Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Briefingmedia.sustainablefish.org/SAF_briefing_Sep_28_09.pdf · 2019-11-17 · growing awareness throughout the entire seafood supply chain that

Sustainable Aquaculture Feedsand Wild Fisheries

SustainableFisheries

PartnershipBriefing:

and Wild Fisheries

© Sustainable Fisheries Partnership 2009 www.sustainablefish.org

Executive Summary

The issue of ‘sustainable seafood’ has

been important for the seafood supply

chain for several years but the emphasis

has been on obtaining fish directly for

human consumption from sustainable

sources. In recent years aquaculture has

hugely increased in importance in terms

of supplying seafood but questions

around the sustainability of such

products have tended to focus on local

environmental impacts and human

health.

However, recent developments throughout theaquaculture supply chain and among campaign groupsindicate that this is changing and that widersustainability questions are now being more forcefullyraised. One particular aspect of this trend is a newinterest in the sustainability of the fisheries – knownas ‘feed’, ‘reduction’, ‘industrial’ or ‘forage’ fisheries –that supply the feeds for fish farms.

This briefing uses data from Fishsource (SustainableFishery Partnership’s database of information for keyfisheries at www.fishsource.org), a telephone surveyof retailers, processors and relevant campaign groupsalong with web research to describe the current stateof the issue. The briefing identifies high levels ofactivity throughout the supply chain including:

• The development of sustainability certificationstandards that will incorporate criteria for thesustainability of feed fisheries

• The development of business-to-business systemsto give assurance around the quality of fishmeal andfish oil including sustainability of fish stocks

• The emergence of individual policies by retailersincluding the direct prohibition of fishmeal and oilfrom certain fisheries

• A renewed enthusiasm among campaign groups toengage on the issue

The briefing also identifies real threats to stakeholdersin the aquaculture supply chain including:

• Confusion around the final certification standardsthat will emerge in the marketplace – there is aclear danger that two separate aquaculturecertifications will emerge offering differentstandards.

• A danger for retailers and processors that havecorporate commitments to source seafood fromfisheries certified by the Marine Stewardship Council(MSC) that they will source aquaculture products fedon non-MSC fish. In such circumstances retailerswould be open to the charge of ‘blue-washing’ –taking fish from poorly managed stocks andconverting them into desirable aquaculture productswhile simultaneously holding public commitments tosustainably caught wild seafood.

• Reputational risks for all parts of the aquaculturesupply chain from using feeds derived from fisheriesthat have been identified as particularlyunsustainable and are the subject of campaigns bynon-governmental organisations (NGOs).

• Confusion among campaign groups around the roleof the Marine Stewardship Council in assuringsustainable aquaculture feeds. Some are pressingfor the fish content of feeds to only come from MSCcertified fisheries while others are actively workingto stop MSC certifying any further forage fisheriesthat supply fishmeal and oil.

• Real practical difficulties in achieving visibility downthe entire aquaculture supply chain. Salmon isrelatively straightforward because of the centralisednature of the industry but farmed tropical shrimp isextremely complex and opaque. This may result indifferent species being certified according todifferent standards.

The briefing makes three recommendations forbusinesses currently attempting to understand thiscomplex issue:


• Achieving a good working knowledge of the entiresupply chain including the origin of marine speciesused in feed formulations.

• Adopting specific policies around aquaculture, andparticularly feed ingredients, and communicatingthese policies to other stakeholders.

• Playing an active role in creating pressure for theimprovement of aquaculture sustainability andparticularly the management of fisheries thatprovide fishmeal and oil. This could includeparticipation in Fisheries Improvement Partnershipsconvened by Sustainable Fisheries Partnerships.

Introduction

There has been significant debate and

activity around the sustainability of wild

fisheries in the past decade including

global campaigns by non-governmental

organisations (NGOs) and major

initiatives from leading seafood

processors and retailers.

Alongside the debate about the sustainability of wildfisheries have been concerns around the globalgrowth of aquaculture. These concerns have focussedon issues such as the localised impact of aquacultureon the natural environment (eg: throughconcentration of parasites, genetic disturbance of wildstocks through inter-breeding with farm escapes) andhuman health (eg: the role of anti-biotics andpesticides). There has been much less focus on therelationship between the feeds used to supportaquaculture (particularly of carnivorous species) andthe sustainability of source fisheries.

