2015 final consultancy report

AQUACULTURETHE ROAD TOWARDS SUSTAINABILITY

Aquaculture The Road Towards Sustainability

By: Burik, van, M. Ching, A. Farinha, J. Hill, van den, K. Huisman, Y. Kempchen, L. Nyelele, C. Oster, D. Pellegrom, Q. Pelupessy, W. Pratama, A. Schalekamp, D. Schmitz, L. Shapkota, P. Shennoy, N. Stoffelen, T. Temmink, R. Winkelhuijzen, R. Students from Wageningen University and the State University of New York

A HORIZON SCAN ON AQUACULTURE, DECEMBER 2015

Table of contents 1. Key messages 2. Introduction 3. Policy briefs 3.1 Fish feed 3.2 Traceability 3.3 Forgotten Livelihoods 3.4 Management Practices 3.5 Marine Spatial Planning 4. Limitations and discussions 5. Acknowledgements Reference list Annex I. Methodology

II. Expert list


Key messagesThe aquaculture sector is continuously growing and is expected to keep growing in the following years. The horizon scan on aquaculture – covering the nexus of ocean, biodiversity, nutrition and livelihoods – has identified the main opportunities and challenges in the future, on the topics of fish feed, traceability, livelihoods, management practices and lastly marine spatial planning. In regards of fish feed, there is a need for sustainable feed sources to feed the ever growing aquaculture sector. The first steps in this process are (1) to continue the research efforts on the sustainability of alternative feed sources, (2) to include local farmers in the developments regarding feed efficiency and (3) to encourage the consumption and production of omnivorous and herbivorous species.

Traceability is the ability to trace the origin of a product at any step of the supply chain, in order to ensure food safety, support sustainable fish farms and fisheries and to fight illegal activities and fraud. Current challenges and opportunities lay in the improvement of traceability in aquaculture through (1) coherence and governance, (2) certification and (3) control.

Many people rely on fish not only for their nutrition but also as a source of income. In order for aquaculture to contribute to the improvement of people’s livelihoods it must (1) foster the widespread inclusion of all stakeholders and their indigenous knowledge, (2) empower women and their active participation and (3) encourage the establishment of cooperatives of small-scale producers.

As the industry continues to grow, new techniques in aquaculture systems and processes are constantly being developed. This means that yield, efficiency and sustainability of aquaculture production can be increased by existing and newly appearing methods. However, it is important that attention is paid to the abiding threats related to existing and newly appearing aquaculture practices.

Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) is a global planning and management tool that ensures biodiversity conservation of marine resources and sustainable economic development of marine industries, including but not limited to aquaculture. Economic development without consideration for healthy and functioning ecosystems will affect the livelihoods of both current and future generations. As such, effective MSP must be (1) ecosystem-based, (2) area-based, (3) integrated, (4) adaptive, (5) strategic, and (6) participatory.


Introduction

In September 2015, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the most ambitious global development framework in history. It was called ‘Transforming Our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development’ and composed of 17 goals and 169 targets aiming at eradicating poverty, fighting inequality and tackling climate change. It builds upon the work of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), which ended in 2015 after a 15-year agenda. The newly adopted Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) provide a framework up to 2030 that targets to, according to Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, “end poverty in all its forms” [1]. With the SDGs adopted, the focus now lies on implementation.

Referring to the Terms of References (ToR) set up by the Policy Analysis Branch of the United Nations Sustainable Development Division, our team of externs from Wageningen University (WU) and the State University of New York (SUNY) had to provide inputs on issues related to the SDGs in the nexus of Oceans, Biodiversity, Nutrition and Livelihoods (OBNL).

The objective was to undertake a horizon scanning approach, which aims at finding high impact scientific findings and technological solutions in the nexus of OBNL. It is a future orientated approach, challenging current thinking and past assumptions, focusing on a systematic examination of potential threats and opportunities, detecting early signs of promising developments and analysing effects of new technologies. Focusing on synergies and trade-offs between different sectors is of particular importance since lack of integration among these had previously been one of the main pitfalls to implement sustainable development.

Based on the request outlined in the ToR, the collaborative group from WU and SUNY decided to focus on the topic of aquaculture. After preliminary research and expert interviews, this topic proved to be highly relevant to the nexus of OBNL and the SDGs. Aquaculture is increasingly important to relief pressure from wild fisheries for the production of fish, supports more and more livelihoods in especially developing countries and provides the necessary proteins in human food diets. Rising population growth and corresponding increasing demand for proteins make that by 2030 there will be a gap between demand and supply of 65 million tons of fish [2,3]. While wild fisheries possibilities for growth are limited as 85% of the world’s wild fish stocks is currently fully exploited or overfished [4], aquaculture is considered a promising option to feed the world with fish and close this gap [2,3].

Currently 60% of all aquaculture in tonnage comes from freshwater production, 32.3% from seawater and 7.7% from brackish water [5]. Aquaculture is highly concentrated in Asia, since 88% of aquaculture products is produced there, with China as the dominant player with 62% of global production [5]. However, while aquaculture production is dominant in developing countries, in 2012 developed countries consumed over 73% of total available seafood exports [6]. Over the past decades aquaculture has grown on all continents [7] and with a global growth rate of 6.6% per annum it is the fastest-growing animal-food-produced sector [8]. Projections are that aquaculture will continue to grow in the future; in Asia but also in areas where there currently is little or no aquaculture, as Africa and Latin America [9]. Increasing economic opportunities have induced an intensification of the sector, causing a replacement of low-intensity ‘traditional’ culture methods with large monoculture production systems, an increased use of pelleted feeds and introduction of new species [10].


However, key challenges lie ahead that could possibly undermine future growth in aquaculture. Some perceive aquaculture still as a environmentally unsustainable production method [11,12], while others see the expanding industry as an efficient and sustainable way to produce food [13,14]. The key limitations to future growth would be the negative environmental impacts and natural resource limitations [15]. This project focused on analysing the key threats and opportunities, focusing on high-impact scientific findings and new technologies as requested.

Approach In order to give an overview of the future challenges, five separate topics were chosen: fish feed, traceability, livelihoods, cultivation practices, and marine spatial planning. These topics were chosen due to their cross-sector relevance, importance to aquaculture and covering of the nexus of OBNL. Together they provide a comprehensive, although not entirely covering, view on the future developments of aquaculture related to the SDGs.

For each subtopic, a horizon scanning method was performed. Data was collected in three steps: (1) literature review, (2) expert interviews and (3) panel discussions. In the first step, literature review, general information on the topic was gathered by reading scientific articles, reports and other written documents. To complement the literature, interviews were performed with experts in the field of aquaculture. In these interviews, there was a focus on emerging trends and future outlooks. As the last step panel discussions were held, leading to new insights by bringing experts with different backgrounds together to discuss the current and future issues in aquaculture. For an elaborate explanation on the methodology, please see Annex I: Methodology

A total of 61 experts were interviewed for this project or joined a panel discussion. A map with their nationalities is presented in figure 1. Among the interviewed persons were researchers, NGOs, professors, the industry and activists. Most people had a background in aquaculture, but experts in related fields were interviewed as well to get a more comprehensive overview and an outsider’s perspective. For a complete expert list, please see Annex II: Expert list.

Figure 1. Map representing nationalities interview experts


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This brief outlines the future trends in fish feed use in aquaculture. Fish feed is important because of its high costs, the nutritional value for both the fish and humans consuming it, and the environmental impacts. Contemporary feed mainly consists of two types of resources: marine and terrestrial. However, an increased demand for fish species and more competition with other sectors limits the supply of conventional fish feed resources for aquaculture. These factors make that the industry is more and more looking for alternatives sources to provide the necessary nutrients. There are a lot of different alternative options, some of which are more promising than others, but it is likely that in the future multiple ingredients will be used for the formulation of feed pellets. Nevertheless, reliance on traditional sources will continue in the near future. These trends will lead to that the interlinkage between aquaculture, wild fisheries and agriculture will become more important. Important focal areas remain: guidance of small-scale farmers, communication along the value chain, responsible harvest of fishmeal and fish oil, and use of local feed ingredients.

————————————————————————————————————————————————————

INTRODUCTION

The rapid growth of modern aquaculture has mostly been due to the advances made in fish feeds [1] and its progress will be driving the expansion of the industry in the future [2,3]. Fish feed is very important for aquaculture production because it usually constitutes over 50% of the production costs and it has a significant impact on the quality, safety and nutritional value of farmed fish [4]. However, certain aspects of feed can cause environmental impacts such as nutrient runoff and overexploitation of resources [5,6]. Feed types can be divided into three groups: industrially compounded feeds, farm-made feeds and raw organisms. The total use of industrially compounded feed in the production of major species is estimated at 39.62 million tons [7], while the use of farm-made aqua feeds is estimated to be between 15 and 30 million tons, and direct use of raw organisms, mostly trash fish, is estimated to be between 3 and 6 million tons [8,9,10,11,12]. South American and European aquaculture facilities mostly use high-performance compounded feeds, while Asian aquaculture facilities still largely rely on trash fish and farm-made diets, Africa’s aquaculture facilities mostly use locally made fishmeal [10]. The main considerations for a farmer to decide upon the choice of feed are: feeding habit and market value of the produced species, the type of culture system used, the availability of a feed type on the market and personal financial resources [1,2].

STATE

Feeds are made up of approximately forty essential nutrients such as amino acids, vitamins, minerals, and fatty acids [13]. Contrary to people and livestock, fish species and shrimp do not require specific ingredients, however, their diets need to contain these vital nutrients [14]. The exact diet differs per fish type and species: Annex I contains a table that provides an overview of the differences in feed composition for different fish types. A part of the species produced in the aquaculture sector do not need external food supply [15,16]. For fed aquaculture species, the ingredients can be roughly divided into two categories: marine resources and terrestrial resources.

Marine resources mainly consists of fishmeal and fish oil, as these provide the necessary energy inputs to achieve optimal growth [4]. Aquaculture is depended on wild fisheries for the production of fishmeal and fish oil: in 2012 16.3 Mt of fish landed by wild fisheries was used for this purpose [9]. Since production from wild fisheries is stagnating [17,18] and competition for fishmeal and fish oil by other sectors is increasing [19], fishmeal and fish oil are therefore only available in limited quantities. This is perceived as a threat to the growth of the aquaculture sector [20]. Despite often given less attention in the feed debate than fishmeal and fish oil, key terrestrial resources for feed include soybeans, maize and rice [21]. The availability of these terrestrial resources for feeds is jeopardised due to increased competition with the human food market and concerns about environmental degradation [21,22,23]. Key issues regarding the sustainability of these sources need to be solved in order to ensure a secure supply in the future.


Feed production grew with 10.3% per year between 2000 and 2012 [7], but if the current growth rate is to be maintained in the future, the supply of nutrients and feed inputs will need to grow at a comparable rate [24]. Alternative fish feed sources are needed to allow the aquaculture industry to increase production in a way that does not put pressure on limited wild fisheries, maintains the human health benefits of seafood, minimises negative environmental effects and is economically viable [13]. This policy brief will outline the key trends in fishmeal, fish oil and terrestrial resources, analyse the accompanying threats and opportunities, and investigate the possible use of alternatives that are necessary for a sustainable feed production.

FUTURE TRENDS

Fishmeal and fish oil will stay important in future diets. However, the concerns about the sustainability of these ingredients and their growing prizes on the global market incentivise a more efficient use of these ingredients and the use of alternative feed sources [29,30]. Fish oil will remain a highly demanded ingredient in the foreseeable future [31], but competition from industries that are often more financially capable threatens its supply for the aquaculture industry [24,27]. The total use of fishmeal will likely decline due to increased competition with the human consumption market for raw fish and availability of alternatives that become more cost-effective [32,33]. Finite supply of fishmeal and fish oil may or may not become a major constraint to aquaculture development [16,20,34], but the stagnating production from wild fisheries [17] and growth of the aquaculture sector could lead to increased harvest of wild stock and unsustainable fishery practices [5,24].


The sustainability of the aquaculture sector is linked to the sustainable supply of terrestrial resources, since herbivorous and omnivorous species are still dominating the aquaculture sector [26]. A lot of terrestrial sources currently used in feeds, such as soybeans, maize, rice and wheat are also important for the terrestrial livestock industry and for direct human consumption [21]. Due to the growing competition with these markets the price for these commodities has increased dramatically [36]. Especially for the availability of soybean this development is relevant, since this is the most common source of plant-based proteins in compound feeds [26].

ALTERNATIVES

Competition for fishmeal and fish oil, stagnating fisheries and environmental concerns have driven the fish feed industry to look for alternatives for both ingredients [27,37]. Figure 1 provides an overview of alternative ingredients for fishmeal and fish oil, visualised by current level of production and its promise.

In order to be a suitable alternative to fishmeal or fish oil, the alternative ingredient should possess similar nutritional properties. An alternative for fish oil should therefore contain sufficient levels of essential fatty acids [39], while fishmeal replacements should be a protein source that is digestible by the species for which the feed is meant [26,27]. However, not just the nutritional value of the alternative ingredients but also the sustainability of the ingredients production process should be taken into account. According to the triple bottom line theory the sustainability of a source is determined by whether in the long term its production will not have a negative impact on the environment, livelihoods and whether it is economically viable in the long term [39]. Increased use of an alternative source can have negative environmental impacts; particular concerns include deforestation and global water shortages [29]. There is a lack of knowledge about the potential impacts an increased production of alternatives sources could entail for both the environment and livelihoods. These knowledge gaps make it difficult to determine the sustainability of certain alternative ingredients.


Perfect substitutes for fishmeal and fish oil have not yet been identified [39,40]. There is not yet an alternative source known that both meets the nutritional and economical requirements [39]. Fishmeal is still an important ingredient in fish feed, in particular for marine and carnivorous species, while fish oil remains at this moment an irreplaceable ingredient in feed for all types of fish [29].

Formulated pelleted feed is becoming the most significant source of nutrition for farmed fish [41]. Pellets consist of a variety of ingredients that are pressed together. Even though there is not yet one alternative source that can completely substitute fishmeal or fish oil, it is likely that in the future the use of substitute ingredients for fish oil and fish meal in pellets will increase [40].


Figure 1. Overview of feed sources that could potentially be an alternative for fish oil, fishmeal or both.Annexes III, IV and V provide more detailed information on the alternative sources displayed in figure 1.

PROSPECTS

Although aquaculture today is more sustainable than terrestrial animal production, there will be some key challenges in the production of fish feed. The growth in production of carnivorous, herbivorous, and omnivorous species will most likely put increased pressure on both marine and terrestrial feed resources, and competition from multiple sectors will probably drive up the price. The interlinkage between aquaculture, wild fisheries and agriculture is growing and these sectors will become more depended upon each other for future production. Research in the area of alternative lipid and protein sources in feed are promising and will trigger the shift from the dominant use of one ingredient, like fishmeal, towards multiple ingredients that can be formulated into feed pellets. Nevertheless, in the near future fishmeal and fish oil will remain important due to their unique nutritional properties, which influence growth and survival rates and the nutritional value of the final fish for human consumption [13].

In addition to these global challenges, there some other important focal areas: • Communication along the value chain. Many consumers, producers, and purchasers remain unaware

about the suitability and sustainability of alternative feed sources [25]. • Responsible harvest of fishmeal and fish oil. As long as fishmeal and fish oil is derived from sustainable

fisheries, there is no problem with using it in fish feed [6]: any fishmeal and fish oil that comes from wild fisheries should be managed under the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and countries should follow the guidelines on the use of wild fish as feed in aquaculture [26].

• Guidance small-scale farmers. Currently, little guidance is given to small-scale farmers to formulate and manage their feeds, while they still form the backbone of (especially Asian) aquaculture [26]. Farmers could be assisted to improve their feed formulation. This would reduce their production costs and minimise use of unnecessary feed additives and chemicals to reduce waste [19].

• Use of local feed ingredients. The use of local feed ingredients that are safe, nutritionally sound and sustainable, should be maximised to improve efficiency and reduce environmental impacts [39,42].

REFERENCES

[1] Xie, B., Qin, J. Yang, H., Wang, X., Wang, Y. & Li, T. (2013). “Organic Aquaculture in China: a Review From a Global Perspective.” Aquaculture 414: 243–53. doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2013.08.019.

[2] Interview O’Hanlon, B. 10 November 2015, Skype call, interviewer: Ching, A., Temmink, R., Kempchen, L.

[3] Gjedrem, T., Robinson, N. & Rye, M. (2012). “The Importance of Selective Breeding in Aquaculture to Meet Future Demands for Animal Protein: a Review.” Aquaculture 350-353:117–29. doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2012.04.008.

[4] Allen, P. J. & Steeby J.A. (2011). “Aquaculture: Challenges and Promise.” Nature Education Knowledge 3 (10).

[5] Cao, L., Naylor, R., Henriksson, P., Leadbitter, D., Metian, M., Troell, M. & Zhang, W. (2015). Global food supply. China's aquaculture and the world's wild fisheries. Science 347 (6218): 133-5 DOI: 10.1126/science.1260149

[6] Interview Biomar. 10 November 2015, Skype call, Interviewer: Ching, A., Winkelhuijzen, R.

[7] Tacon, A.G.J. & Metian, M. (2015). “Feed Matters: Satisfying the Feed Demand of Aquaculture.” Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture 23 (1): 1–10. doi:10.1080/23308249.2014.987209.

[8] FAO (2012). The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture. Rome: FAO.

[9] FAO (2014) FAOSTAT. Rome: FAO.

[10] Huntington, T.C. & Hasan, M.R. (2009). Fish as feed inputs for aquaculture– practices, sustainability and implications: a global synthesis. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper 518. Rome, FAO. pp. 1–61.

[11] Hasan, M.R. (2012) Transition from low-value fish to compound feeds in marine cage farming in Asia. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper. No. 573. Rome, FAO, 198 pp.

[12] Tacon, A.G.J., Jory, D. & Nunes, A. (2013) Shrimp feed management: issues and perspectives, pp. 481–488. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 583. Rome, FAO.

[13] Rust, M.B., Barrows, F.T., Hardy, R.W., Lazur, A., Naughten, K. & Silverstein, J. (2011) The Future of Aquafeeds. Washington: NOAA/USDA, Alternative Feeds Initiative. Derived from http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/aquaculture/docs/feeds/the_future_of_aquafeeds_final.pdf

[14] Tacon, A.G.J. & Metian, M. (2009). Fishing for aquaculture: non-food use of small pelagic forage fish – a global perspective. Reviews in Fisheries Science 17(3) : 305-17 doi:10.1080/10641260802677074

[15] Interview Anderson, J. 11 November 2015, Skype call, interviewers: Kempchen, L., Schmitz, L.

[16] Interview Holmyard, N. 17 November 2015, Skype call, interviewer: van den Hill, K., Schalekamp, D., Schmitz, L.

[17] Ferreira, J.G., Saurel, C., Lencart e Silva, J.D., Nunes, J.P., and F Vazquez. 2014. “Modelling of Interactions Between Inshore and Offshore Aquaculture.” Aquaculture 426-427 (April): 154–64. doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2014.01.030.

[18] Hanneson, R. (2015) World fisheries in crisis? Marine Resource Economics 30 (3) : 251-260. doi: 10.1086/680443


[19] Tacon, A.G.J., Hasan, M.R., Allan, G., El-Sayed, A.F., Jackson, A., Kaushik, S.J., Ng, W-K., Suresh, V. & Viana, M.T. (2012). Aquaculture feeds: addressing the long term sustainability of the sector. Proceedings of the Global Conference on Aquaculture 2010, Phuket, Thailand. 193–231. FAO, Rome and NACA, Bangkok

[20] Diana, J.S. (2009). Aquaculture Production and Biodiversity Conservation. BioScience 59(1):27-38. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/bio.2009.59.1.7

[21] Troell, M., Naylor, R.L., Metian, M., Beveridge, M., Tyedmers, P.H., Folke, C.,... de Zeeuw, A. (2014).Does aquaculture add resilience to the global food system? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 111(37):13257-63 doi: 10.1073/pnas.1404067111

[22] Boissy, J., Aubin, J., Drissi, A., van der Werf, H.M.G., Bell, G.J. & Kaushik, S.J. (2011) Environmental impacts of plant-based salmonid diets at feed and farm scales Aquaculture 321 (1-2): 61–70 doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2011.08.033

[23] Pelletier, N. & Tyedmers, P. (2007) Feeding farmed salmon: Is organic better? Aquaculture 272 (1–4): 399–416. doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2007.06.024

[24] Shepherd, J. & Bachis, E. (2014). “Changing Supply and Demand for Fish Oil.” Aquaculture Economics & Management 18 (4): 395–416. doi:10.1080/13657305.2014.959212.

[25] Naylor, R.L., Hardy, R.W., Bureau, D.P., Chiu, A., Elliott, M., Farrell, A.P.,... Nichols, P.D. (2009). Feeding aquaculture in an era of finite resources. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 106:15103–10

[26] Tacon, A.G.J., Hasan, M. & Metian, M. (2011). Demand and Supply of Feed Ingredients for Farmed Fish and Crustaceans: Trends and Prospects. Rome: FAO.

[27] Klinger, D. & Naylor, R. (2012). Searching for Solutions in Aquaculture: Charting a Sustainable Course. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 37 (1) :.247-276 doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-021111-161531.

[28] Tacon, A.G.J., Hasan, M.R., Subasinghe, R.P. (2006). Use of Fishery Resources as Feed Inputs for Aquaculture Development: Trends and Policy Implications. Rome: FAO. FAO Fisheries Circular No. 1018.

[29] Nasopoulou, C. & Zabetakis, I. (2012). Benefits of Fish Oil Replacement by Plant Originated Oils in Compounded Fish Feeds. a Review. LWT - Food Science and Technology 47 (2): 217–24. doi:10.1016/j.lwt.2012.01.018.

