2. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SESSIONS

2.1 INTRODUCTION
2.2 THEMATIC SESSION 1 - POLICY-MAKING AND PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE AQUACULTURE DEVELOPMENT
2.3 THEMATIC SESSION 2: TECHNOLOGIES FOR SUSTAINABLE AQUACULTURE DEVELOPMENT
2.4 THEMATIC SESSION 3: AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS: QUALITY, SAFETY, MARKETING AND TRADE
2.5 THEMATIC SESSION 5: AQUACULTURE DEVELOPMENT: FINANCING AND INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT

2.1 INTRODUCTION

There were four thematic sessions: policy-making and planning for sustainable aquaculture; technologies for sustainable aquaculture; aquaculture products: quality, safety, marketing and trade; and aquaculture development: financing and institutional support. The sessions on policy-making and planning and technologies for sustainable aquaculture development each consisted of six sub-sessions, for a total of 14 discussion sessions.

This section gives the full summary and conclusions (background and issues) and recommendations based on the conference sessions and deliberations of each discussion session. The primary basis of the reports is the thematic reviews presented at each session, the panel discussions and the highly intensive open fora. The session summaries were prepared by the chairpersons and rapporteurs (who were also panel discussants), in collaboration with the other panellists of each session. First drafts of the session reports were presented at the penultimate plenary session and further discussed. The chairpersons, rapporteurs and panellists then incorporated the results of the penultimate plenary forum into their reports, which were subsequently written up as conclusions (background and issues) and recommendations.

2.2 THEMATIC SESSION 1 - POLICY-MAKING AND PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE AQUACULTURE DEVELOPMENT

2.2.1 Thematic Session 1.1: Increasing the contribution of aquaculture for food security and poverty alleviation
2.2.2 Thematic Session 1.2: Integrating aquaculture into rural development in coastal and inland areas
2.2.3 Thematic Session 1.3: Involving stakeholders in aquaculture policy-making, planning and management
2.2.4 Thematic Session 1.4: Promoting sustainable aquaculture through economic incentives
2.2.5 Thematic Session 1.5: Establishing legal institutional and regulatory frameworks for aquaculture development and management
2.2.6 Thematic Session 1.6: Building the information base for aquaculture policy-making, planning and management

2.2.1 Thematic Session 1.1: Increasing the contribution of aquaculture for food security and poverty alleviation

Chairpersons:	Peter Edwards and Albert G.J. Tacon
Rapporteur:	Lena Westlund Lofval
Members:	Mahfuzuddin Ahmed, Denis Bailly, D. K. Chowdhury, M. C. Nandeesha, Philip Townsley, Wilfredo Yap

1. Aquaculture and fish as food: Background and issues

• Access to proper food and nutrition is a fundamental human right.
• Poverty is one of the major causes of food insecurity; poverty eradication is essential to improving access to food.
• Aquaculture contributes to food security and poverty alleviation (livelihoods) in two ways: as a direct source of nutritious and affordable food for the poor, and as a productive activity generating employment and income for the poor.
• Food fish has a nutritional profile superior to all other terrestrial meats, being an excellent source of high quality animal protein and highly digestible energy. It is an extremely rich source of omega-3 polyunsaturated acids, fat soluble vitamins (A, D and E), water soluble vitamins (B complex) and minerals and trace elements (calcium, phosphorus, iron, iodine and selenium).
• Within many developing countries in Asia and Africa (particularly in Low-Income Food-Deficit Countries, LIFDCs), people are much more dependent on fish as a part of their daily diet than are people living within most developed countries. This is especially true for vulnerable groups, such as pregnant/lactating women, infants and pre-school children, who have a higher physiological demand for nutritious food.
• Highly productive and intensive systems, using formulated feed, tend to produce higher value aquaculture products for export or domestic consumption. These products may not be affordable or accessible to poor consumers. Systems producing products affordable to the poor generally use extensive and semi-intensive modes of production with predominance of natural feed. Such low-cost produce may be produced by richer farmers operating large-scale farms supplying the urban poor. In rural areas where distribution systems are often under-developed, production of aquaculture products by small-scale farmers may be an important source of fish for the poor.

Recommendations

From a nutritional point of view, the production of aquaculture products for human consumption should be encouraged and promoted.

Systems for the production of low-value fish affordable for the poor should be promoted.

2. Aquaculture for rural livelihoods: Background and issues

• The constraints to the development of aquaculture for food security and poverty alleviation are economic, social and institutional, rather than purely technical.
• Developing the small-scale rural sector in aquaculture requires initial support, and more support is needed, and for longer periods, for poorer target groups.
• The development of small-scale rural aquaculture in Asia is facilitated by the cultural, social and technological context.
• The results of efforts to develop rural aquaculture in Latin America and Africa have often been well below expectations, and the approaches used have been wrong. Currently, the resources in many of these countries are declining and, as a consequence, institutional support for rural aquaculture development is diminishing.
• Rural aquaculture cannot be considered in isolation from rural development. Aquaculture development should be an integral part of rural development and not be seen in separation from other livelihood development strategies.
• The development of small-scale aquaculture is as dependent on an enabling institutional, economic and political context as is any other activity.

Recommendations

• The extension and development approaches used for rural aquaculture need to be improved. These should include:
  • a holistic, farming systems-based approach integrating aquaculture into rural livelihoods;
  • a participatory, needs-based approach that takes full account of the capacity of the poor, the resources available to them, and the risks they face;
  • farmer-led extension and research; and
  • promotion of sustainable, appropriate technologies commensurate with the resources available.

• Rural aquaculture has to be developed as an entrepreneurial activity that is financially viable, even for small-scale operations. This means that choices regarding the species produced should be based on the best benefits for the producer.
• Improved information on small-scale rural aquaculture, its role in rural livelihoods and its impact on food security and poverty alleviation need to be developed and understood, and monitoring systems established. This will require the development of better indicators.

3. Aquaculture and poverty alleviation: Background and issues

• Aquaculture is not necessarily an appropriate activity for the poor because it requires secure access to resources. Opportunities for involving the poor in aquaculture can be found by exploiting small, marginal or under-utilised water resources; securing their access to common-pool resources; strengthening their capacity for management through associations or community-based organisations; and involving them in service provision for aquaculture.
• Furthermore, aquaculture may adversely effect the livelihoods of the poor by diverting food resources for use as feed, degrading the environment, affecting access to common-pool resources and disrupting already vulnerable livelihood strategies.

Recommendations

• The involvement of the poor in aquaculture must be based on a careful and realistic assessment of their needs, capacity and access to resources, and the risks they face.
• Aquaculture development should not adversely effect the livelihoods of poor people. All aquaculture developments should specifically address and minimise any potential adverse impacts on the poor.

2.2.2 Thematic Session 1.2: Integrating aquaculture into rural development in coastal and inland areas

Chairpersons:	Simon Bland and Chua Thia Eng
Rapporteur:	Graham Haylor
Members:	Martin Bilio, John Corbin, Matthias Halwart, John Hambrey, Marie Antoinette Juinio-Menez, Donald MacIntosh, M. Sakthivel, Jintao Xu

1. Policy coherence: Background and issues

• There are often many sectors involved in rural development whose objectives are sometimes conflicting and counter-productive; communication among stakeholders and between agencies with separate but overlapping mandates is often limited.

Recommendations

• To encourage essential policy coherence, we suggest a multi-sectoral co-ordinating process, which brings the stakeholders together to harmonise rural development activities and maximise coherence. Two focal points for co-ordination, one at the sectoral policy formulation level and one at the point of service extension, would help validate if policy coherence is being achieved; this would also provide a mechanism to link stakeholders to policy decisions.

2. Aquaculture planning and rural development objectives: Background and issues

Aquaculture planning, being an emerging activity, is often carried out in relative isolation from other development and resource planning activities.

Recommendations

• Aquaculture planning should be integrated into water resource management planning for inland areas and into coastal management planning in coastal areas, as well as into other economic and food security interventions for rural areas. This approach provides an overall management framework to enable efficient use of limited resources and adds diversity and value to sectoral management interventions.
• Experience does not yield a universal model for integration of aquaculture development into rural development planning and management. However, we recommend an advocacy function to raise awareness and educate policy makers and those who implement rural development plans, of aquaculture's potentially important role. This will include raising awareness of appropriate entry points.