This situation is changing. Retailers, processors,aquaculturalists, feed manufacturers, fishmeal and oilproducers and NGOs have all begun to pay much

more attention to the state of the fish stocks thatsupply the aquaculture sector. These fisheries –confusingly referred to as ‘feed’, ‘reduction’,‘industrial’ or ‘forage’ fisheries – usually consist ofsmall pelagic fish that can be economically trawled orpurse seined in large volumes and are not always wellmanaged.

This increase in attention has been manifest in theengagement around feed criteria in the developmentof aquaculture certification standards and NGOcampaign activity around the management of some ofthe fisheries that supply fishmeal and oil. There havealso been individual initiatives by some retailers andprocessors to set and maintain specific sustainabilitystandards for aquaculture feed.

These developments however have not yet coalescedinto any kind of consensus and there are few directconnections between concerns over sustainability atthe consumer/retail end of the chain and actionstaken in the fisheries themselves (althoughimprovements may be happening for other reasons).There is still significant potential for stakeholderswithin the supply chain to find themselves under-informed and unsure about which future actions theyshould take to meet their commercial and widercorporate objectives, particularly with regard tosustainability and security of supply.

This briefing identifies current developments withinthe aquaculture supply chain around feedsustainability based on information held on Fishsource(Sustainable Fishery Partnership’s database ofinformation for key fisheries at www.fishsource.org),telephone interviews with major stakeholders andweb-based desk research to give a rapid snap shot ofhow the issue is developing and where the risks andopportunities may lie.

The briefing deliberately avoids the currentdiscussions around minimising the fish component ofaquaculture feeds and reducing the ratio of feed fishto farmed fish – the so-called “Fish in, Fish out”(FIFO) debate. This decision was not made becausethe FIFO issue has no merit but rather becausemarine protein will continue to be an important part ofaquaculture feed in the short and medium term andso FIFO has less relevance to the matters covered inthis briefing which address events happening now andin the next two years.


Why is sustainabilityimportant?

In the past decade there has been a

growing awareness throughout the

entire seafood supply chain that

sustainability has moved from a ‘nice to

have’ optional extra to a core

component of any successful business

plan. This recent awareness is based on

two elements:

• That sustainable stocks of wild fish are essential tosecure the supply of raw material that the seafoodindustry relies on and are vital in maintainingvolumes and quality as well as stabilising price.Environmental sustainability is now seen as aprincipal building block of a sustainable business.

• That large commercial organisations - particularlythose that are customer facing such as retailers,food service companies and consumer brands – areexpected to operate above a certain minimum levelof sustainability both through formal standards andalso through informal criteria that are set by NGOs,consumers and the media. This informal ‘licence tooperate’ – closely linked to concepts of ‘corporatereputation’ - varies widely from country to countrybut the trend is expanding and its effects can beseen through the actions of major global retailers,the growth of certification schemes and theexpansion of activities by NGOs.

Concerns over the sustainability of seafood originallyfocussed on wild caught fish intended for the plate butthis focus has now broadened to other wild seafoodand to aquaculture. There is now significant interest inall aspects of aquaculture sustainability – whetherlocalised water pollution, clearance of mangrove areasfor shrimp farms, genetic pollution through farm

escapes or whatever – and this includes thesustainability of feeds.

There have been discussions and research around thesustainability of several elements of aquaculturefeeds, for instance the associated impacts of soyacultivation on rainforests, but the principal focus hasalways been on the marine protein component whichrepresents that place where wild fisheries andaquaculture ‘meet’. Consequently the sustainability offisheries used to provide feeds to farmed fish has nowbecome a key concern for the entire aquaculturesupply chain and an area of great activity andinnovation.

