This article was downloaded by: [Brown University]

On: 05 December 2012, At: 16:04

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Society & Natural Resources: An

International Journal
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
[Link]

Is Responsible Aquaculture Sustainable

Aquaculture? WWF and the Eco-
Certification of Tilapia
a a b
Ben Belton , David Little & Kathleen Grady
a
Institute of Aquaculture, University of Stirling, Stirling, United
Kingdom
b
Department of Marketing, University of Stirling, Stirling, United
Kingdom
Version of record first published: 27 Aug 2009.

To cite this article: Ben Belton, David Little & Kathleen Grady (2009): Is Responsible Aquaculture
Sustainable Aquaculture? WWF and the Eco-Certification of Tilapia, Society & Natural Resources: An
International Journal, 22:9, 840-855

To link to this article: [Link]

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: [Link]

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 Society and Natural Resources, 22:840–855
Copyright # 2009 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0894-1920 print=1521-0723 online
DOI: 10.1080/08941920802506257

Is Responsible Aquaculture Sustainable

Aquaculture? WWF and the
Eco-Certification of Tilapia

BEN BELTON AND DAVID LITTLE

Institute of Aquaculture, University of Stirling, Stirling, United Kingdom

KATHLEEN GRADY
Downloaded by [Brown University] at 16:04 05 December 2012

Department of Marketing, University of Stirling, Stirling, United Kingdom

Public awareness of possible environmental impacts of seafood consumption is

growing. The seafood industry and environmental pressure groups have begun to
certify fish and other aquatic products produced to sustainable standards. Represen-
tations of sustainability advanced by both groups in relation to tilapia converge
around limited definitions related primarily to technical parameters. Such an
approach does not adequately represent the complexity of sustainable aquaculture
and may be counterproductive. This is illustrated by a comparing assumptions
embedded in the text of the World Wide Fund for Nature’s ‘‘tilapia aquaculture
dialogue’’ with empirical findings from a study assessing the sustainability of tilapia
farming systems in Central Thailand. Building on these findings, representations of
sustainable tilapia aquaculture produced by the ‘‘tilapia aquaculture dialogue’’ are
criticized, and it is argued that new approaches are required if sustainable aquacul-
ture is to be meaningfully understood and implemented.

Keywords aquaculture, discourse, eco-labeling, livelihoods, sustainability

Tilapia As Sustainable Seafood

This article highlights shortcomings in approaches to the certification of aquatic food
products by contrasting results of research on tilapia culture in Central Thailand1
with flawed representations of sustainability embedded in discourse associated with
attempts by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), a major environmental nongovern-
mental organization (NGO), to arrive at standards that promote responsible
practices in tilapia aquaculture.
A sustainable seafood movement has gathered pace since the mid 1990s,
paralleling the rise of other types of ‘‘ethical consumerism’’ (Young et al. 1999), as
a series of high-profile news stories and campaigns have caught the imagination of
European and North American publics, tarnishing the image of capture fisheries

Received 25 October 2007; accepted 24 June 2008.

Address correspondence to Ben Belton, Institute of Aquaculture, University of Stirling,
Stirling, FK9 4LA, United Kingdom. E-mail: bdb1@[Link]

840
 Is Responsible Aquaculture Sustainable Aquaculture? 841

and aquaculture. The concept of sustainability has consequently gained currency

within the seafood industry (McGovern 2005), radically changing it in the process.
The social marketing of both wild and cultured seafood has boomed (Jacquet and
Pauly 2007), with a myriad of organizations including NGOs, aquariums, founda-
tions, and retailers participating in the design of measures aimed at changing seafood
consumption patterns through the marketplace (Iles 2006). Certification bodies such
as the Marine Stewardship Council have pioneered efforts to promote consumption
of fish from sustainably managed sources, while major buyers such as Wal-Mart
have committed to buy only certified seafood, suggesting that ‘‘significant portions
of global industrial aquaculture production may soon come under the certification
umbrella’’ (Vandergeest 2007, 1153). Certification schemes, standards, and best
practice guidelines for capture fisheries and aquaculture now abound as a result
(Stock 2006). Vandergeest (2007) instructively labels the institutions that produce
these as ‘‘environmental regulatory networks,’’ and notes that they are driven not
Downloaded by [Brown University] at 16:04 05 December 2012

only by markets, but by complex intersecting motives associated with the multiple
actors who participate in them.
Accordingly, WWF has moved to develop principles to inform best management
practices and, ultimately, certification schemes for the production of nine groups of
farmed aquatic commodities. In 2005 WWF initiated a ‘‘tilapia aquaculture dialo-
gue’’ (TAD) among a group of 30 stakeholders in an effort to preempt the possibility
of widespread negative externalities arising from the fish’s continued development as
a commodity (WWF 2005). This effort initially focused on Latin American produ-
cers supplying North American markets, but a round of the dialog held in September
2007 shifted emphasis to Asia (WWF 2007), where 78% of the world’s tilapia is pro-
duced (FAO 2007).2 So far, eight draft principles for ‘‘responsible tilapia aquacul-
ture’’ (precursors to more fully developed best management practices) have been
developed under the TAD. Seven of these deal with a range of technical and biophy-
sical issues including farm location, water quality, escapee fish, wetland habitat,
nutrient utilization, use of wild fish, predator control, and use of chemical therapu-
tants. The eighth and final principle is to ‘‘develop and operate farms in a socially
responsible way that benefits the farm, the local communities and the country,
and that contributes effectively to society, and particularly poverty alleviation’’
(WWF 2006, 2).
Bene (2005) observes that advocates of shrimp aquaculture invoke a best
management practice discourse (BMP), which frames shrimp culture as a value-
neutral apolitical activity, represents all problems related to shrimp culture as bio-
physical sustainability issues with technological solutions, and denies or ignores
the activity’s social dimensions. Critics of intensive shrimp production, principally
NGOs and academics, offer a competing ‘‘political ecology discourse’’ that makes
explicit links between power inequalities and environmental degradation that
BMP discourse obscures (Bene 2005). Vandergeest (2007) argues that social stan-
dards do feature in shrimp farm certification, but are invariably separated from
environmental standards, and that the technical terms in which environmental stan-
dards are framed exclude the possibility of community input into their development
and implementation.
In regard to other environmental controversies including deforestation and
desertification, Adger et al. (2001, 681) identify a somewhat analogous situation to
that described by Bene (2005), highlighting the existence of competing ‘‘global envir-
onmental management’’ and ‘‘populist’’ discourses, with the former ‘‘representing a
 842 B. Belton et al.