3. Balance of impact: Background and issues

• Some aquaculture activities have caused undesirable environmental, social, economic and cultural impacts which have damaged public perception of the positive benefits of aquaculture in rural development.
• Poor people are often inadequately considered, yet aquaculture has demonstrated potential for poverty alleviation, and when integrated with other economic activities, the potential for synergies.

Recommendations

• There is a strong case for interventions to be planned and strategic.
• Regulatory and mitigatory mechanisms (e.g., taxation, financial incentives, voluntary compliance, etc.) should be in place and related to best management guidelines. Innovative solutions are required to the issues of tenure and user rights in open access and common property resources.
• Aquaculture development responsibilities should be clearly defined within and among the public sector, private sector, civil society and producers.
• Improved communication strategies are needed, particularly through extension delivery systems and information technology.
• Put people first in planning and development, and give special consideration to poor people.
• Aquaculture should be integrated into rural development, as it has the potential for poverty alleviation through direct involvement of rural people in aquaculture production, as well as through employment or involvement in support activities (e.g., fry nursing, feed collection, transport, etc.).
• Poor people are sometimes inadequately considered and served by aquaculture initiatives in rural development; this should be addressed by a strong national policy.
• The mechanism for policy development, implementation and feedback should be participatory and involve an understanding the livelihoods of poor people. It should improve basic knowledge and skills, utilise indigenous knowledge and empower people to make informed actions.

4. Integration for wider benefit sharing: Background and issues

• Aquaculture has been successfully integrated with other economic activities (agriculture, animal husbandry, tourism, water management) with demonstrated benefits and synergies.

Recommendations

• These successes need to be documented and more widely shared and promoted, in order to provide better options for diversified and more stable livelihoods, and to optimise use of limited resources (e.g., multiple use of irrigation water, optimal energy flows, human resources).
• Strong efforts are needed to document, widely disseminate and utilise successful farmer-proven examples (e.g., analysed case studies with identified benefit).

2.2.3 Thematic Session 1.3: Involving stakeholders in aquaculture policy-making, planning and management

Chairpersons:	Edwin Rhodes and Sevaly Sen
Rapporteurs:	Helen Dixon and Richard McLoughlin
Members:	Imtiaz Ahmed, Nazmul Alam, Martin Bilio, Jason Clay, Courtney Hough, A. M. Jayasekera, Bjorn Myrseth, Joaquin Orrantia, Mark Prein, Phil Townsley

Background and issues

• Stakeholder involvement in policy-making, planning and management is both context and country specific. As such, recommendations can only be presented as a framework for the various processes to operate within.
• There was a general feeling that the right process, and management of that process, is critical to achieving a best result for aquaculture stakeholders. However, there was acknowledgement that the possibilities of stakeholder involvement are intricately linked to existing political structures. This means that there is a need for pragmatism and realism about the use of stakeholder involvement in particular contexts.
• The need for a high level of certainty about the rights of stakeholders when involving them in policy development and planning was also highlighted, so that all participants understood exactly what the process would be and what was expected of them while participating.
• Another area of concern was that some vulnerable groups may be threatened by the process itself and choose not to participate. If these groups are likely to be impacted by aquaculture development, their specific concerns must be identified and incorporated.
• Stakeholder identification emerged as a problem for stakeholder involvement. General criteria cannot be developed for identifying stakeholders, as stakeholder identification is very context specific. However the session concluded that the identification process must be iterative and that potential stakeholders must have access to consistent (and not conflicting) information to enable them to determine whether or not they should participate.
• Furthermore, for stakeholder participation to be cost effective, the number and type, as well as the level of stakeholder involvement needs to match the scale of issue under discussion. For consideration of national economic development policies involving aquaculture, community and industry-level involvement would be desirable, along with national or state governments. Conversely, individual farm proposals are best considered at the level of communities and local government, within the context of applicable social, environmental and economic policies.

Recommendations

1. Create an enabling environment for stakeholder participation

• Laws and regulations should enable participation.
• Process objectives should be realistic, and strive for a balance with what is established.
• There must be a commitment to stakeholder involvement from government.
• Where lacking, policies have to be developed to validate the participatory process, and encourage and allow the participation of stakeholders.
• To encourage stakeholder participation, issues need to be kept simple and appropriate.
• In some situations, economic incentives may have to be provided for stakeholder participation.

2. Decision-making processes

• Transparency and legitimacy of decision-making processes need to be improved, so that the process is seen as fair and balanced.
• Information gathering, interpretation and dissemination must be transparent, relevant and clear. In particular, such information should enable poorer stakeholders to make decisions.
• Rules of decision-making need to be established right at the beginning, together with the objectives of the process (e.g., agreement on what is to be decided, how it will be decided and by whom).
• For greater effectiveness, involvement should occur at inception.
• Cost of the process must be determined and a budget allocated.

3. Roles and responsibilities of stakeholders

• Strengthen stakeholder capacity through education and training to enable stakeholders to deal with technical information, present their own case (or local knowledge), and participate on an equal footing.
• Encourage the establishment of organisations to represent the interests of key stakeholder groups.
• The structure of stakeholder organisations should be appropriate to the local social, political and institutional context.
• Encourage conflict resolution mechanisms, which may be outside of government involvement.
• Encourage the establishment of self-regulatory processes.

2.2.4 Thematic Session 1.4: Promoting sustainable aquaculture through economic incentives

Chairperson:	Rolf Willmann
Rapporteur:	Helen Dixon
Members:	Denis Bailly, Stefan Bergleiter, Jason Clay, Anantha Duraiappah, John Hambrey, Adis Israngkura, Lena Westlund Lofval

Background and issues

• To date, the most commonly used instruments to influence aquaculture activity have been command and control. Regulations are within the logic of public administration; they create a sense of equal treatment and they can be politically rewarding. However, they lack flexibility or adaptability, they are often inefficient, and they may be a disincentive to technical and social innovation.
• Incentives, on the other hand, are used to influence and co-ordinate economic activity through motivation. Incentives change the built-in social and economic incentive structure which individuals face, so that the best private choice can be encouraged to coincide with the best social choice. Incentives may be used to promote the social or collective goals of poverty alleviation, food security, equity, efficiency in resource use, risk reduction and conflict avoidance or resolution.
• Incentives take a variety of forms. Improving and crafting institutions can be done through strengthening rights, promoting participatory decision-making, and interest group formation and empowerment. Economic instruments include taxes, subsidies, charges and fees. Tradable rights (e.g., those related to water use) allow a created market to determine the value of a previously untraded good or service. Product labelling (e.g., organic, fair trade or eco-labelling) offers an incentive to producers to meet the social and environmental concerns of consumers. Information and persuasion can help create desirable behavioural norms and values. This can be done through voluntary codes of conduct/practices, and awareness creation and education.
• Incentives have significant strengths. They are flexible and responsive and can be closely attuned to specific objectives. They allow more room for and, in some cases, stimulate technical and social innovation. Greater responsibility is given to individuals and groups to achieve collective objectives.

Recommendations

• Incentives, specifically economic incentives, deserve to be given more attention in the planning and management of aquaculture development. However, they are not a panacea; in many circumstances command and control will remain an important tool.
• When introducing incentives attention should be paid to the following:
  • the feasibility and impact of different forms of incentives will vary greatly according to objectives and circumstances.
  • some incentives may have a differential impact on large and small-scale producers, on extensive and intensive producers, or on urban vs. rural producers.
  • their introduction may change the structure of the industry. Incentives applied to aquaculture may have effects on other sectors, and vice-versa, through social, economic and ecological linkages.
  • the effectiveness of economic and other incentives will depend upon the institutional framework.

• Research is needed to identify problems, set objectives, and build capacity to ensure effective use of incentives.
• The development of suitable incentives should be based on a process of consultation, negotiation and participation. Ideally, they should be developed as part of a broader planning process.
• Monitoring the impact of incentives, assessing the need for enforcement, and adjusting as necessary are vital, if incentives are to meet their objectives.
• Stakeholder representation and ORGANISATION should be encouraged or supported to facilitate the development and implementation of appropriate incentives.
• Information, specifically in relation to practices or technology that yield both environmental and financial benefits to producers, can be a relatively cheap and effective incentive. Appropriate training at the technical and managerial levels should accompany incentives.
• Defining and allocating access and user rights may be used to promote both equity and efficiency objectives. Creating a market for these rights can reinforce resource use efficiency, but potential social impacts should be carefully assessed.
• Subsidised credit should be conditional on meeting sustainability objectives. It should always be used with a range of other supporting interventions, such as training and capacity building. Subsidised credit can be very effective at promoting aquaculture development, especially among the poor. Credit should be used in association with effective investment screening and monitoring.
• Taxes should be linked to specific objectives. Revenues generated should be returned to help the sector meet social and environmental goals.
• Product labelling and certification must address fundamental problems and not those of specific interest groups. Producer organisations can facilitate access to these schemes by small-scale farmers.