Current developmentsin sustainabilitystandards foraquaculture feeds

In response to rising concerns around

the sustainability of aquaculture there

are now a number of different initiatives

which have some bearing on the feed

issue. The most important of these

initiatives are:

WWF Aquaculture Dialogues &Aquaculture Stewardship Council

The conservation NGO ‘Worldwide Fund for Nature’(WWF) has been developing a series of ‘AquacultureDialogues’ intended to bring together differentstakeholders such as aquaculturalists, processors,retailers, feed manufacturers and environmentalNGOs to develop a common set of standards for 12different species (shrimp, salmon, abalone, clams,mussels, scallops, oysters, pangasius, tilapia, trout,seriola and cobia). The Dialogues have reached


different stages of development depending on thespecies – for instance there are currently draftstandards for tilapia and pangasius while work onshrimp and salmon has yet to reach this stage. It isintended that there should be sustainability standardsfor aquaculture feeds within each species-specificstandard.

WWF is also creating the Aquaculture StewardshipCouncil which will work with third party bodies tocertify aquaculture farms against the standardsdeveloped by the Dialogues. The ASC will becomeoperational in 2011.

Given historic WWF support for the MarineStewardship Council (MSC – see below) it is likely thatstandards for feed will require source fisheries to beeither MSC certified or to reach a comparablemeasurable standard and indeed the current draftstandards for tilapia and pangasius do contain suchrequirements.

Global Aquaculture Alliance

The Global Aquaculture Alliance describes itself as,“an international, non-profit trade associationdedicated to advancing environmentally and sociallyresponsible aquaculture” which exists, “both topromote the aquaculture industry and to advanceenvironmental and social responsibility throughout theprocess of raising, processing and distributingaquaculture products”. The GAA has a set ofcertification standards for shrimp farms andhatcheries, tilapia and channel catfish farms, andseafood processing plants. The standards do containsome awareness of the feed sustainability issue – forinstance in the tilapia standard there is a requirementthat “Farms shall accurately monitor feed inputs andminimize the use of fishmeal and fish oil derived fromwild fisheries” and there is an intention that “Fishery-based ingredients from wild sources should come fromsustainable fisheries”. However, there is no clearmetric by which the sustainability of source fisheriescould be measured.

The GAA currently has draft guidelines for BestAquaculture Practice concerning feed mills. The drafttext states that: “Feed mills shall not source fishmealand fish oil from fish stocks for which theInternational Council for the Exploration of the Sea(www.ices.dk), Food and Agriculture Organization

(FAO) of the United Nations or the SustainableFisheries Partnership (FSP [sic], www.fishsource.org)have reported a recommendation of no fishing,unsustainable harvesting, closed fisheries oroverexploitation, or identified a stock as being in acritical condition. Products from illegal, underreportedand unregulated fishing shall also be avoided.Instead, aquafeed producers should actively favormarine oils and proteins derived from fisheries thatare classified by reputable international third parties,such as the FAO, Marine Stewardship Council or FSP[sic], as sustainably fished, fully fished orunderexploited. In addition, to bolster sustainablesourcing, aquafeed producers should actively favorthe sourcing of marine oils and proteins fromsuppliers certified by programs such as the pendingGlobal Responsible Sourcing Standard defined by theInternational Fishmeal and Fish Oil Organisation”.

The GAA is expanding the range of species for which itcan provide aquaculture standards. There is currentlya working group on salmon aquaculture which intendsto produce a technical standard by 2010 and this mayinclude more explicit feed sustainability criteria.

GlobalGap

GlobalGap describes itself as “a private sector bodythat sets voluntary standards for the certification ofagricultural products around the globe” and that“certification is carried out by more than 100independent and accredited certification bodies inmore than 80 countries” and includes “annualinspections of the producers and additionalunannounced inspections”.

GlobalGap currently sets standards for theaquaculture of shrimps, salmonids, tilapia andpangasius. There is no specific sustainability standardfor feed ingredients but feeds do need to come from asource approved by GlobalGap (although thecompound feed standard doesn’t have a sustainabilitycriteria either). One of the criteria used within theaquaculture standard is: “Is there a research andimplementation plan applied to reduce the amount offishmeal and fish oil used during production?” Soclearly GlobalGap is aware of concerns around themarine protein element of aquaculture feeds even if ithas not yet set a sustainability standard.

On February 1, 2009, the GAA and GlobalGap


announced an agreement “to work cooperatively todevelop and harmonize certification systems for theaquaculture sector worldwide.”

