An Introduction to Sustainable

Aquaculture

This new textbook provides an accessible introduction to sustainable aquaculture

through its relationship with three key pillars: the environment, the economy, and
society.
As the demand for seafood keeps increasing, aquaculture is considered one of
the most promising and sustainable ways to satisfy this demand with nutritious
and high-​quality food. It is important to understand, therefore, the wider role and
impact aquaculture has on the environment, the economy, and society. The book
begins by providing a foundational introduction to aquaculture and sustainability,
discussing the complex and interdependent relationship that exists between the
two. The core text of the book is divided into four parts which focus on the envir-
onment, economics, social impacts, and governance and technologies. Chapters
examine key issues surrounding climate change, food security, new technologies,
bioeconomics and risk analysis, international cooperation, employment, and animal
welfare, with the book concluding with a chapter examining the future directions
and challenges for the aquaculture industry. The book draws on global case studies
and each chapter is accompanied by recommended reading and chapter review
questions to support student learning.
This book will serve as an essential guide for students of aquaculture, fish-
eries management, and sustainable food, as well as practitioners and policymakers
engaged in sustainable fishery development.

Daniel Peñalosa Martinell serves as Chief Scientific Officer at Shrimpl Pte Ltd.,
Singapore, and is Visiting Professor in the Interdisciplinary Center for Marine
Sciences and Computational Research Center at the National Polytechnic Institute,
Mexico.

Francisco J. Vergara-​Solana serves as Fisheries Outreach consultant for the

Marine Stewardship Council. He is Professor at Baja California Sur Autonomous
University, Mexico, and Visiting Professor in the Interdisciplinary Center for
Marine Sciences and Computational Research Center at the National Polytechnic
Institute, Mexico.
Marcelo E. Araneda Padilla is Manager of the Bioeconomy and Control Unit
at Benchmark Genetics, Chile, and Visiting Professor in the Interdisciplinary
Center for Marine Sciences and Computational Research Center at the National
Polytechnic Institute, Mexico.

Fernando Aranceta Garza is Researcher for Mexico at the National Council of

Humanities, Sciences and Technologies, and the Fisheries Ecology Program in
Northwest Biological Research Center, Baja California Sur, working on fisheries
and aquaculture issues for federal, public, academic, and civil organizations.
An Introduction to Sustainable
Aquaculture

Edited by Daniel Peñalosa Martinell,

Francisco J. Vergara-​Solana,
Marcelo E. Araneda Padilla, and
Fernando Aranceta Garza
Designed cover image: © Getty Images
First published 2024
by Routledge
4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2024 selection and editorial matter, Daniel Peñalosa Martinell, Francisco J. Vergara-Solana,
Marcelo E. Araneda Padilla, and Fernando Aranceta Garza; individual chapters, the contributors
The right of Daniel Peñalosa Martinell, Francisco J. Vergara-Solana, Marcelo E. Araneda Padilla
and Fernando Aranceta Garza to be identified as the authors of the editorial material,
and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with
sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised
in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or
hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information
storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks,
and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
British Library Cataloguing-​in-​Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN: 978-​1-​032-​00467-​9 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-​1-​032-​00461-​7 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-​1-​003-​17427-​1 (ebk)
DOI: 10.4324/​9781003174271
Typeset in Times New Roman
by Newgen Publishing UK
Contents

List of contributors viii

PART I
Basic concepts 1

1 Introduction 3
D A N I E L P E Ñ A L OS A MART I NE L L

2 What is aquaculture? 8
D A N I E L P E Ñ A L OS A MART I NE L L

3 What is sustainability? 24
D A N I E L P E Ñ A L OS A MART I NE L L

PART II
Aquaculture and the environment 37

4 Effects of the environment on aquaculture organisms 39

D A N I E L P E Ñ A L OS A MART I NE L L

5 Aquaculture’s effect on the environment 53

D A N I E L P E Ñ A L OS A MART I NE L L
C A S E S T U D Y: JE AN PAUL L HORE NT E CAUS S ADE

6 Aquaculture and climate change 71

F R A N C I S C O J . VE RGARA- ​S OL ANA, F E RNANDO A R A N C ETA G A R ZA ,
A N D D A N I E L PE ÑAL OS A MART I NE L L
C A S E S T U D Y: JOS É AGUI L AR MANJARRE Z
vi Contents

PART III
Aquaculture and economics 91

7 A brief introduction to economics and its relationship with

aquaculture 93
D A N I E L P E Ñ A L OS A MART I NE L L
C A S E S T U D Y: F E RNANDO GONZ AL E Z L AXE

8 Aquaculture and fisheries 115

F E R N A N D O A RANCE TA GARZ A
C A S E S T U D Y: US S I F RAS HI D S UMAI L A

9 Aquaculture value chain analysis 132

D A N I E L P E Ñ A L OS A MART I NE L L

10 Aquaculture bioeconomics: a brief introduction 145

F E R N A N D O A RANCE TA GARZ A
C A S E S T U D Y: HUMBE RTO VI L L ARRE AL COL MEN A RES

11 Aquaculture: uncertainty sources and risk quantification

techniques 175
M A R C E L O E . A RANE DA PADI L L A AND
D A N I E L P E Ñ A L OS A MART I NE L L

PART IV
Aquaculture and society 197

12 Aquaculture and food security 199

F E R N A N D O A RANCE TA GARZ A

13 Aquaculture and employment: impact on livelihood and poverty 225

F R A N C I S C O J . VE RGARA- ​S OL ANA

14 Aquaculture and animal welfare 240

F E R N A N D O A RANCE TA GARZ A
 Contents vii

PART V
Governance and technologies 263

15 Governance, partnerships, and cooperation 265

F R A N C I S C O J . VE RGARA- ​S OL ANA AND
D A N I E L P E Ñ A L OS A MART I NE L L
C A S E S T U D Y: AL E JANDRO F L ORE S - ​N AVA

16 New technologies as a means to achieve sustainability 286

D A N I E L P E Ñ A L OS A MART I NE L L
C A S E S T U D Y: CI ARON MCKI NL E Y

PART VI
Future expectations 315

17 Future directions 317

F R A N C I S C O J . VE RGARA- ​S OL ANA
C A S E S T U D Y: MARCE L O E . ARANE DA PADI L L A

Index 337
newgenprepdf

Contributors

José Aguilar Manjarrez

Aquaculture officer for Latin America and the Caribbean Regional Office
FAO, Panama

Alejandro Flores-​Nava
Chief Fisheries and Aquaculture Officer for Latin America and the Caribbean
FAO, Panama

Fernando Gonzalez Laxe

Professor of Applied Economics
Universidade Da Coruña, Spain

Jean Paul Lhorente Caussade

Technical and breeding manager
Benchmark Genetics Chile, Chile

Ciaron McKinley
CEO
Shrimpl Pte Ltd. Singapore

Usiff Rashid Sumaila

University Killiam Professor of Oceans & Fisheries Economics and Canada
Research Chair (Tier 1)
The University of British Columbia, Canada

Humberto Villarreal Colmenares

Professor & President of the World Aquaculture Society
Centro de Investigaciones Biológicas del Norte, Mexico
Part I

Basic concepts


1 Introduction
Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

Human development has been significantly marked by the domestication of plants

and animals for the species’ advantage. Both agriculture and livestock production
have been practised for millennia and are considered foundations for the develop-
ment of civilisations.
Today, the activity responsible for the controlled production of living organisms
with an aquatic origin is known as aquaculture.
Although the domestication of some aquatic organisms has been around for
hundreds of years, humanity has depended mostly on the fishery industry to support
its demand for seafood and other inputs from an aquatic origin. It was not until
recently that aquaculture became a significant source of food (representing around
50% of the fish and shellfish destined for human consumption) and an important
component of some regional economies.
Despite the vast range of aquaculture species potential and the currently large
number of organisms produced, this book mainly focuses on the production of
fish and shellfish unless stated otherwise. This decision was made to focus the
ideas in the text and to avoid overreaching the book’s extent. Nonetheless, infor-
mation on other types of aquaculture is included on occasion and in some of our
recommended readings.
Unlike any other animal-​ origin industry, aquaculture confronts unique
challenges. Many factors need to be considered, such as interactions between the
different environments (land, water, air), the influence of each environment on the
animals produced, the difficulty of manipulating organisms, and the extensive var-
iety of reared species of different groups, families, phyla, and even kingdoms. In
addition, an increase in complexity exists as a result of human interventions and
decisions, such as rearing densities, infrastructure and production systems, food
and animal handling, and so on.
During the beginning of the so-​called “Blue Revolution”, which in this con-
text refers to the significant growth of aquaculture over the last forty years,1
the large profit margins obtained from farmed species allowed management
based on trial and error. The increase in competition –​especially that observed
in certain species, such as tilapia, shrimp, or salmon –​ has significantly reduced

DOI: 10.4324/9781003174271-2
4 Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

profit margins, making it necessary to increase knowledge, management, and

production control, besides understanding the different effects that management
decisions can cause without creating a risk to production. At the same time, the
production processes have to be optimised to maximise profit margins that were
previously impossible.
In addition to the challenges observed in the private administration of aqua-
culture businesses, a crisis regarding the rules and regulations of these activities
has been observed. The novelty of the production systems and their continuous
evolution, as well as the difficulty in defining responsibilities in terms of regu-
lation, has prevented the application of public policies to mitigate negative
production impacts. For example, should administration or regulation be con-
ferred to the agencies in charge of fisheries and agriculture, or to those in charge
of coastal management or natural resources, or is it necessary to create a new
agency or secretariat? Usually, the lack of such regulation comes from a lack
of understanding of the activity’s impact, leading to complex management and
administration.
During the years when production started to grow significantly, certain actions
were carried out by regulators and other stakeholders to promote aquaculture.
Although these actions significantly boosted production growth, they also had
important negative environmental and social effects, however at the time of their
implementation, such impacts were unknown or underestimated. The destruction
of high ecological interest areas, such as mangroves, for their transformation into
cultivation areas; indiscriminate use of antibiotics and fertilisers; eutrophication
of soils and abandonment of facilities; introduction of invasive species; reduction
of genetic variety; abuse of fishmeal and fish oil consumption from fishing; and
contamination of aquifers are some of the negative impacts associated with aqua-
culture production during the first years of industrialisation.
Following the negative environmental impacts generated by unsustainable
practices –​coupled with the growing food demand and uncertain global climate
context –​policies have focused on promoting the development of sustainable activ-
ities, including the aquaculture and fishing sectors. A reflection of this trend can be
seen in Goal 14 of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) established by the
United Nations (UN), referring to the sustainability of oceans, seas, and aquatic
resources, as well as in the UN initiative to designate the 2021–​2030 decade as the
ocean science decade.
However, there remains a long way to go regarding the estimation of aquacul-
ture impact and the development of tools and measures aimed at maximising the
beneficial aspects and minimising negative externalities.
While aquaculture has gained a bad name due to its environmental impacts,
especially during the beginning of its industrialisation,2,3 it is important to high-
light that these effects have been highly dependent on the methods used for pro-
duction. Moreover, a wide variety of benefits associated with the activity have
been obtained. From an environmental point of view, the pressure on fisheries has
been significantly reduced, enabling the supply of quality animal protein food to
a growing global population. In addition, there is significant potential to perform
 Introduction 5

aquaculture that encourages genetic diversity and even systems that promote
restocking in areas where natural populations have declined.
Moreover, aquaculture represents a source of income for about 10% of the
global population (directly or indirectly) with more than 19.3 million people whose
employment is directly related to this activity.4 Aquaculture production has reduced
the prices of certain seafood products, making them accessible to a portion of the
population that could not previously afford this luxury, improving accessibility to
high-​quality protein, and having a positive impact on food security.5,6 Seafood con-
sumption is the highest in the world among animal products, averaging more than
20 kg per capita per year,7 almost 5 kg more than poultry, and more than double that
of beef.8 In addition, this consumption is expected to grow at around 5% annually
over the next decade.
From an economic point of view, aquaculture generates more than USD 280
billion a year directly.4 In addition, marine products are amongst the most widely
traded foods in the world, creating over USD 150 billion in trade in 2020 (both
fishing and aquaculture).4 The two products that dominate the international market
in terms of value are salmon and farmed crustaceans, while the volume is dominated
by white fish, such as tilapia and carp.4
As mentioned above, this novel industry has experienced not only a wide var-
iety of challenges but also opportunities. Aquaculture regulation has increased
exponentially over the last 40 years, which coupled with intensive activity from
the research and development groups worldwide has led to a host of ingenious and
interesting management systems being developed. This situation has maximised
production yield while the negative impact of the activity is minimised, such as
recirculation systems, aquaponics, or zero discharge systems.
Throughout this book, the concept of sustainable aquaculture is introduced. The
book is divided into six parts or blocks, which in turn are composed of a series
of chapters. The chapter structure is as follows. First, a summary of the chapter
contents and structure is included, subsequently followed by the chapter content.
Then, a part of each chapter is designed to reinforce learning, which is included as
questions and case studies. Finally, recommended readings for studying the sub-
ject in depth are also included to supplement the material presented throughout
the book.
The first part of the book describes the concept of aquaculture with the pur-
pose of providing the reader with the necessary bases to understand the biology
of the organisms, the need for this knowledge, production methods that exist, and
different management techniques. In the same way, this part deals with the concept
of sustainability, the different types and history of this concept, and the importance
it has in the aquaculture industry. Finally, the functional definition of sustainable
aquaculture is introduced and used throughout the book.
The second block discusses the relationship between aquaculture and the
environment while addressing different questions, such as: How does aquacul-
ture production impact the environment? How do environmental changes affect
aquaculture production? What is the expected impact of climate change on
aquaculture production? Will production continue in the same way?
6 Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

The third block deals with the relationship between aquaculture and the economy.
On the one hand, macroeconomic production aspects are introduced along with
other economic principles, emphasising the current state of the industry, trade, pro-
duction chains, activity value, and future expectations. On the other hand, micro-
economic aspects are discussed, which are usually responsible for the decisions
made by each producer and associated with a significant impact on global environ-
mental and economic performance. This section deals with measurement, control,
and management tools that allow the producers, scientists, and decision-​makers to
evaluate the impacts of aquaculture production, measure its risks, and make value
propositions to improve practices.
The fourth block of the book focuses on the social impacts derived from aqua-
culture activity. Important factors are discussed, such as equality, food security,
well-​being, poverty, aquaculture from a gender equality perspective, and eth-
ical production aspects in the different components of the production chain from
obtaining seed to marketing, including aspects of fair trade, animal welfare, and
sustainable production.
The fifth block of the book is divided into two chapters necessary to achieve sus-
tainable aquaculture: governance and new technologies. The governance chapter
deals with various topics, such as production control through the application of
economic tools –​such as taxes and subsidies –​and the importance of developing
alliances and cooperation at different scales with an emphasis on the international
organisations that exist and sustainable production needs. The second chapter
introduces and discusses the new existing technologies for sustainable aquaculture
as well as their obstacles to becoming a future reality.
The sixth block is composed of the future expectations of the industry. Since
innovation in aquaculture is also driven by the sector’s maturation and opportun-
ities that arise from changes in society (such as new regulations, shifts in con-
sumption patterns, increased environmental awareness, and advancements in
technology), we deal with future directions of the industry as a whole in the final
chapter of the book.
The topics covered in this book are extremely extensive and complex, and
require great depth of knowledge to be fully understood. Thus, the intention of
this book is not to contain all the information on all the topics covered but rather
to serve as an introduction and guide that allows the study of each topic to con-
tinue. For this reason, a bibliography considered essential, relevant, and of great
interest is included in each of the topics covered, so that readers can delve into
those chapters that are useful to them. In that spirit, this book can be read from
cover to cover or separately by topic, depending on the interest of the reader.
The authors expect that, by the end of this book, the reader will have a clear,
robust, and scientifically based idea about the current state and challenges of aqua-
culture. Furthermore, the cases introduced, exercises provided, and theory described
should hopefully be of value to future researchers, producers, and decision-​makers,
which may serve as a motivational tool for those actors responsible for guiding the
future industry towards sustainable aquaculture production.
 Introduction 7

References
1 Garlock, T., et al. “A global blue revolution: Aquaculture growth across regions, species,
and countries.” Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture 28.1 (2020): 107–​116.
2 Chen, W., and S. Gao. “Current status of industrialized aquaculture in China: A review.”
Environmental Science and Pollution Research 30.12 (2023): 32278–​32287.
3 Asche, F., K. H. Roll, and R. Tveteras. “Economic inefficiency and environmental
impact: An application to aquaculture production.” Journal of Environmental
Economics and Management 58.1 (2009): 93–​105.
4 FAO. 2022. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2022. Towards Blue
Transformation. Rome, FAO.https://​doi.org/​10.4060/​cc046​1en
5 Anderson, J. L. “Market interactions between aquaculture and the common-​property
commercial fishery.” Marine Resource Economics 2.1 (1985): 1–​24.
6 Asche, F., et al. “Aquaculture: Externalities and policy options.” Review of
Environmental Economics and Policy 16.2 (2022): 282–​305.
7 Stentiford, G. D., and Holt, C. C. “Global adoption of aquaculture to supply seafood.”
Environmental Research Letters 17.4 (2022): 041003.
8 Whitton, C., Bogueva, D., Marinova, D., and Phillips, C. J. “Are we approaching peak
meat consumption? Analysis of meat consumption from 2000 to 2019 in 35 countries
and its relationship to gross domestic product.” Animals 11.12 (2021): 3466.
2 What is aquaculture?
Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

Aquaculture, understood as the activity of producing aquatic organisms and their

derivatives, is one of the fastest-​growing food production industries in the world.
Most of this growth occurred during the decades of the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s
and came with a cost, mainly environmental. Despite this, if the demand for sea-
food is to be satisfied, aquaculture production must continue to rise, but this growth
needs to account for the three pillars of sustainability –​the economy, society, and
the environment.
To better understand how aquaculture is carried out, its challenges, and opportun-
ities, it is essential to first understand the immense variety of organisms produced,
their differences, and needs. This will provide insights into how these organisms
can be reared and what can be done to improve the current status of production.

2.1 Introduction: Brief history of aquaculture

Domestication is a process by which one or more species from the natural environ-
ment are adapted and selected to fulfil a specific role within society. Domestication
is a resource developed by our human ancestors with the aim of reducing the
existing dependence on the organisms of the natural environment to provide food.
Remains and prehistoric studies have led to the belief that more than 10,000 years
ago, Homo neanderthalesis and Homo sapiens developed tools for growing plants,
as populations began to decline, and food was scarce due to the pressure suffered
by megafauna.
As on land, pressure on natural fish populations –​ in part due to increased
fishing –​ resulted in a reduction in their availability. This situation led ancient
humans to develop some systems that allowed for providing these resources at
any time without depending on the uncertainty of artisanal fishing. This newly
developed activity is known today as aquaculture, which consists of the activ-
ities associated with the production of aquatic organisms and/​or products derived
from them.
According to a group of anthropologists led by Tsuneo Nakajima,1 the first evi-
dence of aquaculture was observed in Jiahu, China. Anthropological evidence was
observed in the control of dams and water to maintain and rear one of the most

DOI: 10.4324/9781003174271-3
 What is aquaculture? 9

produced species in the world today –​the common carp, Cyprinus carpio –​around
6000 BC.
In addition to that observed in China, evidence has been found of some type of
eel aquaculture performed by Australian Aborigines at around 4500 BC. Evidence
points to the use of natural formations as systems to keep eels previously caught
with woven baskets, so they were available for their consumption throughout the
year. In Europe, besides fish, the Romans were already responsible for the produc-
tion of other organisms, such as oyster farming in small rectangular ponds, which
were of major interest around 100 BC.
Despite the fact that dikes and ponds were manipulated to maintain a fish popu-
lation for human consumption, the techniques used were rudimentary, artisanal
and based on little scientific knowledge. The organisms were captured from their
natural environment and kept for rearing, without actually closing the aquacul-
ture production cycle, consisting of maintaining breeders, obtaining larvae and
fattening, which is discussed later. It was not until some point between the 12th
and 14th centuries AD that records of controlled and complete carp production
existed, originally developed by the Roman Empire on the banks of the Danube
River. The move towards controlled production is believed to have been due to an
increase in demand primarily in abstinence periods, when Christians did not con-
sume red meat.
The earliest available text on fish production, tank structure, juvenile manage-
ment, and other typical aquaculture concepts –​ written around 475 BC (although
the precise date is unknown) –​is attributed to the Chinese historian and politician
Fan Lee (also known as Fan Li or Fau Lai)2 in his monograph entitled “Treatise on
Fish Breeding”.2
Another milestone in aquaculture production corresponds to the rearing of
marine organisms. The first signs of marine fish production have been found in
Hawaii with the evidence of a pond used to host ocean fish around 1000 years ago.
Marine organisms, such as Atlantic salmon or Pacific white shrimp, represent a
large part of the value generated by aquaculture activities and are among the main
drivers of knowledge generation and technology development.3
Finally, the most significant advancement in aquaculture has been the domesti-
cation of different species, understanding domestication as the capacity of reprodu-
cing organisms in captivity over generations. This advance also led to the creation
of genetic improvement programmes and increased productivity associated with a
steady seed supply.3
At a global level, approximately at the beginning of the 1970s, the Blue
Revolution, known for the enormous growth coming from the aquaculture industry
grew 18.8% per year from 1975 to 1985.4 For that same period, agriculture and
fishing growth were 2.4% and 1.1%, respectively. Nowadays, aquaculture goes
from a semi-​industrial state with small-​scale production to an industry of enormous
production with continuous growth of from 5% to 10% per year between the 1980s
and the 2000s,5 growth which is higher than that of the rest of the food-​producing
industries. As a result of this growth, the complexity of managing aquaculture pro-
duction has increased and farm administration has become more complicated.
10 Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

Currently, the aquaculture industry is a global and complex network of

stakeholders with different levels of influence in which aquaculture producers them-
selves, consumers and regulators participate. However, less obvious participants
are also part of this network, such as other food-​producing industries, international
markets, interest groups, non-​governmental and international organisations, and
other satellite industries in charge of the production of supplies, infrastructure, and
research. These actors in turn significantly influence all spheres of sustainability,
namely the economy, the environment and society.6
Today, the aquaculture industry is made up of producers of different sizes with
different management and production techniques, and a great variety of species
produced in different climates and under different circumstances. Furthermore,
globalisation has made aquaculture an industry with different production scales
where food for the organisms can be produced in Asia, used in America and the
final product taken for sale in Europe, or produced and sold at a regional level but
with a high degree of interconnection throughout the entire value chain.
Thus, given the complexity of these relationships, several concepts are neces-
sary to understand the reason for current aquaculture production to be able to per-
ceive what can be done to change this paradigm. Among the concepts directly
associated with production are the biology of the organisms produced (including
concepts such as their ethology, immunology, physiology and genetics), production
methods and management.

2.2 Introduction to the biology of farmed aquaculture organisms

As mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, aquaculture encompasses a wide
universe of different species, climates and ecosystems, of which the main groups
produced are finfish, bivalve molluscs, crustaceans and algae (Figure 2.1).
However, aquaculture also includes –​although to a lesser extent –​the production of
other aquatic organisms, such as some echinoderms (e.g., sea urchins), cnidarians
(e.g., corals), reptiles (e.g., crocodiles) and amphibians (e.g., frogs). Since the first
four groups mentioned are responsible for more than 95% of global aquaculture
production,5 they are dealt with throughout the book with an emphasis on animal
production.
Although a great variety of species, genera and even phyla and kingdoms
are found in aquaculture production, there are certain common characteristics
for the different farmed organisms in terms of their relationship with the culture
medium, reproductive system, response to pathogens and growth. Next, the bio-
logical generalities of aquaculture organisms are introduced differentiating three
large groups: algae (both macro-​ and microalgae), invertebrate animals (bivalve
molluscs and crustaceans) and vertebrate animals (mainly finfish).

2.2.1 The circulatory system and its relationship with the environment

All aquatic animals –​with the exception of mammals and seabirds –​are ecto-
thermic, and poikilotherms that is, their body temperature is the same as that of
 What is aquaculture? 11

Figure 2.1 Most important groups of species produced by aquaculture. The size of the
sphere represents the number of species in each group. Numbers represent
global production in thousand metric tonnes, annual average growth rate and
number of species per group.

the environment in which they are found and lack the mechanisms to regulate their
body temperature. Some organisms, such as tuna. which means they cannot fully
regulate their body temperature, have certain mechanisms of circulation and vaso-
constriction that allow –​to a certain extent –​maintaining heat in localised parts of
the body. This characteristic is of great relevance since it makes water temperature
one of the most determining factors when evaluating the site for growth suitability
or a species for a certain climate, as we will see in Chapter 4.
Regarding the circulatory system, invertebrate organisms generally have open
systems where blood (or haemolymph) is not found in blood vessels but rather dir-
ectly irrigated to the tissues.7 In these cases, haemolymph usually accumulates in
lacunae or sinuses. In most of the cases that concern us, the circulatory system is
associated with gas exchange, but unlike terrestrial vertebrates, not all animals use
haemoglobin as a respiratory pigment. The protein used for oxygen transport, as
well as the element that functions as an active centre, determines some of the nutri-
tional requirements of farmed animals. For example, in the case of cephalopods and
crustaceans, the protein responsible for transporting oxygen is known as haemo-
cyanin which has copper, unlike haemoglobin (used by fish and bivalves), which
has iron in its active centre.8
On the other hand, vertebrate animals, such as finfish, have closed circulatory
systems; their blood is transported by blood vessels from the heart to the gills
12 Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

where gas exchange takes place, and from there to the tissues and back to the heart
in a single circuit that runs through the entire body.9
Finally, macroalgae do not have a circulatory system. The gaseous exchange of
these organisms occurs through cellular respiration and photosynthesis.

2.2.2 Reproduction in aquaculture organisms

The vast majority of farmed organisms have sexual reproduction, are oviparous,
and in most cases, externally fertilised.9
Two significant characteristics for the selection of species suitable for aqua-
culture are linked to sex. The first is its reproductive potential; most of the reared
organisms favour the production of a large number of offspring, for example, a
female white shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei) can lay from 300,000 to 400,000
eggs per female with a low survival in the natural environment, mainly in the early
stages of its life (larval stages).10 The intervention of man increases the chances
of survival of the offspring. Crustaceans, bivalve molluscs and some finfish all go
through certain larval stages.
The second desirable characteristic of an aquaculture species corresponds to
meat-​producing aquaculture species and is that it reaches commercial size before
reaching sexual maturity. In this way, the farmed organisms use their energy for
growth and not for sexual maturity, increasing the yield of the food provided. This
last point is valid for the cases in which the part of the animal consumed is the
muscle, which is the case of most finfish and shellfish; although in some cases,
the edible part of the animal is the gonad or some part or component of the repro-
ductive system (for example, in the production of caviar). In those cases, sexual
maturity is desirable for the reared organisms.
An important exception is the case of macroalgae because all have both sexual
and asexual reproduction, as well as a great variety of diversity in their life cycles. In
general, sexual reproduction is characterised by having two phases, gametophyte –​
emits haploid gametes through a process of mitosis –​and sporophyte –​emits hap-
loid spores through a process of meiosis. The dominant phase of the cycle is known
as the vegetative phase and the algae are considered to be in their adult stage.11
In general, the life cycles of algae can be of three different types: (1) haplontic –​
the vegetative phase is haploid; (2) diplontic –​ the vegetative phase is diploid; and
(3) haplodiplontic –​the gametophyte is haploid, produces haploid gametes by mitosis,
and the sporophyte is diploid and produces haploid spores by meiosis. In this last type
of cycle, the vegetative phase undergoes alternation of generations or metagenesis.
As for asexual reproduction (or multiplication), the most common, both in
macroalgae and in some animals that have it, is fragmentation. The low special-
isation of its cells allows the generation of a new organism from a fragment of the
original organisms, giving rise to two genetically identical individuals.

2.2.3 Growth in aquaculture organisms

Growth in the different groups described is very varied, and in most cases, depends
on different factors, both endogenous, such as endocrine and genetic, as well as
 What is aquaculture? 13

exogenous, such as nutritional and the characteristics of the environment. One of

the characteristics that all organisms have is the use of energy for growth until
sexual maturity is reached; at this point, energy consumed derives to the creation
of progeny. For this reason, one of the characteristics that most species suitable
for aquaculture production should show is that it reaches a commercial size prior
to sexual maturity (except for the above-​mentioned cases where the gonad is the
commercialised product, such as some bivalves, sea urchins, or when enough profit
margin justifies a slower growth).
Regarding endocrine factors, in the case of fish, the most relevant is the growth
hormone, although other compounds are relevant, such as somatomedins and their
receptors and IGF-​binding proteins.12
For crustaceans, growth is a discontinuous process and is directly linked to the
shedding of the chitin exoskeleton or ecdysis. The moulting process is regulated
by various hormones; the moulting hormone or ecdysone is the main moulting
promoter, while the moulting inhibiting hormone is the counterpart that adjusts the
process. These hormones are emitted by the X organ located in the ocular peduncle
of crustaceans. During moulting, organisms absorb water to increase their body
mass when the incipient exoskeleton remains elastic; after hardening, absorbed
water is lost and new tissues are generated.13
The case of bivalves is particular to each species because they generally use
different proteins, as well as calcium carbonate from the medium, to increase the
size of their valves, starting around the umbo and increasing towards the outside.
Although genetics is known to have a significant effect on the growth capacities
of different species, it is a new and constantly developing line of research. Different
genes and interactions exist between them and the environment that impacts the
performance of a species in captivity. However, the effect of genetics on growth is
made evident through artificial selection where the producer selects the organisms
that have the best traits to reproduce them and thus obtain offspring with similar
characteristics. Thus, in the most important species, making lines or genetic lines
that have different performances under different production characteristics has
been possible. This possibility helps to maximise the production yield and can have
other important benefits, such as sterility of the organisms in culture, increased
resistance to diseases or greater production of offspring. However, the negative
effects of selection should be taken into account, such as diversity loss or genetic
contamination of wild populations derived from their escape.14
One of the most powerful exogenous factors on organism growth is the
rearing medium, of which two types are found –​determining and limiting factors.
Determining factors are those that directly affect the organism’s growth, increasing
or decreasing it, such as temperature, photoperiod or salinity; limiting factors are
those for which an optimal threshold exists, such as pH or a tolerance margin, such
as oxygen availability or NH4 concentration in water.
Finally, nutrition is an exogenous element that determines the growth of the
organisms produced. Each species –​ even within the same groups –​ has nutri-
tional peculiarities that they must satisfy to reach their optimal growth poten-
tial or, in extreme cases, survive. The nutritional requirements are divided into
macronutrients –​ those that supply most of the body’s metabolic energy and
14 Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

micronutrients –​those essential nutrients that are needed in small doses, such as
minerals and vitamins. Food is such an important factor that it can sometimes
account for more than 50% of production costs.
Within the groups discussed, four categories are found depending on the food
provided. The first three are heterotrophic, that is, they require external food sources
for their nutrition, and the last one is that of autotrophic organisms, in other words,
they are capable of producing their own food from basic components, using mainly
nitrogen and phosphorus as macronutrients.
Heterotrophic organisms can be classified into three groups. First, carniv-
orous organisms feed mainly on other animals in the environment, so they
require high concentrations of animal protein in their diet; some examples
are sea bass, salmon, sea bream, marine shrimp and lobster. Second, herbiv-
orous species, such as tilapia and carp, do not require animal components to
supplement their diet and feed mainly on algae and debris. Third, the group of
filter feeders, mainly composed of bivalve molluscs, uses specific appendages
to filter microorganisms from water (mostly microalgae) for their food. Finally,
autotrophic organisms correspond to algae that produce their energy through the
photosynthesis process.

2.2.4 Immune response

Regarding the immune system, two types of response to the presence of a pathogen
have been observed: innate and acquired. The innate immune response consists of
a set of specialised cells responsible for detecting and eliminating possible patho-
genic organisms that are detected within the body. In this case, cells and the rest
of the system components lack specificity and memory, that is, they do not dif-
ferentiate between pathogens and only recognise and eliminate entities foreign to
their own systems. The cells that make up this response are generally embedded
within the circulatory system, facilitating their movement and increasing their
effectiveness.
The other type of immune response –​the acquired response –​is unique to ver-
tebrate organisms. This type of response is composed of a system of organs or
ganglia that contain cells and other specialised cellular components capable of
recognising certain pathogenic components (specific epitopes) and thus provide
the ability to respond more quickly and effectively to known pathogens. It is this
response that enables the existence and development of vaccines.
Despite the aforementioned coincidences among the majority of aquaculture
production organisms (with the exception of algae), a series of characteristics
differentiate each group and even each farmed species, such as their nutritional
requirements, feeding system and behaviour and certain physiological ones (such
as osmoregulation, moulting regulation in crustaceans or shell development in
bivalves) and reproductive characteristics. Since this book is not, nor is it intended
to be, a manual of the biology of each organism, some of the main representative
characteristics of each of the most important animal groups in aquaculture pro-
duction are described. However, if readers wish to delve into any of the particular
 What is aquaculture? 15

aspects described for specific species, they can consult the references provided at
the end of the chapter.

2.3 Types of aquaculture production and management systems

As mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, in addition to the biology of the
organisms, another characteristic that determines the impact of aquaculture pro-
duction on sustainability is the type of production or management system.
Because of the great variety of cultivated species, a great number of management
systems can be adapted to the characteristics of the different species, climates,
cultures and economies. These systems can be classified differently depending on
the characteristic used for their classification.
Thus, different systems are found depending on the number of farmed species,
seeding density used, stage to be produced, hydrology, location of the facilities,
origin of the seed and, finally, the production objective.

2.3.1 Depending on the number of species produced

One of the main characteristics of the first aquaculture crop was the use of the
flooded wetlands used to produce rice in Asia in combination with carp rearing. On
the one hand, carp fed on organisms, such as insects and possible pests for rice, and
on the other hand, they provided fertiliser in the form of waste with a high nitrogen
content. These systems, where more than one species is produced at the same time,
are known as polycultures, while those whose objective is only the production of
one species are known as monocultures.
In aquaculture, most industrial productions correspond to monocultures, such as
shrimp in Asia and Latin America or salmon in Norway and Chile. Nevertheless,
the most widely cultivated species in terms of volume worldwide (common carp)
comes from a polyculture, generally in combination with rice crops.
In recent years, attempts have been made to promote the establishment of
polycultures since they are considered to have a lower environmental impact and
can be equally profitable. However, nowadays certain monocultures have not
become polycultures due to lower productive yields, difficulty in promoting and
handling different types of products and exploitation, and a highly demanding
qualified labour force, which increases labour costs, among others. A special case
of polycultures is the Integrated Multitrophic System (IMS), which is described in
more detail in later chapters.

2.3.2 Depending on the rearing density

Density is one of the most determining factors when it comes to obtaining positive
economic returns. The more individuals are put into a system, the more biomass
may be harvested, which is true up to certain limits and depending on the farmed
species, this limit is known as the carrying capacity. On the one hand, a phenom-
enon known as density dependence exists. Denso-​dependent species have different
16 Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

capacities to grow depending on the available space (or density); thus, the higher
the density is, the smaller the maximum size of each individual, so a balance must
be found between the number of individuals planted and the harvest objective for
this type of species.
Furthermore, the higher the density of the crop is, the greater the water quality
deterioration, which can cause significant problems during rearing. This situation
favours disease appearance due to immune system depression, reduces dissolved
oxygen concentration –​vital for living organisms –​or increases toxic substances
associated with organic waste, such as ammonia and nitrites. In other words, the
higher the density is, the greater the control required of the crops and the higher the
risk that problems appear.
Crops can be classified as extensive if their density is very low (the value of this
density depends on the species being reared) and intensive if their density is high.
There are ranges between these two systems; for example, medium densities can
be considered a semi-​intensive crop and very high densities could be a super-​or
hyper-​intensive system.
In addition to the main selection characteristic of these systems, crop density
has other differentiators between them. Usually, extensive systems do not require
adding food since density is very low, so they rely on the ability of the system to
provide food in the form of insects and annelids for carnivorous organisms, e.g.
shrimp, and in the form of algae and other plants for herbivorous organisms, e.g.
tilapia or carp. On the other hand, intensive systems require continuous feeding,
normally in the form of pellets, which allows organisms to grow in the face of low
food availability for high densities.
Hence, as mentioned before, another factor that differentiates intensive and
extensive systems is control; the higher the production intensity, the more control
is necessary for successful production.

2.3.3 Depending on the stage to be produced

As discussed in the previous section of this chapter, most aquaculture species

have different development or larval stages, that is, they have an indirect devel-
opment. Formerly (and still in some cases today) the common practice of aqua-
culture consisted of collecting larvae from the natural environment, later taking
them to a semi-​controlled system where these larvae would reach commercial
sizes. However, this practice has various limitations and negative effects on the
environment.
In the first place, larval collection from the natural environment is limited to
the production capacity of the environment itself, so there is no control over the
number of seeds obtained for each productive cycle. Second, removing larvae from
the environment nullifies future recruitment of breeding individuals, which limits
access to larvae in the future, reducing industry growth and endangering the target
species, even with the potential for extinction. Third, the capture of individuals
from the environment results in obtaining heterogeneous larvae, which makes man-
agement difficult on the farm, limiting the possibilities of intensifying production.
 What is aquaculture? 17

Finally, a wide possibility exists of introducing pathogenic organisms from the

natural environment due to the null control of reproduction standards, which could
lead to production mortality and a significant economic, biological and food source
loss for society.
For these reasons, a substantial part of modern aquaculture is focused on
developing captive reproduction mechanisms for a large number of species, elim-
inating the bottleneck of capturing larvae from the wild. Thus, most of the species
reared today, particularly those with the highest production, such as finfish (carp,
salmon, tilapia, bass, sole, etc.), bivalve molluscs (mussels, clams, oysters, etc.),
and crustaceans (shrimp, crab, lobster, etc.) have at least three different produc-
tion phases. The broodstock maintenance phase –​also known as maturation –​is
where the conditions of the organisms in the reproductive stage are optimised, in
such a way that they are kept free of pathogens and the quality of their offspring
is also optimised. The stage of obtaining and maintaining larvae –​also known as
hatchery –​is where the eggs are kept until they hatch with the last larval stages
of the organism as the object of production. The fattening or final rearing stage
is where juvenile organisms are kept and grown until they reach their commer-
cial size.
Additionally, in some species, an intermediate stage is considered between
hatchery and grow-​out, known as nursery, where juvenile organisms are maintained
and acclimatised to reduce the stress associated with inclusion in the grow-​out
systems.
Each of these stages or systems has marked differences in terms of rearing
methods, care of water quality, volume of facilities and yields, so that, despite pro-
ducing the same species, each system has handling peculiarities, such as different
types of food and feeding methods.

2.3.4 Depending on hydrology

More than 70% of the surface of our planet is covered by water, of which about
2.5% corresponds to fresh water while the remaining 97.5% is marine water.
Aquatic ecosystems are among the most diverse on the planet; in addition, they
provide various services to humanity, such as fishing, tourism and transportation,
among others.
One of the most pressing aspects of climate change is the effect it is having on
water, its abundance and availability. The survival of humanity and life as known
until now is, to a large extent, associated with water. For these reasons, in addition
to reared organisms, one of the most important resources for aquaculture farming is
water. The selection of a culture site, target species and viability of an aquaculture
company is inevitably associated with water.
Thus, the way to obtain, channel and treat water is one of the most significant
characteristics when defining an aquaculture system. Within this type of classifi-
cation, two cultivation systems exist: open –​if water that enters the production
system is returned to the environment after using it –​and closed –​if water that
enters the system is reused/​recirculated. Different nuances exist for these two
18 Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

classifications, which are of great importance in determining the impact that the
production system will have.
Within the open systems, those that use water exchanges naturally can be found;
for example, production performed in a river or in cages in the ocean, and those that
use artificial replacements to discharge high concentrations of nutrients through
water pumping, as in shrimp in earthen ponds. The reasons for changing water can
be various, such as improving water quality or creating a stream.
Similarly to open systems, closed systems can also be found in the natural envir-
onment although to a lesser extent, for example, production in lakes. Although this
type of system receives water external to the system, it does not have an outlet or a
stream that distributes water through the system, so no replacements are available.
However, artificial closed systems –​where water is recirculated within it and only
lost through evaporation but replaced –​have gained much ground in aquaculture
thanks to their ability to allow high culture densities and thus obtain a higher yield
per m2 than in an open system. This system must be coupled with water quality
control, which, done correctly, may reduce the risks of production by increasing
control and facilitating handling. Some classic examples of closed systems are
recirculation (RAS), zero discharge and aquaponic systems, which are described in
more detail in other chapters.
A new type of production known as semi-​closed containment systems is used
mainly in salmon production.15 This type of system consists of floating elements
with waterproof characteristics (either rigid such as concrete or plastic or malleable
as some type of geomembrane) in which water is pumped from depths of from 20
to 50 m, no pathogens or phytoplankton that may be harmful to production exist.
Pumped water can be treated by adding oxygen, mechanical filtration or other water
improvement systems to maximise water quality and optimise production perform-
ance. Finally, water leaves the system by overflowing and returns to the medium.