2.2.5 Thematic Session 1.5: Establishing legal institutional and regulatory frameworks for aquaculture development and management

Chairpersons:	Annick Van Houtte and Richard McLoughin
Rapporteurs:	Uwe Barg, Margaret Eleftheriou, Sunil Siriwardena
Members:	David Barnhizer, Courtney Hough, Richard McLoughin, Alessandro Piccioli, Edwin Rhodes, Sevaly Sen, Paula Shoulder

Summary of Discussions

A review of the recent trends in legislation governing aquaculture was presented and followed by a summary of the findings and conclusions of the discussions within the panel. The ensuing discussion focused on a number of key areas:

• It was noted that confusion due to overlaps and duplication of laws and regulatory requirements governing aquaculture is a significant problem in many countries. There are often different types of rules and regulations designed for purposes other than aquaculture, and numerous agencies mandated responsible for different aspects of aquaculture production and produce. It was noted that mandates and competencies of agencies may need to be modified or enhanced to improve co-ordination and consultation, especially those concerning the complex issues of resource use and environmental management. Options were discussed regarding the establishment of a single authority with responsibilities and mandate for all aspects of aquaculture, or alternative institutional arrangements of co-ordination and management, such as inter-agency committees.
• It was recognised that there may be advantages and disadvantages of developing and enacting a specific aquaculture law. Since aquaculture shares many characteristics with agriculture and industrial activities, as well as fisheries, it is important that due recognition is given to the activity of aquaculture practice. A thorough review of existing legislation is usually appropriate. Aquaculture-specific legislation should be drafted which is practical and flexible, so that it can be adjusted and modified to changing circumstances and expectations. Specific reference was made to initial stages of aquaculture developments, especially to initiatives involving small-scale and household-level aquaculture.
• Conflicts between resource users can be addressed through partnership agreements defining rights, privileges and duties of all concerned. Additional arrangements may include zoning of designated areas, as well as the promotion of codes of practice, best management practices, and other self-regulatory mechanisms. It was emphasised that producers and other stakeholders and their needs and interests need to be recognised. Their involvement in decision-making, as well as opportunities for Cupertino with government agencies, should be facilitated through legislation. Community education towards self-regulation was proposed.
• A recent example from Japan discussed self-regulatory and voluntary arrangements being promoted in Cupertino with producers to better manage seabed environments, as well as to prevent the spread of diseases caused by the introduction of exotic pathogens.
• The relevance of international trade and its effects on aquaculture-related legislation was raised. Specific reference was made to World Trade Organisation Sanitary and Phytosanitary (WTO SPS) requirements for countries to harmonise regulations and laws with regard to the Codex Alimentarius and OIE International Aquatic Animal Health Code. In addition, it was noted that two codes were being drafted/revised (1) the draft code of hygienic practice in aquaculture, and (2) the code on molluscan shellfish.
• A suggestion was made to enhance legislation related to investment and financing of aquaculture development. Positive experiences were mentioned where opportunities of receiving grants and credits were linked to level of education and certification of skills in aquaculture farm management.
• It was recognised that laws and regulations are not the only means available for promoting sustainable aquaculture development. The existence of a clearly defined and well-constructed legal framework will not necessarily result in improved performance, which may be related to enforcement and surveillance, as well as to other governance problems. The need for skilled manpower and for training at different levels was emphasised. Guidelines are needed for environmental impact assessment, for mitigation of environmental problems, and for good planning of aquaculture development. Opportunities for economic and other non-regulatory incentives for more sustainable aquaculture management were recognised and referred to discussions in other sessions of the conference.

Background

• Legal, institutional and regulatory frameworks have an important role to play in enabling and supporting the sustainable development and management of aquaculture. The FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, Article 9.1, stresses the need for all States to “establish, maintain and develop an appropriate legal and administrative framework which facilitates the development of responsible aquaculture." Numerous countries have enacted specific rules relating to aquaculture, either under an aquaculture-specific legislative text, under a basic fisheries law or under laws for the use of natural resources.
• A major threshold issue in relation to the establishment of a legal framework for aquaculture concerns the identification of the activity and its various participants. The legislation of many countries already incorporates environmental and social responsibilities in the management of natural resources on which aquaculture development depends. In some cases, aquaculture is regulated through statutes originally developed for other purposes, and this has resulted in unintended consequences for the aquaculture sector. The formulation of legislation to protect and responsibly manage aquaculture activities and its interaction with the environment, and which does not create unreasonable barriers for the development and sustainability of aquaculture, still needs to be addressed.
• Governments are still uncovering potential institutional and legal issues deriving from the existence of the complex network of institutions and mandates involved in the regulation of aquaculture. The overall effectiveness of a legal system for the management of aquaculture depends largely on the performance of state aquaculture administration.
• Institutions responsible for aquaculture management range from a single lead institution or agency to a plurality of institutions, departments, services and units dealing with various functions and responsibilities related to aquaculture. Co-ordination between these institutions has thus become a major task. In addition, the current lack of participatory processes (in which a variety of legitimate stakeholders have a realistic voice in discussions) does not allow for the degree of transparency and accountability necessary in the governance of aquaculture activities.

Issues

The following key issues provided the focus for the development of discussions to arrive at recommendations for effective legal institutional and regulatory frameworks to enable and support sustainable aquaculture:

1. On regulatory instruments

• Recognition of the activity (the practice, the facility, the product) and the various players involved.
• Integration of environmental and social values into the planning and decision-making process for the allocation of land, water and other natural resources for aquaculture purposes.
• (Re)-definition of the regulatory, managerial and other roles of the government (central, local, horizontally and vertically).
• Opening the process of aquaculture management to non-governmental components of civil society, including the private sector, the community, traditional users, aquaculturists, etc. Possible means include:
  • partnership/co-operation agreements between, for example, other users and aquaculturists for a designated land/water; and between other users, aquaculturists and the government.
  • delegation of powers.

• Use of economic, administrative and penal enforcement and implementation mechanisms to encourage compliance with the rules of the game, including codes of conduct and best management practices.
• Use of other regulatory tools, such as codes of practice and codes of conduct.
• Establishing incentives for sustainable aquaculture.

2. On the institutional framework

• Need for a lead agency with a strong co-ordinating role dealing with operation and management aspects.
• Need for a co-ordinated approach towards efficient enforcement of all laws and regulations applicable to aquaculture.
• Role of incentives and support directed to the development of environmentally friendly practices and improved techniques towards the implementation of environmental laws and regulations.
• Consumer-related issues.
• Need for regular assessment and monitoring of the efficiency of the management of the aquaculture sector; possible criteria for assessment; efficient resource use, economic viability and public benefit.

Recommendations

A primary goal of a legal framework by means of which aquaculture activities are governed should be to enable and support the sustainable development and management of aquaculture.

1. Effective aquaculture legislation or future reform of existing legislation should:

• Recognise and identify the activity (the practice, the facility, the product) and the various stakeholders involved.
• Integrate environmental and social values into the planning and decision-making processes for the allocation of land, water and other natural resources for aquaculture purposes.
• Recognise the legitimacy of regulatory instruments, such as the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and similar codes of practice and codes of conduct which promote responsible aquaculture practices.
• Include effective monitoring and implementation mechanisms and enforcement tools (economic, administrative and penal) to ensure compliance with the regulatory instruments, including codes of conduct and best management practices.
• Develop and implement performance criteria and indicators that will enable governments and stakeholders to assess whether the objectives pertaining to responsible aquaculture are being achieved.
• Establish clear user rights and responsibilities for the specific purposes of aquaculture. Such user rights and responsibilities should be legally recognised, and take account of the effects, potential or real, of other human activities that interact with aquaculture.
• Be formulated as an adaptive process based on a regular feedback from various stakeholders (governmental and non-governmental).
• Review, identify and, as appropriate, reconcile those provisions in laws and regulations that do not match the needs of a responsible aquaculture sector and hence, do not enable and support the sustainable development and management of aquaculture.