technocentric worldview in which blueprints based on external interventions can

solve global environmental dilemmas’’ and the latter portraying ‘‘local actors as
victims of external interventions bringing about degradation and exploitation.’’
Such discursive polarization is not evident in the TAD for several reasons: (1)
the recent emergence of tilapia as a global export commodity (Fitzsimmons 2006)
means the fish has only lately appeared on the radar of consumers and environmen-
tal advocacy groups in developed countries and lacks, to a large extent, previously
ascribed connotations; (2) most tilapia farming is inherently less consumptive of nat-
ural resources and ecosystem services than intensive shrimp culture (Kautsky et al.
1997); and (3) accounts of social injustice of the type often associated with shrimp
(e.g., Bailey 1988) are largely undocumented. The relatively uncontested nature of
tilapia production means that, rather than advancing competing narratives, aquacul-
ture advocates and conservationists frame their claims over the issue in convergent
terms closely matching Bene’s (2005) conception of BMP discourse. However, rather
Downloaded by [Brown University] at 16:04 05 December 2012

than entirely excluding social actors and relations as Bene suggests, the TAD men-
tions them in its final principle, much as Vandergeest (2007) describes. Representing
the activity’s social dimensions in this way as a minor, nebulously defined compo-
nent of ‘‘responsible aquaculture’’ implicitly reinforces an understanding that tech-
nical biophysical criteria assume primacy over social ones as determinants of
sustainability.
As the following sections demonstrate, such an approach cannot adequately
capture the complexity of factors that impinge on the sustainability of aquaculture,
and may lead to counterproductive outcomes as regards its impacts on both produ-
cers and the environment.

Methodology
Research design was informed by a conceptual focus on sustainability. All attempts
to define sustainability rest upon a fundamental understanding that the environ-
mental, social, and economic components of any system are inextricably bound
together and ultimately dependent on one another (Fresco and Kroonenberg
1992). Various methods for enumerating and expressing sustainability, such as eco-
logical footprinting (e.g., Kautsky et al. 1997) and life cycle analysis (Papatryphon
et al. 2004), have been applied to aquaculture, yet each focuses exclusively on the
measurement of anthropogenic impacts on the environment, thereby failing to ade-
quately address the social and economic realities that determine present and future
wellbeing for the human actors involved. The sustainable livelihoods approach
(DFID 2001) deals with these aspects more fully, allowing for analysis of liveli-
hoods in terms of the assets and capabilities that they depend upon and produce
and the effects that the various social structures in which they are embedded exert
on them (Ellis 2000). A livelihood is regarded as sustainable if it can cope with and
recover from stresses and shocks and maintain or enhance its capabilities and
assets, both now and in the future, without undermining the natural resource base
(Farrington et al. 1999). Adger (2000) refers to this capacity of groups or commu-
nities to endure and rebound from external stresses as ‘‘social resilience.’’ The live-
lihoods conception of sustainability was adopted as the most appropriate
conceptual standpoint from which to approach sustainability in the various tilapia
production systems in Central Thailand, given its obvious advantages over more
simplistic biophysical approaches.
 Is Responsible Aquaculture Sustainable Aquaculture? 843

Between May and July 2006 a researcher and local research assistant conducted
semistructured interviews averaging around an hour in length with 46 tilapia farmers
from 11 Central Region provinces.3 Twelve middlemen and wholesalers operating at
four large wholesale markets and nine other providers of ancillary services to aqua-
culture (e.g., hatchery owners and feed suppliers) were also interviewed in this man-
ner. Locations for interviews with farmers were selected in an attempt to cover the
main tilapia producing provinces of Central Thailand and reflect the full diversity
of tilapia production systems present in terms of the production methods employed,
scale of operation and investment, type of markets serviced, and the degree of
urbanization present in surrounding areas.
Two key informants, the owners of large tilapia hatcheries, provided contacts
with a number of farmers who also directed us to other acquaintances. This provided
valuable access but tended to skew informant selection toward more prominent and
successful farmers, so additional visits were made independently to a number of
Downloaded by [Brown University] at 16:04 05 December 2012

areas where earlier research, literature, and conversations with informants indicated
that tilapia production took place. Here we would drive until farms were seen from
the road, stopping to interview any willing farmer located. In this way it was possible
to collect information from informants with diverse livelihood characteristics and
production practices. Interviews usually began by ascertaining the informant’s life
history, and developed to focus on issues assumed indicative of the status of their
activities vis-à-vis sustainability. These included technical and financial matters—
e.g., stocking densities, cost, quantity and type of feed used, market values of
fish—aimed at drawing out data for analysis of the financial viability and ecological
implications of different culture systems, and other questions encompassing a variety
of pertinent issues such as pollution, land use in the surrounding area, the income
generating activities and education of family members, credit and debt, and percep-
tions of alternative livelihoods. All these questions reflected an interest in ongoing
change in recognition of the importance of temporal parameters in sustainability
(Bell and Morse 1999).

Results
Results from our surveys pertaining to the sustainability of semi-intensive pond and
intensive pond and cage-based tilapia culture in Central Thailand are presented in
the four following sections. The concept of ‘‘intensity’’ as defined by feeding practice
is referred to as an organizing principle throughout. Rigg (2005, 173) notes that ‘‘the
social and cultural contexts within which people produce and consume must be
central to any understanding of agricultural systems,’’ implying that typologies of
agriculture in which innovation and intensification represent the principle agents
of change are unsophisticated. We concur with this analysis, but stress system inten-
sity as a critical factor in sustainability in this instance because the study reveals that
(1) it is the single most influential factor affecting the ecological impacts of tilapia
farming, and (2) it is strongly linked to investment, financial risk, and scale in most
of the systems studied. This second point implies that since livelihood strategies
adopted by tilapia farmers are a reflection of the assets and capabilities immediately
available to them, mediated within a wider context of social and economic change
(DFID 2001), they will be embodied in choices relating to system intensity. It should
be noted at the outset that in Central Thailand virtually all producers of tilapia have
a very strong commercial orientation.
 844 B. Belton et al.