[30] Diana, J.S., Egna, H.S., Chopin, T., Peterson, M.P., Cao, L., Pomeroy, R.,... Cabello, F. (2013) “Responsible Aquaculture in 2050: Valuing Local Conditions and Human Innovations Will Be Key to Success.” BioScience 63 (4). Oxford University Press: 255–62. doi:10.1525/bio.2013.63.4.5.

[31] FAO (2014). FishStatJ: a tool for fishery statistics analysis, Release 2.0.0. Universal software for fishery statistical time series. Global capture and aquaculture production: Quantities 1950–2012; Aquaculture values 1984–2012. Rome: FAO Fisheries Department, Fishery Information, Data and Statistics Unit. Derived from http://www.fao.org/fishery/statistics/software/fishstatj/en

[32] Davis, D.A. & Sookying, D. 2009. Strategies for reducing and/or replacing fishmeal in production diets for the Pacific white shrimp, Litopenaeus vannamei. In C.L. Browdy & D.E. Jory, eds. The rising tide, Proceedings of the Special Session on Sustainable Shrimp Farming. World Aquaculture 2009, pp. 108–114. Baton Rouge, World Aquaculture Society

[33] Hardy, R. (2009). Protein sources for marine shrimp aquafeeds: perspectives and problems. In C.L. Browdy & D.E. Jory, eds. The rising tide. Proceedings of the Special Session on Sustainable Shrimp Farming. World Aquaculture 2009: 115–125. Baton Rouge, World Aquaculture Society.


[34] Bostock, J., McAndrew, B., Richards, R., Jauncey, K., Telfer, T., Lorenzen, K.,...Corner, R. (2010)Aquaculture: global status and trends. Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences 365 (1554): 2897-2912

[35] De Silva, S.S. & Davy, F.B. (2009). Success Stories in Asian Aquaculture. Dordrecht: Springer. Doi: 10.1007/978-90-481-3087-0

[36] Rana, K.J., Siriwardena, S. & Hasan, M.R. (2009)Impact of rising feed ingredient prices on aquafeeds and aquaculture production. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper 541. Rome: FAO.

[37] Gatlin, D.M., Barrows, F.T., Brown, P., Dabrowski, K., Gaylord, T.G., Hardy, R.W.,...Wurtele, E. (2007). Expanding the utilization of sustainable plant products in aquafeeds: a review. Aquaculture Research 38 (6): 551–579. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2109.2007.01704.x

[38] Savitz, A.W. & Weber, K. (2006). The Triple Bottom Line: How Today's Best-Run Companies Are Achieving Economic, Social and Environmental Success—and How You Can Too. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

[39] Interview Barrows, R. December 2015, Email interview, Interviewer: van den Hil, K.

[40] Barrows, F. T., & Sealey, W. M. (2015) Feed Ingredients and the Reduction of Dependence on Marine Harvested Products for Aquaculture Feeds. Derived from http://www.tidescanada.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Wendy-Sealey-White-Paper-Report-re-Feed-Ingredients-101232014.pdf

[41] Edwards, P. (2015). Aquaculture environment interactions: Past, present and likely future trends. Aquaculture 447: 2–14. doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2015.02.001.

[42] Interview Pahlow, . 11 December 2015, Email interview, interviewer: van den Hil, K.

[43] Boyd, C. & McNevin, A. (2015). Aquaculture, Resource Use, and the Environment. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell

[44] Tacon, A.G.J., Metian, M. (2008). Global overview on the use of fish meal and fish oil in industrially compounded aquafeeds: Trends and future prospects. Aquaculture 285 (1–4):146–158. doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2008.08.015

[45] Jackson, A. (2009). Fish In - Fish Out (FIFO) Ratios explained. London, United Kingdom: IFFO. Derived from http://www.nwanf.com/upload/file/FIFO.pdf

[46] Bechtel, P.J. (ed.), (2003) Advances in Seafood Byproducts: 2002 Conference Proceedings. Fairbanks, AK: Alaska Sea Grant College Program, University of Alaska Fairbanks. doi:10.4027/asbcp.2003

[47] Tacon, A.G.J., Hasan, M.R., Allan G., El-Sayed, A., Jackson, S.J., Kaushik, S.J.,…Viana M.T. (2010). Aquaculture feeds: addressing the long term sustainability of the sector. In Tacon, A.G.J. (Ed.). Phuket, Thailand: Global conference in aquaculture pp. 22–25

[48] Ayoola, A.A. (2010). Replacement of Fishmeal with alternative Protein Source in Aquaculture Diets. Raleigh, North Carolina: State University of North Carolina.

[49] Moretti V.M., Corino C. (2008). Omega-3 and trans fatty acids. In: Nollet, L.M.L., Toldra, F. (eds.) Handbook of Processed Meats and Poultry Analysis, pp. 233–271. CRC Press, Crystal Bay.

[50] Turchini, G.M., Menstasti, T., Frøyland, L., Orban, E., Caprino, F., Moretty, V. & Valfré, F. (2003). Effects of alternative dietary lipid sources on performance, tissue chemical composition, mitochondrial fatty acid oxidation capabilities and sensory characteristics in brown trout ( Salmo trutta L.). Aquaculture 225 (1–4): 251–267. doi:10.1016/S0044-8486(03)00294-1


http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.library.wur.nl/science/journal/00448486


http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.library.wur.nl/science/journal/00448486/285/1

http://www.nwanf.com/upload/file/FIFO.pdf

[51] Bureau, D., Gibson, J. (2004). Animal fats as aquaculture feed ingredients: nutritive value, product quality and safety. Aquafeed International 7: 32–37.

[52] Interview Lane, A. 26 November 2015. Skype Call, interviewer: van den Hil, K., Kempchen, L.

[53] Uchida, M., Miyoshi, T. (2013) Algal Fermentation -The Seed for a New Fermentation Industry of Foods and Related Products. Japan Agricultural Research Quarterly: JARQ.47(1): 53-63. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.6090/jarq.47.53

[54] Ronquillo, J.D., Fraser, J. & McConkey, A. (2012). Effect of mixed microalgal diets on growth and polyunsaturated fatty acid profile of European oyster (Ostrea edulis) juveniles. Aquaculture 360–361: 64–68. doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2012.07.018

[55] Interview Livengood, E.J. 1 December 2015. Skype Call, interviewer: van den Hil, K., Pelupessy, W.

[56] Turchini, G.M., Torstensen, B.E., Ng, W-K. (2009) Fish oil replacement in finfish nutrition. Reviews in Aquaculture 1 (1): 10–57. doi: 10.1111/j.1753-5131.2008.01001.x

[57] Lenihan-Geels, G., Bishop, K.S. & Ferguson, L.R. (2013) Alternative Sources of Omega-3 Fats: Can We Find a Sustainable Substitute for Fish? Nutrients 5(4): 1301-1315. doi:10.3390/nu5041301

[58] Turchini, G.M.,. Ng, W-K.,D.R. & Tocher, D.R. (Eds.) (2011). Fish Oil Replacement And Alternative Lipid Sources in Aquaculture Feeds, CRC Press (Taylor & Francis), Boca Raton

[59], Nathalie Delarue, J. & Guriec, N. (2014). Opportunities to enhance alternative sources of long-chain n -3 fatty acids within the diet. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 73(3): 376-384. doi:10.1017/S0029665114000123

[60] Bachiller, E. & Irigoien, X. (2013) Allometric relations and consequences for feeding in small pelagic fish in the Bay of Biscay. ICES Journal of Marine Science 70(1): 232–243. doi:10.1093/icesjms/fss171

[61] ASOC (2004) MANAGEMENT OF THE ANTARCTIC KRILL: ENSURING THE CONSERVATION OF THE ANTARCTIC MARINE ECOSYSTEM. Washington D.C., WA: ASOC

[62] Bimbo, A.P. (2007) Current and future sources of raw materials for the long-chain omega-3 fatty acid market. Lipid Technology 19(8): 176–179, DOI: 10.1002/lite.200700057

[63] Vrij, M. (2013). Insects as alternative raw material for use in fish feeds. Derived from: http://ngn.co.nl/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Aquacultuur-Insects-for-fishfeed-Jan-2013.pdf

[64] Villegas, A. (2013) Insect meal, a new player in aquaculture feed. Derived from: https://www.undercurrentnews.com/2013/10/10/insect-meal-a-new-player-in-aquaculture-feed/

[65] Carmichael, R.H., Walton, W. & Clark, H. (2012). Bivalve-enhanced nitrogen removal from coastal estuaries. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 69(7): 1131-1149, doi:10.1139/f2012-057

[66] Gren, I-M., Lindahl, O., Lindqvist, M. Values of mussel farming for combating eutrophication: An application to the Baltic Sea. Ecological Engineering 35(5): 935-945. doi:10.1016/j.ecoleng.2008.12.033.

[67] Edebo, L., Haamer, J., Lindahl, O., Loo, L.O.& Piriz, L. (2000) Recycling of macronutrients from sea to land using mussel cultivation. Int. J. Environ. Pollut., 13: 190–207

[68] Petersen, J.K., Hasler, B., Timmermann, K., Nielsen, P., Tørring, D.B., Larsen, M.M. & Holmer, M. (2014) Mussels as a tool for mitigation of nutrients in the marine environment. Marine Pollution Bulletin 82 (1–2): 137–143. doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.03.006


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00448486

http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.library.wur.nl/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2008.12.033

http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.library.wur.nl/science/journal/0025326X

[69] Interview Li, C. 21 November 2015. Skype Call, interviewer: Ching, A.

[70] Interview Nutreco, 19 November 2015. Skype Call, interviewer: van Burik, M., van den Hil, K., Stoffelen, T.

[71] Reverter, M., Bontemps, N., Lecchini, D., Banaigs, B. & Sasal, P. (2014) Use of plant extracts in fish aquaculture as an alternative to chemotherapy: Current status and future perspectives. Aquaculture 433: 50–61. doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2014.05.048

[72] Pahlow, M., van Oel, P.R., Mekonnen, M.M. & Hoekstra, A.Y. (2015) Increasing pressure on freshwater resources due to terrestrial feed ingredients for aquaculture production. Science of The Total Environment 536: 847–857. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.07.124

[73] Interview Brandenburg, W. 3 December 2015. Phone call, interviewer: van Burik, M., Kempchen, L.

[74] Neori, A. (2008) Essential role of seaweed cultivation in integrated multi-trophic aquaculture farms for global expansion of mariculture: an analysis. Journal of Applied Phycology 20(5): 567-570

[75] Aas, T.S., Grisdale-Helland, B., Terjesen, B.F. & Helland, S.J. (2006) Improved growth and nutrient utilisation in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) fed diets containing a bacterial protein meal. Aquaculture 259(1–4): 365–376. doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2006.05.032

[76] Bharti, V., Pandey, P.K., Koushlesh, S.K. (2014) Single Cell Proteins: a Novel Approach in Aquaculture Systems. World Aquaculture ; 45(4)

[77] Jansson, T.A.M., (2009). Green feed in the marine fish farming : how to communicate water benchmarks to stakeholders . Second cycle, A1E. Uppsala: SLU, Dept. of Economics

[78] Lim, C., Yildirim-Aksoy, M. (2008). Distillers dried grains with solubles as an alternative protein source in fish feeds. Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Tilapia in Aquaculture, 12–14 October 2008. Cairo, Egypt, pp. 67–82.

[79] Welker, T., Lim, C., Barrows, F.T., Liu, K. (2014). Use of distiller dried grains with soluble (DDGS) in rainbow trout diets. Animal Feed Sci. & Tech. 195: 47-57.

[80] Wu, G-Y., Cline, H.T. (1998) Stabilization of Dendritic Arbor Structure in Vivo by CaMKII Science 279 (5348): 222-226 DOI: 10.1126/science.279.5348.222

[81] Nasopoulou, C., Stamatakis, G., Demopoulos, C.A. & Zabetakis, I. (2011). Effects of olive pomace and olive pomace oil on growth performance, fatty acid composition and cardio protective properties of gilthead sea bream (Sparus aurata) and sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax). Food Chemistry 129, (3): 1108–1113. doi:10.1016/j.foodchem.2011.05.086

[82]. Karantonis, H.C., Tsantila N., Stamatakis, G., Samiotaki, M., Panayotou, G., Antonopoulou, S. & DEMOPOULOS, C.A. (2008) Bioactive polar lipids in olive oil, pomace and waste byproducts. Journal of Food Biochemistry 32 (4): 443–459. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-4514.2008.00160.x

[83] Montero, D., Robaina, L., Caballero, M.J., Ginés, R. & Izquierdo, M.S. (2005 Growth, feed utilization and flesh quality of European sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) fed diets containing vegetable oils: A time-course study on the effect of a re-feeding period with a 100% fish oil diet. Aquaculture 248(1–4): 121–134. doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2005.03.003

[84] Bell, J.G., Tocher, D.R., Henderson, R.J., Dick, J.R. & Crampton, V.O. (2003) Altered Fatty Acid Compositions in Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar) Fed Diets Containing Linseed and Rapeseed Oils Can Be Partially Restored by a Subsequent Fish Oil Finishing Diet. The journal of nutrition13(9): 2793-2801.





http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.library.wur.nl/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2006.05.032

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03088146


[85] Torstensen, B.E., Lie, Ø. & Frøyland, L. (2000) Lipid metabolism and tissue composition in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.)—Effects of capelin oil, palm oil, and oleic acid-enriched sunflower oil as dietary lipid sources. Lipids 35(6): 653-664.

[86] Codabaccus, M.B., Bridle, A.R., Nichols, P.D. & Carter, C.G. (2012) Restoration of Fillet n-3 Long-Chain Polyunsaturated Fatty Acid Is Improved by a Modified Fish Oil Finishing Diet Strategy for Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar L.) Smolts Fed Palm Fatty Acid Distillate.J. Agric. Food Chem. 60 (1): 458–466. doi: 10.1021/jf203633z

[87] Opsahl-Ferstad H-G, Rudi H, Ruyter B, Refstie S (2003) Biotechnological approaches to modify rapeseed oil composition for applications in aquaculture. Plant Science 165: 349–357.

[88] Robert SS (2006) Production of eicosapentaenoic and docosahexaenoic acid-containing oils in transgenic land plants for human and aquaculture nutrition. Marine Biotechnology 8: 103–109.

[89] Sissener, N.H., Sanden, M., Krogdahl, A., Bakke, A., Johannessen, L.E. & Hemre, G. (2011) Genetically modified plants as fish feed ingredients. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 68(3): 563-574, doi:10.1139/F10-154

[90] Magnusson, M.K., Hursti, U.K.K. (2002) Consumer attitudes towards genetically modified foods. Appetite 39: 9–24.


http://link.springer.com.ezproxy.library.wur.nl/journal/11745

Annex I

In Table 1 the different compositions of diets are outlined among the different fish types:

Table 1. Overview of general fish feed ingredients of aquaculture feeds for major fed species, derived from Tacon and Metian (2015).

The total demand for commercial aquaculture feed is dominated by herbivorous and omnivorous carp species (11.3 Mt), followed by shrimp (6.18 Mt), catfish (4.27 Mt), salmon (2.98 Mt), marine fish (2.98 Mt), other miscellaneous freshwater and diadromous fish (1.31 Mt), freshwater crustaceans (1.80 Mt), milkfish (1.14 Mt), and eel (370,000 t) [7]. However, despite the omnivorous species dominating the total demand of fish feed, the majority of fishmeal is consumed by shrimp (27.2%) and marine and anadromous fish (32.5%): omnivorous fish (i.e. carp, tilapia, catfish) are fed small amounts of fishmeal. Additionally, almost all the fish oil is consumed by shrimp and marine and anadromous fish [26] For algae, oysters, clams and scallops the feed issues are irrelevant, because they do not need external feed sources [15,16].

Type of species Aquatic protein meals

& oils (%)

Terrestrial animal protein meals &

oils (%)

Terrestrial plant protein meals &

oils (%)

Other plant meals and fillers (%)

Feed additives

(%)

Herbivorous and omnivorous fish

4 14 29 49 4

Marine and carnivorous fish

30 20 30 15 5

Penaeid shrimp species

19 9 29 29 4


Annex II: Improved fish feed efficiency

Demand in fish feed is not only driven by external factors, but also by the efficiency of feed use. In this regard two terms are important: the feed conversion ratio (FCR) and fish in and fish out (FIFO) ratio. FCR estimates the amount of feed needed to obtain 1 kg live, net weight of the culture species. FIFO shows the ratio between the quantity of live fish needed to produce 1kg of aquaculture species. The FIFO ratio should include both fishmeal and fish oil and depends on the FCR and the percentage of fishmeal and fish oil in feed [43, 45]. FCRs have improved in recent decades [26]. Improvements can still be gained because on a genetic level the FCR decreased with 4 percent per generation. [3, 27] Tacon and Metian (2015) [7] predict that FCR will still decrease for many species between 2015 and 2025: Chinese fed carp species (from 1.7 to 1.6), tilapia (1.7 - 1.6), catfishes (1.4 - 1.3), other freshwater and diadromous fishes (1.8 - 1.7), salmon (1.3 - 1.3), trout (1.3 - 1.3), milkfish (1.8 - 1.5), eel (1.5 - 1.5), marine fish (1.7 - 1.5), shrimp (1.7 - 1.5), and freshwater crustaceans (1.9 - 1.7). The FIFO ratio has fallen well below 1.0 [25] and several FIFO ratios for the global aquaculture industry have been reported: 0.7 [44] 0.63 [25] and 0.52 [45]. The FIFO ratio of four species decreased between 1995 and 2006: salmon (7.5 - 4.9), trout (6.0 - 3.4), marine fish (3.0 - 2.2), and shrimp (1.9 - 1.4). [44]


Annex III: Alternative sources that could substitute both fish meal and fish oil Table 2: Table of potential alternative sources, showing the advantages or disadvantage within different categories. Nutrients refer to the level of nutrients that the alternative source provides for the replacement of fishmeal (FM) or fish oil (FO). The environment refers to potential hazard on the environment. Livelihood represent the possible effect of the alternative resource on people, for example providing jobs and health. Economics refers to the potential benefits or disadvantages regarding the commercial viability of the alternative source. The positive indicators are (+), a few positive impacts, (++) some positive impacts and (+++) many positive impacts. The negative indicators are (-) a few negative impacts, (--) some negative impacts and (---) many negative impacts. . For further explanation of the advantages and disadvantages of the alternative see the table in the Annex and the further descriptions of alternatives in the Annex.

Fish by-products

Another way to tackle the limited supply of fish oil and fishmeal despite a growing demand is by finding not-yet fully exploited opportunities. For example, at the moment about 25% of by-products and trimmings that are left over from human consumption oriented wild fisheries are used to produce fishmeal and fish oil. [34] Processing the waste of fish from wild fisheries, such as head, intestines and bones, could provide an alternative source for fish meal and fish oil that is commercially available [3,21,27,46] The use of processing fish waste is a good recycling method that potentially reduces the fishing pressure on wild populations. [27] However, there are some challenges. By-products must be available in sufficient quantities and over a sufficient period to justify investing in the construction and operation of processing factories to convert them to meal and oil. Therefore, scaling up for processing remains a major constraint, particularly for small scale fisheries [25]. On top of that, it is expensive to transport from remote location. A disadvantage of the source is the possibility of fishmeal and fish oil produced containing contaminants dioxins or heavy metals that have the potential to bio accumulate in farmed fish. [13,25,27,47].

Source Nutrients Environment Livelihood Economics

A DA A DA A DA A DA

By-products fish

FM ++++++ + --

FO +++

Rendered animal proteïn

FM +++++ -- +++

FO + --

Algae FM ++ -+ ---

FO +++

Krill FM ++++ --- + ---

FO +++


Rendered animal products/ terrestrial animal protein Examples of rendered animal products are meat by-products produced from slaughtered farmed livestock, poultry by-product meals and fats produced from slaughtered farmed poultry and blood by-products produced from slaughtered farmed livestock converted into blood meal and dried plasma products [47]. Currently some countries, for example Australia and New Zealand, are already replacing fish oil with by-product from terrestrial animals [27] In Europe there are strict regulations regarding the use of these ingredients due to the concern of disease transmission through fish feed. [25]

Products that are rendered from terrestrial animals like, meat and bone meals, feather meals and poultry by-products, are a good alternative source for fishmeal [25,27] Replacement of fishmeal with animal rendering by-product meals may be a more suitable alternative for some species of fish, especially the carnivorous species [48] than for others. Animal products contain a high level of amino acids, short chain omega-6 fatty acids and lysine, they are easily digestible due to improvement of processing techniques [27] thus it is, nutritionally speaking, a suitable candidate to replace fishmeal. Lipids derived from rendered animal products are a good energy source for fish [49], however, they are low in omega-3 fatty acids. But when they are not incorporated in the feed for more than 50% of the lipid level and if other feed sources provide the fish with its essential fatty acid requirements, inclusion of terrestrial animal lipids in the diet will not have a negative impact on the growth performance of the fish. [50, 51].

An economical advantage of rendered products is that they usually are a cost-effective source of digestible protein and digestible energy, bio-available essential amino acids, fatty acids, and minerals for most aquaculture species [51]. Although rendered animal products can contribute to the reduction of fish oil in fish feed it is unlikely that it can be an total alternative because fish oil has still higher fatty acids percentage [39]. Rendered Animal Protein products are also rich dietary sources of cholesterol, minerals and trace elements, fat soluble and water soluble vitamins and other important nutrients, including arachidonic acid, taurine, nucleotides and hydroxyproline. [39]

Algae Microalgae, such as spirulina, chlorella and dunaliella, can be produced with lower-cost open-pond technologies and marketed as dry powder products [47]. Currently only spirulina is commercially available, but its inclusion is cost-prohibited in production diets for most species. It seems to provide some yet to be defined nutrients in fishmeal-free diets for marine fish such as white sea bass [47].

