it does appear that Atlantic salmon are being encouraged to establish a population in BC despite the risk.

So after reading the above you are probably saying to yourself that this is proves that farming native species is better but consider that there is no evidence that Atlantic salmon have established self sustaining populations in areas they have been introduced. On the contrary there is evidence that escaped Atlantic’s can interbreed with wild Atlantic’s and reduce the health of the wild population in the areas where they coexist (e.g. Europe). Although I am not aware of any literature that demonstrates the same effect when farmed Pacific salmon interbreed with wild Pacific salmon the literature suggests that there may be a greater risk in farming Pacific salmon in British Columbia.

With the above noted, this may lead one to question logic of farming salmon in British Columbia or anywhere for that matter. That will be the topic of the next post.

This past week I was travelling in eastern Thailand touring shrimp farms for our improvement projects. As we drove by the white structure in the picture below, my thai colleagues pointed and said “bird condo”.

Bird nest farm near Trat, Thailand

Its actually a very specialized farm for the the Edible-nest Swiftlet (Aerodramus fuciphagus), which is a small bird of the swift family found in Thailand and other parts of South east Asia. The interesting thing is that its nest is made of solidified saliva!! These bird farms are set up to encourage the birds to nest and the nests are harvested. The set up for these farms is highly specialized right down to the specific type of wood required for construction.

In China, birds nest soup is considered to be a delicacy (like Shark fin soup) and the market for birds nest made of saliva is very lucrative. My thai colleagues told me that the saliva sells for $2,000 – 3,000/ kg.

I don’t know if there are impacts from these types of farms and would love to know more about it. Given that is a native species, the only impact I can think of is effects (food web competition, pollution, etc) from a larger than normal population.  I only saw one or two of these structures in the area of was travelling so perhaps that’s not an issue of concern at least in this area. If I am able to find the time to learn more I will post again about this topic.  Comments welcome!

Another key factor affecting the impact of aquaculture is whether or not it is a native species. A native or endemic species is one that is naturally part of the ecosystem whereas an invasive or exotic species has been deliberately or accidently introduced into the ecosystem by humans. There are all sorts of reasons for these introductions from the control of pests, the pet trade, or the desire to recreate a familiar environment. The method of introduction can range from intentional release, larvae hitchhiking in the ballast water of ocean going tankers, or many other unforeseen methods. Regardless of the why or how, the bottom line is that exotic species have been found to be the second leading cause of species extinction worldwide (habitat destruction is #1) and thus a serious conservation concern.

Aquaculture has also been found to be a major vector for the introduction of exotic species around the world. This is because if the culture of a species is successful (economically) in one area of the world, then it makes sense to aquaculturists and entrepreneurs to attempt to farm it in another area that has similar growing conditions (e.g. temperature, water quality, etc). This makes sense given the significant amount of work involved in the culture of species including experimentation with feeding schedules and ingredients, breeding strategies, and general animal husbandry techniques. This information is generally species specific and you can understand why they don’t consider the invasiveness of a species before they farm it a given area. This is actually something that governments need to regulate and control carefully but that has yet to happen with a few exceptions (e.g. Australia).

As a general rule, I would suggest that farming a native species is preferable to farming a non-native species given the conservation concerns associated with the introduction of exotic species. To offer, let’s consider Yellowtail farming (Seriola rivioliana) off the coast of Hawaii. This native species is one that is not fished due to the presence of a toxin that prevents humans from consuming it. The toxin enters the fish during its larval phase of its development but given that this phase happens on land for aquaculture the toxin is not a problem for farmed yellowtail. The lack of fishing also lessens the potential impacts of escapes and disease transfer (typically issues of concern associated with finfish in open net pens) because when wild populations are healthy they are able to resist negative influences much better. In my view, from a species perspective this is the ideal situation.

In the next post, I will give you an example that challenges the idea that farming a native species is better.

So as stated in the previous post, aquaculture has the potential to be a sustainable method of food production depending on the combination of species, location, and scale. In this post, let’s explore what factors make a species “right” for aquaculture from an ecological sustainability perspective?

We first need to consider the realities of a food web or the trophic levels of an ecosystem. The basic idea is that the higher an animal is positioned in the food web the more energy it takes to grow that animal. Ecology tells us that 90% of the energy is lost for every level that you go up the food web (or higher trophic levels). To visualize this, think of an African Savannah with abundant grasses and insects, the wildebeest and zebra are abundant but not as abundant as the grasses and insects, and the lions and leopards even less abundant than the wildebeest and zebra. Each level of a food web is limited by how much energy there is available and therefore the number of animals decreases as you go higher.

If we apply this idea to aquaculture we see that it takes a lot of energy to farm an animal that is at the top of the food web (e.g. tuna or salmon) and much less to farm something that is closer to the bottom (e.g. seaweed or shellfish). Consider that as a general rule, impact is correlated with the amount of inputs (e.g. feed, chemicals, etc) that are used in aquaculture production because the more inputs you require the more likely that it is that you will have an impact. With this in mind, it’s easy to see why salmon and tuna can have far greater impacts than shellfish or seaweed farms. They simply require more energy or inputs for production. Therefore, a general conclusion is that the lower an animal is on the food web the less likely its production will have a significant impact on the environment. This is the first important factor that makes a species a good or bad candidate for aquaculture. Exceptions of course can happen when the scale and location of production is not appropriately considered (we will explore that in future posts).

While the position of the animal in the food web is only one factor predicting the environmental impact. In the next few posts we will explore a few more reasons.