2.3.5 Depending on the location of the facilities

Just as occurs with real estate, the success of aquaculture production has three rele-
vant factors: “location, location, location”. The location of the facilities is crucial
in aquaculture production. The geography, hydrology and climatology of the place
can determine the success or failure of production. Access to markets, the presence
of natural phenomena, operating costs, water quality and the characteristics of the
species to be produced are just some of the variables that are defined by the location
of the facilities. In turn, the choice of site is highly relevant when estimating the
social, environmental and economic impacts of production.
As for classification based on location, two large groups are identified –​ those
that take place inland, simply known as “inland” and those in the environment
itself. Inland productions can be performed in closed systems, such as greenhouses
or industrial buildings, or they can be carried out in open systems, such as earthen
ponds or rice fields. A classic example of inland production is shrimp farming
in earthen ponds, a common practice in South America and Asia. Currently, an
increasing commitment to inland production exists due to the ability to control
 What is aquaculture? 19

the rearing medium (for example, in a recirculating aquaculture system or RAS),

which allows for reducing the risks of biomass loss, producing on cheap land and
being closer to consumer markets.
Regarding production that takes place in water, open systems are found whether
performed in floating cages on the sea, lakes or dams; or those that take advantage
of the current of water bodies, such as the meander of a river to produce living
organisms.
The practice of producing marine organisms in their own environment is known
as mariculture, whose most widespread example is salmon production in floating
cages, as in the fjords of Norway, Scotland or Chile. These systems have advantages,
such as lower operation costs, water quality and low energy consumption derived
from the use of natural currents. However, they also have disadvantages, such as the
environmental impact on the sea floor, exposure to natural phenomena, pathogens
and predators, the risk of incurring biological contamination due to the escape of
organisms to the natural environment, and overall lack of control. Today, semi-​
closed containment systems are shown as an alternative to use their advantages and
reduce their disadvantages.
Algae production is a great example of the differentiation of inland and produc-
tion systems in water. Macroalgae are generally grown in stretched ropes in the
sea, taking advantage of currents to avoid crop contamination and allow massive
harvests with almost zero energy consumption. On the other hand, the produc-
tion of microalgae is performed in inland systems because contamination of the
environment is highly probable due to the special characteristics of this group of
organisms, which makes intensive control of water quality and the necessary air
provided.

2.3.6 Depending on the production objective

When aquaculture is discussed, in most cases, what come to our minds are indus-
trial productions capable of producing thousands of tons of seafood with the aim
of commercialising them on the international market to obtain economic benefits.
While this idea defines industrial aquaculture, other types of aquaculture exist with
different production objectives. One of them is production for self-​consumption –​
sometimes known as rural or small-​scale aquaculture. In this case, the objective
of production is not necessarily to maximise economic benefits but rather product
quality since its main objective is to serve as food for the producer or the commu-
nity that produces it. In most of these cases, the extra production is resold in a local
market or within the community itself –​sometimes exchanged for other goods and
services. This type of production is characterised by being low capital intensive,
using low densities, rudimentary infrastructure and, where possible, reducing the
amount of feed provided. In most cases, these productions are related to low-​cost
herbivorous and easy-​to-​use products, such as carp, tilapia or catfish. Their pro-
duction does not require very high technical knowledge, and they are the main
aquaculture tool to combat food poverty. Chapter 4 will further expand on these
types of aquaculture.
20 Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

Finally, production with the objective of alleviating the pressure that exists on
species at risk or overexploited stocks is known as restocking aquaculture. After
obtaining juvenile or adult organisms, they are released into their original envir-
onment with the priority of increasing native populations. Nonetheless, a few
cases exist where the effect of restocking by these methods has been successfully
demonstrated. Most of them correspond to sessile organisms, such as bivalve
molluscs or closed systems, such as lakes or ponds.

2.3.7 Depending on the seed origin

One of the main bottlenecks when developing a technological package for the pro-
duction of a new species is obtaining the seed, that is the reproduction of adult
organisms to obtain juveniles for fattening or final rearing. In this sense, certain
species, to date, have not been able to reproduce satisfactorily under controlled
conditions, either due to difficulty in obtaining gametes from the reproducers or
in most cases, due to very low survival rates. Thus, some species are caught in the
natural environment, kept in fences for fattening and later commercialised, which
is the case of the Mediterranean bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus)16 and European eel
(Anguilla anguila),17 among others.
Species whose reproductive cycle can be obtained completely in captivity and
under controlled conditions are given the name of species with a closed cycle. On
the other hand, the system in which obtaining seed is subject to wild populations
is called capture-​based aquaculture or, in some areas, sea ranching. Some consider
capture-​based not to be aquaculture itself but a hybrid between fishing and aqua-
culture, because it does not share certain characteristics that make aquaculture a
sustainable option to provide the world with seafood since it depends on the supply
of wild stocks, which in some cases are overexploited.18

2.4 Aquaculture current status

Currently, aquaculture provides more than 50% of the total production of aquatic
organisms destined for human consumption, 46% if the reduction for fishmeal and
fish oil obtained from fisheries is included. Stability in fishery volumes –​originated
by the natural characteristics of the resource together with the increase in demand
for marine products at the global level –​urges aquaculture to increase its pro-
ductive capacity.19
In addition to the contribution of aquaculture to food safety, this industry is
responsible for providing direct employment to 20.5 million people worldwide.
Because the majority of natural stocks are being overexploited or are at their
maximum sustainable yield, fishing production has remained at constant levels
in recent decades, coupled with continuous aquaculture growth. This has led
to a shift in the proportion of the population employed in the seafood industry
which has migrated from the fishing sector to aquaculture, rising from 83% and
17% in 1960 to 68% and 32% in 2016, respectively. When this situation is added
to the estimated first sale value of aquaculture production of US$ 263 billion,
 What is aquaculture? 21

it shows the broad impact of this industry in both social and global economic
dimensions.5
Aquaculture growth has shown some drawbacks, of which the most important
is environmental deterioration, mainly highlighting soil eutrophication, aquifer
contamination, greenhouse gas emissions and contributions to climate change,
contaminated effluent emission, and cultivation area abandonment, leaving them
eroded and useless.20,21
One way to improve these negative impacts and promote the positive effects of
the activity is through improvement in governance (both private and public; see
Chapter 15) to accelerate implementing new technologies that target improvements
in production systems, not only increasing yields but also maximising the positive
social outputs and minimising the negative environmental impacts (see Chapter 16).
Finally, the development of the aforementioned policies and technologies can only
be achieved through a sufficiently funded research structure, both in applied and
basic sciences. As several papers, books and interviews have demonstrated and
described in different industries and areas of knowledge, to advance the activity
from unsustainable production to a sustainable path, the decisions and development
of aquaculture on sound science, technology advances and continuous improve-
ment should strongly be supported.

2.5 Final remarks

Aquaculture is an interdisciplinary science where biology, engineering, ecology
and economics, among others, come together. It does not matter what type of
system is used –​whether open or closed, intensive or extensive, inland or in
the natural environment –​all systems have advantages and disadvantages. The
impact they have on the environment, as well as the suitability of the selected
system, depends on the location, characteristics of the area, the surrounding
community and the species to be produced. In any case, it is important to con-
sider the different alternatives that exist, so that the operation that optimises the
production system is selected taking into account all the aspects that make up
sustainability.
Nowadays, aquaculture is starting to gain attention from the general public,
including investors, government officers and knowledge generators, providing
resources that were not available a couple of decades ago. The following sections
of this book will deepen into each of these topics, their status and the main issues
and techniques that exist today to tackle them.

2.6 Chapter review questions

1 What is the relationship between the circulation system and production site
selection?
2 Why is it important to avoid sexual maturation during a fattening cycle?
3 What are the challenges for polyculture development and scaling up?
4 What is a semi-​closed containment system, and how does it operate?
22 Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

5 What are the objective differences in industrial, rural or small-​scale and

restocking aquaculture?

Recommended readings
Barsanti, L., Gualtieri, P. (2006) Algae: Anatomy, Biochemistry, & Biotechnology. Taylor
& Francis.
Brusca R., Moore W., Shuster S. (2016) Invertebrates. 3rd edition. Sinauer Associates,
Sunderland, Massachusetts U.S.A. pp. 1104. ISBN-​13: 978-​1605353753.
Keenan T. (2018) Ichthyology: An Introduction to Fish Science. Larsen and Keller
Education. pp. 235. ISBN-​13: 978-​1635497625.
Nash C. (2010) The History of Aquaculture. Wiley-​Blackwell. pp. 236
ISBN: 978-​0-​470-​95886-​5.
Sambamurty A.V.S.S. (2017) A Textbook of Algae. I. K. International Pvt Ltd. pp. 261.
Stickney R. R. (2017) Aquaculture: An Introductory Text. 3rd Edition. CABI. pp. 337.
ISBN: 978-​1786390103.
Timmons M. B., Guerdat T. & Vinci J. (2018) Recirculating Aquaculture. 4th edition. Ithaca
Publishing Company LLC. pp. ISBN: 978-​0971264670.

References
1 Nakajima, T., Hudson, M. J., Uchiyama, J., Makibayashi, K., & Zhang, J. (2019).
Common carp aquaculture in Neolithic China dates back 8,000 years. Nature Ecology
& Evolution, 3(10), 1415–​1418.
2 Fan Lee (5th Century B.C., China) Translated by Ted S. Y. Moo Chesapeake Biological
Lab, University of Maryland, Solomons, Maryland 20688. The original document
resides in the British Museum.
3 Kumar, G., Engle, C., & Tucker, C. (2018). Factors driving aquaculture technology
adoption. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society, 49(3), 447–​476.
4 Garlock, T., Asche, F., Anderson, J., Bjørndal, T., Kumar, G., Lorenzen, K., Ropicki,
A., Smith, M. D., & Tveterås, R. (2020). A global blue revolution: aquaculture growth
across regions, species, and countries. Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture,
28(1), 107–​116.
5 FAO. (2022). The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2022. Towards Blue
Transformation. Rome, FAO. https://​doi.org/​10.4060/​cc046​1en
6 Jespersen, K. S., Kelling, I., Ponte, S., & Kruijssen, F. (2014). What shapes food value
chains? Lessons from aquaculture in Asia. Food Policy, 49, 228–​240.
7 Pechenik, J. A. (2000). Invertebrates (Vol. 193). Singapore: McGraw Hill.
8 Terwilliger, N. B. (2015). Oxygen transport proteins in Crustacea: hemocyanin and
hemoglobin. Physiology, 4, 359–​390.
9 Kasturi, S. (2015). Physiology of Finfish and Shellfish. New India Publishing Agency.
10 Chamberlain, G. W., & Lawrence, A. L. (1981). Maturation, reproduction, and
growth of Penaeus vannamei and P. stylirostris fed natural diets. Journal of the World
Mariculture Society, 12(1), 207–​224.
11 Pereira, L. (2021). Macroalgae. Encyclopedia, 1(1), 177–​188.
12 Won, E. T., & Borski, R. J. (2013). Endocrine regulation of compensatory growth in
fish. Frontiers in Endocrinology, 4, 74.
 What is aquaculture? 23

13 Hartnoll, R. G. (2001). Growth in Crustacea—​twenty years on. In Advances in Decapod

Crustacean Research: Proceedings of the 7th Colloquium Crustacea Decapoda
Mediterranea, held at the Faculty of Sciences of the University of Lisbon, Portugal,
6–​9 September 1999 (pp. 111–​122). The Netherlands: Springer.
14 Dunham, R. A., Majumdar, K., Hallerman, E., Bartley, D., Mair, G., Hulata, G., Liu,
Z., Pongthana, N., Bakos, J., Penman, D., & Gupta, M., 2000, February. Review of
the status of aquaculture genetics. In Aquaculture in the Third Millennium. Technical
Proceedings of the Conference on Aquaculture in the Third Millennium, Bangkok,
Thailand (Vol. 20, p. 25).
15 Balseiro, P., Moe, Ø., Gamlem, I., Shimizu, M., Sveier, H., Nilsen, T. O., Kaneko, N.,
Ebbesson, L., Pedrosa, C., Tronci, V. and Nylund, A. (2018). Comparison between
Atlantic salmon Salmo salar post-​smolts reared in open sea cages and in the Preline
raceway semi-​closed containment aquaculture system. Journal of Fish Biology, 93(3),
567–​579.
16 Ottolenghi, F. (2008). Capture-​based aquaculture of bluefin tuna. Capture-​based aqua-
culture. Global overview. FAO Fisheries technical Paper, 508, 169–​182.
17 Nielsen, T., & Prouzet, P. (2008). Capture-​based aquaculture of the wild European
eel (Anguilla anguilla). Capture-​based aquaculture. Global overview. FAO Fisheries
Technical Paper, (508), 141–​168.
18 de Mitcheson, Y. S., & Liu, M. (2008). Environmental and biodiversity impacts of
capture-​based aquaculture. Capture-​based aquaculture, 5.
19 Costello, C., L. Cao, S. Gelcich, M. Á. Cisneros-​Mata, C. M. Free, H. E. Froehlich, C.
D. Golden et al. (2020). The future of food from the sea. Nature, 588(7836): 95–​100.
20 Edwards, P. (2015). Aquaculture environment interactions: past, present and likely
future trends. Aquaculture, 447, 2–​14.
21 Dong, S. L., & Gao, Q. F. (2023). Interactions between aquaculture and environment.
In Dong, S. L., Tian, X. L., Gao, Q. F., & Dong, Y. W. (eds.), Aquaculture Ecology (pp.
129–​160). Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore.
3 What is sustainability?
Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

Every transformation has a positive, negative, or neutral associated impact, which

can modify the system performance in question and affect other related systems. In
the case of sustainability studies, this system is made up of three different subsystems
that are related to each other, namely the environment, economy, and society. These
subsystems are known as the three pillars (or spheres) of sustainability.
As in the previous chapter on aquaculture, this chapter is a brief introduction to
sustainability sciences. First, the concept of sustainability, its history, and different
working definitions for the book are provided, which meets our own needs without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own. The three pillars
of sustainability and the use of governance are explained as transversal tools to
achieve sustainable production. Afterwards, the idea of sustainable aquaculture and
its drivers are discussed.

3.1 Introduction
The main characteristic that differentiates the human species from other biological
organisms is the cognitive system, which allows for reasoning, reflection, intro-
spection, forecasting, and planning. These abilities together with handling tools
and materials give rise to the capability to transform inputs into products. All these
characteristics are of crucial importance in the development of sustainability since
these transformations of inputs into outputs have a consequent modification of the
surroundings in different scales.
According to the second law of thermodynamics, any transformation –​no matter
how insignificant –​has a consequent change in the system, an increase in entropy.
Thus, any input transformation has a positive, negative, or neutral associated
impact, which can modify the performance of the system in question. In the case
of sustainability studies, this system is the space humans live on, and its study is
made up of three different subsystems that are related to each other, namely: envir-
onment, economy, and society.
With this in mind, and because aquaculture is the food-​producing industry
with the highest annual growth over the last three decades, it is fair to assume that
it has had a significant impact on the system, and it should be evaluated fairly,

DOI: 10.4324/9781003174271-4
 What is sustainability? 25

Figure 3.1 Relationships among the three spheres of sustainability.

considering all the effects production has had on the aforementioned subsystems
and the relationships that exist among them (Figure 3.1).

3.2 Sustainability pillars and the relationship between them

When production accounts for the effects it has on the environment and economy,
the system can be considered viable, that is, adequate environmental performance
can be produced and maintained without being sustainable. An example might
be poorly managed ecotourism where local culture can be eliminated, labour in
slavery-​like conditions may occur, or the social fabric of an established community
eroded to maximise economic benefits while being respectful of the environment.1,2
If the established criteria of good economic management with a social view are
met, but the environmental impact is not taken into account, it may be considered
equity. For example, the enormous infrastructure programmes developed by some
governments to promote economic growth in a marginalised social sector that do
not consider the environmental impact that such work entails, like deforestation,
destruction of ecosystems and biodiversity, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
associated with the activity.3
The point where the objectives of social development intersect with those of
environmental protection without considering the effect on the economy can be
given the tag of “Bearable”. In these cases, the cultural and social fabric of the
community are respected, and a minimal environmental impact is maintained.
However, no economic growth objectives are achieved, which can lead to poverty,
26 Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

hunger, and lack of education, among others. Some examples exist in indigenous
communities in Latin America, Africa, and Asia where the per capita environ-
mental impact is negligible, but no development is derived due to the absence
of economic planning. This effect has caused, in the long term, the migration
of these communities towards the cities, in search of economic opportunities,
causing centralised development and losing human resources in the rural areas,
which means a loss to the aquaculture industry of the future if the status quo is
maintained.
Thus, an activity can only be considered sustainable if the objective is to opti-
mise the three aspects described above –​maximising the social benefit, respecting
the local culture, its traditions, and social fabric –​at the same time as options
are provided to maintain sustained economic growth. Considering these aspects
allows creating jobs, reducing poverty and hunger, providing a dignified life to
all the inhabitants of the planet while taking care of it, eliminating the destruc-
tion of ecosystems, managing natural resources in an adequate way, and reducing
waste emission. If all these aspects are not considered, the activity might not be
maintained indefinitely, therefore it cannot be considered as sustainable.
Due to all the previously mentioned factors, sustainability can be understood in
mathematical terms as an asymptotic objective, that is, we can get closer and closer
to meeting this objective but we can never say it has been completely achieved, it
requires continuous and sustained improvement. This situation has made the con-
cept of sustainability difficult to understand and be accepted by the public. To bring
it to reality, the concept of Sustainable Development was generated, which allowed
bringing the idea of sustainability to its application, allowing human development
while reducing impacts.
In the current economic system based on neoclassical economic models, eco-
nomic growth is associated with development, so it is quite common to find a
semantic exchange going from sustainable development to sustainable growth.
However, the concept of sustainable growth might be considered an oxymoron.
According to the Romanian economist Nicholas Georgescu-​Roegen, the neoclas-
sical theory of growth does not consider the scarcity of natural resources as an
input to an economic system and pollutant production and waste as an output.4
These aspects of the system make infinite or “sustainable” growth impossible.

3.3 Sustainability throughout history

Since the appearance of Homo sapiens approximately 250,000 years ago, trans-
formations have affected the three aforementioned subsystems. However, the
impact it has had on the social and economic subsystems compared to the envir-
onment can be differentiated based on the system’s plasticity. Although the three
subsystems can be considered plastic (or resilient) because of their great capacity
to adapt to changes, the social and economic subsystems can adapt to large changes
in a short period of time. On the other hand, the environmental subsystem requires
longer periods of time to recover from major shocks and changes with respect to
the status quo, or in some cases, it cannot recover at all.
 What is sustainability? 27

During the first great civilisations, substantial changes took place in the social
fabric with characteristics that still endure today from some of the most basic social
structures to the development of democratic systems. Regarding the economic per-
spective, some transformations still remain relevant today, for example, the devel-
opment of trade or the appearance of currency around 650 BC. In the case of the
environment, the scale and techniques used in the different transformations did
not constitute a high enough impact to irreversibly alter the system, of which the
most significant was the use of natural resources, such as wood, water, metals, and
minerals. Certain ecosystem transformations followed, mainly those associated
with the construction of buildings and urban infrastructure.
These impacts increased during the Industrial Revolution where in the course
of 100 years, from the 18th to 19th centuries, massive growth was recorded in the
material wealth of humanity. Some of these significant changes were observed in
economic (automating processes, reducing production costs, and increasing profits),
social (labour requirements from an artisanal to an industrial system, increasing
levels of inequality, migrations from the countryside to the city, and greater power
in the war machine), and environmental (significant increase in energy consump-
tion, mainly through the use of fossil fuels, exponential increase in greenhouse gas
[GHG] emissions) systems.
The rampant wood consumption in Germany was used as fuel to provide the
energy needed in the metallurgical industry, which led Hans Carl von Carlowitz,
a mining administrator, to develop the current theory of natural resource manage-
ment. The term sustainability was used for the first time in his book Sylvicultura
Oeconomica, also considered the first treaty in forestry, where he developed
methods for sustainable forest management. His theory was that adequate manage-
ment of forest resources can be maintained indefinitely, while an inadequate one
could lead to depletion of the resource.
Although the reasons for leading a sustainable life have been in the collective
consciousness for a long time for different reasons, the changes caused by the
Industrial Revolution and its consequences observed many decades later –​mainly
in the environmental field –​have been one of the main motivations for developing
what is known as sustainability sciences.
During the 1980s, some of the countries with the greatest presence in the inter-
national economic panorama (the United States and the United Kingdom) followed
a neoliberalist political agenda, characterised by the opening of markets and the
trend of economic globalisation. This policy boosted production globally. The
absence of regulatory bodies and legislation aimed at protecting the environment –​
together with the increase in the use of new technologies for generating energy
through fuel combustion, such as gasoline or diesel –​resulted in significant envir-
onmental deterioration and wealth redistribution, increasing the inequality gap
(making the rich richer and the poor poorer).
Following the first world meeting on the environment held in Stockholm in
1972 (Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment, 1972) and in an attempt
to tackle economic and environmental issues jointly, the United Nations created a
special commission to address this issue. The creation of the World Commission
28 Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

on Environment and Development (WCED) –​ later known as the Brundtland

Commission –​ was approved in 1983. In 1987 the Brundtland Commission
published a report entitled “Our Common Future”, also known as the Brundtland
Report, where the term sustainable development would be coined and defined as
the “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the
ability of future generations to meet their own needs”.5
This concept was born, mainly, from one idea: The Earth’s natural resources
are finite, so if unbridled consumption continues, future generations will not be
able to enjoy the same capacity for well-​being and development that we now
enjoy. In other words, intergenerational inequity or injustice exists, which is evi-
dent mainly in rich countries, responsible for most of the consumption of natural
resources. According to Wackernagel and Rees, if all humanity consumed the nat-
ural resources at the same rate as the richest countries, two planets Earth would be
needed to satisfy this demand.1
Twenty years after the Stockholm Summit, the United Nations Conference on
Environment and Development was held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992, also
known as the Earth Summit or Rio Summit. At this conference, 179 nations from
around the world agreed to adopt the program known as Agenda 21 developed for
this meeting.
The Brundtland Report and Agenda 21 are the documents that marked the
path the United Nations would follow in subsequent meetings (Rio +​5 and the
Johannesburg Summit in 1997 and 2002, respectively). These meetings gave rise
to the Objectives of Millennium Development or simply Millennium Development
Goals in 2000 with the objective of setting tangible goals (with associated
indicators) to be achieved by 2015. These goals were divided into eight human
development purposes, in which social aspects covered the first six objectives,
emphasising aspects of poverty, gender equality, access to education, and health.
The seventh objective sought to “guarantee the sustainability of the environment”,
and the eighth and final one referred to economic aspects, seeking to “foster a
global partnership for development”.
As a result of this programme, a substantial improvement was achieved in
various social aspects: the rate of people living in extreme poverty in developing
countries fell from 47% in 1990 to 14% in 2015. At the global level, it went
from 1,926 million people in 1990 to 836 million people in 2015. Mortality
in children under five years of age was reduced by more than 50% globally,
and gender disparity was eliminated in primary, secondary, and tertiary edu-
cation in developing countries. Despite the good results in the social sphere,
many challenges remain to achieve a society with equal opportunities. Gender
inequality persists, with women being at a disadvantage in the labour market
and suffering from discrimination and sexual abuse. Moreover, large gaps exist
between the richest and poorest households and rural and urban areas, with
millions of people still living in extreme poverty, hunger, and without access
to safe water.
If in the social field there is still a long way to go, the environmental field is not
far behind. The final report of the Millennium Goals mentioned that climate change
 What is sustainability? 29

and environmental degradation undermine the progress achieved and the most sig-
nificant effect was observed in the most vulnerable groups.6 Overexploitation of
the ocean is causing fish to reach very low turnover rates, reducing the number of
fisheries that can be exploited to a biologically sustainable level.9 Biodiversity at
a global level has been reduced, both in quantity and distribution, increasing the
number of endangered species.7 In addition, since the poorest sector depends to a
greater extent on natural resources and is located in areas of greater vulnerability, it
is the one that has suffered the most from the effects of environmental degradation
and climate change.
Facing this new development stamp and once the Millennium Goals programme
was concluded, the UN gave rise to the programme known as the Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs) as a follow-​up programme, whose application started
in 2015 and which is planned to have been concluded by the year 2030.
In total, the SDGs consisted of 17 goals, within which all the social characteristics
were found in the Millennium Goals, such as the elimination of extreme poverty
and hunger in the world and the search for gender equality. In addition to these
goals, greater emphasis has been placed on the challenges posed by environmental
deterioration with various objectives referring to it, for example, seeking “to adopt
urgent measures to combat climate change and its effects” (Goal 13 of the SDGs,
UN). The use of the word sustainable was observed 12 times along the descriptions
of the 17 SDGs, as opposed to the Millennium Goals where it is mentioned only
once. Thus, in most cases, objectives are sought to consider all the aspects involved
in the sustainability criterion.

3.4 Sustainability, an elusive definition

At the time of its inception, the concept of sustainable development itself was
greeted with excitement and scepticism in equal measure. The term development
applied to the current socio-​economic and political system implies, among other
things, economic growth, and as the Brundtland Report stated at the time, this
development is limited by the current state of technology and social organisation.
Although no significant technological advances have taken place since the report
was published, these limitations are still evident, mainly in relation to energy gen-
eration and the associated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.2
The report projects scenarios where an increase in industrial production from
five to 10 times is expected compared to that observed at the time of its publication.
Assuming that the technology to achieve the desired existing economic growth is
enough, the social organisation must change significantly if the needs of society
as stated in the report are to be met, which states that the essential needs of the
world’s poor must be given top priority. While a vague common agreement exists
on the definition of sustainability based on the proposal provided by the Brundtland
Report, more than 300 definitions of the concept have been made. The ambiguity
of this definition has given rise to different appreciations and nuances. Today, the
lack of clear semantics and the difficulty of properly defining the concepts that
encompass sustainability are two of the most significant barriers to developing
30 Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

this multidisciplinary branch of science, thus being the source of multiple cases of
greenwashing.
Despite the efforts of the scientific community, as well as different organisations,
both public and private, it has not been possible to develop a definition of the term
sustainability that lacks ambiguity and is accepted and used by the majority of
experts in the field. The existence of too many definitions –​ added to the applica-
tion (sometimes arbitrary or exaggerated) of the term sustainability –​ has made
its use lose impact or cause misunderstandings. According to several researchers,
the word sustainability is one of the least significant and most used words in the
English language.
In areas such as politics, advertising, or marketing, the terms sustainability and
sustainable development are used as an abstract concept of responsibility (usually
associated with caring for the environment). The word sustainability has become
a fad and a categorical imperative of responsibility for creating something new; it
has become synonymous with progress, equality, responsibility, and culture. In the
words of Diefenbacher et al. “whoever wants to achieve something, must show that
he or she intends to achieve it in a sustainable way”.8
Numerous efforts have been made to define the concept, of which the most
accepted is the one defined as the practice that allows satisfying current needs
without undermining future well-​being. This definition is very similar to the one
expressed in the Brundtland Report.
According to that previously mentioned, although finding a definition of sus-
tainability truly seems to be the best in terms of the study and performance of
this science, it is also true that the lack of clarity should not be an obstacle to
implementing sustainable practices. In fact, according to Ramsey,9 a definitive def-
inition of the term may not be possible to find since it depends on the context, so
the important thing is not so much the precise definition but the performance of
sustainability.
To this day, the definition used by the Brundtland Report continues to be the
one that has the greatest number of followers, as it emphasises the most important
principle that addresses sustainability and sustainable development, which is its
intergenerational characteristic. Thus, two relevant dimensions can be found when
talking about sustainability. On the one hand, the spatial dimension, which refers to
the location where the impact takes place. For example, the environmental effect
of the conversion of shrimp production areas in an arid zone is not the same as the
conversion of a mangrove. On the other hand, the time dimension considers the
effect that production has over a period of time, and in turn, the time it would take
to recover it. Thus, sustainability is made up of three spheres (or pillars) and two
dimensions.

3.5 Types of sustainability

In addition to the ambiguity of the concept, different approaches exist to under-
stand how to achieve sustainability. From the point of view of economic theory,
 What is sustainability? 31

two types of sustainability can be found –​strong, also known as environmental

sustainability, and weak, also called economic sustainability.
The definition of weak sustainability comes from the neoclassical theory of eco-
nomic growth defended by various great economists of our times, such as Robert
Solow.10
Pearce and Atkinson11 defined weak sustainability as one whose savings rate
is equal to the combined depreciation rate of environmental and human capital.
In other words, weak sustainability is one in which the environmental and social
capitals of a productive system are interchangeable. For example, from this point
of view, companies that have negative environmental externalities (such as con-
tamination of aquifers or greenhouse gas emissions) are considered sustainable as
long as they have a positive externality of equal magnitude as a counterpart, e.g.,
through the payment of a tax, a fine, or a reforestation programme.
Strong sustainability, defended by ecological economics with Nicholas
Georgescu-​Roegen as one of its pioneering exponents, considers that the envir-
onment is irreplaceable and no sufficiently valuable counterpart exists to coun-
teract the loss of natural capital. In other words, environmental deterioration, loss
of natural resources, and pollutant production cannot be exchanged for a monetary
equivalent as taxes or programmes.
Thus, in strong sustainability, no exchange exists between environmental and
social capital, which is why governance of prohibition, fines, and incentives is
chosen to reduce the negative social and environmental impact. In recent years,
other approaches have been selected, such as the strength of the buyers and raising
awareness and education of society to instil a feeling of responsibility towards the
rest of humanity and future generations, in such a way that consumption is reduced
and people opt for companies that are more aware of their impact and seek to min-
imise it by implementing new technologies or best practices.
On the other hand, it is important not to confuse sustainability with environmen-
talism. Although the concern for sustainability stems from the finite characteristics
of natural resources, the concept encompasses much more than just caring for the
environment. Social justice, wealth distribution, and food security, among others, are
key concepts of sustainability and do not appear anywhere in environmental theory.
Misunderstanding of the term may cause even students or researchers to confuse
sustainability with other concepts –​in the case of those with a greater inclination
towards social sciences with rural development, or with climate change for those
with a greater ecological inclination. Although both concepts are included within
sustainability and “sustainable development”, it goes much further. Thus, all the
aspects that encompass the system to direct and govern it in a fair and equitable
way both inter-​and intra-​generationally should be considered.

3.6 Managing sustainably: the concept of governance

The world has immense ecological and cultural diversity. On some occasions, these
concepts confront each other, and are associated with a neoclassical concept of
32 Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

economic development, finding conflicts that can lead us away from sustainable
development. This conflict increases in the case of natural resources, falling into the
paradigm described by William Foster Lloyd and later expanded and demonstrated
by Garrett Hardin called the tragedy of the commons.12
Simply put, the tragedy of the commons says that assuming individuals act
rationally, independently, and motivated by a personal interest in the face of
common (or shared) and limited goods, such as the atmosphere, forest, or fish in
the ocean, they end up being destroyed even if it is not convenient for any of the
participants in this common good. An example can be seen in the international
fishing scene. Before 1982, the absence of a legal framework to regulate inter-
national fishing caused several fisheries in the world to collapse due to the open
access system for this resource.
A second aspect is fundamental to understanding the existence and function-
ality of governance and is the concept of externalities –​an idea attributed to Alfred
Marshall and later deepened by Arthur Pigou. In summary, an externality can be
defined as an activity done by one individual or group that affects others without
being compensated or providing any compensation.
Externalities can be positive when the effect of the activity performed has a
positive impact on a third party (such as the effect of higher education on society
as a whole) or negative when the activity produces a cost or damage to a com-
pany or third party (such as the pollution of the atmosphere associated with GHG
emissions).
To avoid the negative effects of the tragedy of the commons and hold the
actors responsible for their externalities in cases where property rights are not
well defined, various authors have proposed the intervention of organised systems.
These systems should establish a series of rules of the game, managing the use of
resources in a rational, and in our case, sustainable way, while assigning rights and
responsibilities to the users of such resources. This management system can be
called governance.
Just like with sustainability, the complexity that surrounds the concept of gov-
ernance makes it difficult to define in a simple way. However, a first statement
can be made to frame the concept and serve as a reference for future mentions of
the topic:

Governance refers to the management, both public and private, of an organised

system, setting standards and enforcing them.

This concept and its applications in aquaculture are discussed in more depth
later; however, an introduction to the topic is essential since governance is one
of the keys to achieving sustainability in any system, including aquaculture.
Governance is considered, if not a fourth pillar of sustainability, an essential
cross-​cutting tool for sustainable development that must encompass the three
spheres of sustainability and provide a fair and optimal legal framework or “rules
of the game”, so that all the aspects that make up sustainable development may
be balanced.
 What is sustainability? 33

3.7 Aquaculture and sustainability

Whether an immense production in the sea with the aim of amassing wealth or a
small one in the field is destined to produce food for the farmer, the production may
have characteristics that make it sustainable or not.
Throughout the following chapters, we will delve into how aquaculture
touches all the spheres of sustainability. On the economic sphere the industry has
an estimated global first-​sale value of more than 250 billion dollars annually.9
Furthermore, the supply chain worldwide is interconnected, which not only has a
significant impact on the environmental footprint of the products obtained but also
on the future economic development of certain nations.
Regarding the environmental sphere, poorly managed aquaculture can have
severe and irreversible environmental impacts. For example, the elimination of
ecologically important areas such as mangroves, GHG emissions derived from
extreme energy consumption, soil eutrophication leading to the abandonment of
cultivation areas, contamination of the seabed in floating cage productions, elimin-
ation of benthic organisms with low or no capacity for movement, hyper-​nutrition
of coastal and continental areas can lead to algal blooms and red tides, among
others.13,14
Aquaculture plays an important role in the social sphere at a global level, with
the livelihoods of more than 20 million people around the world depending directly
on aquaculture development. Even with this in mind, various debates have taken
place regarding the quality of employment provided by aquaculture and its distri-
bution in terms of gender, with only 19% of women employed in the primary aqua-
culture sector, although this number changes to circa 50% when the postharvest
process and added value are considered.15
How to produce has also been a matter of debate. The use of ingredients
from fishing produces an imbalance with respect to the quantity of fish obtained
from fishing and used to feed carnivorous aquaculture species (fish in) and
the number of fish produced (fish out). In addition, discussions about the con-
tribution that these species have to food security have taken place since they
are mostly species of high commercial value, such as salmon, tuna, or marine
shrimp, and in some cases, meat quality may be compromised due to poor
diet or improper production process. Nevertheless, fish consumption represents
one-​sixth of the animal protein consumed in the world and up to 50% in some
countries.9
Sustainability is based on the concept of intergenerational justice in providing
future generations with at least the same resources and opportunities currently
available to generate wealth and well-​being. For this reason, it is essential not to
lose sight of all the aspects that make up the system, seeking a balance that allows
prolonged production over time.
In the case of aquaculture, this capacity depends on management, law, envir-
onmental conditions, infrastructure, and scientific knowledge. Improper produc-
tion management can lead to severe environmental degradation with the loss
of important ecosystems and can even put human health at risk. Moreover, the
34 Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

search for maximising financial benefits can lead to an irresponsible admin-

istration where –​in addition to environmental deterioration –​unfair labour
conditions exist.
To avoid these mishaps, a legal framework that regulates aquaculture activity
is necessary, establishing the bases or limits that should not be crossed in terms
of the production impact. In this sense, environmental regulation has improved
significantly, mainly in developed countries such as Norway and Scotland.
However, there remains a long way to go in terms of the regulation of supply
chains. Recent studies have shown that a connection exists between companies
with sustainable labels and food producers that use products obtained from
unsustainable fishing, which is significant because one of the negative impacts
of aquaculture is the excessive consumption of fishmeal and fish oils to feed the
organisms produced.
One of the difficulties in the application of standards for production is monitoring
the activity to ensure that the standards are met and –​otherwise –​the appropriate
sanctions are applied. Adequate aquaculture regulations with a view to sustain-
ability require a definition of the concept of sustainable aquaculture.
Thus, sustainable aquaculture can be defined as any aquaculture practice that
seeks to maximise social and economic benefits while minimising negative environ-
mental impacts, allowing production to be maintained indefinitely over time.
Infrastructure can significantly define the impact of production. The system
in which the organisms are maintained, technology is used to generate energy,
management of effluents and waste, and materials are used for construction,
among others, define the environmental impact of operations. For example,
during shrimp larval production, it is essential to keep the water temperature
close to 30°C. In many cases, this is achieved by heating seawater through the
use of combustion boilers, but in some laboratories, other more environmentally
friendly methods are already used, such as geothermal energy. The method used
for this effect determines the GHG emissions, which –​ as shown in Chapter 6 –​
is key in the development of climate change. Likewise, the technology used to
manage water determines the volume to be heated, thus the energy used and
GHG emissions.16 Another example is the use of recirculation systems that allow
reusing culture water indefinitely, as long as adequate treatment is provided, only
recovering that which is lost through evaporation. In this way, contamination
of the natural environment can be contained, eliminating the discharge of nitro-
genous waste, medicines, and other treatments that can have a negative impact
on the ecosystem.
One of the characteristics that weak sustainability defends is that increasingly
accelerated technological development makes it possible to limit negative envir-
onmental impacts. Since the global idiosyncrasy has a neoclassical tendency, it is
important to promote scientific and technological development, so these impacts
can be effectively reduced. Although various methods and techniques are already
used to reduce environmental impacts, it is important to mention that in many cases
 What is sustainability? 35

they are just projects or prototypes, though promoting the development and imple-
mentation of these technologies needs to be a priority for all stakeholders.

3.8 Final remarks

Sustainability is a concept that encompasses a dynamic objective, meaning it
is impossible to be fully achieved, since it changes over time, nonetheless, it is
getting increasingly closer to being achievable and a significant step forward. The
development of new technologies, increase of scientific knowledge, governance,
awareness of humanity, and long-​term investment are some of the tools necessary
to promote increasingly sustainable aquaculture. Therefore, aquaculture produc-
tion can be increased, provide employment and quality food to the global popu-
lation, minimise negative environmental impacts, and promote economic growth.
For aquaculture to attain sustainability, all components (or pillars) need to be
accounted for, not only the environmental aspects but also the social and economic
outputs.

3.9 Chapter review questions

1 Which are the three pillars of sustainability and which are the most important
transversal tools to achieve it?
2 In your words, what do you understand by sustainability?
3 Are sustainability, sustainable development, and sustainable growth the
same thing?
4 What is the definition of sustainable aquaculture?
5 What is the main difference between strong and soft sustainability?

Recommended readings
Brinkmann R. (2016) Introduction to Sustainability. Wiley-​Blackwell. ISBN:
978-​1-​118-​48714-​3.
Brundtland, G. H., Khalid, M., Agnelli, S., Al-​Athel, S., & Chidzero, B. J. N. Y. (1987) Our
Common Future. New York, 8.
Caradonna, Jeremy L. (2014) Sustainability: A History. Oxford University Press.
Clark, W., Harley, A. (2019) Sustainability Science: Towards a Synthesis. Sustainability
Science Program Working Papers.
FAO. (2020) The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2020. Sustainability in Action.
Rome. https://​doi.org/​10.4060/​ca92​29e.
Giovannoni, E., Fabietti, G. (2013) What is sustainability? A review of the concept and its
applications. In: Busco, C., Frigo, M., Riccaboni, A., Quattrone, P. (eds) Integrated
Reporting. Cham: Springer. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​978-​3-​319-​02168-​3_​2
Heinrichs H., Michelsen G., Wiek A. & Martens P. (2015) Sustainability Science: An
Introduction. Springer. ISBN 978-​94-​017-​7242-​6.
Jacques, P. (2020) Sustainability: The Basics. Routledge.
36 Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

Jackson, T. (2009) Prosperity Without Growth: Economics for a Final Planet.

London: Earthscan.
Scoones, I. (2007) “Sustainability.” Development in Practice 17.4-​5: 589–​596.

References
1 Belsky, JiU M. (1999). Misrepresenting communities: The politics of community-​based
rural ecotourism in gales point manatee, Belize 1. Rural Sociology, 64(4), 641–​666.
2 Newsome, D. (2013). An ecotourist’s recent experience in Sri Lanka. Journal of
Ecotourism, 12(3), 210–​220.
3 Ceceña, A. E. En plena catástrofe ambiental ¡el Tren Maya va!. (2020).
4 Georgescu-Roegen, N. (1971). The Entropy Law and the Economic Process. Cambridge,
MA and London, England: Harvard University Press..
5 Brundtland, G. H. (1987). Our Common Future: Report of the World Commission on
Environment and Development. Geneva, UN-​Dokument A/​42/​427.
6 United Nations UN. (2015). The Millennium Development Goals Report 2015,
Working Papers id:7222.
7 UN Secretary-​General’s speech at the Countdown to COP15: Leaders Event for a
Nature-​Positive World in September 2022.
8 Rees, W., Wackernagel, M., & Inch, J. (1997). Our ecological footprint: reducing
human impact on the earth//​Review. Alternatives Journal, 23(2), 35.
9 Ramsey, J. L. (2015). On not defining sustainability. Journal of Agricultural and
Environmental Ethics, 28(6), 1075–​1087.
10 Solow, R. M. (1993). Sustainability: an economist’s perspective. Economics of the
Environment: Selected Readings, 3, 179–​187.
11 Pearce, D. W. & Atkinson G. D. (1993). Capital theory and the measurement of sus-
tainable development: an indicator of ‘weak’ sustainability. Ecological Economic, 8,
103–​108.
12 Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons: the population problem has no tech-
nical solution; it requires a fundamental extension in morality. Science, 162(3859),
1243–​1248.
13 Peñalosa Martinell, D., Vergara-​Solana, F. J., Almendarez-​Hernández, L. C., &
Araneda-​Padilla, M. E. (2020). Econometric models applied to aquaculture as tools for
sustainable production. Reviews in Aquaculture, 12(3), 1344–​1359.
14 Naylor, R. L., R. W. Hardy, A. H. Buschmann, S. R. Bush, L. Cao, D. H. Klinger, D.
C. Little, J. Lubchenco, S. E. Shumway, & M. Troell. (2021). A 20-​year retrospective
review of global aquaculture. Nature, 591(7851), 551–​563.
15 FAO. 2022. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2022. Towards Blue
Transformation. Rome, FAO. https://​doi.org/​10.4060/​cc046​1en.
16 Peñalosa-​Martinell, D., Vela-​Magaña, M., Ponce-​Díaz, G., & Padilla, M. E. A. (2020).
Probiotics as environmental performance enhancers in the production of white shrimp
(Penaeus vannamei) larvae. Aquaculture, 514, 734491.
Part II

Aquaculture and
the environment
4 Effects of the environment
on aquaculture organisms
Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

Just as aquaculture has an impact on the environment, the environment affects aqua-
culture and its performance. Different environmental components affect aquacul-
ture groups differently, we will focus mainly on finfish, molluscs and crustaceans,
with some references to other groups, such as algae.
How does temperature affect organisms’ performance? Why does dissolved
oxygen behave in water and how does that affect aquaculture? Is pH relevant to
all aquaculture species? and How can other environmental components improve
or reduce the performance of certain species in specific parts of the world? Some
relevant biological aspects of different species groups important to aquaculture
production are considered in this chapter to understand the effect that some climate
change aspects may have on aquaculture and how they could impact the industry.