Algal biomass could substitute both fishmeal and fish oil and could therefore contribute to the production of high quality cultured fish in the future [6,52,53].The advantage of algae is that is contains a high level of nutrients that are not found in terrestrial ingredients. And micro-algae oil contain high amounts of omega-3 fatty acids. [34,54,55]. The disadvantage is that algae are low in protein and it would therefore require significant processing to produce concentrated nutrients for fish feed [13]. It is energy and technological intensive to produce fish feed out of bacteria.

Due to high production costs and unpredictable supply as well as technical difficulties in incorporating the algal material into palatable food preparations, the propagation of algal protein and lipid is currently research based [6;55,56]. Further research into the efficiency in use and sustainable production of algae could change that in the future. [57]


Krill The Antarctic krill is a potential source for alternative fish feed ingredients [6,13, 34]. The composition of krill is 55% protein, 10% moisture, 10-15% fatty acids and 15.2% ash [58]. Krill is a lower trophic level species that can easily replace fish meal and oil because of its high quality and high palatability. Krill represents a larger potential available source because of its enormous biomass, estimated over 700 million metric tons could be harvested annual. [59] However krill is at the base of the Southern Ocean food web and is also particularly sensitive to environmental variables, including climate change [25,60] A multi-species management approach is necessary to take into account potential impacts on krill-dependent predators and the Antarctic marine environment as a whole, in case of an expansion of the krill fishery. Although krill catches in the southern ocean are currently well below Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR), there is potential for a rapid expansion of the fishery in future years, as krill processing technology develops and demand for krill products increases [61] Another problem with krill is that it is widely dispersed in the Arctic and Antarctic regions and there is a lack of harvest techniques [62]. It would require a tremendous outlay in capital land energy for the harvest [59]. Therefore, compared to fish oil it is expensive and not as available. So in the short term it will probably not be a suitable alternative for fish oil and fishmeal. In the long term however, this availability could be increased and costs could decrease due to a growing knowledge regarding utilization and technological development.[56] Which would make it a very interesting source in the long hall.


Annex IV: Alternative ingredients for fishmeal

Table 3: Table of potential alternative sources, showing the advantages or disadvantage within different categories. Nutrients refer to the level of nutrients that the alternative source provides for the replacement of fishmeal. The environment refers to potential hazard on the environment. Livelihood represent the possible effect of the alternative resource on people, for example providing jobs and health. Economics refers to the potential benefits or disadvantages regarding the commercial viability of the alternative source. The positive indicators are (+), a few positive impacts, (++) some positive impacts and (+++) many positive impacts. The negative indicators are (-) a few negative impacts, (--) some negative impacts and (---) many negative impacts. . For further explanation of the advantages and disadvantages of the alternative see the table in the Annex and the further descriptions of alternatives in the Annex.

Insects Insect like worms and the black soldier flies could potentially be an alternative protein source for fishmeal because of their high quality of protein [6,16, 52]. Compared to soya they also have a high level of methionine, lysine and valine [63]. Sheppard (2007) states that minimal 25% of the fishmeal can be replaced by insect meal without lowering the feed conversion However it would be hard to produce the volume that is necessary for fish feed [55]. The price of the insect PAP is more than €3,000 per ton, which is affordable for the pet feed market, but for fish meal it is not competitive. In order to become a viable candidate to substitute fishmeal, the price should become lower[64].

Mollusks (bivalves) Mollusk species, more commonly known as shellfish, could be an alternative source for fishmeal, mainly because they don’t need to be fed, they use natural resources as nutrients [21,52]. Mollusks are generally farmed along coastlines where wild or hatchery-reared seeds are grown on the seabed or on suspended nets, ropes or other structures. Carps and marine mollusks account for more than three-quarters of current global aquaculture output. [34] Bivalve aquaculture may provide services as the bioremediation of extensive nutrient runoff and can therefore be used to combat eutrophication symptoms [65,66]; mollusks perform bio extraction. An example of a mollusk is the mussel. Mussels filter the nutrients form the oceanic water and they are primarily farmed for human consumption. But they can also be used as a measure to remove nutrients from the marine environment [67]. Mussels are a sustainable substitute to provide protein to finfish [16]. They can also be used as a mitigation tool for nutrient runoff. The basic principle of mussel farming as a mitigation tool is that by harvesting cultured mussels, the unidirectional flow of mineral nutrients from land to sea is returned by bringing back the nutrients bound in the mussels from sea to land, and the


A DA A DA A DA A DA

Insect ++ - ++ - ---

Mollusks + - +++ -- - +

Terrestrial crop ++ -- --- -- --

Seaweed +++ - ++ -- ++ - + -

SCP ++ - - -

waste sources ++ - + +


emitted nutrients from land become a resource that can be recycled [68]. Mollusks can be produced in IMTA systems [16]. However, open water IMTA systems face constraints regarding the efficient removal of nutrients from caged fish wastes. While there are reports of increased growth of shellfish and seaweeds in the vicinity of fish cages, the effectivity of bivalve mollusks in reducing the environmental impact of marine fish farming has been subject to doubt [41]. Long-line Mussel-farm structures have effect on oceanic currents. The large structure of mussels act like blockages, that influence the oceanic current resulting in lower dispersion of waste and nutrients [69]

Terrestrial crop There has been an increase in the use of plant-based materials such as soybeans, tree pulp, corn, canola, peas and wheat in fish feed. Terrestrial crop can be used to feed carnivorous, omnivorous and herbivorous fish [26] Currently soy-protein concentrates dominate the commercial market and wheat-protein concentrates are also suitable from a nutritional standpoint but have some processing constraints [6,27]. The complete replacement of fishmeal with plant based protein is possible without loss of growth performance in some species [48]. In some carnivorous species replacement of fishmeal by plant based sources affects the growth negatively [48]. Plant based feed tends to have a lower crude protein content than fish meal and more indigestible organic matter in the form of insoluble carbohydrates and fiber, leading to higher levels of fish excretion and waste [27]. Plant based protein can lack fatty Omega 3 acids. [70] As it is a relatively emerging practice there is still little knowledge on the long-term effects of plant extracts on fish physiology as well as a lack of homogenization in the extract preparation and fish administration of the plant extracts [71]. The intensified use of terrestrial crop for fish feed will be in direct competition with other animal feed industries. In addition, people also consume plant-based sources which implicates that fish feed based on terrestrial resources also competes with the market for human consumption. Other disadvantages of plant-based alternatives are the high input of nutrients and chemicals, the expansion and intensification of land use, an increase of energy-dependency ratios, the anti-nutrients that most plants contain and the increased greenhouse emissions. [27] Further it will significantly increase the pressure on freshwater due to the use of water resources for the production of crop for aquaculture, thus affecting the water footprint. [72]

Seaweed Seaweed is a very interesting alternative feedstock for fish feed [73,74]. Seaweed can provide fish culture with three necessary sustainability features: financial diversity, environmental compatibility, and social relevance. Seaweeds contain valuable amino acids and fatty acids, including omega-3 and omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids, these marine oils are part of the reason why seafood is considered healthy [73]. Seaweed also contain minerals, vitamins and antioxidants as rich amounts of dietary fiber, however, it is low in starchy carbohydrates, thus providing less glycemic load than ingredients derived from grains [13]. Seaweed is not particularly rich in lipids so an option would be to combine seaweed fermentation with MS [6,53]. However, there are still improvements that could be made to increase the viability of seaweed as a fish feed source, including:

• The processing (bio-refining) of seaweed to increase the availability of nutrients is currently too inefficient to produce fish feed on a big scale [6]

• Species selection and breeding of seaweeds for fast growth and high concentrations of the most valuable nutrients [13]

• Development of large-scale, deep water farming methods to increase the ocean area that can be used for seaweed production [13]

Single-Cell proteins Bacterial protein meal is produced by using natural gas (methane) as a carbon source. It can be an excellent substitute for fishmeal in fish feed [3,6,75]. Single cell Proteins obtain nutrients through the fermentation of a bacteria, for example Methylococcus capsulatus, by using methane gas as a carbon and energy source. Currently a new series of SCP products have been developed from waste out of industries namely, bioflocs [40] The proteins in bioflocs are SCP that are similar in the protein level to yeast and algae. This single cell protein is compatible as a protein ingredient in fish feed. The bacterium has an high percentage of protein and fatty acids [76,79] However the concentration of protein and fat depend on the feedstock, the organisms and the processing conditions, thus the end product differs. [40] The use of


bacteria like SCP are applicable but production cost are high and further research is required to improve nutrient availability and digestibility and the further improvement of EAA [77]

Fuel industry By-products from alternative fuels industries will increasingly be used for fish feed, due to the high volume of products like ethanol [78,79] Two by-products from the ethanol industry have a large potential to become a complement in fish feed. The first potential candidate is Distiller’s Dried Grains with Solubles (DDGS) a co-product of the fuel ethanol industry produced from products like maize. DDGS are high in protein [80] and lower in lysine and methionine and have some anti-nutrients. The other candidate is Grain Distiller’s Dried Yeast (GDDY), which is a single-cell protein source produced from the co-product of corn [40]. This form of yeast has the potential for a dietary protein sources in fish feed.

Nut products Nuts that are not certified for human consumption are sold to the animal feed industry, these products are not useful for fish feed. However, Adaptive Bio-Resources (ABR) developed a processed highly digestible which could potentially replace a lot of ingredients for fish feed. [39,40]


Annex V: Alternative ingredients for fish oil

Table 4: Table of potential alternative sources, showing the advantages or disadvantage within different categories. Nutrients refer to the level of nutrients that the alternative source provides for the replacement of fish oil. The environment refers to potential hazard on the environment. Livelihood represent the possible effect of the alternative resource on human, like providing jobs and health. Economics refers to the potential benefits or disadvantages of the alternative source. The positive indicators are (+), a few positive impacts, (++) some positive impacts and (+++) many positive impacts. The negative indicators are (-) a few negative impacts, (--) some negative impacts and (---) many negative impacts. . For further explanation of the advantages and disadvantages of the alternative see the table in the Annex and the further descriptions of alternatives in the Annex.

Olive Olive derived products such as olive pomace oil and olive pomace are promising partial substitutes for fish oil due to their high nutritional value for fish. In fact a partial replacement of fish meal by OP has resulted in an improvement in the fish’s nutritional ability to prevent heart diseases in people. However, olive pomace is still low in essential fatty acids such as EPA and DHA. [81] Olive pomace and olive pomace oil are by-products of olive oil production. [82] Also, olive plants are, in contrast to many other plant oil crops, not water demanding. Nasopoulou & Zabetakis [29] even state that olive oil is the plant oil resource least likely to be affected by climate change in the Mediterranean region, even in the worst case scenario’s.

Rapeseed Rapeseed oil can be an interesting partial substitute for fish oil. In itself it does not contain enough omega-3 fatty acids. [57] It can even have a negative impact on fish growth when more than 60% of the lipids in the diet comes from rapeseed oil [83] However, in a fish oil finishing diet, where the fish gets 100% rapeseed oil for the first 50 weeks and is switched to 100% fish oil in the last 20 weeks the omega-3 value of the fish is approximately 80% compared to a fish that has been fed 100% fish oil for all 70 weeks. [84]

Linseed Similarly to rapeseed oil, linseed oil is not able to produce levels of omega-3 in fish as high as fish oil. However, in a fish oil finishing diet in which the fish were fed 100% linseed oil for 40 weeks and 100% fish oil for the last 24 weeks the omega-3 levels were 88% of the omega-3 value of fish that had been fed 100% fish during all 64 weeks. [57]


A DA A DA A DA A DA

Linseed + -- +

Rapeseed + -- +

Palm + -- +

Olive ++ ++ +

GMO crops ++ -- + --


Palm Palm oil in itself is not a suitable too completely replace fish oil. [85] However, palm fatty acid distillate, which is a by-product of the refining of palm oil can be used effectively in a fish oil finishing diet. [86]

GMO crops Due to the low content of omega-3 fatty acids in terrestrial crops biotechnology is being used for the creation of genetically modified oilseed crops that produce vegetable oils that contain higher levels of omega-3 [27,87,88] The speed in which developments have been made so far indicate that concentrations of omega-3 in GMO crop derived oil may be high enough to replace fish oil within the next decade. [89] However, GMO’s remain a controversial topic amongst consumers, particularly when it comes to the use these in the food industry due to their potential impact on the environment and human health. [87,88,90] In a consumer driven market it is probable that, despite the potential benefits of GMO crops, this solution will remain unfeasible in the short term. [56]


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In our globalized world, food supply chains have become complex. To track and trace the food along every step of this chain can be diffi cult or even impossible. Food safety crises and sustainability concerns have led to an emerging interest in traceability. Low traceability in the supply chain can lead to various problems: (1) mislabeling, (2) illegal practices and (3) lower consumer trust. Benefi ts of high traceability are (1) food safety, (2) sustainability and (3) transparency. Three possibilities for improving traceability are: Coherence and governance: by aligning standards through knowledge exchange Certifi cation: certifi cation schemes tend to improve traceabilityControl: via new technologies and traceability systems

INTRODUCTION

Traceability is the ability to trace the origin of a product at any step of the supply chain, in order to ensure food safety, support sustainable fi sh farms and fi sheries and to fi ght illegal activities and fraud [1, 2, 3]. As a result of the complex, globalized supply chains and the many different species in aquaculture, it becomes increasingly diffi cult to ensure traceability.Global attention for traceability in the food sector is relatively recent. It fi rst emerged because businesses wanted to keep track of their products [3]. In the mid-1990s, traceability became a key issue because of several crises with food safety, most notably the appearance of BSE, or “mad-cow disease” [1,4].In recent years however, concerns about social and environmental problems and the need to prevent illegal practices have also led to an increased attention for traceability [1,5,6,7].Supply chains tend to be very complex in the seafood sector. The simplest practices to test traceability are ‘one up, one down’ business-to-business systems, where the product is traced one step up and one step down the supply chain. More diffi cult to achieve is full-chain traceability, where the entire supply chain has to be checked entirely for traceability [3,6] (see fi gure 1).

Implementing traceability remains diffi cult. In the seafood sector, scientifi c studies have shown that low traceability results in mislabeling and lacking knowledge about the source [8,9]. Aquaculture and wild fi sheries are facing the same problems for traceability because processors and retailers often handle both types [10].Furthermore, implementation of traceability is costly and requires coordination. As a result, most utilized systems up to now are located in the global North [3]. In developed countries like the EU, the US and Japan, traceability in food is already strongly regulated, while in many developing countries there still is low traceability [1].

This policy brief takes a look at the problems and benefi ts of traceability in aquaculture and discusses ways to improve.

Figure 1: Aquaculture Supply Chain

BENEFITS OF HIGH TRACEABILITYHigh traceability in the seafood sector leads to several advantages. The main ones are food safety, transparency and sustainability [1,11].

Food SafetyThe Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) states that there is a “need to identify responsibilities as well as to make sure that the source of, for example contamination, is identifi ed and removed” [12]. Traceability does not confi rm food safety but strengthens food safety management through increased pressure on the supply chain. The demand for food safety is growing globally.

TransparencyThere is an increasing concern of consumers about where their food is coming from [12]. Food chains need to be traceable from farm to fork. The EU and the USA introduced regulation that ensures that consumer and buyers can trace seafood along the supply chain. Without the transparency, seafood cannot be exported to the EU [13]. In addition, transparency benefi ts the entire supply chain.

SustainabilityConsumers are increasingly aware of sustainability issues in the sourcing or production of food. Sustainability in seafood can stem from social, economic or environmental aspects.

PROBLEMS WITH LOW TRACEABILITYMislabelingMislabeling is a global problem related to voluntary and involuntary misconduct when labeling fi sh according to origin and species. The mislabeling of fi sh can occur at any stage in the supply chain, from the producer to the retailer. Research suggests that 30% of the global seafood market is mislabeled [9]. In restaurants and specialized fi sh stores the percentage mislabeled products is higher than in supermarkets [9,14]. Many species are similar in taste and texture, so restaurants and other retailers can substitute a high-value species with a cheaper variant, and making economic profi t [8].A report in December 2015 suggests that the percentage of mislabeled fi sh in Europe has decreased to 5%, so there are positive developments [15].

Illegal practices and fraudTraceability is an important issue in wild fi sheries to prevent Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) practices. Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated fi shing threats about 85% of global fi sh stocks [16]. Aquaculture consumes about one quarter of the global fi sheries production as fi sh feed, straining fi sh populations [17,18]. This has been diffi cult to control until now, since in more than 80% of global fi shmeal there is low traceability and the species composition is not clear [19].[ ]

Lower consumer trustMislabeling misleads the consumer and has a negative impact on consumer trust and the industry. Farmed fi sh already has a more negative consumers’ perception than wild fi sh. It is seen as less healthy, less natural, less fresh and containing more antibiotics [20]. Food safety scandals also lead to lower consumer trust [21]. Transparency in the entire supply chain can enhance the consumer perception of food safety and food quality [22]. It is clear that high traceability has important advantages for the sector and has the potential to improve it. However, traceability in itself cannot relieve all the problems mentioned. How transparency in the food chain should be organized and arranged in order to achieve food safety and sustainability needs to be considered [23].

IMPROVING TRACEABILITYThis section gives an overview of the most promising initiatives across the globe to improve traceability.

Coherence and GovernanceInternational standard practices for collecting/sharing traceability information do not exist for the seafood sector [24]. A global framework of practices, technology and standardized requirements would enable the creation of a traceability system in the seafood sector. However, there is no blueprint for policy or regulation. Geographic regions, cultural/historical backgrounds, moral rules and many other aspects infl uence to what extent policy is going to be successful. Nevertheless, regulatory bodies are necessary to control food traceability. Currently, national bodies are responsible for the regulation and enforcement of seafood [25] (see box 1).

Figure 2

The European “carding system”The EU can give yellow or red cards to countries where the quality of exported food cannot be guar-anteed [6]. Examples of infringements are weak traceability, catch certifi cation system, for a lack of control of fi shing activities [13].

A yellow card is a warning and entails cooperation with the EU of about 6 months in order to improve the situation causing the infringement. Green cards given to countries that have improved their prac-tices. Red cards can result in economic sanctions or consequences on trade [13].

This system helps develop improvements to public as well as private areas of the supply chain. This ‘carrot and stick’ approach reaches out to producers but maintains strict regulation.

Governance tends to be shared and inclusive with a decentralized structure. This suggests ‘consensus rather than consent’, indicating that outcomes are agreed upon rather than accepted [26]. Thus, as situations change, there must be continual institutional and legislative adaptation. For example, in addition to ongoing regulatory adjustments, governance reforms may incorporate stakeholder participation and decentralization if these processes increase effectiveness and effi ciency (see Annex 1). In addition aquaculture falls globally under different departments, causing misalignment of expertise and priorities.

Effective policy and regulation need coherency across sectors and borders, which can be achieved through dialogue. On a global scale there are platforms such as ‘This Fish’ and ‘Seafi sh’ addressing the issue of information exchange between the public and private sector as well as on an intergovernmental stage. On the national level there is a need for more interaction between farmers, industry and the government. It is therefore crucial that stakeholders across the supply chain exchange knowledge and interests (see annex 2). Within segments of the supply chain data transfer platforms are very effective. System software and media allow for rapid exchange of information and aid in the creation of traceability systems [11].

Certifi cationCertifi cation is a tool to stimulate the aquaculture sector in becoming more sustainable. Certifi ed products tend to improve traceability as well. The amount of certifi ed seafood in aquaculture is growing over the last years, with around 5% of the market being currently certifi ed [27]. Certifi cation is mostly carried out by private actors, but public bodies also play a role. Private actors generally aim for the most sustainable 15-30% of the sector – rewarding the best farmers [28,29]. These schemes aim at the international trade market .

Certifi cation schemes that are run by the state set a minimum standard that farmers have to obtain, or sanctions will follow . They are therefore aiming at the worst performers in terms of sustainability [29]. An interesting observation is that the average part in between these extremes - which is always the biggest part - is not targeted within the current schemes [6]. Most of the certifi ed products are sold in developed regions such as Europe and the US, where the demand for sustainable certifi cation is highest . In developing countries, by far the largest aquaculture producers and consumers in the world, there is less demand for sustainable certifi cation [27,29]. The demand for sustainability will probably not change in the near future but in some countries, e.g. China, food safety is becoming a main concern and could be a reason for traceability and certifi cation [30]. Seafood consumption is expected to increase in developing countries. This can affect export to the global North; also hampering the possibilities for developed countries to demand producing countries to have sustainable practices with certifi cation schemes [30].

Certifi cation companies are continuously striving to improve the auditing of their member farms. Third-party auditors are independent actors that test farms for the certifi cation standards. As aquaculture farms can have different certifi cates at the same time, certifi cation companies are currently looking into possibilities for joint auditing [28]. One perceived disadvantage of certifi cation is that it mostly targets the richer, and therefore larger farms that can afford to buy the certifi cate. Small-scale farmers often do not have the means to get certifi ed by themselves but are fi nding ways to enter the market and obtain certifi cation by forming clusters, reducing the costs for each member (see box 2). Certifi cation companies want to stimulate this involvement of smallholders and programs to achieve this are being launched [28].

Box 1: Case study European Carding System

CONTROLThe control of traceability needs to answers three questions: (1) what species it is; (2) where it is from and (3) whether it is wild or farmed [34]. New technologies are emerging to make control more specifi c and faster. Costs are a factor to take into account in order to allow these technologies to trace across the whole supply chain.