2. In order to promote, support and regulate responsible aquaculture, an institutional framework for aquaculture should:

• Be directed towards the objectives of an aquaculture policy and hence, aquaculture legislation, in order to ensure its successful implementation.
• Identify the responsibilities of the agency or agencies in relation to the development, operation and management of aquaculture. Where appropriate and where several agencies are involved, it should foster and promote the creation of networks to facilitate the implementation of responsible aquaculture practices.
• Open the processes of the management of aquaculture to non-governmental participants, including the private sector, the community, traditional users and aquaculturists, through, for example: (a) partnership agreements between other users and aquaculturists for a designated land/water area; and between other users, aquaculturists and the government; and (b) delegation of powers.
• Foster an approach between government and non-governmental participants for co-ordinated enforcement of all laws and regulations applicable to aquaculture.
• Create incentives (financial, educational and others) for responsible aquaculture geared towards improving existing farming systems, developing and implementing best management practices, supporting implementation of effective environmental requirements affecting aquaculture, and supporting the maintenance and restoration of the environment.
• Monitor and regularly assess the aquaculture sector management against criteria provided via regulatory instruments. These criteria may entail efficient resource use, economic viability and public benefit.

2.2.6 Thematic Session 1.6: Building the information base for aquaculture policy-making, planning and management

Chairperson:	Jorge Calderon
Rapporteurs:	Pingsun Leung and Krishen Rana
Members:	Jose Aguilar y Manzares, Pedro Bueno, Rainer Froese, Fatima Ferdouse, Ian MacRae, Ataur Rahman, Yong Ja Cho

Background and Issues

• The purpose of information base is to support sustainable aquaculture i.e., socially equitable, economically viable and environmentally sound aquaculture. Planners and decision-makers need to have access to, and utilise, appropriate indicators of performance for the sector and indicators of future potential. These should be used to define the scope of core data to be collected.
• Discussions stressed that high level political will is essential for the implementation of actions necessary to improve availability, accessibility and utilisation of data and information for policy-making, planning and management of the aquaculture sector and related environment. It was highlighted that most of the recommendations made in previous meetings have not been implemented, and that there is a need to examine the underlying reasons for this. It should be noted that the value of information and the importance of its accessibility to all stakeholders are highlighted in other thematic sessions of this conference.

Recommendations

The recommendations of the session are summarised under each of the six identified major issues.

1. Poor understanding of the purpose of data and information collection

• Improve awareness that data and information are collected to meet the information needs of the target users i.e., data and information collection is not an end in itself; it must be used to support and facilitate policy-making and management decisions.
• Strengthen national capacity to determine data needs of target users and identify types and scope of data to be collected and compiled.
• Improve accessibility and availability of usable information, taking advantage of rapidly advancing information and communication technologies.
• Promote awareness among data and information providers regarding the purpose of data collection through improved feedback and sharing of benefits attained from use of information derived from the data provided.
• Assess cost-benefits of data collection. Data and information collection, compilation and analysis are costly to both the agencies that collect data and to data providers. The costs associated with data and information collection and analysis should be matched by benefits to all stakeholders resulting from informed decisions and subsequent policy and management interventions.
• Initiate studies to identify practical key indicators of performance, as well as indicators of future potential, for the management of aquaculture and the associated aquatic environment.

2. Under-utilisation of data and information

It was recognised that a considerable amount of data and information are collected and compiled, but are not readily available and/or not effectively utilised. The recommendations are to:

• Promote co-ordination and integration of the activities relating to collection, compilation, analysis, dissemination and utilisation of information as an integral part of the sector management and planning at all levels.
• Improve the understanding of the purpose of the information base.
• Initiate compilation and exchange of aquaculture policy reviews and policy options, including highlights on lessons learned and successful policy and management interventions.
• Facilitate development of analytical and forecasting tools and their adoption and application.
• Improve accessibility and availability through production of a directory of the existing information resources.

3. Ineffective communication and presentation

• Improve the understanding of data and information flows from provider to user and the data format requirements and communication characteristics of the target users.
• Improve the availability and accessibility of data and information through targeted analysis, synthesis, packaging and delivery.

4. Poor relevance, reliability and timeliness of, and gaps in, data and information

• Facilitate assessment of the national aquaculture data and information systems, particularly their ability to support policy-making, planning and management.
• Strengthen national aquaculture data and statistics systems, including improving linkages with relevant agencies, institutions and related sectors.
• Upgrade the capacity of institutions and the skills of personnel involved in data collection and compilation at the local and field levels.
• Improve the quality of the data and information collected and ensure that it is sufficient to facilitate forecasting of impacts and implications of policy and management interventions.

5. Lack of internationally comparable and compatible methodologies for data and information handling

• Give high priority to the establishment of internationally agreed-upon norms, definitions and classifications.
• Encourage and promote national efforts to harmonise and standardise the methodologies used for aquaculture data and information handling.

6. Limited capacity of national programs

• Promote awareness that effective and efficient utilisation of information as a means to complement, as well as support, all other efforts to achieve the goal of sustainable aquaculture.
• Give greater emphasis to national capacity building, particularly human resource development, through training workshops on aquaculture policy-making, planning and management; data and information collection at local and field levels; analysis and synthesis of data and information; and effective presentation and communication.

2.3 THEMATIC SESSION 2: TECHNOLOGIES FOR SUSTAINABLE AQUACULTURE DEVELOPMENT

2.3.1 Thematic Session 2.1: Aquaculture systems and species
2.3.2 Thematic Session 2.2: Genetics in aquaculture development
2.3.3 Thematic Session 2.3: Aquaculture health management
2.3.4 Thematic Session 2.4: Nutrition and feeding
2.3.5 Thematic Session 2.5: Enhancements including culture-based fisheries
2.3.6 Thematic Session 2.6: Systems approach to aquaculture

2.3.1 Thematic Session 2.1: Aquaculture systems and species

Chairpersons:	Harald Rosenthal and Laszlo Varadi
Rapporteurs:	Simon Funge-Smith, C. Kwei Lin, Jacques Moreau, Peter Montague
Members:	Yoram Avinimelech, D.K. Chowdhury, Rafael De Guerrero III, Eva Roth, Piamsak Menasveta, Siri Tookwinas, Ole Torrissen, Marc Verdegem

Background

General statements

• Aquaculture technology improvements will not achieve sustainability unless they are met by adequate policies, socio-economic criteria and environmentally sound regulatory frameworks (e.g., monitoring, enforcement, less corruption).
• In the 21st Century, water will be at a premium, water shortages will become critical after 2015, and business-as-usual scenarios will no longer be possible. Competition for this resource will increase, and drinking water shortages will affect large populations by 2025.
• Aquaculture incorporates essential elements of care of aquatic stocks, requires confinement or site allocation, isolates to varying degrees farmed stock from the external environment, allows various levels of internal control of systems, and requires allocation of some form of ownership.
• Aquaculture systems must be considered in relation to natural resource systems (sustainability criteria, including socio-economics; the wider interaction between aquaculture and other processes and activities, which works both ways - the impact of aquaculture on other water resource users, and impact of others on aquaculture).

Types of systems

• Systems range from very extensive, through semi-intensive and highly intensive to hyper-intensive. In using this terminology we must define what we mean for each individual project, as there are no clear distinctions; levels of intensification represent a continuum.
• Aquaculture systems and species are very diverse; for example, they include:
• Water-based systems (cages and pens, inshore/offshore).
• Land-based systems (conventional ponds, flow-through systems, ponds, tanks and raceways).
• Recycling systems (high-tech., PAS-System).
• Integrated (e.g., dual ponds).
• Various organisms are grown in different ways:
  • Fish (ponds, polishing ponds, integrated pond systems).
  • Seaweed (floating/suspended culture, onshore pond/tank culture).
  • Molluscs (bottom, pole, rack, raft, long-line systems).
  • Crustaceans (pond, tank, raceway).
  • Phases of culture include broodstock holding, hatchery, grow-out systems, and quarantine.

Infrastructure and support technologies

• These supporting activities include seeding, handling, feeding, controlling, monitoring, sorting, treating, harvesting, processing and prophylactic measures.