4.1 Introduction
All living beings are affected to a greater or lesser extent by the surrounding envir-
onment. For example, the right temperature, amount and quality of light and water
will determine if a plant at home lives or dies, whether it grows and flowers or if
it remains small and struggles to survive. In the case of aquaculture animals –​due
to the relationship they have with their surrounding environment and their physio-
logical characteristics described in Chapter 2 –​changes in their surrounding envir-
onment have a higher impact than that observed on terrestrial vertebrates common
in animal protein farming. The water surrounding them is an important catalyst of
chemical reactions and interacts permanently with them through contact, which
affects their internal organs and structures where most physiological processes
where most physiological processes occur. These biological facts make them espe-
cially sensitive to physicochemical changes in the water. The components that
define water composition and its characteristics are known as water quality.
As mentioned in Chapter 2, three biological characteristics make an aquatic
organism an ideal candidate for aquaculture: rapid growth, ability to reproduce in
captivity, and broad fecundity. In addition, they should preferably have high toler-
ance to handling and a high survival rate in captivity. All these faculties are directly
impacted by (1) organism biology (intrinsic) and (2) the surrounding environment

DOI: 10.4324/9781003174271-6
40 Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

and its physicochemical characteristics (extrinsic), that is, water quality and its
biological components.
The most significant water quality parameters in aquaculture production –​
regardless of the organism produced –​ are: temperature, dissolved gases (mainly
oxygen), salinity, pH, dissolved particles (especially nitrogen compounds),
suspended particles, and photoperiod (this parameter is not a component of water
quality per se, but may have an impact on it and on rearing organisms). To evaluate
the determining factors of water quality, three reference points are used to define
the curve that establishes water quality in reference to each of them.
Critical points are those that define the ends of the curve (lower and upper),
while the optimal point is the one that defines the performance maximisation of
each biological aspect (Figure 4.1). Thus, these points for each of the water quality
parameters and specific for each species produced are important. The producer
attempts to maintain these parameters at their optimal points to maximise the per-
formance of the organisms produced. In the case of limiting factors (defined as any-
thing that constrains a population's size and slows or stops it from growing, such
as dissolved oxygen levels or ionised ammonium concentration), this yield curve
is different. In this case, maximum or minimum tolerance points are observed from
which problems in the development or survival of the organisms begin to appear.
All the physicochemical factors that determine water quality have to be
considered by the farmer, since in many cases changes in one of the components
may have significant effects on the rest, varying the performance of farmed
organisms.

Figure 4.1 Biological performance curve and its relationship to water quality physico-
chemical parameters in aquatic organisms.
 Effects of the environment on aquaculture organisms 41

4.2 Temperature
Water temperature is considered the most important environmental factor affecting
fish and shellfish growth, with growth occurring within a limited thermal range and
the temperature regime determining the length of the growing season. The growth
rate may vary with age, with ontogenetic shifts in thermal niches occurring as the
fish age.
All farmed aquaculture organisms are ectothermic, that is, their body tempera-
ture is equal to the temperature of the environment. This characteristic makes water
temperature a determining factor in rearing or breeding any aquaculture organism.
With that in mind, Langford (1990) divided aquatic organisms into three groups:

Cold stenotherms: the organisms which possess narrow tolerance ranges in cold
water regions, like the Arctic.
Warm stenotherms: the organisms with slim tolerance ranges in warm regions,
like the tropics.
Eurytherms: the species with broad tolerance ranges, e.g. in temperate or sub-​
tropical Regions.1

When it comes to growth, temperature can play several roles in determining it.
In most cases, growth has been found to increase as temperature increases until
reaching the maximum growth; from this point on, increases in temperature do
not translate into growth increases. The temperature where growth is maximum is
known as the optimum growth temperature, which is specific for each species, age,
and, sometimes, for each genetic variety.
The reasons behind why temperature affects growth are varied and complex,
and the thresholds can change depending on the size or age of some organisms.
According to various studies performed on different fish and crustacean species,
one of the most relevant is that a great variety of digestive enzymes are activated to
a greater extent when the temperature rises, which leads to greater nutrient absorp-
tion from food, making better use of the energy consumed to apply it to growth.
Another biological effect observed in wild fish is the increase in the presence of
the growth hormone in times when temperature is higher, with peaks in spring and
summer. As discussed in Chapter 2, this hormone is directly related to growth in
finfish and is one of those responsible for regulating it.
In addition to the optimal growth temperature, two critical points are found
in which the organism in question cannot survive: lower and upper lethal
temperatures. These two points plus the optimal growth temperature mark the tol-
erance curve of each organism as a function of rearing temperature. When water
quality is evaluated, the temperature always has to be as close as possible to the
optimal growth values.
Low temperatures slow down the metabolism of organisms. At low temperatures,
aquaculture organisms reduce their feed intake and maximise energy use to main-
tain their minimal survival functions, reducing growth. If the temperature continues
42 Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

to drop, haemolymph or blood density increases, and circulation becomes more dif-
ficult. At the lowest lethal temperature, the body is unable to maintain its minimal
vital functions and dies. In the case of some algae, because of the totipotency of
their cells, the minimum lethal temperatures are usually extremely low. Typically,
the lowest lethal temperature for these organisms is at which crystals form in the
cell membrane or wall, breaking it down and eventually killing the cells that make
up the organism.
According to a report published by the Water Research Commission of the
Republic of South Africa “mortality in fish from acute exposure to elevated
temperatures is often the result of metabolic malfunctions (including fluid electro-
lyte imbalance, alterations in gaseous exchange and osmoregulation, hypoxia of
the central nervous system and inactivation of enzyme systems”.2
Excessively high temperatures are stressors for ectothermic organisms.3 High
temperatures can alter the correct protein production and even destroy or com-
pletely denature them; they can also alter DNA expression through an epigenetic
process known as methylation, causing important phenotypic changes.4 Another
reason why extremely high temperatures have a harmful effect on organisms is
their relationship with dissolved oxygen. The higher the temperature is, the less
dissolved oxygen is available to reared organisms. In addition, if microalgae or
bacteria are found in the tank, the increase in temperature favours their reproduc-
tion, further reducing oxygen availability, especially at night.
In addition to organism growth and survival, temperature plays a crucial
role in the maturation and reproduction of most aquaculture organisms. Fish,
crustaceans, molluscs, and algae use physicochemical factors from the environ-
ment to determine the time of year and thus follow strategies to maximise the sur-
vival of their offspring. In the natural environment, temperature and light are two
crucial factors in determining the ideal moment for the release of gametes. These
characteristics allow aquaculture producers to manage the organism performance
produced by manipulating the environment. An example can be observed in the
release of gametes by some bivalve molluscs. In seed production laboratories of
some bivalves, such as oysters and mussels, temperature stress through sudden
changes (also known as temperature shocks) is used as a tool for the release of
gametes.
Temperature also affects the feeding habits of certain organisms, a character-
istic that directly impacts aquaculture, particularly fed aquaculture, since feeding
determines growth and hence the length of the cycle might affect water quality and
production costs. Temperature has been proven to be one of the determining factors
for feeding rates, considerably changing within the same species at different tem-
perature ranges.5
The effect of temperature is not limited to the individual biological processes
of organisms, it can also affect the trophic relations between species and their geo-
graphical distribution (for a deeper study on the relationship between temperature
and aquatic organisms see Dallas, 20082). Temperature is also directly related to the
speed of some chemical and biochemical reactions, which means that it also has a
direct effect on most of the other indicators described in this chapter.
 Effects of the environment on aquaculture organisms 43

4.3 Dissolved gases

Water and its composition are not the only elements that affect reared organisms.
In aquaculture, the air–​water interface is highly relevant. Dissolution of gases
from the atmosphere in the environment, as well as the consumption and emission
of gases from the organisms in the ponds, has a significant effect on crop sur-
vival and its correct development. In this sense, two concepts are fundamental to
understanding the presence or absence of these gases in the aquatic environment.
The first concept is dissolving gas in a liquid. This phenomenon was described
by the English scientist William Henry, who stated that gas dissolution in water
at a constant temperature is directly proportional to the partial pressure exerted
by that gas. In other words, gas dissolution is given, mainly, by pressure and
temperature.
The second fundamental concept for aquaculture is gas diffusion, that is, the
speed at which a dissolved gas is distributed through the water column. This con-
cept can be described using Fick’s laws, defined by the German physiologist Adolf
Fick, where he describes the motion of a solution with two different gradients
through a system of differential equations. Although these equations are complex,
they are based on a logical concept, namely, the diffusion of a solute (in this case a
gas) through a solvent (in this case water) depends on the concentration gradient.
In the case of gas diffusion in an aquaculture system, this difference in gradients
occurs in the areas of contact between the gas and liquid phases. In the case of
air injection, the speed with which the bubble travels the space from the injection
to its exit into the atmosphere, and the size of the bubbles (the area of contact)
determines the contact time of the liquid–​gas phases, determining the diffusion
capacity of that system.
In aquaculture, two naturally occurring gaseous compounds exist that have
a significant effect on the performance of reared organisms –​ dissolved oxygen
and CO2.

4.3.1 Dissolved oxygen

Oxygen is one of the most important elements to guarantee the survival and correct
development of animals. Oxygen is a key element in the chemical reactions by
which cells generate energy, since it is essential and irreplaceable in most meta-
bolic processes in higher organisms.
Unlike terrestrial animals that take in gaseous oxygen mixed in the air, aquatic
organisms depend on gaseous oxygen dissolved in water (DO) (which should not
be confused with the oxygen that makes up the water molecule) captured through
the respiration process performed in the gills or skin in the case of some animals.
It also plays a significant role in the respiration of algae as a product during the
diurnal phase and an input during the nocturnal phase.
According to Henry’s Law –​ first formulated by the English physician and
chemist William Henry in 1803 –​oxygen gas dissolution in water is directly related
to other environmental components: temperature, partial gas pressure, and fluid in
44 Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

which the oxygen dissolves. The higher the temperature is, the lower the oxygen
solubility is, therefore, the lower the availability is to organisms. In addition to tem-
perature, other factors directly affect dissolved oxygen availability, for example,
salinity. As with temperature, increases in salinity have an inverse effect on oxygen
availability.
While logically low oxygen availability results in high mortalities, the relation-
ship between dissolved oxygen and growth is less obvious but just as important.
An oxygen concentration above the lethal but below the optimal concentrations
can result in growth deficit. This result is due to the implication of this element on
metabolism and nutrient absorption capacity, besides the energy generation used
to grow and regenerate tissues. In addition, low oxygen concentrations have been
proven to generate a hormonal response that reduces appetite, prioritising its use
to maintain vital signs. Along with optimal DO levels, it is important to keep them
stable, drastic changes in dissolved oxygen levels have been linked to a greater
deleterious effect than sustained low oxygen availability.
The relationship between reproduction and low oxygen availability is similar
to what is observed in growth. Facing low oxygen concentrations, most aquatic
animals reproduce little or not at all, since the development of their sexual organs
can be inhibited, preventing gamete production or significantly reducing their
quality, and thus, the ability of the offspring to survive. Embryos developing under
hypoxic conditions may show hatching difficulties and phenotypic abnormalities
in hatched organisms that can even result in their subsequent death. In the case of
fish, unlike what happens with growth, new studies have shown that it is not mainly
due to the reduction of metabolic activity that reproduction is stopped or reduced,
but also to an effect on hormonal signalling, inhibiting a series of neurotransmitters
and receptors in the hypothalamus–​pituitary–​gonads axis.

4.3.2 Carbon dioxide (CO2)

Just as it is desirable for the producer to maximise dissolved oxygen availability

in water, it is also relevant to seek how to minimise the negative effects that CO2
dissolution may have in it. CO2 is the metabolic result of aerobic respiration, both
of reared organisms and the various microorganisms that may be found (including
the dark phase of photosynthesis in microalgae). In high concentrations, CO2 can
affect the oxygen transfer capacity in the blood of reared organisms, so exces-
sive accumulation of this gas should be avoided. This situation is particularly
important in water recirculation systems (RAS), since the water that leaves the
system is loaded with CO2; thus, if adequate treatment is not available, it is
reintroduced until it reaches saturation levels. This problem is easily controllable
through the use of degassing systems, such as packed columns or temperature or
pressure degassing.
Similar to the biological effects of this gas, an important balance exists between
CO2 concentrations, pH, and calcium carbonate availability (see Section 4.6),
which can have a significant effect on shell-​forming organisms.
 Effects of the environment on aquaculture organisms 45

4.4 Salinity
The effects that the salinity of the medium has on reared organisms are related to
the concept of osmotic pressure, defined as the pressure that must be applied to a
solution to stop solvent net flow through a semi-​permeable membrane. Faced with
an ionic concentration difference, osmotic pressure causes the passage of solvent
molecules (e.g. water) through the semipermeable membrane, towards the part with
the highest solute concentration (e.g. chlorine, sodium, potassium). In this manner,
the difference in concentration decreases, therefore, the osmotic pressure also does.
In the absence of osmotic regulatory mechanisms, a hyposaline (or hypotonic)
environment compared to the cell interior results in water entry through the mem-
brane, which can lead in extreme cases to cell membrane rupture or cytolysis. On
the other hand, if the environment is hypersaline (or hypertonic), water tends to
leave the cell through its semi-​permeable membrane, which can cause dehydration
and, in extreme cases, a type of cell death known as crenation (due to its shape) or
plasmolysis.
Due to the difference that exists between the internal ion balance of aquacul-
ture organisms and the environment, fish and other aquatic organisms perform a
metabolic process of ionic balance known as osmoregulation, which consists of
actively regulating the ionic balance between the inside and outside of the semi-​
permeable membranes. The regulatory capacity is variable and depends on each
species (Figure 4.2). Organisms that are able to survive in wide ranges of salinity
are known as euryhaline, and those that can survive in narrow ranges of salinity are
described as stenohaline.
Salinity also directly impacts growth besides its relationship to survival. First,
osmoregulation processes are costly from an energy point of view, so the further
the medium is from optimal salinity, the more energy goes into regulating the ion

Figure 4.2 Osmoregulation process and differences between freshwater and marine fish.
46 Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

balance, and the slower growth is. On the other hand, as mentioned above, high
salinities have a lower oxygen dissolution, and therefore, lower availability of this
gas, which can be associated with reductions in growth and reproduction.

4.5 pH
On many occasions, aquaculture producers ignore the effect that pH has on pro-
duction since it is not directly observable as a sudden change in temperature or
the availability of dissolved oxygen. However, a sudden change in pH can result
in reduced feeding rates, depression of the immune system –​therefore, worse per-
formance of cultured organisms –​and in extreme cases, death. Small changes in
water acidity or alkalinity can also have significant effects on most organisms.
On the one hand, although the relationship between pH and oxygen solubility
in water is not direct, it does affect the ability of animals to absorb and use
this oxygen and, depending on water conditions, it can reduce its availability.
An increase in pH can translate into greater availability of ionised hydrogen
molecules, while a decrease translates into an increase in the availability of
hydroxyl molecules (OH-​). These ions can react in different ways with various
compounds –​ such as ammonium and calcium carbonate –​ and have significant
impacts on crop performance.
The optimum pH of most fish and aquatic organisms (particularly marine ones)
is usually above 7, which is slightly more basic than acidic because haemolymph
pH usually ranges between 7.5 to 8.5.

4.6 Dissolved particles and compounds

The high densities of living organisms –​as compared to their natural environ-
ment –​combined with the application of inputs like food, treatments, minerals,
vitamins, among other compounds, result in a complex medium with a large
number of dissolved particles. Among them, two are of particular interest for aqua-
culture: nitrogenous compounds where ammonia and non-​ionised ammonia are
found and calcium carbonate, which is of particular interest for the production of
shell-​forming organisms like bivalve molluscs and crustaceans.

4.6.1 Nitrogen compounds

The greatest contribution of nitrogenous compounds in an aquaculture culture

medium comes from the proteins found in the food of cultured organisms. In the
case of animals, these proteins (along with other nutrients, such as lipids) enter into
catabolic processes for subsequently obtaining glucan and other compounds that
are used for energy, tissue growth, and other processes, such as the production and
movement of neurotransmitters and hormones.
In the case of algae, nitrogen (from various nitrogenous compounds, such as
nitrites and nitrates) is used together with phosphorus as precursors for the meta-
bolic processes responsible for obtaining energy and growth. Thus, the more food
 Effects of the environment on aquaculture organisms 47

is provided and the less it is consumed, the greater the nitrogen availability in the
water is, which in turn encourages algal growth (desired or unwanted).
A nitrogenous compound is especially relevant in aquaculture production: ammo-
nium ( NH +4 ), particularly the non-​ionised variant also called ammonia (NH3). In
most animals, non-​ionised ammonia is a highly toxic compound. In the case of
marine organisms, ammonia comes from ammonium, a compound generated after
the catabolic process of proteins used for muscle development and energy pro-
duction, and directly excreted into the medium through the gills. Furthermore, the
decomposition of organic matter through certain bacterial metabolic mechanisms
results in the expulsion of ammonia into the water column. Ionised ammonia can
be considered practically harmless, but its chemical characteristics make it easy to
react with water, giving rise to non-​ionised ammonia through the stoichiometric
relationship.

H 2 O + NH 3 ↔ NH 4+ + OH −

As mentioned previously, the balance of this equation in water depends on the

pH: a low pH means a higher concentration of ionised hydrogen, which favours the
reaction with non-​ionised ammonium, giving rise to the less toxic form of ionised
ammonium. As the pH increases, the equilibrium of the reaction shifts to the left,
resulting in a higher ammonium concentration. At a temperature of 20°C, equilib-
rium is at a pH value slightly higher than 9.
The balance of this reaction is also associated with ionic strength and tempera-
ture. Its relationship is directly proportional to the ammonia concentration in water,
that is, as the temperature decreases, the equation shifts to the left, giving lower
concentrations of ionised ammonium. Thus, the non-​toxic form of ammonium may
appear in higher concentrations in tropical species, such as shrimp or tilapia, due
to their metabolic requirements, which function optimally at higher temperatures.
As a method for eliminating this compound, different approaches can be used
depending on the production system and the species produced. In the case of species
that support turbid waters with high concentrations of suspended particles, such as
carp, tilapia, or shrimp, bacterial mixtures or bioremediants can be used, especially
under Biofloc systems (in some media known as probiotics).6,7 Bioremediation
metabolises ammonia to biomass and atmospheric nitrogen. In the case of species
that require clear water, it is possible to opt for high exchange rates, as in trout pro-
duction in meandering rivers or floating cages, which allow constant water flow.
Another option is the use of biofilters, which follow the same principle as the use
of bioremediation, but in a separate process from the organisms produced –​this
system is particularly useful in RAS.

4.6.2 Calcium carbonate

The chemical concept that relates to mineral solution in water is known as hardness.
According to this concept, water can be classified as soft if its mineral concentration
48 Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

is low or hard if it is high. The compound used to estimate water hardness is cal-
cium carbonate (CaCO3) or its equivalent amount.
Calcium carbonate is an important compound for the development of various
marine organisms, in particular for those that form shells, such as bivalve and
gastropod molluscs, and for the formation of corals and exoskeleton of some
crustaceans, such as crabs and lobsters. These organisms capture calcium carbonate
from the medium for shell and exoskeleton growth. In the absence of this com-
pound, organisms may show malformations, growth difficulties, various patholo-
gies, and even death. Furthermore, carbonate is a significant buffer when it comes
to extreme pH changes. To keep these functions optimal, producers tend to add
alkalinity compounds to water, maintaining the buffering effect and minimising the
consequences of water acidification.
In the natural environment, the available calcium carbonate in water is related to
calcium bicarbonate [Ca(CO3H)2] availability, mainly from the dissolution of lime-
stone rocks and its hydroxylation by carbon dioxide (CO2), both atmospheric and
the product of respiration of all living organisms. The chemical process involved
in the passage of these compounds and their acid–​base equilibria is complex (see
recommended readings: Turley et al. 2006 and Gattuso & Hansson, 2011 Chapters
1, 2 and 3 for deeper insights). However, as a summary, certainly before an increase
in acidity (especially from CO2 concentration increase) a tendency to hydrolyse
calcium carbonate takes place, giving rise to calcium and bicarbonate.
This reaction is very important when the impact of climate change on some
aquaculture organisms is evaluated, as discussed in Chapter 6.

4.7 Light
As previously mentioned in the section on dissolved gases, water and its compos-
ition is not the only element in the natural environment that has a direct effect on
farmed organisms. In addition to air and its responsibility in dissolving gases in the
water column, light also plays a crucial role in the behaviour, growth, and develop-
ment of aquaculture organisms.
With respect to light it is important to remember that this concept is made up
of different factors –​intensity, spectrum, photoperiod –​and each one of them can
affect production performance in one way or another.
Light affects living beings in different ways. It can function as an attractant/​
repellent through its relationship with photoreceptors, for example, in the larval
stage of various individuals. In this sense, light directs the organisms towards the
surface or depth, depending on the natural characteristics that favour their survival.
This aspect can be used in crops to facilitate larval harvesting, making the process
more efficient, and reducing costs and harvest times. In addition, light allows for
locating prey, which is the source of energy that allows the survival of fed farm
organisms.1
Light also plays a significant role in the pigmentation of fish and other aquatic
animals. This aspect is not only relevant for the survival and proper development of
organisms but also for their placement on the market and acceptance by consumers.
 Effects of the environment on aquaculture organisms 49

The main mechanism by which light affects aquatic organisms is through a

physiological concept known as circadian rhythms. Circadian rhythms are hor-
monal variations that plants and animals experience as a function of environmental
stimuli –​mainly temperature and light-​dark cycles –​that allow regulating the
behaviour of an organism and favour its survival. Living organisms depend on
circadian rhythms or cycles to discern the time of year when it is most convenient
to mate and when they must consolidate their hours of sleep and feeding. In some
species, the variation of light and dark hours can accelerate or decelerate gonadal
development, making reproductive control possible –​a key element to dominate
seed production and thus species production.
As previously mentioned, the presence or absence of light can be a significant
element for animals to see their food and be more efficient when feeding. Thus,
longer hours of light translate into better feeding rates, which translates into an
increase in biomass in less time.

4.8 Effect of the presence of other organisms

The physicochemical characteristics of water do not exclusively affect farmed
organisms, but rather have a direct impact on all organisms living in water –​a con-
cept dealt with in Chapter 5. In this manner, changes in water quality parameters
can have a significant effect on production performance despite not affecting the
critical points of reared species by promoting the growth of unwanted organisms,
such as pathogenic bacteria and viruses, algae, and/​or parasites.
In the case of closed systems, one of the main examples observed is lagoons or
ponds. As discussed above, an inversely proportional relationship exists between
temperature and dissolved oxygen. Thus, high temperatures favour the growth of
microalgae (inhibited by high dissolved oxygen saturations). In addition, nitrogen
compounds and phosphorus produced by farmed organisms and uneaten food pro-
vide an important source of nutrients to these microorganisms. The result is a phe-
nomenon known as algal blooms, which is nothing other than intense reproduction
of the algae present in the environment, which in extreme cases can cause system
hypoxia and massive mortalities of farmed organisms. Another type of bloom cor-
responds to the appearance of red tides, which in the case of filter feeder produc-
tion, such as bivalve molluscs, can have repercussions on human health. Algae
and bivalves also represent a problem in floating cage systems, growing in the
mesh and eliminating water flow efficiency. This unwanted growth is known as
biofouling.
The increase in temperature and reduction in water quality –​normally associated
with a great dissolution of dissolved organic particles as a result of high densities –​
can favour bacterial growth and virus proliferation. In some cases, they can be
pathogens for reared organisms and may result in growth reductions and, thus pro-
duction inefficiency, malformations, and product quality loss, and even in massive
mortalities and total loss of production cycles.
Not only microorganisms and parasites can impact aquaculture production.
The presence of natural predators near reared stocks can have a significant impact
50 Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

on the performance of a farm. In some stages, insects are voracious predators of

small organisms, such as shrimp post-​larvae reared in freshwater. In the case of
freshwater tropical fish, organisms like amphibians and reptiles can be significant
predators in the smolt and juvenile stages, and birds can feed on young and adult
organisms of different kinds of fish and shellfish. Some mammals, like sea lions,
can be a threat to large fish production, such as Chilean salmon.8
The presence of predators can be catastrophic in some cases and in different
production stages. For example, they are considered a significant factor in mussel
production seed loss in long lines,9 and birds can cause up to a 15% biomass loss
in fish production.10

4.9 Suspended particles

Unlike dissolved particles that react with water and its components, suspended
particles correspond to organic or inorganic material that is suspended in water
as food remains, bacterial flocs, or microplastics. Suspended particles can have a
beneficial effect, such as the presence of controlled bioflocules2 that can be used
as an alternative protein source in specific culture systems. They may also have
negative effects such as causing gill blockages, making breathing difficult for the
organisms and reducing their fitness, or the presence and intake of microplastics –​
anthropogenic pollutants significantly present in the oceans –​that have been shown
to have negative effects on the physiology and behaviour of some fish.3

4.10 Meteorological phenomena

Meteorological phenomena make up another aspect of the impacts that the envir-
onment has on aquaculture. Atmospheric events can have a significant impact on
water quality, either through changes in salinity and pH associated with rainfall
intensity or significant drought and evaporation or destruction of relevant produc-
tion infrastructure caused by strong winds, hurricanes, or typhoons.
It is a reality that meteorological phenomena have been increasing in number
and strength over the last few years due to their relationship with climate change.11
Therefore, extreme events should be expected to increase and be a problem for
aquaculture production (Chapter 6).
As a solution to all environmental aspects that affect aquaculture production,
one of the main production trends is to increase intensity while environmental con-
trol increases, for example, through inland recirculation systems. In addition to
reducing the variability associated with environmental conditions, it is possible to
maintain the productions closer to consumer markets, a factor discussed in the third
unit of this book, which is very important when the profitability of an aquaculture
project is assessed.
The selection of the type of cultivation system has a direct relationship with
water quality parameters and, in turn, is closely related to production sustainability,
since the cultivation system and its infrastructure directly influence the environ-
mental, social, and economic impacts that aquaculture production may have. The
 Effects of the environment on aquaculture organisms 51

management of the facilities and control of water quality parameters to maximise

the productivity of the farm can impact, for example, the type of employment that
is produced, the impact it has on the environment, or the proximity to the markets.

4.11 Final remarks

Understanding the reared species’ biological optimums in terms of water quality
parameters is one key component in the success of an aquaculture endeavour. This
will determine the site selection, the species selection, as well as the infrastructure
development, the choice of genetic lines, and management strategies.
Furthermore, since most aquaculture productions are carried out in the open,
where the organisms are subject to changes in the weather conditions as well as
the water’s physical and chemical composition, understanding and managing
water quality is key for a successful aquaculture business. These changes, and the
relationships that exist between all of them, will significantly affect the perform-
ance of the reared organisms.
Maintaining adequate ranges for temperature, pH, salinity, oxygen, etc. will
have a significant impact on the organism’s growth and survival. Also, they are
associated with their tolerance to diseases and resistance to manipulation and man-
agement, aspects that will have a significant effect on production risks and, in turn,
on the availability of financial products such as financial loans and insurance, an
aspect that we’ll cover in Chapter 11.

4.12 Chapter review questions

1 What relationship exists between ammonia, pH, and temperature, and how does
it affect aquaculture species?
2 What relationship exists between dissolved oxygen, temperature, and salinity?
3 Describe the osmotic regulation process in freshwater and marine fish.
4 How can light affect the performance of an aquaculture farm?
5 What effect does overfeeding have on water quality and how does this affect
reared organisms?

Recommended readings
Boyd, C. E. & Tucker, C. S. (2012). Pond Aquaculture Water Quality Management. Springer.
pp. 715.
Boyd, C. E., & Tucker, C. S. (2014). Handbook for aquaculture water quality. Handbook for
Aquaculture Water Quality, 439. USDA Agricultural Research Service.
Deane, E. E., & Woo, N. (2009). Modulation of fish growth hormone levels by salinity, tem-
perature, pollutants and aquaculture related stress: A review. Reviews in Fish Biology
and Fisheries, 19(1), 97–​120.
Gattuso, J. P., & Hansson, L. (Eds.). (2011). Ocean Acidification. Oxford university press.
Lucas, J. S., Southgate P. C. & Tucker C. S. (2019). Aquaculture: Farming Aquatic Animals
and Plants. 3rd edition. Wiley-​Blackwell, pp. 664.
52 Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

Turley, C., Blackford, J., Widdicombe, S., Lowe, D., Nightingale, P. D., & Rees, A. P.
(2006). Reviewing the impact of increased atmospheric CO2 on oceanic pH and the
marine ecosystem. Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change, 8, 65–​70.

References
1 Langford, T. Ecological Effects of Thermal Discharges. Elsevier Science Publishing
Co.: New York, 1990.
2 Dallas, H.. “Water temperature and riverine ecosystems: an overview of knowledge
and approaches for assessing biotic responses, with special reference to South Africa.”
Water SA 34.3 (2008): 393–​404.
3 Alfonso, S., M. Gesto, and B. Sadoul. “Temperature increase and its effects on fish
stress physiology in the context of global warming.” Journal of Fish Biology 98.6
(2021): 1496–​1508.
4 Varriale, A., and G. Bernardi. “DNA methylation and body temperature in fishes.”
Gene 385 (2006): 111–​121.
5 Sun, M., S. G. Hassan, and D. Li. “Models for estimating feed intake in aquaculture: a
review.” Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 127 (2016): 425–​438.
6 Peñalosa-​Martinell, D., Vela-​Magaña, M., Ponce-​Díaz, G., and Padilla, M. E. A.
Probiotics as environmental performance enhancers in the production of white shrimp
(Penaeus vannamei) larvae. Aquaculture 514 (2020): 734491.
7 Helmy, Q., Kardena, E., and Gustiani, S. Probiotics and bioremediation. Edited by
Miroslav Blumenberg, Mona Shaaban, and Abdelaziz Elgaml. In Microorganisms (pp.
153–​162). IntechOpen, London, UK, 2019.
8 Quiñones, R. A., et al. “Environmental issues in Chilean salmon farming: a review.”
Reviews in Aquaculture 11.2 (2019): 375–​402.
9 South, P. M., Delorme, N. J., Skelton, B. M., Floerl, O., and Jeffs, A. G. (2022). The
loss of seed mussels in longline aquaculture. Reviews in Aquaculture 14.1: 440–​455.
10 Otieno, N. E.. “Economic impact of predatory piscivorous birds on small-​scale aqua-
culture farms in Kenya.” Aquaculture Reports 15 (2019): 100220.
11 Bouwer, L. M. “Observed and projected impacts from extreme weather
events: implications for loss and damage.” Loss and Damage from Climate
Change: Concepts, Methods and Policy Options (2019): 63–​82.
5 Aquaculture’s effect on the
environment
Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

Aquaculture needs to keep growing to satisfy the increasing world population and
its demand for seafood. As we have mentioned in previous chapters, this growth
was impressive during the decades of the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s, with double-​
digit annual growth rates; nonetheless, this growth came with a substantial envir-
onmental cost, mainly derived from a lack of knowledge on the potential impacts
of the activity and the increased intensity of production. But not everything in
aquaculture is a negative impact.
Over the last decade, significant efforts have been made to improve the sus-
tainability of the aquaculture industry. From new regulations to technological
developments and management strategies, investments, and research have made
it possible to keep growing while reducing the negative environmental impacts.
Nowadays, aquaculture can be a successful production activity with some positive
impacts on the environment, society, and the economy, although it is still in its
infancy, there is a significant push from several of the industry’s stakeholders to
grow sustainably.

5.1 Introduction
Aquaculture, like most production processes, has a derived environmental impact,
which should be evaluated and compared with the economic and social benefits
obtained from production. Additionally, negative environmental impacts should be
minimised for various reasons:

1 Environmental deterioration can have a significant effect on production due to

the close relationship that exists between production and the environment (see
Chapter 4).
2 Continual water, atmosphere, and land pollution can lead to climate change
acceleration and, in extreme cases, produce an inhospitable planet.
3 If poorly managed, the effects of points 1 and 2 lead to an environmental trap,
that is, a vicious cycle where more human intervention helps to isolate and
control the environmental impacts on production. However, environmental
deterioration increases, making a higher level of intervention needed to isolate

DOI: 10.4324/9781003174271-7
54 Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

environmental effects, increasing the environmental impact, and so on. For

example, the most common way to control temperature in a shallow inland pond
is to perform water exchanges. This type of control is usually done with electric
or petrol motors, which are associated with greenhouse gas emissions. Their
concentration is one of the most significant components of climate change,
which results in an overall increase in the Earth’s temperature. Since tempera-
ture will be higher in the following cycles, the water exchange rate needs to
increase, and so will the emissions of contaminant gases, accelerating climate
change.

The impact that aquaculture continues to have on the environment is diverse and
closely linked to the production system and management strategy. In open systems,
aquaculture is a classic case of an ecological trap. Unfortunately, wild populations
are attracted to these systems because of certain production characteristics, such
as infrastructure materials and greater food abundance. However, those same
characteristics create inferior biological performance (lower reproduction, growth
problems, higher disease prevalence) due to water quality deterioration around the
productive areas (Figure 5.1).

Figure 5.1 Attraction and repulsion mechanisms that lead to an ecological trap. Art by
Gonzalo Suinaga.
 Aquaculture’s effect on the environment 55

On the other hand, productions in closed systems, such as recirculation, can

control this effect by treating water and minimising effluents. Nevertheless, these
treatments currently require much higher energy consumption than that observed
in open productions. This result translates into greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
when fossil fuels are used as the main source of energy, resulting again in an envir-
onmental trap, as described in point 3 above.

5.2 Impacts on water quality

High densities, feeding rates, and water treatments provided to maximise the pro-
ductive performance of aquaculture farms are associated with an increase in par-
ticle concentration in the water column, both dissolved and suspended, as well
as organic and inorganic. Depending on the infrastructure characteristics, man-
agement methods of the facilities, and current legal framework in the production
area, the water used in production will be discharged to the natural environment
in a greater or lesser proportion and with greater or lesser treatment. In general,
open systems, whether inland or grown directly in a natural water body, have high
turnover rates and do not have water treatment methods. This situation is espe-
cially true for crops grown on floating artifacts and at the mercy of water currents.
In recirculation and zero discharge systems, the formation of sludge is especially
important, with high concentrations of biological material that must be disposed of
correctly to maximise the environmental benefits of the technology.
Due to the complex relationships that exist between the different components of
ecosystems affected by aquaculture, the impacts associated with water quality have
direct effects on the biota, atmosphere, and land.
The dissolved compounds in culture water that can have a greater impact on
water quality in the natural environment can be classified as organic and inorganic
particles.

5.2.1 Organic particles

Most aquaculture products (with the exception of the production of algae and filter
organisms) require the external application of prepared feeds, which is especially
true for high-​value species, associated mainly with carnivorous organisms (i.e.
salmon, snook, shrimp, lobster). Since in no case is the food provided consumed
in its entirety, this activity results in an increase of dissolved organic particles.
Furthermore, excretion produced by the organisms also contributes to an increase
in organic particles that can be dissolved in water.
The uneaten food and excreta of the organisms transfer a large amount of nutrients
to the environment surrounding the aquaculture production facilities, either by water
exchange or directly through the floating cages and ponds. The impact of these
discharges varies according to the quantity, concentration, and composition, which
in turn depends on the scale, species, genetics, and technification of the production
unit, as well as the capacity to assimilate the surplus nutrients from each zone.
In addition to uneaten food and excreta, the produced organisms generate other
organic compounds that can impact the environment due to the very high production
56 Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

densities, particularly in open systems. For example, appendages, exuviae, and

other biological components have the potential of decomposing. In the case of
productions with bioflocules (also known as biofloc) that promote bacterial or algal
growth, if no treatment is available in the discharges, carbon, nitrogen, and phos-
phorus output may be significant. The presence of these compounds can have sig-
nificant effects on the proliferation of other organisms that use these compounds as
nutrients for their development, such as algae.

5.2.2 Proliferation of primary organisms

As described in Chapter 4, the use of food with a high protein content results in the
emission of effluents with high concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorus, both
essential inputs for the metabolic processes of micro-​and macroalgae. In the case
of microalgae, this process can lead to algal blooms, which is nothing more than an
extreme proliferation of microalgae in a short period of time. After the proliferation
and death of organisms, respiration processes and, mainly, the decomposition of
organic matter result in a high rate of oxygen consumption, which can cause hyp-
oxia and death of many organisms around the phenomenon. If this effect occurs in
closed systems, it may result in massive mortality.
In the case of macroalgae, growth is slower, but it can also show some diffi-
culties. The main difficulty is the proliferation and growth around the production
infrastructure, a process known as biofouling or simply fouling. This proliferation
in the nets is mainly problematic in floating cage productions, since the organisms
impede water flow, which increases the concentration of dissolved particles and
reduces oxygenation.
In addition, in systems found in the natural environment, the proliferation of
algae (both micro-​ and macroscopic) is associated with that of their consumers.
For example, either filter feeders, such as bivalve molluscs (also associated with
fouling problems) or other organisms, in turn, can attract predators (that might have
an impact on the cultivated organisms), increasing the population, reducing water
quality and, again, giving rise to an ecological trap.

5.2.3 Inorganic particles

Besides the feed provided, faeces, and other organic waste associated with the main-
tenance of living organisms, aquaculture producers tend to use other additives to
maximise yield and minimise production risks. Some of the additives used include
antibiotics, disinfectants, compounds for water and soil treatment, algaecides,
pesticides, and fertilisers.
The most studied case with the greatest direct impact on human health is the use
of antibiotics. Antibiotics are one of the most widely used compounds in aquaculture.
They can come from natural or synthetic compounds, and their primary objective is
to kill or inhibit bacterial growth, particularly those with pathogenic conditions.
Several studies have shown that –​although the use of antibiotics can improve
the productivity of a farm in the short term –​they have various associated risks and
 Aquaculture’s effect on the environment 57

impacts on both human health and the environment. Antibiotics have been found
to accumulate in the culture environment, sediments, and tissues of farm animals.
In the case of open production systems (the majority around the world), antibiotics
are dispersed in the natural environment through effluents.
The presence of antibiotics in the natural environment can lead to the gener-
ation of resistance for different bacterial strains, which could lead to the creation
of diseases that can prove to be extremely difficult or even impossible to treat with
current methods.
Despite a global reduction in antibiotics that has been observed associated with
the use of technologies, such as vaccination or probiotics, their prophylactic use
as a bactericidal treatment continues to be the preferred option in some countries.

5.3 Impacts on the atmosphere

The main impact of aquaculture production on the atmosphere is associated with
GHG emissions. Firstly, these gases come mainly from management, in particular
feeding and energy consumption. Secondly, other aspects associated with some
types of production such as soil removal, land use, or microorganism's metabolism
can have an impact on GHG emissions.
In 2017, an estimated 263 million MT of carbon equivalent were released to the
environment from aquaculture (excluding algae production), of which 57% came
from feeding (inputs, manufacturing, and transport), and the rest, a significant part,
came from microorganism metabolism present in the pond.

5.3.1 Greenhouse gas products of energy consumption

GHGs are the main driver of climate change. As discussed in Chapter 6, these gases
can be classified as anthropogenic –​produced by man –​and non-​anthropogenic –​
produced by nature –​depending on their origin.
Most anthropogenic GHGs come from the combustion of fossil fuels, mainly
used for power generation. The chemical reaction associated with the combustion
of fossil fuels results in the production of ash and carbon dioxide or CO2. In add-
ition, if combustion does not occur completely, other emitted gases can aggravate
the greenhouse effect, mainly methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), other nitrogen
oxides (NOx), sulphur dioxide (SO2), and volatile compounds other than methane.
The energy dependence and amount of emissions associated with aquaculture
production depend on the type of production (e.g. extensive/​intensive shrimp/​oyster
farming). In general, the sector’s dependence on energy is clear –​ often coming
from non-​renewable sources or directly from the burning of fossil fuels for the
operation of generators in remote areas –​especially if all the energy components
are considered in the production chain. For example, those associated with aqua-
culture range from the production/​collection of juveniles, food, farm operation,
harvesting, processing, and marketing.
One of the solutions that has been proposed to maintain aquaculture growth
while minimising the impact on the natural environment, mainly associated with
58 Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

water discharges, is to favour production in recirculation systems. These systems

show an increase in rearing density, reduction in effluent emissions, impact mini-
misation of environmental variables, greater control over production, and as a
result greater productivity per unit area. However, it is important to emphasise that
these production systems are also associated with an increase in energy consump-
tion. While the production of 1 kg of salmon in an open system has an estimated
energy consumption of 1.3 kWh kg–​1, this estimate may rise to more than 80 kWh
kg–​1 when produced in a recirculation system.1,2 However, some estimates establish
energy consumption of 8.8 kWh for the production of smolts and an estimation
from 6 to 10 kWh per kilogram produced in the grow-​out stage.1
Although the control derived from the use of RAS makes it possible to adapt
production to climate change derived from GHG emissions, it can also be a rele-
vant emission factor of using fossil fuels as the main source of energy. The impact
that it has on the ocean, open productions, and, even more relevant, humanity is
significant and must be considered when favouring production in recirculation
systems.