Semi-Intensive Systems
Production systems falling under the semi-intensive umbrella dominate output,
accounting for perhaps 75–80% of tilapia produced. These fall mainly into three
groups: poultry=fish, ditch=dyke, and pond, of which the latter accounts for by
far the greatest portion of tilapia produced. All are managed as polycultures in which
a variety of mainly cyprinid fish species with complementary feeding habits are
stocked to maximise efficiency of feed utilization (Sharma et al. 1999). Tilapia
usually comprise the greatest percentage of stocked fish and obtain a marginally bet-
ter price than other species in these systems, all of which are fertilized, normally with
pig or chicken manure, to encourage blooms of phytoplankton from which the fish
derive nutrition (Edwards 1998). Application of supplementary feeds to improve
growth rates is the norm. These supplements are usually food processing waste,
the most commonly used of which is rice bran, and consequently can be obtained
Downloaded by [Brown University] at 16:04 05 December 2012

in large quantities, and at very low costs relative to manufactured feeds (Belton
and Little 2008).
In poultry=fish systems, intensively reared birds housed close to ponds provide
free nutrient inputs to fish culture in the form of droppings and spilt feed. This
facilitates production of fish at a relatively small opportunity cost to the farmer,
provides a cushion against extremely low margins that are a common feature of
egg and contract broiler production, and increases the productivity of land on which
poultry farms are located (Little and Edwards 2003).
Ditch=dyke systems in which fish are produced in ditches located between raised
beds used for intensive horticulture are prevalent in certain provinces such as Pathum
Thani and Nakorn Pathom. Like poultry=fish, it is a low opportunity cost activity,
exploiting the availability of standing water required for irrigation of the fruit or
vegetable crop. Inputs into fish culture in these systems are typically low in terms
of volume, value, and management time, with fish harvested periodically to yield
relatively small streams of income that supplement those from the main crop.
Stand-alone ponds are indirectly integrated with Central Region agro-industry
by the processing wastes imported from off-farm for use as fertilizers and feeds. They
span a range of scales that reflect the resources and aims of their owners—from small
ponds totalling around 1 ha to much larger operations of up to 100 ha or more—
although farms in the order of around 2–3 ha are more commonplace. Table 1 com-
pares budgetary details for four types of tilapia farms.4 Nutrients represent by far the
greatest single cost in each system. Semi-intensive farms such as that in example (a)
utilizing low-value wastes as their main inputs have relatively low operating costs,
and can return profits on the sale of small (300–400 g) dead tilapia and carps with
a low market value. These fish represent a staple food for low-income-bracket con-
sumers (Piumsombun, 2001), particularly migrant workers from the northeast of the
country, who have a cultural affinity for them (Little and Bunting 2005). This large
market contributes to a fairly constant demand for such fish that equates to rela-
tively low variability in farm-gate price. Prices of nutrient inputs on which the fish
are raised also fluctuate to a fairly limited degree due to ample supply and low trans-
port and processing costs. Substantial margins on semi-intensively produced fish
also keep producers fairly well protected from shocks such as those caused by high
mortality.
While such systems are highly sustainable in this respect, monetary returns
are low, and opportunity costs therefore high in comparison to other activities,
 Is Responsible Aquaculture Sustainable Aquaculture? 845

Table 1. Budgetary features of typical tilapia culture systems

System type

(a) Semi- (b) Intensified (c) Cage (d) Cage

Item intensive pond pond (small) (medium)

Farm area 1ha 10 ha 180 m3 915 m3

Yield (kg) 6250/ha 7500/ha 57/m3 57/m3
Product value (Bt=kg) 18 28 40 40
Feed cost (Bt=kg fish) 8.4 15 27.6 27.6
Feed 50,400 1,080,000 289,800 1,449,000
Seed 1500 54,000 33,639 171,000
Rental — 72,000 — —
Labor 6000 72,000 10,500 52,500
Downloaded by [Brown University] at 16:04 05 December 2012

Construction 6600 110,000 6750 33,750

Machinery and vehicles — 70,000 — —
Total costs 64,500 1,458,000 340,689 1,706,250
Profita 43,500 558,000 79,311 393,750
Return on investment (%) 67 38 23 23

All
values in Thai Baht (Bt), and per annum for the whole farm unless stated otherwise.
a
Excludes depreciation.

particularly employment in the industrial or service sectors. The labor effort required
to tend ponds (on the order of 1 to 4 hours per day depending on farm size) is small,
however. These factors make maintenance of small operations commensurate with
the livelihood opportunities and objectives of households with small landholdings,
little working capital, and limited availability of family labor, for whom the modest
stream of income it provides in return for relatively little effort is a sufficient incen-
tive to continue, usually as part of a diversified portfolio of off-farm and nonfarm
activities.
Semi-intensive production on a larger scale is also viable, and interviewees
suggested a pond area of approximately 3 ha as the minimum required to maintain
what they deemed a reasonable standard of living for a household if fish culture
represented its main source of income. In heavily urbanized and rapidly developing
areas such as Samut Prakan many farmers without large landholdings or long-
established rental agreements securing them sufficient land at viable prices estab-
lished new farms on unproductive rice paddy rented cheaply in rural districts of
Prachinburi, Nakorn Nayok, and Pathum Thani provinces. Live-in migrant labor,
often Burmese, was hired to tend ponds, while the operators continued to live and
farm within their communities in Samut Prakan. That farmers were prepared to take
such steps gives an indication of the financial viability of these systems and their
desirability as a livelihood strategy, and highlights the important role played by land
rental markets in supporting a diversified commercial agriculture that ‘‘provides
opportunities for villagers to remain in the village’’ (Srijantr 2003, 151). Thus,
semi-intensive tilapia production may contribute to the maintenance of a sustainable
livelihood for farmers with a fairly heterogeneous mix of assets, capabilities, and
aims, depending on the scale at which it is practiced.
 846 B. Belton et al.