Driving forces for success of aquaculture

• The factors which drive aquaculture cover a spectrum from the needs of people (the provision of local employment, food security and the alleviation of poverty) to the needs of industries (with particular emphasis on profits, productivity and consistent-quality products). Consequently, the technologies for sustainable aquaculture development should provide a varied and adaptable tool kit, from which people can select and design the system which most effectively meets their needs and best fits the opportunities and constraints of the local environment.
• The delivery of such techniques requires efficient communication networks, reliable data on the merits and drawbacks of the various approaches, and help in the decision-making process through which people design their production systems.

Future developments in systems and systems-support technology for conventional pond systems

• Shortage of water will be the limiting factor. Low input and extensive pond aquaculture is an inefficient user. For example, a 1 ha pond can lose 30,000 mt of water per annum through seepage and evaporation, and perhaps produce only 1 mt of fish. Ponds must become more “intensive” with respect to water use. This means new technologies, and training in their use for millions of farmers.
• Flow-through systems can become more efficient through the re-use of heat energy, balancing the cost of water.
• Crucial positive trends are the integration of pond systems with other agriculture and water-using processes, reuse of water, and recirculation. A recirculation system can achieve 150 L water/kg of fish, or 40 L/kg with a de-nitrification unit.

Integrated systems

• Many "outputs," often called "wastes" or "by-products" of subsystems, become basic inputs for other subsystems, rather than just additive components of the overall farm economy.
• The dual pond system in Israel links irrigation water storage with aquaculture ponds, with seasonal transfers according to respective needs of irrigation and culture.
• Cages placed within reservoirs and ponds provide integrative processes on a small scale.
• Use of waste streams (e.g., piggery, industrial) for aquaculture may create ethical issues (moral and public health).
• There are alternative sources of water readily available for aquaculture arising from, for example, floodwater control in Bangladesh, or use of saline ground or surface water not suitable for irrigation or municipal consumption.

Recirculation

• The PAS system for American catfish combines an extensive set of channels within the pond, for water treatment, with a highly intensive growth enclosure. It is characterised by very slow circulation with low energy requirement, and good control of pond processes.
• Recirculation is not necessarily highly intensive; shrimp farmers in Thailand are successfully using closed-pond systems.
• The uses of recirculation vary widely: broodstock management, hatchery rearing, grow-out, quarantine holding.
• There are many possible solutions, adaptable to specific local situations.
• Hyper-intensive recirculation systems have many advantages. These include minimum water demand, limited space demand, reduced water discharge, controlled conditions to optimise productivity, tight control of feeding to maximise feed conversion efficiency, being fairly site-independent, exclusion of predators and climatic events, and little use of chemicals.
• However, recirculation systems often involve high capital costs, are more complex, and failures are serious. They place greater demands on feed design and health management, and demand professionalism in their use. A well-designed system must be readily managed and competitive in terms of cost-efficiency. This has been successfully achieved in Vietnam and India, and in active suspension ponds, as demonstrated for tilapia in Israel and the USA, and for shrimp culture in Belize, for example.

Technology issues in recirculation approaches

• Limited knowledge about component interactions (biofilters, mechanical filters, energy flows).
• Interaction of pathogens and benign microbes in biofilters is very poorly understood.
• Biofilms, biomats etc need more study.
• Scale-up problems are common; thorough testing is still necessary.
• Modified processes may be required when using new feeds.
• For feeds for recycling systems, there is a need to weigh conversion efficiency versus water treatment efficiency. Feeds can be designed to facilitate the separation of faeces from the water.
• There is a need for predictive modelling to assess multifactor interactions.
• Recirculation techniques can be highly species-specific. Perhaps difficult species can be selected to perform better in recirculation systems. In general, domesticated strains seem to perform best.
• Recirculation systems would be preferred for culture of exotic species and GMOs.
• Intensification can cause stress by disrupting fish social structures - but this varies with species - some do better at high stocking densities, and we need to know more about such behavioural characteristics. Fish may require pre-adaptation to the recirculation environment. Welfare concerns, as well as the desire for better productivity will compel us to design systems to suit the needs of the cultured animal.
• Water is not always the limiting factor - in some cases it may be, for example, reliable energy sources.
• Hyper-intensive recirculation is particularly suited to Europe where there are major environmental pressures and high-priced species.

New approaches

• It was suggested that the main future for aquaculture expansion is in the sea, particularly offshore. The rate of increase in global aquaculture production is slowing. If this is due to production limitations, it suggests we are not using current technologies well, or alternatively, those future increments will be more expensive to achieve. We therefore need fundamental innovations in aquaculture technology.
• However, it was pointed out that the slowing of growth rates was a feature of the major current producers. We should also take account of the huge longer-term potential in South America and Africa, for which suitable technologies might already be available. The immediate need there is to address the socio-economic barriers to development.
• It would also be useful to determine the potential performance of the available species, to help us optimise culture conditions.

Fish cage systems

In Southeast Asia, cage farming of fish is advancing rapidly in a wide range of species. The main limitations are the high cost of feeds and shortage of seed. Little is known of environmental impacts. Each country has its own species, markets and issues.

Inshore-nearshore cage farms

• Environmental impact minimisation, or even positive impacts, can be achieved, as in co-culture, such as combination of cages with seaweed and shellfish culture, and combining cages and artificial reefs (leading to stock enhancement). Technical issues also include:
  • making better nets, (stronger, less prone to attack by predators; and coping with fouling, while reducing the use of antifouling paints).
  • new designs; in particular deeper, larger and submersible cages.
  • increasing scale requires new levels of risk management.
  • equipment for sorting, handling, counting and biomass estimates.

• There are a number of needs related to cage-culture systems and the environment:
  • better knowledge about mortality and the real number of fish in cages, better feeding regimes, with less waste of feed.
  • thorough study of material and energy flows through cage systems.
  • modelling of the environmental impacts (not only benthic deposition, but also nutrient release and dispersal).
  • better knowledge about recovery processes, so as to estimate fallowing time.
  • site rotation: better equipment for simpler mooring.
  • models are lacking that relate to remote zones and interactions between nearby farms.

Offshore cage farming - its technology needs and future

• Open sea farming provides better exchange and dispersion of wastes, can be designed to be technically safe, but needs better surveillance techniques and remote control of feeding. Production costs are still too high and many systems are prototypes. Furthermore, performance of fish may be different offshore than inshore - not enough is known.
• Infrastructure needs are likely to be different from nearshore cage systems.
• Systems may be offshore for a long time without being brought inshore for service - net repair and maintenance will be special issues.
• Different support systems (platforms) may be needed offshore e.g., space for sorting, harvesting, handling, checking and treating.

Infrastructure and support technology

• These issues relate mainly to environmental assessment and planning:
  • Computerisation of aquaculture.
  • Incorporating GIS in system management.
  • Better methodologies for impact assessment e.g., carrying and holding capacity models.
  • Decision-support systems for planning.
  • Better farm management software.
  • Better online monitoring equipment and reliable calibration and self-diagnosis (e.g., for biomass, environmental parameters).
  • Mass application of vaccines and parasite treatments.

Standards for materials

• Other food sectors have strict regulations on materials; these are largely lacking for aquaculture.
• Plastics contain low molecular weight components which may be a source of contamination. These include plasticizers, stabilisers, lubricants, colouring material, UV absorbers, antistatics and flame retardants. Here we may need standards for materials in recycling systems because those going into solution may contaminate the system and the product.

Potential species for aquaculture

• There is a view that we may be trying to culture too many species. However, some important needs were identified - but choices need to be made with great care, taking into account market demand, availability of seed and culture technologies, and the potential environmental constraints. Issues to be considered include:
  • developing indigenous species rather than exotics.
  • filling market niches in particular areas (for example cod, haddock and halibut in cold waters).
  • diversifying is still a priority for Mediterranean aquaculture, where several faster-growing species can occupy the same infrastructure, and their life cycles have been closed.
  • similar comments apply to tropical and subtropical areas, with better prawn species, native fishes, freshwater mussels, shrimps and snails being mentioned.
  • air-breathing fish could fill specific situations of low technology and poor water quality.
  • the priority to close life cycles of species currently being grown out in aquaculture.
  • requirements for more microalgal species for hatchery feeds and production of fine chemicals.

New products

• The economic efficiency of aquaculture can be greatly improved by the discovery of new products, not only for consumption but also for other uses, resulting in fuller use of currently cultured species.
• An example of using fish as bio-reactors or as tools in developing pharmaceuticals was the possible use of salmon in finding a cure for osteoporosis.

