Previous Page Table of Contents Next Page

5. Selected issues facing fisheries and aquaculture in Asia and the Pacific

5.1 Illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing in the Asia-Pacific region1

Background

The Asia-Pacific region is a major world producer of fish and fisheries products and, in 2004, the region produced almost 50 percent of the world's total fish catch from capture fisheries and about 90 percent of global aquaculture production, with much of this coming from the four major producers: China, India, Thailand and Indonesia. However, in recent years, there has been a general trend in the region of significant declines in coastal fishery resources.2 Although increased aquaculture production has been proposed in many countries of the region as a way of addressing declining wild fish stocks, this may be difficult because much of this aquaculture growth is currently dependent on the use of low value/trash fish derived from wild stocks for feeding the cultured species, either directly or by its utilisation in processed fish meal/oil.

Previous growth in production from wild marine fish stocks in the Asia-Pacific region, and particularly in the Southeast Asia sub-region and APFIC Convention Area, has been achieved not by sustainable, active management of stocks by coastal States but, almost without exception, by a process of sequentially depleting wild fish stocks within an essentially unregulated management environment with fleets moved from one target species to another and from one area to another to sustain landings.3 However, although this process has fuelled the growth of fish production in the Southeast Asia sub-region for the past 150 years, it has now run its course since there are virtually no new unexploited fish stocks or areas remaining within or outside the region that fishing fleets can move to. Therefore, the only way that marine fish landings (and aquaculture production, which depends on those landings) can be maintained in the sub-region is for countries of the sub-region, and of the Asia-Pacific more generally, to urgently move to more active management of marine fish stocks to achieve long-term sustainability.

An important part of this essential move to better management of the region's marine fisheries is to address the issue of illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing. As coastal States develop new management regimes as well as fisheries management plans and regulations to manage fish stocks under their jurisdiction for long- term sustainability, the issue of controlling IUU fishing becomes essential in achieving the aims of those management regimes, management plans and regulations.

The impact of current levels of IUU fishing within the Asia-Pacific region generally has not been explicitly estimated but it is certainly large and multi-faceted and, like IUU fishing everywhere, involves both direct and indirect economic losses and social impacts.4 Current annual economic losses to the region could amount to about US$5.8 billion annually,5 with this figure being consistent with the estimate made by DFID6 of worldwide losses of US$4-9 billion as a result of IUU fishing.

Clearly, the issue of IUU fishing is a major factor in the Asia-Pacific region and threatens not only the long-term sustainability of fish stocks in the region but is currently imposing, and will impose in the future, significant economic and social costs to the countries of the region.

This review examines the issues of IUU fishing in the Southeast Asia sub-region and APFIC Convention Area in particular and more broadly in the Asia-Pacific region, including the legislative and material capacity to combat the problem, and proposes recommendations for addressing what is probably the greatest threat to fish stocks, fisheries and those who depend on them that the region has faced.

What is IUU?

IUU fishing occurs at a number of levels within the Asia-Pacific region and the problems and the responses needed to address each level varies. Three principal types of IUU fishing can be identified:

Given the above considerations, anecdotal evidence3, 8 not surprisingly shows that, within the Southeast Asian sub-region and also the Asia-Pacific region generally, by far the most common form of IUU fishing is that which occurs within the EEZs of countries of the regions (both by nationals and by other flag States) and therefore within national jurisdictions. The willingness, legislative capability, operational capability and governance structures of national fisheries jurisdictions are therefore of paramount importance in addressing IUU fishing in the region. This is in contrast to many other regions of the world, where the focus of IUU fishing has been on high seas' issues.

IUU fishing issues in the Asia-Pacific region

The genesis of IUU fishing in the region

The common occurrence of IUU fishing in the region has its origin in four separate, but inter-related, factors:

  1. an historical lack of management of fishing capacity at the national level which has resulted, in most countries of the region, in levels of fishing capacity far in excess of that needed to exploit the fisheries resources of their EEZs in a sustainable way;

  2. government subsidies, particularly in the Southeast Asia sub-region, for the building of large offshore vessels (Butcher, 2004), most often motivated by a desire to shift fishing efforts out of inshore coastal waters;

  3. generally weak governance structures and monitoring, control and surveillance capabilities at the national level to deter illegal fishing; and

  4. the lack of a regional fisheries management organization to coordinate sustainable exploitation of species (many of which, particularly in Southeast Asia, cross national boundaries) and to address issues of management of high seas areas, other than tuna.