5.3.2 Other greenhouse gas emissions associated with aquaculture

As mentioned earlier in this chapter, the single major component of GHG emissions
from aquaculture is the use of commercial feed, which accounts for up to 57% of
all emissions associated with aquaculture.6 The emissions generated by the produc-
tion and sourcing of crop feed ingredients (up to 39% of the total emissions from
the activity) are also included, the other 18% is attributed to sourcing of fishmeal
and fish oil, as well as feed blending and transport.
Another important source of GHG emissions, which is often not considered, is
that generated by metabolism. This emission is either generated by the metabolism
of the reared organisms or the decomposition of surplus food, which generates, in
addition to CO2, significant amounts of methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O).
Although uncertainty exists about the metric tonnes emitted to contextualise the
relevance of this contamination source, as estimated in 2008 the aquaculture sector
emitted 0.33% of the total anthropogenic N2O (0.09 MT). Thus, the projection is
that by 2030 this proportion will have risen to 5.72% (0.6 MT).3

5.3.3 Estimating environmental impacts: a brief introduction to life cycle analysis

Estimating GHG emissions is not easy and requires a significant amount of assumptions
and abstraction, mainly due to the difficulty in directly measuring the emissions of
different kinds of gases and the efficiency of implementing existing instruments.
Furthermore, different water quality components (like temperature, pH, or salinity,
see Chapter 4) have an effect on the emissions generated by a pond or tank since there
is high dependence on the metabolism of the organisms present in the water.
That being said, some different methodologies are used to estimate the emissions
of an industry or product, of which the most common one is the life cycle analysis
(LCA). According to the European Committee for Standardisation, a life cycle ana-
lysis is a “method used to quantify environmental burdens based on inventory of
 Aquaculture’s effect on the environment 59

environmental factorsi for a product, process or activity from the abstraction of raw
materials to their final disposal”.1
With the LCA methodology, different environmental impacts generated by
different activities can be standardised and estimated, including aquaculture. This
methodology allows standardisation, which in turn helps decision-​makers and
researchers to have a similar baseline to evaluate and compare the environmental
impact of the studied activity.
A complete description of the LCA methodology and its use in aquaculture is
outside the scope of this book, however readers are encouraged to look into the
recommended readings to deepen their understanding of the development and
application of LCA.2

5.4 Impacts on land and high-​value ecosystems

The impacts produced on land (or the marine mantle) are mainly associated with
soil eutrophication and depletion of highly valuable ecosystems, such as mangroves
or coral reefs that, in extreme situations, can have a devastating effect on coastal
populations. The impacts of aquaculture on these areas largely depend on farmed
organisms, the systems used, and existing regulations in the country of origin.
In the case of productions in floating cages in the natural environment, like most
salmon production, a significant impact has been observed on the seabed associated
with faeces precipitation, uneaten food, and other organic and inorganic compounds.
As a result, the areas below the floating cages lose biodiversity and, in extreme cases,
make it impossible for organisms to grow –​sessile organisms are mainly affected.
An important example of the deterioration and destruction of significant terres-
trial ecosystems due to aquaculture practices is that of shrimp farming. Traditionally,
the development of shrimp farming has been associated with loss of mangrove
cover, especially in Southeast Asia. In 2001, approximately from 1 to 1.5 million
ha of coastal lowlands have been converted into shrimp ponds, of which the main
ecosystems affected are salt flats, mangrove areas, and marshes.4 However, this
practice has been reduced by pressure from public opinion. Regardless of this prac-
tice, most of the shrimp produced by aquaculture comes from ponds built near the
coastline, which has continued generating impacts on the coastal zone.
In addition to the modification of the coastal zone, aquaculture alters trophic
networks where uneaten food is used by fauna peripheral to the crop, modifying the
structure of wild populations. It should be noted that although the discharges are
few compared to the total organic discharges of anthropogenic origin, the impacts
on aquaculture are localised and profound. Often, these impacts are detrimental to
the activity itself since the quality of available water is reduced and the transmission
of diseases between aquaculture production units and wild populations is promoted.

5.5 Impacts on wildlife

Barret et al.3 proposed a series of categories to classify the impact of marine aqua-
culture on wildlife. The proposed categories are: abundance, diversity or richness
in species, physiological changes, pollution, infection rates, and survival and
60 Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

fertility. This categorisation can in turn be used to assess the impact of most aqua-
culture operations on biodiversity. In most cases, the impact is directly associated
with a thermal change known as ecological traps.
As mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, ecological traps can be defined as
the attraction to a lower-​quality environment due mostly to feed and infrastructure.
Surprisingly, many of these farm-​related environmental changes, such as light,
noise, eutrophication, and high predator densities can be repellent to wary or func-
tionally specialised taxa.

5.5.1 Abundance

In the cases of open-​water floating-​cage aquaculture, the effect of the feed provided
means that, in most cases, the abundance of species that are found around a pro-
duction area also increases. However, deterioration in water quality makes this
increase in abundance a temporary effect that may have significant repercussions
on the ecosystem where the production is located.
In previous decades, the common practice to obtain seed from any aquaculture
species consisted of capturing larvae and juveniles from the natural environment for
later fattening. Then, this practice was found to have a significant effect on target
species abundance, since elimination of complete wild species cohorts reduces or
eliminates species recruitment, thus reducing its future reproduction possibilities.
This effect is not only negative from an ecological point of view, but also socially,
since it negatively impacts the fishing communities that depend on these species.
This practice is still carried out, for example, in the process of catching and fattening
tuna. However, restrictions and legislation that prevent capture below a certain size
have been imposed, allowing the species to reproduce prior to capture.

5.5.2 Species richness (diversity)

Associated with the ecological trap concept, in most cases, aquaculture activities result
in an increase in species diversity found in an area. On average the diversity increase
has been estimated at 1.7 times with respect to the pre-​production status. In addition to
increasing fish diversity and quantity, an increase in bird populations and diversity has
been also observed. On the contrary, a decrease or negative impact on the population
has been associated with species richness and diversity increase of fish and amphibian
populations. Notably, studies carried out in this regard have dealt with a small number
of target species, and the impacts have been observed exclusively on them.
Despite species richness and abundance that have increased around the produc-
tion areas, this effect may be detrimental to wild populations since water quality
reduction takes place, increasing the possibility of pathogen transmission vectors.

5.5.3 Physiological changes

In the case of fish, those caught near aquaculture areas showed significant increases
in size and weight compared to the same species captured in a control area. This
 Aquaculture’s effect on the environment 61

result can be explained because a change in the diet of the organisms growing near
aquaculture facilities allows wild organisms to feed on pellets provided by farmers
for production. These dietary changes alter the fatty tissues of wild organisms due
to differences in the fatty acid chains that are provided in the pelleted feed.

5.5.4 Pollution (biological)

A worldwide practice is the use of aquaculture as a source to replenish wild stocks
by intentionally releasing larvae or juveniles of organisms of commercial interest.
While some programmes have been successful, concerns have arisen that they
may decrease genetic population variability, making them more vulnerable in the
long term.
Another risk is the escape of production organisms. Although they are native
species in some cases, the organisms in production are often genetic lines selected
for productive purposes (e.g. higher growth rate, resistance to diseases, increased
tolerance to suboptimal conditions), so the transfer of these characteristics towards
wild populations can significantly modify local communities.
Despite the above, the clearest risk for diversity is the introduction of non-​native
species, which are disease vectors attracted by the seed and reproductive trade or
directly by the escapes of organisms from rearing farms. This situation can deteri-
orate native species and even eliminate them, when they become invasive species
due to the absence of natural predators or better adaptation to the conditions of the
new site.
Several examples exist of exotic species that have adapted to the areas where
they have been introduced, becoming invasive species with a significant impact
on native ecosystems. Some of the most striking include the case of the bullfrog
(Lithobates catesbeianus) brought from North America to South America, this
species has become a predator of native species, and that of the red river crab
(Procambarus clarkii) brought from North America to Europe, which is particu-
larly problematic in Spain, where it has displaced various native crab species com-
peting for food and space.
On the other hand, introductions of new populations of the same species can
lead to new diseases and parasites that can be lethal for native species because they
have not developed defences. A very clear example is the Japanese oyster diseases
introduced to North America, which have caused the reduction of native oyster
stocks on the west coast of the United States.

5.5.5 Infection rates

The impact on disease and parasitism rates due to proximity to farms may be the
primary concern for fish. For example, high population densities within farms create
favourable conditions for disease and parasitism outbreaks, such as sea lice (Box 5.1ii).
Wild fish populations can serve as reservoirs for parasites and diseases. They
can also act as potent carriers of parasites and diseases as they travel between cages
to take advantage of feeding opportunities.
62 Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

Furthermore, the introduction of organisms of the same species imported from

other ecological zones can be associated with the appearance of diseases. An
example can be seen in shrimp productions, of which the most iconic case has
been white spot virus. The appearance of this virus was first recorded in organisms
produced in Asia. However, the wide connectivity and exchange of merchandise
(such as reproducers, food, equipment, etc.) between Asian countries and the rest of
the world allowed the introduction of this virus to the American continent, causing
significant mortalities in countries such as Ecuador and Mexico. As discussed in
Chapter 2, open facilities are characterised by discharging effluents into adjacent
water bodies, which allow these vectors to escape into the environment, giving rise
to the possibility of infecting wild organisms.

5.5.6 Survival and fertility

The effect of production on wild species survival is not well documented. Evidence
of increases in fish population survival has been reported, as well as much higher
mortality impacts for birds at some production sites.
Although parasitisation and the pathogen increase observed in farms and cages
are highly probable to have a negative effect on wild populations, the authors are
not aware of the existence of studies that have demonstrated this effect in a con-
clusive way.
In the same way as with survival, documentation regarding the effect of aqua-
culture productions on the fertility and reproduction of wild organisms is very
sparse. The effect of the ecological trap is believed to be significant in this regard,
increasing the presence of predators and reducing progeny survival. In addition,
as mentioned in the previous chapter, water quality deterioration can have a sig-
nificant effect on the reproductive capacity of many fish, mollusc, and crustacean
species, so reproducers that live near farms could have a significant reduction in
fertility and quality of eggs and hatchlings.

5.6 Potential ecologically beneficial outcomes from aquaculture

As mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, impacts generated by aquaculture
need to be observed and judged in a fair manner. Hence, this activity should also
have the potential for ecologically beneficial outcomes. In this regard,4 a framework
has been developed to standardise the measurement of such beneficial outcomes,
separating them into 12 categories.

5.6.1 Biological control

Biological control consists in releasing a reared predator species in an area that

can eliminate or reduce the presence of an invasive species or function as pest
control.5 Although it can have a positive impact, its effects can be detrimental
to other native species and there is a high risk of unbalancing the environmental
structure.
 Aquaculture’s effect on the environment 63

5.6.2 Species recovery

The strategy consists in breeding and releasing juveniles of targeted local species
in danger or where natural stocks have been depleted by overfishing. The effective-
ness of this activity remains controversial, particularly in finfish. The timing and
methods for release have a significant effect on the probability of the restocked
individual’s survival. This activity needs further research, although in some cases
it has had significant social success.
The release has seen significant positive impacts, particularly in closed or semi-​
closed water bodies, such as lakes or dams, where restocking of juveniles has
helped maintain the fisheries sector in regions with a significant economic and
social impact.6

5.6.3 Habitat restoration

With the use of reared organisms, restoring a degraded, damaged, or destroyed

habitat structure and function partially or entirely is possible. To achieve this, the
species produced needs to be considered an ecosystem engineeriii, it must be native
to the area of production.
Usually, though not exclusively, the aquaculture species that can promote this
output are plants or invertebrates, of which coral restoration is one of the most sig-
nificant cases of success.7
Other cases of habitat restoration are found in mangrove reforestation. Although
mangrove is arguably not an aquaculture species (depending on the definition), its res-
toration can be coupled with classic aquaculture production, such as shrimp farming8
with the additional effect of carbon sequestration, another of the potential benefits.

5.6.4 Habitat protection

This term refers to the direct or indirect protection of a species or the structure and/​
or function of a habitat as a result of aquaculture. A good example is that the areas
where aquaculture takes place can sometimes be considered as a type of marine
protected area, since other activities, like fishing, in that specific area are forbidden.
In this way, the species that live in the surrounding areas will be protected from
direct, indirect, or bycatch from fishing activities.
It is important to highlight that when a certain aquaculture activity has habitat
protection characteristics, the degradation of the habitat where the activity takes
place needs to be minimal. Hence, the farm needs to be careful not to have negative
impacts on local species and reduce its footprint on the habitat itself.

5.6.5 Ex situ conservation

Ex situ conservation consists of rearing species outside of their natural habitat to

increase control and reduce stressors or predators. This outcome is usually benefi-
cial for a single species instead of having a positive full-​habitat effect. The objective
64 Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

of this aquaculture is usually a conservation one instead of commercial, except for

some cases where wild populations are lost or in danger.9

5.6.6 Wild harvest replacement

Wild harvest replacement consists in producing a species with commercial value to

reduce the pressure that exists in that existing species’ natural stock.
According to Tensen10 wild harvest replacement is considered a positive out-
come as long as it meets a number of criteria: Products are indeed a substitute for
wild products; demand is met but not increased (an increased demand would have
an inverse effect, putting more pressure on wild stocks); legal production is cost-​
effective as opposed to black-​market products; there is no need to use wild stocks;
and there is no transfer of products between legal and illegal markets which allow
exploiting the wild stocks and laundering the illegal products.
The best available examples for these outcomes come from ornamental aqua-
culture, especially freshwater ornamental aquaculture. In the case of marine water,
production costs cannot compete with wild harvests in most cases, although new
technologies and research have reduced those gaps with promising futures for
species like the sea cucumber.

5.6.7 Habitat rehabilitation

Habitat rehabilitation consists in using native or non-​native species to improve

a degraded ecosystem without fully recovering its original state. As opposed to
habitat restoration, rehabilitation consists in the effect that aquaculture species or
gear (such as ropes, nets, or others) have on a specific habitat. As mentioned previ-
ously in this chapter, this activity can result in an ecological trap, so its application
and follow-​up must be studied carefully to avoid negative outcomes.
Habitat rehabilitation may procure, as a side effect, an impact on habitat restor-
ation. For example, if the produced organism has an impact on the environment, it
may reduce invasive taxa biomass and increase native taxa biomass.

5.6.8 Removal of overabundant species

Removal of overabundant species is linked with capture-​based aquaculture and not

with full closed-​cycle productions. This outcome consists in partially harvesting an
overabundant species that does not have a market and moving them to an aquacul-
ture facility to rear them until they have market value. For example, sea urchins can
be removed to protect kelp cover and their further rearing until they have commer-
cial value. The simple removal of species without further rearing is not considered
within the scope of this classification due to its lack of an aquaculture component.

5.6.9 Coastal defence

Several natural biological structures serve as coastal defence mechanisms, redu-

cing the strength of the waves and hence minimising the impacts on the shore and
 Aquaculture’s effect on the environment 65

coastal communities. These natural structures, such as mangrove forests, coral and
shellfish, or kelp mashes have been diminishing over the last decades due to defor-
estation, plagues, changes in water composition as a result of climate change, and
other anthropogenic and non-​anthropogenic factors.
Furthermore, climate change is responsible for an increased number and severity
of meteorological phenomena, which can have a greater impact on the shore and
coastal communities if these structures are not present.
Through aquaculture, these structures can be replenished and recovered,
although the methods used to do it need to be selected carefully so that the posi-
tive impacts expected do not harm the natural components currently present in the
ecosystem.

5.6.10 Bioremediation

Aquaculture species, such as algae and some molluscs, can help in the water
remediation process by removing excess nutrients from it. This process is particu-
larly interesting in agricultural areas or other locations where aquaculture activities
discharge water with high concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorus to the ocean.
The reduction of extremely high nutrient quantities in water is a method to min-
imise the probability of having algal blooms that could potentially harm the local
ecosystem or other aquaculture activities in the area.
However, this strategy needs to be properly calculated to maintain a nutrient
balance in the area. If the aquaculture project developed for bioremediation is too
large, it can deplete the area of nutrients, which will have a negative effect on the
surrounding environment due to a reduction of the availability of components in
the base of the trophic system.

5.6.11 Assisted evolution

The rates at which many marine organisms evolve and adapt are being out-​paced
by the rate at which their environment is changing11;12, these changes result in an
inevitable loss and relocation of aquatic species that cannot adapt to their new
surroundings.
Through genetic selection and manipulation, aquaculture sciences can select
the individuals of certain species of concern that have an increased capacity of
surviving in their new environment. The most significant examples would be resist-
ance to diseases or increased tolerance to environmental conditions, such as tem-
perature increase, changes in pH, salinities, etc.

5.6.12 Climate change mitigation

Aquaculture helps to mitigate the anthropogenic components of climate change,

reducing its speed and allowing more time for adaptation. The way through which
aquaculture can help in climate change mitigation is through the promotion of
species and techniques that contribute to a net sequestration of greenhouse gases, also
known as blue carbon due to the aquatic nature of this type of carbon sequestration.
66 Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

A great example of these activities is the promotion of macroalgae production

since these species are very efficient in carbon sequestration and they also help
mitigate other aspects associated with climate change, such as pH increase (hence
reducing the effect of ocean acidification) and net oxygen production (oxygen
reduction is associated with water temperature increases; Chapter 6). Although
algae production looks promising, it also has some challenges, such as the produc-
tion area13
To sort out the complexities related to the economic feasibility of these aquacul-
ture activities, some interesting economic and financial tools have been developing
over the last years, with the most promising being the creation of a blue carbon
market that could help internalise the emission externalities and provide an extra
financial incentive for production involving carbon sequestration.

5.7 Final remarks

In this chapter, we have described both the negative and positive impacts of aqua-
culture on the environment. Although the negative impacts have been more studied
and advertised, the positive effects of this activity could be significant and present
great potential.
Under-​regulation and lack of knowledge during the initial stages of the aquacul-
ture industry’s growth resulted in increased pollution, mangrove deforestation, soil
eutrophication, and water quality reduction. This has resulted not only in negative
environmental impacts but also in social welfare reductions through the abandon-
ment of farms, the disappearance of small farms, and the loss of jobs due to farm
closure at regional levels. This opened the eyes of the industry stakeholders and led
to an increase in regulation and research on improved and sustainable aquaculture
production.
All of the potential beneficial outcomes have a sound theoretical framework, and
most of them are achievable under real-​life circumstances. As we’ve seen, some
of them even have had successes, however, overall, there is little evidence of the
significant ecological impact of these activities to date. The main problem behind
some of these strategies lies in their economic feasibility and the self-​sustainability
of the endeavour. An increased incentive to further implement these techniques at
all levels of aquaculture production could be a solution to promote the adoption of
these practices to a greater or lesser extent.

5.8 Chapter review questions

1 Which do you consider the most significant negative impacts of aquaculture on
the environment?
2 Which is, in your opinion, the most significant potential ecological benefit of
aquaculture?
3 What do you understand by life cycle analysis?
 Aquaculture’s effect on the environment 67

4 How do you propose to minimise the negative environmental impacts of

aquaculture?
5 Which do you think is the main constraint towards implementing environmental
protection measures?

Recommended readings
Ahmed, N., & Turchini, G. M. (2021). Recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS):
Environmental solution and climate change adaptation. Journal of Cleaner Production
297: 126604.
Biermann, G., & Geist, J. (2019). “Life cycle assessment of common carp (Cyprinus carpio
L.)–​A comparison of the environmental impacts of conventional and organic carp aqua-
culture in Germany.” Aquaculture 501: 404–​415.
Bohnes, F. A. et al. (2019). “Life cycle assessments of aquaculture systems: A critical review
of reported findings with recommendations for policy and system development.”
Reviews in Aquaculture 11(4): 1061–​1079.
Bohnes, F. A. & Laurent, A. (2019). “LCA of aquaculture systems: Methodological issues
and potential improvements.” The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment
24: 324–​337.
Ciambrone, D. F. (1997). Environmental Life Cycle Analysis. CRC Press.
De Silva, S. S., & Soto, D. (2009). Climate change and aquaculture: Potential impacts,
adaptation and mitigation. Climate change implications for fisheries and aquacul-
ture: Overview of current scientific knowledge. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture
Technical Paper, 530: 151–​212.
Duarte, C. M., Bruhn, A., & Krause-​Jensen, D. (2022). A seaweed aquaculture imperative to
meet global sustainability targets. Nature Sustainability, 5(3): 185–​193.
Galappaththi, E. K., Ichien, S. T., Hyman, A. A., Aubrac, C. J., & Ford, J. D. (2020). Climate
change adaptation in aquaculture. Reviews in Aquaculture, 12(4): 2160–​2176.
Henriksson, P. J. G. et al. (2012) “Life cycle assessment of aquaculture systems—​A review
of methodologies.” The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 17: 304–​313.
Maulu, S., Hasimuna, O. J., Haambiya, L. H., Monde, C., Musuka, C. G., Makorwa, T.
H., … & Nsekanabo, J. D. (2021). Climate change effects on aquaculture produc-
tion: Sustainability implications, mitigation, and adaptations. Frontiers in Sustainable
Food Systems, 5: 609097.
Mizuta, D. D., Froehlich, H. E., & Wilson, J. R. (2023). The changing role and definitions
of aquaculture for environmental purposes. Reviews in Aquaculture, 15(1): 130–​141.
Pillay, T. V. R. (2008). Aquaculture and the Environment. John Wiley & Sons.
Read, P., & Fernandes, T. (2003). Management of environmental impacts of marine aquacul-
ture in Europe. Aquaculture, 226(1–​4): 139–​163.
Sladonja, B., (2011). Aquaculture and the Environment —​A Shared Destiny. InTech, Rijeka,
Croatia.
Theuerkauf, S. J., Morris Jr, J. A., Waters, T. J., Wickliffe, L. C., Alleway, H. K., & Jones, R.
C. (2019). A global spatial analysis reveals where marine aquaculture can benefit nature
and people. PLoS One, 14(10): e0222282.
Tom, A. P., Jayakumar, J. S., Biju, M., Somarajan, J., & Ibrahim, M. A. (2021). Aquaculture
wastewater treatment technologies and their sustainability: A review. Energy Nexus,
4: 100022.
68 Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

Box 5.1 Reducing caligidosis impact in the salmon industry: A major

factor in competitiveness where only an integrated control programme
is effective, a lesson for Chilean Industry
Jean Paul Lhorente Caussade –​Technical and Breeding Manager
Benchmark Genetics, USS (United States Ship)

Sea lice is one of the most important health problems in the Chilean salmon
industry producing estimated economic losses of from USD 170 to 200
M. Although they do not usually cause mortality, they cause stress, loss of
appetite, skin damage, and mainly a depression of the immune system that
significantly increases susceptibility to other pathogens. Chilean sea lice are
Caligus rogercresseyi, a native crustacean parasite that has been found from
the beginning of the salmon industry in the late 1980s. This parasite has
become a problem since the industry grew in produced biomass and is found
in sea farming sites. Primarily, the main control tool was using authorized
chemical products by feeding or bath applications. Initially these products
were effective, but their uncontrolled use in an increasingly intensive industry
produced parasite resistance resulting in all chemicals losing their effective-
ness. In 2007, the high sea louse abundancy recorded was >50 parasite/​fish,
which shows the parasite was uncontrolled. In addition, the high occurrence
of caligidosis, the main bacterial disease of salmonid rickettsial syndrome
caused by P. salmonis, generated the highest mortality in salmon farming
(up to 20% mortality by sea site). Within a sanitary and sector crisis, salmon
production depressed from 320 to less than 150 TMT from 2007 to 2009,
the national sanitary authority (SEMAPESCA) together with the Chilean
salmon industry decided to implement a programme of farming management
areas. This programme consisted of farming density reduction, production
compartmentalisation, and farming time limitation. Furthermore, experi-
ence has shown that it is not possible to bet on just one solution, so other
factors should be improved integrally, e.g. host resistance, environment, and
management practices. In these different lines, several suppliers have made
efforts in the area of research and development: (1) feed companies have
tested different additives that confer immune response enhancers through
feed; (2) pharmaceutical companies work to generate effective vaccines
and new effective chemical treatments; (3) egg suppliers (genetic houses)
are producing improved eggs that have their own resistance to the parasite,
and (4) bath suppliers work to develop new systems and well-​boats to make
baths less stressful and effective. This example was a lesson for Chilean
industry on how a transversal key factor such as caligidosis must be treated in
a coordinated way with the authority and neighbours. Moreover, it requires
analysing and planning production considering an epidemiological view, all
the factors and resources and tools available to minimise the caligidosis risk
to improve the industry sustainability.
 Aquaculture’s effect on the environment 69

Notes
i A Life Cycle Inventory (LCZ) is an objective data-​based process of quantifying energy
and raw material requirements, air emissions, water borne effluents, solid waste, and
other environmental releases incurred throughout the life cycle of a product, process or
activity.
ii BOX 5.1: Reducing Caligidosis impact in Salmon industry; A major factor in competi-
tiveness where only an integrated control program is effective, a lesson for Chilean
Industry. (Case study).
iii (species that alter the physical condition of biotic or abiotic materials to affect the avail-
ability of resources (other than themselves) to other species, and in doing so, modify,
maintain, or create habitats)

References
1 Arntzen, N. A. (2020). “Current and Future Energy Use for Atlantic Salmon Farming
in Recirculating Aquaculture Systems in Norway” Master’s thesis in Energy and
Environmental Engineering, Norwegian University of Science and Technology.
2 Kirkpatrick, N. (1992). Life cycle analysis and eco labelling, Sections: Life cycle ana-
lysis vs. life cycle assessment, Scope and Functional units, Presentation of results.
PIRA International, Randalls road, Leatherhead, Surrey, UK.
3 Barrett, L. T., S. E. Swearer, and T. Dempster. (2019). “Impacts of marine and fresh-
water aquaculture on wildlife: a global meta-​analysis.” Reviews in Aquaculture 11(4),
1022–​1044.
4 Overton, K., T. Dempster, S. E. Swearer, R. L. Morris, and L. T. Barrett. (2023).
“Achieving conservation and restoration outcomes through ecologically beneficial
aquaculture.” Conservation Biology, e14065. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14065
5 Barton, J. A., C. Humphrey, D. G. Bourne, and K. S. Hutson. (2020). Biological controls
to manage Acropora-​eating flatworms in coral aquaculture. Aquaculture Environment
Interactions, 12, 61–​66.
6 Soto, D., P. White, T. Dempster, S. De Silva, A. Flores, Y. Karakassis, ... and R. Wiefels.
(2012). Addressing aquaculture-​fisheries interactions through the implementation of
the ecosystem approach to aquaculture (EAA). Farming the Waters for People and
Food, 385.
7 McLeod, I. M., M. Y. Hein, R. Babcock, L. Bay, D. G. Bourne, N. Cook, ... and L.
Boström-​Einarsson. (2022). Coral restoration and adaptation in Australia: the first five
years. Plos one, 17(11), e0273325.
8 Ahmed, N., S. Thompson, and M. Glaser. (2018). Integrated mangrove-​shrimp cultiva-
tion: potential for blue carbon sequestration. Ambio, 47, 441–​452.
9 Juarez, L. M., P. A. Konietzko, and M. H. Schwarz. (2016). Totoaba aquaculture
and conservation: hope for an endangered fish from Mexico’s Sea of Cortez. World
Aquaculture, 47(4), 30–​38.
10 Tensen, L. (2016). Under what circumstances can wildlife farming benefit species con-
servation? Global Ecology and Conservation, 6, 286–​298. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​
j.gecco.2016.03.007
11 Filbee-​Dexter, K., and A. Smajdor. (2019). “Ethics of assisted evolution in marine con-
servation.” Frontiers in Marine Science, 6, 20.
70 Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

12 Deutsch, C., et al. (2015). “Climate change tightens a metabolic constraint on marine
habitats.” Science, 348(6239), 1132–​1135.
13 Costa-​Pierce, B. A., and T. Chopin. (2021). “The hype, fantasies and realities of
aquaculture development globally and in its new geographies.” World Aquaculture,
52(2), 23–​35.
6 Aquaculture and climate change
Francisco J. Vergara-​Solana, Fernando
Aranceta Garza, and Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

Aquaculture production is intricately intertwined with the environment. Just as in

agriculture, the success of production areas and farm operations hinges significantly
on the prevailing climatic conditions in those regions. However, it’s important to
note, as highlighted in the preceding chapter, that farms, irrespective of their size
and level of intensification, also exert an environmental footprint (e.g. emission of
greenhouse gases, discharge of water with concentrated nutrients).
With this background, in this chapter we delve into how the climate change –​
changes in global weather patterns –​can affect aquaculture; and also how the envir-
onmental impacts of aquaculture can amplify the risks associated with climate
change.
Climate change is not limited to temperature increases; it is a complex phe-
nomenon that can have various effects, including ocean acidification, more fre-
quent red tides, and an increase in severe climate meteorological events. Some of
these effects can have physical, chemical, and biological impacts, while others can
increase aquaculture risks, such as power outages, damaged infrastructure, and the
escape of non-​native species.
It is essential to recognise that not all changes related to climate change are
negative, and in many cases, they can have positive effects. This chapter describes
some of the impacts of climate change on the main aquaculture species and strat-
egies that can promote aquaculture adaptation and mitigation of the negative effects
while capitalising on the positive ones.

6.1 Introduction
Estimations predict that, by 2030, aquaculture production will have increased
by 20 Mt to meet the future demand for food. This situation implies an immense
challenge, not only because the current food production growth rate is insufficient
to achieve this goal but also due to restrictions based on limited land availability
and adequate water for production, added to the environmental impact of current
technologies. Furthermore, it is necessary not to lose sight that it must be achieved
in an uncertain climate environment. In this sense and to overcome the problems

DOI: 10.4324/9781003174271-8
72 Francisco J. Vergara-Solana et al.

that production growth implies in the context of climate change, evidently the
sector has to minimise its impacts. The most relevant are the depletion of ecologic-
ally important areas, pollutant emission in effluents, greenhouse gas emissions
associated with energy consumption, and use of wild organisms as food and seed
for some species of aquaculture production, to name just a few. However, reducing
the negative impacts of the aquaculture industry must be complemented with adap-
tation and mitigation measures of uncertainties and risks associated with climate
change and, of course, those effects of climate change that may become favourable
and must also be capitalised on.

6.2 Impacts of climate change on aquaculture production systems

Speaking of climate change (CC) (i.e. changes in global weather patterns), almost
immediately the term is associated with temperature increase. However, the effects
of climate change due to the intricacies of the ocean–​atmosphere relationship are
diverse and multifactorial.1 The effects could, on the one hand, be considered as
those changes in the “normal” physicochemical parameters of the ocean and the
atmosphere. In turn, on the other hand, the effects derive from changes in meteoro-
logical, oceanographic, and ecological patterns (e.g. increases in harmful algal
blooms, changes in the distribution and abundance of fish stocks).
Among the physicochemical parameters commonly associated with CC are air
temperature and sea surface temperature (SST), changes in the pH of the oceans
due to carbon dioxide dissolution, and dissolved oxygen availability. However,
also, changes in the normal climate, meteorological, oceanographic, and ecological
patterns highlight sea level rise, wind intensity, and water column stratification;
modification of precipitation, upwelling patterns, and primary productivity of the
ocean; formation of hypoxic zones and increase in intensity and frequency of algal
blooms, storms, and hurricanes; as well as alterations in the distribution and inten-
sity of disease and parasite outbreaks.
These CC impacts are those that are commonly described, but much still needs
to be learned about them. In this sense, CC and its relationship with aquaculture
have implications beyond the risks associated with changes in intensity and fre-
quency of severe storms (especially for aquaculture in tropical areas) or physio-
logical changes in growing organisms caused by changes in temperature, which
in turn modify the available areas for production. Nevertheless, we must expli-
citly recognise that there is, overall, much uncertainty around the potential climate
change impacts.
In addition to the ecological, environmental, meteorological, and geographical
impacts described, social factors associated with CC can impact the aquaculture
industry, such as migrations of people from the tropics to temperate climates. This
situation would play a significant role in the distribution, quality, and quantity of
work and wealth production in each country, radically changing the current pano-
rama. However, studies that relate CC to society and its relationship with aquacul-
ture production are few, which creates an information gap.
 Aquaculture and climate change 73

The information gaps concerning CC impact on aquaculture are largely due to

the fact that making specific predictions and recommendations is complex, and
impacts vary according to the species, specific locality, and the production system.2
Taking this into account, some of the recognised impacts that CC has in the con-
text of aquaculture by a taxonomic group are described below in general, clari-
fying that these impacts can be positive in specific cases. To better understand
how environmental changes affect organisms in production, Chapter 4 should be
considered. Along the same lines, Chapter 10 explores how CC impacts can be
formally included in risk assessments to improve decision-​making in aquaculture
production units.

6.2.1 Crustaceans

The bulk of crustacean aquaculture production is represented by penaeid shrimp

produced in tropical and subtropical areas. Production generally takes place in
semi-​intensive ponds in coastal floodplain areas. These organisms are sensitive
to increases in (a) sea surface temperature; (b) sea level; (c) rainfall; (d) diseases;
and € hurricanes. These organisms are euryhaline species with tropical affinity.
However, when their thermal tolerance limit is exceeded, they show (a) loss of
appetite and reduce their growth rate; and (b) immunosuppression with vulner-
ability to bacterial infections (vibriosis) or viruses, such as the white spot or Taura
syndrome, all generating massive mortalities and huge financial losses. In parallel,
due to their location, cultures are vulnerable to storms, hurricanes, and high rain-
fall, affecting them mainly due to changes in salinity, osmotic over-​regulation, and
low growth; escape of organisms; eutrophication with algal blooms and anoxia
by agrochemicals; and expensive damage to infrastructure, such as power lines,
roads, and constructions of the shrimp farming systems. Furthermore, marine acid-
ification has been considered to possibly affect larval development in laboratories
and growth. This effect could be increased in cultures with high densities due to
increases in ammonia and CO2.3,4

6.2.2 Marine fish

Marine fish aquaculture in floating cages is represented by species diversity with

different thermal affinities, for example, salmon in cold zones, sea bream or
capture-​based aquaculture of bluefin tuna in temperate zones, or red snapper and
cobia in tropical areas. A change in sea surface temperature would translate into
a change in the distribution of the potential areas to produce each of the species.
Regardless of the above, the floating cage production system entails practically no
control over the conditions of the culture medium (e.g. in some cases, the cages
could possibly be submerged to find optimal temperatures or mitigate the impacts
of severe meteorological phenomena). In general, with a thermal increase, these
species may frequently show skin and gill damage, and an increase in infections
and parasites. The effect of marine acidification on marine fish is not likely to have
74 Francisco J. Vergara-Solana et al.

a severe impact since fin fish have an acid–​base regulation system. However, it
may cause an increase in metabolism, oxygen demand, and the risk of reduced pro-
duction due to an increase in the frequency of red tides.5

6.2.3 Freshwater fish

Inland aquaculture is based on fish rearing in ponds or other bodies of water, such
as shallow ponds or dams. These types of cultures are particularly vulnerable to
factors such as thermal increases, floods/​rainfall, hypoxia, and infections. In inland
tilapia cultures, a rise in the water temperature can cause stratification of the water
column, besides the formation of anoxic zones and a propensity towards states of
immunosuppression and infections with low growth rates and even mortalities.
These effects can be exacerbated in coastal/​floodable areas due to the fertilisation
of water bodies caused by rainwater transport of agrochemicals, which can gen-
erate intoxication by algal blooms or cause osmotic stress due to seawater intrusion
(due to sea level rise or severe storms) (which can also increase the risk of invasive
species escapees). In addition to the above, the occurrence of hurricanes causes
escapes and/​or massive mortalities of individuals, along with losses in facilities
and infrastructure. On the other hand, cultures of temperate species are expected to
show a contraction in the potential production areas as temperature increases with
a displacement of the areas suitable for production to higher latitudes.

6.2.4 Bivalve molluscs

Global bivalve production is mainly vulnerable to marine acidification due to the

dependence on their calcareous structures (i.e. shells). Some global effects that have
been reported on farmed individuals include a reduction in growth, and thickness
and length of their valves; larval stage abnormalities; and affectations in the repro-
ductive process.6 This last factor impacts farmed oyster species mainly, such as the
Japanese oyster (Crassostrea gigas) by reducing seed production in laboratories or
survival of seedlings for stocking.
In addition to acidification, the parallel thermal increase has caused episodes
of massive mortalities in rearing C. gigas and infections by protozoa.7 For other
aquaculture molluscs with subtropical–​temperate affinities, such as the blue aba-
lone, Haliotis fulgens, climate warming negatively impacts their food; the laminar
macroalgae (Macrocistis pyrifera and Eisenia arborea) directly affect the produc-
tion line of farmed juveniles as they increase mortality and recruitment, although
the growth rate can increase. Likewise, the cultured comb clams (Peneidae) have
shown a predisposition to immunosuppression. In the case of geoducks, only in the
settlement phase are they susceptible to high temperatures, anticipating a poten-
tial contraction in their distribution, affecting the collection of reproducers, and
reducing the area available for their production. In the case of species with trop-
ical affinity, such as the pen shell, Atrina maura, the thermal increase has caused
a higher prevalence and levels of infection by Perkinsus sp. and negative changes
in spawning and production of stressed oocytes, decreasing reproductive success.
 Aquaculture and climate change 75

6.2.5 Macroalgae

Climate change’s impact on the production of macroalgae depends on the thermal

affinity of each species in production. It is important to note that these species
are usually sensitive to temperature, so a change in area distribution and potential
species is expected for production.8 In addition, slight changes in pH or salinity
of the production systems can translate into changes in growth (slower or faster
depending on the species) or competitive exclusion by algal species more suit-
able to the new sea conditions; in a situation with invasive species, native species
can be displaced. Furthermore, most of the production of macroalgae is performed
submerged with relatively less workforce and infrastructure and they also do
not require exogenous feeding. Together, these features reduce the risks of CC
impacts, but in vulnerable communities, even a small impact can have profound
repercussions.

6.3 Mitigation of the activity impacts and negative effects of

climate change
Although aquaculture can be impacted by the effects of CC in general, it can also
create negative externalities (i.e. unaccounted-​for impacts) that translate into gen-
eral environmental deterioration. These impacts may have implications in the con-
text of CC (e.g. greenhouse gas emissions). Chapter 4 provides more information
on the impacts that aquaculture can have on the environment.
To date, there remains uncertainty about how exactly CC impacts will affect
the aquaculture sector and its scope on production, and how the environmental
impacts of aquaculture can exacerbate the adverse effects of CC. Regardless of this
situation, the sector should also generate strategies to mitigate the possible effects
of these impacts.9 The purpose of mitigation is to make this potential damage less
severe. The treatment of all these factors has a direct impact on production profit-
ability and risk reduction. If impacts are treated improperly, they can lead to insolv-
ency, destroying the livelihoods of many people and putting food security at risk.
Impact mitigation can be approached from different perspectives, mainly
from the public sector, the perspective of the private initiative, or through market
mechanisms. The first one seeks to encourage or discourage the impacts of the
industry, mainly through the use of public policies, such as subsidies, taxes, fines,
imposition of production quotas, prohibition, or permits. The private initiative
can mitigate its impact through the use of new technologies and management
techniques. Finally, the consumer can promote attenuating impacts through a pref-
erence for environmentally responsible products, forcing competition to improve
their practices to compete in the markets.

6.3.1 Public sector strategies to mitigate impacts

The state can intervene in several ways to mitigate the impact of climate change
on the aquaculture sector, as well as to reduce the negative impacts of production.
76 Francisco J. Vergara-Solana et al.

6.3.1.1 Production zoning

One of the main activities that the government can carry out to promote sustain-
able aquaculture is the application of spatial planning or a zoning programme. The
state may give preference to certain species depending on the production area, from
the perspective of the species’ climate preference. For example, the production of
temperate species in climate transition zones has the risk of losses (and what it
entails from the social perspective) both through the effect of the interannual tem-
perature variability (for example, in one year) and a long-​term trend of an increase
in sea surface temperatures. In this line, the government can limit the use of land
for aquaculture purposes in risk areas (e.g. floods, landslides) through land use
planning to try to reduce the negative impacts of severe weather events.10

6.3.1.2 Production quotas

Another possibility to reduce both aquaculture impacts and the risks associated
with CC is through the establishment of production quotas. For this purpose, the
effect of aquaculture production needs to be established per unit or the amount of
production that can be installed in an area (carrying capacity under current and
expected environmental conditions) should be defined. Furthermore, a mitigation
objective should be established, i.e. a maximum production by species, only pro-
viding permits to a limited number of concessionaires without exceeding the target
production based on the previously estimated quantity. However, this type of tool
can have a negative impact on food safety and even on the activity’s profitability,
since production would be less than what could potentially be achieved in a given
area.11

6.3.1.3 Taxes, fines, and subsidies

The most used tools for regulating economic activity are the use of taxes, fines,
and subsidies.12 For this purpose, the state must develop an impact analysis of
the activity and set mitigation objectives –​ for example, reduce CO2 emissions –​
and establish fines and taxes that discourage excessive emissions by the industry.
Various ways of applying these tools can be found, the most common is the use
of Pigouvian taxes, that is, where the value of the tax is based on the pollutants
emitted. On the other hand, the state can reward or encourage the use of mitigation
tools, such as the use of technologies that reduce GHG emissions that also allow
keeping the farm working in case of a power outage by subsidising companies that
implement these types of elements.

6.4 The mitigation of impacts from the private sector

Just like the public sector, private initiatives show a great variety of technolo-
gies and management techniques that can reduce the impact of production. Some
examples are described below.
 Aquaculture and climate change 77

6.4.1 Use of clean technologies

One of the technologies that allow the control of the variables affected by climate
change effects is the recirculating aquaculture system (RAS). This method makes
it possible to maximise the production yield per m2 by controlling water quality.
Since production is more controlled, the emission of effluents and the effects of
the surrounding environment on the production system are reduced. Additionally,
water consumption is significantly reduced by reducing the water footprint of
the activity. However, energy consumption grows, as it requires the continuous
pumping of water, oxygen, and, in some cases, thermal regulation of water to main-
tain optimal growing conditions.
In recent years, applied science has developed a large number of tools that allow
for minimising the negative impacts of aquaculture production. The main one is the
use of so-​called clean energies (photovoltaic, wind, geothermal, etc.), which allow
the use of energy with minimal or no GHG emissions.
Another example is the use of the so-​called “zero discharge” technologies, that
is, they eliminate or significantly reduce the need for water changes.13 An example
of these technologies is the use of probiotics and bio-​remediators, which allow not
only maintaining a culture for a prolonged period of time without the need to use
antibiotics or make water changes, significantly reducing GHG emissions, but also
allowing economically competitive aquaculture farms in areas with a lower risk of
CC impact (e.g., urban aquaculture facilities).