Recommendations

• The factors which drive aquaculture cover a spectrum from the needs of people (the provision of local employment, food security and the alleviation of poverty) to the needs of industries (with particular emphasis on profits, productivity and consistent-quality products). Consequently, the technologies for sustainable aquaculture development should provide a varied and adaptable tool kit from which people can select and design the system which most effectively meets their needs and best fits the opportunities and constraints of the local environment.
• To deliver such techniques, efficient communication networks, reliable data on the merits and drawbacks of the various approaches, and help in the decision-making process through which people design their production systems are needed.
• Access to suitable water (coastal, estuarine and particularly fresh water) will be increasingly limited and will be the source of widespread competition. Therefore, we must adopt or develop approaches which:
  • use water more efficiently.
  • promote further integration of aquatic production with agriculture (e.g., crops and livestock), particularly in areas where such approaches are not common.
  • link with, share with or complement other water resource users.
  • use water that is less suitable for competing purposes.

• High-technology systems are often proposed to achieve the more efficient use of water (e.g., recirculation), or to avoid competition for water (e.g. offshore/oceanic farming). Because of the relatively high risk of failure of such systems, we recommend:
  • pilot-scale and full-scale testing, in real settings, for newer culture systems before their adoption by users.
  • standard criteria for materials, procedures and safety margins applied in newer culture systems.
  • codes of practice for specific culture systems as used in specific applications.

• Current recirculation systems are expensive and limited in their species application. The functional interactions of their components are not well understood, and this makes it difficult to optimise systems for specific applications (e.g., quarantine, hatchery, grow-out). There is an increasing need for environmental and system control as a result of intensification. We therefore recommend:
  • the further development of cost-effective recirculation systems for other species.
  • the further development of recirculation techniques for greenwater or turbid water, as well as clearwater systems.
  • research and development on reliable monitoring and management tools that go beyond current limited water quality criteria (e.g., biomass, mortality, growth, behaviour, critical events).

• The composition of discharged water is an important factor in environmental sustainability. We recommend that research continues strongly in the areas of:
  • biological treatment of waste waters, leading to improved design, reliability and cost-effectiveness of such systems, and methods for the disposal of sludge.
  • the development of feeds that minimise the wastage and excretion of nutrients, and facilitate more efficient waste treatment (e.g., faeces separation).
  • use of effluents, including sediments, in other agricultural processes.

• Both the need for efficient use of resources (especially water) and pressures exerted by the community will require that farming systems are designed to meet the needs of the farmed animal. We therefore recommend more research on:
  • the behavioural responses of cultured animals to the culture environment, leading to system optimisation, and in particular, to achieve species compatibility in polyculture systems.
  • the minimisation of stress and other adverse physiological responses to the culture environment and the harvesting process.
  • domestication and selection of animals for improved performance in culture.

• The ability of aquaculturists to meet their diverse needs, in the various environments used, depends on the diversity and adaptability of their system options. One critical option is the cultured species. We, therefore, recommend that research on new species continues in a judicious and selective fashion, particularly in the following areas:
  • development of suitable indigenous species, rather than exotics.
  • use of additional species in geographical regions where major market niches are not yet satisfied (for example, cold water regions and the Mediterranean).
  • closure of life cycles of species already being grown out on a substantial scale.
  • use of air-breathing fish species suitable for culture in systems with unsophisticated technology and poor water quality.
  • use of a wider range of species, including molluscs and crustaceans, for freshwater culture.

• Aquaculture can be made more economically efficient through the development of additional products from the species grown. We recommend more research and development of fine chemical and pharmaceutical products from cultured organisms, including fish and invertebrates, as well as algae and micro-organisms.
• We recommend that sufficient exploratory research be done to achieve a quantum leap in aquaculture productivity, whether by use of novel systems and new species, development of new products, application of genetics and biotechnology or otherwise.
• Aquaculture of all types requires high levels of skill and professionalism, whether it is highly integrated with other users or highly intensive and industrial, and generally, because of its complex interactions with the local environment. We therefore recommend:
  • that all relevant agencies strongly encourage programs for the training of aquaculture producers and service providers.
  • that the quality of training be assured through industry-based competency standards, the accreditation of courses and frequent re-training of the training providers themselves.
  • that there be effective dissemination of information to others who influence the progress of aquaculture, such as policy makers, public servants, investors, engineers, journalists and the general public.

2.3.2 Thematic Session 2.2: Genetics in aquaculture development

Chairpersons:	Rex Dunham and Ksitish Majumdar
Rapporteurs:	Devin Bartley
Members:	Trygve Gjedrem, M.V. Gupta, E. Hallerman, G. Hulata, Zanjiang Liu, Graham Mair

Background

The field of genetics has an important role to play in increasing productivity and sustainability in aquaculture through higher survival, increased turnover rate, better use of resources, reduced production costs, and environmental protection.

However, the application of genetics in aquaculture is at an earlier stage of development than in other food-producing sectors, such as livestock and crop production, where tremendous gains have already been achieved. The increased use of genetics in aquaculture will require resources, but the benefits, in both the short- and long-term, justify this effort.

Recommendations

1. Genetic improvement of aquaculture species

• The genetic improvement of aquaculture species should be given higher priority, with both short- and long-term goals and with appropriate funding.
• Better domestication protocols and broodstock management are needed in many commercial hatcheries.
• Efficient breeding plans need to be developed that may include multiple trait selection, combinations of genetic techniques, and appropriate genetic controls.
• Increased training and capacity are needed to implement genetic improvement programs.
• User networks and information/communication systems should be promoted in order to share expertise and allow easy access to information.

2. Design and promotion of strategies for equitable dissemination of genetic techniques and genetically improved aquatic organisms

• Intellectual property rights need to be addressed and balanced against public information and unrestricted access to information and genetic resources.
• There is a need for greater control on trans-boundary movement of germplasm, which must balance conflicting mandates of international conventions. Networks such as INGA and other appropriate agencies can promote responsible trans-boundary movement of germplasm.
• Efforts should be made to design and promote equitable dissemination strategies that ensure that genetic enhancements have positive impacts on aquaculture, food security and enhance livelihoods.
• Impact assessment of genetically improved organisms and their dissemination should be carried out and should include environmental, social and economic aspects.

3. Application of genetic technologies to the conservation of aquatic biodiversity

• Risk assessment of genetically improved aquatic organisms and the interaction between wild and cultured organisms should be conducted from ecological, biodiversity and stakeholder perspectives.
• Population genetics techniques should be used to enhance understanding and improve management of aquatic genetic resources, both in nature and in culture.
• Establishment of in situ and ex situ gene banks, including live, frozen and molecular material, should be encouraged and supported, as appropriate, and actively managed for documentation of the genetic resource, conservation, and for present and future use, e.g., in species recovery programs and as controls to selective breeding programs.
• Environmental and genetic sterilisation techniques should be developed, refined and used to reduce the chance of adverse impacts of cultured species on the environment.

4. Education of the general public on genetic technologies and principles

• There is a need for the standardisation of terminologies concerning genetics, genetic resources and technologies.
• Accurate and objective assessment of benefits and risks associated with the use of genetic technologies should involve all stakeholders and be communicated widely.
• Scientists should make proactive efforts to more accurately inform the popular print and electronic media in simple and easily understandable ways.