Figure 34
Asia-Pacific region showing the high seas areas in the Pacific and Indian Oceans and national Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) and Territorial Seas. Note that the boundaries of EEZs are for illustrative purposes only and do not represent precise boundaries or claim.

Status and potential of fisheries and aquaculture in Asia and the Pacific 2006

National legislative and governance issues

The provisions of fisheries legislation in 15 countries of the Asia-Pacific region (including 13 APFIC members) were examined and several important points were immediately apparent:

In brief, therefore, capacity to mange IUU in marine fisheries in the region is seriously uncoordinated and fragmented at both the national and regional level.

International agreements and arrangements

In addition to the management of fisheries resources (including foreign fishing activities) within national EEZs through national legislation, there are also a range of international agreements, arrangements and treaties in place which set out conditions of access for foreign fishing fleets to nation's EEZs. The majority of these arrangements are bi-lateral agreements although there is no formal mechanism in place for coordinating such instruments between countries.

Countries of the Asia-Pacific region (in particular, those of the Southeast Asia sub-region), generally have not supported international and regional multi-lateral initiatives to coordinate issues of management, access arrangements and monitoring control and surveillance of fisheries. Only 12 percent of the region's countries examined have signed the UN Straddling Stocks Agreement, only 19 percent have signed the FAO Compliance Agreement and less than 10 percent have developed a national plan of action to combat IUU fishing. Even less have been able to implement these agreements and plans (see capacity to address IUU fishing, below).

Countries of the region therefore rely on national legislation (which, as indicated above, is often inadequate) and bi-lateral arrangements, which are not coordinated regionally, to regulate access to their EEZs.

In contrast, and as an example of what can be achieved through coordinated multi-lateral action, countries of the western Pacific9 have developed coordinating mechanisms, often through the Forum Fisheries Agency, to regulate access almost all of which undertaken by foreign fleets, to their large EEZs and for managing fishing of the tuna stocks within these EEZs.

Capacity to address IUU fishing

Apart from legislative issues, the issue of illegal fishing within and outside a nation's EEZ is also impacted by the monitoring, compliance and surveillance (MCS) capabilities of the coastal State to enforce legislation. Such capabilities increasingly involve self-regulation and community- based participation through a co-management approach, which involves a partnership between government and stakeholders in managing a fishery.

Within the Asia-Pacific region, the capabilities for effective MCS vary widely.10 Monitoring capabilities are generally poorly developed in the region, particularly in Southeast Asia. Control capabilities also vary widely with, for example, some countries having no capacity to control IUU fishing while a number of countries, including Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Papua New Guinea, Indonesia, Republic of Korea and Malaysia, have fully or partially implemented VMS systems for monitoring foreign and national vessel activities within their EEZs.

Surveillance capabilities in the countries of the region are generally inadequate and involve the use of both voluntary compliance initiatives (which are often the most common form of surveillance activity and include education and co-management programmes) and limited deterrent or enforcement approaches.

All the available evidence would therefore seem to point towards a generally ineffective deterrent and enforcement capability11 both for domestic and for foreign fishing vessels, resulting in low levels of compliance with fisheries management regulations.

In contrast, the countries of the Western Pacific generally have a well coordinated and effective MCS system which supports harmonized and coordinated legislation. These MCS activities12(Anon, 2003) are coordinated through the Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) and stem from international agreements between the countries of the region.13They include a regional register of foreign fishing vessels, uniform vessel identification, catch and position reporting, trans-shipment reporting, placing of observers on foreign vessels, aerial surveillance and the use of VMS.

As a result of this well coordinated regional approach to MCS activities, fisheries administrators are confident that compliance rates with fisheries regulations in the region are high (Anon, 2003) and, consequently, the fish stocks of this sub-region (particularly tuna) are being effectively managed for long-term sustainability than in others. This does not imply that there are no problems in the sub-region, but they are under closer scrutiny and pressure from other countries to change their practices.