6.4.2 Multitrophic aquaculture

While the application of clean technologies is an important basis for any type
of aquaculture, it is not the only solution to the environmental impacts in this
field. Today, the vast majority of aquaculture production in the world is based on
monospecific production, that is, the production of a single species. Multitrophic
aquaculture or integrated multitrophic aquaculture is based on promoting the
production of two or more species that benefit each other. For example, cage
fish culture entails the emission of nutrients that can be used as food by some
species of biofilter molluscs that, in turn, produce nutrients by excretion, which
can be used by species of macroalgae capable of assimilating these nutrients
and converting them into biomass (Figure 6.1). This type of production would
entail minimum energy consumption and multiply the biomass obtained per
unit of input used.14 A special variation of integrated multitrophic aquaculture
is aquaponics, which is the combination of two productive techniques: aquacul-
ture and hydroponics.
Although this type of production is technically possible, it has not been
proven to be economically viable on a large scale yet due to the complexity of
the relationships between the organisms, technical difficulties, and the necessary
investment to achieve an efficient production unit. However, proper planning
and management could result in viable production. Nonetheless, this productive
strategy has the potential to reduce inputs and aquaculture contamination, and
78 Francisco J. Vergara-Solana et al.

Figure 6.1 Integrated multitrophic aquaculture production scheme. The grey arrows refer to
each phase inputs; the green arrows are each phase surplus; rectangles represent
production units. The surplus of one phase serves as the input for the next one
and is dosed by means of the current or water flux, represented by the curved
blue arrow (Chopin et al., 2012).

at the same time, a more resilient production system by having more diversified
production.

6.4.3 Optimisation of the operation of aquaculture production units

Finally, a tool of interest for mitigation by the private industry consists of optimising
the infrastructure and available inputs. Data science and business analytics are
examples of management tools that allow for minimising production impact,
maximising biological and/​or economic performance, and reducing risk through
proper decision-​making. These tools are based on the use of mathematical and stat-
istical models capable of predicting production behaviour based on the information
provided by the production area.
Models have traditionally been used to optimise the economic performance
of companies; however, they can be applied to a variety of fields, thus directing
research and industrial production towards sustainable development goals. The
use of bio-​econometric models can be useful for various analyses to estimate how
decision-​making can affect production, job creation, environmental impact, profits,
and industry competitiveness.15 Furthermore, this analysis can also be applied to
assess the risk of uncertain climate scenarios, so they can be a powerful tool to
design strategies and mitigate climate change adverse effects. The application of
these tools can be seen in the case study in Section 6.7.
 Aquaculture and climate change 79

6.5 Market strength as an incentive to reduce the impacts of the activity

Finally, some market mechanisms exist that can act as an element of pressure on
producers to direct them towards more responsible production with the environ-
ment; thus, the impacts of the activity on climate change are mitigated (and they
could potentially work to incentivise more resilient aquaculture). Some examples
of market incentives are described below.

6.5.1 Consumer power and eco-​labelling

The principle of consumer power is based on the impact that purchasing preference
has on the market. To ensure that a company has a responsible production system
with the environment, a production evaluation system should be certified by an
independent third party that authenticates the company’s commitment to sustain-
able production through the use of indicators and audits –​both internal and external.
Once the certificate is obtained, the products can be labelled as sustainable, giving
information to the consumer regarding production practices, and positioning the
product on the market as responsible for the environment. Some examples of this
are the ISO 14001 certificate, Fair Trade, Best Aquaculture Practices (BAP), or
the Aquaculture Stewardship Council label. More and more consumers prefer
purchasing responsible products for the environment, and also from markets that
condition purchases on certified products (e.g. sustainable sourcing commitments
of major retailers) encouraging companies to carry out responsible production to
compete in the market.

6.5.2 Establishment of carbon markets

This tool combines the influence of the state, private initiatives, and the market.
Its principle is based on the free market and the establishment of a CO2 emissions
target for the industry known as the emission quota. Once established, a carbon
bond distribution is made. This distribution can be based on the size of the com-
pany, its production, or through an auction of emission bonds. Once the bonds have
been distributed, companies can trade them based on their activity. If a certain com-
pany has a CO2 emission higher than that recorded in its bonds, it must pay a fine
previously established by the state –​a fine that is destined to be used in mitigation
projects (e.g. reforestation). In this way, companies have to reduce their emissions
and try to maximise their profits by selling bonds to companies unable to reduce
their impact.16

6.6 Adaptation mechanisms to climate change

Two ways to face the global challenge posed by climate change are mitigation of
the impacts that productive activity has on the environment, described in depth
in the previous section, and adaptation to new climate conditions that may be
experienced as a consequence of climate change.
80 Francisco J. Vergara-Solana et al.

Figure 6.2 Description of the time scale, benefits, efforts, and costs associated with the
implementation of the different types of adaptation measures to climate change.
The circle diameter represents the difficulty of implementing each type of adap-
tation. For the specific answers, the scale is usually of a productive cycle and has
an associated cost reduction. In the case of planned adaptation, long-​term adapta-
tion can span a much larger time scale, even generational (Barange et al., 2018).

In specialised literature, one can speak of different types of adaptation. For

example, autonomous if the adaptation occurs spontaneously or planned if it is
based on the analysis of historical series and climate projections to adapt produc-
tion methods (Figure 6.2).17 Adaptation is also differentiated as a function of time.
Short-​term adaptation is a quick solution to a climate change problem that will
undoubtedly increase, or adaptation can be long term when its adaptation method
consists of gradually adapting to a problem that will increase and the results will
not be found for a period of about 10 years or more.
Adaptation includes a variety of policies and actions, specific technical support,
and community capacity-​building activities that address multiple sectors and may
not be exclusively directed to the aquaculture sector (see Box 6.1). Having said the
above, the first step towards adaptation consists of generating knowledge regarding
the expected impact of climate change on the aquaculture sector; subsequently,
risk must be evaluated where climate change impacts entail little risk to the species
produced and could be unnecessary to carry out any adaptation method. On the
other hand, if the changes associated with climate change have a significant impact
on the species produced, it will be necessary to adapt to the expected changes.
Once the impacts have been identified, the possible adaptation solutions should
be evaluated. These solutions are shown at different scales, such as (a) individual;
(b) sectoral; (c) state/​national; and (d) international. These scales are further defined
in Chapter 16.
 Aquaculture and climate change 81

In addition to those mentioned, many forms of adaptation to climate change

exist depending on the expected effect on the species to be produced, facilities, pro-
ductive areas, cohesion of the different stakeholders, and existing alliances.
With this in mind, an agenda developed for adaptation to climate change in
aquaculture at the national level should, as a minimum:

1 Be planned and consider the short-​, medium-​, and long-​term impacts, which
include the projection of scenarios and species and impact evaluation. Society
must rely on science to develop this point.
2 Take into account the different actors in the sector: suppliers, producers, com-
munities, intermediaries, points of sale, government, and society in general.
3 Have a coherent government programme through the development of norma-
tive, legal, and executive frameworks that allow articulating the interactions of
the different actors in a fair way.

6.7 An example of the possible impacts of climate change on bioeconomic

indicators and its application for decision-​making under an uncertain
climate context
One of the main consequences of climate change (CC) is the increase in sea tempera-
ture. This phenomenon has different associated consequences that must be properly
evaluated. In the case of the white shrimp Litopenaues [Penaeus] vannamei, water
temperature plays a crucial role. This species has demonstrated a wide tolerance to
different temperature ranges, showing a maximum lethal temperature from 35°C
to 42°C and greater growth in temperatures from 22°C to 30°C. Thus, an increase
in sea temperature would have a positive impact on the organism’s growth and a
negative impact on its survival.
In Mexico, most of the facilities are semi-​intensive or intensive cultures with
stocking densities ranging from 10 to 300 post-​larvae per m2, with aeration
systems and feeding using specialised feed. More than 98% of the shrimp farmed
in Mexico comes from the northwestern coasts. In this area, differences can be
found in SST. On the one hand, areas have shown an average temperate tem-
perature and significant variations throughout the year. On the other hand, semi-​
tropical climates can be found with high average temperatures and small seasonal
variations.
With this in mind, this hypothetical exercise aims to answer the questions: What
is the effect of sea temperature increase –​derived from climate change –​on white
shrimp production in Mexico and what does it represent for the public sector and
private initiative?
For this exercise, two cultures in semi-​intensive, open systems should be added,
with identical infrastructure for farming, but located in two potential productive
zones within the Gulf of California. The first zone has a temperate climate with an
average temperature of 24 ± 5°C. The second locality has a sub-​tropical climate,
where a temperature of 26 ± 2°C can be expected.
82 Francisco J. Vergara-Solana et al.

The impact that an increase in sea surface temperature may have on biomass
and the economic performance of the two farms will be evaluated with scenarios
of gradual increases from 0.5 to 5°C. Assuming that both farms have open produc-
tion systems, covering an area of 100 hectares, for comparative purposes, produc-
tion strategies and costs are the same between sites, using representative industry
values.
To model a complex system, such as aquaculture production, the theory proposes
the possibility of studying a complex system by analysing the sub-​systems that
compose it and the relationships that exist between them. Thus, the variables that
affect shrimp production in this example are first identified (e.g., Biological sub-​
model; Products; Market; Income; Environmental sub-​model; Economic sub-​
model; Technological sub-​model; Costs; Performance indicators) (Figure 6.3).
Once the system components have been identified, the mathematical modelling
of each of the sub-​systems that compose it is performed. All model outputs are
shown assuming management under the optimal harvest time (OHT) system. OHT
is the point in time when maximum benefits are achieved and is dependent on facil-
ities, production protocols, species, and environmental factors.
One of the main effects of increasing sea temperatures is a reduction in OHT
(Figure 6.4a). If the current temperature is maintained, production in the semi-​
tropical zone would have an OHT of 19 weeks, while production in the temperate
zone would have an OHT of 20 weeks.

Figure 6.3 Conceptual representation of a shrimp aquaculture production system, where the

sub-​systems or sub-​models that make up the metasystem are shown. The rela-
tionship between these subsystems is represented by arrows with a cause–​effect
direction.
 Aquaculture and climate change 83

Figure 6.4 Effect of sea temperature increase (°C) on different indicators of bioeconomic

performance indicators: (a) optimum harvest time; (b) harvest weight;
(c) survival; (d) harvested biomass; and (e) profitability.
84 Francisco J. Vergara-Solana et al.

An increase of 1°C with respect to the current temperature would maintain the
OHT for the semi-​tropical area but would reduce the OHT in a temperate zone.
This pattern repeats as temperature increases.
A reduction in OHT has a significant effect both on harvest weight at that point
and on individual survival (Figures 6.4b and 6.4c). Temperature reduces survival
until reaching a breaking point, where a new OHT is found, which rewards an
increase in survival. The opposite effect can be observed in harvest weight. As
temperature increases, harvest weight increases until reaching a new OHT, which
is obtained with a lower harvest weight.
These two factors define what the harvested biomass (Figure 6.4d) will be and
where the same breakpoints caused by changes in OHT can be appreciated. In
general, an increase in productivity derived from an increase in temperature can
be observed. It can also be seen how, as the temperature increases, the production
differences between the two zones narrow.
Regarding economic performance, a linear increase in the benefits can be
observed as the temperature increases (Figure 6.4e). In addition to the effect of
temperature on growth and mortality, a rigorous analysis would be required to
assess the temperature increase effect on other factors relevant to production.
Since as the temperature increases, the concentration of dissolved oxygen in
water decreases, the growth of pathogens is enhanced, and the feed conversion
rate may be affected.

6.8 Final remarks

In light of estimations, a 20 million ton increase in aquaculture production by
2030 is needed to meet imminent food demand, which by itself is a significant
challenge. And yet, this challenge becomes even more complex if we consider cli-
mate change. In this context, the aquaculture sector faces the task of mitigating its
negative ecological impacts and proactively managing the uncertainties and risks
of climate change.
The impacts of climate change on aquaculture production systems are intricate
and multifaceted. While climate change is often linked to temperature increases, its
effects are far more complex due to the intricate interactions between the ocean and
the atmosphere. These encompass changes in physicochemical parameters, such
as air temperature, sea surface temperature (SST), ocean pH, dissolved oxygen
availability, and shifts in meteorological, oceanographic, and ecological patterns.
These patterns include sea level rise, changes in wind intensity, water column
stratification, altered precipitation, shifts in upwelling patterns, modifications in
primary ocean productivity, the formation of hypoxic zones, increased power and
frequency of algal blooms, storms, and hurricanes, and changes in disease and
parasite outbreaks.
Adapting to the challenges posed by climate change involves two key strat-
egies: mitigation of the environmental impacts caused by productive activities
 Aquaculture and climate change 85

and adaptation to the changing climate conditions. Adaptation consists of policies,

technical support, and community capacity-​building efforts, extending beyond the
aquaculture sector alone. The intricate balance between mitigation and adapta-
tion, guided by science and fostering the involvement of stakeholders of different
sectors and levels (from local to international solutions), will pave the way toward
a more resilient and sustainable aquaculture future.

6.9 Chapter review questions

1 Describe some positive impacts that climate change may bring and how the
aquaculture industry can capitalise on them.
2 How does carbon dioxide affect seawater chemistry, and how can it affect aqua-
culture production?
3 From the government’s perspective, how can they influence the aquaculture
sector’s adaptation to climate change?
4 Mention examples of how the aquaculture sector can adapt to climate change
through private initiatives.

Recommended readings
Cochrane, K., De Young, C., Soto, D., & Bahri, T. (2009). Climate change implications
for fisheries and aquaculture. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper,
530, 212.
Dabbadie, L., Aguilar-​Manjarrez, J., Beveridge, M. C., Bueno, P. B., Ross, L. G., & Soto,
D. (2019). Effects of climate change on aquaculture: Drivers, impacts and policies.
Impacts of Climate Change on Fisheries and Aquaculture, 449.
De Silva, S. S., & Soto, D. (2009). Climate change and aquaculture: Potential impacts,
adaptation and mitigation. Climate change implications for fisheries and aquacul-
ture: Overview of current scientific knowledge. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture
Technical Paper, 530, 151–​212.
Galappaththi, E. K., Ichien, S. T., Hyman, A. A., Aubrac, C. J., & Ford, J. D. (2020). Climate
change adaptation in aquaculture. Reviews in Aquaculture, 12(4), 2160–​2176.
Mackintosh, A., Hill, G., Costello, M., Jueterbock, A., & Assis, J. (2023). Modeling
Aquaculture Suitability in a Climate Change Future. Oceanography.
Maulu, S., Hasimuna, O. J., Haambiya, L. H., Monde, C., Musuka, C. G., Makorwa, T. H.,
Munganga, B. P., Phiri, K. J. and Nsekanabo, J. D., (2021). Climate change effects
on aquaculture production: Sustainability implications, mitigation, and adaptations.
Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 5, 609097.
Reid, G. K., Gurney-​Smith, H. J., Marcogliese, D. J., Knowler, D., Benfey, T., Garber, A.
F., … & De Silva, S. (2019). Climate change and aquaculture: Considering biological
response and resources. Aquaculture Environment Interactions, 11, 569–​602.
Soto, D., Ross, L. G., Handisyde, N., Bueno, P. B., Beveridge, M. C., Dabbadie, L., Aguilar-​
Manjarrez, J., Cai, J. and Pongthanapanich, T., (2019). Climate change and aquacul-
ture: Vulnerability and adaptation options. Impacts of Climate Change on Fisheries
and Aquaculture, 465.
86 Francisco J. Vergara-Solana et al.

Box 6.1 Strengthening the adaptive capacity of aquaculture

communities to climate change in Chile
José Aguilar Manjarrez
Aquaculture officer for FAO Latin America and the Caribbean Regional Office

Climate change is a reality for the entire planet, and Chile is no exception.
Chile has a high degree of vulnerability to climate change, and many pro-
ductive sectors see their conditions profoundly modified with the artisanal
fisheries sector and small-​scale aquaculture being the most affected. Thus,
actions that support and promote the adaptation of these sectors are needed
to address climate change and other related issues.
To face this challenge, the pilot project “Strengthening the adaptive cap-
acity to climate change in the fisheries and aquaculture sector of Chile” was
launched in 2017. The project, which is due to end in June 2021, concentrates
on reducing vulnerability to climate change in four caletas (In Chile, a
“caleta” refers to an area designated for administrative purposes where
small-​scale fishing activities take place) in different regions of Chile. This
project, a pioneer in Chile, was executed by the Undersecretariat of Fisheries
and Aquaculture (SUBPESCA) and the Ministry of the Environment
implemented by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
(FAO), with funding from the Global Environment Facility (GEF).
The project has strengthened public and private institutional capacities,
improved the adaptive capacity of artisanal fisheries and small-​scale aqua-
culture, and promoted knowledge and awareness about climate change in
communities.
Seven Inter-​institutional Working Groups were created that brought
together key actors in a common workspace; an Interoperable Information
System was designed that systematises fishing, aquaculture, and climate
change variables; more than 300 public officials and decision-​makers were
trained in adaptation to climate change.
More than 140 artisanal fishers and small-​scale aquaculture farmers were
trained in adaptation to climate change, giving special emphasis to the par-
ticipation of women, who exceeded 50 percent of the attendees. In addition,
a participatory environmental monitoring training programme was created
to promote measurements and recording practices of critical environmental
variables by fishers and small-​scale farmers.
A total of 26 experimental initiatives to explore new adaptation practices
in the pilot caleta were conducted: (i) a novel proposal for an Identity Seal
to give recognition to the efforts made by the coastal communities to adopt
initiatives to adapt to climate change; (ii) identification, adaptive and sustain-
able exploitation, and alternative processing of bycatch; (iii) local production
of value-​added fishery products post capture; (iv) development strategies
for tourism to create complementary activities for fishers and small-​scale
 Aquaculture and climate change 87

Figure 6.5 Women in Caleta Tongoy in their first Japanese oyster seeding. With this
practice, this group of women began an activity in aquaculture carried
out mainly by men in the caleta. This initiative was a success, gener-
ating products with added value through processing methods and the basis
for this group of women to become a cooperative to continue developing
the activity and being able to scale-​up commercially. Photo by ©FAO/​
Marcelina Novoa.

farmers; (v) and experimental small-​scale aquaculture of Chilean mussel,

Choro mussel, Japanese oyster (Figure 6.5), red seaweed, and improvement
of mussel seed collection to explore new productive alternatives for coastal
communities.
The project has implemented communication and training initiatives for
more than 5000 artisanal fishers, small-​scale farmers, and the general public.
A communication strategy has been instituted to include efforts that con-
tribute to the creation of new public policies; a vast number of pedagogical
and informative material has been published or in press.
Small-​scale aquaculture is considered an economic activity with oppor-
tunities to grow because of its potential to strengthen and complement the
work of artisanal fishers affected by the decline of some of their target and
traditional resources as a consequence of climate change.
The outputs of the project will increase the overall resilience of Chilean
fisheries and the aquaculture sectors providing guidance to neighbouring and
88 Francisco J. Vergara-Solana et al.

further afar countries. As part of the project, a sustainability strategy is being

prepared and discussed among relevant institutions to provide continuity to
project activities and also form the basis to replicate similar efforts for the
rest of the caletas in Chile.
The biggest challenge is to ensure the post-​project sustainability of the
outcomes, particularly at the national and regional levels. This challenge
requires a high degree of commitment and leadership from the government
given the COVID-​19 emergence and new priorities, particularly with regard
to engaging with national institutions, policies, and programmes to ensure
systematic uptake of project recommendations, methodologies, systems,
results, and best practices.

References
Aguilar-​Manjarrez, J., Godoy, C., Vasquez, C. & Novoa, M. 2020. Diversification of pro-
ductive activities and innovation: Keys to reducing vulnerability of artisanal fisheries
to climate change in Chile. FAO Aquaculture Newsletter, 62, 20–​22. (www.fao.org/​3/​
cb155​0en/​cb155​0en.pdf)
Barbieri, M. A., Aguilar-​Manjarrez, J. & Lovatelli, A. 2020. Guía básica —​Cambio
climático pesca y acuicultura. Fortalecimiento de la capacidad de adaptación en
el sector pesquero y acuícola chileno al cambio climático. Santiago de Chile, FAO.
(www.fao.org/​3/​cb159​8es/​CB159​8ES.pdf)
Barange, M., Bahri, T., Beveridge, M. C. M., Cochrane, K. L., Funge-​Smith, S. & Poulain,
F. (2018) ‘Impacts of climate change on fisheries and aquaculture: synthesis of currrent
knowledge, adaptation and mitigation options’, FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture
Technical Paper (FAO) eng no. 627. Available at: (https://​agris.fao.org/​agris-​sea​rch/​sea​
rch.do?recor​dID=​XF201​8002​008) (Accessed: 24 May 2021).
Chopin, T., Cooper, J. A., Reid, G., Cross, S. & Moore, C. (2012) ‘Open-​water integrated
multi-​trophic aquaculture: environmental biomitigation and economic diversification
of fed aquaculture by extractive aquaculture’, Reviews in Aquaculture, 4(4), 209–​220.
DOI: (https://​doi.org/​10.1111/​j.1753-​5131.2012.01074.x)
Costello, C., Cao, L., Gelcich, S., Cisneros-​Mata, M. Á., Free, C. M., Froehlich, H. E.,
Golden, C. D., Ishimura, G., Maier, J., Macadam-​Somer, I., Mangin, T., Melnychuk,
M. C., Miyahara, M., de Moor, C. L., Naylor, R., Nøstbakken, L., Ojea, E., O’Reilly,
E., Parma, A. M., Plantinga, A. J., Thilsted, S. H. & Lubchenco, J. (2020) ‘The future
of food from the sea’, Nature, 588(7836), 95–​100. DOI: 10.1038/​s41586-​020-​2616-​y
Crowley, E. & Aguilar-​Manjarrez, J. 2020. [OPINIÓN]. Acuicultura de pequeña escala en
Chile. Revista AQUA, Acuicultura +​ Pesca. (www.aqua.cl/​colum​nas/​acui​cult​ura-​de-​
pequ​ena-​esc​ala-​en-​chile/​)
FAO. 2019. Proyecto Fortalecimiento de la Capacidad de Adaptación en el Sector Pesquero
y Acuícola Chileno al Cambio Climático. Folleto. Santiago, 7. (www.fao.org/​3/​ca578​
5es/​CA578​5ES.pdf)
FAO. 2021. Inter-​institutional virtual seminar on ”Strengthening the adaptive capacity to
climate change in the fisheries and aquaculture sector of Chile: Project achievements
 Aquaculture and climate change 89

and opportunities for its sustainability”. (www.fao.org/​chile/​notic​ias/​det​ail-​eve​nts/​es/​

c/​1390​751/​)
Lovatelli, A. & Inostroza, F. 2017. Adaptation of fisheries and aquaculture to climate change
in Chile. FAO Aquaculture Newsletter, 57, 29–​30. (www.fao.org/​3/​i78​51e/​i78​51e.pdf)
Lovatelli, A., Godoy, C. & Contreras, J. 2019. Technological innovation in mussel seed
collection: A response to climate change from fishing communities in southern Chile.
FAO Aquaculture Newsletter, 60, 33–​34. (www.fao.org/​3/​ca522​3en/​ca522​3en.pdf)
Maulu, S., Hasimuna, O. J., Haambiya, L. H., Monde, C., Musuka, C. G., Makorwa, T.
H., Munganga, B. P., Phiri, K. J. & Nsekanabo, J. D., 2021. Climate Change Effects
on Aquaculture Production: Sustainability Implications, Mitigation, and Adaptations.
Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 5.

References
1 Cochrane, K. L., Perry, R. I., Daw, T. M., Soto, D., Barange, & M. y De Silva, S. S.
(eds.) (2009). Climate change implications for fisheries and aquaculture: Overview of
current scientific knowledge. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 530.
Roma, FAO.
2 Phillips, B. F. y & Pérez-​Ramírez, M. (eds.) (2017). Climate Change Impacts on
Fisheries and Aquaculture: A Global Analysis. John Wiley & Sons.
3 Jayasinghe, J. M. P. K., Gamage, D. G. N. D., & Jayasinghe, J. M. H. A. (2019).
Combating climate change impacts for shrimp aquaculture through adaptations: Sri
Lankan perspective. Sustainable Solutions for Food Security: Combating Climate
Change by Adaptation, 287–​309.
4 Puspa, A. D., Osawa, T., & Arthana, I. W. (2018, June). Quantitative assessment of
vulnerability in aquaculture: climate change impacts on whiteleg shrimp (Litopenaeus
vannamei) farming in East Java Province. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and
Environmental Science (Vol. 162, No. 1, p. 012027). IOP Publishing.
5 Blank, J. M., Morrissette, J. M., Farwell, C. J., Price, M., Schallert, R. J., & Block,
B. A. (2007). Temperature effects on metabolic rate of juvenile Pacific bluefin tuna
Thunnus orientalis. Journal of Experimental Biology, 210(23), 4254–​4261.
6 Gazeau, F., Parker, L. M., Comeau, S., Gattuso, J. P., O’Connor, W. A., Martin, S., ... &
Ross, P. M. (2013). Impacts of ocean acidification on marine shelled molluscs. Marine
Biology, 160, 2207–​2245.
7 Chávez-​Villalba, J., Arreola-​Lizárraga, A., Burrola-​Sánchez, S., & Hoyos-​Chairez,
F. (2010). Growth, condition, and survival of the Pacific oyster Crassostrea gigas
cultivated within and outside a subtropical lagoon. Aquaculture, 300(1–​4), 128–​136.
8 Koch, M., Bowes, G., Ross, C., & Zhang, X. H. (2013). Climate change and ocean
acidification effects on seagrasses and marine macroalgae. Global Change Biology,
19(1), 103–​132.
9 Galappaththi, E. K., Ichien, S. T., Hyman, A. A., Aubrac, C. J., & Ford, J. D. (2020).
Climate change adaptation in aquaculture. Reviews in Aquaculture, 12(4), 2160–​2176.
10 Longdill, P. C., Healy, T. R., & Black, K. P. (2008). GIS-​based models for sustain-
able open-​coast shellfish aquaculture management area site selection. Ocean Coast
Manage, 51, 612–​624.
11 Besson, M., De Boer, I. J. M., Vandeputte, M., Van Arendonk, J. A. M., Quillet, E.,
Komen, H., & Aubin, J. (2017). Effect of production quotas on economic and environ-
mental values of growth rate and feed efficiency in sea cage fish farming. PLoS One,
12(3), e0173131.
90 Francisco J. Vergara-Solana et al.

12 Conrad, K. (1993). Taxes and subsidies for pollution-​intensive industries as trade

policy. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 25(2), 121–​135.
13 Peñalosa-​Martinell, D., Vela-​Magaña, M., Ponce-​Díaz, G., & Padilla, M. E. A. (2020).
Probiotics as environmental performance enhancers in the production of white shrimp
(Penaeus vannamei) larvae. Aquaculture, 514, 734491.
14 Chopin, T., Cooper, J. A., Reid, G., Cross, S., & Moore, C. (2012). Open-​water
integrated multi-​trophic aquaculture: environmental biomitigation and economic diver-
sification of fed aquaculture by extractive aquaculture. Reviews in Aquaculture, 4(4),
209–​220.
15 Peñalosa Martinell, D., Vergara-​Solana, F. J., Almendarez-​Hernández, L. C., &
Araneda-​Padilla, M. E. (2020). Econometric models applied to aquaculture as tools for
sustainable production. Reviews in Aquaculture, 12(3), 1344–​1359.
16 Calel, R. (2013). Carbon markets: a historical overview. Wiley Interdisciplinary
Reviews: Climate Change, 4(2), 107–​119.
17 Barange, M., Bahri, T., Beveridge, M. C., Cochrane, K. L., Funge-​Smith, S., & Poulain,
F. (2018). Impacts of climate change on fisheries and aquaculture. United Nations’
Food and Agriculture Organization, 12(4), 628–​635.
Part III

Aquaculture and
economics
7 A brief introduction to economics and
its relationship with aquaculture
Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

Sustainability is composed of three spheres or pillars: the environment, the economy,

and society. In this block, composed of Chapters 7–​9, we delve into the relationship
that exists between aquaculture and economics. Throughout the following chapter,
an overview of general economics, the dominant economic models, and alternative
options to these models are presented. Understanding general economics is basic to
knowing more about aquaculture innovation, technology, and policy function. To
fully understand and study sustainable aquaculture it is a necessity to comprehend
at least the basic concepts of economics. These aspects will help us realise, for
example, why several existing technologies that could improve the environmental
and social aspects of aquaculture have not yet been implemented or why some
countries struggle to be competitive in a global market.

7.1 Introduction
When we hear the word “economics”, many images arise that sometimes do not
fit the reality of this social science. For example, we could think that economics
focuses exclusively on maximising the return of capital to a series of shareholders
or that its objective is always maximising financial wealth, no matter what, to
whom, or how. Although part of these ideas belongs to economic thought, they are
only some of its applications and connotations.
Economics is usually defined as the science that studies resources, the creation
of wealth, and the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services,
to satisfy human needs.
Although economic sciences have this general study objective, each conceptual
method, objective, and definition delimits how decisions are made. These decisions
are not trivial, since they shape the behaviour of states, individuals, cooperatives,
organisations, companies, industries, and all the different actors or stakeholders
that make up a society.
Let us remember that sustainability is composed of three pillars or spheres. In
most cases, the environmental sphere is regarded as the “good guy” or the victim,
while economics is seen as the “bad guy”, the aggressor, an impediment or reason
why the environment is damaged. Even though this is partially accurate, it does

DOI: 10.4324/9781003174271-10
94 Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

not show the full picture. The economy or the economic system is not a conscious
being; it does not do good or bad things but just exists. Human behaviour, rules, and
social structures are those that guide the economy’s responses. Contrary to the nat-
ural environment, the economic system is an abstract social construction developed
to organise, distribute, and allocate all products and services developed by society.
Although not flawless due to human nature, if economics is not regulated by a pol-
itical and economic system, the future of natural resources, such as the atmosphere
or oceans, would be doomed.
Finally, the authors want to remark that the objective of this chapter is to provide
a very general view of economics and some of its mechanisms, but in no way is it
intended as a full introduction or review of economic sciences. If the reader wishes
to deepen their knowledge of the economic sciences or their application to aqua-
culture, there are several incredibly good books in the “Recommended readings”
section that were written for this purpose.

7.2 Economic scales

There are different levels at which management and analyses can be made. The
first is on a large scale, where the system is studied as a whole and its impacts are
considered in a global, national, or regional manner. This management and ana-
lysis level is known as macroeconomics and it attains to product flux (imports and
exports), the contribution of industry to the economy of countries and regions,
and impacts that have trans-​border consequences, such as pollution and human
safety.
In today’s society, the economic system is globally interconnected, which means
that an effect on one sector or country might have impacts on other seemingly
unconnected sectors on the other side of the world. Hence, studying the economy
or economics of a sector (in this case, the food production sector or more specif-
ically, the aquaculture industry), not to mention a single farm, has its limitations.
That being said, it is virtually impossible (and in some cases unnecessary or ineffi-
cient) to include all the interactions that exist between all the different components
of the economic system just to optimise individual farm performance.
To overcome this difficulty, economists separate the system components into
two, according to the analysis scale. As previously mentioned, the first branch of
study is known as macroeconomics, which involves the analysis of the economy
as a whole. As its name suggests, macroeconomics evaluates the economic system
using a holistic view of a region or nation. In the case of aquaculture, this branch of
study usually includes the total production, its impact on food security, job creation,
and effects on development (on a country’s productivity). Moreover, also important
is how the interconnections between countries and industries can impact aquacul-
ture from the effect of war on prices to how a climactic event could have a severe
effect on the aquaculture industry due to disruptions to the value chain. (Box 7.1)
The second component is known as microeconomics, which considers indi-
vidual behaviour in decision-​making, understanding an individual as a single
person or a firm, in the case of aquaculture, a farm, or even an industry compared to
 Economics and its relationship with aquaculture 95

others. Microeconomics then includes in its scope of study all decisions regarding
specific farm analysis, resource allocation, process optimisation, profit maximisa-
tion, and other individual components of the economic analysis. In some cases,
microeconomic tools such as the marginal approach are used to evaluate macroeco-
nomic systems, but, in general, microeconomics is more concerned with individual
decisions and their effects.
This chapter provides a general perspective on how economists study the
different scopes of the relationships that exist between aquaculture production
and economics. For this purpose, first, one of the most important notions of eco-
nomics –​the supply and demand theory –​is presented.

7.3 Supply and demand

How does a natural phenomenon in Peru impact aquaculture production in Asia?
Why does a war in Europe impact selling prices in America? Which are the most
significant players in the aquaculture industry and why? Most of these questions
can be answered using basic economic concepts, such as the law of supply and
demand.
In the case of macroeconomics, supply and demand are studied using aggregate
values, that is, total aggregate supply vs. total aggregate demand analyses produc-
tion and capital flow among countries or regions. The result of this analysis is what
determines the real gross domestic product (GDP) of a country.
In the case of microeconomics, the law of supply and demand states that in a
perfectly competitive market, goods supply (or production) and demand set their
price when equilibrium is achieved (Figure 7.1). In other words, the point where
the supply curve meets the demand curve is equal to the price of the merchandise,
which means that when a shock in a system impacts either supply or demand, the
equilibrium shifts directly, affecting the price of that product in the short run. This
analysis can be performed for a single product, a group of products, or an industry.
Therefore, to answer the questions at the beginning of this section, the first thing is
to understand the different components and major players within the aquaculture
industry and their commercial relationships. Then, supply and demand theory can
be applied to estimate the possible impact of an event. For example, how does a
natural phenomenon in Peru impact the Asian aquaculture industry? First, we need
to know that Peru accounts for the largest reduction fishery in the world, meaning
it captures large amounts of fish destined for the production of fishmeal and fish
oil. Let’s suppose a natural phenomenon such as El Niño occurs and changes the
ocean’s surface temperature. In that case, the environmental characteristics of the
ocean impact the amount of fish available to catch, therefore, the production of
fishmeal and fish oil, in turn, affects aquafeed production since it is the primary
source of oily fats and proteins in most commercial aquafeed. If we go back to the
supply and demand law (Figure 7.1) notice that if the quantity of fish available is
reduced and the demand stays the same, then the price of the goods will increase in
a competitive market (from P1 to P2). Furthermore, the feed demand is associated
with the aquaculture production increase. An increase in demand will also shift the
96 Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

Figure 7.1 A general representation of the behaviour of the supply and demand curves and
an example of what happens to the price equilibrium under changes in supply.
If there is an increase of production (from Q1 to Q2), then there is a shift in the
supply curve from S1 to S2, if the demand remains equal, this supply shift causes
the price at equilibrium to move from P1 to P2.

curve, so the reduced supply and increased demand both impact the equilibrium
and surely increases the price of aquafeed, at least in the short run.
If the price of aquafeed increases, then the production costs of feeding aqua-
culture as a whole also increase due to the large component of production costs
associated with feeding, which can be up to 70% of the total variable costs. This
leads to a sharp increase in costs that either increases the price of products or
reduces the farmers’ revenue.
In the case of aquaculture, the market is highly competitive. Perfect substitutes
for all products (from fisheries, for example) exist, so most of the time, the farmers
are what is known as price-​takers, meaning that they do not control much of the
global supply so a change in their production shifts the curve. Thus, farmers have
to take the prices set by the world markets, and it is more likely they will absorb the
impact of a shock. The changes for those species where aquaculture dominates the
market and the industry as a whole act like a price-​setter (meaning that their produc-
tion is enough to affect the market prices if drastically changed). For example, in
shrimp and salmon, when the input price increase is global, the price increase of the
product would also be global and the shock might be absorbed by the final customer.
In this scenario of a globally connected industry, sustainability and sustainability
analyses are more important than ever since changes in one part of the world or in
 Economics and its relationship with aquaculture 97

the system as a whole will surely have an impact on local aquaculture production.
Furthermore, not only will the impact be due to global environmental challenges
such as climate change but also to other significant issues related to society, such
as wars and massive migrations or even economic shocks such as uncontrolled
inflation or recessions, making economic analysis a highly complex discipline and,
usually, a tough one to forecast.

7.4 Macroeconomics
As previously mentioned, macroeconomics covers the analyses of countries and,
in our case, the industry as a whole; although it might seem simple at first sight,
the reality is that the current status of the economic system based on globalisation
requires a holistic understanding of all the aquaculture components and how they
interact in a globalised economic system.
The macroeconomic analysis does not only deal with the financial aspects of the
industry but also includes several other indicators that are not necessarily finan-
cial. Aquaculture is within the primary production industries, which means that
its growth and performance can be significant even for national security, not only
because of the revenue it can produce but also its impact on food security, job cre-
ation, and national development. In that respect, aquaculture can be classified into
two very distinctive groups: (1) commercial aquaculture where the main objective
of production is to make profits, and (2) livelihood or rural aquaculture where the
objective of the production is to supplement nutrient intake for farmers through
small operations with no selling intent.
The differentiation provided earlier is extremely important when it comes to
macroeconomic analysis and especially for the development of public policy,
a component that usually concerns a branch of economics known as political
economics.
The macroeconomic analysis uses several different indicators depending on
the subject of evaluation (welfare, growth, or even happiness)1. Nevertheless, one
of the most significant ones, and the one that has guided the management of the
economy over more than 60 years is the gross domestic product (GDP), obtained
by the balance between aggregate supply and aggregate demand.
Today, GDP (along with a battery of other indicators) estimates the growth of
the economy, which is currently associated with the health of the national economy.
However, the use of GDP and the notion of “infinite growth” as economic health
indicators is challenged by today’s economists2, with some even proposing a
“degrowth” strategy to cope with the finite resources of our planet3,4.
Macroeconomics and aquaculture are heavily linked, particularly in countries
that rely on aquaculture as a significant source of employment, food, and even for-
eign exchange. China has historically been the world’s largest producer of farmed
fish and seafood. Aquaculture plays a crucial role in China’s economy, and it has
a substantial impact on their GDP (around 6% of their agricultural GDP for 2020)i
The aquaculture sector in China provides employment opportunities, generates
export revenue, and contributes to the domestic food supply5.
98 Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

Other countries with a significant impact of aquaculture on GDP include Norway

and Chile, which are known for salmon farming; Vietnam, a major exporter of
various fish and seafood products; Ecuador, Thailand, and Indonesia are also not-
able for their aquaculture industries and their contributions to the economy6.

7.5 Microeconomics
As covered earlier in this chapter, microeconomics deals with the financial and
economic components at a farm or industry level. Most components of microeco-
nomic analysis and decision-​making used in aquaculture are covered in Chapter 10.
Nonetheless, this chapter introduces two of the most significant components of the
analysis, the production and profit functions.

7.5.1 The production function

In microeconomics, a production function is a relationship that describes the quan-

tity of goods or services produced by a specific set of resources or inputs. Most
aquaculture farms tend to focus on the production of biomass. Whether biomass
is then used for food (the vast majority) or for some other industry (such as the
pharmaceutical industry in the case of algae for example, or fashion in the case
of crocodiles or pearls), all producers are looking forward to producing biomass,
which is the total weight of living organisms in a specific volume or area, i.e.,
a farm.
Since the objective has been established to produce biomass, the dependent vari-
able of our production function will be biomass. Now that the output is established,
the inputs needed to obtain such output should be determined. As stated before,
biomass is the total weight of the individuals present on the farm at a specific
moment, thus biomass is equal to the number of individuals at a certain moment
multiplied by the individual weight of each of them at that same time or expressed
in a simple mathematical function

Bt = N tWt

Where Bt corresponds to biomass in time t; N t � is the number of organisms in

the ponds or tanks at that same time t; and Wt � is the average individual weight of
each organism at the same time t.
With that simple relation, we have developed our very first basic but powerful
production function.
The truth is that capturing the individual weight of each organism in the pond is
nearly impossible at a commercial farm level. Furthermore, this information should
be obtained on periodic bases (at least once per week), so capturing, weighing, and
separating each organism is not the best way to do it.
Sampling is a standard method used to minimise the efforts and maximise the
output of data. This method consists in obtaining statistically significant samples of
 Economics and its relationship with aquaculture 99

the farm and obtaining average values for weight or length as well as the number
of individuals.
Once a couple of production cycle growth data have been obtained, we can model
the expected average individual weight. For this purpose, several functions and
variations exist. One can model the intrinsic growth rate and from there extrapolate
to individual weight or directly model weight using variations of famous functions,
such as von Bertalanffy’s or Gopertz’s, as presented in Chapter 10.
Once a model is selected, the curves can be fitted using their own historical data.
Modelling biomass (production function) helps make better decisions regarding
the farm: from the amount of feed provided (which can be around 60–​70% of the
variable costs) to the best time to harvest (should I harvest smaller organisms faster
or bigger ones in a longer period?). In the end, the model will be a tool to use and
improve the profits of the farm by optimising processes.
The models can then be further sophisticated, accounting for size heterogeneity,
changes in the growth rate associated with production density (linked with partial
harvests), or even accounting for water quality indicators and their influence on
biomass, such as the effects of temperature, oxygen, pH, salinity, or ammonia on
growth and survival. This sophistication allows for a better understanding of the
system, which can help to optimise production through improved aeration methods
or specific water exchange protocols.
Now, remember that several components will impact this production function.
Since they are living organisms, factors like feed, nutrition, environmental
components, genetics, and time will have an impact on both parts of the produc-
tion function. The methods for modelling and the most used growth and survival
models are described in Chapter 10, but keep in mind that those are not the only
existing models; one can twitch and modify the functions to include all different
components of production that will impact growth and survival and hence have an
effect on the production function.
As observed, the production function in aquaculture only includes biological
components. This function only defines the quantity of biomass produced, but the
economic piece of the farm is missing.
To determine how much money a farm could make in income ( I t ) from the sale
of their products, the first financial aspect of the analysis should be included, the
selling price of the product ( Pt ) , and obtaining the income function.

I t = Bt Pt

Remember that income is the amount of money that the farmers receive for
their product, which is biomass produced times the price of such biomass in the
market. This is where the macroeconomic aspects of aquaculture meet the micro-
economic analysis; most of the time, the farmers do not have control over the
selling price since this is determined by the market (the law of supply and demand).
If the farmers have information regarding the behaviour of the market (how prices
change) in certain seasons or under certain circumstances, that might give them an
100 Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

advantage because harvesting their production will be possible whenever prices

peak, maximising the farm income.