Semi-intensive culture practices are highly efficient in terms of hydrocarbon use,

with little fossil fuel required to transport locally produced wastes to the farm or con-
vert them to feed stock. Reuse of wastes in this manner also sequesters large volumes
of nutrients that might otherwise act as pollutants, extending the environment’s
assimilative capacity (Little and Edwards 2003). Most importantly, their use does
not appropriate ecosystem space since they are by-products of existing crops, and
therefore actually increase food production per area of cultivated land (Kautsky
et al. 1997). From an ecological footprint or life-cycle assessment perspective, semi-
intensive fish production is therefore highly sustainable, requiring low energy inputs
and virtually no imports of nutrients from beyond the boundaries of the Central
Thai agro-ecosystem, of which it is a fully integrated component.

Intensified Pond Culture

Downloaded by [Brown University] at 16:04 05 December 2012

Intensified forms of tilapia production in which manufactured feeds replace

by-products have emerged in the last decade. This has occurred partly in response
to increasing demand for large live Nile tilapia. These retail primarily at talad nat:
markets operating in neighborhoods for one or more days or nights each week at
which mobile traders sell convenience foods cooked on site. Talad nat boomed,
becoming ubiquitous features of the peri-urban landscape, during and after the eco-
nomic crisis of the late 1990s, offering livelihood opportunities to the newly unem-
ployed due to their low entry costs (UNDP 2004). Large live tilapia (500 g)
which are displayed in tanks at these outlets prior to their preparation and sale, have
since become extremely popular, creating a new niche for tilapia producers. A few
very large tilapia producers with sufficient capacity to consistently fulfill large orders
have begun to enter export markets for large filleted or whole frozen fish, operating
under contract to processing and export companies, leading to a further step up in
intensification as fertilization is done away with entirely in order to satisfy buyer
concerns that it may produce off-flavor.
Intensified pond culture, as represented by example (b) (see Table 1), requires
high levels of investment. The relatively high feed costs per kilogram of fish pro-
duced in these systems make margins sensitive to fluctuations in productivity (due
to variable rates of mortality and growth) and in market value (see Table 1). As
Figure 1 indicates, these factors account for by far the greatest proportion of finan-
cial losses among farmers producing tilapia in ponds. This makes small-scale inten-
sive production risky, since substantial financial losses are probable in the event of a
poor crop or low farm-gate value at the time of harvest. Large intensive operations
are far more sustainable from an economic perspective, since production can be stag-
gered across a number of ponds harvested on rotation, spreading risk related to mor-
tality or poor growth (since not all ponds are likely to be equally badly affected),
increasing turnover, and allowing flexibility in the timing of harvests to take into
account market value. Given the level of investment in these large operations,
returns, even with moderate margins, can be great. This situation is paralleled by
grape production in the region, of which Cheyroux (2003, 168) notes, ‘‘only farmers
who have accumulated enough capital can invest in this risky but profitable cropping
system and deal with poor harvests.’’
Unlike traditional integrated aquaculture, intensive culture systems are heavily
reliant on fossil-fuel energy inputs used to produce, transport, and manufacture
feeds and feed ingredients (Folke 1988). Formulated feeds contain fishmeal sourced
 Is Responsible Aquaculture Sustainable Aquaculture? 847
Downloaded by [Brown University] at 16:04 05 December 2012

Figure 1. Causes of financial loss for cage and pond operators.5

from marine ecosystems, use of which exerts pressure on wild fish stocks (Naylor
et al. 1998). Commercial feeds used to raise tilapia also contain a high percentage
of soy, production of which has also been linked to a range of negative environmen-
tal and social impacts (Fearnside 2001). Thailand imports a large proportion of soy
and fish meal from overseas (USFCS 2003; USDA 2005). All these factors contribute
to an ecological footprint for intensively raised tilapia far larger than that for the
same fish grown using local wastes (Berg et al. 1996).

Cage Culture
The intensive production of high-value hybrid red tilapia has also increased rapidly
in recent years, and now accounts for an estimated 10–20% of Thai tilapia produc-
tion (Belton et al. 2006). Agro-industrial giant Charoen Pokhpand (CP) established a
contract farming system during the late 1990s, having developed strains of tilapia
with an attractive red coloration (pla tabtim) and initiated a powerful marketing
campaign for the new product. Fry and high-quality feeds produced by CP are sup-
plied to franchised aquatic feed dealerships, which recruit farmers and supply them
with technical expertise, feed, fingerlings, and often credit. Dealerships harvest and
market live fish when they attain 600 g or more (Belton et al. 2006). Cage farms are
located in public water bodies: rivers, canals, and reservoirs.
Many of the factors affecting the financial sustainability of intensified pond cul-
ture also apply to cage culture, and are in fact considerably more pronounced. Profit
margins are low, and highly sensitive to a variety of production factors. Crop cycles
are short (4 months as opposed to 8 to 10) and there is extremely high variability in
demand for what is in effect a luxury food item, most commonly consumed at meals
during public holidays and religious festivals, which causes prices to fluctuate very
widely throughout the year (Belton et al. 2006). Feed costs per kilogram fish
produced are extremely high (see Table 1). Financial losses as a result of both disease
 848 B. Belton et al.

outbreaks and pollution events were reported by a greater proportion of respondents

operating cages than by those with ponds, and were most frequent during the hot dry
season (see Figure 1). Producers are therefore highly vulnerable to shocks, trends
(e.g., long-term increases in oil prices impacting feed costs), and seasonality. This
makes cage culture a risky option for small operators (example [c], Table 1) since,
as our respondents indicated, profits may rapidly turn to losses, particularly given
a combination of unfavorable factors such as poor productivity coupled to low
farm-gate value at the time of harvest. Larger farms (e.g., example [d]) are better pro-
tected in these eventualities since they are able to spread risk in much the same way
as large intensified pond operations.
Cage culture differs from intensive pond culture for several reasons, however.
Capital and opportunity costs of entry are relatively low: investment in cages is small
in comparison to pond construction; provision of seed and fingerlings on credit
allows operating costs to be deferred until harvest; cage management (essentially just
Downloaded by [Brown University] at 16:04 05 December 2012