International Fishmeal andFish Oil Organisation

The International Fishmeal and Fish Oil Organisation(IFFO) is an international body that representsfishmeal and fish oil producers. In May 2008 IFFOannounced that it was producing a Code ofResponsible Practice for Fishmeal and Fish Oil. Thecode will be a business-to business certificationscheme that will ensure, amongst other things, thatcompliant fishmeal and fish oil products have beenderived from fisheries that meet the key elements ofthe Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) Code ofResponsible Fishing and that all national laws relatingto fishing are complied with. Compliance will beestablished via third party audit based on a deskstudy. Fisheries already certified by the MarineStewardship Council (MSC) will automatically beconsidered as compliant in terms of sustainability.

The creation of the code has been guided by aTechnical Advisory Committee which includes a rangeof stakeholders such as fishmeal and oil producers,traders, processors, feed manufacturers, retailers andenvironmental NGOs.

The code has been piloted around one specific fisheryand will be given a full public roll out in 2010.

Marine Stewardship Council

The Marine Stewardship Council is a high profile, not-for-profit organisation that has developed standardsfor sustainable fishing and seafood traceability.Fisheries can be audited against the MSC standardsby a competent third party body and if compliant willbe awarded an eco-label which can be used inbusiness and consumer facing communications. TheMSC scheme is widely supported and generallyconsidered to be the most robust and rigorousseafood ecolabel.

Those members of the aquaculture supply chain withan interest in defining sustainability standards for feedhave been enthusiastic about the potential forsourcing fishmeal and fish oil from MSC certified

fisheries but until recently there have been few feedfisheries that have attempted certification or met therequired standards.

Currently the only MSC certified fisheries used forfishmeal and fish oil are North Sea herring (388,000tonnes caught in 2007 - 2.4% of the total global catchdestined for fishmeal and oil) and Norwegian springspawning herring (1,267,000 tonnes caught in 2007 -7.8% of the total global catch destined for fishmealand oil). Consequently, only slightly more than 10% ofthe total catch used for fishmeal and fish oil is MSCcertified.

It is unlikely that very large volumes of fishmeal andfish oil from MSC certified fisheries will be available inthe short term although there are causes for longerterm optimism. Demark has the largest fishmeal andoil fisheries in the European Union and has pledged tohave all fisheries MSC certified before the end of2012. Perhaps even more significant, in July 2009 itwas announced that the giant Peruvian anchovyfishery (5.8 million tonnes caught in 2007 - 35.6% ofthe total global catch destined for fishmeal and oil)will go into the pre-assessment phase of MSCcertification. It may be some time before the fisherybecomes certified given the demanding nature of thestandard but if certification ever happens it will ensurevery large volumes of sustainable fishmeal and oil willbecome available.

Retailer, processor andfeed manufacturerpolicies

In addition to the significant amount of

work undertaken by certification bodies,

trade associations and environmental

NGOs there are also a number of

policies adopted by individual retailers,

processors and feed manufacturers.


For instance, Marks and Spencer in the UK havedeveloped feed standards for the aquacultureproducts they sell that require that, “Feedmanufacturers must take adequate steps to ensurethat all of the raw materials which they use arederived from properly managed, sustainable sources.Feed manufacturers should be able to providedocumentary evidence that they comply with thisrequirement. Fish meal and fish oil must come fromknown managed and sustainable sources and are notdamaging to the environment”.

Sainsbury, another UK retailer which accounts for27% of all UK salmon sales, has a pledge that allfresh farmed salmon is ‘responsibly sourced’ whichincludes, “Sustainable feed: our salmon feed containsonly fish species that are in plentiful supply”.Sainsbury is also blunt in asserting that “depletingstocks of other endangered species, such as eel andblue whiting, to feed farmed fish is in no waysustainable”.

Outside of Europe, the US retailer Whole Foodsrequires that aquaculture feed for salmon, otherfinfish and shrimp, “cannot be sourced from fisheriesdetermined by independent, peer-reviewed science tobe overfished, over-exploited, depleted, or in decline”and that, “Whole Foods Market will review fisheries todetermine acceptability using the best availablescience from national and international agencies andnongovernmental organizations.” Whole Foods alsoexcludes ‘trash fish’ from feed, defining such fish as“fish with low economic value that is usedunprocessed for feed.”