7.5.2 The profit function

Developing sound economic analyses requires a robust framework that supports

the model and assumptions. In the case of microeconomics, we first need to set or
assume the objective of one or all the commercial farms, which is maximising their
profits, in most cases, from biomass production, and in turn from the growth and
survival of fish, shellfish, or algae.
Although we are now entering the realm of finance and economics, we have
only looked at the income part of the equation. The success of an aquaculture farm,
as in any other agribusiness, consists of its capability to produce biomass at a lower
cost than its selling price. Since we have established that the goal is to maximise
profits, we need to define a profit function that includes the financial components
of the production along with the biological ones, showing the effect that input
costs (Ct ) , as well as output price, have on a farm’s profitability.

π t = I t − Ct

We now have the profit (π_​t) function, which is the base to determine how the
decisions and other economic agentsii may improve or diminish performance,
getting nearer or further from fulfilling the objective.
Microeconomics is much more than just the profit function; it also studies the
impact that the choices of the different economic agents have on the markets through
the effects on consumption, production, and price. Nevertheless, the objective of
this book is not to deepen into this vast branch of the Economic sciences. If the
reader is interested in deepening knowledge in these aspects, such as how to deter-
mine the reaction of consumers to changes in supply or price, or even optimising
the performance of a farm, we encourage them to look into the recommended
readings section for specialised books that help explore these ideas.

7.6 The economy and natural resource management

Since economics is the science that studies the administration, production, and
consumption of resources, this definition includes both anthropogenic and natural
resources, understanding them as all those elements of nature that contribute to the
well-​being of humanity. Within natural resources, they can be classified into two
large groups of possible exploitations from the temporal point of view.
On the one hand, non-​renewable resources are found, which are those that
have a finite stock and their turnover or renewability requires extremely extended
periods of time, such as metals or oil. On the other hand, renewable resources, such
as water or the atmosphere have a short turnover period, which means they can
replenish within a reasonable period if left unexploited or well-​managed. It should
 Economics and its relationship with aquaculture 101

be noted that their “renewable” characteristic does not make these resources inex-
haustible but instead gives them the plasticity to replenish themselves in a short
period of time if appropriately exploited.
In addition to the temporality of natural resources, they can also be classified
according to their ownership or property rights. In that sense, resources can either
be under private property –​a single owner or group of owners of a resource and
that owner or group of owners hold exclusive rights to exploit or give permission
to exploit it. For example, mines or agricultural land, or through common use
which means that no single owner exists and the resource belongs to a society,
such as the marine environment or the atmosphere. These two classifications
are of vital importance for understanding the economic management of natural
resources.

7.6.1 Private vs. common resources

In the case of privately owned resources, such as an aquaculture farm, the concept
of management and the economics surrounding it are similar to other industries
because of the private nature of the resources. In other words, the farmers have
the ability to control the number of organisms they seed, the feed used, and other
production inputs to determine the optimal output of the operation. The fact that
the products in hand are living organisms gives certain complexity to manage-
ment due to the unpredictable or unprecise response of the farmed organisms to the
farmer inputs. That is, growth is not the same for all the organisms given a certain
amount of feed, or mortality might be unpredictable. However, the farmers still
have ultimate control over production.
Of all the natural resources, those that have characteristics of common use are
the most complex to manage due to the concept of “the tragedy of the commons”
described by the ecologist Garrett Hardin7. This author shows that in an open
system (without regulation), common resources tend to exhaustion. If there is no
regulation and individuals act in a rational self-​interest way, that is, all members in
a group use common resources for their own gain, and with no regard for others,
all-​natural resources would still eventually be depleted through what is known as a
race for resources. Unfortunately, people try to get as much of the resource as pos-
sible for their gain before someone else takes the opportunity.
The root of this problem stems from two very relevant economic concepts for the
economy of natural resources: externalities and the parasite or free-​rider problem.

7.6.2 The concepts of externalities and free-​riders

An externality is defined as a situation in which the costs or benefits of produc-

tion or consumption of some goods or services are not reflected in their market
price. Externalities can be either positive or negative, depending on the impact
generated and the focus of the analysis. On the other hand, a parasite or free-​rider is
a social entity (whether individual or an enterprise) that benefits from externalities
or common goods without contributing to financing this merchandise.
102 Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

A classic example of these concepts is highly tied to sustainable sciences –​the

emission of greenhouse gases (GHG) –​ the main cause of climate change. They
are emitted into the atmosphere as a result of several natural events and anthropo-
genic activities. In the case of anthropogenic activities, GHG emissions are highly
linked with energy generation and consumption. In the case of aquaculture, those
productions that are intensive in feed and energy (such as fed aquaculture and recir-
culating aquaculture system) have higher GHG emissions.
An example of free-​riders can be found in aquaculture parks, where several
farms share a common water inlet or reservoir. All the farms from the industrial park
benefit from good maintenance and water management of the water inlet pumping
system. Now imagine the need for renewing the machinery of the pumping system
and one farm is not willing to pay for such improvement. Since the rest of the group
are aware of the benefit of doing it, they pay for the renewal. Possibly, the park as
a group does not have the resources or authority to restrict water access to the farm
that did not pay. Now, this farm benefits from better equipment without paying for
it, which makes it a free-​rider.
It is important to highlight that Hardin’s tragedy of the commons relies on two
major suppositions which need to be accounted for when analysing the access to
a common resource. The first is the self-​interest of the producers, meaning they
always look for their benefit above all and therefore “race for resources”. This
supposition can be challenged by arguing the fact that, in any community, there is
regard for the neighbour. In other words, humans (social beings by nature) look for
the well-​being of humanity as a whole. If this were not true, social structures would
not exist as we know them, since everyone would look only after themselves.
The second supposition concerns the regulatory aspects. For the tragedy of the
commons to occur, no regulations whatsoever should exist towards the use of the
common stock. This supposition can be heavily challenged since the creation of
communities and societies comes hand in hand with the development of a set of
rules and regulations to coexist. Since the beginning of human societies, there have
been rules and regulations regarding the use of natural resources8, the occurrence
of the tragedy of the commons relies then on the effectiveness of the rules and
regulations developed.

7.7 Some relevant economic schools of thought

We have covered the way economists tackle the methods to model or evaluate eco-
nomic activity depending on the scale or approach (bottom-​up for microeconomics,
and top-​down for macroeconomics), but trying to understand and predict the
behaviour of the economy is only a part of it. The second part is how to manage
it through implementing regulations and policies. In this regard, how we under-
stand the economy, its limitations, strengths, and purpose determines how we stir it
towards the desired outcome.
The current dominant school of thought to manage an economy is known as
market capitalism. The core of this trend sustains that markets are capable of self-​
regulation and that by letting them self-​regulate, the economy thrives thanks to the
 Economics and its relationship with aquaculture 103

existence of competition. According to this school, the way in which all society
benefits from increased market competition and reduced regulation is through
the spillover generated by the increasing gains from corporations, also known as
Okun’s “leaking bucket”9.
Several economists have challenged the existence of the spillovers predicted by
Okun10 as well as the efficiency of market capitalism as we know it today.
Remember that economics is not a natural science or an exact science, so its
development and impact depend on society, its vision, morals, culture, and the
objectives it sets. The economy is guided by a series of assumptions, concepts, and
models that determine “in the best possible way” how to manage assets. Thus, even
if all economists had the same objective and vision of what the economy should
do (for example: use resources in such a way that social welfare is maximised in
an equitable and collective manner), a discrepancy in the method and the models
to achieve that goal may exist. With this in mind, there is a series of currents or
“countercurrents” that criticise and propose alternative methods to the current eco-
nomic system.
For the most part, the alternative systems that are contemplated today derive
from a main concern, and that is nature. Whether due to its degradation or its
“finite” quality, natural resources and nature as a whole are the central axis of
discussions about the economy and its long-​term projection.
On that line, three alternative schools of thought have dominated the economic
discussion from a sustainability perspective: ecological economics, environmental
economics, and circular economy.

7.7.1 Ecological economics

All economic agents generate externalities, however, some are more harmful than
others. Although the first thing that can come to mind regarding the relationship of
the economy with sustainability is environmental deterioration, it is necessary to
think a little further.
The economy, economic policies, public policies, and the economic school of
thought to which a country or a group of countries adheres are responsible for
social welfare (from how much wealth is generated, how it is distributed, and
how it can even be applied to the possibility of providing social health services,
pensions, or subsidies). It is for this simple reason that the economy is one of the
pillars of sustainability.
Deepening into this subject, we can find some concepts that are of interest to
understanding the relationship of the economy with sustainability and the need to
tackle it and direct it in the best possible way. The set of interdisciplinary sciences
in charge of studying the sustainable economy is called ecological economics (not
to be confused with the economics of natural resources or with environmental
economics).
In general, ecological economics maintains that the study of the economy must
be done from a holistic perspective, understanding that the economy is part of
society and it belongs to nature. For this reason, the economy belongs, indirectly,
104 Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

to nature, so it must account for the relationship that the exploitation of resources
has with the ecology of the system and the society that is included in it.
Thus, ecological economics includes within its principles and models biological
and social aspects together with economic principles, breaking the paradigm of
egoism and the concept of homo œconomicus (that is, that the unitary entity of the
economy is human, who is selfish, so he will always look first for his individual
well-​being, and he is rational, that is, he will always make decisions that improve
his current state) on which all neoclassical economic theory is based.
The development of the theory of ecological economics could be the missing
tool to accelerate the development of humanity towards a more united society,
with a higher value and understanding of nature and the services it provides us, a
more adequate feeling of justice and an equitable distribution of wealth, reducing
problems of hunger, inequality, gender, and poverty, while attacking other harmful
elements of current production such as contamination of aquifers, reduction of bio-
diversity, and climate change.

7.7.2 Environmental economics

The model that currently governs the global economy is the neoclassical vision of
how the economy should behave. One of the principles that govern this behaviour
is based on the Solow economic growth model, which proposes the following:

Y = K α ( AL )
1− α

Where Y represents total production, K is capital, A is a technological constant, L

is labour or human capital, and α is the coefficient of diminishing marginal returns,
that is, the rate that determines the growth of Y from a marginal point of view.
Although this model explains the increases and reductions in production globally,
it makes an assumption that is the main criticism of the system and it is the defin-
ition it makes of capital. According to modern theory, capital as a general concept
is composed of four types of capital: labour or social (KL), financial (KF), natural
(KN), and institutional or intellectual (information, KI). Therefore, according to
neoclassical economics, capital can be defined as:

K = KL + KF + KN + KI

This definition makes all types of capital perfect substitutes. Thus, theor-
etically, an increase in financial capital can substitute a reduction in natural
capital, maintaining growth sustainably. Within the scope of sustainability, this
economic theory is known as “weak sustainability”, since it states that increases
in technologies and improvements in production processes associated with
competition (greater financial capital and greater intellectual capital) justify the
impacts on natural capital, so it is not necessary to make a change to the defin-
ition of capital.
 Economics and its relationship with aquaculture 105

Contrary to this idea, environmental economics (not to be confused with natural

resource economics) proposes a paradigm shift. Environmental economists take
natural capital as the axis of their theory because the externalities derived from
production can have a significant effect on the environment. This effect had not
been taken into account and the externalities were absorbed by the ecosystem and
finally by society. For this purpose, natural economists divided natural capital into
different categories, with the aim of being able to carry out economic valuations
(assign a monetary value to natural capital) based on its use, activity, ability to
renew itself, and the speed at which it happens. This valuation (which includes
all environmental components with or without a market) allows for estimating the
value of the externalities incurred by the rest of the components of the economic
system and developing policies to discourage environmental deterioration and/​or
taking measures to reduce it.
Despite this change, environmental economics can still be seen as weak sustain-
ability. Although natural capital is “revalued” and the analysis focused on envir-
onmental externalities and how they can be mitigated, in a certain way and in
some cases, direct exchanges should be performed between the different types of
capital. This current proposes concepts, such as fines, subsidies, markets, labels,
regulations, and production restrictions, among others, as tools to manage natural
capital and maintain it over time.

7.7.3 Circular economy

The current production and consumption model follows a linear pattern, where
resources or raw materials are obtained, transformed, and finally discarded after
use. The circular economy is a proposal to improve this system.
The circular economy is not an economic model per se, since it does not make
any new proposals regarding the behaviour of the economy, but rather a new model
of production and consumption that proposes to reuse waste from production
processes. In this manner, new products can be added to optimise the use of avail-
able resources. In other words, a circular economy can be developed under any eco-
nomic ideology, since its principle is to reduce human impact on the environment.

7.7.3.1 Relationship between production and consumption

Since the dawn of economics, the relationship between production and consump-
tion has been studied. Thus, Adam Smith himself in his classic “The Wealth of
Nations” was the first to methodologically develop why and how consumption and
production are related. In a simplified way and in a perfectly competitive capit-
alist market, goods and services are produced based on their demand. In turn, both
supply and demand are influenced by the price of goods or services.
In market theory, the price and quantity of goods or services produced natur-
ally (by market forces) find equilibrium at the point where the supply and demand
curves intersect, which is known as the economic equilibrium point (Figure 7.1).
Although it may be the case for some goods and services in a fragmented market,
106 Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

these curves have been observed to be defined in a very varied way and depending
on the product in question. The behaviour of these curves (the slope of the function)
is known as elasticity.
The elasticity of each curve determines the effect that a price change has on
the quantities produced and demanded. For this purpose, goods or services can be
categorised, according to this parameter, as elastic –​a minimum change in price
has a significant impact on the equilibrium point when the demand curve is hori-
zontal –​or inelastic –​when a price change, whatever it may be, does not affect
the quantity demanded, that is, when the demand curve is vertical. By analysing
these curves various conclusions can be drawn, one of the most important of which
is the relationship between price and demand. A significant reduction in produc-
tion costs associated with an improvement in technology will be associated with a
price reduction, which means an increase in demand and, eventually, an increase
in production. This increase brings with it a material and raw material consump-
tion increase, which will have an externality on the environment and eventually on
society.
In accordance with weak sustainability, the loss of natural capital is offset by
the increase in the rest of the capital components, and, in addition, technological
improvements will not only lower the price but also reduce the consumption of
raw materials. Although a reduction in raw material consumption is necessary for
production associated with technological improvements, according to the Jevons
paradox11 it will also be associated with a reduction in the sale price. As previ-
ously observed, it has the effect of an increase in demand and finally a greater
demand for raw material. In other words, the less raw material per product exists,
the greater quantity of products will give rise to greater consumption of raw
material.

7.8 Economics as a tool for sustainable aquaculture production

As mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, the economic system is not a con-
scious being, meaning that “The System” does not take any dispositions or choices.
Society as a whole shapes the economic system and its responses. With that in mind,
each component of the economic system (namely: the private, public, society, or
consumer sectors) has different economic-​driven tools that can help shift aquacul-
ture towards a more sustainable path.

7.8.1 Private sector economic tools

The private sector, including commercial farms, intermediaries, freezers, retailers,

and all other private stakeholders involved in the value chain of the aquacul-
ture industry, is driven mainly by profits. The main objective of the industry is
to maximise profits given certain characteristics of inputs and outputs. Although
the objective is pretty clear, several ways of getting there exist. The way through
which aquaculture organisms are produced can have a more or less environmental
or social impact even while generating the same profits.
 Economics and its relationship with aquaculture 107

In the past, mainly due to ignorance of the consequences, aquaculture producers

had little care for the environmental impact of their productions if that meant higher
profits in the short term. This situation directly or indirectly led to a higher risk
of production and overall reduced profitability in some aquaculture investments.
Thus, the industry pushed to develop technologies and economic instruments that
not only help maximising profits in the short run but also reduce environmental
impact, ensuring farm sustainability in time.
Two of the most promising private economic instruments that can help promote
a sustainable aquaculture are Business Intelligence (Box 17.1) and Environmental,
Social, and Corporate Governance (ESG) portfolios.

7.8.1.1 Environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG)

Apart from management and direct optimisation by producers through the Business
Intelligence strategy, other stakeholders within the private sector can use other
tools to promote sustainable aquaculture, and one of these is within the financial
or investment area, especially for loans, insurance, and investment in aquaculture
facilities. In most commercial farms, regardless of the scale, finance is one of the
main limiting factors to starting a farm and continuing production, mainly due to
high infrastructure costs in the first case, and high production costs compared to
other food production systems for the second situation. High production costs are
more common in fed aquaculture since the protein needed in the feed increases
input costs.
In the past, loans and most financial products were mainly driven by profits,
which means that investments were mostly allocated to the industries that promised
higher returns in the fastest way possible with the minimum risk and without
accounting for environmental and social impact. This kind of investment generated
severe consequences and, eventually, investors figured out that it was not a sus-
tainable way of generating capital. The interlinks that exist between the financial,
social, and environmental aspects showed that investment was more sustainable
when all these factors were accounted for. Thus, investments would be equally
profitable when the investors look at them in the long run and would also have a
positive effect on society as a whole. The result was a shift from traditional invest-
ment to Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance (ESG) investments.
ESG is not new. For hundreds of years, non-​profit organisations and social groups
have invested in responsible ventures, mainly regarding the social sphere, but over
the last decade, this movement has gained influence in many different areas of
human development, including aquaculture.
Aquaculture is a perfect area of opportunity for ESG investors, since millions of
people depend on it directly or indirectly because aquaculture is a very significant
area of opportunity to improve the social sphere. Furthermore, this field is a sig-
nificant source of protein, which provides more than 50% of the fish and shellfish
destined for human consumption, as discussed in Chapter 16. Many new ideas and
interesting innovations are being developed to reduce the environmental impacts
of aquaculture, opening the doors to higher production with less environmental
108 Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

damage. All of these innovations and impacts need capital for development and
implementation and, in some cases, promise a very interesting financial return,
hitting all three spheres of sustainability. Capital investment and innovation are
significant factors in modern economic models, which are the main driving factors
of capitalism towards sustainability.

7.8.2 Public sector economic tools

Aquaculture is the most recent of all food production industries to develop into an
industrial and highly productive activity; this situation has some disadvantages, such
as a lack of information and policies aimed at reducing its environmental impact.
However, it also has some advantages, such as the possibility of implementing new
policies and instruments to reduce its environmental impact.
Furthermore, according to some writers, aquaculture is the only means to
deliver quality protein produced from seafood without depleting the world’s
seas2,12. Moreover, this business generates a high rate of employment, particu-
larly in developing Asian and Latin American nations13. As a result, the industry’s
key concern is determining how to continue development more sustainably. The
externalities of aquaculture vary depending on numerous aspects, such as the pro-
duction system or location of the facilities. The majority of negative externalities
are associated with environmental degradation, such as the release of pollutants
(nitrogen and phosphorus in effluents) or greenhouse gases from energy produc-
tion14, the release of antibiotics used during production15, or the depletion of envir-
onmentally rich zones16 (please refer to Chapter 5).
Several mechanisms and policies encourage pollution reduction. The classic
economic tools available for the public sector (or government) are the imposition
of taxes aimed at discouraging certain behaviours. For example, fuel consumption
or pollutant emissions and the use of economic incentives, such as fiscal reductions
or subsidies, are aimed at encouraging certain behaviours that have a positive
impact on the desired outcome, such as the promotion of renewable energies or the
adoption of new technologies with higher environmental performance.
The true challenge of public policy development toward aquaculture sustain-
ability is finding the balance between environmental protection and production
increase since this combination is the sole objective of the government as it creates
jobs, improves food security, and pushes economic growth while protecting the
environment, making sure that (a) the industry will be sustainable in time and
(b) future generations will have at least the same opportunities as we have today,
which is the final objective of sustainability.

7.8.3 Social economic tools

When it comes to the economy and its influence on us, we tend to feel a little unpro-
tected. As consumers, we are bound to the power of the industry and the choices we
have available. It is common to often feel that nothing can be done as consumers
 Economics and its relationship with aquaculture 109

and that we do not have the power to change the industry and push it toward sus-
tainability. However, it is not entirely true; apart from political options, like voting
in a democracy or asking representatives to do something about a specific topic,
such as aquaculture and its sustainability, some economic tools are at our disposal
to push the industry toward sustainability, and the main one is by using something
known as “the power of the consumer”.

7.8.3.1 The power of the consumer

The supply and demand curves (Figure 7.1) show the shifts in the quantity of a
product produced depending on the behaviour of two curves, supply and demand.
We have discussed what happens to the supply side of the curve when there are
shocks in the value chain, and the truth is that the aquaculture industry is the one
that has the power to shift this curve, but the market is also driven by the demand
curve which is influenced mostly by the consumer.
As consumers, we have the power of choice, and that choice can affect the
way companies do business. For example, a supermarket has two options for the
same seafood, one is a generic product that costs 2 USD per kg, and the second
one is a brand that proves their compromise with sustainable production (with
certification or a new technology that allows for more information) and costs 2.3
USD per kg. As consumers, we have the choice to prefer the certified brand over
the generic one, even if there is a price premium. In this manner, we are letting
the market know that there is a preference for sustainability, even if it costs a
little more17. In the end, if consumers opt for sustainable aquaculture products,
the farms that do not follow this lead will ultimately be pushed to either adapt to
the new production methods or perish and close the business due to the lack of
demand.
One of the main disadvantages of this strategy and tool is the assumption that all
consumers have the financial capacity to buy the brand of their choice. The reality
is that, primarily in developing and under-​developed countries, consumers do not
have the financial liberty of choice, and either they get the generic product or do
not get anything at all, even if they have strong favouritism towards sustainable
production. This situation opens the door for the existence of both products.
Other economic tools are available for all the components of the value chain, but
it is important to emphasise that no single tool is enough to achieve a more sustain-
able aquaculture. It is the combination of all tools in different chain strata that will
ultimately take aquaculture closer to a sustainable path.

7.9 Final remarks

Economics is one of the pillars of sustainability and is often overlooked by tech-
nology and policy developers, usually due to a lack of understanding of how all the
components of the industry that concern sustainability interlink, and the necessity
of all of them to flourish to attain sustainable production.
110 Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

Both micro-​and macroeconomics are relevant to the sustainability of aqua-

culture at different levels. In the case of macroeconomics, the flux of inputs
and outputs through the globe affects the overall production of the industry
which, in turn, impacts the livelihoods and wellness of individuals as well as
the productivity, food security, and in some cases the gross domestic product
of a nation.
On the other hand, microeconomics will be a useful analytical tool to determine
the viability of a farm as well as the areas of opportunity. A microeconomic ana-
lysis is a powerful tool to optimise processes and improve the financial perform-
ance of a farm which, in turn, could result in the sustainability of that business, its
growth, and the impact on its community.
It is also important to remember that the economy is not a self-​governed law
of nature but a social construct. This means that we can shape and stir it towards
a desired outcome. The different objectives, restraints, and methods to achieve
the proposed goals give place to the different economic schools of thought.
Usually, there is no right or wrong when it comes to following a specific eco-
nomic school of thought, but how it is established, the areas where the focus is set
by decision-​makers, and the methods followed to get to that goal along with the
current social universal values and views of the world will determine its success
and sustainability.

7.10 Chapter review questions

1. How would you describe the relationship between supply and demand and how
does this affect the price of a product in a perfectly competitive market?
2. How is the economy related to the environmental impacts of aquaculture?
3. If you were a decision-​maker in charge of the world aquaculture industry, which
tools would you use to secure aquaculture sustainability and why?
4. How does the tragedy of the commons affect aquaculture?
5. What is the difference between environmental economics and ecological
economics?

Recommended readings
Costanza, R., Cumberland, J. H., Daly, H., Goodland, R., Norgaard, R. B., Kubiszewski, I.,
& Franco, C. (2014). An Introduction to Ecological Economics. CRC Press.
Dixit, A. (2014). Microeconomics: A Very Short Introduction. OUP Oxford.
Engle, C. R. (2010). Aquaculture Economics and Financing: Management and Analysis.
John Wiley & Sons.
Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N. M., & Hultink, E. J. (2017). The Circular Economy–​
A new sustainability paradigm?. Journal of Cleaner Production, 143, 757–​768.
Hanley, N., Shogren, J., & White, B. (2019). Introduction to Environmental Economics.
Oxford University Press.
Jolly, C. M., & Clonts, H. A. (2020). Economics of Aquaculture. CRC Press.
Pindyck, R. S., & Rubinfeld, D. L. (2014). Microeconomics. Pearson Education.
Thomas, A. M. (2021). Macroeconomics: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press.
 Economics and its relationship with aquaculture 111

Box 7.1 Economics of aquaculture –​a case study: The mussel in

Galicia
Fernando Gonzalez Laxe
University of Coruña, Spain

Galicia, a Spanish Atlantic region, is the leading European producer of

mussels (Mytilus galloprovincialis) and the third in the world, after China
and Chile. Its extractions account for 95.7% of the Spanish total aquacul-
ture production by weight, registering a high degree of both productive and
geographical specialisation. Therefore, it contributes to forming the eco-
nomic base of many coastal towns and serving as an income stream for many
employed in this activity.
Its cultivation started in the 1950s, through the installation of floating
devices (called “bateas” or rafts). Production cycles consist of 14–​18 months
including the phases of seed collection, stringing (attaching the seed to the
string), unfolding, fattening, and final harvest.
Currently there are 3,338 rafts that employ 7,141 people. In 2019, the pro-
duction amounted to a total of 255,513,987 kilograms with a total value of
111,869,417 euros. These figures represent 59% of the total aquatic produc-
tion in Galicia and 16% of the income of the sector, constituting one of the
economic activities of reference in the region. Despite fluctuations in produc-
tion, the average extraction over the last 13 years (2007–​2019) was 231,120
tons. The different oscillations were due to the appearance of “red tides” and
conflict between producer organisations.
Most of the rafts are family-​owned and present a low level of concentra-
tion. However, this level of concessions hoarding varies depending on the
areas. In the Ría de Arousa, where 68% of the rafts are located, the ratio
is 1.45 rafts per owner, while the Ría de Ares amounts to 14.7 rafts per
owner, highlighting the existence of a powerful business group. Prices have
shown great stability, standing at around €0.55 kg–​1, much lower than those
found in Europe (€1 kg–​1). The estimated income for each raft amounts to
€100,000 year–​1, which constitutes the basic element that generates income
for families located in coastal towns. The use of production is distributed
between demand for fresh consumption in the markets (around 65%) and the
rest (35%) destined for the canning industry (Figure 7.2).
Prices show a notable difference for fresh consumption (€0.46 kg–​1) and
for canning (€0.40 kg–​1). Consumption shows a slight increasing trend in both
headings (Spanish consumption is 1.1 kg per capita, representing 8% of the
preferences for fish demand and assuming an annual expenditure of €2.8 per
capita). In recent years, the Chilean mussel (Mytilus chilensis) has entered
the canning industry market thanks to notable import flows. These purchases
from abroad have produced a reaction in favour of the local product and
the reinforcement of the Designation of Origin role. Among the weaknesses
of the mussel industry is the excessive atomisation and dispersion of the
 newgenrtpdf
112 Daniel Peñalosa Martinell
Figure 7.2 An example of the mussel value chain of the fresh mussels market in Galicia, Spain.
 Economics and its relationship with aquaculture 113

farms, as well as the scarce coordination between public policies and scien-
tific recommendations.
The current threats are growing international competition and internal con-
flict among the producers. The strengths are based on the natural conditions
of the estuaries, the strong social roots of the activity in the coastal areas
and the growing opening of markets as there is an increase in demand given
the nutritional characteristics of the product. Hence, the opportunities are
concentrated in increases in consumption, and in a greater international
presence based on differentiation and traceability certifications, whose
features make possible the strong multiplier effect relative and inherent to
exploitation, industrialisation, distribution, and product consumption.

Notes
i Calculated from FAO’s value data set obtained at: www.fao.org/​fish​ery/​sta​tist​ics-​query/​
en/​aqua​cult​ure/​aquacu​ltur​e_​va​lue, and China’s reported agricultural GDP, obtained at
www.stats.gov.cn/​engl​ish/​Press​Rele​ase/​202​201/​t20220​113_​1826​284.html.
ii An economic agent is defined as a person, company, or organisation that has an influence
on the economy by producing, buying, or selling.

References
1 Hirschauer, N., Lehberger, M., & Musshoff, O. (2015). Happiness and utility in eco-
nomic thought—​Or: What can we learn from happiness research for public policy ana-
lysis and public policy making?. Social Indicators Research, 121, 647–​674.
2 Daly, H. (2013). A further critique of growth economics. Ecological Economics,
88, 20–​24.
3 Curtis, S., Shabb, K., & Libertson, F. (2021). Degrowth: Challenging infinite growth in
a finite world. https://​sou​ndcl​oud.com/​iiiee​podc​ast/​degro​wth
4 Mastini, R., Kallis, G., & Hickel, J. (2021). A green new deal without growth?.
Ecological Economics, 179, 106832.
5 Wang, Y., & Wang, N. (2021). Exploring the role of the fisheries sector in China’s
national economy: An input–​output analysis. Fisheries Research, 243, 106055.
6 FAO (2022). The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture (SOFIA). Series number.
2022. Publisher. FAO.
7 Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons: the population problem has no tech-
nical solution; it requires a fundamental extension in morality. Science, 162(3859),
1243–​1248.
8 Ciriacy-​Wantrup, S. V., & Bishop, R. C. (1975). “Common property” as a concept in
natural resources policy. Natural Resources Journal, 15(4), 713–​727.
9 Okun, Arthur M. (2015). Equality and Efficiency: The Big Tradeoff. Brookings
Institution Press. Originally published in 1975. www.jstor.org/​sta​ble/​10.7864/​j.ctt​
13wz​tjk
10 Stiglitz, J.. People, Power, and Profits: Progressive Capitalism for an Age of Discontent.
Penguin, London, UK, 2019.
11 Alcott, B. (2005). Jevons’ paradox. Ecological Economics, 54(1), 9–​21.
114 Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

12 Béné, C., Arthur, R., Norbury, H., Allison, E. H., Beveritge, M. C. M., Bush, S.,
Campling, L., Leschen, W., Little, D., Squires, D., Thilsted, S. H., Troell, M., Williams,
M. (2015). Contribution of Fisheries and Aquaculture to Food Security and Poverty
Reduction: Assessing the Current Evidence. World Development, 79, 177–​196.
13 Neiland, A. E., Soley, N., Varley, J. B., & Whitmarsh, D. J. (2001). Shrimp aquacul-
ture: Economic perspectives for policy development. Marine Policy, 25, 265–​279.
14 Peñalosa-​Martinell, D., et al. “Probiotics as environmental performance enhancers
in the production of white shrimp (Penaeus vannamei) larvae.” Aquaculture, 514
(2020): 734491.
15 Liu, X., Caleb Steele, J., and Meng, X.-​Z. (2017). “Usage, residue, and human
health risk of antibiotics in Chinese aquaculture: a review.” Environmental Pollution,
223: 161–​169.
16 Malathi, M., and Rajakumari, S. (2019). “Review of depleting coastal resource areas
in GODAVARI delta upon human interventions, Andhra Pradesh.” Journal of Coastal
Conservation, 23(3): 543–​551.
17 Whitmarsh, D., and Wattage, P. (2006). “Public attitudes towards the environmental
impact of salmon aquaculture in Scotland.” European Environment, 16(2): 108–​121.
8 Aquaculture and fisheries
Fernando Aranceta Garza

In today’s industrial landscape, no industry is disconnected from the rest of the

world’s economy. Aquaculture is not an exception, but not only that, as opposed to
other industries, aquaculture’s growth and sustainability are intimately linked with
other production systems, especially agriculture, and fisheries.
In this chapter, we will deepen the discussion into the connections that bind
aquaculture’s growth and sustainability to fisheries. We will explore the strong
connection between both and evaluate the avenues for future research and improve-
ment to increase aquaculture’s self-​sustainability. Finally, a reflection on the impact
of the closure of the high seas on fishing and its potential consequences for aqua-
culture is included in Box 8.1.

8.1 Introduction
Fisheries and aquaculture are key productive and interconnected sectors contrib-
uting to global food security. They represent essential and low-​cost sources of
protein and nutrition, particularly in low-​income countries (e.g., in Africa)1. As
discussed in earlier chapters, the production supplied in metric tons (MT) by aqua-
culture has exceeded total wild marine production (with a relative share of >50%)
represented in most commercial taxonomic groups, such as crustaceans, molluscs,
macroalgae, and fin fishes2. This aquaculture production advantage is related to the
wild production stagnation associated with maximum sustainable yield status for
most fishing stocks and the increasing overexploitation due to suboptimal manage-
ment schemes in some countries.
As a unique solution for marine food production, marine aquaculture or mari-
culture presents complexities related to its dependence on the ecosystem’s health
to spatial sharing with other economic activities, e.g., fisheries and tourism3,4.
Mariculture operation produces externalities (i.e., every external effect caused by
individual users but not included in their accounting system) to the environment,
the users, and the natural populations. For these reasons, its global expansion is
a cause for concern due to the uncertainty in the ecological and socioeconomic
implications for the fishing sector. One of the main risks related to mariculture
expansion in developing countries is the weak regulations and poor management of

DOI: 10.4324/9781003174271-11
116 Fernando Aranceta Garza

the activity (e.g., pollution, escapes of exotic species, disease outbreaks), resulting
in ecosystem deterioration and low resilience of natural populations, threatening
livelihoods and food sources in coastal populations5.
Furthermore, installing mariculture facilities in traditional fishing grounds
causes competition and social distress for spatial, biological, and environmental
resources between sectors, which are exacerbated when there is no spatial man-
agement5. Aquaculture effects on fisheries and the ecosystem will depend on the
species farmed (i.e., fed vs. unfed species), the farming methods employed (pond,
cage, raft, line), level of scale and intensity of farming, location of the farm (land,
shore, inshore, offshore), and also the types of fisheries in the area and the level
of regulation and governance of the system. Some of the most common long-​
term additive adverse effects from aquaculture to fisheries are disease outbreaks,
habitat/​water quality degradation, reduced genetic fitness, overharvesting, inva-
sive species, and price competition6. Among the positive effects are applying stock
enhancement programmes, water quality improvement, and protecting populations
by generating no-​fishing zones.
In several countries, public social policies aim to avoid economic damage to all
resource users, such as artisanal fishers, ultimately limiting aquaculture operations
to a scale below their productive potential7. In other countries, public policy focuses
on internalising the costs of environmental and stock externalities from mariculture
(i.e., farming of marine species in the ocean, in coastal saltwater ponds, or salt-
water tanks on land) to compensate other users for any economic damage.
According to the above, aquaculture and wild fisheries interactions involve
ecological and socioeconomic interrelationships6,7. The former refers to any effect
produced by aquaculture over the fishery target species and the ecosystem, dir-
ectly impacting the population dynamics of the target fishery species (e.g., exotic
species, diseases, reduction fisheries for food of cultured species); and indirectly
affecting the habitat of the target fishery species diminishing their populations (e.g.,
alteration in physicochemical parameters of the water body, chronic deterioration
of the habitat). The socio-​ecological interactions directly affect fishery activities
and livelihoods, resulting in economic loss and social conflicts from the exclusion
of traditional fishing grounds and market competition.

8.2 Ecological interactions

Ecological interactions create positive or negative externalities over the ecosystem
in a dimension of space, time, and environmental uncertainty. Factors such as the
scale of marine production systems, the type of species cultivated, and the inten-
sity of cultivation are key elements that modify the level of ecological interaction.
According to Clavelle5, ecological interactions include habitat modification, inputs
derived from wild fish as feed for farmed species, exotic species, and transmission
of diseases and parasites. Also, other interactions arise from capture-​based aqua-
culture (or sea ranching) and stock enhancement programmes from the release of
seedlings produced in aquaculture hatcheries (Table 8.1).
 newgenrtpdf
Table 8.1 Ecologic interactions between mariculture and wild fisheries and the type of effect on the ecosystem

Ecological interactions
1. Habitat modification
Categories Type of effect Comments
a) Habitat conversion (–​) Habitat modification by including mariculture structures or land-​based facilities. Mainly
affects mangroves, seagrasses50, and coral reefs51.
(–​) Shading of structures causes competition among wild photosynthesising organisms for
space.
b) Creation of artificial (–​) Reduction of the traditional fishing grounds and agglomeration of fishing effort with
habitats and de facto higher pressure on the resources.
no-​fishing zones (+​) Mariculture influences abundance, marine community, and species residence time,
generating a similar effect of a fish aggregation device (FAD) with economic benefits
associated with a lower fishing effort.
(+​) Similar to a marine protected area (MPA) due to restricted access with possible benefits to
fishing grounds by a spillover effect, but relative to the locality, size of operation, rate
of movement of wild species, and habitat status of neighbouring fishing grounds.
c) Water quality (–​) Alteration of the nutrient cycle is caused by water discharges with food waste, excreta,
dead organisms, and even antibiotics. In extreme cases, it could also cause red tides.
(+​) In some cases, the contribution of nutrients to oligotrophic environments functions as
fertiliser for the photosynthetic producers, promoting biodiversity and increasing

Aquaculture and fisheries 117

catches52.
(–​) Destruction of mangrove and seagrass systems in estuarine environments causes
detriment to the water quality of the system, in addition to affecting nursery sites for
several important commercial species.
(–​) Mass production of filter-​feeding molluscs may cause recruitment failures by direct
predation on planktonic larvae or control primary productivity over local species
affecting higher trophic levels53.
(+​) Large-​scale mariculture of filter-​feeding molluscs reduces the eutrophication of polluted
water bodies54.
(Continued)
 newgenrtpdf
Table 8.1 (Continued)

118 Fernando Aranceta Garza

2. Wild fish inputs
Categories Type of effect Comments
a) Aquafeeds input (–​) In addition to minor pelagic species, low-​value species are incorporated into the fishmeal
diet, deteriorating fish communities and biodiversity, and affecting the entire ecological
fishery system55.
b) Seeding (–​) Capture-​based aquaculture and stock enhancement programmes can increase fishing
pressure and mortalities on the fishing stocks.
(–​) Non-​regulated hatchery-​based practices, including stock enhancement and recovery
programmes, will result in genetic deterioration, loss of fitness, increased natural
mortality, and loss of biomass for fisheries56.
(+​) Captive-​bred juveniles seeding into the wild will rescue populations from deteriorated
population levels.
3. Aquaculture escapement
Type of effect Comments
(–​) In cases where similar farmed and wild species coexist, and the farmed species escape,
these will compete for resources where the farmed species are more aggressive and
may affect the wild species.
(+​) Similar farmed species escapees will compete more aggressively for resources with
natural populations.
(–​) Genetically modified or transgenic species put at risk the wild population gene pool with
their interbreeding and alter their survival by being a dominant competitor.
4. Disease transmission
Type of effect Comments
(–​) Introducing local or exotic diseases and parasites to the environment has a detrimental
impact on wild populations, reducing commercial catches.
(–​) Antibiotic discharges create locally resistant microorganisms, increasing their virulence
and affecting wild populations57.
 Aquaculture and fisheries 119

8.2.1 Habitat modification

Habitat modification can occur through habitat conversion, the production of new
(artificial) habitats, spatial access restriction, and modification of water quality6.
Mariculture can modify commercial fishing species’ distribution and density/​
abundance. Land-​based aquaculture facilities, such as fish tanks or ponds for
crustaceans, including shrimp farming, can destroy coastal habitats and alter water
properties by discharging wastes, nutrients, microorganisms, and antibiotics (e.g.,
Ecuador, Mexico, Asia)8. By zonation, the mariculture impact on the intertidal zone
may include baskets or corrals to cultivate oysters or other molluscs competing
for space, transmitting diseases and exotic species to local communities9. In the
subtidal zone, cages, buoys, anchors, and ropes with organisms may change the
local hydrodynamics, alter coral reefs, and create a shading effect affecting photo-
synthetic organisms such as seagrasses and other macroalgae10. On the other hand,
access restrictions to some mariculture areas may produce the effect of a marine
protected area (MPA), where the local population may thrive and produce a spill-
over effect on the fishing grounds11.

8.2.2 Aquafeeds input

Many species produced by aquaculture depend on the capture fisheries, mainly

reduction fisheries, as a raw material source for fishmeal and fish oil required in
aquafeeds. Both elements are essential components of compound feeds, particu-
larly for high-​value carnivorous species, where 64% of fishmeal and fish oil used
in aquafeeds can come from fisheries12. Traditionally, fish meal and oil came from
discarded parts of fisheries (i.e., trimmings) or fish bycatch, representing 25–​35%
of compound feeds13. But the rest is from the small pelagic fisheries (also called
reduction fisheries). Several small pelagic species (e.g., sardines, anchoveta, mack-
erel, and blue whiting) were traditionally used for reduction14. Currently, Asian
fisheries are including other fish species as reduction fisheries which are considered
“trash” species because of their low market value. They are inputs for aquafeeds
and fertilisers, resulting in cheaper fishmeal and causing potentially profound
negative ecosystemic consequences15.
Limited supplies from reduction fisheries and increasing fish meal and fish oil
prices have motivated a reduction in aquaculture dependency on fish meals. Most
fish meals are replaced by vegetable proteins such as soy16. Also, alternative sub-
stitute products, besides fishmeal, are being analysed to be included in aquafeed
compositions using a balance of dietary amino acids17.
Finally, the potential impacts of reduction fisheries on ecosystems need to be
further considered and studied. Most of these fisheries continue to target low-​
trophic-​level species, some potentially critical to the large marine ecosystems
on which many marine (fish, cartilaginous fish, marine mammals) and terrestrial
(seabirds) species depend for survival. National policies should adopt ecosystem-​
based fisheries management to regulate small pelagics reduction fishery and
120 Fernando Aranceta Garza

continued aquaculture innovation for substitute aquafeed products. Because of

these implications, these ecological considerations in fisheries management are
embodied in the sustainability certifications of this type of fisheries (e.g., MSC,
Marin Trust).

8.2.3 Aquaculture escapements

Cultured organisms escape to the wild in two ways, the first is by direct escaping,
and the other is by spawning into the environment. The main cause of the former
is a technological failure in the farm infrastructure (broken tanks, nets, or cages),
impact from climatic events such as storms, floods, and human error due to poor
management practices. Most escapes are seldom eliminated from the ecosystem18,
and they will compete with wild individuals for essential resources. The reared
individuals may exhibit aggressive behaviours associated with tank crowding
and food competition, increasing the natural mortality rate of the local population
and affecting the biomass available for fisheries. Moreover, if they are evolution-
arily close species, interbreeding could cause homogenisation and loss of genetic
fitness19. This situation has already been documented in salmon species in Norway,
North America, and Ireland20,21.