Addressing IUU fishing issues in the Asia-Pacific region

In addressing the issues of IUU fishing in the region, the key factors that have been responsible for generating the problem need to be addressed if long-term and sustainable solutions are to be found. These key factors include:

Over-capacity of national fishing fleets

As perhaps the prime driver of both overexploitation of resources in national EEZs and of IUU fishing both within national EEZs and within the EEZs of other nations, this issue must be addressed at the national level and preferably coordinated regionally. Some countries, such as China, have made a start on what is often a difficult and painful process. However, around 60 percent of the countries of the region do not even have the legislative capacity to limit, let alone reduce, fishing capacity. Some measures such as an immediate cessation of subsidization of the conversion to, or building of, "offshore" fishing vessels should be used to reduce the rate of growth of national fleets while other more difficult measures, such as changing legislation and limiting and reducing the number of vessels, should be put in place in the longer-term.14 Putting in place an effective capacity reduction programme is an essential step in most countries, noting, however, that this is a long-term project and is likely to extend over several decades.

Regional cooperation and regional fisheries management organizations

Although the issues tend to be national in origin, the IUU issues in the Asia-Pacific region will not be addressed until there is some agreement among countries to cooperate, either bilaterally or sub-regionally. This should involve a review of the fisheries management capacity and commitment to sustainable fisheries, followed by agreements and commitment to change and enhanced efforts to change and improve the situation. IUU, especially issues of encroachment into the EEZs of other counties and high seas issues, will require extensive consultation and dialogue in order to reach agreed solutions.

Many benefits can be achieved by reducing IUU fishing, including the obvious benefits of increased catches and profit, increased support for sustainable livelihoods and improved contribution of fisheries to sustainable benefits. Other benefits could include improved safety at sea as well as regional security through rapid vessel identification and vessel monitoring.

In many other parts of the world, regional fisheries management organizations often provide a forum for these consultations. While the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC) has management responsibility for tuna stocks within its region and the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) has responsibility for management of highly migratory species in the Western and Central Pacific, there is no regional fisheries management organization with responsibility for management and coordination of fisheries issues that brings together different countries in sub-regions of the Asia-Pacific region. Since (i) many, if not most, stocks are shared between countries of the region, (ii) national fisheries management practices and capabilities are often not fully effective and (iii) the size and scope of IUU fishing in the region is large, the establishment of such a management body could bring significant benefits.

Governance and national legislation

As the basis for long-term sustainability of fish stocks, good legislation and governance structures are essential for effective fisheries management. However, around 70 percent of the countries examined have legislation that allows fisheries management to occur at national, provincial, district and/or village levels, often without any clear legislated coordination mechanisms.

Some countries of the region (e.g. Viet Nam, Cambodia) are in the process of reviewing their legislation but even newer legislation (e.g. Indonesia, 2004) often is not based on the concepts of the sustainable development of fish stocks and still does not contain provisions to address key issues such as over-capacity. A review, preferably coordinated regionally, of national fisheries legislation in the region is therefore needed. FAO has worked with individual countries in developing a better legislative basis for management and could conceivably provide the coordination in approach that is needed.

Monitoring, control and surveillance capabilities for national fleets and for foreign fishing activities

While countries of the Western Pacific have achieved a well-coordinated and generally effective MCS capability for foreign fishing, compliance rates with national legislation and regulations are low in the Asia-Pacific region, especially in Southeast Asia. The low compliance rates stem from (a) "open access" fisheries in which social objectives override those pertaining to sustainable use; (b) generally poor, and often difficult to access, statistical data bases and intelligence on vessels, landings, fishing gear type etc, at both the national and regional level; (c) control mechanisms which, although addressing individual issues such as prohibited fishing gear etc, are not coordinated and focused to achieve, preferably through fisheries management plans, specific outcomes such as sustainable fisheries; and (d) under-investment in deterrent and enforcement capabilities although voluntary compliance initiatives, such as educational programmes and co-management initiatives are well developed in most countries. Since MCS activities need to support effective legislation, the shortcomings of existing MCS systems need to be addressed together with any legislative review processes (see above).

Commitment to international initiatives to control IUU fishing

While there is general support in the Asia-Pacific region for regional fisheries management organizations, particularly the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC) and the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC), countries of the region have been less enthusiastic in supporting multi-lateral international initiatives to address IUU fishing. States of the Asia-Pacific region should therefore be encouraged to support such initiatives, for example by becoming signatories to the UNCLOS Straddling Stocks Agreement and the UN Compliance Agreement and developing national plans of action to combat IUU fishing in support of the International Plan of Action.