Processors have also been active in this field. Forinstance, The Seafood Company has made significantefforts to understand the sources of aquaculture feedsthat underpin their business and considers thesustainability of source forage fisheries whendeveloping strategy.

The manufacturers of aquaculture feeds have alsopaid close attention to the sustainability of sourcefisheries. Skretting for instance states that: “Theglobal production of fishmeal and fish oil has declinedsignificantly over the last ten years and it is unlikelythat production will increase again substantially. Incontrast to the downward trend in production, therehas been an increasing demand for fishmeal and fishoil driven mainly by the growing aquaculture sector,the use of omega-3 supplements in functional food

and capsules and the escalating consumption of meatby developing countries...Skretting is concerned thatwild stocks, as a strategic raw material caught forfishmeal and oil production, are not overexploited andthat catches are managed within the maximumsustainable yield. “Our purchasing policy is tosource fishmeal and fish oil only from fisheriesthat are regulated and monitored as beingsustainable” [our emphasis].

EWOS has a commitment to source fishmeal and fishoil from, “sustainable and well managed fisheryresources” and is active in the development of theIFFO Code of Responsible Practice.

BioMar, “makes an active contribution to sustainabilityby using ingredients from sustainable resources. Thisentails that marine raw materials are manufacturedfrom regulated fisheries, done without depletingnatural stocks. BioMar’s suppliers of marine rawmaterials are required to document the origin of theraw materials. Sustainable fishery is regulated byaccredited national and international organizationssuch as the International Council for the Explorationof the Sea (ICES) and the Food and AgricultureOrganization of the United Nations (FAO).”

There has also been some government action. TheState of California’s Sustainable Oceans Act, 2006,requires consideration of, “(8) The effects of feed, fishmeal, and fish oil on marine ecosystems.” There isalso a federal bill in the US – The National OffshoreAquaculture Act – which seeks to minimize the use offishmeal and fish oils.

Current attitudesof retailers

Retailers and processors are the most

consumer-facing element of the

aquaculture supply chain and are the

focus of campaigns around seafood

sustainability (at least in North America,


Europe, Australia and New Zealand with

an increasing number of countries being

added to the list).

Consequently retailers have frequently played aleading role in developing sustainable seafoodinitiatives and this trend is continuing with the issueof sustainable aquaculture feeds (for instance theexamples of Sainsbury, Whole Foods and Marks &Spencer quoted above). However, despite theleadership role of a few retailers the majority still lacksufficient interest or knowledge around the feed issueand are slow to act on matters relating toaquaculture. The reasons for this lack of engagementcould be summarised as:

• Some retailers still fail to accept the need for anysustainability standards around seafood – this is adiminishing group in countries where consumerawareness is high but significant nonetheless.

• The development of industry or NGO standards forthe sustainability of aquaculture has been very slowand is still unresolved even though considerableprogress has been made – many retailers arewaiting for the various standard-setting processes tocomplete before making strategic decisions.

• NGOs and other stakeholders have not generatedpressure on the issue of aquaculture feeds – theseorganisations have been significant in pushing foraction on wild caught species but noticeably quieteron the feed issue.

• There is little consumer or media interest in the feedissue – aquaculture has been high profile both interms of food safety questions and localenvironmental impacts but the wider sustainabilityissue remains relatively invisible.

• There is poor transparency in some aquaculturesupply chains so the application of standards tosuppliers is not straight-forward. For instance thefarmed salmon supply chain is relatively easy tocharacterise because of great industry concentrationin terms of farming and feed manufacture buttropical farmed shrimp can be extremely opaque.

Where there has been a significant interest in the feed

question it is almost invariably focussed aroundfarmed salmon because of the commercial importanceof the product while other farmed species with morecomplex supply chains receive less attention.

Current attitudesof NGOs

NGOs have historically been less

interested in aquaculture than in other

seafood issues but there have been high

profile campaigns that relate to the

direct environmental impacts of

aquaculture – for instance open water

pens in North America and Scotland,

tropical mangrove destruction for shrimp

farms and other issues.

Wider sustainability issues such as aquaculture feedsare often referenced in campaign materials but rarelyfeature as a high profile issue and there are a numberof reasons for this:

• The sustainability of wild caught species seems likea more pressing issue and is perceived to affect theocean environment more directly. There are alsoother aspects of aquaculture that seem more urgentat the moment eg the debate over open water pens.