TechnologiesThere is a large number of different technologies available to test for the authenticity of fi sh [33]. It depends on the purpose of testing which option is prefered. DNA-based techniques have been widely used over the last years [9,34]. This technique is very helpful for identifi cation of species, even when they are closely related. DNA shows high stability and can still be used for identifi cation in highly processed foods [9,35]. PCR sequencing is the most common method currently used [35]. An emerging technology in genetics is next-generation sequencing (NGS) or high-throughput sequencing. It comprises several recent technologies that are able to identify separate species in mixtures of different fi sh as well [25,36,37]. Also, NGS can be used for species identifi cation in fi sh feed, to test whether endangered species were used and prevent illegal fi shing [37]. A disadvantage of using DNA is the relatively high price, but this is already decreasing and is expected to decrease further [38].

The DNA of species within a region often does not show enough differences to ascertain the exact geographical origin. Biochemical techniques are better suited for this purpose, testing hard tissues, mostly the fi sh ear-stones (otoliths), for chemical properties that are unique to a geographical area

Inclusion of small-holders: Case Study of South East Asia

“Small-scale aquaculture producers in developing countries are facing new opportunities and challeng-es related to market liberalization, globalization and increasingly stringent quality and safety require-ments for aquaculture products, making it harder for small scale producers to access markets” [31] .The government of Indonesia has successfully promoted the inclusion of smallholders through the cluster-ing of farms/communities as well as providing fi nancial incentives [12].

Clusters or farmers organizations (FOs) are conglomerates of farmers or communities working together to facilitate production processes and information exchange. Cluster management is used to implement appropriate better management practices (BMPs), which can be an effective tool to improve the aqua-culture management of the concerned cluster. Better disease control, access to market, empowerment/bargaining power and exchange of knowledge are some of the examples showing improvement [31].

Sometimes clusters are formed too fast eventually leading to failure. Three main reasons that determine the success of the cluster are: (1) there should be a match between the existing capacity, skills and experience of members and what is required to undertake joint activities; (2) internal cohesion and a membership-driven agenda; and (3) successful, commercially oriented integration of the FO into the wider economy [32].

[38,39]. Even over relatively short geographical distances, the discrimination power of otolith chemistry has been shown [34].To test for antibiotic and pesticide residues, mass spectrometry is used. With this very accurate technology quantities up to picogram levels are detected[25].

Traceability systemsThe concept of traceability systems is relatively new, especially regarding the marine environment. Internal traceability systems are simpler and cheaper to implement as they focus on a specifi c part of the supply chain. External systems are more extensive but allow tracing along the whole supply chain. New technologies allow for increased effi ciency. One important trend in the food sector is the use electronic traceability and monitoring using Radio Frequency Identifi cation (RFID) and Wireless Sensor Networks (WSN) [40]. RFID and WSN technologies are in use in all stages, starting from fi sh farms up to the delivery to the retail [41]. RFID in traceability systems improves management by tracking quality problems, improving management recalls, improving visibility of products and processes, automate scanning, reduce labor, enhance stock management and reduce operational costs [42,43,44]. Traceability systems can process a lot of information/data, necessary to create output. This is an advantage for companies who can afford this system. For small-holders and smaller companies this is not always the case. In addition the processing of data requires infrastructure and technical knowledge, which is not always available. y

Box 2: Case study South East Asia

KEY MESSAGES• Traceability is an emerging topic, relatively new to the seafood sector. Complex supply chains in a globalized world pose challenges for tracking and tracing seafood.• High traceability helps to achieve food safety, transparency and sustainability.• Demand for traceability is increasing but demand for sustainable certifi cation will not grow substan-tially. However, food safety will become more important globally. • Consumption will increase in producing countries, limiting export to the global North. This can have implications for the infl uence certifi cation schemes of developed countries can have. • Traceability should be tackled from a technical as well as policy angle in order to address the whole supply chain effectively.• More communication and cooperation within the sector is vital for coherent and effective policy outcomes (interplay between industry and public bodies).• Traceability is a means to achieve sustainable aquaculture but traceability in itself is not enough.

Figure 3: Tracability System

REFERENCES

[1] FAO (2014). The state of world fi sheries and aquaculture. 243 p.

[2] Helyar, S. J., Lloyd, H. A. D., de Bruyn, M., Leake, J., Bennett, N., & Carvalho, G. R. (2014). Fish product mis-labelling: failings of traceability in the production chain and implications for illegal, unreported and unregu-lated (IUU) fi shing.

[3] Bailey, M., Bush, S. R., Miller, A., & Kochen, M. (2016). The role of traceability in transforming seafood gov-ernance in the global South. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 18, 25-32.

[4] Jensen, H.H. and D.J. Hayes (2006). Private sector approaches to secure traceability, transparency and quality assurance in food chains. IATRC Summer Symposium “Food Regulation and Trade: Institutional Framework, Concepts of Analysis and Empirical Evidence”, Bonn, Germany.

[5] Boyle, M. D. (2012). Without a Trace II: An Updated Summary of Traceability Efforts In the Seafood Indus-try.

[6] Interview Doddema, M. 11 December 2015, Skype call, interviewees: Burik, van, M., Winkelhuijzen, R.

[7] Panel discussion Richter, A. 2 December 2015, Wageningen, the Netherlands. Interviewees: Winkelhui-jzen, R., Stoffelen, T., Kempchen, L.

[8] Warner, K., Timme, W., Lowell, B., & Hirshfi eld, M. (2013). Oceana study reveals seafood fraud nationwide. Oceana. Retrieved on August, 11, 2014.

[9] Pardo, M. Á., Jiménez, E., & Pérez-Villarreal, B. (2015). Misdescription incidents in seafood sector. Food Control.

[10] Panel discussion, 2 December 2015, Wageningen, the Netherlands. Interviewees: Winkelhuijzen, R., Stof-felen, T., Kempchen, L.

[11] McEntire, J.C. (2010) Traceability (Product Tracing) in Food Systems: An IFT Report Submitted to the FDA, Volume 1: Technical Aspects and Recommendations.

[12] FAO (2014) Policy and governance in aquaculture Lessons learned and way forward.

[13] Lewis, S. (2015) Latest round of IUU red and yellow cards issued by the European Commission. FishWise.

[14] Panel discussion Schram, E., 25 November 2015, Wageningen, the Netherlands. Interviewees: Stoffelen, T., Winkelhuijzen, R., Kempchen, L., Ching, A.

[15] Mariani, S., Griffi ths, A. M., Velasco, A., Kappel, K., Jérôme, M., Perez-Martin, R. I., ... & Boufana, B. (2015). Low mislabeling rates indicate marked improvements in European seafood market operations. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 13(10), 536-540.

[16] WWF (2015). Illegal Fishing: Which fi sh species are at highest risk from illegal and unreported fi shing?

[17] FAO, 2007, The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture, Rome

[18] Diana, J. S. (2009). Aquaculture production and biodiversity conservation.Bioscience, 59(1), 27-38.

[19] Tacon, A. G. J. (2004). Use of fi sh meal and fi sh oil in aquaculture: a global perspective. Aquatic Re-sources, Culture and Development, 1(1), 3-14.

[20] Claret, A., Guerrero, L., Ginés, R., Grau, A., Hernández, M. D., Aguirre, E., ... & Rodríguez-Rodríguez, C. (2014). Consumer beliefs regarding farmed versus wild fi sh. Appetite, 79, 25-31.

[21] Wognum, P. N., Bremmers, H., Trienekens, J. H., van der Vorst, J. G., & Bloemhof, J. M. (2011). Systems for sustainability and transparency of food supply chains–Current status and challenges. Advanced Engineer-ing Informatics, 25(1), 65-76.

[22] Van Rijswijk, W., & Frewer, L. J. (2008). Consumer perceptions of food quality and safety and their rela-tion to traceability. British Food Journal, 110(10), 1034-1046.

[23] Mol, A.P.J., and Oosterveer, P. (2015) Certifi cation of Markets, Markets of Certifi cates: Tracing Sustain-ability in Global Agro-Food Value Chains. Sustainability through the Lens of Environmental Sociology

[24] Olsen, P., & Borit, M. (2013). How to defi ne traceability. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 29(2), 142-150.

[25] Interview Kannuchamy, N., 15 December 2015, written response to questionnaire, interviewee: Winkel-huijzen, R.

[26] Gray, T. (2005). Participation in fi sheries governance (Vol. 4). Springer Science & Business Media.

[27] Bush, S. R., Belton, B., Hall, D., Vandergeest, P., Murray, F. J., Ponte, S., ... & Kruijssen, F. (2013). Certify sus-tainable aquaculture. Science, 341(6150), 1067-1068.

[28] Interview Geerts, B., 1 December 2015, Utrecht, the Netherlands, interviewees: Stoffelen, T., Burik, van, M., Winkelhuijzen, R.

[29] Interview Staniford, D., 16 November 2015, Skype interview, interviewees: Huisman, Y., Winkelhuijzen, R., Schmitz, L.

[30] Panel discussion, 2 December 2015, Wageningen, the Netherlands. Interviewees: Winkelhuijzen, R., Stof-felen, T., Kempchen, L.

[31] Kassam, L., Subasinghe, M., Phillips, M. (2011) Aquaculture farmer organizations and cluster manage-ment Concepts and experiences. FAO Fisheries and aquaculture technical paper 563.

[32] Stringfellow, R., Coulter, J., Hussain, A., Lucey, T., & McKone, C. (1997). Improving the access of small-holders to agricultural services in sub-Saharan Africa. Small Enterprise Development, 8(3), 35-41.

[33] Martinsohn, J. T. (2011). Deterring illegal activities in the fi sheries sector.European Commission-Joint Re-search Centre, 72.

[34] Martinsohn, J., & Brereton, P. (2013). Using new analytical approaches to verify the origin of fi sh. New Analytical Approaches for Verifying the Origin of Food, 189.

[35] Griffi ths, A. M., Sotelo, C. G., Mendes, R., Pérez-Martín, R. I., Schröder, U., Shorten, M., ... & Mariani, S. (2014). Current methods for seafood authenticity testing in Europe: Is there a need for harmonisation?. Food Control, 45, 95-100.

[36] De Battisti, C., Marciano, S., Magnabosco, C., Busato, S., Arcangeli, G., & Cattoli, G. (2013). Pyrose-quencing as a Tool for Rapid Fish Species Identifi cation and Commercial Fraud Detection. Journal of agri-cultural and food chemistry, 62(1), 198-205.

[37] Galal-Khallaf, A., Osman, A. G., Carleos, C. E., Garcia-Vazquez, E., & Borrell, Y. J. (2016). A case study for assessing fi sh traceability in Egyptian aquafeed formulations using pyrosequencing and metabarcoding. Fisheries Research,174, 143-150.

[38] Interview Leal, M., 11 December 2015, Skype interview, interviewees: Winkelhuijzen, R., Burik, van, M.

[39] Campana, S. E. (2005). Otolith science entering the 21st century. Marine and Freshwater Research, 56(5), 485-495.

[40] Myhre, B., Netland, T., Vevle, G., (2009) The footprint of food – a suggested traceability solution based on EPCIS. In: Proceedings of the 5th European Workshop on RFID Systems and Technologies (RFID SysTech 2009), Bremen, Germany.

[41] Mol, A. P., & Oosterveer, P. (2015). Certifi cation of Markets, Markets of Certifi cates: Tracing Sustainability in Global Agro-Food Value Chains.Sustainability, 7(9), 12258-12278.

[42] Sarac, A., Absi, N., & Dauzère-Pérès, S. (2010). A literature review on the impact of RFID technologies on supply chain management. International Journal of Production Economics, 128(1), 77-95.

[43] Regattieri, A., Gamberi, M., & Manzini, R. (2007). Traceability of food products: General framework and experimental evidence. Journal of food engineering,81(2), 347-356.

[44] Michael, K., & McCathie, L. (2005, July). The pros and cons of RFID in supply chain management. In Mo-bile Business, 2005. ICMB 2005. International Conference on (pp. 623-629). IEEE.

ANNEXES - IMPROVING TRACABILITY

Annex 1

Decentralization in aquaculture: Case study China The government is decentralizing in order to give local authorities more saying in processes involving fi shing and transportation of aquaculture produce [1].The private sector incentivizes encouragement of investment in food safety. This should be an essential co-requisite to increased governmental oversight. Therefore decentralization relies on overarching institutions in order to reach markets, information platforms and technologies. Responsive regulatory approaches are tailored to foreign market demands by Chinese authorities.Due to the decentralization there are oversight gaps which challenge the integrity and effi cacy of the Chi-nese surveillance system. These gaps are being fi lled by the private sector in combination with NGO’s acting as interest mediators [2].

Annex 2

Innovation platforms (IPs) - Case study Egypt

Egypt aimed to increase productivity of small-scale farmers in order to promote the availability and afford-ability of food. The approach chosen was to build the capacity and space for innovation along the supply chain. This was done through the facilitation of innovation platforms (IP’s) and other multi-stakeholder pro-cesses. Although this program was implemented across the food sector, will this case study focus on the ef-fects it had on the aquaculture sector [3].The discussion platform involved several stakeholders across the supply chain including fi sh farmers, retailers, input suppliers, hatchers, authorities, experts and development partners. Only two retailers attended, but these represented the largest share within their sector [3].

The IP aimed to: identify and improve the national and local institutional policy environment pertaining to the aquaculture supply chain; facilitate a process of multi-stakeholder engagement to deliberate and develop ideas to stimulate aquaculture growth; create an agenda for the development of the aquaculture sector in Egypt.

Consensus on the following issues were identifi ed: Access to land and water, access to quality inputs, pro-duction, access to markets. Direct output of the IP was to give farmers better representation in policy and decision making and improve the image of fi sh farmers [3].A general recommendation on IP’s is the includes of a range of stakeholders ranging from farmers to interna-tional development organizations. Four main elements to stimulate development of innovation are:- Skills — scientifi c, entrepreneurial, managerial and other skills of the agents; - Patterns of interaction — through partnerships, power and political relations, coalitions, alliances and net-works;- Ways of working — routines, institutions, organizational culture, traditional and new practices;- Policies — clusters of supportive policies and the nature of the policy process;- Learning — the ability to continuously learn (and unlearn) how to use knowledge and new values more ef-fectively at the individual, household, community, organizational, sector and national level [3].

References for Annexes[1] Dey, M.M. (2008) Strategies and Options for Increasing and Sustaining Fisheries and Aquaculture Produc-tion to Benefi t Poorer Households in Asia. World Fish. Penang, Malaysia.

[2] McEntire, J.C. (2010) Traceability (Product Tracing) in Food Systems: An IFT Report Submitted to the FDA, Volume 1: Technical Aspects and Recommendations.

[3] Mur, R. (2014) Development of the aquaculture value chain in Egypt. Report of the National Innovation Platform Workshop. CGIAR Research Program on Livestock and Fish. Cairo, Egypt.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Including all stakeholders in aquaculture processes is very challenging. The exclusion of indigenous people’s knowledge and women has led to disadvantaged policy-making affecting their livelihoods. Their lack of involvement has resulted in uneven distribution of benefits, a disregard for local needs, detrimental effects on human health, degradation of the environment and poor food security. Establishing cooperatives for small-scale producers would provide them with access to resources, food security, employment, skills, health improvements, and recognition by institutional bodies resulting in higher small-scale efficiencies.

INTRODUCTION

Aquaculture is continuously expanding at a global scale and therefore leading to both, opportunities and threats for local communities. It generally contributes to the overall welfare of people engaged in the sector, particularly in Asia, where 89% of the world’s aquaculture production takes place [1-3]. Different stakeholders, from the small-scale farmer, to a retailer, up to an employee at the supermarket and finally the consumer, benefit from the livelihoods aquaculture is providing them [4-5]. The sector offers the benefits of employment, it offers food security by providing fish and other aquatic products as a major source of protein for a balanced and nutritious diet for a healthy well-being, and ultimately secures the income of individuals or whole families [6]. Aquaculture in Asia provides the poor rural farmers and their households with the opportunity of poverty alleviation and access to domestic markets [3, 7].

Small-scale farmers and microenterprises in aquaculture show a large potential to enhance people’s livelihood, if all stakeholders are included in the aquaculture sector and if their knowledge and skills are taken into account [8-10]. Another aspect of major importance is the fact that communities are highly vulnerable and little resilient to all kind of shocks, fluctuations and (natural, personal) disasters [11-13]. Aspects of vulnerability arise from social, physical, economic and environmental factors and are often paired with low abilities of Resilience. The latter is broadly defined as the ability of a system or community exposed to hazards to resist, absorb, accommodate and recover from impacts effectively and efficiently [14]. High vulnerability - in the aquaculture context - is low level assets’ protection, lack of public information and awareness, limits of official recognition of risks and preparedness measures, and negligence for environmental management [15].

The challenge now is to decrease or even overcome this high vulnerability and low resilience in order to be able to include all stakeholders, in both aquaculture practices and decision-making. This policy brief will look at the involvement and inclusion of women, indigenous peoples and small-scale farmers in aquaculture. These three groups provide large

potential for the aquaculture sector that is currently not being fully exploited. The private aquaculture sector and involved policy-makers are encountering challenges to manage adequate inclusion of the three groups and utilization of indigenous knowledge.

INVOLVEMENT AND INCLUSION OF SMALL-SCALE STAKEHOLDERS - THE CHALLENGES AHEAD Aquaculture and its accompanying positive socioeconomic effects on livelihoods and nutrition have large potential to spill-over to the (more marginalized) groups identified; which are currently not fully enjoying all of its benefits. In order to increase the benefits distribution, foster a spill-over effect and achieve improved well-being and livelihoods, the following challenges have to be tackled [16].Figure 1 above shows the knowledge gap between

the local (small-scale) farmer and the policy-maker. The gap is caused by lack of communication or miscommunication by both sides. Consequently, indigenous knowledge of the farmer, as well as the involvement of the policy maker, are being weakened dueto lack of and/or mis-communication and therefore, it tends to arrive at the respective other end

Ignored Indigenous Knowledge and Lack of InclusionIgnored indigenous knowledge goes hand in hand with the lack of inclusion of small-scale farmers. If there is no inclusion of farmers, then the other actors in the aquaculture sector automatically miss out on indigenous knowledge that in cooperation could lead to higher productivity.

Scientists and policy-makers have continuously been overlooking fisher’s indigenous knowledge and its importance, which is based on oral traditions and their experience of generations of fishing at sea [17-18]. Local small-scale aquaculture producers are aware of the seasonality of activities and the finiteness of resources based on their comprehensive year-round observations [17,19]. Nevertheless, their knowledge and traditional labor-intensive operations have been unable to keep up with the pace of globalization and economic pursuit for growth of their respective countries. Since the aquaculture sector presents the opportunity to access the global market and to enhance national economic growth and development, many developing countries prioritize the development of capital-intensive aquaculture. Governments support public regulations for low taxation, credit facilities, or coastal access in order to foster production growth and support larger aquaculture businesses. As a result, many poor coastal communities with a weak investment capacity have been marginalized or forced to leave the sector [20-21]. With the withdrawal of small-scale producers from the aquaculture sector, their indigenous and traditional knowledge as well as skills of ecological (marine) resource management are lost. Consequently, developing countries have been performing unsuccessful marine resource management due to lack of understanding by resource users, and the ecological settings in which they operate [22]. Apart from devastating environmental degradation that is caused by this ignorance, it additionally enhances the knowledge gap between aquaculture industry and policy-makers that is regularly underscored as the accumulated wisdom of fisher folk and often ignored even though it is a source of time-tested unrecorded knowledge [18, 23].

Women’s ExclusionIncreasingly important actors in aquaculture processes are women [24, 25]. Their participation in aquaculture and fisheries is essential, although the widespread problem of gender inequality often diminishes or ignores their roles. Often, much of women’s work is informal, unpaid and unreported, which is common in both developing and developed countries. Women constitute a high proportion of workers in subsistence aquaculture, artisanal and industrial processing, in fresh fish trading and retailing, environmental organizations and administrative positions [3, 10]. In the table 1 below, it can be seen that approximately 70% of the aquaculture industry consists of women. On the other hand, there are very few women in industrial fishing and in leadership positions [3].

Table 2 that in certain countries such as Denmark and Norway, women are able to hold directors positions. However, there is still evidence that in certain countries, mostly developing countries, women’s participation is constrained by strong cultural tabloid, societal conventions and even discriminatory laws. Women are barred from seafood harvest related jobs, such as going on-board fishing vessels. Moreover, they may be denied ownership rights, and thus be discouraged from fish farming business, without allowance to access finances and insurance services. These barriers limit their capacity to improve their knowledge and skills. Lack of inclusion of women’s role and work in seafood industry leads policy-makers to develop policies that discriminate women, which ultimately prevents them from accessing public resources [3].

% of women in aquaculture produc-

tion

% of aquaculture workers by region

% women in total

Total est. 70% 18 500 000 13 088 500Asia 72% 18 000 000 12 960 000

Americas 25% 250 000 62 500

Africa 20% 230 000 46 000Europe 20% 100 000 20 000

Table 1: Women active in aquaculture around the world [3]

Signs of future deterioration of women’s roles include the on-going changes in globalization and its desire for cheap inputs including labor, widespread decline in marine resources, deterioration of coastal habitats and climate change which generates severe consequences on the economically vulnerable women population [3]. Women’s exclusion in the seafood industry leads policy-makers to develop policies that discriminate women, which ultimately prevents them from accessing public resources and actively participating in the decision-making process [3]. Ignoring fishing activities by women leads to underestimating the pressure on on family livelihoods and income distributions, the marine ecosystem, and distorting scientific advice based on biased knowledge.