8.2.4 Exotic species

Introducing exotic species (i.e., species outside their natural distribution range)
to a new natural environment by aquaculture handling may result either in a
no-​effect event or an ecosystem invasion when the new colonisers outperform
local species19. A well-​studied example is the successful invasion of the Japanese
oyster (Cassosstrea gigas)22 in North America and Europe. Other invasive
species can be genetically modified to enhance specific biological features, such
as growth or disease resistance. These represent a hazard to natural populations
by interbreeding to transgenic hybrids (i.e., production of an organism of one
species into which one or more genes of another species have been incorporated),
characterised as a dominant competitor over wild and cultivated non-​transgenic
species, representing a potential ecological and economic risk to wild fisheries23.
In some cases, genetically modified organisms are sterile triploid organisms
(three sets of chromosomes) with higher growth rates. This technique is fre-
quently applied in molluscs24.

8.2.5 Disease transmission

Diseases and parasites in cultured marine organisms can be local or exotic and
represent the leading cause of massive losses in the world aquaculture industry.
Their transmission to wild commercial populations can have severe ecological
and economic consequences25. However, the effect at the population level is still
under continuous research26. In cases where natural populations are genetically
 Aquaculture and fisheries 121

compromised by inbreeding (i.e., small populations or interbreeding with aqua-

culture escapees), disease transmission from culture individuals can contribute to
comprise population dynamics27.
The introduction of non-​native diseases/​parasites by the transport of organisms
around the world is very common, such as the case of disease transmission in
Pacific oysters (C. gigas) between Japan and America and then with oysters of
another species in the Atlantic (C. virginica)28. Another example of global disease
transmission is the case of the white shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei) and white
spot disease (WSD), Taura syndrome, and yellowhead disease in Asia, America,
and Europe29.
In the same way, the application of antibiotics to cultured diseased fish has
led to antibiotic residue accumulation in the culture areas and adjacent habitats,
which enhances the proliferation of antibiotic-​resistant genes, altering the micro-
bial communities and biogeochemical cycles, representing a risk to animal and
human health. Currently, the use of antibiotics in farmed animals is banned in
some developed countries. However, the indiscriminate use of antibiotics is rela-
tively high among major producing countries such as in Asia and other developing
countries30.

8.2.6 Enhanced fisheries and capture-​based aquaculture

Another interaction between commercial fisheries and mariculture occurs with

capture-​based aquaculture and by enhancing wild fish stock through seedling
liberation. In the first case, juvenile fish (fingerlings, fry, seedlings), bivalve
molluscs (spats), or algae are captured from the environment and stocked in farm
cages, where they are reared; this is also known as sea ranching31. In contrast,
stock enhancement programmes depend on producing larvae from the labora-
tory by selecting domesticated mature individuals and seeding in the surrounding
environment.
The primary interaction of capture-​based aquaculture with wild fisheries is the
competition for different population components of the species, similar to a sequen-
tial fishery. Both fleets’ fishing mortalities increased fishing pressure on the stock,
but usually, stock assessments omit the sea ranching fleet, which may bias the
evaluation results32. In the case of the stock enhancement programmes, poor gen-
etic selection of adult organisms can cause a drop in the fitness of wild organisms.
Furthermore, frequently, adult selection is biased towards enhancing profitability
characteristics, i.e., higher growth or muscle quality33, not to equalise genetics with
natural populations.

8.3 Socioeconomic interactions

The coastal and offshore marine zone is shared by several economic
actors, including artisanal fishermen, industrial fishermen, sport fishermen,
mariculturists, and even tourism service providers. Mariculture can generate
122 Fernando Aranceta Garza

externalities mainly by establishing exclusive spatial use rights or access

limitations; and market competition when two similar or substitute products
(wild vs. aquaculture) affect the supply and prices of the production at the
local, regional, or global level34.
Private mariculture concession creates de facto spatial zones restricted to
fishing, reducing traditional fishing grounds. These zones may act as small MPAs
producing spillovers to the surrounding fishing zones, but their effect is relative
to the size of the concession, the type of species, and the surrounding habitat35.
Furthermore, spatial restriction affects free navigation and promotes competition
between farm and commercial fishers for wild catches. Similarly, land-​based aqua-
culture concessions (shrimp or fish) can displace traditional landing zones causing
social conflicts with artisanal fishers.
The market for marine products changes according to global demand and
supply. As a result of the expansion of aquaculture, the demand for farmed sea-
food and wild-​fish food inputs has increased, resulting in a greater supply of sea-
food products affecting farm-​gate and ex-​vessel prices, less price volatility, and
greater resilience36. Likewise, the increased demand for catches from reduction
fisheries (catches aimed to feed farmed animals) can affect ecosystem trophic
relations (in the case that the fishery is not properly managed) and the biomass
of wild populations, impacting fishing landings. Decreasing prices will affect
the least resilient or less efficient competitor, usually the fishing fleet, because
of the hardship in covering their operational daily unit costs. However, market
preferences serve as a regulatory factor in the demand for seafood products,
playing a fundamental role in consumer selection and affecting the demand curve.
For example, consumers in Canada or the European Union prefer wild, certified
fresh products over cultured products, potentially being able to pay a premium for
a wild fishery product37.
In cases where aquaculture production is based on foreign investment, such as
in Africa38, they will affect the income and profitability of wild landings. In order
to compensate for the externalities caused by foreign capital farms (i.e., environ-
mental impacts, competition for space, and imperfect market competition), a cor-
rective tax (called Pirugvian tax) could be applied to compensate for the economic
damage caused by their activities to local fishermen (Table 8.2).

8.4 Future trends for fisheries and mariculture

Given the interactions mentioned above and the subsequent effects between wild
fisheries and aquaculture, national agencies and governments should work towards
policies that encourage holistic management of the marine production systems
under an ecosystem approach based on property rights and spatial planning.
Establishing property rights over common resources (i.e., commercial species or
marine spatial concession) encourages stewardship, increases operation efficiency,
reduces costs, and buffers against falling prices39. However, in many developing
countries, the establishment of property rights is not clear or absent, causing social
 newgenrtpdf
Table 8.2 Socioeconomic interactions between mariculture and wild fisheries and the type of effect on the ecosystem

Socioeconomic interactions
1. Spatial exclusion
Categories Type of effect Comments
(–​) Aggregation of fishing effort in reduced areas and increased fishing pressure on resources.
(+​) A no-​fishing area is similar to an MPA, where resident populations may create a spillover
effect to the reduced fishing grounds.
2. Market competition
Categories Type of effect Observations
(+​) Market preferences for wild, fresh, and certified products on a sustainable basis lead to better
management.
(–​) With the expansion of aquaculture, pressure on reduction fisheries for farmed fish feed

Aquaculture and fisheries 123

increases.
(–​) An increased supply of farmed or wild substitutes decreases prices and negatively impacts
fish landings.
124 Fernando Aranceta Garza

conflicts between productive sectors. Under the property rights scheme, an eco-
nomic compensation system can be established to account for the damage or eco-
nomic losses derived from the externalities of other activities, such as mariculture
space restriction or pollution, towards fisheries46.
In the case of an open-​access fishery (without any regulation or property rights),
the state of overexploitation and loss of economic profitability of the fishery,
together with the expansion of aquaculture (i.e., increased supply), will cause a
fall in the market prices, forcing units of fishing effort out of operation, which
may lead to stock recovery but under financial hardship for fishers40. On the other
hand, rights-​based fisheries management of spatial marine resources, called TURF
(Territorial Use Rights for Fisheries), allows the sustainable coexistence of both
activities, where holistic management and continuous evaluation of ecosystem
indicators will be pivotal for achieving sustainable objectives (i.e., biological,
socioeconomic, ecosystemic) so that communities can make decisions on the inten-
sity and allocation of mariculture and fisheries.
Comprehensive marine spatial planning (MSP) evaluates the spatial distribution
of marine users towards ecological, economic, and social objectives4, and is already
applied in Europe, New Zealand, Australia, Ecuador, and Chile41. MSP is essential
in managing productive activities over the seascape focusing on maximising social
benefit and reducing externalities among users and ecosystems42. Likewise, spatial
planning considers the allocation for aquaculture, the type of specie cultured, the
diversity of farming methods, and the ecological and environmental conditions of
the culture area, including alignment with other activities, such as local fisheries.
In productive terrestrial systems, crop heterogeneity promotes biological diversity
and reduces disease risk and crop failure. In marine systems, most large-​scale and
high-​density fish farming operations are mono-​specific and highly susceptible to
mortalities caused by diseases; adapting spatial planning to include heterogeneous
species farming could ameliorate farming disease outbreaks, including their trans-
mission to wild populations.

8.5 Final remarks

Fisheries and aquaculture represent critical sources of food security, employment,
and livelihoods for millions of persons. Their importance has increased recently
as land-​based production lags due to complexities such as space restrictions,
freshwater availability, pollution, climate change, and increasing urban areas. In
contrast, mariculture is expanding to oceans worldwide, becoming a future pri-
mary food source. However, wild fisheries and mariculture production cannot
cover the other sector’s production, so any negative interactions between them
or their surrounding environment will affect future food availability. Therefore,
national policies must direct efforts towards aligning mariculture and wild fisheries
aiming for holistic and sustainable management, considering property rights and an
ecosystemic approach, maximising their social value, and minimising the environ-
mental cost to the wild resources (Box 8.1).
 Aquaculture and fisheries 125

8.6 Chapter review questions

1 Describe the relationships that exist between wild-​caught fisheries and
aquaculture.
2 What is the main bottleneck for the sustainability of fed aquaculture and how
does that affect the wild fisheries sector?
3 In your opinion, is capture-​based aquaculture sustainable? What about enhanced
fisheries?
4 From a market perspective, what relationship exists between fisheries and aqua-
culture, and how are each of these industries affected?

Recommended readings
Asche, F., Dahl, R. E., & Steen, M. (2015). Price volatility in seafood markets: Farmed
vs wild fish. Aquaculture Economics & Management, 19(3), 316–​335. https://​doi.org/​
10.1080/​13657​305.2015.1057​879
Clavelle, T., Lester, S. E., Gentry, R., & Froehlich, H. E. (2019). Interactions and manage-
ment for the future of marine aquaculture and capture fisheries. Fish and Fisheries,
20(2), 368–​388.
Gentry, R. R., Lester, S. E., Kappel, C. V., White, C., Bell, T. W., Stevens, J., & Gaines, S. D.
(2017). Offshore aquaculture: Spatial planning principles for sustainable development.
Ecology and Evolution, 7(2),733–​743. https://​doi.org/​10.1002/​ece3.2637
Johansen, L.-​H., Jensen, I., Mikkelsen, H., Bjørn, P.-​A., Jansen, P. A., & Bergh, Ø. (2011).
Disease interaction and pathogens exchange between wild and farmed fish populations
with special reference to Norway. Aquaculture, 315(3–​4), 167–​186. https://​doi.org/​
10.1016/​j.aqua​cult​ure.2011.02.014
Machias, A., Giannoulaki, M., Somarakis, S., Maravelias, C. D., Neofitou, C., Koutsoubas,
D., & Karakassis, I. (2006). Fish farming effects on local fisheries landings in
oligotrophic seas. Aquaculture, 261(2), 809–​16. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.aqua​cult​
ure.2006.07.019
Natale, F., Hofherr, J., Fiore, G., & Virtanen, J. (2013). Interactions between aquaculture and
fisheries. Marine Policy, 38, 205–​213. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.mar​pol.2012.05.037
Olsen, R. L., & Hasan, M. R. (2012). A limited supply of fishmeal: Impact on future
increases in global aquaculture production. Trends in Food Science & Technology,
27(2), 120–​128.
Ottolenghi, F., Silvestri, C., Giordano, P., Lovatelli, A., & New, M. B. (2004). Capture-​
Based Aquaculture: The Fattening of Eels, Groupers, Tunas and Yellowtail. Rome,
Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Peñalosa Martinell, D., Cashion, T., Parker, R., & Sumaila, U. R. (2020). Closing the high
seas to fisheries: Possible impacts on aquaculture. Marine Policy, 115, 103854.
Shannon, L., & Waller, L. (2021). A cursory look at the fishmeal/​oil industry from an eco-
system perspective. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 9, 645023.
Valderrama, D., & Anderson, J. L. (2010). Market interactions between aquaculture and
common-​property fisheries: Recent evidence from the Bristol Bay sockeye salmon
fishery in Alaska. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 59(2), 115–​
128. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.jeem.2009.12.001
126 Fernando Aranceta Garza

Box 8.1 How would closing the high seas to fishing impact
aquaculture?
Ussif Rashid Sumaila
The University of British Columbia, Canada

Because of anticipated increases in both global population and wealth, the

consumption of seafood has been rising rapidly over the past few decades.
Since wild-​capture fisheries harvests have probably peaked or nearly peaked,
any considerable expansion in the supply of fish in the future is anticipated
to mostly come from aquaculture.43 However, by employing fishmeal and
fish oil to sustain the culture of fed species, aquaculture continues to rely on
wild supplies. Recently, there have been requests for the high seasi (HS) to be
off-​limits to fishing due to worries about wild fish populations. Furthermore,
this closure would increase future catches while temporarily reducing current
catches of marine species.
In this case, we present the possible effects of banning fishing in the high
seas on marine fish capture that is processed into fishmeal and fish oil and its
possible impacts on global aquaculture. It is estimated that these adjustments
may affect the cost of fishmeal and the profitability of the worldwide aqua-
culture sector. Overall, research indicates that the effect of banning fishing on
the high seas on aquaculture is probably not very large.44
Most reduction fisheries activities take place within the Exclusive
Economic Zoneii; nonetheless, some activity is still undertaken on the high
seas, mainly in South America, Mexico, and the northwest Pacific Ocean.
Since more than 90% of the catches come from the EEZ, it can be expected
that the closure of the HS to fisheries would have a very small impact on
the overall production of fishmeal. Even though the impact on the amount
produced can be small, there is still a potential effect observed on prices due
to reduced access to raw materials. This effect is somewhat similar to what is
observed with an increase in aquaculture production (due to higher demand).
The expected effects of the closure of HS to fishing on aquaculture profits
are highly variable and depend on the species produced and the production
methods. In general, high-​value species like salmonids and marine shrimps
are expected to be more affected, which is unsurprising given their consump-
tion of fishmeal. Species like tilapia and carp, which are less valuable but
more relevant to global seafood security, would see no important changes in
profits since they have less dependence on fishmeal and can substitute this
ingredient more easily.
Closure of the high seas may have potential impacts on sectors of the aqua-
culture industry beyond fishmeal inputs to feeds. Notably, species like tuna,
which rely on wild capture of juveniles, will be affected by wild populations
in the HS. According to Metian et al.,45 between 17 and 37 percent of
bluefin tuna catches go to aquaculture. The closure of the HS may increase
significantly the availability of tuna juveniles in the EEZ46,47, increasing
 Aquaculture and fisheries 127

production capacity, as the availability of juvenile tuna is one of the produc-

tion bottlenecks.
Overall, the effects of closing the HS to fishing on aquaculture can be
expected to be minimal. This, added to the expected positive effects on the
fisheries industry48 and the environment49, suggests that the closure of the
high seas to fisheries would globally have a positive effect, with more sus-
tainable profits for fisheries without an important impact on aquaculture pro-
duction, especially for those species that are relevant to achieve food security.

Notes
i International waters, or the part of the seas that do not form part of the sovereignty of any
country or group of countries.
ii The Exclusive Economic Zones or EEZ is an area of the ocean, generally extending 200
nautical miles (230 miles) beyond a nation’s territorial sea, within which a coastal nation
has jurisdiction over both living and nonliving resources.

References
1 Thilsted, S. H., Thorne-​Lyman, A., Webb, P., Bogard, J. R., Subasinghe, R., Phillips, M.
J., & Allison, E. H. (2016). Sustaining healthy diets: The role of capture fisheries and
aquaculture for improving nutrition in the post-​2015 era. Food Policy, 61, 126–​131.
2 FAO. 2021. FAO Yearbook. Fishery and Aquaculture Statistics 2019/​FAO annuaire.
Statistiques des pêches et de l’aquaculture 2019/​FAO anuario. Estadísticas de pesca y
acuicultura 2019. Rome/​Roma.
3 Zheng, W., Shi, H., Chen, S., & Zhu, M. (2009). Benefit and cost analysis of maricul-
ture based on ecosystem services. Ecological Economics, 68(6), 1626–​1632.
4 Neori, A., Troell, M., Chopin, T., Yarish, C., Critchley, A., & Buschmann, A. H.
(2007). The need for a balanced ecosystem approach to blue revolution aquaculture.
Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 49(3), 36–​43.
5 Clavelle, T., Lester, S. E., Gentry, R., & Froehlich, H. E. (2019). Interactions and man-
agement for the future of marine aquaculture and capture fisheries. Fish and Fisheries,
20(2), 368–​388.
6 Mikkelsen E. (2007). Aquaculture-​fisheries interactions. Marine Resource Economics,
22(3), 287–​303.
7 Knapp, G., & Rubino, M. C. (2016). The political economics of marine aquaculture in
the United States. Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture, 24(3), 213–​229. https://​
doi.org/​10.1080/​23308​249.2015.1121​202
8 Hamilton, S. (2013). Assessing the role of commercial aquaculture in displacing man-
grove forest. Bulletin of Marine Science, 89(2), 585–​601.
9 Solomon, O. O., & Ahmed, O. O. (2016). Ecological consequences of oysters cul-
ture: A review. International Journal Fisheries Aquatic Studies, 4, 1–​6.
10 Dumbauld, B. R., & McCoy, L. M. (2015). Effect of oyster aquaculture on seagrass
Zostera marina at the estuarine landscape scale in Willapa Bay, Washington (USA).
Aquaculture Environment Interactions, 7(1), 29–​47.
128 Fernando Aranceta Garza

11 Halpern, B. S., McLeod, K. L., Rosenberg, A. A., & Crowder, L. B. (2008). Managing
for cumulative impacts in ecosystem-​ based management through ocean zoning.
Ocean & Coastal Management, 51(3), 203–​211. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.ocecoa​
man.2007.08.002
12 Shannon, L., & Waller, L. (2021). A cursory look at the fishmeal/​oil industry from an
ecosystem perspective. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 9, 645023.
13 Stevens, J. R., Newton, R. W., Tlusty, M., & Little, D. C. (2018). The rise of aquacul-
ture by-​products: Increasing food production, value, and sustainability through stra-
tegic utilisation. Marine Policy, 90, 115–​124.
14 Cashion, T., Tyedmers, P., & Parker, R. W. (2017a). Global reduction fisheries and their
products in the context of sustainable limits. Fish and Fisheries, 18(6), 1026–​1037.
15 Cashion, T., Le Manach, F., Zeller, D., & Pauly, D. (2017b). Most fish destined for fish-
meal production are food-​grade fish. Fish and Fisheries, 18(5), 837–​844.
16 Olsen, R. L., & Hasan, M. R. (2012). A limited supply of fishmeal: Impact on future
increases in global aquaculture production. Trends in Food Science & Technology,
27(2), 120–​128.
17 Gaylord, T. G., Sealey, W. M., Barrows, F. T., Myrick, C. A., & Fornshell, G. (2017).
Evaluation of ingredient combinations from differing origins (fishmeal, terrestrial
animal and plants) and two different formulated nutrient targets on rainbow trout
growth and production efficiency. Aquaculture Nutrition, 23(6), 1319–​1328. https://​
doi.org/​10.1111/​anu.12507
18 Jensen, Ø., Dempster, T., Thorstad, E. B., Uglem, I., & Fredheim, A. (2010). Escapes
of fishes from Norwegian sea-​cage aquaculture: Causes, consequences and prevention.
Aquaculture Environment Interactions, 1(1), 71–​83. https://​doi.org/​10.3354/​aei00​008
19 Naylor, R., Hindar, K., Fleming, I. A., Goldburg, R., Williams, S., Volpe, J., ...
& Mangel, M. (2005). Fugitive salmon: Assessing the risks of escaped fish from
net-​pen aquaculture. BioScience, 55(5), 427–​437. https://​doi.org/​10.1641/​0006-​
3568(2005)055[0427:FSA​TRO]2.0.CO;2
20 Bolstad, G. H., Hindar, K., Robertsen, G., Jonsson, B., Sægrov, H., Diserud, O. H.,
… Karlsson, S. (2017). Gene flow from domesticated escapes alters the life history of
wild Atlantic salmon. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 1, 0124. https://​doi.org/​10.1038/​
s41​559-​017-​0124
21 Bolstad, G. H., Hindar, K., Robertsen, G., Jonsson, B., Sægrov, H., Diserud, O. H.,
… Karlsson, S. (2017). Gene flow from domesticated escapes alters the life history of
wild Atlantic salmon. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 1, 0124. https://​doi.org/​10.1038/​
s41​559-​017-​0124
22 Herbert, R. J., Humphreys, J., Davies, C. J., Roberts, C., Fletcher, S., & Crowe, T. P.
(2016). Ecological impacts of non-​native Pacific oysters (Crassostrea gigas) and man-
agement measures for protected areas in Europe. Biodiversity and Conservation, 25,
2835–​2865.
23 Dunham, R. A. (2009). Transgenic fish resistant to infectious diseases, their risk and
prevention of escape into the environment and future candidate genes for disease trans-
gene manipulation. Comparative Immunology, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases,
32(2), 139–​161.
24 Tan, K., Deng, L., & Zheng, H. (2021). Effects of stocking density on the aquaculture
performance of diploid and triploid, Pacific oyster Crassostrea gigas and Portuguese
oyster C. angulata in warm water aquaculture. Aquaculture Research, 52(12),
6268–​6279.
 Aquaculture and fisheries 129

25 Lafferty, K. D., Harvell, C. D., Conrad, J. M., Friedman, C. S., Kent, M. L., Kuris,
A. M., … Saksida, S. M. (2015). Infectious diseases affect marine fisheries and aqua-
culture economics. Annual Review of Marine Science, 7(1), 471–​496. https://​doi.org/​
10.1146/​annu​rev-​mar​ine-​010​814-​015​646
26 Heuch, P., Jansen, P., Hansen, H., Sterud, E., MacKenzie, K., Haugen, P., &
Hemmingsen, W. (2011). Parasite faunas of farmed cod and adjacent wild cod
populations in Norway: A comparison. Aquaculture Environment Interactions, 2(1),
1–​13. https://​doi.org/​10.3354/​aei00​027
27 Johansen, L.-​H., Jensen, I., Mikkelsen, H., Bjørn, P.-​A., Jansen, P. A., & Bergh, Ø.
(2011). Disease interaction and pathogens exchange between wild and farmed fish
populations with special reference to Norway. Aquaculture, 315(3–​4), 167–​186. https://​
doi.org/​10.1016/​j.aqua​cult​ure.2011.02.014
28 Burreson, E. M., Stokes, N. A., & Friedman, C. S. (2000). Increased virulence in an
introduced pathogen: Haplosporidium nelsoni (MSX) in the Eastern Oyster Crassostrea
virginica. Journal of Aquatic Animal Health, 12(1), 1–​8. https://​doi.org/​10.1577/​1548-​
8667(2000)012<0001:IVI​AIP>2.0.CO;2
29 Stentiford, G. D., & Lightner, D. V. (2011). Cases of white spot disease (WSD) in
European shrimp farms. Aquaculture, 319(1–​2), 302–​306.
30 Wang, X., Lin, Y., Zheng, Y., & Meng, F. (2022). Antibiotics in mariculture systems: A
review of occurrence, environmental behavior, and ecological effects. Environmental
Pollution, 293, 118541.
31 Lorenzen, K., Leber, K. M., & Blankenship, H. L. (2010). Responsible approach to
marine stock enhancement: An update. Reviews in Fisheries Science, 18(2), 189–​210.
https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​10641​262.2010.491​564
32 Ottolenghi, F., Silvestri, C., Giordano, P., Lovatelli, A., & New, M. B. (2004). Capture-​
Based Aquaculture: The Fattening of Eels, Groupers, Tunas and Yellowtail. Rome,
Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
33 Teletchea, F., & Fontaine, P. (2014). Levels of domestication in fish: Implications for
the sustainable future of aquaculture. Fish and Fisheries, 15(2), 181–​195. https://​doi.
org/​10.1111/​faf.12006
34 Natale, F., Hofherr, J., Fiore, G., & Virtanen, J. (2013). Interactions between aqua-
culture and fisheries. Marine Policy, 38, 205–​213. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.mar​
pol.2012.05.037
35 Halpern, B. S., Lester, S. E., & Kellner, J. B. (2009). Spillover from marine reserves
and the replenishment of fished stocks. Environmental Conservation, 36(4), 268–​276.
36 Asche, F., Dahl, R. E., & Steen, M. (2015). Price volatility in seafood markets: Farmed
vs wild fish. Aquaculture Economics & Management, 19(3), 316–​335. https://​doi.org/​
10.1080/​13657​305.2015.1057​879
37 Murray, G., Wolff, K., & Patterson, M. (2017). Why eat fish? Factors influencing sea-
food consumer choices in British Columbia, Canada. Ocean & Coastal Management,
144, 16–​22. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.ocecoa​man.2017.04.007
38 Akpalu, W., & Bitew, W. T. (2018). Externalities and foreign capital in aquaculture
production in developing countries. Environment and Development Economics, 23(2),
198–​215. DOI: https://​doi.org/​10.1017/​S13557​70X1​8000​025
39 Valderrama, D., & Anderson, J. L. (2010). Market interactions between aquaculture
and common-​property fisheries: Recent evidence from the Bristol Bay sockeye salmon
fishery in Alaska. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 59(2), 115–​
128. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.jeem.2009.12.001
130 Fernando Aranceta Garza

40 Anderson, J. L. (1985). Market interactions between aquaculture and the common-​

property commercial fishery. Marine Resource Economics, 2(1), 1–​24. https://​doi.org/​
10.1086/​mre.2.1.42628​874
41 Sanchez-​Jerez, P., Fernandez-​Jover, D., Uglem, I., Arechavala-​Lopez, P., Dempster,
T., Bayle-​Sempere, J. T., ... & Nilsen, R. (2011). Coastal fish farms as fish aggregation
devices (FADs). Artificial Reefs in Fishery Management. CRC Press. Taylor & Francis
Group, FL, USA, 187–​208.
42 Gentry, R. R., Lester, S. E., Kappel, C. V., White, C., Bell, T. W., Stevens, J., & Gaines,
S. D. (2017). Offshore aquaculture: Spatial planning principles for sustainable devel-
opment. Ecology and Evolution, 7(2),733–​743.https://​doi.org/​10.1002/​ece3.2637
43 Costello, Christopher, Ling Cao, Stefan Gelcich, Miguel Á. Cisneros-​Mata, Christopher
M. Free, Halley E. Froehlich, Christopher D. Golden et al. (2020). The future of food
from the sea. Nature, 588,7836, 95–​100.
44 Martinell, Daniel Peñalosa, Tim Cashion, Robert Parker, & U. Rashid Sumaila. (2020).
Closing the high seas to fisheries: Possible impacts on aquaculture. Marine Policy 115,
103854.
45 Metian, M., Pouil, S., Boustany, A., & Troell, M. (2014). Farming of Bluefin tuna-​
reconsidering global estimates and sustainability concerns. Reviews in Fisheries
Science and Aquaculture 22, 184–​192. DOI: 10.1080/​23308249.2014.907771.
46 White, C., & Costello, C. (2014). Close the high seas to fishing?. PLOS Biology 12,3.
47 Sala, E., Mayorga, J., Costello, C., Kroodsma, D., Palomares, M.L.D., Pauly, D.,
Sumaila, U.R., Zeller, D. (2018). The economics of fishing the high seas. Science
Advances 4, 6. DOI: 10.1126/​sciadv.aat2504.
48 Sumaila, U.R., Lam, V.W.Y., Miller, D.D., Teh, L., Watson, R.A., Zeller, D., Cheung,
W.W.L., Côté, I.M., Rogers, A.D., Roberts, C., Sala, E., & Pauly, D. (2015). Winners
and losers in a world where the high seas is closed to fishing. Scientific Reports 5(8481),
1–​6. DOI: 10.1038/​srep08481.
49 Norse, E.A., Brooke, S., Cheung, W.W.L., Clark, M.R., Ekeland, I., Froese, R., Gjerde,
K.M., Haedrich, R.L., Heppell, S.S., Morato, T., Morgan, L.E., Pauly, D., Sumaila,
U.R., & Watson, R., (2012). Sustainability of deep-​sea fisheries. Marine Policy, 36,
307–​320. DOI:10.1016/​j.marpol.2011.06.008.
50 Herbeck, L. S., Sollich, M., Unger, D., Holmer, M., & Jennerjahn, T. C. (2014). Impact
of pond aquaculture effluents on seagrass performance in NE Hainan, tropical China.
Marine Pollution Bulletin, 85(1), 190–​203.
51 Saenger, P. (1993). Some environmental considerations in aquaculture planning and
operation. In Proceedings of the First International Symposium on aquaculture tech-
nology and Investment opportunities (p. 53). Ministry of Agriculture and Water.
52 Machias, A., Giannoulaki, M., Somarakis, S., Maravelias, C. D., Neofitou, C.,
Koutsoubas, D., … Karakassis, I. (2006). Fish farming effects on local fisheries
landings in oligotrophic seas. Aquaculture, 261(2), 809–​16. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​
j.aqua​cult​ure.2006.07.019
53 Préat, N., De Troch, M., van Leeuwen, S., Taelman, S. E., De Meester, S., Allais, F., &
Dewulf, J. (2018). Development of potential yield loss indicators to assess the effect
of seaweed farming on fish landings. Algal Research, 35, 194–​205. https://​doi.org/​
10.1016/​j.algal.2018.08.030
54 Gren, I.-​M., Lindahl, O., & Lindqvist, M. (2009). Values of mussel farming for com-
bating eutrophication: An application to the Baltic Sea. Ecological Engineering, 35(5),
935–​945. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.ecol​eng.2008.12.033
 Aquaculture and fisheries 131

55 Funge-​Smith, S., Lindebo, E., Staples, D., & Fao, B. (2005). Asian fisheries today: The
production and use of low value/​trash fish from marine fisheries in the Asia-​Pacific
region. Retrieved from http://​agris.fao.org/​agris-​sea​rch/​sea​rch.do?recor​dID=​XF201​
5012​256
56 Araki, H., & Schmid, C. (2010). Is hatchery stocking a help or harm?: Evidence,
limitations and future directions in ecological and genetic surveys. Aquaculture, 308,
S2–​S11.
57 Watts, J. E., Schreier, H. J., Lanska, L., & Hale, M. S. (2017). The rising tide of anti-
microbial resistance in aquaculture: sources, sinks and solutions. Marine Drugs,
15(6), 158.
9 Aquaculture value chain analysis
Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

When we think of aquaculture, the main thing that comes to mind is an aquatic
farm or facility and its production, but the stakeholders involved in the aquacul-
ture industry greatly surpass this initial picture. Therefore, what else composes this
aquaculture network?
After the farm or producer, the next thing we usually think about is the inputs
needed to get that product and how the outputs are used and commercialised, so
the next most common answer to the composition of the aquaculture network
abovementioned tends to include the components of a supply chain, that is, the
feed mills and other product manufacturers that provide the inputs needed for aqua-
culture production, the intermediaries and processors, and the final resellers of the
product.
Although these components are, indeed, part of the composition of the network
that composes the aquaculture industry, they are only a portion of it. To fully under-
stand this network, we need to think of all the different stakeholders that provide not
only products, but value to the aquaculture industry. This value can be provided in
the form of certifications, financial services, data management and analysis, legis-
lation, or any other possible way in which the industry adds value, understanding
the creation of value as maximising the value of a product in financial terms.
The composition of all these stakeholders and their relationships is what we
understand as a “value chain” (although it is more of a value net), and comprehending
and analysing it is a powerful tool for public and private decision-​makers to better
understand where value is created in the industry and the margins gained in each
of the value-​creation steps. In this chapter, we will see in a very general way the
composition and analysis of a value chain analysis.

9.1 Introduction
A value chain analysis is a quantitative and qualitative analysis framework of a
complex system composed of several actors and relationships among them. The
objectives and applications of this type of analysis are varied, and the approaches
by which a value chain is dealt with may be different. According to Bush et al.,5
three main conceptualisations have been given to value chains in aquaculture.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003174271-12
 Aquaculture value chain analysis 133

1 As an industrial organisation tool: This approach allows the evaluation, acqui-

sition, and transformation of inputs into products and their distribution usage in
other production or consumption sites.
According to this conceptualisation, value chains are usually analysed in three
non-​exclusive terms:
a Structure: The emphasis is on the geographical location of the actors, the
size, and degree of concentration among them, and the relationships between
each chain node.
b Conduct: This term refers to the actors’ behaviour in each production stage,
their role in the processes, and the existing relationships among the nodes.
c Performance: The process efficiency, product quality, or social, economic,
and/​or environmental results are analysed. This is the ultimate quantita-
tive term and allows for performing comparative analyses, and establishes
markers and reference points.
2 Value chains can be used as global analysis tools to study the networks that
govern coordination within and between transnational enterprises and other
actors to facilitate production, commerce, and international consumption of
goods and services. Since sea products are commercialised goods at a global
scale, the value chain analysis with a global perspective can help to evaluate or
assist transnational enterprises or leaders to study traded commodities, such as
salmon, tilapia, oyster, shrimp, or other products with high consumption rates at
the international level.
When a global approach is performed, networks or chains should be considered
to be influenced by “extra-​chain” actors, such as non-​governmental organisations
(NGOs) or governments, and standards and regulations imposed.
3 Value chains can be used to achieve regulation objectives,1 such as poverty alle-
viation2 or gender equality,3 through technical support for process and ability
for “improvement” in key nodes (maximising impact with less effort, that is,
optimising the resources) or efforts to improve market access, and the terms of
exchange or incorporation of the producer, workers, and other actors related to
the value chain.
The value chain analysis in aquaculture products has gained interest in the
last years because it gives rise to the processes that benefit in a great measure sea
product marketing, allowing the application of policies destined to maximise
redistribution of the profit obtained in fishing and aquaculture.4

The value chains of aquatic products have a wide interconnection with different
industries and actors.5 For example, first, a follow-​up of reduction fishery is neces-
sary for carnivore animal production that takes the product through a transform-
ation process to turn it into fish meal and fish oil (see Chapter 8). Then, this product
is linked to other ingredients to produce pellets that are used to feed organisms in
aquaculture systems. At the same time, these aquaculture products are harvested
and pass through another series of processes, such as freezing the primary trans-
formations (eviscerating, descaling, beheading, etc.). Secondary transformation
134 Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

(preparing, vacuum-​packaging, etc.) is performed before marketing and sending

to distributors, who place them in retail shops for access to the final consumer.
Moreover, a series of sub-​products and waste joins the supply chain of any other
process, such as packaging waste, fish viscera, or crustacean exoskeleton.
Jointly to the previous connections, different actors that have a significant effect
on the products come into play. For example, the state oversees establishing the
rules of action of the participants in the value chain, which can have an impact on
financial aspects of production, for example through the payment of permits; non-​
governmental organisations that search, among other things, to keep watch over
the good compliance of the regulations independently or consultancy or labelling
service providers, just to mention some.
The main objective of the value chain analysis is to assess the utilityi margins
that move in the different chain links, which allow knowing and improving their
distribution deriving from aquaculture production. Thus, if the greatest part of this
value generated by one product stays in a chain minority, a strategy may likely
allow the farms to absorb the responsibilities and maintain a portion of that margin
or the state may develop rules to maximise that distribution.
This type of analysis has been performed recently at a national level, both in
developing countries such as Indonesia6 and Bangladesh7 and in developed coun-
tries such as Iceland8 and Singapore.9 Moreover, it has been also made at the local
and species-​specific level, such as mapping the tilapia value chain in Ghana10 or the
shrimp value chain in Vietnam.11 Finally, specific farms or communities could be
analysed to improve performance and utility.

9.2 Value chain analysis method

Kaplinsky and Morris4 emphasise that no “correct” form exists to perform a value
chain analysis but rather an adopted approach based fundamentally on the question
to be answered. However, some aspects of the value chain analysis (mapping,
margin distribution, updates or improvements, and governance) are especially not-
able in the analysis of aquatic products.
At its most basic level, a value chain analysis systematically maps the eco-
nomic agents or actors that participate in the production, distribution, commercial-
isation, and sale of a product (or products) in particular. This mapping evaluates
the characteristics of the economic agents, profit structures and costs, goods fluxes
along the chain, and characteristics of usage and destination of the national and
foreign sale volumes. Such details can be compiled from a combination of primary
surveys, focal groups, participative rural assessments (PRA), informal interviews,
and secondary data.
The value chain analysis may play a key role in identifying the distribution of
the benefits of the economic agents in the chain.12 In other words, analysing the
margins and profits within the chain can determine who benefits from participating
in the chain and what economic agents could benefit from greater support or organ-
isation. This part is particularly important in the context of developing countries
(especially rural aquaculture), given that the poorest are the most vulnerable in the
 Aquaculture value chain analysis 135

globalisation process (for example, by imports of greater quantities of substitute

products). This analysis can be complemented by determining the nature of the
participation within the chain to understand the characteristics of the participants.
The value chain analysis can be used to examine the role of updates within the
chain. Updating may imply improvements in product quality and design that allow
producers to obtain a greater value or by diversifying the product lines offered. The
updating process includes assessing the actors’ feasibility within the chain, as well
as data on the current limitations. Governance problems play a key role in defining
how such updating occurs. Furthermore, the structure of the regulations, incoming
barriers, commercial restrictions, and standards can shape and influence even more
the surrounding in which updating can be carried out.
The value chain analysis can highlight its governance role.13 Governance in a
value chain refers to the structure of the coordination relationships and mechanisms
that exist among the economic agents in the value chain. Governance is important
from the perspective of the policies through identifying institutional arrangements
that may be necessary to improve capabilities in the value chain, remediate distri-
bution distortions, and value-​added increase in the sector. (For more detail on the
governance concept, see Chapter 15.)
Therefore, the methodology should start with understanding the nature of the
final markets, which are increasingly the motor in many value chains, and deal with
their problems.

9.2.1 Point of entrance for the value chain analysis

To select the point of entrance, the purpose of the analysis and the component to be
assessed should be considered. In any case, a clear and precise starting point should
be established. For this, the scope and objective of the analysis should be accounted
for. Is the value chain analysis being developed for a company, a regional industry,
or at a global scale? Answering this will help us determine the main stakeholders
of the value chain and will be useful to better map and evaluate the margins of the
industry. Furthermore, what is the reason for which the analysis is being developed?
For example, supposing that producers want to assess the effect that a new
fishery policy may have on aquaculture production. By clarifying the analysis
objective, they know they must assess all the actors that intervene in the processes
related to aquaculture and fishing.
In the case of aquaculture productions that are not fed or based on primary
production, it is not necessary to evaluate the map of the different feed supplies
and the role they play within the productive chain. Nevertheless, for the species
fed, as mentioned previously, an analysis may be needed from the food supply,
where it comes from, how it was produced, the actors that have an influence on
this production, their performance, etc. However, fishing and aquaculture are not
the only industries related to fish oil and meal (see Chapter 8). Later in the value
chain, the products interact both in transformation processes and at distribution and
marketing. Thus, the impacts on sale, availability, transport, price, etc. are going to
be important both for external fed and non-​fed-​based aquaculture systems.
136 Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

Since different elements could affect the value chain, the best option is to start
with the element that has the minor influence possible from other sectors. In this
case, we may start with the catch. How will this new fishery policy affect catch?
Who are the actors that will be affected by this change?
It is important to remark that the creation of a value chain analysis might not
be linear, meaning that while it is being developed, the analyst might need to go
back and re-​evaluate the pertinence of the objectives or scales selected at the initial
stages of the analysis.

9.2.2 Value chain cartography

Starting by remembering all the chain components and their relationships simply
using our memory could be extremely complex. Thus, one of the handiest tools
in the value chain analysis is the use of graphic or map representations that show
all the different chain components, mainly three elements: actors or stakeholders,
inputs and outputs, or products and value-​added flows to these components. These
elements can be mapped separately and, subsequently, their relationships analysed
or directly dealt with in the value chain mapping from the start.14
Different types of maps exist that can be used in these analyses; their forms and
structures depend completely on the analyst and should respond to the analysis
needs and the analyst’s creativity. What should be searched for is simplicity and a
universal understanding of these maps in a way that their representation may help
more than one analyst and discussion among the different stakeholders.
If the value chain structure is completely unknown, the recommendation is to
start by mapping the production chain by simply assessing the inputs and outputs of
the farm and providing a follow-​up to the final product up to the point planned by
the analysis. The product may be considered fresh and sold directly from the farm
as the final production chain or may provide a follow-​up along its transformation
up to its final consumption (Figure 9.1).
A production or supply map can be as simple or complex as required by the
analysis. If the objective is only to study the product flow, identifying the different
processes involved in the production of such a product is sufficient. This supply
map could be useful as the first draft of the aquaculture industry or product to be

Figure 9.1 A general example of an aquaculture production chain.

 Aquaculture value chain analysis 137

evaluated. It may also help as a tool to make general analyses or assess possible
impacts associated with a shock since any cut in the process chain can affect the
product supply and what could be done to solve it.
Although the general supply maps can be sufficiently useful, the power of this
tool multiplies if it is supplemented with an analysis or mapping of the actors
involved in this process, which is especially true when the analysis has been centred
on any product, region, or particular objective (Figure 9.2).
When actors are mapped, the main ones that participate in the value chain should
be represented as well as their existing relationships, qualities, and influence. The
actors may be persons, organisations, civil groups, enterprises, or any other entity
that may influence the value chain.
Once the actors are identified, they should be characterised by the function of
their role in the value chain. They can be divided into:

Primary actors: Primary actors are those that affect directly the generated product
value (either for good or bad). Depending on the analysis, they can be individual
producers, processors, freezers, and outlets (points of sale).

Secondary actors: Secondary actors participate indirectly or seasonally in the value

chain. Some examples of these include hired consultants to increase the value of
productive processes, auditors, or labelling processes for the sale of product export.

Key actors: Key actors are those links that have the capacity of deciding on the
chain development, either because of their abilities, knowledge, or power. They

Figure 9.2 Example of a stakeholders’ map.