• Consumers and the public don’t really understandaquaculture. Many purchasers of, for instance, salmondon’t even realise the fish has been farmed. Ifunderstanding of aquaculture is low, understandingand awareness of feed issues is almost non-existent.This makes campaigning on the issue a long slowprocess and doesn’t offer any quick results.

• There are divisions between NGOs about what does


or does not constitute acceptable aquaculturepractice and no complete consensus on even theMarine Stewardship Council as a useful standard forsource fisheries. Some NGOs are actively demandingthat the fish component of aquaculture feeds comefrom MSC certified fisheries while others are workingto stop MSC from certifying the forage fisheries thatprovide fishmeal and oil.

• The complexity of aquaculture supply chains canmake engagement difficult.

However, none of the above should be taken to meanthat NGOs will not become active in the area ofsustainable aquaculture feeds. WWF is addressing thisquestion via its Aquaculture Dialogues and all of theNGOs spoken to in researching this briefing –including many of those prominent in campaigning onsustainable seafood issues in Europe and the US –stated that the sustainability of feeds was either “theirgreatest concern” or in the “top three” of concernsover aquaculture and that this was an area they werelikely to work on in the next two years.

In addition to the potential for NGOs to work on thesustainability of aquaculture feeds via engagementwith retailers, processors and others at the top end ofthe supply chain there is also significant work beingdone by NGOs directly around major fisheries used forfishmeal and fish oil. These initiatives include theAntarctic Krill Conservation Project, the LenfestFoundation Forage Fish Taskforce and species specificcampaigns around menhaden, Californian sardine andAtlantic herring.

These initiatives do not currently make direct linkswith aquaculture feeds or indeed any consumer-facingpart of the seafood supply chain but tend to focus onthe importance of eco-system based fisheriesmanagement. For instance, several US NGOs wouldprefer that the MSC cease to certify reduction fisheriesuntil a comprehensive eco-system based approach isincorporated into the certification standard.

However, with strong NGO interest in both thebeginning and end of the aquaculture supply chain thepotential exists for linkage between fisheries-focussedwork and processor/retailer campaigns which togetherwould constitute a powerful set of forces applied tothe issue.

Likely developmentsover the next twoyears

A number of important developments

will take place over the next two years

that will have a significant bearing on

the issue of sustainable aquaculture

feeds. Specifically:

• The WWF Aquaculture Dialogues will conclude forsome species which will presumably include salmonand shrimp. These will set standards for aquaculturefeed which are likely to be based around MSCcertification of source fisheries or more likely aneffective analogue (eg: specific scores from theSustainable Fisheries Partnership ‘Fishsource’database) until certification has been achieved.

• The IFFO Code of Responsible Practice will becomefully operational. The Code will accept MSCcertification as an effective standard for thesustainability of source fisheries but given thelimited amount of certified stock will inevitably haveto make judgements about non-certified fisheries.This may be contentious if a source fishery is judgedacceptable under the IFFO Code but otherstakeholders disagree.

• A GAA standard for salmon will emerge which mayset a standard for feed sustainability. It’s notpossible to speculate about how demanding such astandard might be but it may be less strict than theWWF Aquaculture Dialogue standard.

• Some individual stakeholders in the aquaculturesupply chain will press ahead with specific initiativesaround sustainable feeds which will incorporatestandards either from the Aquaculture Dialogues orGAA or IFFO or indeed elements from each.


• There will be an increase in NGO activity around theneed for sustainability in aquaculture feeds and thesustainable management of the fisheries thatprovide fishmeal and fish oil.

• More feed fisheries will achieve MSC certification –it is impossible to speculate which fisheries and overwhat timescale but it is fairly clear that morecertifications will be achieved.

• There may well be nasty surprises! For instance, thedebate around Antarctic krill has so far beensurprisingly low profile given the iconic nature of theissue. Concerns around the use of ‘trash fish’ (seebelow) in Asian aquaculture – and particularlyshrimp production - may become more public andthere may be species-specific campaigns aroundfeed fisheries that are in a poor condition (eg: bluewhiting). There may even be a public debate aboutthe ethics of using forage fisheries to create feed forhigh value aquaculture products for rich markets(like salmon) at the potential expense of the globalpoor who could consume the forage fish directly –this debate has already been rehearsed aroundbiofuels.