feeding) is minimal, consuming as little as 30 minutes per day; and natural waterways
and sections of major irrigation canals in which cage culture is permitted belong to
the public domain and are open-access resources (Molle 2003), use of which is free
for the large majority of cage operators who live on river or canal banks next to their
farms. These factors can make small-scale cage culture appear attractive for house-
holds located adjacent to public water bodies if part of a broader portfolio of activ-
ities. The contract nature of production means that most farmers ‘‘have few options
beyond complying with the rigid logic of marketing channels,’’ however, rendering
them effectively dependent on technical and financial commitments with middlemen
(Srijantr 2003, 153). This is in contrast to the longer established horizontally inte-
grated systems of semi-intensive tilapia production, which, like certain types of hor-
ticulture in Central Thailand, are serviced by multiple highly competitive marketing
channels that allow farmers ‘‘sufficient flexibility to adjust smoothly to changing
conditions of the market’’ (Cheyroux 2003, 173).
With the exception that physical site development is not required, cage culture
produces all the ecological impacts associated with intensified pond culture. In
addition, all waste products from cages (nutrients, ammonia, organic matter) are
discharged directly into receiving waters. By contrast, more than 80% of nitrogen
and phosphorous inputs into semi-intensively managed ponds are immobilized in
bottom sediments, limiting their potential to cause pollution (Edwards 1993). The
open nature of cages also renders them sensitive to changes in surrounding water
quality. Cage farmers consistently reported recurring pollution incidents, particu-
larly during the dry season, indicating them to be a major factor affecting the finan-
cial viability of their operations (Figure 1). A recently reported crisis in which more
than 100,000 cage-raised red tilapia, worth an estimated Bt35million, died, following
an industrial pollution incident on the Chao Phya River in Ang Tong Province, illus-
trates this inherent vulnerability (Pongpao and Wipatayotin 2007).
Moreover, the ecological footprint associated with intensive production of
tilapia in cages far exceeds that of more traditional pond based systems. Berg et al.
(1996) estimate that 1 m2 of tilapia production in intensively managed cages requires
an area of 115 m2 for phosphorus assimilation and 160 m2 for oxygen production.
This contrasts sharply with the 0.9 m2 and 0.5 m2 required, respectively, for assimila-
tion of phosphorus and production of oxygen by 1 m2 of semi-intensively managed
tilapia aquaculture. The factors outlined earlier all point toward the relative ecolo-
gical and, depending on scale, economic unsustainability of intensified tilapia culture
 Is Responsible Aquaculture Sustainable Aquaculture? 849

in general and cage culture in particular when assessed against widely practiced
semi-intensive alternatives.

Tilapia Culture’s Contributions to Social Resilience

The economic crisis of 1997 underlined the crucial role of agriculture in Thailand’s
stability and development (Srijantr 2003) as many rural migrants to the Bangkok
area returned to work the land in their places of origin (Falvey 2000). The capacity
of the Thai agricultural sector to cushion the impact of shocks and longer term
trends demonstrates the continuing importance and wider significance of activities
such as tilapia farming. Rice monoculture, once the most important form of agricul-
ture in Central Thailand, has become increasingly problematic in the face of declin-
ing prices,6 while rising incomes have triggered shifts in consumer demand away
from staple foods toward higher value goods (meats, fruits, vegetables, and fish).
Downloaded by [Brown University] at 16:04 05 December 2012

As a result, farming operations have become more specialized and intensive at the
farm level and have diversified at the regional level to encompass horticulture, orch-
ards, intensive livestock rearing, and aquaculture (Srijantr 2003). Changes in the
structure of off-farm labor markets have also increased the opportunity cost of
working in the agricultural sector, as real wages have declined relative to those in
services and industry and the size of the on-farm family labor force has fallen as
younger members seek employment outside the sector (Isvilanonda and Hossain
2003). Concurrent improvements to transport and communications infrastructure
have enhanced farmer access to markets, information, and agricultural by-products,
while the growing spending power of urban and peri-urban consumers and new
modes of marketing have contributed to demand for diversified tilapia products
(Belton and Little 2008).
All of these factors have favored a transition from rice to fish culture, most
strikingly illustrated in the adjoining districts of Rat Krabang in southern Bangkok
and Bang Phli in Samut Prakan, where agricultural land, once flood-prone rice
paddy poorly suited to double cropping, has been almost entirely converted to semi-
intensive fish culture. This shift is unsurprising given that a hectare of double-
cropped high yielding variety rice provides an annual income of around Bt26000
(Szuster et al. 2003): approximately half that of the lowest intensity tilapia culture
system in Table 1. At many sites visited this transition is indirect. In the Nakron Chai
Sri district of Nakorn Pathom, labor-intensive forms of ditch=dyke horticulture that
supplanted rice farming in the late 1980s have been constrained in recent years by
improving access to nonfarm employment, rising nonfarm wages, and improving
levels of education, which make obtaining sufficient family, and even migrant, labor
increasingly difficult. Tilapia culture has provided a viable alternative due to the rela-
tively low labor effort entailed: suitable both for elderly farmers, for whom small-
scale low-input polyculture provides modest but important cash flows, and for others
with sufficient resources to invest in intensified production of large live tilapia.
Inland shrimp ponds, also built on rice paddy, have been converted to tilapia
production in the wake of disease and indebtedness that caused the collapse of
small-scale shrimp production in Bang Lane, Nakorn Pathom, and Bang Phae,
Ratchaburi. A similar scenario is evident in Nong Sua, Pathum Thani, where former
plantation workers took up red tilapia cage culture in a nearby irrigation canal,
following the failure of intensive tangerine production, which had replaced rice a
decade earlier. Integrated broiler=fish farmers forced to cease production in the wake
 850 B. Belton et al.

of the 2003–2004 avian influenza epidemic due to their inability to comply with
stringent regulations introduced by contract farming companies have been able to
survive by specializing in the fish component of their operations. Tilapia culture, both
cage and pond based, also provided an alternative livelihood for a number of inter-
viewees who lost jobs in industry or services after the 1997 economic crisis, and who
have continued with their new occupation in preference to alternatives ever since.