An important issue which also needs to be addressed in most countries, second only to compliance with their own national fisheries legislation, is commitment to have national fleets obey the fishing rules and regulations of other nations and of international agreements. At the present time, only two countries of the region make it an offence under national legislation for their vessels to fish illegally in another country. The inclusion of such provisions into national legislation of other countries would send a clear message to national fleets that their governments support international initiatives to address IUU fishing.

Conclusions

With its origins in generally unregulated and open access national fisheries, IUU fishing in the Asia-Pacific region is now a major issue, costing the nations of the region an estimated US$5.8 billion annually, threatening the long-term sustainability of regional fish stocks and leading to social consequences that impact on all coastal communities in the region.

The declaration of national EEZs has resulted in the seas of the region coming increasingly under national jurisdiction, particularly in Southeast Asia where the extent of high seas areas is limited (Figure 34). This means that the solution to the issue of IUU fishing in the region lies with national governments although regional cooperation and coordination is essential.

This report has identified a number of factors that are contributing to the problem of IUU fishing. Perhaps the most important issue is the over-capacity of the region's fishing fleets which has contributed significantly to overexploitation of stocks within national EEZs and has fuelled the development of offshore fishing fleets which have contributed to the region's IUU problems. These new national fleets are often justified on the basis that they will displace IUU vessels, but history has shown that this seldom works. However, many countries of the region lack the legislative ability to address this over-capacity issue although some steps, such as re-examining subsidies, can be taken immediately.

Separate management responsibility for fisheries at the national and provincial level can, and has, contributed significantly to the over-capacity problem, particularly when the linkages between national policies and local action are weak.

In the longer term, fishing capacity in the region will need to be reduced and, in many countries, this will be a long and often painful process. However, the pain and the economic losses of not reducing fishing capacity are much greater.

This report therefore recommends that national governments review their fisheries legislation to ensure that it contains the ability to limit and reduce fishing capacity and then assess what level of capacity is appropriate15 and how capacity adjustments can be made. Such assessments are often best incorporated into specific fisheries management plans which can also address MCS capabilities needed to implement the plans.

Regional coordination and cooperation will be necessary in addressing national fisheries and IUU issues, and regional management of fish stocks will also be required in the long-term. Therefore, it is also recommended that, to achieve this, investigations be commenced with the aim of establishing a regional fisheries management organization that would bring together the nations of the region.

Without addressing the issue of IUU fishing as a major part of a move towards sustainable management of fisheries, the future for fisheries in the region is not good. As other jurisdictions address IUU fishing, the large foreign fleets of many of the region's nations will increasingly have their IUU fishing activities curtailed and access to other fisheries restricted. This could conceivably result in a return of those vessels to the region, putting additional pressure on national fisheries and coastal fish stocks.

Addressing of IUU fishing by the nations of the region is therefore a process that begins at home, at the national level. By strengthening national legislation, committing to sustainable management of fish stocks within a country's EEZ, development of national plans of action, reducing fishing capacity to appropriate levels, implementing effective MCS systems and supporting international initiatives to address IUU fishing, a start can be made on better overall regional management of fish stocks, including the important IUU fishing issues that currently face the region.

5.2 Seafood quality and safety in the context of trade

Background

Fish products are a heavily traded commodity. About 38 percent of global fish output by live weight enters international marketing channels for export. Overall, Asia is a net importer of fish (by value) although many States are net exporters (see Chapter 1 for more details).

There is considerable import of low value fish products and an export flow of higher value fish products in the Asian region.16 With continuing development of economies in the region, an increase in the trade flows of fisheries and aquaculture products within the region can be expected. There will be increasing attention on the quality and safety of these products.

The increasing trade of fisheries and aquaculture products and related focus on food safety is leading to more testing of foods, both for export outside of the region and within the region. This is accompanied by increasingly stringent measures for ensuring safety of food with improved hygiene and freedom from residues and contaminants. Whilst the earlier focus of improving the quality and safety of products has been on the processing and exporting part of the sector, there is now increasing attention being given to the methods of production, both in capture fisheries and aquaculture.

Asian exporting countries are now expected to meet the standards set by importers and consumers both within and outside the region. Meeting these expectations is crucial for both producers and processors to remain competitive within domestic and international markets.

There is also an increasing trend in rejections associated with detection of chemical residues and microbiological-associated safety problems resulting from the increasing volume of exported products and increasingly stringent import requirements (Table 30).

Asia has the most number of border rejection cases in the EU, varying from 50 to 75 percent of the total border cases each year. This is also true in terms of tonnes.