Table 2: Percentage of women holding director’s position in the seafood industry in 2014Denmark 27%

Norway 21%China 13%Iceland 7%Thailand 5%France 5%Japan 2%Chile 2%

Retrieved and adjusted from [3]

The Role of Aquaculture Cooperatives Small-scale producers in developing countries are often not economically efficient because of the relatively high input costs outweigh the profits. Moreover, they are unable to take advantage of economies and often lack the financial resources such as credits and loans to make their farms profitable [26]. As the aquaculture industry continues to grow and change, its leaders must respond to new demands, they must create new opportunities, and they must work together towards their shared goals [27]. Establishing cooperative farms will allow farmers to share capital and reduce input costs thereby increasing production and income. A “cooperative” is the unification of farms belonging to many smallholder farmers.

There are different types of cooperatives (See Annex II). The Wisconsin Aquaculture Association is an example of a cooperative association. Farmers producing a common product formed a cooperative to ensure widespread education about production techniques, market developments, legislative activities, and other issues that affect their industry. In addition, they promote their products and conduct market research to encourage the industry’s expansion [27-29].

On the contrary, The Noank Aquaculture Cooperative in Connecticut is an example of small-scale marketing cooperative that sells and distributes clams and oysters for its members. The cooperative sells to servers in order to coordinate supply among many producers to meet larger buyers’ demands for quantities and service, provide the economies of scale to break into new markets and establish high quality standards for all members to follow [30]. Depending o nthe service and purpose of the cooperative, it can have different benefits (see Annex II)

Lastly, there are numerous NGO’s, one of them is WorldFish, that establish cooperatives with small-scale producers in developing countries. In 2007, WorldFish started a project with aquaculture farmers with its purpose to supporting its members in technical and financial aspects to ensure sustainable and responsible shrimp farming. The project was successful in increasing both productivity and profitability of small farmers. The new more sustainable business approach fostered investments by providing technical knowledge transfer and capacity building. The approach combines business- and management skills and therewith contributes to improving community incomes, gender equality, and wealth creation for the region.

Through diversification and innovative, sustainable, renewable and climate adaptive engineered structures they try to protect local communities and its environment by providing employment, food security, partnerships with multiple stakeholders, technology platforms, and most importantly employee owned franchises [31]. This bottom-up approach effectively contributes to the empowerment of small-scale farmers, who are in charge of the management all accompanying responsibilities, while sharing their resources helps to meet the growing demand for aquaculture products.

REFERENCES[1] 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. Philiosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 365, 2897-2912. doi:10.1098/rstb.2010.01702897

[2] FAO, (2014). Small-scale fisheries: Promoting collective action and organization for long-term benefits. (2014). In The State of world fisheries and aquaculture: Opportunities and challenges. (pp. 99-104). Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

[3] Monfort, M.C. (2015). The Role of Women in the Seafood Industry. FAO/GLOBEFISH: Rome

[4] Binte Islam, S., & Habib, M. (2013). Supply Chain Management in Fishing Industry: A Case Study.Interna-tional Journal of Supply Chain Management, 40,41-40,41.

[5] Ahmed, M., & Lorica, M. (2002). Improving developing country food security through aquaculture devel-opment—lessons from Asia. Food Policy, (27), 125–141-125–141.

[6] Tveteras, S. and R., Tveteras. (2010). The Global Competition for Wild Fish Resources between Livestock and Aquaculture. Journal of Agricultural Economics. 61(2), 381-397.

[7] WorldFish. (2012). Annual Report 2011/2012. Retrieved November 12, 2015 from http://pubs.iclarm.net/resource_centre/WF_3269.pdf

[8] Edwards, P. (2015). Aquaculture environment interactions: Past, present and likely future trends. Aquacul-ture, 447, 2-14

[9] Interview Holmyard, N., 17 November 2015, Skype Call, Interviewees: Schalenkamp, D., Schmitz, L., Hil van den, K.

[10] Meenakumari, D. (2014 eds) Report - 5th Global Symposium on Gender in Aquaculture and Fisheries (GAF5), India, 12-14 Nov 2014; Retrieved December 01, 2015 from https://genderaquafish.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/02-b-meenakumari.pdf

[11] De Young, C., & Soto, D., & Hahri, T., and Brown, D. Building resilience for adaptation to climate change in the fisheries and aquaculture sector. Retrieved from www.fao.org/3/a-i3084e/i3084e08.pdf

[12] Interview Alexander, K. 19 November 2015, Skype call, interviewee: Winkelhuijzen, R., Temmink, R., Stof-felen, T

[13] Interview Kruijssen, F. 30 November 2015, Skype call, interviewee: Winkelhuijzen, R., Temmink, R

[14] UNDISR. (2009). Terminology. Retrieved December 10, 2015, from http://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/ter-minology

[15] UNDP. (2012). Annual Report 2011/2012. The Sustainable Future We Want. Retrieved December 17, 2015 from http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/corporate/annual-report-2011-2012--the-sustainable-future-we-want.html

[16] Boto, I., Phillips, S., D’andrea, M., (2013). Fish-farming: the new driver of the blue economy. Retrieve De-vember 17, 2015 from https://brusselsbriefings.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/cta-reader-322.pdf

[17] McGoodwin, J. R. (2001). Understanding the cultures of fishing communities: A key to fisheries manage-ment and food security. Rome: FAO.

[18] Royal, C. (2006, November 23rd - 24th). Creativity and matauranga Maori: Toward tools for innovation. Paper presented at the meeting of the Managing and developing Maori business and traditional knowl-edge, Rotorua.

[19] Ruddle, K. (2008). Introduction to the collected works of R.E. Johannes, publications on marine tradition-al knowledge and management. SPC Traditional Marine Resource Management and Knowledge Informa-tion Bulletin, 23, 13-24

[20] Environmental Justice Foundation. (2003). Smash and Crab. Retrieved December 05, 2015 from http://ejfoundation.org/sites/default/files/public/smash_and_grab.pdf

[21] Toufique, K. A., & Gregory, R. (2008). Common waters and private lands: Distributional impacts of flood-plain aquaculture in Bangladesh. Food Policy, 33(6), 587–594.

[22] Krause, G., Brugere, C., Diedrich, A., Ebeling, M. W., Ferse, S.C.A., Mikkelsen, E., Perez agundez José, a., Stead, S.M., Stybel, N., Troell, M. (2015). A revolution without people? Closing the people-policy gap in aquaculture development. Aquaculture, 447, 44-55

[23] Manole, B. (2014). Hybrid Forums: Constructing Better Regulatory Policy. UW Bothell Policy Journal. 55-65 Retrieved December 10, 2015 from https://uwbpolicyjournal.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/hybridforums.pdf

[24] Weerantunge, N. and Snyder, K. (2015). Gleaner, fisher, trader, processor: understanding gendered employment in the fisheries and aquaculture sector. Gender Pathways out of Poverty Rural Employment. Malaysia: WorldFishCenter.

[25] OECD (2015), Aquaculture production (indicator). doi: 10.1787/d00923d8-en (Accessed on 17 Decem-ber 2015)

[26] Small-Farm Cooperatives. (2014). Retrieved December 16, 2015, from http://12.000.scripts.mit.edu/mis-sion2014/about-terrascope

[27] Wisconsin Aquaculture (2015). Wisconsin Aquaculture Association, Inc. Retrieved December 16, 2015, from http://www.wisconsinaquaculture.com/

[28] Motiram, S., & Vakulabharanam, V.. (2007). Corporate and Cooperative Solutions for the Agrarian Crisis in Developing Countries. Review of Radical Political Economics, 360-467.

[29] Pomeroy, R. & Getchis T.S. (undated). Financing the aquaculture operation. Aquaculture Fact Sheet, Sea Grant Connecticut, Publication Number CTSG- 03-12. 2 pp. (available at: http://web2.uconn.edu/sea-grant/publications/ aquaculture/finance.pdf)

[30] Noank Cooperative. (2015). Retrieved December 16, 2015, from http://noankcooperative.org/

[31] Pacific Aquaculture Cooperatives International. (2015). Project Gallery. http://www.pacinternational.org/gallery.html

ANNEX I WOMEN IN AQUACULTURE

Figure 2: Gender roles in aquaculture along the supply chain Source [10] The illustration above shows the supply chain of aquaculture and the gender differentiated roles. It can be seen that the roles and work spaces overlap. Moreover, there are broad patterns in both marine and inland sectors. Women are more present than men, both in harvest and post-harvest sectors. However, just like any other sector, gender differentiated roles depend on the types of activity being performed.

Although women are largely present along the chain, there are numerous constrains and obstacles to wom-en’s participation which are listed below.

Societalconstraints/obstacles ImpactMale dominant society • limited access to influential networks

• Lower chances to occupy intermediate and leading positions

Time spent on family caring • Less time for all other productive activities • Less time for making money• Less time for upgrading knowledge, participating in training courses• Unpaid undeclared support to the family business

Specific to the industryConstraints/obstacles ImpactBarred from certain activities • Not allowed to go at sea

• Glass seciling effect: hindered from accessing top positionsNo ownership rights • Less possibility to run own business

• Less possibility to access finances, insurances, servicesPrejudices against women limit their access to capital

• Limited access to credit, financial services• More stringent rules to borrow compared to men• Hinders investing in modern technology for fishing, farming, processing

Policy makers’ gender blindness • Low visibility of women• Disadvantageous policies or less access to support policies• Non-women friendly support programmes (training, etc.)

Lack of women’s organizations • Low lobbying power• Low representation at decision making levels

Source [3]

ANNEX II COOPERATIVES

What is a cooperative?A cooperative is a group of farmers who act together to achieve some common busi-ness objective. Two aspects of cooperatives are that they (a) are a legal, institutionalized device which permits group action that can compete within the framework of other types of business organization; and (b) are voluntary organizations set up to serve and benefit those who are going to use them [28].

Differences between other businesses 1) Ownership and control of the cooperative must be by those who utilize its services. 2) Business operations shall be concluded so as to approach a cost basis.3) Returns above cost will be returned to members on an equitable basis. Return on the owner’s invested capital shall be limited. [28]

There are numerous types of cooperatives that could work for the aquaculture industry: association, service, purchasing, marketing, processing and marketing.

Type of Cooperative DescriptionCooperative Association Farmers producing a common product will

form cooperatives to ensure widespread education about production techniques, about market developments, about legis-lative activities, and about other issues that affect their industry. The cooperative asso-ciations they form to provide this member education may also do general product promotion and/or market research to en-courage expansion of the industry.

Service Cooperatives Provide their members with specific busi-ness services (such as tax reporting or re-cord keeping) or with services they could otherwise not obtain, such as credit and insurance.

Purchasing cooperatives Members buy the inputs or supplies they need in bulk. By purchasing goods together in bulk, it provides members often with se-cure volume discounts and thereby reduce costs of inputs for their individual members.

Marketing cooperatives Members sell a large part or their entire product to the cooperative who markets the product on their behalf. They mainly serve to coordinate supply among many producers to meet larger buyers’ demands for quantities and service, provide the economies of scale to break into new mar-kets and establish high quality standards for all members to follow This way producers can spread the costs of running effective promotions and hiring competent manag-ers and sales people to market their prod-ucts. These cooperatives can often secure higher and/or more stable prices than members could achieve individually.

PRODUCTION METHODS

Over the past decades the development of alternative more sustainable cultivation systems in aquaculture has been given high priority. The reuse of nutrients is a po-tentially high impact method. Nutrient recycling creates a cyclic method by using the waste of one species as the input for the other. Shellfi sh cultivation can play a large role in this, like in IMTA (Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture) [1, 2]. It has led to some successes on a small scale level, but so far has not been proven viable for upscaling and industrialization.The main targets of the production methods mentioned are to achieve sustainability and overall effi ciency. This could be effi ciency in the use of nutrients as is the case with IMTA and RAS (Recirculating Aquaculture Systems), but also space effi ciency in for example multi purpose offshore. Multi purpose off shore aquaculture attempts to combine cultivation practices with energy generat-ing, using the same infrastructure.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This brief addresses management practices in aquaculture by looking at the targets they serve, the tools they use and the associated threats. There are fi ve main production methods in marine aquaculture today; some are con-ventional while others are not yet widely adopted. Additionally, there are different promises and limitations asso-ciated with each method. The goals for developing new systems predominantly entail increasing yield, enhancing farm effi ciency and environmental sustainability aspects.

Higher yields are currently acquired by applying selective breeding techniques. These techniques are regarded as very promising by the majority of scientists and industry stakeholders. Contrary to this consensus, the use of GMOs is a contested technology that serves the same purpose, but it is heavily scrutinised by stakeholders and in public opinion. An associated risk to the alteration of species through either technique is pollution of the natural gene pool, through interbreeding of escapees with native species.The effi ciency of the farming practices are addressed through automation and monitoring technologies. These technologies increase the effi ciency of the feeding processes and simultaneously cut on-farm labor costs. Antici-pating minor changes in water conditions through close monitoring enhances better management practices with regard to water quality and fi sh health.Closer monitoring can also contribute to battling the major constraint on intensifi cation of aquaculture practices, the potential risk of an epidemic disease outbreak. Past experiences justify such fears and these risks must be taken seriously. The present day medicinal solutions still need further refi nement, despite widespread use. The use of antibiotics is in decline and preventive medicinal substances like vaccines and probiotics offer a responsible alternative.

INTRODUCTION

Globally, a wide range of different management practices are used in aquaculture. The organization of aquacul-ture farms and which methods and technologies are used determine their impacts on the environment, and varies considerably throughout the world. This policy brief focuses on the targets, tools and threats of management practices. The three tools of production methods automation and selective breeding and GMOs are explained, their targets and threats made clear. After the tools there is more elaboration on the threats of diseases and medicine, escapees and water quality.

The infographics illustrate the most important produc-tion methods and briefl y point out their prospects and challenges.

A bifurcation amongst scientists seems to occur. One group promotes further research in multi-trophic cultiva-tion systems to make it suitable for upscaling, the other is convinced that even if it were to be found practically viable, economically it would not function. The incen-tives to deviate from current practice and to source nu-trients elsewhere is too low considering the risk involved [3]. Monoculture systems at present are more profi table than polyculture systems and require less effort. This is however not the case in small communal cultivation practices where Aquaponics systems and IMTA schemes successfully could be used for sustainable cultivation.

ThreatOne of the main threats posing the cultivation of fi sh in farms is the spread of disease. The fi sh are kept in ‘un-natural’ close proximity of each other, which enhances the possible outbreak of epidemics. The contemporary solution in many countries is still the administration of an-tibiotics; excess use however poses a serious threat to food safety and thus, human health. A more responsible alternative is preventative medicinal use like probiotics and vaccines.

AUTOMATION

Automation is a management practise that is especial-ly useful in countries where labor costs are high [4,5]. The main target of automation is to increase effi cien-cy in the production process. The improved technolo-gy also contributes to mitigating environmental effects and therefore improves the sustainability of a farm. The feeding process has already been automated at larger farms for an effi cient fed diet.Tools for automation are mentioned in the textbox. All can contribute on decreasing labor costs, effective and effi cient monitoring, management and accessing remote places [6].

Poor water quality is an important threat to aquacul-ture that has a strong relationship with technology and automation. Organic waste like leftover fi sh feed can affect the water quality as well as environmental condi-tions like pH and dissolved oxygen. These effects can be monitored more effi ciently with automated technology and thereby mitigating the negative impacts.

Prospects of automationThere are several reasons why automated systems are not being used yet on a more global scale. These are: (1) accessibility to the technology; (2) no market; (3) low labor costs in some regions that reduce the return of in-vestment of automation [3]

SELECTIVE BREEDING & GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS (GMO)

Selective breedingSelective breeding is the deliberate mating of animals with specifi c desirable traits. The main target for both selec-tive breeding and GMOs is increasing the yield. Specifi cally, salmon has been a success in selective breeding[8,9,10]. The genetically improved farmed tilapia (GIFT) also has been applied throughout the world, especially in Asia [9]. Breeding programmes can hold a lot of potential, like improved growth and disease resistance. Upscaling has not yet occurred because effi cient breeding programs are capital intensive and small scale farmers may not be willing to invest in improved breeds [11]. For low production species breeding programmes are also not feasible. Some countries are also against using through selective breeding improved strains because they could be different from their native strains.

ThreatA threat in aquaculture that is closely linked to selective breeding are escapees. Genetically improved farmed fi sh can show aggressive behavior towards wild fi sh and possibly affect the wild strain [12].

Prospects of selective breedingThe future development of selective breeding depends on many local and international factors. One important challenge is the high number of aquaculture species farmed [13]. Under the most optimistic scenario at least one breeding program would be developed for each species. The highest returns would be gained by focus-ing on establishing breeding programs for the species with the highest production and value [9].

GMOs

The use of GMOs in aquaculture industry is at this moment not generally accepted globally, mostly as a conse-quence to the controversy surrounding the topic and the consumer power. In the fi gure below the arguments of proponents and opponents for GMOs in aquaculture are stated.

ThreatThere are great concerns with GMO escapees. These escapees could outcompete wild populations [14] or even wipe them out entirely by the Trojan Gene effect [15]. They are also viewed as being more unstable in their behavior than selective bred farmed fi sh.

Prospects of GMOsThe discussion about GMOs will most likely increase when the aquaculture sector will take an even larg-er position in the world food market. Large producing countries can have a big infl uence on this subject.

THREATS

DISEASES AND MEDICINE

A major threat to aquaculture is fi sh disease, in particular epidemic diseases [17]. A rapid widespread outbreak of any infectious disease could jeopardize an entire industry. The amount of prevention measures could also carry implications regarding food safety and environmental responsibility. In recent decades a number of reference cases have unfolded in which a farmed species and its industry got affected with a disease. As a response to these events, it has lead to less sustainable practices in that sector [18]. These diseases could also gravely impact wild populations.

Antibiotics are used to fi ght pathogens and work as growth promotants, yet have many negative effects on the environment and human health. As awareness of the effects on human immunity arose, regulations were set in place and the rising trend of antibiotics use reversed. A focus on preventative measures has received higher at-tention amongst academia, the aquaculture industry as well as in the pharmaceutical industry. Norway has taken the lead in diminishing the use of antibiotic, however, in other parts of the world it is still in development.

At present focus lies on utilisation of probiotics, vaccines and less stressed animals. Especially vaccines are now common practise for some species [10]. The challenge is to make species specifi c solutions to obtain the desired results. Preventive measures however face the restraint that farmers cannot always predict when the onset of disease would occur and therefore anticipation is diffi cult. Raised awareness, certifi cation schemes and legislative regula-tion combined steer for the decline in use of antibiotics. This trend however is globally not evenly covered.

ESCAPEES

With offshore marine aquaculture the risk of fi sh escap-ing from pens could increase, as conditions are much rougher in the open ocean [12]. Management practic-es should encourage better design, installation and op-eration of offshore marine aquaculture farms to reduce the overall number of escapes. Monitoring of fi sh move-ment is also important to reduce escapees. It is also imperative that management practices support bet-ter risk assessment of non native species; it is important that there is thorough understanding of escape risk on a per species basis, wild spawning sites and migration routes. This will enable farms to be sited better, away from sensitive areas. Existing research on escapees is heavily weighted towards Atlantic salmon, and there is still little information on the potential effects of inter-breeding for most other species. Applying alternative methods to managing escapees should also be consid-ered, for example by producing sterile triploidy specie, or reducing species their fertility, to eliminate opportuni-ties for breeding with wild populations [19]. In the fi gure the causes, effects and possible prevention techniques of escapees are listed.

WATER QUALITY

Good water quality is essential for the long term viability of aquaculture farms, and will become even more im-portant as the number of farms and their environmental impacts increase.Water quality is affected by organic waste, (fi sh feed) nutrients, diseases, pharmaceuticals, pesticides, and antifoulants (toxic paints). The water quality could also be affected by other industries close to aquaculture sites [20]. In the fi gure the possible negative impacts of aquaculture activities are listed. In order to minimize the negative effects of these factors on the quality of water, as well as benthic ecosystems, it is important to enforce management practices that take these factors into ac-count. These help to mitigate environmental risks by managing complex ecological interactions [21]. Management practices should also help to mitigate the adverse effects of climate change, which has a negative effect on aquaculture. Increased storm events could for example damage aquaculture infrastructure. Implemen-tation and enforcement of better management practices is critical to mitigate these high impact threats.

FUTURE PROSPECTS- Selective breeding has large potential. Only 10-12% is based on breeding programmes [11, 22], so there is a lot of space for improvement. Sound government policy could facilitate research on high-production species that are currently working without a breeding programme. Research suggest there is much to be gained that would deliver return on investment.

- Escapees and preventive solutions should get more attention from policy makers, as it is an abiding problem within mariculture especially. The number of escapees is likely to increase parallel to the expansion of mariculture. Implementation of preventative measures should be adopted as standard practice.

- Preventive medicines deserve priority because treatment of diseases could potentially harm humans through the consumption of the end product, contaminated by medicinal residues.

- Awareness on fi sh welfare is a consumer driven demand that is expected to call for changes in cultivation prac-tices.

- The debate on GMOs should not be restrained by preconceived ideas but open and evidence based. The results of this debate could be very infl uential for aquaculture on a global scale. Acceptance of GMOs in European mar-kets will be challenging, but if GMOs are accepted in large production countries in Asia, this could have substantial effects on the world aquaculture market.