These developments represent both risks andopportunities for all those within the aquaculturesupply chain and particularly those at the consumerfacing end – the retailers, processors and brands –that can be held publicly accountable for thesustainability of the products they create and sell.

These risks and opportunities are identified below.

Risks for retailersand processors

In any period of great change there will

be both threats and opportunities for

those that have the capacity to directly

influence events.

In the case of aquaculture feeds the main threatcomes from the possible emergence of two standards– a standard set by the WWF Aquaculture Dialogues(and eventually administered by the AquacultureStewardship Council) and a standard set by the GAA.

The creation of two standards would almost certainlymean that retailers and others would have to chosebetween a ‘higher’ standard, with the feed standardpegged to MSC certified fisheries or similar, and a‘lower’ standard where expectations of sustainabilityfor source fisheries were less rigorous.

Retailers might split into two groups – one ‘high’, one‘low’. If this were to happen it would cause practicaldifficulties for the whole supply chain and there mightbe questions about whether for any given speciessuch a differentiated supply chain could really exist.

There will also be problems for retailers that haveMSC-related commitments for the sustainability ofwild caught fish but seek to adopt a standard foraquaculture feed that is less rigorous. It would be asignificant threat to corporate reputation to be seen tohold a higher sustainability standard for fish useddirectly for human consumption than species usedindirectly via aquaculture. In such circumstancesretailers would be open to the charge of ‘blue-washing’ – taking fish from poorly managed stocksand converting them into desirable aquacultureproducts while simultaneously holding publicsustainability commitments to wild caught seafood.

Several leading retailers have already earnedsubstantial plaudits for adopting sourcing policies thatincorporate the MSC certification scheme and adoptinga non-MSC approach to aquaculture feeds mightundermine past achievements and generate hostilityon the part of civil society.

Individual retailers and processors might also findthemselves in a position where they have to adoptdifferent standards for different aquaculture species.For instance, the farmed salmon supply chain is highlycentralised in terms of producers, feed manufacturersetc and it would be relatively straight-forward toensure that a ‘high’ sustainability standard foraquaculture feeds was adhered to (assumingavailability of supplies).

Farmed tropical shrimp, on the other hand, is far morecomplex in terms of the supply chain – there are


many producers of varying size and a multitude offeed sources (including ‘trash fish’ – see below). Thechain is frequently opaque and many retailers andprocessors have limited visibility. Attempting to secureadherence to a particular standard for feed will bedifficult under such circumstances (unless there istotal control over the entire supply chain) andmeeting even a ‘low’ standard might be challenging.

Retailers and processors might therefore be in aposition where different species meet differentstandards or where some aquaculture products arecertified to some degree of sustainability while othershave no certification at all. Such a situation willinevitably generate problems for those organisationsthat need to maintain consistency across theirsustainability communications and might causeconfusion among consumers, NGOs, the media andothers with an interest in the issue.

The potential inconsistencies around adoptingdifferent sustainability standards for wild caught fish

and aquaculture and for implementing differentstandards between species will all presentopportunities for campaigning organisations that areadvocating for higher sustainability standards acrossthe seafood sector but there are other risks as well.

The feed fisheries themselves that produce fishmealand oil are hardly beyond criticism. Some have beenpoorly managed and others are managed only assingle stocks and not within an eco-system basedfisheries management regime. There are alreadyfishery-specific NGO campaigns around certain feedfisheries and in the absence of a certification schemeretailers and processors might find their products (andthemselves) publicly associated with fishmeal and oilfrom badly managed fisheries that are in the publiceye. The fact that some retailers have chosen topublicly distance themselves from northern bluewhiting gives an indication of how sensitive this issuecan be.

Retailers and processors also need to be aware that


‘Trash Fish’

‘Trash fish’ is the term used to describe the hundreds ofspecies of fish and invertebrates unsuitable for directhuman consumption that are typically caught in trawlsto provide material for aquaculture feeds or to beprocessed into sauces and other products. The use oftrash fish is typically viewed as an Asian phenomenon –for instance Thailand, Indonesia, Vietnam and China -although it happens elsewhere.