The number of detention and rejection cases from Asia is also increasing.17 In 2005, notifications concerning residues of veterinary medical products in fish products increased by more than 50 percent. The trend in 2005 was that the detections of the use of Malachite Green were significantly on the rise and this was also the case for detections of carbon monoxide treatment.18

Because of their longer history of international trade, capture fishery products have a longer history of attention with respect to food safety. The quality of capture fishery products also responded well to simple interventions such as better on board handling, clean ice and on-board hygiene, as well as improved management within dockside and processing facilities.

Improving the quality and safety of aquaculture and fishery products and reducing risks to ecosystems and human health from residues and microbiological contaminations have now become both an integral part of post-harvest handling and also pre-harvest management.

Main food safety issues

As importing countries and their consumers and regulators are becoming more concerned about residues and quality, attention is shifting to the way fish is produced. In aquaculture this includes the inputs used, where they came from, social aspects related to other coastal stakeholders and the way that animals and plants are produced. In capture fisheries the emphasis is also shifting towards the sourcing of uncontaminated fish (e.g. younger fish).

Pre-harvest food safety is less of an issue in capture fisheries since the fish are not fed or managed as a captive stock (i.e. no inputs are used). However, fish may still originate from environments which have chemical or biological contaminations (e.g. red tide toxins, chemical pollution, sewage/effluent contamination and atmospheric pollution). It is essential to ensure that foods for human consumption are free from excesses of harmful or undesirable chemicals, harmful pathogens and resistant microorganism's bacteria and parasites.

Table 30
Number of rejections at the border of the European Union from 1999-200219

Contamination

Origin

1999

2000

2001

2002

Chemical

Asia

19

12

49

232

Other

13

20

19

47

Micro-Biological 

Asia

49

63

54

86

Other

41

46

30

46

Other causes 

Asia

3

4

8

9

Other

2

7

14

9

Increasing calls for total traceability of food products are also affecting the food production industry such that consumers can be assured that the product has been produced without the use of transgenic technologies, without addition of undesirable or harmful chemicals or additives, and that all of the environments and ecosystems affected by the production facilities have not been compromised in any way.

Chemical contamination and residues

Risks from chemicals come from chemicals applied to aquaculture production or contaminants found in water. In aquaculture it is also important that the environment surrounding the production facility is protected from the negative effects of the use of chemicals.

It is important that governments from producing/ exporting countries support their ministries and departments working on food safety to strengthen the capacity at national and local levels to prevent and control the use of chemicals, including antimicrobials, and in general to ensure chemical and microbiologically safe products.

Even though rules and regulations are being improved and implemented, there are still occasional cases of the use of banned chemicals and drugs such as chloramphenicol, nitro-furans and malachite green. This can have huge repercussions from a marketing point of view. In addition to food safety risks associated with consumption of products containing antimicrobial residues, it is likely that importing countries in the near future will begin screening imported foods for presence as well as levels of resistant bacteria (total bacteria and specific pathogens).

Chemical contamination of fishery products is an issue in some fisheries.20 Examples of concern are the presence of dioxins residues in some fishery products (due to atmospheric pollution of waters), and mercury accumulation. In many cases the levels present in fish are tolerable at normal dietary intake levels, emphasizing the importance of proper scientific studies of risk associated with the consumption of contaminated food products.

Fish borne zoonoses

Fish borne zoonotic parasites are an important problem related to local/domestic consumption of raw or inadequately cooked fish. Increasing evidence from countries in the region show that different types of zoonotic parasites are widespread in freshwater fish species. This group of parasites is of particular health importance in Southeast Asia and is associated with different types of liver cancer. Humans are infected when consuming raw or otherwise inadequately prepared dishes. Currently, parasitological examination of fisheries products are mainly done by visual inspection, e.g. of fillets. However, with an anticipated increase in the export of fresh and live aquatic organisms, it is likely that importing authorities will begin testing imported foods for presence of zoonotic parasites.

Microbiological contamination

Food safety issues also rise from the contamination of filter-feeders molluscs which filter large volumes of water daily to obtain food. Any pathogen present in such water will be accumulated in the molluscs. Food safety concerns are particularly high for molluscs consumed raw or inadequately heat treated. Mollusc culture is often located in areas (e.g. coastal) of high faecal and chemical pollution mainly through discharge of wastewater from urban and industrial areas. Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia have permits from the EU to export live molluscs.21

Main trade issues

Since the 1990's two main regulatory agreements - Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) and Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) have been implemented through the WTO (World Trade Organization).