REFERENCES

[1] Rose, J. M., Bricker, S. B., & Ferreira, J. G. (2015). Comparative analysis of modeled nitrogen removal by shellfi sh farms. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 91(1), 185-190.[2] Samocha, T. M., Fricker, J., Ali, A. M., Shpigel, M., & Neori, A. (2015). Growth and nutrient uptake of the macroal-ga gracilaria tikvahiae cultured with the shrimp litopenaeus vannamei in an integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA) system. Aquaculture, 446, 263-271.[3] Bult, T., Schram, E., Groenendijk, F., Hoof, L., & Poelman, M. 25 November 2015, Panel Discussion at Research Institute Imares, interviewer: Winkelhuijzen, R., Ching, A., Kempchen, L. & Stoffelen, T.[4] Interview Fredheim, A. 4 December 2015, Skype call, interviewer: Pratama, A.A. & Pellegrom, Q.A.[5] Interview Hart, P. 11 November 2015, Skype call, interviewer: Kempchen, L. & Stoffelen, T.[6] - Balchen, J.G. (2009) Automation in Fisheries and Aquaculture Technology. Control Systems, Robotics, and Automation. Vol - XIX[7] Interview Hughes, A. 9 November 2015, Skype call, interviewer: Nyelele, C.[8] Interview Hamoutene, D. 16 November 2015, Skype call, interviewer: Pellegrom, Q.A. & Kempchen, L.[9] Interview Gjedrem, T. 11 November 2015, Skype call, interviewer: Winkelhuijzen, R., Huisman, Y. & Pellegrom, Q.A. [10] Interview Boon, H. 2 December 2015, Houten, the Netherlands, interviewer: Stoffelen, T. & Pellegrom, Q.A.[11] Gjedrem, T., Robinson, N., & Rye, M. (2012). The importance of selective breeding in aquaculture to meet fu-ture demands for animal protein: A review. Aquaculture, 350–353, 117-129[12] Thorstad, E.B., Fleming, I.A., McGinnity, P., Soto, D., Wennevik, V. & Whoriskey, F. (2008). Incidence and impacts of escaped farmed Atlantic salmon Salmo salar in nature. NINA Special Report 36. 110 pp. Retrieved from: http://www.fao.org/3/a-aj272e.pdf [13] Klinger, D. & Naylor, R. (2012). Searching for Solutions in Aquaculture: Charting a Sustainable Course. Dx.Doi.org 37 (1). Annual Reviews: 247–76. doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-021111-161531[14] Satimehin, F.P.D. & Olufeagba S.O. (2015). Octa Journal of Biosciences, Vol.3(1), pp.34-36. Retrieved from: http://www.sciencebeingjournal.com/sites/default/fi les/10%20Environmental%20Impact%20of%20Genetically%20Modifi ed%20Fish.pdf[15] Howard, R.D., DeWoody, A. & Muir, W.M. (2003). Transgenic male mating advantage provides opportunity for Trojan gene effect in a fi sh. PNAS, vol 101, no 9, 2934-2938. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0306285101[16] Interview Denekamp, P. 20 November 2015, Phone call, interviewer: Stoffelen, T., Winkelhuijzen, R. & Pellegrom, Q.A.[17] Bostock, J., McAndrew, B., Richards, R., Jauncey, K., Telfer, T., Lorenzen, K. & Little, D. (2010). Aquaculture: Global Status and Trends. Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences 365 (1554). The Royal Society: 2897–2912.[18] Biao, X., Qin, J., Yang, H., Wang, X., Wang, Y. & Li, T. (2013) Organic Aquaculture in China: a Review From a Global Perspective. Aquaculture 414: 243–53. doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2013.08.019[19] Diana, J.S., Egna, H.S., Chopin, T., Peterson, M.S., Cao, L., Pomeroy, R., Verdegem, M., Slack, W.T., Bondad-Re-antaso, M.G. & Cabello, F. (2013). Responsible Aquaculture in 2050: Valuing Local Conditions and Human Innova-tions Will Be Key to Success. BioScience 63 (4). Oxford University Press: 255–62. doi:10.1525/bio.2013.63.4.5[20] Kim, J.K., Kraemer, G.P. & Yarish, C. (2014). Field scale evaluation of seaweed aquaculture as a nutrient bioex-traction strategy in long island sound and the bronx river estuary. Aquaculture, 433, 148-156[21] Ferreira, J.G., Hawkins, A.J.S. & Bricker, S.B. (2007). Management of Productivity, Environmental Effects and Profi tability of Shellfi sh Aquaculture: the Farm Aquaculture Resource Management (FARM) Model. Aquaculture 264 (1-4): 160–74. doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2006.12.017[22] Rye, M., Gjerde, B. & Gjedrem, T. (2010). Genetic development programs for aquaculture species in devel-oped countries: 9th World Congress on genetics Applied to Livestockproduction, Lipzig, Germany, August 1-6, pp.8.

ANNEXES POLICY BRIEF MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ANNEX I ‐ LABELLING THE TRENDS

Trend

Status Strength Weakness OBNL Applicability Reliability Importance

(H / M / L)

(0 / + / ++ / +++)

(0 / - / -- / ---)

(1 - 4) (L / M / H) (No. of

sources) (H / M / L)

Aquaculture industry can benefit from understanding importance of ecological balance, use of seaweed in feed, and culture of low‐trophic species M +++ ‐ 4 H 5 14

the demand for significantly increased amounts of feed is expected to drive the development of new feed sources and products, some of which may not yet be known to date, and is also expected to lead to a change in the species we culture and methods we use for production L 0 0 4 H 7 11

Enrichment of live feed with probiotics as encapsulations is an interesting idea, in which probiotics can remain viable or even proliferate on the live feed. Therefore, live feed can convey probiotics into the hosts effectively L ++ 0 1 H 2 8

technologies that require substantial energy inputs—including RAS, offshore aquaculture, algae‐based systems, and SCO‐based feeds— are likely to be hampered by rising electricity generation and fuel costs M 0 ‐‐‐ 3 M 4 9

Feed conversion ratios in salmon decreased by 20% over five generations in breeding programs focused on growth rate M 0 ‐‐‐ 2 M 1 7

Selective species cultivation could improve nutrition M ++ 0 3 H 6 12

Algae's and shellfish cause too much disruption in open water systems, it is hard to cultivate them in oceans. H 0 ‐ 2 M 2 9

Gene transfer technology, a form of GM, is currently under development for several fish to modify specific traits, although no commercial fish have gained regulatory approval H + ‐ 3 H 7 14

Shrimp farming is a high reward industry (very fast growing animal, yields 2‐3 times/year) which may encourage people to focus on quick earnings rather than sustainable business practices. H ++ ‐‐ 3 H 2 12

If you want to achieve sustainability it is much easier to M ++ 0 4 M 6 12

have a few big companies rather than a lot of small farms

Another concern with escapees is the transmitting of diseases between farmed fish and wild fish. H 0 ‐‐‐ 1 M 7 9

RAS, IMTA, aquaponics are unlikely to make a significant contribution to global fish supply H 0 ‐‐ 4 H 6 12

The integration of aquaculture, fisheries, agriculture and other productive or ecosystem management activities has an integral role to play in the future of the aquaculture industry. M + 0 4 H 4 12

Screening probiotic process for particular fish species plays a vital role to make them species specific for obtaining desired results M ++ 0 2 M 1 9

The use of antibiotics in Salmon farming is decliining in most of the World and is close to zero in Norway H +++ 0 2 H 9 14

The main factors limiting marine aquaculture include the relatively high costs (e.g. investments in infrastructure, maintenance, transport of feed), limited areas sheltered from ocean swells, and the high developmental costs and risks associated with off‐shore aquaculture technologies. Despite these factors we will show that the largest potential for future expansion of aquaculture lies in the marine environment.” L + ‐ 4 M 4 11

Open sea aquaculture is at risk for storm damage, is difficult to repair M 0 ‐‐ 2 M 4 8

Promising aquaculture practices for sustainable intensification such as modern polyculture systems, and cage‐in‐pond and raceway‐inpond systems with zero effluent discharge, are likely to become increasingly important. L ++ 0 3 H 5 11

Many original aquaculture systems were sustainable on a small scale, but increasing numbers of farms and the growing intensity of culture caused environmental damage H 0 ‐‐ 3 H 3 11

There is not a large growth for integrative aquaculture systems in Asia forseeable in the near future H 0 ‐ 3 M 4 11

Large scale IAA is threatened by water contamination or off‐flavour taints M 0 ‐ 2 M 1 8

Monoculture systems are more profitable than polyculture systems and require less effort H 0 0 2 M 5 9

Promosing cultivation systems are partitioned aquaculture systems M ++ 0 3 M 1 10

(PAS) and raceways‐in‐pond systems

Stunning the fish before harvested is a rising trend and is promoted by the animal welfare community M + ‐ 0 H 2 8

Animal welfare is not included in the majority of certification standards M 0 ‐ 0 M 4 7

Focus of development should be less off shore, it has been spoken about a lot thoughnothing really happened. Fresh water is easier to control and has more herbivoes and omnivores species M + ‐ 3 M 3 11

The chance of eutrophication is very much diminished in open ocean cage systems M ++ ‐ 4 M 5 13

You will see bigger farms in the future, more industrialisation, fewer systems producers. M + ‐ 4 H 6 13

Polyculture is better for the environment but not in economic terms: monoculture will likely dominate H + ‐ 3 H 7 14

Robotic fish are being used more frequent and will become more and more important. L ++ 0 1 H 3 9

The UMV market is suspected to grow tremendously in the upcoming 5 years. Numbers of AUV’s are going to triple in a decade L ++ ‐ 1 M 3 9

Selective breeding and genetic improvement will grow in aquaculture L +++ ‐ 4 H 7 15

With present growths, tilapia will be the most farmed fish in the world in 2018 M ++ ‐ 3 H 4 13

Fish escapees are quite a worry with marine aquaculture. A lot of research is going on regarding this topic H ‐ 0 1 H 7 11

Emerging remote sensing capabilities, such as more reliable identification and tracking of harmful algal blooms, will provide improved spatial and temporal risk assessment M ++ 0 2 M 5 10

Satellite imaging radar (SAR) data are unique for this task not only for their inherent all‐weather capabilities, very important as aquaculture activities L ++ 0 2 H 3 10

ANNEX II ‐ DOCUMENT’S STRUCTURE To enhance a clear reading structure, the relation between Targets, Tools and Threats is illustrated in the graph below

Targets Tools Threats

Higher yield

Production methods

Disease and Medicine

Efficiency

Automation

Escapees

Sustainability Selective breeding and GMO

Water Quality

Policy Brief: Aquaculture & Marine Spatial PlanningLast edited: December, 2015

ExEcutivE SuMMAry

This policy brief highlights the need for, and the ben-efits of Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) and an ecosys-tem-based approach to aquaculture for facilitating sustainable development of the industry, whilst it con-tinues to expand and intensify over the coming years towards the Sustainable Development Goals in 2030, and beyond.

MSP is an ecosystem-based management tool that coordinates the human activities in shared marine ar-eas to achieve both ‘biodiversity conservation and sustainable economic development’ [1], as illustrated in Fig.1. This is necessary for the sustainable develop-ment of aquaculture, as single sector management and planning alone cannot effectively mitigate: a) the conflict and violence due to increased competi-tion for natural resources [2], b) the effects of climate change and resultant loss of biodiversity, c) wetland destruction and coastal degradation, including but not limited to Mangrove wetlands, d) the effects of nutrient rich waters due to excess fish feed and in-creasing algae blooms, and e) spread of diseases, bacteria, and other harmful biological and chemical pollutants - without impacting other industries and stakeholders sharing the same marine resources.

MSP is not a substitute for single sector management and planning, but rather a supplement. In aquacul-ture, it is also important that spatial management and planning adopts an ecosystem-based approach. This ensures that every country analyzes their own aqua-culture-specific issues in terms of those common to other countries, regions, industries, and users of the same marine resources [3]. It offers a holistic and in-clusive approach to “natural resource management at different scales and for ecosystems that cross ad-ministrative boundaries” [3, p. iv].

It is important to understand that while MSP offers a global approach to marine resource management, an ecosystem-based approach to aquaculture of-fers a national and/or regional approach to marine resource management.

MSP and an ecosystem-based approach to aqua-culture are not new concepts, but both have yet to be fully implemented on a global scale. Currently, MSP remains nationally oriented with minimal joint planning [4]. As a result, there is a lack of integration

and harmonisation between existing national man-agement frameworks [4]. The resultant effect is that some countries have more developed MSP processes than others, where MSP remains at very early stages of implementation. Cooperation amongst countries will remain difficult as long as MSP differs in political priorities [5]. Factors that help overcome these in-equalities include: “policy convergence; common conceptualisation of planning issues; joint vision and strategic objectives; shared experience; and existing transboundary institutions” [4, p. 87].

In the future, successful implementation of MSP will be largely determined by the political and institution-al conditions affecting transboundary cooperation.

Fig.1

thE iMPortAncE of MArinE SPAtiAL PLAnning for SuStAinABLE AquAcuLturE

What is MSP?

MSP is an ecosystem-based planning and manage-ment tool that assumes a global approach to marine resource management; it is a public process where countries come together to analyse and allocate human activity in shared marine areas – in terms of time and space – “to achieve ecological, economic and social objectives” common to all users [1]. Its key characteristics are illustrated in Fig.2.

Fig. 2

Why is it necessary?

MSP provides a framework to marine resource management that encourages sustainable development of all marine industries. This framework is necessary because marine resources are “common property resources” with open or free access to users. Without adequate planning and management amongst single-sectors, free access results in excessive use, and eventual exhaustion of marine resources. [3] Fig. 3 illustrates the various factors that result in different approaches to single sector planning and management, and cause for conflict across-sectors and jurisdictional borders. Fig. 4 illustrates the anticipated benefits of MSP.

MSP provides, maintains, and restores ecosystem services and ecosystem function for long term livelihood.

MSP supports single-sector management of competing marine industries on both a national and international scale. This is necessary in order “to increase compatibilities and reduce conflicts across sectors, balance de-velopment and conservation interests, increase management effectiveness and efficiency, and address the cumulative effects of multiple human uses of the same marine space” [1].

By adopting a global approach, MSP is able to connect various types of data and information, collected at different points in time and using multiple collection methods [6].

Fig. 3

Fig. 4 [7]

thE iMPortAncE of An EcoSyStEM-BASED APProAch

According to the FAO, “total fish supply will increase from 154 million tons in 2011 to 186 million tons in 2030. Aquaculture’s share in global supply will likely continue to expand to the point where capture fisheries and aquaculture will be contributing equal amounts by 2030” [8|.As the aquaculture industry continues to ex-pand and intensify in the coming years – “filling the global fish supply-demand gap and potentially reducing the pressure on capture fisheries” – it is important that the industry adopts an ecosystem-based approach to planning and managing aquaculture; first to understand the ecological processes at stake, and then to effectively mitigate the negative environmental effects of human activity [8].

An ecosystem-based approach advocates “ecologically and socially responsible planning and manage-ment of aquaculture” [9]. It takes into account the different environmental, economic, social and political objectives of regulators, operators and other stakeholders. This way, stakeholder interests are not prioritized over conservation needs for ecosystem services and function [10].

It is a comprehensive multi-level governance approach that includes aquaculture stakeholders along with competing sectors and users of the same marine resources [9]. It serves as a tool to overcome regulatory con-fusion in the management of marine resources, which has been observed in several countries [11,12].

An integral part of an ecosystem-based approach to spatial planning is integrated ecosystem research. This is necessary to understand and manage the effects of an aquaculture system on its immediate surrounding habitat, the geographic zone in which it is located, the industry and commodity market it is part of, and the macro level of policy formulation. It requires “interdisciplinary teams of scientists to collaborate to investigate the full breadth of ecosystem processes and interactions” [9]. It also relies on high input observations and surveillance technologies to adequately evaluate the effect of human activities on terrestrial and marine ecosystems, as well as comprehensive regulations on monitoring and evaluation.

currEnt APPLicAtion of MSP

The following two case studies illustrate real world application of MSP in two different contexts. This is to show how MSP can fulfil different stakeholders’ objectives whilst also achieving economic development and im-proving socio-economic well-being without further environmental degradation. Both case studies however, are limited to the theory of MSP and do not give conclusive answers on the success of these approaches. But what they do show is that the implementation of MSP encourages the simultaneous development of several sectors, including aquaculture.

case Study:Marine functional Zoning in chinaChina is the major producer of aquaculture and has adopted a comprehensive approach to zoning of marine areas in order to harmonize development efforts of different sectors and most importantly preserve healthy ecosystems. Figure A (see annex) is an example of the sector activities which are zoned in a wider context. Marine Functional Zoning (MFZ) has been applied since the early 1990s and is now an important tool to manage conflict related to marine areas in China. China has a well-implemented system which takes into account multiple economic sectors as well as ecosystem relevant considerations. It is based on 5 principles:

• Consideration of both environmental characteristics as well as social realities of an area• Coordination between exploitative and protective activities, balancing of short- and long-term costs

and benefits• Accept trade-offs between economic development and environmental protection• Create an anticipative framework for any exploitation and protection activity which takes into account

economic, social, scientific and technological development

These principles imply constant collection and analysis of data sets (environmental, economic and social) which will then give policy makers different options to harmonize economic development and environmen-tal protection.

The implementation of a plan, which will ultimately originate from MFN, is up to the policy maker. There is little comprehensive data which shows the impacts of MFZ in China, which makes it difficult to assess the effects of such an approach in China [13]. (For explanatory map see annexes)

case Study:Marine Spatial Planning in the Belgium Part of the north Sea (BPnS)The BPNS offers space for a number of activities (shipping, fishery, military exercise, resource extraction and tourism among others). The Belgium government has also forced the agenda of off-shore wind farm devel-opment and mariculture. Several of these activities result in negative externalities affecting the ecosystem, which has encouraged the Belgium government to address these externalities through MSP. Belgium has implemented a masterplan which emphasizes mineral extraction, wind parks and marine protected areas as the three key sectors to be developed in the BPNS. Moreover the government identified key stakehold-er-groups which were then invited to participate in workshops in order to address present and anticipate future conflicts and find sustainable solutions. The plan was based on three core values, which trace back to the three issues (environment, people, economy) that are addressed in this brief: 1. Wellbeing - which argues for a reservation of coastal areas for recreational use, i.e. tourism2. Ecological and landscape - this refers to the environmental dimension, e.g. marine protected areas3. Economic development - this encourages the use of all marine resources that create an economic

surplus

The workshops gave key input to policy makers and helped bring consensus among key stakeholders on dif-ferent questions regarding the development of specific sectors (i.e. wind farms, resource extraction, etc.).

This case study is a good example of how MSP can be a tool to solve current- and prevent future conflict among stakeholders in relevant, resource-rich marine areas [14].

thE futurE

In the coming years, as the aquaculture industry continues to develop, “expanding and intensifying in almost all regions of the world,” it is important that marine spatial planning and management is used to facilitate technological advancements in sustainable aquaculture practices [15]. Integrated ecosystem research for example, an integral part of MSP and an ecosystem-based approach to aquaculture, will help further devel-op and determine the viability (for possible commercialization) of circular aquaculture systems and process-es. Examples of such systems include:• Wind-driven reverse osmosis membrane technology for waste treatment• Natural waste treatment through constructed wetlands• Integrating aquaculture systems and waste management practices using multi-trophic species• Multipurpose offshore platforms for energy extraction, aquaculture and platform related transport [16]

Integrated ecosystem research will also improve gap analyses and environmental impact assessments, to identify gaps and opportunities in mitigating adverse ecological and environmental effects in the future; to protect vulnerable livelihoods and fragile ecosystems. Thorough research will also support the development of “policies and strategies that contain aquaculture, climate change adaptation and disaster risk manage-ment aspects”.

In the future, marine spatial planning and management is necessary to stimulate transnational harmonization among industries and users of the same marine resources [17]. This is not only necessary for the preservation of vital ecosystems and natural resources, but also to prevent (predatory) aquaculture businesses, for example, from supplying produce varying in quality and safety standards depending on the origin of their consumer target group. This means that irrespective of whether imported aquaculture products are consumed in the Netherlands or Mozambique, all consumers must be offered the same standard in safe and nutritious food. It is important that peoples’ health and safety, and nutrition is not based on a corporate approach [18].

Marine spatial planning and management will also play an important role in zoning and site selection of ma-rine activities, including but not limited to aquaculture. Zones divide common property for the development of marine businesses and are enforced by local and/or national governmental bodies. Taking aquaculture as an example, adequate planning and management is necessary to ensure site selection beyond intertidal zones, home to delicate ecosystems and vulnerable to anthropogenic influences resulting in loss of species and biodiversity.

The future holds growing potential in open-ocean aquaculture for commercial fish production, with oceans covering 71% of the Earth’s surface [19]. However, this will require further integrated ecosystem research in zoning and site selection, and ecological carrying capacity modeling [20].

It is important to remember that while aquaculture does show potential for further development, it is to be developed in supplement to fisheries and not as a replacement [21]. Efforts in planning and management must also be geared towards restoring overextended ecosystem services and function of the oceans as a result of exhaustive marine practices.

Planning and management in the future will need to rely on a mixture of citizen-based science, accounts of local experiences, and science and technology-based methods for input, but also as a basis to challenge unsustainable and exploitive aquaculture practices [22]. Currently, many small-scale producers and other lo-cal stakeholders are not provided enough personal protection from threat or harm to be able to safely report such behaviour or do not have the necessary technical skills (i.e. literacy) to do so [21]. Processes need to exist to overcome these difficulties, as citizen-based science remains essential to integrated and participatory MSP.