Trash fish fisheries are usually unregulated andindiscriminate in catching large volumes ofheterogenous marine life including sharks and otherspecies at risk. There is evidence that these practicescan be extremely damaging – for instance, research inthe Gulf of Thailand has documented major ecosystemchange on a large scale.

Trash fish are utilised in aquaculture production in two

main ways – direct feeding to carnivorous species suchas groupers and conversion into fishmeal for theproduction of shrimps and omnivorous fish. Trawling fortrash fish can cause serious economic damage tocoastal communities because it can destroy theecosystem basis for healthy fisheries. Economicallyvaluable species may be over-harvested or harvested atless than optimal size and the overall modification of theecosystem undermines the populations of valuablespecies. Poorer fishing communities can find themselves‘trapped’ into trash fishing because there are fewcommercially sized fish left and alternative fishinglivelihoods have ceased to exist.

There is a lot of pressure to reduce the catch and use oftrash fish but little progress is being made. Efforts byfisheries agencies to reduce fishing effort and introduceby-catch reduction devices have been slow and thereare substantial financial incentives for fishermen toavoid and resist laws. Fish farmers also frequentlyprefer trash fish because it is cheap and locallyavailable.

buried within the aquaculture debate are specificissues that may generate significant friction. The useof Antarctic krill for aquaculture feeds for instanceposes many dilemmas, not least in terms ofcommunications, and although there is relatively littlepublicity at present it may become a lightning rod forwider arguments about the use of marine resources,eco-system based fisheries management and otherissues.

The use of ‘trash fish’(see box) in shrimp aquacultureis also potentially a highly emotive subject that posesa major reputational risk to retailers and processorsthat have worked hard to maintain credibility acrossthe whole seafood sector. If investigations, whether bymedia or NGOs or both, revealed significantdestruction of tropical biodiversity (and associatedloss of high profile iconic marine species) because ofshrimp products manufactured or retailed by wellknown brands there would inevitably be considerablepublicity and associated damage to corporatereputation.

NGOs and the media have historically exertedsignificant pressure on the retail sector - at least inEurope and North America – and although the issue ofsustainable aquaculture feeds has proven difficult inthe past it might offer better opportunities forleverage in the future with publicly available standardsand potential inconsistencies both within and betweenretailers and processors.

Lastly, it needs be remembered that there are othercommercial sectors that use fishmeal and oil apartfrom aquaculture. Agricultural products, nutritionalsupplements and pet foods all use materials derivedfrom feed fisheries and might adopt particularsustainability standards. It would be interesting to seewhat effect this might have on the aquaculture sectorin terms of highlighting good performance ordeficiencies.

Conclusion

The issue of sustainable aquaculture is

in considerable flux with a range of

initiatives, potential standards and

campaigns all contributing to what has

become an intense debate. How these

forces resolve is of great importance to

all stakeholders in the aquaculture

supply chain but there are no easy

predictions.

However, even with high levels of uncertainty thereare still simple measures that stakeholders within theaquaculture supply chain can take to best positionthemselves for future events. Such measures couldinclude:

• Achieving a good working knowledge of the entiresupply chain including the origin of marine speciesused in feed formulations.

• Adopting specific policies around aquaculture, andparticularly feed ingredients, and communicatingthese policies to other stakeholders.

• Playing an active role in creating pressure for theimprovement of aquaculture sustainability andparticularly the management of fisheries thatprovide fishmeal and oil. This could includeparticipation in Fisheries Improvement Partnershipsconvened by Sustainable Fisheries Partnerships.

Contacts:

Sustainable Fisheries Partnership is a not-for-profitorganisation dedicated to maintaining healthy oceanand aquatic ecosystems, enhancing fishing andfish-farming livelihoods and secure food supplies.For further information on the issue of sustainableaquaculture feeds or any aspect of the work ofSustainable Fisheries Partnership please contactBlake Lee-Harwood on +44 7872 621071 or

[email protected]


Documents

Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Briefingmedia.sustainablefish.org/SAF_briefing_Sep_28_09.pdf · 2019-11-17 · growing awareness throughout the entire seafood supply chain that