2.3.3 Thematic Session 2.3: Aquaculture health management

Chairpersons:	Rohana P. Subasinghe and James F. Turnbull
Rapporteurs:	David Alderman, Mike Hine, Mohammed Shariff, Peter Walker
Members:	Victoria Alday de Graindorge, Craig L. Browdy, Cristina Chávez Sánchez, Timothy W. Flegel, Brit Hjeltnes, Celia Lavilla-Pitogo, Melba B. Reantaso, Kamonporn Tonguthai, Snjezana Zrncic

Background and issues

• The private sector should work with the government in health management. A question was asked of evidence that effective regulation can help control the spread of aquatic diseases. The response was that regulation of oyster importation into the United Kingdom had effectively prevented the introduction of Marteilia. Other possible examples are the spread of disease by illegal importation, such as Bonamia ostreae into Europe and akoya oyster disease into Japan, and the illegal importation into the Philippines of Penaeus monodon and subsequent introduction of white spot syndrome virus (WSSV).
• The requirements of disease control by large commercial industries are very different from those of small subsistence farms. It is therefore difficult to generalise on how disease at different levels of industry can best be controlled. The many factors that affect aquaculture in different countries mean that each country has to design control methods in relation to its industries.
• It was pointed out that shrimp and fish should be treated differently. An example was given that the pleopods of shrimp can be used for PCR diagnosis of WSSV.
• The need for health and pathogen management was recognised, but good management practices can be difficult to implement. One innovative idea from Thailand is that farmers are encouraged to insure their stocks, the premiums being lower for those with good management practices, thus encouraging good health management. Care has to be taken in development of health legislation, and each disease may have to be addressed differently. However, it was pointed out that effective control policies keep out pathogens we are not aware of, as well as those that we are concerned with.
• These additional issues were also identified:
  • the massive economic losses sustained by aquaculture and their impacts on regions such as Asia and Latin America.
  • emerging diseases, use of antibiotics, discharge of waste, and pollution by chemotherapeutants and the spread of disease internationally with increase in world trade.
  • the problem of capacity building in developing countries.
  • the need to focus on all aspects of aquatic animal health, not only on pathogens.
  • the development of “fish links” between the aquaculture industry, diagnosticians and researchers.
  • the need to develop systems of compensation to encourage Cupertino between industry and authorities.
  • the need for intervention rather than identification, and prevention rather than treatment.
  • the need for a team approach to aquatic health management, involving scientists, regulatory authorities, stakeholders, lawyers etc.
  • the integration and harmonisation of health management at all levels, from the farm to international trade

Recommendations

• Appropriate and effective national and regional policies and regulatory frameworks on introduction and movement of live aquatic animals should be developed and enforced, with the view to reduce the risks of introduction, establishment and spread of aquatic animal pathogens. Special attention should be given to capacity building, education and extension on aquatic animal health management, at all levels.
• The importance of aquatic animal health information gathering, processing and dissemination in reducing the risks of disease incursions in aquatic systems should be recognised, and effective and efficient national disease reporting systems, databases and other mechanisms should be developed and implemented.
• Technological development is a key to control and prevent aquatic animal diseases. Research on developing accurate and sensitive diagnostics methods, pathology and immunology, safe therapeutants, and effective disease control methodologies should be given high priority. In this respect, methodologies and techniques for the study of emerging diseases and pathogens should be given due consideration.
• A broad-spectrum systems approach to health management should be promoted, with clear emphasis on the benefits of using appropriate epidemiological tools, domestication procedures and maintaining biosafety.
• Governments need to look at low-cost options for disease control, such as industry self-regulation involving codes of practice, and also the harmonisation of regulations.
• Organisations such as FAO should assist in making available white spot-free broodstock. After spawning, the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technique can be used on females to determine whether progeny, held separately after spawning, are infected with WSSV. However the sensitivity of the technique should be considered in relation to other techniques, stock history and sampling size.
• Serious diseases, such as WSSV, require expert task forces to develop global control strategies. A cost-effective method would be the creation of small expert groups on the diseases of finfish, crustaceans and molluscs. Such task forces would represent a body of expert opinion on global strategies for disease control, on the basic of scientific knowledge, independent of national or industry concerns. Each group would meet annually for a relatively short period (3 to 5 days) to develop global strategies for disease reduction, with milestones specified for each step. These groups would also have an overview of global problems and expertise, and would identify areas of Cupertino between laboratories in different countries. The recommendations from each group would be circulated to diagnostic and research workers for comment and the agreed-upon recommendations would be sent to relevant global organisations.

2.3.4 Thematic Session 2.4: Nutrition and feeding

Chairpersons:	M.R. Hasan and Sadasivam Kaushik
Rapporteurs:	Patrick Lavens and Albert Tacon
Members:	Torbjorn Asgard, Stuart Barlow, Mali Boonyaratpalin, Freddy Ib, Santosh Lall, Oyvind Lie, Chawalit Orachunwong

Background and issues

• Nutrition and feeding play a central and essential role in the sustainable development of the aquaculture sector.
• Poverty alleviation remains a major issue in different parts of the world, and aquaculture is bound to play an ever increasing role; profit-oriented, feed-based aquaculture should not be considered as a conflicting or mutually exclusive practice.
• Feed and fertiliser resource availability and costs are bottlenecks for the development and expansion of small-scale aquaculture.
• Current usage and importance of marine fishery resources within industrially compounded aquafeeds is a cause for concern. While lack of fishmeal is not foreseen in the next 25 years, even at the current rate of aquaculture growth there is a definite risk of a shortage in marine oils in the short term (5-10 years).

Recommendations

• There is a need to have a better understanding of the dietary nutrient requirements of cultured species, including their application to practical culture conditions.
• There is a need to have a better understanding of the aquaculture farming system (extensive, semi-intensive or intensive; closed or open culture systems) and the potential nutrient loads and losses to the environment, and to maximise nutrient retention efficiency.
• There is a need to better understand and monitor the dynamics of nutrient flows and sinks within pond-based farming systems and to evaluate the presently available farm-made and commercial aquafeeds in small-scale pond culture.
• There is a need to improve the efficiency of resource use in aquaculture through the improved use of agricultural and fishery by-products/wastes and non-food grade feed materials, and to base feeding strategies, wherever possible, upon the use of renewable feed ingredients whose production can keep pace with the growth of the sector.
• There is a need to have a better understanding of nutrient bioavailability and the interactions of commonly used feed ingredients.
• There is a need to develop a better understanding of the mechanisms of nutrient modulation of disease resistance, as well as for improved strategies to minimise toxicity of nutrients and other compounds of feed origin.
• There is need to develop species-specific broodstock diets which allow complete domestication and maximal reproductivity and larval quality.
• There is a need to develop a better understanding of larval nutritional requirements in order to develop suitable compound diets, which will further reduce the need of live food.
• There is a need to promote the implementation of the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries through the development of technical guidelines in support of aquaculture development, and in particular, concerning "good aquaculture feed manufacturing practice" and "good on-farm feed management."
• There is a need to recognise the importance of feed and food safety issues (irrespective of the culture system) and growing consumer concerns, and a need for traceability of feed materials and production methods.
• There is a need to consider the effect of diet on product quality and the positive nutritional characteristics of the final product in terms of human nutrition (i.e., omega-3 fatty acids, iodine, selenium, zinc, calcium, phosphorus, vitamin A and D).

2.3.5 Thematic Session 2.5: Enhancements including culture-based fisheries

Chairpersons:	Kai Lorenzen and Deep B. Swar
Rapporteurs:	Upali S. Amarasinghe and James M. Kapetsky
Members:	Devin M. Bartley, Martin Bilio, Sena S. de Silva, Caroline J. Garaway, Wolf D. Hartmann, Jacques Moreau, V.V. Sugunan

Background and issues

• Enhancements are interventions in the life/rearing cycle of common-pool aquatic resources. Enhancement technologies include culture-based fisheries/ranching, habitat modifications, fertilisation, feeding and elimination of predators or competitors.
• Enhancements use little feed and energy, and often provide very high returns to input of labour and capital. This provides opportunities for resource-poor sections of the population to benefit from enhancements.
• Enhancements have an important role to play in generating food, income and wider benefits from under-utilised, new or presently degraded aquatic resources. At present, enhancements are estimated to yield at least 2 million mt/year, mostly in fresh waters, where they account for some 20% of capture, or 10% of combined capture and culture production. Marine enhancements are still at an experimental stage, but some have reached commercial production. Well-managed enhancements can lead to substantial increases in production over non-enhanced levels, as evidenced by e.g., the Chinese reservoirs or the Japanese scallop enhancements. A wide range of small-scale enhancements are initiated and sustained by rural people in developing countries, usually as a component in complex livelihoods.
• Enhancement initiatives can facilitate institutional change and a more active management of aquatic resources, leading to significant productivity, conservation and wider social benefits.
• Enhancements may help to maintain population abundance, community structure and ecosystem functioning in the face of heavy exploitation and/or environmental degradation.
• Negative environmental impacts may arise from ecological and genetic interactions between enhanced and wild stocks, and these are of particular concern where introduced species are used.
• Many enhancements have not realised their full potential because of failure to recognise the specific institutional, management and research requirements emanating from two key characteristics. Firstly, enhancements constitute investments in common-pool resources and can only be sustained under institutional arrangements that allow regulation of use and a flow of benefits to those who bear their costs. Secondly, technological interventions are limited to certain aspects of the life cycle of stocks, and outcomes are strongly dependent on natural conditions beyond management control. Hence, management interventions must be adapted to local conditions to be effective, and certain conditions may preclude successful enhancement altogether. The scope for “on station” or pilot-scale experiments to yield information on these issues is limited, and it is, therefore, crucial to analyse, and where possible, experiment with operational enhancements.
• Governments and supra-national organisations have a major role to play in facilitating enhancement initiatives through the establishment of conducive institutional arrangements, appropriate research support and the management of environmental and other external impacts on and from enhancements. A key role is to create conditions for resource users to actively support enhancements and assume management responsibility.
• Government support needs to strike an adequate balance between facilitating initiatives and regulation of environmental impacts on and from enhancements.
• Development of institutional arrangements to manage common-pool aquatic resources and sustain investment in them is crucial. Usually there will be a strong element of co-management where user organisations play an important role, frequently facilitated by various interest groups.