Marine spatial planning and management can also play an increasing role in relieving pressure off of regional ecosystems. While global aquaculture output is growing, the proportion of output by “industrialized regional major producers has fallen in recent years,” resulting in increasing demand for imports for fish consumption [23]. A large proportion of these imports come from Asia, which accounts for two-thirds of global aquaculture production [24]. Research, planning and management can be used to identify the opportunities in domesticproduction where aquaculture is imported most. “The European Union is, by far, the largest single market forimported fish and fishery products.” Whilst the United States of America and Japan are the largest single im-porters[23]. If research, planning and management prove insufficient, educational efforts to reduce demandfor imported fish and fishery products can also play a significant role.

concLuDing rEMArkS

Concepts like Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) and an ecosystem-based approach to aquaculture are not new concepts per se, but presently, both have yet to be widely applied in the field. If aquaculture is going to develop sustainably, as the industry expands and intensifies over the coming years, a working framework for an ecosystem-based approach is essential. The importance of healthy and functional ecosystems for future sustainable economic development cannot be stressed enough, and will remain at the heart of any sustainability debate. Exhaustive pressure on the world’s ecosystems will affect the livelihood of both current and future generations. It is therefore of vital importance that marine economic developments are planned and managed in accordance with preservation, conservation, and restoration efforts.

While an ecosystem-based approach to aquaculture possesses numerous advantages, it should also be mentioned that it remains questionable whether it is applicable to less regulated and professionalized re-gional aquaculture infrastructures as seen in many producer countries. Moreover, it only works if it does not cause further injustice and marginalization of local interests. For this reason, it is important that the aquacul-ture industry applies a comprehensive planning approach that is mindful of all stakeholders, including local and indigenous communities, and other industries competing for the same marine resources. Aquaculture growth without an ecosystem approach to aquaculture “may cause regional asymmetries and social con-flicts, and pose a threat to food security as a whole” [25].

Marine spatial planning and management, along with an ecosystem-based approach to aquaculture, will help build resilient marine infrastructures that provide and protect livelihoods without causing further de-struction to surrounding ecosystems. The success in applying these concepts will lay in an adaptable, inte-grated and participatory approach.

rEfErEncES

[1] Marine Spatial Planning. (2015). Retrieved 13.12.2015, 2015, from http://www.unesco-ioc-marinesp.be/ma-rine_spatial_planning_msp[2] Tyldesley, D. (2004). Making the Case for Marine Spatial Planning in Scotland.[3] Aguilar-Manjarrez, J., Kapetsky, J. M., & Soto, D. (2010). The potential of spatial planning tools to support the ecosystem approach to aquaculture. Paper presented at the Expert Workshop, Rome.[4] Flannery, W., O’Hagan, A. M., O’Mahony, C., Ritchie, H., & Twomey, S. (2015). Evaluating conditions for transboundary Marine Spatial Planning: Challenges and opportunities on the island of Ireland. Marine Policy, 51, 86-95. doi: doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2014.07.021[5] Hofherr, J. (2015, 19.11.2015) Skype Call/Interviewer: Ching, A. & Van Burik, M.[6] Coastal Aquaculture Planning and Environmental Sustainability. (2015). Retrieved 16.12.2015, 2015, from http://coastalscience.noaa.gov/research/scem/marine_aquaculture/default[7] Soto, D., Aguilar-Manjarrez, J., & Brummet, R. (2015). Aquaculture zoning, site selection and area manage-ment under the ecosystem approach to aquaculture. Rome: FAO/World Bank.[8] Fish to 2030: Prospects for Fisheries and Aquaculture. (2013). In T. W. Bank (Ed.), Agriculture and Environ-mental Services Discussion Paper.[9] Edwards, P. (2015). Aquaculture environment interactions: Past, present and likely future trends. Aquacul-ture, 447, 2-14.[10] Ruiz-Frau, A., Possingham, H., Edward-Jones, G., Klein, C. J., Segan, D., & Kaiser, M. (2014). A multidisci-plinary approach in the design of marine protected areas: Integration of sciences and stakeholder based methods. Ocean & Coastal Management, 103, 86-93.[11] Anderson, J. (2015, 12.11.2015) Skype Interview/Interviewer: Kempchen, L. & Schmitz, L.[12] Bachmann Vargas, P. (2015, 02.12.2015) Wageningen Panel Discussion/Interviewer: R. Winkelhuijzen & T. Stoffelen.[13] Fang, Q. H., Zhang, R., Zhang, L. P., & Hong, H. S. (2011). Marine Functional Zoning in China: Experience and Prospects. Coastal Management, 39(6), 656-667. doi: 10.1080/08920753.2011.616678[14] Fahrenkrug, K. (2007). Best Practice in Marine Spatial Planning (pp. 44). Hamburg: Priority Actions Pro-gramme (PAP).[15] Subasinghe, R. (2005). Aquaculture topics and activities. State of world aquacultureFAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department. Rome. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/fishery/topic/13540/en.[16] Schouten, J. J. (2015, 8.12.2015) Phone Call/Interviewer: Pellegrom, Q., Stoffelen, T. & L. Kempchen, L.[17] Davies, S., Sheridan, S., Hjort, A., & Boyer, H. (2014). Gap Analysis of National and Regional Fisheries and Aquaculture Priorities and Initiatives in Western and Central Africa in Respect to Climate Change and Disas-ters. In F. a. A. O. o. t. U. Nations (Ed.), FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Circular (Vol. 1094). Rome.[18] . People’s Nutrition is not a Business. (2015). In Right to Food and Nutrition Watch (Ed.): Right to Food and Nutrition Watch.[19] How many Oceans are there? Retrieved 13.12, 2015, from http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/how-manyoceans.html[20] Reid, G. K., Cranford, P. J., Robinson, S. M. C., Filgueira, R., & Guyondet, T. (2011). Open-water Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture (IMTA) Modelling the Shellfish Component. Paper presented at the Spatial Model-ling of Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture (IMTA) Shellfish, Mactaquac, New Brunswick, Canada.[21] Quarto, A. (2015, 30.11.2015) Skype Call/Interviewer: Ching, A.[22] Jarvis, R. M., Bollard Breen, B., Krägelog, C. U., & Billington, D. R. (2015). Citizen science and the power of public participation in marine spatial planning. Marine Policy, 57, 21-26. doi: doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2015.03.011[23] The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture: Opportunities and Challenges2014). FAO (Ed.)[24] Lem, A. (2005). International Trade in Aquaculture Products. Topics Fact Sheets. Rome: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/fishery/topic/14884/en.

[25] Nunes, J. P., Ferreira, J. G., Bricker, S. B., O’Loan, B., Dabrowski, T., Dallaghan, B., . . . O’Carroll, T. (2011). Towards an ecosystem approach to aquaculture: Assessment of sustainable shellfish cultivation at different scales of space, time and complexity. Aquaculture, 315, 369-383.

AnnEx 1: thE EcoSyStEM APProAch to AquAcuLturE [1]

What it is?

An Ecosystem Approach to Aquaculture is a comprehensive approach that takes into account the different ecological, economic and social objectives of key stakeholders. It is also a multilevel approach that applies to the aquaculture farm level, the geographic zone, the industry and commodity level and the macro level of policy formulation.

In order for it to be successfully established the EAA needs to follow a certain timeline of organization. Moreover a variety of stakeholders need to deliver at certain key dates of the process. Despite the constant development of new knowledge through scientific research, an ecological environment is still prone to a great degree of uncertainty. This causes for a high input of observation and surveillance technology in terms of the effect that human activities have on the ecosystem. The regulatory establishment of marine spatial planning, especially following an ecosystem approach, should therefore always be accompanied by com-prehensive regulations on monitoring and evaluation.

how it works - A three step approach

Box 1.the Ecosystem Approach to Aquaculture (EAA) in 3 steps 1. Zoning Zones divide common property for the

development of aquaculture businesses. En-forced by local and/or national governmental bodies.

2. Site Selection 3. Division of Aquaculture Management Areas

(AMA). Within delineated areas, strict produc-tion limits are set to protect local ecosystems

The first step to be undertaken is zoning, which is es-pecially important for common properties. The divi-sion of zones, which will enable aquaculture farmers to develop their business, can only be made by lo-cal/national governmental bodies. It would however be advisable to integrate different stakeholders (sci-entists, civil society, and different private sectors) in order to achieve a sustainable outcome right from the start.

The second step will be the individual site selection, which would typically be undertaken by the private sector, however supported by government through comprehensive, transparent and clear regulations in regards of the site licensing process.

The third step is the division of aquaculture management areas (AMA) within a certain delimited zone. Those AMAs enable the setting of production limits, in order to prevent negative effects on the eco-system diversity in which the farm is set. Limits can be set in regard of total production for a certain time period, density of fish within a cage/pen.

Principle 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.Principle 2: Aquaculture should improve human well-being and equity for all relevant stakeholders.2Principle 3: Aquaculture should be developed in the context of other sectors, policies and goals. (FAO, 2010b)

The EAA as a “strategy” should be the means to achieve or fulfil a higher policy level that reflects relevant national, regional and international development goals and agreements.

Box 2. Ecosystem Approach to Aquaculture (EAA) opportunities • Fish disease minimization and better response

to outbreaks • More sustainable and comprehensive use and

management of natural resources • Better understanding of user impact on the

environment • Improved yield and productivity of different

species • Conflict reduction through better involvement

mechanisms of all stakeholders • Increased access to post-harvest processes • AMA can be a governance and risk-sharing

tool to increase sustainability • Increase of information on areas that are

available for investment in aquaculture • The sector becomes more resilient to shocks

and externalities • More effective mechanisms to assure effec-

tive service delivery for governments and manage their commitments to sustainable development of the sector

Box 3. Ecosystem Approach to Aquaculture (EAA) threats • Lack of integration of existing (informal)

aquaculture farms into regionally sustainable approach

• Questionable whether EAA is applicable to less regulated and less professionalized re-gional set-ups, as in seen in many developing countries

• The challenge for these setting will be the proper inclusion into an EAA, without causing injustice and marginalization of local interests

AnnEx 2: thE EnvironMEntAL PErSPEctivE

climate change & Biodiversity

Adopting an ecosyvstem-based approach to managing and planning aquaculture is especially important given the adverse environmental effects of climate change. Changes in average temperature, sea level, wa-ter availability, and ocean acidification will have significant impact on both terrestrial and marine biodiversity.

• Changes in sea surface temperature – due to changes in the location and timing of ocean currents – will alter local ecosystems and require changes in aquaculture infrastructure. Local ecosystems can be affected by changes in species composition and potential species loss, but also changes in competitors, predators and invasive species, and changes in plankton composition [2].

• Changes in atmospheric temperatures will change traditional weather patterns, and result in more ex-treme weather with increased storms, drought and/or flooding [3]. With increasing occurrence of extreme weather, one needs to consider the potential damage to fragile aquaculture infrastructures and the consequences thereof. Coastal, offshore and open ocean aquaculture structures unable to withstand extreme weather and located in sensitive ecosystems can carry significant (genetic) effect on local spe-cies due to escapees. Inland aquaculture can experience flooding, and cause salinization of freshwater bodies. This may in turn result in an aquaculture shift towards brackish water species. Flooding will also increase susceptibility of aquaculture facilities to disease and predators [2].

• Changes in sea level will alter salinity levels of freshwater bodies. This will increase pressure on freshwater species, and force diversification of all marine species.

• Ocean acidification – a direct effect from higher levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide as a – will affect coral reef ecosystems which “serve as a breeding habitat and protect shores from wave action”. As coral reef ecosystems suffer from increased bleaching due to ocean acidification, there will be a significant loss of breeding habitat and in turn species and biodiversity, and waves will cause greater damage to coastal infrastructures both natural (i.e. mangroves) and man-made [2].

coastal Planning & restoring coastal Ecosystems

The increased demand from international market for fish production made farmers in Asia leave traditional sustainable systems that have been practiced for years and, as a result, practice unsustainable aquaculture [4]. Unsustainable practices of aquaculture led to wetland destruction, such as the mangrove wetlands [5]. The mangrove deforestation contributed to the second largest carbon emission release to the atmosphere, which was around 8-20% of the total emission after fossil fuel combustion made the earth’s temperature warmer [6,7,8]. Another negative impact of aquaculture to the environment is using fishmeal and fish oil as aquaculture feed [5]. Additionally, inorganic dissolved waste of aquaculture enhances algae bloom [9]. These practices also produced chronic disease and water quality problems.

Based on these conditions, there is an effort globally to maximize aquaculture production in a sustainable way [10]. The meaning of sustainable according to the Agenda 21 principles of the United Nations Confer-ence on Environment and Development (UNCED; the ‘Earth Summit’) which was held in Rio de Janeiro in June 1992, is “Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” [11, p. 84]. Therefore, reducing waste that pollutes the environment, such as water and soil, is one way to achieve sustainable aquaculture [10]. For instance, using wind-driven reverse osmosis membrane technology for waste treatment [12], using conventional waste treatment through constructed wetland [5,13], and using integrated aquaculture system and waste management practice [14] are ways to practice sustainable aquaculture. Designing and managing coastal infrastructure are other ways to create green aquaculture, known as “blue revolution”. It is a new way to consider the management of the sea, particularly the coastal [15]. Examples of blue revolution are eco-design of wind turbine foundations to create fish habitats or sea grass settlements [15], offshore wind energy for coastal aquaculture farms [16, 17, 18] the renewable energy driven reverse osmosis system [19] , and integrated aquaculture [20].

While trying to practice sustainable aquaculture, another factor that should be considered is the effect of global warming such as ocean acidification where carbon dissolves into the ocean, making seawater more acidic. Ocean acidification reduces the ocean pH of 0.3-0.4 units [21] and contributes to the decrease of carbonate ions which are needed by corals, oysters, mussels, and other marine habitats to build shells and skeletons. The changes in ocean chemistry will impact the biological ecosystem, including distribution and productivity of aquaculture [10, 22].

Environmental impact Assessment

Environmental Impact Assessment concentrates on process of development of an environmental manage-ment plan, including appropriate mitigation measures and monitoring [23] (FAO, 2009). Aquaculture, as any other culture, impacts the environment in a multitude of ways and degrees. Traditionally, environmental di-versity surveys, or in other words, an assessment species diversity, of are crucial for the bioassessment of an-thropogenic impacts on marine ecosystems. That process of inventorying microfaunal communities, though, is normally expensive, time-consuming and expertise-demanding. High-throughput sequencing of environ-mental DNA barcodes (metabarcoding) offers a much cheaper and easier alternative to describe diversity of biological communities, depending only on a thorough sediment sampling process. Molecular data faithfully collect from the sediment reflects accurately the morphology-based indices and provides an equivalent assessment of the impact associated with fish farms activities. This new and emerging technology has the potential to turn this environmental impact assessment on aquaculture much faster and simpler.Since there is multi forms of aquaculture, concerns on environmental regarding aquaculture practices has different impacts. Environmental Impact Assessment which reflects excellent landscape planning on freshwa-ter aquaculture will ensure the aquaculture sites will not disturb the water quality. These upland water quality is influential to coastal water quality, Additionally, landscape planning in regards to aquaculture will prevent the practices established in high conservation value area. Seascape planning on brackish water aquacul-ture will minimize the environmental effect such as sedimentation and erosion so the productivity also will be maximized.

Moreover, environmental impacts to coastal areas may affect livelihood community. Consequently, spatial planning is essential to deal with livelihood issues through minimize environmental impact. In mariculture, sea-scape planning is essential to mapping the population of fish to avoid overfishing. It is also concern on climatic condition monitoring (waves, current, water quality, weather, etc) which very important for the fish farmers productivity. Furthermore, oil-spill effect to marine aquaculture could be minimized through careful seascape planning. Concept of zoning in certain sea areas could address of these environmental impacts.

AnnEx 3: thE tEchnoLogicAL PErSPEctivE

Monitoring technology

There is need to integrate spatial planning more and more in aquaculture so as to make rational manage-ment decisions that reconcile the impacts of multiple users with management goals in a sustainable fashion. Such planning is particularly important for integrating new and ongoing activities in coastal areas [24]. Virtual technologies encompass the essential tools for spatial planning, whether they are Geographic Information Systems (GIS), satellite remote sensing, dynamic models or others [25]. They are invaluable tools for data man-agement, analysis and modelling, and play an important role in addressing the physical, productive, ecolog-ical, and social and economic categories of carrying capacity as well as assisting spatial planning through sound decision-making [25]. For instance, GIS has been used to comprehensively assess and direct aquacul-ture development worldwide, both inland in ponds and reservoirs, and in coastal areas in Ireland and China [26]. As a way to provide some decision-support to the complex issues of aquaculture and coastal planning, GIS is often used as a tool to develop spatially explicit approaches to natural resource decision-making sce-narios [26]. In marine planning there is need to process and analyse spatial data so there are obvious benefits to implementing marine planning within a Geographic Information System (GIS) framework [27]. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) approaches can provide decision-support to different actors in the aquaculture sector. GIS is useful for manipulating spatial aspects of aquaculture planning due to the ability to bring togeth-er many diverse and complex factors to facilitate development and administrative decisions [28].

• The use of spatial planning tools such as Geographic information systems (GIS) and remote sensing for fisheries and aquaculture can greatly help in the identification, analysis and possible allocation of specific geographical areas to be used for fisheries and aquaculture, particularly in those countries that have lim-ited natural resources that are in high demand by competing users [29].

• Spatial tools can also simplify the process of zoning and site selection for aquaculture and can match other demands on the marine space. These tools, therefore, become important considerations in bridging the future supply and demand gaps in fishery products [29].

• However, data products that can support aquaculture decision-making across multiple stakeholder inter-ests are generally unavailable, with the ones that do exist often developed for a specific client, thereby limiting the use of GIS as data product that can be used by a range of different stakeholders [26].

• Furthermore, there are a number of drawbacks that have limited the usefulness of GIS data products to date, including: (1) the amount of technical expertise required; (2) poor levels of interaction among GIS analysts, subject matter specialists, and end users of the technology; (3) continuity of GIS products and results; (4) communication of results back out to the community; and (5) the disconnect of researchers from the actual systems under study [26].

• Although such limitations have been identified, there is a need for GIS to play a larger role in enhancing the participation of community members in management decisions [26].

• The availability of high-definition remotely sensed imagery provides an important and relatively inexpen-sive data source for this issue. Also one stop portals such as National Aquaculture Sector Overview (NASO) map collection, AquaGIS, GISFish, AkvaVis [29].

• Build on emerging trends such as Open source GIS, data collections by phones, tablets, GPS and drones [30].

• a renewed algorithm for producing maps for the Aquamaps project was suggested, with higher spatial resolution and including more freshwater species habitats (for the African continent first) [31].

• The International Oceanographic Commission (IOC) of UNESCO is developing an ECO-GIS Viewer that will support collation and dissemination of spatial data within the Canary Current Large Marine Ecosystem. The Viewer will provide access to the first inventory made available by IOC for the region. [31].