Synthesis: Reassessing Sustainability

This section draws together and expands upon some of the most important features
of tilapia aquaculture described earlier with regard to sustainability and relates them
to the standards emerging from TAD. The majority of tilapia in Central Thailand
originates from small and medium scale semi-intensively managed farms with mod-
erate operating costs. This cheap product meets the needs of consumers in lower
Downloaded by [Brown University] at 16:04 05 December 2012

income brackets. Such systems have proven sustainable in the face of rapid economic
and agrarian change. This is because they are highly competitive in terms of labor
productivity and returns when compared to rice culture, and alternatives such as
horticulture are extremely well adapted to exploit the resources of the surrounding
agro-ecosystem, and because access to local markets has improved while demand
for fish products has risen in line with incomes and urbanization. They have offered
resilience as a part of adaptive livelihood strategies in response to severe shocks in
other agricultural subsectors and the national economy. Newer, more intensive
forms of tilapia production may also offer benefits, but because of the inherent costs
and greater risks involved, these systems typically only offer the potential of sustain-
able livelihood outcomes to well capitalized farmers.
WWF has recently recognized a need to produce TAD principles that can
accommodate ‘‘the high number of small-scale and resource limited producers in
Asia’’ (Intrafish 2007). This is particularly important in light of the findings given
earlier that support the contentions of Chambers and Conway (1992) that in terms
of resource productivity and livelihood intensity the practices of poor and small
farmers tend to have the greatest potential for sustainability. Our findings also sup-
port Srijantr’s (2003, 156) contention that, in Central Thailand, medium-sized farms

are the category with the more stable farming system that allows the best
agricultural performance, that is capable of adapting rapidly to market
requirements and changes in the socio-economic environment, and that
offers sufficient stability to retain population in the rural areas while
giving them decent conditions of life... This essential contribution of
smallholder agriculture has to be maintained and reinforced in the con-
text of significant uncertainty regarding the development of the country.

However, as Delgado et al. (2003) suggest, communities and smaller producers are
likely to be excluded from participation in certification and labeling schemes such
as those intended to result from the TAD because they lack the necessary capitals
(economic and social) to comply with best management prescriptions. This trend
has been observed in fisheries certification, where many small fisheries face substan-
tial barriers in attracting the attention of the Marine Stewardship Council (the main
certification body) and lack the funding and scientific data required for accreditation
of their sustainability (Stromsa 2006). Similarly, Vandergeest (2007, 1166) notes that,
 Is Responsible Aquaculture Sustainable Aquaculture? 851

should most large seafood buyers make certification mandatory, it is likely that
smaller, ‘‘locally-owned shrimp farms would be marginalized from major markets
on account of lack of resources to pay for expensive certification procedures, and
lack of ability to meet complex documentation requirements. The elimination of
many smaller farmers would reduce the likelihood that shrimp farming would benefit
local communities.’’
The situation is somewhat different for Thai tilapia, the vast majority of which is
produced for local domestic markets. However, a substantial number of the stake-
holders in TAD are large tilapia producers, buyers, retailers, and investors (WWF
2005). The engagement of these powerful commercial players (many of whom are
involved in the operation of large-scale intensive vertically integrated farms) in the
formulation of TAD principles favors construction of a narrative, rooted in a
BMP discourse, which advances their interests. Policies that reflect these interests
will promote large-scale intensified modes of tilapia production, reifying them as
Downloaded by [Brown University] at 16:04 05 December 2012

the ‘‘responsible’’ standard, thereby obscuring the potential contributions of semi-

intensive forms of production that are more ecologically sustainable and appropriate
to the livelihood strategies of producers in lower income brackets.
Approximately half of TAD stakeholders are natural scientists professionally
involved in aquaculture research (WWF, 2005), most of whom have a background
in biology; ‘‘their main professional interest is fish—how to make sure they grow,
how to manage stocks of them . . . success criteria in their jobs generally relate to such
technical concerns’’ (Harrison 1995, 5). These actors also contribute to the construc-
tion of BMP discourse in a manner that legitimates and provides support for further
development of the sector, thereby securing their future professional and financial
interests (Bene 2005). A smaller number of TAD stakeholders are representatives
of government agencies, donors, and environmental NGOs, to many of whom the
essence of Harrison’s (1995) description applies equally well. BMP discourse implies
the need for the sector’s regulation, and it is as stakeholders in the regulatory process
that staff of environmental NGOs and these other institutions are able to secure
their own professional, personal, and financial interests along with those of their
organizations.
In ecological terms there is a clear decline in sustainability as intensification
increases, as greater and greater negative externalities result from the appropriation
of ecosystem space and services and hydrocarbons for the production and transport
of formulated feeds.7 Given that ponds are semi-closed to the surrounding environ-
ment and overwhelmingly situated on land already developed for agriculture, it is
these diffuse impacts that cause greatest concern. Cumulatively, the impacts of wide-
spread intensification of such systems across Asia would likely place heavy pressure
on marine fisheries, given the sheer volume of farmed fish produced (Naylor et al.
2000). Cages, being entirely open to the surrounding environment, produce and
are vulnerable to more severe localized impacts, particularly pollution.
If standards for tilapia aquaculture are to yield sustainable outcomes it will be
necessary to adopt a conceptual framework that fully acknowledges the activity’s
social dimensions. Adopting an approach informed by an awareness of sustainable
livelihoods, as in this article, provides an opportunity to do so. There is, however,
a tendency for livelihoods analysis to emphasize sustainability at the micro (house-
hold or village) rather than sectoral or global scale (Ashley and Carney 1999). This
tendency may obscure geographically diffuse ecological impacts of aquaculture such
as appropriation of net aquatic primary production for fish meal. The role of
 852 B. Belton et al.

markets and private-sector agency in determining sustainability is also often

underrepresented in livelihoods analyses (Smith et al. 2005). These traits are to some
extent held in common with BMP discourse, which emphasizes the immediate
vicinity of the farm as the main locus of degradation and technical response, and
fails to recognize in any meaningful way the influence of social and economic change
occurring at the meso and macro scale on the sustainability of the systems it seeks to
regulate. However, by allying the livelihoods approach to more conventional
biophysical methods of sustainability accounting such as ecological footprints, and
by paying greater attention to market institutions and regional human geographies,
there is potential to inform more holistic sustainable development options around
aquaculture.