Sanitary and phytosanitary measures

SPS measures are made to ensure that a importing country's consumers are being supplied with food that is safe by the standards the importing country considers appropriate but they are at the same time made so the exporting country can ensure that strict health and safety regulations are not being used as an excuse for protecting domestic producers (WTO, 2006).

Technical barriers to trade

The number of different regulations and standards makes life difficult for producers and exporters. If regulations are set arbitrarily without internationally agreed guidance for setting standards, they could be used as an excuse for protectionism. The Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade tries to ensure that regulations, standards, testing and certification procedures do not create unnecessary obstacles (WTO, 2006).

Many APFIC member countries are required to keep abreast of requirements of SPS and TBT in order to ensure no or minimal loss due to lost export opportunities. There has already been significant progress in successful implementation of HACCP (Hazard Analyses and Critical Control Point) at the seafood processing level but due to consumer demand and a maturing and development of the sector there is now also a need to look at the full production chain (pre-harvest).

Transparency and traceability are key words for the future production of seafood products.

Traceability

The global emerging trends in terms of traceability and labeling are requiring countries to more effectively monitor the origin and disposal of fishery catches and farm of origin of aquaculture products. In order to effectively track handling through the market chain, there is increasing pressure for the introduction of certification of products.

Product labeling is also becoming increasingly important as a means to effectively track products through the market chain as well as a means to inform the consumer.

Supermarket influence on trade

The emergence of large supermarket retail chains/ companies has had a significant impact on the demand for seafood in European and North American import markets and to a lesser extent in Asia and elsewhere (although this influence is rapidly increasing with the rapid rate of urbanization in Asia). With their significant buying power and forward contracts, supermarkets are able to make significant demands on producers with respect to the quality and characteristics of the product they intend to purchase.

Supermarkets are able to use market forces to demand certain quality criteria and even social, ethical and environmental quality assurances that may not be required under any national or international regulation or measure (or may be more stringent than existing measures). In this respect, supermarkets are effectively determining their own quality standards. There is a strong case for effective information exchange to inform supermarket decision-making, as they are currently highly receptive to consumer demands and these are influenced through a wide range of media. Therefore, "getting the story straight" is important, particularly with respect to environmental and socially related quality considerations since in many cases these are highly subjective or locally specific.

Good examples of this are over-generalizations as to the manner of production of farmed shrimp, or the effects of trawling on fisheries. Good and bad examples can be found in each instance but it is not possible to state whether these activities are universally acceptable or not.

The conclusion is that supermarkets are, in effect, acting as a labeling scheme themselves (i.e. their brand name and statements about their own quality standards effectively become the assurance to the consumer on a wide range of quality issues). It is therefore essential that there is effective dialogue over what constitutes reasonable standards.

Guidelines on ecolabelling like the FAO Guidelines for the ecolabelling of fish and fishery products from marine capture fisheries,22 codes of practice and better management principles like the International Principles for Responsible Shrimp Farming23 can be effective starting points in initiating and taking forward this dialogue between producers, buyers and other stakeholders and to provide the adequate reassurances on both sides that unreasonable demands or expectations by either party can be avoided.

Improved pre-harvest management

The need to improve the pre-harvest management of aquaculture and capture fishery products is now leading towards improved production systems and measurable systems for monitoring compliance and assurance of quality and safety.

The introduction of such systems is a challenge to the Asian region which represents the greatest diversity of production systems, species and market requirements. This diversity is the great strength of Asian fisheries and aquaculture but also presents challenges to the systematic management and monitoring of production. It is now clear that only parts of the sector will respond to market and consumer demands, however, these are acting as pilots for potential broader application.

Improving pre-harvest management in aquaculture

In aquaculture systems, the increasing need for effective management of pre-harvest food safety requires considerable capacity building and awareness raising for government and industry stakeholders dealing with those concerned with pond level management (i.e. farm managers, farmers, service providers).

In response to the demands for more effective pre-harvest management, there is now emerging so-called "better management practices" (BMPs) which focus on improving production methods (from the perspective of hygiene, food safety as well as environmental and even ethical and animal welfare aspects).