Map of Marine Functional Zoning [32, p. 658]

rEfErEncES for AnnExES

[1] Soto, D., Aguilar-Manjarrez, J., & Brummet, R. (2015). Aquaculture zoning, site selection and area manage-ment under the ecosystem approach to aquaculture. Rome: FAO/World Bank.[2] World Fish Center (2015). The threat to fisheries and aquaculture from climate change. Penang, Malaysia: World Fish Center.[3] Edwards, P. (2015). Aquaculture environment interactions: Past, present and likely future trends. Aquacul-ture, 447, 2-14.[4] Lewis, R. R. I. (2001, 4-8. April 2001). Mangrove Restoration - Costs and Benefits of Succesful Ecological Res-toration. Paper presented at the Mangrove Valuation Workshop, Penang, Malaysia.[5] Allsopp, M., Johnston, P., & Santillo, D. (2008). Challenging the Aquaculture Industry on Sustainability. In Greenpeace (Ed.), Greenpeace Research Laboratories Technical Note.[6] Bianchi, F. F. J. A., Mikos, V., Brussard, L., Delbaere, B., & Pulleman, M. (2013). Opportunities and limitations for functional agrobiodiversity in the European context. Environmental Science & Policy, 1165(27), 223-231.[7] Le Quéré, C., Raupach, M. R., Canadell, J. G., & Marland, G. (2009). Trends in the sources and sinks of car-bon dioxide. Nature Geoscience, 2. doi: 10.1038/NGEO689[8] van der Werf, G. R., Dempewolf, J., Trigg, S. N., Randerson, J. T., Kashibatia, P. S., & Giglio, L. (2008). Climate regulation of fire emissions and deforestation in equatorial Asia. PNAS, 105(51). doi: 10.1073/pnas.0803375105[9] Buschmann, A. H., Cabello, F., Young, K., Carvajal, J., Varela, D. A., & Henríquez, L. (2009). Salmon aqua-culture and coastal ecosystem health in Chile: Analysis of regulations, environmental impacts and bioreme-diation systems. Ocean & Coastal Management, 52, 243-249.[10] Béné, C., Barange, M., Subasinghe, R., Pinstrup-Andersen, P., Merino, G., Hemre, G.-I., & Williams, M. (2015). Feeding 9 billion by 2050 - Putting fish back on the menu. Food Security, 7(1). doi: 10.1007/s12571-015-0427-z[11] Gibbs, M. T. (2009). Implementation barriers to establishing a sustainable coastal aquaculture sector. Marine Policy, 33(1), 83-89.[12] Qin, G., Liu, C. C. K., Richmann, H., & Moncur, J. E. T. (2005). Aquaculture wastewater treatment and reuse by wind-driven reverse osmosis membrane technology: a pilot study on Coconut Island, Hawaii. Aquacultural Engineering, 32(3-4), 365-378.[13] Kato, Y., Fujinaga, K., Nakamura, K., Takaya, Y., Kitamura, K., Ohta, J., . . . Iwamori, H. (2011). Deep-sea mud in the Pacific Ocean as a potential resource for rare-earth elements. Nature Geoscience 4, 535-539. doi: 10.1038/ngeo1185[14] Cao L, Wang W, Yang Y, Yang C, Yuan Z, Xiong S, Diana J (2007): Environmental Impact of Aquaculture and Countermeasures to Aquaculture Pollution in China. Env Sci Pollut Res 14 (7) 452–462[15] Lacroix Denis, Pioch Sylvain (2011). The multi-use in wind farm projects: more conflicts or a win-win op-portunity? Aquatic Living Resources, 24(2), 129-135. Publisher’s official version : http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/alr/2011135 , Open Access version: http://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/00043/15383/[16] Firestone, J., Kempton, W., Krueger, A., & Loper, C. E. (2004). Regulating Offshore Wind Power and Aqua-culture: Messages from Land and Sea. Cournell Journal of Law and Public Policy, 14(1).[17] Buck, B. H., Krause, G., Michler-Cieluch, T., Brenner, M., Buchholz, C. M., Busch, J. A., . . . Zielinski, O. (2008). Meeting the quest for spatial efficiency: progress and prospects of extensive aquaculture within offshore wind farms. Helgoland Marine Research, 62(3), 269-281. doi: 10.1007/s10152-008-0115-x[18] Langhamer, O., & Wilhlmsson, D. (2009). Colonisation of fish and crabs of wave energy foundations and the effects of manufactured holes - A field experiment. Marine Environmental Research, 68(4), 151-157. doi: 10.1016/j.marenvres.2009.06.003[19] Liu, C. C. K. (2013). The development of a renewable-energy-driven reverse osmosis system for water de-salination and aquaculture production. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 12(8), 1357-1362.[20] Neori, A., Chopin, T., Troell, M., Buschmann, A. H., Kraemer, G. P., Halling, C., & Shpigel, M. (2004). Inte-

grated aquaculture: rationale, evolution and state of the art emphasizing seaweed biofiltration in modern mariculture. Aquaculture, 231(1-4), 361-391. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2003.11.015[21] Feely, R. A., Doney, S. C., & Cooley, S. R. (2009). Ocean Acidification: Present Conditions and Future Changes in a High-CO2 World. Oceanography, 22(4), 37-47[22] Cheung et. al (2009)[23] FAO 2009[24] Filgueira, R., Grant, J., & Strand, Ø. (2014). Implementation of marine spatial planning in shellfish aquacul-ture management: modeling studies in a Norwegian fjord. Ecological Applications, 24(4), 832-843.[25] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.(2013) Report of the Seventh Session of the Sub-Committee on Aquaculture: St. Petersburg, Russian Federation, 7-11 October 2013 (FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Reports)[26] Puniwai, N., Canale, L., Haws, M., Potemra, J., Lepczyk, C., & Gray, S. (2014). Development of a GIS-Based Tool for Aquaculture Siting. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 3(2).[27] Stelzenmüller, V., Lee, J., South, A., Foden, J., & Rogers, S. I. (2013). Practical tools to support marine spatial planning: a review and some prototype tools. Marine Policy, 38, 214-227.[28] Silva, C., Ferreira, J. G., Bricker, S. B., DelValls, T. A., Martín-Díaz, M. L., & Yáñez, E. (2011). Site selection for shellfish aquaculture by means of GIS and farm-scale models, with an emphasis on data-poor environments.Aquaculture, 318(3), 444-457.[29] Meaden, G. J., & Aguilar-Manjarrez, J. (2013). Advances in geographic information systems and remote sensing for fisheries and aquaculture. FAO.[30] Interview Aguilar-Manjarrez, J. 30 November 2015, Email interview notes, interviewee: Nyelele, C.[31] GISFish December 2015, provided by José Aguilar-Manjarrez, Aquaculture Officer, Aquaculture Branch, Fisheries and Aquaculture Resources Use and Conservation Division Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)[32] Fang, Q. H., Zhang, R., Zhang, L. P., & Hong, H. S. (2011). Marine Functional Zoning in China: Experience and Prospects. Coastal

Limitations During this research project we encountered a number of difficulties along the way. From the onset of this horizon scanning project, we wanted to address the topic of aquaculture from a global perspective. This proved difficult in practice given our geographic location and project time line. With our expert interviews and panel discussions for example, most of the consulted experts originate from Europe whilst aquaculture is most active in Asia, Latin America, and Africa respectively. To address this limitation we consulted a broad range of sources during our literature review, to ensure thorough understanding of region-specific challenges and opportunities in aquaculture. And while most of the experts interviewed were based in Europe, many have working knowledge on aquaculture in Asia, Latin America, or Africa.

Moreover, aquaculture is a large sector producing more than 240 species and in different stages of development throughout the world. As a result, our research and findings focus more on mariculture than inland aquaculture. This enabled us to narrow down the scope of our project, and ensure feasibility within the given time frame and available resources at our disposal. But inland aquaculture has not been ignored entirely because it still represents the larger part of total aquaculture today. Without considering inland aquaculture at all, included high impact trends could have been overlooked.

Another limitation we encountered due to the sheer size of the industry and our limited resources was the ability to conduct a true horizon scanning exercise. One will notice that the final deliverable focuses more on current trends and problems affecting aquaculture in the future than uncovering unknown future opportunities and challenges. Whilst not a true horizon scan, our findings are still valuable as they highlight current challenges that if left unaddressed, may hinder the development of aquaculture in the future.

Discussion We approached the topic of aquaculture by addressing a number of key topics singled out by both the literature and expert interviews. These topics include: Fish Feed, Cooperatives, Traceability, Management Practices, and Marine Spatial Planning. These topics took time to develop, as ideas for focus points changed over time as we tried to encompass everything we learned from the data collection and analysis period. These topics have some overlap with each other. For example, automation in Management Practices talks about replacing manpower with technology, which has socio-economic implications and is therefore also addressed under cooperatives. Also certain monitoring techniques from spatial planning can contribute greatly to the traceability of fish on farm level. We, however, deemed these overlaps acceptable and perhaps even desirable since they show the interlinkages between the topics. It also shows how aquaculture fits between the larger nexus of OBNL. There may be disagreement in our choice of key topics, but the decision to focus on these five areas was based on the literature and expert interviews. If different literature was read and different experts were spoken to the topics may have differed slightly. We tried to control this factor by interviewing a large number of experts from a variety of different backgrounds. Several validations have also shown us that we did not exclude any major challenges in aquaculture and managed to capture the essence and future of aquaculture in these briefs. We hope these briefs open the discussion on all levels so that the challenges and opportunities in aquaculture can be adequately attended to in the future.


Acknowledgements

The team members of this project would like to thank the Policy Analysis Branch at the United Nations Division for Sustainable Development for giving us the opportunity to work on this assignment. Dr. Alexander Roehrl, Clovis Freire, and their colleagues at the United Nations were invaluable to the completion of the horizon scanning project. We would also like to thank Dr. Machiel Lamers and Astrid Hendriksen of the Environmental Policy Group at Wageningen University and Research Center, and Dr. David Sonnenfeld of the Environmental Studies Department at SUNY-ESF, for their guidance throughout the project.

We appreciate the input of the international community of experts that dedicated their time to our interviews and requests for validation; their knowledge and feedback provided indispensable value to the project. The large number of experts prohibits us from thanking each individually, but would like all participants to know that we value their individual and collective contribution to our project. Finally, we would like to extend thanks to our institutions for providing the opportunity and intellectual space to carry out this consultancy. The State University of New York College of Environment Science and Forestry and Wageningen University and Research Center provided the resources for us to succeed in this endeavor.


References

[1] United Nations. (2015). UN adopts new Global Goals, charting sustainable development for people and planet by 2030. http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=51968 (accessed upon December 18, 2015) [2] Msangi, S., Kobayashi, M., Batka, M., Vannuccini, S., Dey, M. M., & Anderson, J. L. (2013). Fish to 2030: Prospects for Fisheries and Aquaculture.World Bank Report, (83177-GLB). [3] Interview Scholten, M., 30 November 2015, Wageningen, the Netherlands, interviewees: Burik, van, M., Winkelhuijzen, R. [4] WWF (World Wildlife Fund). (2015). Farmed Seafood: Overview. http://www.worldwildlife.org/industries/farmed-seafood. (accessed upon December 18, 2015) [5] Klinger, Dane, & Rosamond Naylor. (2012). Searching for Solutions in Aquaculture: Charting a Sustainable Course. Annual Reviews 37 (1): 247–76. doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-021111-161531. [6] FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). (2014a). FishStatJ: a tool for fishery statistics analysis, Release 2.0.0. Universal software for fishery statistical time series. Global capture and aquaculture production: Quantities 1950–2012; Aquaculture values 1984–2012. Rome: FAO Fisheries Department, Fishery Information, Data and Statistics Unit. [7] Diana, James S. (2009). Aquaculture Production and Biodiversity Conservation. BioScience 59 (1): 27–38. doi:10.1525/bio.2009.59.1.7. [8] European Commission. (2012) Blue Growth opportunities for marine and maritime sustainable growth. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A52012DC0494. (accessed upon December 18, 2015) [9] Edwards, Peter. (2015). Aquaculture Environment Interactions: Past, Present and Likely Future Trends. Aquaculture 447: 2–14. doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2015.02.001. [10] Edwards P. (2010) The development of ‘modern’ aquaculture in Java, Indonesia. Aquaculture Asia Magazine, pp. 3–9. [11] Naylor RL, Goldburg RJ, Primavera JH, Kautsky N, Beveridge MC, Clay J et al. (2000) Effect of aquaculture on world fish supplies. Nature 405: 1017–1024. doi:10.1038/35016500 [12] Ford JS, Myers RA. (2008). A global assessment salmon aquaculture impacts on wild salmonids. PLoS Biology 6 (2): e33, doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0060033. [13] Duarte CM, Holmer M, Olsen Y, Soto D, Marba N, Guiu J et al. (2009). Will the oceans help feed humanity? BioScience 59 (11): 967–976. doi: 10.1525/bio.2009.59.11.8 [14] Costa-Pierce BA. (2010) Sustainable ecological aquaculture systems: the need for a new social contract for aquaculture development. Marine Technology Society Journal 44: 88–112. DOI: 10.4031/MTSJ.44.3.3. [15] Bostock J. (2011). The application of science and technology development in shaping current and future aquaculture production systems. Journal of Agricultural Science 149: 133–41. doi:10.1017/S0021859610001127.


Annex I: Methodology The methodology consists out of three chapters1. Horizon scanning2. Expert interviews and literature review3. Panel discussions1. Horizon Scanning

The group has conducted research on the basis of the horizon scanning method. This method entails “a systematic examination of potential threats and opportunities, with emphasis on new technology and its effects on the issue at hand” [1]. The method “searches for issues that are new and emerging as opposed to those who are widely known and have already been acted upon” [2]. In the context of this group project, the priority was on “potentially high impact scientific findings and technological solutions” [3] in the focal area of oceans, biodiversity, nutrition and livelihood.

The method has two functions: alerting and creative. The alerting function helps to identify and analyse emerging trends for better adaptive practices. The creative function focuses on the collection of issues or the creation of emerging issues on basis of the collected data [4]. The objective of the horizon scanning method is not to predict the future or have a prescriptive nature, but to assist policy makers in producing flexible and adaptable strategies in line with possible future scenarios [5].

Our horizon scanning approach consisted of three phases, based on the ‘Three Horizon Model’ [6]:

1. Analysis: Identify and analyze the current state 2. Exploration: Determine emerging trends 3. Imagination: Collect weak signals and combine them into future emerging trends

During each phase, the horizon scanning method is of an exploratory nature. This method entails the collection of a wide variety of emerging issues from a broad range of sources [4]. It is inherently a bottom-up approach, during which group members undertake individual research but develop holistic and comprehensive trends collectively. Our exploratory method is based on three important actions, as described by Sami Consulting [6]: look ahead (beyond usual timescales), look across (beyond usual data and experts) and look around (beyond usual cultures and technologies).

There are potential risks associated with the horizon scanning method. Bunn and Salo [7] identify that because of the bottom-up process, the final list of prioritized issues might not be coherent. Könnölä [8] propose to synthesise issues in a small number of themes to avoid this risk. Another risk can be that there is a scarcity of data, or the collected data is too widespread to be properly analysed. Finally there might be a lack of emerging trends in the studied field to appropriately assist policy makers in developing scenarios.


2. Expert interviews and literature reviews During this project, the group divided itself amongst five different subtopics in order to address the most relevant topics in aquaculture . Each group conducted expert interviews and preformed literature interviews.Expert interviewsA total of 61 experts were interviewed, excluding the discussion panels. The expert interviews were open interviews that were often done over Skype. Other times, phone calls were made and experts were visited at their offices. The expert interviews provided valuable data on new and emerging issues on aquaculture. As the number of interviews progressed, trends obtained from previous interviews were validated in the following interviews to determine whether or not experts shared similar views on the outlook of aquaculture. Efforts were made to ensure global coverage; this was done by interviewing experts from all over the world and from different sectors such as universities, research institutes, NGOs, aquaculture businesses and investment firms, consultants and farm owners. Expert interviews were driven to obtain future perspectives of aquaculture; this was important given that literature often focused only on existing issues and challenges.Literature reviews Conducting thorough literature review was important in obtaining information on the current situation of aquaculture and validating our findings. It also clarified where the current academic focus lies within aquaculture. Findings from the literature were used to formulate trends and used as starting point for every expert interview.3. Panel discussion

Two panel discussions were held. One at Wageningen University and the other at IMARES in IJmuiden, the Netherlands. During the Wageningen panel nine experts discussed three themes in three separate roundtable discussions. The three chosen themes were socio-economic impacts, spatial planning and traceability. At each roundtable discussion, a general introduction was provided on the topic by one of the hosting students after which each participant was asked to write down one threat and one opportunity within one minute. Then, each participant was given the floor to discuss their ideas. A time limit was defined to ensure each participant had enough time to speak. After 20-25 minutes each group advanced to the next round table discussion. No intermediate summary was given. Once all three groups discussed every topic, concluding statements and feedback was given by the students. Each roundtable discussion was facilitated by a chair; the chair ensured that participants kept their comments brief and did not talk over one another. If the topic at hand aligned with the expertise of a specific participant, they were better allowed to open debate. The IMARES panel did not differ much in methodology. Four students were invited to the IMARES office in IJmuiden, the Netherlands, where the panel discussion was held. It consisted of one roundtable discussion with five experts. The five subtopics of the project were discussed, in a similar fashion to the Wageningen panel, where each expert was asked to define one opportunity and one threat. Once all topics were discussed, a general discussion on aquaculture took place to address anything not covered under the chosen topics.


References [1] OECD, 2015. “Horizon Scanning.” OECD, November 4. http://www.oecd.org/site/schoolingfortomorrowknowledgebase/futuresthinking/overviewofmethodologies.htm [2] Sutherland, William J, Rosalind Aveling, Thomas M Brooks, Mick Clout, Lynn V Dicks, Liz Fellman, Erica Fleishman, et al. 2014. “A Horizon Scan of Global Conservation Issues for 2014.” Trends in Ecology & Evolution 29 (1): 15–22. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2013.11.004.

[3] TOR (Terms of Reference), 2015. “Terms of References for “externs” for the Global Sustainable Development Goals: Horizon Scanning on Oceans, Marine Resources, Biodiversity, Nutrition and Livelihoods.” United Nations: Policy Analysis Branch, Division for Sustainable Development, September 1. [4] Amanatidou, Effie, Maurits Butter, Vicente Carabias, Totti Könnölä, Miriam Leis, Ozcan Saritas, Petra Schaper-Rinkel, and Victor van Rij. 2012. “On Concepts and Methods in Horizon Scanning: Lessons From Initiating Policy Dialogues on Emerging Issues.” Science and Public Policy 39 (2). Oxford University Press: 208–21. doi:10.1093/scipol/scs017. [5] Sutherland, William J, and Harry J Woodroof. 2009. “The Need for Environmental Horizon Scanning.” Trends in Ecology & Evolution 24 (10): 523–27. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2009.04.008.[6] Sami Consulting, 2015. “Horizon scanning.” Sami Consulting, November 4. http://www.samiconsulting.co.uk/training/horizonscanning.html

[7] Bunn, Derek and Salo, Ahti. 1993. “Forecasting with scenarios.” European Journal of Operational Research, 68: 291–303. do: 10.1016/0377-2217(93)90186-Q.

[8] Könnölä, Totti, Ahti Salo, Cristiano Cagnin, Vicente Carabias, and Eeva Vilkkumaa. 2012. “Facing the Future: Scanning, Synthesizing and Sense-Making in Horizon Scanning.” Science and Public Policy 39 (2). Oxford University Press: 222–31. doi:10.1093/scipol/scs021.


http://www.oecd.org/site/schoolingfortomorrowknowledgebase/futuresthinking/overviewofmethodologies.htm

http://www.samiconsulting.co.uk/training/horizonscanning.html

Organization Name Background Country of residence Male / Female

Aqua Spark Stephanie Rakels Investment manager The Netherlands Female

Aquaculture Experience Hans Boon Director The Netherlands Male

Aquarius Lawyers Katherine Hawes Marine Lawyer Australia Female

ASC Bas Geerts ASC standards director The Netherlands Male

Biomar Vidar Gundersen Group Sustainability manager Norway Male

Centre for Autonomous Marine Operations and Systems

Arne Fredheim Research Manager Norway Male

Deeptrekker Kaira Vallier Industry Expert Canada Female

Deltares Jan Joost Schouten Project manager The Netherlands Male

Department of Oceans and Fisheries, Canada

Dounia Hamoutene Research Scientist Canada Female

Diponegoro University Sahala Hutabarat Professor of Oceanography Indonesia Male

European Aquaculture Society Alistair Lane Executive director Belgium Male

European Commission Eoin Mac Aoidh Aquaculture specialist Belgium Male

FAO José Aguilar-Manjarrez Aquaculture officer Italy Male

Fisheries and aquaculture research center

Alayu Yalew Expert in Aquaculture (Msc and Phd) Ethiopia Male

Former FAO Carlo Travaglia GIS and Remote Sensing Expert Italy Male

Friends of the Sea Paolo Bray Founder and CEO Italy Male

Gent University Patrick Sorgeloos Researcher Belgium Male

Global Alliance Against Industrial Aquaculture Don Staniford Director United Kingdom Male

Annex II: Expert List


Global Aquaculture Alliance Daniel Lee Coordinator best aquaculture

practices United States Male

Good Fish Foundation Tatiana Lodder Project officer Seafood Guide The Netherlands Female

Guangzhou Luxe Seafood Enterprise Gel Liu Sales employee China Male

Harvard Kennedy School of Government Sidrotun Naim Sustainable aquaculture United States Female

Jinan University Yang Yu Feng Researcher China Male

Joint Research Center FISHREG Johann Hofherr Manager Aquatrace United States Male

Louisiana State University Chunyan Li

Professor, department of Oceanography and Coastal Science

United States Male

Mangrove Action Project Alfredo Quarto Executive director United States Male

Merck Luc Grisez Global Director Vaccine development The Netherlands Male

Ministry of Agriculture, Zambia Iain Bbole Researcher Zambia Male

Neeli Aqua Ajaya Kumar Consultant India Male

Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia-Pacific

Simon Wilkinson Communications manager Thailand Male

New Protein Capital Marie-Anne Dupin Investment Company Singapore Female

NOAA Fisheries Service, US Lisa Milke Research Fishery Biologist United States Female

Nutreco Jose Villalon Head of corporate sustainability The Netherlands Male

Offshore Shellfish ltd, NSRAC Nicki Holmyard Journalist United Kingdom Female

Open Blue Brian O’Hanlon Founder Panama Male

Professor at Akvaforsk Genetics Center Trygve Gjedrem Selective breeding expert Norway Male

Research Institute of Fisheries, Aquaculture and Irrigation, Hungary

Zsigmond Jeney Researcher aquaculture Hungary Male

Scottish Association of Marine Sciences Adam Hughes Sustainable Aquaculture Expert United Kingdom Male


Scottish Association of Marine Sciences Kenny Black Researcher United Kingdom Male

Scottish Association of Marine Sciences Karen Alexander Marine Social Sciences United Kingdom Female

Stanford University Dane Klinger Postdoc scholar United States Male

Stirling University David J. LittleAquatic resources and development Sustainable Aquaculture Division

United Kingdom Male

SUNY-Morrisville State College Elise J Livengood

Professor at school of Agriculture, Sustainability, Business & Entrepeneurship

United States Female

Supreme Seafood Mohamed Farook Founder & CEO India MaleSyracuse University Susan Parks Department of Biology United States Female

U.S. Depart of Agriculture Rick Barrows Research Nutritionist United States Male

University of Aveiro Miguel Leal Postdoc researcher Portugal Male

University of California Peter Klimley Professor Wildlife, Fish &

Conservation Biology United States Male

University of Florida James Anderson Professor and Director of sustainable food systems United States Male

University of Leiden Patrik Henriksson PhD LCA and Environmental impact aquaculture The Netherlands Male

University of Twente Markus Pahlow Postdoct researcher The Netherlands Male

University of Zambia Hangoma Mudenda Researcher Zambia Male

Vissenbescherming Paul Denekamp Board member The Netherlands Male

Wageningen University Christos Giatsis PhD fishfeed The Netherlands Male

Wageningen University Mandy Doddema PhD traceability The Netherlands Female

Wageningen University Martin Scholten Director Animal Sciences

Group The Netherlands Male

Wageningen University Simon Bush Aquaculture researcher The Netherlands Male

Wageningen University

Willem Brandenburg Researcher Seaweed The Netherlands Male

World Wildlife Fund Jason Clay Action Leader, Scientific officer United States Male

World Wildlife Fund Piers Hart Aquaculture policy officer United Kingdom Male

WorldFish Froukje Kruijssen Post doct fellow The Netherlands Female


Documents

2015 final consultancy report