Conclusion
Downloaded by [Brown University] at 16:04 05 December 2012

This article has shown that the TAD, the first attempt by an ‘‘environmental
regulatory network’’ to establish principles for ‘‘responsible’’ tilapia culture, has
produced representations of the activity that fail to adequately integrate its social
setting and implications. The professional and political aims and interests of advo-
cates of aquaculture and conservation are embodied in BMP discourse and advanced
through its promulgation, leading inevitably to the oversimplification of issues that
determine sustainability. This narrative advances the commercial interests of large
production and export companies operating vertically integrated intensive farms,
and locates the axis of sustainability around a single option. Adoption of a more
finely nuanced approach is needed to avoid this outcome. Smaller scale semi-
intensive systems examined in this article provide production models that generate
a wider range of benefits and lesser negative impacts. Livelihoods analysis can make
an important contribution to the creation of standards that acknowledge and
integrate these alternatives and stand a greater chance of promoting more broadly
sustainable tilapia culture in preference to restrictively defined and potentially
counterproductive modes of so-called ‘‘responsible’’ production.

Notes
1. The two tilapia species commonly farmed in Thailand are the Nile tilapia (Orechromis nilo-
ticus) and red tilapia, an O. niloticus  O. mossambicus hybrid. According to DOF (2005)
there are 50,957 fish farms in the Central Region, accounting for 59% of Thai freshwater
aquaculture production. Although these statistics are not disaggregated by species it is
probable that more than half stock some tilapia. FAO (2007) puts Thai tilapia production
at 109,742 tons but Belton and Little (2008) estimate that the real figure is likely to be 2–3
times higher.
2. Global production of farmed tilapias in 2005 was 2,025,560 tons, of which 1,589,796 tons
originated from Asia (FAO 2007).
3. These were Ang Thong, Ayuttaya, Bangkok, Chachoengsao, Chonburi, Nakorn Pathom,
Nakorn Nayok, Pathum Thani, Prachinburi, Ratchaburi, and Samut Prakan.
4. Given the extreme variability of management practices, particularly in ponds, these budgets
offer only a broadly indicative picture of system characteristics encountered during the
study.
5. Financial loss is defined as a failure to break even during one or more crop cycles.
6. It should be noted that Thai rice prices reached record highs in the first half of 2008, briefly
bucking this general trend.
7. In a brief, poorly conceived and unconvincing article, Bunting (2001) argues that the
ecological footprint to aquaculture is best expressed with respect to production, rather than
 Is Responsible Aquaculture Sustainable Aquaculture? 853

the physical area occupied by the culture facility. This logic would imply that increasing
system intensity results in smaller ecological footprints, a claim that we wholeheartedly
reject.

References
Adger, N. 2000. Social and ecological resilience: Are they related? Progr. Hum. Geogr.
24(3):347–364.
Adger, N., T. Benjaminsen, K. Brown, and H. Svarstad. 2001. Advancing a political ecology
of environmental discourses. Dev. Change 32:681–715.
Ashley, C. and D. Carney. 1999. Sustainable livelihoods: Lessons from early experience.
London: Department for International Development.
Bailey, C. 1988. The social consequences of tropical shrimp mariculture development. Ocean
Shoreline Manage. 11:31–44.
Bell, S. and R. Morse. 1999. Sustainability indicators: Measuring the immeasurable. London:
Downloaded by [Brown University] at 16:04 05 December 2012

Earthscan.
Belton, B. and D. Little. 2008. The development of aquaculture in Central Thailand: Domestic
demand versus export led production. J. Agrarian Change 8(1):123–143.
Belton, B., D. Little, and J. Young. 2006. Red tilapia cage culture in Central Thailand.
Aquaculture Asia 11(3):28–30.
Bene, C. 2005. The good, the bad and the ugly: Discourse, policy controversies and the role of
science in the politics of shrimp farming. Dev. Policy Rev. 23(5):585–614.
Berg, H., P. Michelsen, M. Troell, C. Folke, and N. Kautsky. 1996. Managing aquaculture for
sustainability in tropical Lake Kariba, Zimbabwe. Ecol. Econ. 18:141–159.
Bunting, S. W. 2001. Short communication; Appropriation of environmental goods and ser-
vices by aquaculture: A reassessment employing the ecological footprint methodology
and implications for horizontal integration. Aquacult. Res. 32:605–609.
Chambers, R. and G. Conway. 1992. Sustainable rural livelihoods: Practical concepts for
the 21st century. IDS Discussion Paper 296. Sussex, UK: Institute of Development
Studies.
Cheyroux, B. 2003. Fruit and vegetables in Thailand’s ricebowl: The agricultural development
of poldered raised bed systems in the Damnoen Saduak Area. In Thailand’s rice bowl:
Perspectives on social and agricultural change in the Chao Phrya delta, eds. F. Mille and
T. Srijantr, 157–175. Bangkok, Thailand: White Lotus Press.
Delgado, C., N. Wada, M. Rosegrant, S. Meijer, and M. Ahmed. 2003. Fish to 2020: Supply
and demand in changing global markets. Washington, DC: International Food Policy
Research Institute.
Department for International Development. 2001. Sustainable livelihoods guidance sheets.
London: Department for International Development.
Department of Fisheries. 2005. Fisheries statistics of Thailand 2003. Bangkok, Thailand:
Department of Fisheries.
Edwards, P. 1998. A system approach to the promotion of integrated aquaculture. Aquacult.
Econ. Manage. 2(1): 1–12.
Edwards, P. 1993. Environmental issues in integrated agriculture-aquaculture and
wastewater-fed fish culture systems. In Environment and aquaculture in developing
countries, eds. R. Pullin, H. Rosenthal, and J. Maclean, 139–167. Manila, Philippines:
ICLARM.
Ellis, F. 2000. Rural livelihoods and diversity in developing countries. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Falvey, L. 2000. Thai agriculture: Golden cradle of millennia. Bangkok, Thailand: Kasetsart
University Press.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2007. FISHSTAT database.
[Link] (accessed 16 October 2007).
 854 B. Belton et al.