Aquaculture Certification Schemes

Certification of aquaculture products are rather new but are developing fast. There are already a number of certification schemes present. The different certifications relate to environmental and socially responsible aquaculture and to some extend also to food safety and quality of the end product. Examples of the certification schemes are given below: 

Food Quality Certification

  • Aquaculture Certification Council (Global)
    Website: www.aquaculturecertification.org
  • EUREP GAP (Global)
    Website: www.eurep.org
  • Scottish Quality Salmon (National)
    Website: www.scottishsalmon.uk
  • Thai Quality Shrimp (National)
    Website: www.thaiqualityshrimp.com

Better Management Practices

  • FAO/WB/NACA/UNDP/WWF
    Shrimp Consortium (Global)
    Website: www.enaca.org
    Website: www.worldwildlife.org

Organic Certification

  • Naturland (Global)
    Website: www.naturland.de
  • IFOAM (Global)
    Website: www.ifoam.org
  • Soil Association (National)
    Website: www.soilassociation.org
  • Bio Swiss (National)
    Website: www.bio-suisse.ch
  • Canadian Organic Aquaculture (National)
    Website: www.certifiedorganic.bc.ca
  • BioGro New Zealand (National)
    Website: www.biogro.co.nz

Other Certification

  • Carrefour (Retailer)
    Website: www.carrefour.com
  • Wal-Mart (Retailer)
    Website: www.wal-mart.com

To improve food safety in aquaculture, new approaches to farming are required, with farmers working together with food safety experts to develop systems for farming aquatic animals that assure food safety. This is particularly important for Asian species destined for international trade, such as shrimp and high value finfish.

It is also important for more domestically oriented products like carps, tilapia and other freshwater fish. Internationally accepted, science based quality control mechanisms, such as risk assessment and HACCP and Good Hygienic Practice (GHP), will become essential requirements for trading in aquaculture products.

Whilst BMPs target better production methods, they are not guarantees of food safety and there is a need to better understand food safety at the production level in order to develop these management practices and address the requirements for food safety of importing markets and consumers. Important lessons on food safety from the processing industry can potentially be adjusted and applied to the farm level.

Whilst much of the market pressure comes from importing countries, there is also an increasing trend of domestic demand, fuelled largely by supermarkets and their sourcing and marketing strategies, which are focusing on sustainable fisheries and aquaculture.

Certification schemes for aquaculture products are a relatively recent development and are linked strongly to codes of practice and principles.

The proliferation of codes and schemes does present the risk of confusing consumers over labeling and what exactly the product they are purchasing is being certified for. Some certification schemes cover the food safety and general food quality aspect of the product, whilst others offer broader assurances related to minimized environmental impact, ethical production and adherence to specific production protocol (e.g. compliance to organic production principles or stated codes of practice).

Monitoring of these schemes and how products are certified or de-certified is also an area of considerable diversity. There are examples of industry self-regulation, government certification of the national industry standard and third party schemes where independent monitoring is undertaken.

The credibility of the various forms of certification is therefore different and also sensitive to public perception of integrity and independence of the certifier or self-certifier.

Improving pre-harvest safety in fisheries production

Capture fishery certification schemes have largely focused on more environmental impacts of fisheries and their mitigation.

Some schemes have also included animal welfare or conservation related elements (such as gears or fishing techniques which minimize by-catch); other schemes focus on broader sustainable management principles. Aspects of food safety are less involved and would be covered under HACCP based schemes for on board handling.

Fisheries Certification Schemes

Certification of Fisheries has been developed for longer than aquaculture schemes. There are a number of good and already tested certification schemes available for fisheries. Some of the larger fisheries certification schemes are given below:

Ethical/Environmental Certification

Marine Stewardship Council (Global)
Website: www.msc.org

Marine Aquarium Council (Global)
Website: www.aquariumcounsil.org

"Dolphin Safe" Tuna Label (Global)
Website: www.earthisland.org

Other Certification

Carrefour "Peche Responsible"
Website: www.carrefour.com

Unilever Fish Sustainability Initiative
Website: www.unilever.com

Opportunities and limitations of HACCP

HACCP and the ideas behind HACCP have been implemented in seafood processing for a long time. The seafood processing industry was actually among the first food processing industries to implement HACCP. There seem to be good opportunities to combine better management practices (with focus on production) with the ideas of HACCP (with focus only on food safety). HACCP ideas could be used as part of BMPs directly related to food safety.