Recommendations

1. Approaches to management and development

• Government involvement, including research, planning and implementation, should be guided by the principles of participation and empowerment of resource users.
• Management and policy support for enhancements must be based on a production-systems approach integrating analyses of institutional arrangements, ecology, technology, marketing and socio-economics.
• Information and communication systems should be established to facilitate management and development, as well as regional and inter-regional Cupertino.
• Government and supra-national organisations should support development through comparative analyses, and facilitate adaptive learning.
• Development of enhancements should be integrated into watershed-level planning.
• Development of enhancement projects should follow international codes of practice on conservation and the sustainable use of biological diversity, as appropriate for local conditions. Key elements of these codes include environmental impact assessment, responsible use of introduced species and genetic resource management.

2. Research

• There is a need for:
  • Understanding the interactions between technical and institutional factors in determining outcomes of enhancements, and further development of adaptive learning approaches to deal constructively with uncertainties.
  • Understanding the biological, ecological and genetic dynamics of enhancements and developing appropriate methods for the assessment of technological management regimes.
  • Comprehensive and quantitative assessment of environmental impacts and risks of enhancements in relation to whole watersheds.
  • Considering and evaluating a wide range of enhancements and local resources; and developing new enhancement technologies.

3. Opportunities for regional Cupertino

• A key opportunity for regional Cupertino arises from a more pro-active approach to regional comparative studies, including identifying key opportunities for learning and for designing data collection and analysis programs specifically to meet these opportunities. This would involve:
  • training and capacity building in appropriate methods of institutional and technical analysis, e.g., Institutional Analysis (IAD), population and empirical modelling, and GIS.
  • regional data collection and dissemination using agreed-upon, standard methodologies.
  • regional data analysis and workshops to identify conditions conducive to enhancements, appropriate policies and management interventions.

2.3.6 Thematic Session 2.6: Systems approach to aquaculture

Chairpersons:	Claude Boyd and Michael Phillips
Rapporteurs:	Helen Dixon, Dan Fegan and Glenn Hurry
Members:	Craig Browdy, Peter Edwards, Haydar Hasan al-Sahtout, Erik Hempel, Miao Weimin, Rafael Rafael, Peter Rogers, Marco Saroglia, Rohana Subasinghe, Siri Tookwinas, J.A.J. Verreth

Background

• The multi-disciplinary systems approach to aquaculture and its management is recognised to have considerable potential. The systems approach to aquaculture involves:
  • stating the problem.
  • identifying of the system.
  • classifying and describing the system boundaries and critical factors.
  • analysing the problem.
  • proposing solutions to the problem based on a systems understanding.
  • testing the solution.
  • implementing and disseminating knowledge on how to solve the problem.

• There are many different examples of the systems approach; some described by the panel members during the conference include:
  • applying the systems approach to small-scale farmer research and extension.
  • developing and applying best management practices.
  • improving the profitability of aquaculture operations.
  • identifying institutional responsibilities to assist in effective decision making at a regulatory/planning level.

Recommendations

• Industry codes of conduct and codes of practice have considerable potential. However, in developing and implementing such codes, special attention should be given to:
  • implementation issues and support.
  • allowing for continual improvement to take account of new information and technology.
  • the critical role of farmers in development and implementation.
  • mechanisms for regulation.
  • There is a need to develop and evaluate meaningful indicators to assist in understanding technical, environmental, social and other components of aquaculture and to improve management. The use of the "ecological footprint" model as a sustainability indicator was discussed, and it was suggested to develop better tools to provide indicators of resource use efficiency.
  • There is a need to communicate practical examples where the systems approach has been used and to incorporate the problem identification and solving systems approach into educational and training programs. Sharing of experiences and the use of the systems approach in education, training, research and development should be emphasised.
  • Promote the systems approach to aquaculture.
  • Emphasise the systems approach to improve aquaculture research and management.
  • Improve the tools available, and develop indicators for assessing technical, environmental, social and economic interactions.

2.4 THEMATIC SESSION 3: AQUACULTURE PRODUCTS: QUALITY, SAFETY, MARKETING AND TRADE

Chairpersons:	Helga Josupeit and Audun Lem
Rapporteur:	Audun Lem
Members:	Eric Hempel, Nik Mustafa Raja, Alan Reilly, S. Subasinghe, Srilak Suwanrangsi

Recommendations

• For long term viability and sustainability, commercial aquaculture development must be market driven, taking into account consumers’ requirements.
• Trade in aquaculture products should be further liberalised, including the elimination of barriers and distortions to trade, such as duties, quotas and non-tariff barriers in accordance with the principles, rights and obligations of the WTO Agreement and other international agreements.
• The creation of efficient marketing systems, in which prices and costs are determined by supply and demand in order to ensure economic efficiency and sustainability, should be facilitated. Causes of market failure and unsustainable use of resources should be rectified through the use of economic incentives and disincentives.
• Standards applicable to international trade in aquaculture products should be harmonised in accordance with relevant internationally recognised provisions. On a national level, safety management systems including Good Agricultural Practice (GAP) and Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP), should be in place to ensure the production, distribution and sale of aquaculture products suitable for human consumption.
• Collection, analysis and dissemination of relevant information should be facilitated in order to enable producers and industry operators to make informed decisions and to ensure consumer confidence in the food safety of aquaculture products.
• Fish trade measures to protect human or animal life or health, the interests of consumers and the environment, should not be discriminatory and should be in accordance with internationally agreed-upon rules.
• Industry at each stage in the market chain must take primary responsibility in the production and distribution of safe aquaculture products and by-products, with due consideration of the polluter-pays principle.
• Production systems must allow traceability of product ingredients, including information on packaging, processing, harvesting, growing conditions and water quality, aquaculture stock, feed and health programs.
• Labelling of aquaculture products should follow recommendations and codes of practice in line with international requirements of the WTO and the Codex Alimentarius.
• Labels of aquatic feeds should include complete information on additives, growth promoters and all other ingredients, including the possible use of genetically modified organisms.
• Safety assessment based on risk analysis and the precautionary approach should be carried out prior to market approval, including products from modern biotechnology.
• International and interregional Cupertino in the field of safety, quality and trade in aquaculture products should be encouraged.
• Alternative market approaches, such as fair trade and organic farming, should be encouraged on a national and international level.

2.5 THEMATIC SESSION 5: AQUACULTURE DEVELOPMENT: FINANCING AND INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT

Chairpersons:	Cornelia Nauen and Ron Zweig
Rapporteurs:	Richard Fuchs and Barney Smith
Members:	Kirsten Bjoru, Simon Bland, Jeanineke Dahl-Kristensen, Lennox Hinds, A.M. Jayasekara, Jia Jiansan, Hassanai Kongkeo, Alessandro Piccioli, Malcolm Sarmiento

• Private sector funding makes a major contribution to aquaculture development, while public sector finance is important and can fill niches of capacity building and institutional development.
• Applied research and farmer access to knowledge are identified as areas needing particular attention.
• International development assistance is becoming increasingly directed towards poverty alleviation and needs to adhere to basic principles of social equity, including gender, environmental sustainability, technical feasibility, economic viability and good governance.
• The level of risk is important when supporting initiatives to address poverty elimination.
• Multiple projects increase the costs of development assistance and place a significant burden on national resources. A program approach makes it necessary for donors to more effectively cooperate and collaborate with each other. Ultimately this needs to occur within comprehensive frameworks. There is thus a need for donors to adopt more cohesive approaches and procedures.