Farrington, J., D. Carney, C. Ashley, and C. Turton. 1999. Sustainable livelihoods in practice:
Early applications of concepts in rural areas. London: ODI Natural Resource Perspectives
No. 42.
Fearnside, P. 2001. Soybean cultivation as a threat to the environment in Brazil. Environ.
Conserv. 28(1):23–38.
Fitzsimmons, K. 2006. Prospect and potential for global production. In Tilapia biology culture
and nutrition, eds. C. Lim and C. Webster, 51–71. New York: Food Products Press.
Fresco, L. and S. Kroonenberg. 1992. Time and spatial scales in sustainability. Land Use
Policy 9:155–168.
Folke, C. 1988. Energy economy of salmon aquaculture in the Baltic Sea. Environ. Manage.
12(4):525–537.
Harrison, E. 1995. Fish and feminists. IDS Bulletin 26.3. Sussex, UK: Institute of Development
Studies.
Iles, A. 2006. Making the seafood industry more sustainable: Creating production chain
transparency and accountability. J. Cleaner Product. 15:577–589.
Downloaded by [Brown University] at 16:04 05 December 2012

Intrafish. 2007. WWF: Tilapia standards ready by end of year. [Link] (accessed 16
October 2007).
Isvilanonda, S. and M. Hossain. 2003. Dynamics of rice farming in the Chao Phraya Delta:
A case study of three villages in Suphan Buri Province. In Thailand’s rice bowl: Perspec-
tives on social and agricultural change in the Chao Phrya Delta, eds. F. Molle and T.
Srijantr, 109–123. Bangkok, Thailand: White Lotus Press.
Jacquet, J. and D. Pauly. 2007. The rise of seafood awareness campaigns in an era of
collapsing fisheries. Mar. Policy 31:308–313.
Kautsky, N., H. Berg, C. Folke, J. Larsson, and M. Troell. 1997. Ecological footprint for
assessment of resource use and development limitations in shrimp and tilapia culture.
Aquacult. Res. 28(10):753–766.
Little, D. and S. Bunting. 2005. Opportunities and constraints to urban aquaculture, with a
focus on South and Southeast Asia. In Urban aquaculture, eds. B. Costa-Pierce,
A. Desbonnet, P. Edwards, and D. Baker, 25–43. Wallingford, UK: CAB International.
Little, D. and P. Edwards. 2003. Integrated livestock-fish farming systems. Rome, Italy: Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
McGovern, D. 2005. Sustainable seafood movement, Intrafish. [Link] (accessed
20 October 2008).
Molle, F. 2003. Allocating and accessing water resources: Practice and ideology in the Chao
Phraya River Basin. In Thailand’s rice bowl: Perspectives on social and agricultural change
in the Chao Phrya Delta, eds. F. Molle and T. Srijantr, 229–265. Bangkok, Thailand:
White Lotus Press.
Naylor, R., R. Goldburg, J. Primavera, N. Kautsky, M. Beveridge, J. Clay, C. Folke, J.
Lubchenco, H. Mooney, and M. Troell. 2000. Effect of aquaculture on world fish
supplies. Nature 405(6790):1017–1024.
Naylor, R., R. Goldburg, M. Mooney, M. Beveridge, J. Clay, C. Folke, N. Kautsky, J.
Lubchenco, J. Primavera, and M. Williams. 1998. Nature’s subsidies to shrimp and
salmon farming. Science 282(5390):883–884.
Papatryphon, E., J. Petit, S. Kaushik, and H. van der Werf. 2004. Environmental impact
assessment of salmonid feeds using life cycle assessment. Ambio 33(6):316–323.
Piumsombun, S. 2001. Production, accessibility, marketing and consumption patterns of
freshwater aquaculture products in Asia: A cross country comparison. FAO Fisheries
Circular No. 973. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization.
Pongpao, S. and A. Wipatayotin. 2007. Toxic river takes huge toll on fish farms. Bangkok Post
March 13, n.p.
Rigg, J. 2005. Poverty and livelihoods after full-time farming: A South-East Asian view. Asia
Pacific Viewpoint 46(2):173–184.
 Is Responsible Aquaculture Sustainable Aquaculture? 855

Sharma, K., P. Leung, H. Chen, and A. Peterson. 1999. Economic efficiency and optimum
stocking densities in fish polyculture: An Application of data envelopment analysis to
Chinese fish farms. Aquaculture 180:207–221.
Smith, L., K. Nguyen, and K. Lorenzen. 2005. Livelihood functions of inland fisheries: Policy
implications for developing countries. Water Policy 7:359–383.
Srijantr, T. 2003. Agrarian transformations in the Chao Phraya Delta: A case study in tambon
Thung Luk Nok. In Thailand’s rice bowl: Perspectives on social and agricultural change in
the Chao Phrya Delta, eds. F. Molle and T. Srijantr, 125–156. Bangkok, Thailand: White
Lotus Press.
Stock, C. 2006. Current and future impacts of aquaculture certification programmes. Stirling,
UK: Master’s thesis, Institute of Aquaculture, University of Stirling.
Stromsa, K. 2006. Are small fisheries being left out of the MSC? Intrafish [Link]
(accessed 23 October 2007).
Szuster, B., F. Molle, M. Flaherty, and T. Srijantr. 2003. Social and environmental implica-
tions of inland shrimp farming. In Thailand’s rice bowl: Perspectives on social and agricul-
Downloaded by [Brown University] at 16:04 05 December 2012

tural change in the Chao Phrya Delta, eds. F. Molle and T. Srijantr, 177–194. Bangkok,
Thailand: White Lotus Press.
United Nations Development Program. 2004. Unleashing entrepreneurship: Making business
work for the poor. New York: United Nations Human Development Program Commis-
sion on the Private Sector and Development.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2005. Global agricultural information network report:
Thailand oil seeds and products annual 2005. Washington, DC: U.S. Agricultural
Department, Foreign Agricultural Service.
United States and Foreign Commercial Service. 2003. Thailand agribusiness: Aquaculture
equipment and products. Washington, DC: United States and Foreign Commercial
Service, U.S. Department of State.
Vandergeest, P. 2007. Certification and communities: Alternatives for regulating the environ-
mental and social impacts of shrimp. World Dev. 7:1152–1171.
World Wildlife Fund. 2005. Tilapia aquaculture dialogue. [Link]
World Wildlife Fund. 2006. Principles for responsible tilapia aquaculture. [Link]
[Link]
World Wildlife Fund. 2007. Tilapia aquaculture dialogue meeting summary. http://
[Link]/cci/pubs/[Link] (accessed 26 October 2007).
Young, J., C. Brugere, and J. Muir. 1999. Green grow the fishes—Oh? Environmental
attributes in marketing aquaculture products. Aquacult. Econ. Manage. 3(1):7–17.