There are limitations in using HACCP at pre-harvest level. As noted in the FAO/NACA/WHO report on Food Safety Issues Associated with Products from Aquaculture (1997) there are difficulties in using the HACCP approach on small-scale farms. This is also recognized in the discussions and in the final report from the Twenty-seventh Session of the Codex Committee on Fish and Fishery Products (2005). The Code states that it is not intended to cover extensive fish farming systems that prevail in many developing countries or integrated livestock and fish culture systems. Many of these systems do however produce products that are traded internationally.

It is possible that some of the ideas in HACCP can be combined with BMP's schemes that not only take food safety into account but also other farm management procedures.

The conclusion is that food safety and the implications it can have on both internationally traded products and on domestically consumed products (public health) are already an issue in the fisheries sector, as in other food producing sectors, and it is likely to become an even more important issue in the future both for processors as well as for pre-harvest management.

1 FAO consultant's report provided by Gary Morgan, Consultant, Australia.

2 Sugiyama, S., Staples, D. & Funge-Smith, S.J. 2004. Status and potential of fisheries and aquaculture in Asia and the Pacific. FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific. RAP Publication 2004/25. 53 pp.

3 Butcher, J.G. 2004. The Closing of the Frontier: A History of the Marine Fisheries of Southeast Asia c.1850-2000. Modern Economic History of Southeast Asia, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore, 442 pp.

4 MRAG. 2005. Review of Impacts of Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing on Developing Countries, Synthesis Report. Marine Resources Assessment Group, for the UK Department of International Development, London. 17 pp.

5 This is based on annual catches for the region of 45 million tonnes together with an average price of US$0.80/kg and an annual loss of 16 percent of catch value, as estimated by MRAG (2005).

6 DFID. 2005. Proceedings of an International Workshop on Impacts of Illegal Unreported and Unregulated Fishing on Developing Countries, 16th to 17th June 2005, London. UK Department for International Development (DFID) and Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (NORAD).

7 Butcher, J.G. 2002. Getting into trouble: the Diaspora of Thai trawlers, 1975-2002. International Journal of Maritime History, 14(2): 85-121.

8 Flewwelling, P., C. Cullinan, D. Balton, R. Sautter & J.E. Reynolds. 2003. Recent Trends in Monitoring, Control and Surveillance Systems for Capture Fisheries. Rome. FAO Fisheries Tech. Pap. 415; 200 pp.

9 These include Federated States of Micronesia, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Papua New Guinea, Nauru, Palau and the Solomon Islands.

10 Flewwelling, P. 2000. Fisheries Management and MCS in South Asia: Comparative Analysis. FAO/FISHCODE Project, GCP/INT/648/NOR. FAO Rome. 56 pp.

11 For example, Butcher (2002) has estimated that, in any one year, only about 10 percent of Thai trawlers who are operating illegally are apprehended.

12 Anon. 2003. Regional MCS: The South Pacific Forum Fisheries Agency Experience in Flewwelling, P. et al. 2003. Recent Trends in Monitoring, Control and Surveillance Systems for Capture Fisheries. Rome. FAO Fisheries Tech. Paper 415; 151-162.

13 The Niue Treaty on Co-operation in Fisheries Surveillance and Law Enforcement (1992) and the Palau Arrangement for Management of the Western Pacific Purse Seine Fisheries (1992).

14 Although it is understandable that individual Sates wish to be part of the lucrative off-shore fishing, subsidization of this expansion at the global and regional level will be counter-productive in the longer term.

15 Accurate estimates of "optimal" fishing capacity are not required before action is taken. The process should be started as soon as possible and fine-tuned as knowledge of the fish stocks and the vessel capacity improves through effective monitoring of the reduction.

16 WorldFish Center, 2003.

17 FAO, Fisheries Technical Paper 473, 2005.

18 EU, RASSF Annual Report, 2005.

19 Adapted from: FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 473, "Causes of detentions and rejections in international fish trade".

20 FAO, SOFIA 2004.

21 Deboyser, 2006.

22 Guidelines for Ecolabelling of Fish and Fishery Products from Marine Capture Fisheries, Rome, FAO, 2005. 90 p.

23 FAO/NACA/UNEP/World Bank/WWF 2006. International Principles for Responsible Shrimp Farming. Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia-Pacific (NACA) Bangkok, Thailand. 20 p.

Previous Page Top of Page Next Page