138 Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

may be decision makers, either private or public, for example, government author-
ities that grant permits and concessions for the production or financial institutions
that provide capital for the development of the evaluated process.

Veto players: Veto players are actors without which the value chain process could
not be performed. They can stop the value chain. All veto players are key actors,
but not all key actors are veto players. A classic example of a veto player is given in
export processes. The federal government of an importing country has the capacity
to stop completely the incoming production (i.e., because it does not comply with
the import standards), cutting the chain completely and immediately.

When the actors and their roles are already identified in the value chain, the
existing relationships among them should be observed. These relationships may be
narrow and formal, informal, in one direction, in both directions, conflictual and
damaged, interrupted, etc.
No unique nomenclature exists to show the players and their relationships on
a map for actors. The most important thing is to understand the map in the most
visual and fastest way possible.
Once the actors are named and in their place within the production and input
chain, it may go in depth in the best way possible in some points and analyses of
the value chain, such as:

Product segments: The different spaces in the market where the product can be
placed and sold, those that are already exploited and those still to be exploited,
giving rise to new sale opportunities, increasing profit margins, or product
exploitation.

Governance and public policy: Understanding the different processes associated

with value generation in the aquaculture industry allow for optimising the industry
coordination, regulation, and control. Understanding the actors and their different
roles in the production chain allows a better application of measurements and
public policy development to reach the objectives established by the state. For
example, wealth distribution should be improved, maximising production to reach
food security objectives or increasing the number or quality of working positions.
How do producers have access to the final markets? This question is particu-
larly significant from the point of view of governance and social responsibility
because it allows for providing fair prices to producers, eliminating the presence of
voracious intermediaries. This does not mean that all intermediaries are unneces-
sary or should be eliminated, but getting the producer closer to the final markets
maximises benefits, which is particularly interesting for rural producers that at
times are in need of offering their products at a rock bottom price facing the non-
existence of any other point of sale.

Relationships, links, and trust: A transparent value chain map allows trusting
relationships among the parts involved, a crucial element at the time of establishing
 Aquaculture value chain analysis 139

contracts, prices, and conditions that allow working in collaboration, taking advan-
tage of the qualities of each one of the links in a way that the system develops in
the best way possible.

Costs and margins: From the public point of view, we have mentioned that
knowing the costs and margins allows developing public policies to improve
wealth distribution; however, the value chain map is not exclusive to the public
sphere. In the private arena, knowing the product value chain where one works
allow evaluating which the opportunity areas are to maximise the benefits of an
enterprise and analyse vertically the operations or acquisitions of other enterprises
to obtain economies of scale.ii
To deal with these points, one can (and should) use different sources of informa-
tion, such as the following:

• Scientific and grey literature that deal with the different components of the value
chain (producers, markets, products, product origin, and destination,1 statistical
and historical data, including production, and sale price in different value chain
links).
• Structured, semi-​structured, and non-​structured applied surveys to the main
actors that make up the value chain.
• Fieldwork is necessary with the objective of obtaining current data and
establishing the main actors involved in the analysed fishery. Based on this
objective, surveys and questionnaires should be developed to allow establishing
who the main actors are and the relationship that exists among them, as well as
costs, margins, and its distribution through the value chain.

9.3 Examples of value chain analysis applications in aquaculture

As mentioned earlier, value chain analysis (VCA) can be used with several different
objectives. In most cases, these objectives are not in conflict and can be a powerful
tool to find areas of opportunity to improve the efficiencies of the value chain.
For example, Macfadyen et al.15 developed a simple but robust value chain
analysis for the pond aquaculture industry in Egypt. The analysis encompassed
different objectives, including studying (1) the employment created by the industry;
(2) a deeper understanding of the costs and earning profiles, as well as, the financial
performance of the different sub-​sectors of the value chain; and (3) identifying the
main constraints and issues affecting the different stakeholders.
This work is a very good example of a financial-​focused value chain analysis,
where the authors were able to dissect the value added and the flow of the product
throughout the chain in different sectors and areas of the country, besides the pro-
portional distribution of the margins gained by the different stakeholders. This
information allowed coming up with drivers and indicators that allow for improved
management and structure of the sector. Furthermore, they showed the impacts
of this industry at a social scale together with the effect of pond aquaculture on
employment and even indirectly on food security.
140 Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

An example of how value chain analysis can impact the environmental pro-
duction components is presented by Bush.20 He developed a Global Value Chain
(GVC) analysis to study the effect of adopting eco-​certifications in both salmon
and shrimp GVCs. Bush concluded that its sub-​sectors (such as shrimp and salmon)
should be treated independently due to the different structures of their GVCs not
only for eco-​labelling but also for optimal governance of the aquaculture industry.
Value chain analysis is a wide tool with a very robust theoretical framework that
allows organising and studying the flow of materials, marginal gains, and value
added to an industry. This information is valuable for different stakeholders. In
the case of aquaculture, one can observe the areas where more vulnerability exists
either in terms of profitability or a concentration of market power from a small
number of providers of goods or services that can significantly impact production.
For example, VCA can help in the development of public policies by observing
the areas where the margin is smaller and providing insights on where the public
funds are better allocated, improving the distribution of the gains or supporting
more marginalised communities.16
VCA is relatively new to aquaculture with some published works for some
regions and species. Its application is still under research and development, but it
carries significant promise regarding the implementation of efficient sustainable
policies.

9.4 Value chain and globalisation

For some citizens of the world in developing countries, globalisation contains the
promise of potentially augmenting the rate and reach of industrial growth and the
improvement of its manufacturing and service activities. People understand that
without sustainable economic growth in their countries, little expectations exist
to deal with poverty and inequality, which are so generalised. Thus, they see the
growing integration of the global economy as an opportunity to enter a new era of
economic and industrial growth reflected not only in the possibility of obtaining
greater income but also in the improved availability of final products with better
and more differentiated quality. However, at the same time, globalisation has had
its dark side –​a growing tendency toward inequality within and between coun-
tries and a progressive incidence in absolute levels of poverty, not only in poor
countries.17
These attributes, both positive and negative, of globalisation are generally
exposed when great shocks in the social system occur, as observed in an economic
depression, war, sanitary emergency, or any other type of disruptive element.
The value chain analysis is centred on the interconnections of the productive
sector, especially in the form in which enterprises and countries are integrated glo-
bally, an aspect that provides more details of the interactions between economies
and processes than the traditional modes of economic and social analyses.
The value chain analysis goes beyond a series of important weaknesses of the
traditional sectorial analysis that tends to be static and suffers the weakness of its
own limited parameters. The sectorial analysis fights to cope with the dynamic
 Aquaculture value chain analysis 141

bonds between the productive activities that go beyond that sector, either of an
intersectoral nature or between activities of the formal and informal sectors. On the
other hand, the chain analysis flows by its interconnective and dynamic inclusion
of the different elements that compose its relationships.
The value chain also goes beyond the specific analysis of the enterprise in a great
part of the literature on innovation. When these bonds are concentrated between
links, they allow for discovering the dynamic flow of the economic, organisational,
and coercive activities among producers within different sectors, including at a
global scale. For example, shrimp and lobster produced in Southeast Asia, Latin
America, and the Caribbean are indissolubly linked to global export commerce.
Usually, the producers sell their product to an intermediary who pays the prices and
freezes or transforms the product to subsequently export to food markets around
the world.18
Furthermore, the notion of organisational interconnections that sustain the
value chain analysis makes the interrelation between formal and informal work
and the production for commercialising or self-​consumption easier to analyse. It
also allows for identifying the processes instead of watching them as disconnected
activity spheres.
Finally, the value chain analysis is also useful as an analytical tool. It helps
to understand the political environment that allows efficient resource allocation
within the national economy despite its main use until now, and the way in which
enterprises and countries participate in a global economy.19
The value chain analysis in aquaculture products has gained interest in the last
few years. This result can be explained because analyses of this type allow iden-
tifying the processes that benefit in a greater measure in the value chain, allowing
the application of public policies destined to maximise redistribution of the profits
obtained from the activity.20
The idea of a value chain is associated with the concept of governance explored
in depth in Chapter 15, which is of key importance for aquaculture because its
value chains depend crucially on the use of natural and environmental resources.
The value chain framework can also be used to understand the social links and trad-
itional norms that can be used to conclude the participation of the different social
strata in the activity and the potential impact of the value chain development in
food security, activity management, and reducing poverty.

9.5 Final remarks

As we have seen in this chapter, there is no single way of carrying out a value chain
analysis. Although the framework of the analysis is general to the industry, the
approach and results will be specific to the purpose for which it was created.
As opposed to supply-​chain analysis, in which the aim of the analysis is to
create efficient supply-​chain structures, value chain analysis is created to observe
the value creation in financial terms and the distribution of the margins of said
value. This information is crucial for decision-​makers. From a private industry
perspective, this analysis allows observation of the areas where the company will
142 Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

maximise its investments, what the company should do to maximise its benefits,
and in which key areas it should invest to capture the most significant margins of
the value chain. It also allows to minimise the influence of third parties or look for
areas of opportunity to create value in its own product.
From a public perspective, the value chain analysis is a powerful tool to identify
the areas in which more vigilance and regulation are needed as well as to develop
improved policies to streamline margin distribution, balancing the influence of all
value chain stakeholders and reducing inequalities.

9.6 Chapter review questions

1 What are the differences and similarities between a supply chain analysis and a
value chain analysis?
2 How can a value chain analysis be used to improve the sustainability of the
aquaculture industry?
3 How would you define the point of entry for a value chain analysis?

Recommended readings
Ababouch, L., Nguyen, K. A. T., Castro de Souza, M., & Fernandez-​Polanco, J. (2023). Value
chains and market access for aquaculture products. Journal of the World Aquaculture
Society, 54(2), 527–​553.
Bush, S. R., Belton, B., Little, D. C., & Islam, M. S. (2019). Emerging trends in aquaculture
value chain research. Aquaculture, 498, 428–​434.
Dubay, K., Tokuoka, S., & Gereffi, G. (2010). A Value Chain Analysis of the Sinaloa, Mexico
Shrimp Fishery. Durham Duke University, Durham.
Kaplinsky, R. & Morris, M. (2001). A Handbook for Value Chain Research, International
Development Research Center, Ottawa, Canada.
Little, D. C., Young, J. A., Zhang, W., Newton, R. W., Al Mamun, A., & Murray, F. J. (2018).
Sustainable intensification of aquaculture value chains between Asia and Europe: A
framework for understanding impacts and challenges. Aquaculture, 493, 338–​354.
Loc, V. T. T., Bush, S. R., & Khiem, N. T. (2010). High and low value fish chains in the
Mekong Delta: Challenges for livelihoods and governance. Environment, Development
and Sustainability, 12(6), 889–​908.
Nasr-​Allah, A. M. (2019). Value-​Chain Analysis-​An Assessment Approach to Estimate
Lake Nasser Fisheries Performance. The International Lake Environment Committee
Foundation.
Porras, I., Mohammed, E. Y., Ali, L., Ali, M. S., & Hossain, M. B. (2017). Power, profits
and payments for ecosystem services in Hilsa fisheries in Bangladesh: a value chain
analysis. Marine Policy, 84, 60–​68.

Notes
i The word utility in this context refers to the satisfaction generated by moving the products
in the different chain links. Remember that utility not necessarily refers to the financial
benefits deriving from the activity. For example, other non-​monetary or intangible elem-
ents may be included to a utility function depending on the analysis performed, which
 Aquaculture value chain analysis 143

could bring happiness to the users, triumph sensation or any aspect that generate satis-
faction to the actors of the chain.
ii Economies of scale are a proportionate saving in costs gained by an increased level of
production.

References
1 Taglioni, D., & Winkler, D. (2016). Making global value chains work for development.
Trade and Development, Washington, DC: World Bank. http://​hdl.han​dle.net/​10986/​
24426 License: CC BY 3.0 IGO.
2 Jordaan, H., Grové, B., & Backeberg, G. R. (2014). Conceptual framework for value
chain analysis for poverty alleviation among smallholder farmers. Agrekon, 53(1), 1–​25.
3 Kruijssen, F., McDougall, C. L., & Van Asseldonk, I. J. (2018). Gender and aquaculture
value chains: A review of key issues and implications for research. Aquaculture, 493,
328–​337.
4 Rosales, R. M., Pomeroy, R., Calabio, I. J., Batong, M., Cedo, K., Escara, N., ... &
Sobrevega, M. A. (2017). Value chain analysis and small-​scale fisheries management.
Marine Policy, 83, 11–​21.
5 Bjorndal, T., Child, A., & Lem, A. (2014). Value chain dynamics and the small-​scale
sector: policy recommendations for small-​scale fisheries and aquaculture trade. FAO
Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper, (581), I.
6 Van Duijn, A. P., Beukers, R., & Van der Pijl, W. (2012). The Indonesian seafood
sector; a value chain analysis. CBI & LEI, part of Wageningen UR.
7 Hernandez, R., Belton, B., Reardon, T., Hu, C., Zhang, X., & Ahmed, A. (2018). The
“quiet revolution” in the aquaculture value chain in Bangladesh. Aquaculture, 493,
456–​468.
8 Knútsson, Ö., Klemensson, Ó., & Gestsson, H. (2008). Structural changes in the
Icelandic fisheries sector –​ a value chain analysis. In: Proceedings of the Fourteenth
Biennial Conference of the International Institute of Fisheries Economics & Trade,
July 22–​25, 2008, Nha Trang, Vietnam: Achieving a Sustainable Future: Managing
Aquaculture, Fishing, Trade and Development. Compiled by Ann L. Shriver.
International Institute of Fisheries Economics & Trade, Corvallis, Oregon, USA, 2008.
9 Lim, G. (2016). Value chain upgrading: Evidence from the Singaporean aquaculture
industry. Marine Policy, 63, 191–​197.
10 Anane-​Taabeah, G., Quagrainie, K., & Amisah, S. (2016). Assessment of farmed tilapia
value chain in Ghana. Aquaculture International, 24, 903–​919.
11 Yoshida, N. (2017). Local institutions and global value chains: Development and
challenges of shrimp aquaculture export industry in Vietnam. Journal of Agribusiness
in Developing and Emerging Economies, 7(3), 318–​338.
12 Guritno, A. D. (2018). Agriculture value chain as an alternative to increase better
income’s distribution: The case of Indonesia. Agricultural Value Chain, 1, 59–​80.
13 Ponte, S., Kelling, I., Jespersen, K. S., & Kruijssen, F. (2014). The blue revolution
in Asia: upgrading and governance in aquaculture value chains. World Development,
64, 52–​64.
14 Frederick, S. (2019). Global value chain mapping. Edited by Stefano Ponte, Gary
Gereffi, and Gale Raj-​Reichert. In Handbook on global value chains, Edward Elgard
publishing, Cheltenham UK and Massachusetts US, 29–​53.
144 Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

15 Macfadyen, G., Nasr-​Alla, A. M., Al-​Kenawy, D., Fathi, M., Hebicha, H., Diab, A. M.,
Hussein, S. M., Abou-​Zeid, R. M., and El-​Naggar, G. (2012). Value-​chain analysis—​
An assessment methodology to estimate Egyptian aquaculture sector performance.
Aquaculture, 362, 18–​27.
16 Bjørndal, T., Child, A., Lem, A., & Dey, M. M. (2015). Value chain dynamics and the
small-​scale sector: a summary of findings and policy recommendations for fisheries
and aquaculture trade. Aquaculture Economics & Management, 19(1), 148–​173.
17 Stiglitz, J. (2019). People, power, and profits: Progressive capitalism for an age of dis-
content. Penguin, UK.
18 Kaplinsky, R. (2000). Globalisation and unequalisation: what can be learned from
value chain analysis?. Journal of Development Studies, 37(2), 117–​146.
19 Kaplinsky, R., & Morris, M. (2008). Value chain analysis: a tool for enhancing export
supply policies. International Journal of Technological Learning, Innovation and
Development, 1(3), 283–​308.
20 Bush, S. R., Belton, B., Little, D. C., & Islam, M. S. (2019). Emerging trends in aqua-
culture value chain research. Aquaculture, 498, 428–​434.
10 Aquaculture bioeconomics
A brief introduction

Fernando Aranceta Garza

The concept of bioeconomy arises from the link between two scientific discip-
lines, biology and economics. Biology focuses on the study of living things and
all associated processes, while economics is responsible for the study of how to
efficiently manage and distribute resources. Both sciences deal with the prediction
and explanation of observed phenomena.
Aquaculture bioeconomy is based on the interaction of different disciplines
and sciences, operating under a multidisciplinary approach that allows for com-
prehensive analysis. It is supported using mathematical models and based on the
General Theory of Systems Sciences, which allows knowing, understanding, and
interrelating all the aspects that influence aquaculture production management.
Bioeconomic models help producers in the decision-​making process, enabling
the optimal production levels of the designed systems be identified, and allowing
the optimisation of management strategies. Furthermore, these models represent a
good methodological approach that allows the interaction of various components
of aquaculture systems to be studied, helping public sector decision-​makers to
design better public policies.
This chapter briefly introduces the reader to the world of bioeconomic ana-
lysis from the design of a conceptual model to the methods used to develop a
bioeconomic analysis, finalising with an example of their use in oyster production
in northern Mexico.

10.1 Introduction
Aquaculture is the culture of organisms in aquatic environments. These environ-
ments may be composed of fresh, brackish, or marine water, which support various
culture species (e.g., fish, molluscs, crustaceans, seaweed). Freshwater aquacul-
ture uses land-​based facilities, such as ponds, pens, cages, and even rice paddies;
brackish aquaculture is developed in ponds or lagoons over coastal areas; and
marine aquaculture operates using cages or pens for marine fishes in the open sea
or subtidal baskets for molluscs (e.g., pectinids and oysters), and/​or different types
of substrates for mollusc spat and seaweeds to settle and grow, such as ropes and
rafts.1

DOI: 10.4324/9781003174271-13
146 Fernando Aranceta Garza

Aquaculture production systems are usually classified using three criteria: (1)
type of culture structure, (2) amount of water exchange, and most frequently,
(3) intensity of culture (for specific features, see Table 10.1). The intensity of the
aquaculture production systems reflects the stocking density, described as exten-
sive, semi-​intensive, and intensive. In each of these types of production systems
intensity performance will vary in response to many factors (e.g., Baluyut1; Asche
y Bjorndal2), as shown in Table 10.1. Another sub-​classification within the inten-
sive production system is the hyper-​or super-​intensive production system. This
system represents production factories enabled with a closed or recirculating aqua-
culture system (RAS), independent of the environment and consequently reaching
the highest production volumes in reduced areas. Nevertheless, the trade-​off is
a very high cost in technology and infrastructure, using high-​value species, e.g.,
shrimp and salmon, primarily in Europe, where the markets usually pay high prices
for the product.
The aquaculture activity serves many purposes highlighting food security and
commercial trade. In developing countries, aquaculture provides a mechanism for
the population to access low-​cost and highly nutritious protein food addressing
household food security issues, for example, using a backyard pond system.
Additionally, aquaculture can improve local livelihoods by providing employment
and income.3,4
For industrial or commercial purposes, aquaculture aims to produce profits for
companiesi in a local, regional, or global market.ii Buyers and aquaculture firms
interact in the market, allowing buyers to trade with sellers. The behaviour of
aquaculture companies depends on the market structure defined by the number
of companies in the aquaculture market, the ease with which they can enter or
leave the market, and the ability to differentiate their products from those of other
companies. The main market structures are perfect competitioniii (many companies
producing similar products, price takers, e.g., tilapia fillets), oligopolyiv (a small
group of companies in a market with substantial barriers to entry, e.g., salmon
aquaculture) or monopolyv (i.e., one company supplies goods with no close substi-
tute, price giver, e.g., caviar). For aquaculture, the number of companies producing
a particular product (e.g., oysters, salmon, crab, shrimp), the accessibility of com-
panies to the specific market, and the types/​processing of product sold (e.g. fresh,
frozen, smoked, alive) determines the dominant market structure.
In any company, the production of certain goods will be constrained by its
technology (or production process) and costs to transform inputs (or factors of
production) into outputs (Table 10.2). In the case of aquaculture companies, the
primary inputs are capital (facilities, areas, equipment), labour (workers), and
materials, such as seed (e.g., fry or spats), food, and water quality. These inputs are
transformed into outputs as harvested biomass in kilograms or tonnes (Table 10.2).
Thus, the company’s production function is the relationship between the amount
of input used and the maximum output that can be produced given the current
company technology.5 Specifically, when biological inputs are used, the produc-
tion function depends on specific features, such as the species’ biological intrinsic
factors (e.g., physiology, growth rate, and survivorship of the individuals through
 newgenrtpdf
Table 10.1 Aquaculture systems defined by intensity criteria and their characteristics

Aquaculture systems Production yield Production inputs Management

1) Extensive aquaculture refers to a Low stocking densities Water exchange: not essential Management is
culture system with a modest number and mixed culture; low Aeration: not needed minimum and
of fish, which depends on food items yield (500 to 2000 t/​ha) Feed used: natural feed survival is low
found in the culture system (in situ Pond size from 1 to 5 ha External fertilisation: sometimes
production) where low fish densities Engineering: not needed
are kept with minimum control, cost, Investment: lower
and profit Care: low
Labour: low

Aquaculture bioeconomics: a brief introduction 147

Generator and current: not needed
Larvae/​fry/​adult source: wild
Minimum income and production costs
1 crop/​year
2) Semi-​intensive system: includes From 3 to 15/​m2 and Water exchange: 5–​10%/​day Certain amount of
additional stimulation of food mixed or monoculture. Aeration: 2HP management is
production through the fertilisation (from 3 to 6 t/​ha) Feed used: natural and formulated feed needed
of ponds that are small enough to Pond size: 1 ha External fertilisation: sometimes
enable their natural productivity to Engineering: essential
be enhanced or directly feeding the Investment: low to high
culture Care: needed
Labour: medium
Generator and current: needed
Larvae/​fry/​adult source: wild/​hatchery
Moderate income and production costs
2 crops/​year
(Continued)
 newgenrtpdf
Table 10.1 (Continued)

148 Fernando Aranceta Garza

Aquaculture systems Production yield Production inputs Management

3) Intensive system: corresponds to Higher production (from Water exchange: 20–​100%/​day Management is
the progressive extension of human 15 to 25 ton/​ha/​year) Aeration: 8–​12 HP to continuous the highest,
control over major physiological yield and highest prices Feed used: pellet food (highly although
functions of the cultivated organisms Pond size: 0.2 to 0.05 ha nutritious feed) difficult
(reproduction, feeding, gene pool, External fertilisation: No management
diseases). In those systems, the Engineering: essential and high quality problems can
environment is used essentially as Investment: high to very high arise caused
physical Care: essential by high fish
support. They can be established in large Labour: High or specialised stocking
as well as small marine and freshwater Generator and current: needed densities
bodies, although systems where the Larvae/​fry/​adult source: hatchery
environment is highly controlled Highest income and production costs
necessarily are restricted to small Batch-​wise/​year
volumes

References: Troadec9; Subasinghe et al.3.

 newgenrtpdf
Table 10.2 Aquaculture firm inputs or production factors

Production factors Definition

Investment Includes the development of the initial concept, species and site selection, capital formation, design and
construction of the farm, and business management of the operation
Capital Long-​lived inputs such as: land or/​and water area; buildings/​plants/​factories/​stores; hauls/​tanks/​pens;
pumps, filters, and tubes;
and machines or vehicles

Aquaculture bioeconomics: a brief introduction 149

Labour Human services, such as managers, skilled and unskilled workers
Energy Electricity is needed for pumps, filters, aeration, and heating/​cooling in the case of semi-​intense and intense
culture systems
Materials Seed: initial number of individuals seeded
Feeding: food delivered to the reared organisms in an established frequency
Water: percentage of water exchange needed per cultivation area
Energy: quantity of energy required for water pumping, aeration, and heating/​cooling tank environment
Time Period of the rearing cycle until harvested; its units are dependent on the species-​intrinsic factors
Other production factors
Environment The environment can be composed of three subfactors:
1. Physical: When the fish farmer does not control the environment, abiotic factors affect reared species. e.g.,
temperature, rainfall, insolation, water quality, and quantity
2. Institutional: governmental policy (e.g., taxes or subsidies), political and economic stability
3. Social: Includes traditions, customs, and religious beliefs which affect fish consumption and social
acceptability of aquaculture as an individual, group, or community activity
Technological innovations Any new discovery that allows the firm to increase its yield and/​or produce at a lower cost
Disease breaks Any pathogen affecting final biomass and yield
150 Fernando Aranceta Garza

time) under a specific cultivation technology (e.g., extensive vs. intensive culti-
vation systems). Thus, by establishing the production function, any aquaculture
company could predict the expected level of output –​valuable biomass per har-
vest6 –​helping to make production or commercial decisions cost-​effectively.
Other factors can change aquaculture production levels regarding output quan-
tity (or valuable biomass) and costs (Table 10.2). Environmental changes associated
with climate change or strong seasonal variations can affect individual growth rates
and mortalities in open cultivation systems (i.e., extensive and semi-​intensive).
They can also cause a decline in the individual immune system, triggering disease
outbreaks and reducing the aquaculture company’s output. On the contrary, some
factors can improve production levels, such as new production technologies (e.g.
improving survivorship or growth and more nutritious –​less costly –​feeding) and
government policies, such as subsidies or taxation (output regulation).
The objective of any aquaculture firm is to maximise production profitsvi under
a specific technology, production factors, and related costs. The maximum profit
level in any production process can be achieved by maximising the difference
between revenues and production costs. This level can be achieved by applying a
marginal analysisvii, where the firm marginal revenuesviii equal marginal costs,ix or
by maximising the net present production profit value.x
In aquaculture production, time is a critical input related to biological (e.g.,
growth rate and mortality per unit of time) and economic (associated costs and valu-
able harvested biomass) performances during production. Any bias in harvesting
before or after the optimal harvest time translates into economic losses for the
company. For this reason, one of the key objectives in aquaculture production is
to determine the optimal harvesting time for any cultivated species. This objective
can be achieved using mathematical modelling involving economics and biological
sciences (among others) to solve the complex problem of maximising economic
performance involving biological production.

10.2 Aquaculture bioeconomics

Aquaculture bioeconomics had its foundation during the development of species
cultivation on an industrial scale. During the 1980s, the first challenges to be solved
were biological and technical constraints to meet the high market demand for marine
products. The profits obtained under these conditions were large enough to com-
pensate for management limitations and low production scales. During the 1990s,
technical improvements in the production process occurred, achieving increments
in supply and lowering operating costs, proving that economic and management
aspects were vital to aquaculture’s global sustainable development.
The main tool of the bioeconomic analysis is the bioeconomic model, which must
be represented by the interaction of its components or sub-​models (Figure 10.1),
simulating the aquaculture production process. Usually, bioeconomic modelling
begins by assembling the biological sub-​model. The latter is represented by the
seeding of individuals per tank or pond under an initial stocking density that grows
and perishes in time until harvest.
 newgenrtpdf
Aquaculture bioeconomics: a brief introduction 151
Figure 10.1 Description of the components or sub-​models that make up a bioeconomic model in aquaculture.
152 Fernando Aranceta Garza

The technological sub-​model comprises the culture system feeding consump-

tion, energy requirements, water quality, and other technological innovations. The
sales of the harvested biomass (output) and its production-​associated costs (USD/​
time) conform to the economic sub-​model determining the company total costs,
revenues (the market sets the price), and present production profit value. For the
operation performance analysis, bioeconomic indicators are employed as a refer-
ence value for managing decision-​making concerning production objectives under
biological, technological, and environmental constraints. Bioeconomic modelling
provides an analysis tool for the production and management process of aqua-
culture farms, allowing the simulation of different scenarios or action strategies,
helping to solve issues such as:

a Determination of optimal harvesting time;

b Determination of optimal seeding/​stocking;
c Assessing bioeconomic effects of size heterogeneity, feeding, density-​
dependent, selective breeding, environmental conditions/​seasonality, diets, and
probiotics performance;
d Comparative performance analysis of different culture systems performance;
e Assessing the risks of diseases and climate change;
f Assessing uncertainty and risks associated with reaching/​exceeding the limit
reference points of aquaculture performance.
g Determining the economic feasibility of a project, such as the optimal location
for a species (Box 10.1) or the possibility of rearing new species in a specific
location.

Finally, deriving from all the above, aquaculture bioeconomics can be defined
as a field that integrates, for a given production biotechnology, the dynamics of
aquatic species production with the associated costs and biomass value to deter-
mine optimal harvesting time and net present value, considering local environ-
mental uncertainties and associated risks.

10.2.1 Bioeconomic indicators in aquaculture production

Aquaculture indicators are variables that measure the state of an aquaculture system
and can assume discrete values. An indicator is defined as

a variable, a pointer, an index of a complex phenomenon. Its fluctuations reveal

the variations in components of the ecosystem, the resource, or the sector. When
consider[sic] together, the position and trend of the indicator in relation to the
criteria indicate the present state and dynamics of the system.6

In this manner, an aquaculture indicator is a variable derived from monitoring

an aquaculture system, whose values show essential information about the state of
aquaculture production believed to be relevant in achieving higher production effi-
ciency (e.g., lowering costs/​obtaining higher profits). Reference points are discrete
 Aquaculture bioeconomics: a brief introduction 153

values of aquaculture indicators, representing special cases that need management

action to ensure the sustainability of the production process. Usually, there are two
types of reference points: the limited reference points (LRPs) represent discrete
values of critical biological, ecological, and economic indicators that the decision-​
maker, or aquaculture farmer, wishes to avoid reaching or exceeding. In contrast,
target reference points (TRPs) are the desired or target discrete values where man-
ager decision-​makers expect to locate the company’s production.
The literature already presents a bioeconomic indicator framework applied in
aquaculture systems composed of three subsystems (Table 10.3): (1) biological
or living resource to be produced; (2) production technology; and (3) cost and
revenues.7
For aquaculture rearing systems, and mostly in semi-​ intense and intense
systems, identifying their biological, ecological, and economic indicators (some-
times including the environmental ones) is critical for monitoring their production
process per cultured species. Each of TRP and LRP values for each indicator should
be previously defined by managers (decision-​makers) with the aid of specialists in
producing such aquatic species.

10.3 Bioeconomic model

A bioeconomic model can be described using the general system theory, which
establishes that a system or model comprises interrelated components or subsystems
with pre-​determined boundaries, where inputs are transformed into outputs. The
bioeconomic aquaculture model represents an abstraction of the production pro-
cess in transforming inputs (seedlings, feeding, energy, etc.) into outputs (valu-
able biomass). A basic bioeconomic aquaculture model (Figure 10.1) comprises
three sub-​models, as described below: biological, technological, and economical.
Additionally, the bioeconomic model complexity can be increased by including
others, e.g., an environmental sub-​model.

10.3.1 Biological sub-​model

The biological sub-​ model involves dynamic modelling of biological factors

affecting the cultured species, meaning their change in time units. The time units
can be established as day, week, month, and year depending on the inherent species
characteristics and culture objectives. For example, the growth rate is species-​
specific and very variable. Molluscs, such as oysters, present a high growth rate
and can reach harvestable biomass in 6 months, while some marine fishes present a
lower growth rate and may reach harvestable biomass in several years. Moreover,
some aquaculture companies may not need to reach an adult harvestable biomass,
and they maximise profit by offering a particular product size, such as the case
of the culturing of juvenile octopus for sale as “baby octopus” or red snapper
plate size.
The biological modelling process is usually based on the growth rate, measure-
ment in weight, and survival of the individuals related to a specific density ( D0 )
 newgenrtpdf
Table 10.3 Indicators for aquaculture production systems (from Seijo8)

154 Fernando Aranceta Garza

Aquaculture subsystems Indicators

Biological subsystem Larval and post-​larval production Survivors per larval stage (%/​larval period)
Juvenile and adult production Survivors at juvenile and adult stages (%/​juvenile period)
Growth rate of juveniles and adults The individual growth rate of juveniles
The individual growth rate of adults
Biomass production Current over-​target production biomass (Bt/​B∞)
Current over initial number of individuals in the grow-​out
system (Nt/​N0)
Technological subsystem Reproduction laboratory Days per year in operation
Larval production laboratory Current over full production capacity ratio in the different
Postlarvae and juvenile production facilities facilities
Adult production facilities Days closed for disease control
Food production facility Annual harvest per hectare (ha)
Harvesting technology Biomass density of survivors at harvest time
Water quality Nitrates and dissolved oxygen. Other critical water quality
parameters (e.g. phosphates, ammonia, etc.)
Economic subsystem Operating costs of the reproduction laboratory Variable costs over harvest value
Feeding and harvesting costs of juveniles and Feeding costs over total production costs
adults
Price of species Profits per cultivated unit of area
Harvest revenues Present value of profits (NPV)
Net revenues Internal rate of return (IRR)
External costs of production Negative externalities
 Aquaculture bioeconomics: a brief introduction 155

until harvest in a specific period or culture period. Aquaculture modelling starts

from an initial number of organisms seeded ( N 0 ) with a specific density, analysing
their biological performance until harvest ( NT ) . Also, some models may include
an environmental sub-​model relating biological performance with culture abiotic
factors (e.g. temperature, salinity, pH, dissolved oxygen) to assess growth with sea-
sonal fluctuations to optimise harvesting.

10.3.1.1 Growth

Growth refers to a change in weight/​length of an individual in time as a response

to intrinsic (i.e. specific biological characteristics) and extrinsic factors (i.e. density
of stocking, feeding rate, and quality, and environmental conditions of the culture).
 dw 
The instantaneous growth rate   establishes the weight change per unit
 dt 
of time for the total culture period until harvest. Integrating these observed values
using a growth model results in a dynamic weight trajectory (Wt ) for the species.
An important subsequent step is evaluating the growth model that best fits the
trajectory for the biological aquaculture component –​ the von Bertalanffy growth
model is the most commonly applied in aquaculture, where:

dw
= α w2 / 3 − β w (10.1)
dt

This equation represents the change in body weight given by the difference
between the amount of anabolism represented as α w2 / 3 and the catabolism � βw ,
where α and β are constants.
The solution of equation (10.1) for weight at time or age t (Wt )� is:

Wt = A (1 − B ⋅ e −(k ⋅t ) ) ≈ Wt = W∞ (1 − e −(k ⋅t ) )
3 3
(10.2, 10.3)

where A = α / β =​ mature weight; B� =​ integration constant; k = β / 3 =​rate of

maturing, or curvature parameter; cubic exponential refers to isometric growth;
and W∞ is the maximum weight reported of the species.
Additionally, the von Bertalanffy growth formula can calculate the individuals’
length-​at-​age using the formula:

Lt = L∞ (1 − e − k ⋅(t − t0 ) ) (10.4)

where L∞ is the maximum length of the species; k is the curvature parameter;

and t0 is the adjustment parameter of the growth function.
156 Fernando Aranceta Garza

From equations (10.3) and (10.4), age-​specific weight can be estimated by the
following length–​weight relationship, where α and β are constants:

wt = α ⋅ Lt β (10.5)

Besides the von Bertalanffy growth model, other growth models used to assess
culture growth performance are:

dw
Gompertz = α w − βw (lnw) (10.6)
dt

dw
Chapman = α wδ − β w 2 (10.7)
dt

dw
Putter = α wδ − β w γ (10.8)
dt

dw
Logistic = α w − β w2 (10.9)
dt

These model equations may show up to four free parameters for the model
fitting process ( α, β, γ , δ ).
As previously mentioned, the integration of any of the above equations (10.6–​10.9)
results in the mathematical description of growth in weigh trajectory per unit of time:

t
 dw 
Wt = W0 + ∫  = f ( w) dt � (10.10)
0  dt 

The differential equation (10.10) cannot be solved by analytical methods.

Instead, numerical methods approximate the solution of the differential equation,
highlighting Euler as the most common mathematical method of numerical integra-
tion solving incrementally step by step per unit of time ( dt =​1), then:

 dw 
Wt = Wt −1 + h ⋅   (10.11)
 dt 
 Aquaculture bioeconomics: a brief introduction 157

dw
where Wt � is weight in time; h is culture period; and is the observed growth
dt
rate from equations (10.6)–​(10.9) during period h . Equation (10.11) describes the
dynamic weight trajectory of the bioeconomic aquaculture model.

10.3.1.2 Natural mortality

As mentioned earlier, each cultivation cycle starts with an initial number of indi-
viduals seeded ( N 0 ) with a specific density ( D0 ). The seeded individuals can be
fingerlings (fish), spats (mollusc), or post-​larvae (crustaceans), which are reared and
monitored until harvest. However, some individuals may die during the cultivation
process because of natural mortality factors, such as low-​quality water, diseases, or
cannibalism, during the total culture period. At the end of the period, the survivors
will be harvested at a particular age, generating the company revenues. In this
manner, natural mortality decreases during the rearing period, which is crucial for
the economic solvency of the company.
The calculation of the number of surviving individuals in time ( N t ) during a
culture period is estimated using the exponential extinction model8:

N t = N 0 * exp( − M *t ) (10.12)

where M represents a constant instantaneous mortality rate in the culture

period.

10.3.1.3 Biomass

Biomass ( Bt ) refers to the average weight of each individual by a given area, which
is the physical space of a rearing tank or marine cage. Biomass changes continu-
ously in time because each individual gains biomass by incorporating food through
their metabolism; its common trend or trajectory is a biomass increment at early
ages until reaching a maximum peak. Then, biomass decreases steadily, caused by
a decrement in growth rate and high natural mortality rates. Biomass-​at-​age or time
( Bt ) during a cultivation cycle can be calculated according to the equation:

Bt = wt ⋅ N t � � � � � (10.13)

where wt is average weight and N t � is the number of organisms in time t .

10.3.2 Technological sub-​model

The technological sub-​ model in a bioeconomic aquaculture model represents

the culture system’s technological level and allows calculating numerically the
158 Fernando Aranceta Garza

efficient quantity of feed and energy required to support growth per individual per
aquaculture unit (e.g., a tank).
One of the most important technological factors is the amount of feeding
needed per individual, which is described further below. Additionally, in semi-​
intensive and intensive culture systems, other factors to consider are the energy
requirements (Kw day–​1): (a) water pumping and recirculation are essential to
avoid oxygen depletion, accumulation of metabolic wastes, such as ammonia, and
concentrations of bacteria and other pathogenic microorganisms that could result
in higher mortalities of the cultivated organisms; (b) aeration or oxygen added
to the culture is vital to sustaining metabolism based on the amount of oxygen
needed in a culture concerning the species density stocking and requirements;
minimum dissolved oxygen concentration; and other gas concentrations, such
as nitrogen, hydrogen, sulphide, and carbon dioxide; (c) water heating and
cooling are essential for closed-​system cultures that avoid natural temperature
fluctuations (e.g., seasonal fluctuations), achieving longer periods at the optimum
growth temperature.
The technological sub-​model allows calculating numerically the efficient quan-
tity of feed and energy required (for water pumping, aeration, and heating/​cooling
system) per individual size in weight. Other biotechnological advances to opti-
mise the production process use the genetic engineering of individuals, where they
can tolerate higher ranges of abiotic factors and/​or suppress their reproductive
phase to allocate the individual energy and achieve higher growth performances.
Other biotechnological advances use genetic engineering to optimise production,
for example, higher growth rates in triploid organisms, less sensibility to abiotic
factors or diseases, sex change, or reproductive disruption.

10.3.2.1 Feed consumption per individual

Aquaculture companies aim to grow organisms in the shortest possible time at the
lowest possible cost. To achieve this, the farmer should provide the best possible
feed to the cultured organisms to obtain a higher growth rate performance, redu-
cing the time to harvest and trade. However, the feed represents one of the highest
variable costs for the company.
A key element in feed is the feed conversion ratio, which represents the amount
consumed per individual to gain one unit of weight over time. Typically, FCR
values range from 1 to >2.0. For example, cultured fish and shrimp using commer-
cial feeds and intensive production methods can obtain an FCR ranging from 1.0
to 2.4. Lower FCR values, such as 1.0–​1.5, represent higher metabolic efficiency.
FCR values from 1.6–​2.0 are acceptable but not as efficient, and values >2.0
represent a state of continuous or unrestrained feeding or ad libitum. However,
the ad libitum level may result in production inefficiency due to the very high
costs of feeding.
Feeding over time ( Ft ) is calculated by multiplying the feed conversion ratio
( FCR ) by the expected change in weight of individuals in the following time
interval:
 Aquaculture bioeconomics: a brief introduction 159

Ft = N t * ( wt +1 − wt ) * FCR (10.14)

where N t is the number of individuals in time � t ; ( wt +1 − wt ) is the expected

change in weight for the following interval t� and when multiplied by N t � results in
biomass in time ( Bt ) .
Feeding costs depend directly on FCR efficiency, meaning any innovation in
nutritional quality or probiotics that reduces FCR will generate lower feeding
costs and higher overall profits. Additionally, FCR can be significantly influenced
(metabolism and growth performance) by environmental factors, such as tempera-
ture, dissolved oxygen, and salinity, among others, especially when these values
deviate from the species’ physiological optimum. The parameterisation of FCR can
be calculated as:

FCt
FCR = (10.15)
( wT − w0 )

where FCt � is the total amount of food consumed in units of weight (e.g. g or kg)
in relation to the difference between the initial ( w0 ) and final weight ( wT ) during
the cultivation period T .
In the case of bivalve aquaculture, most of the feeding comes from the ecosystem
productivity where the farm is located, thus, feed costs are negligible. However, the
trade-​off is that these bivalve farms are exposed to predators and parasites, harmful
algal blooms, eutrophication associated with low oxygen periods, and more intense
water temperatures, which certainly affect the commercialisation and survival of
the cultured organisms.

10.3.3 Economic sub-​model

The economic sub-​model comprises estimating the farm total costs (i.e., variable
and fixed costs) and revenues over a cultivation period or cycle, whose subtraction
results in the company profits or utilities that, when applied a rate of discount, will
generate the present value in time.

10.3.3.1 Costs and revenues

Costs are estimated considering the duration of the period analysed by applying
either a short-​or long-​term analysis. The main differences between these analyses
are that costs in the short term separate the variable and fixed costs of the company.
In the long-​term analysis, all costs are variable. On average, most aquaculture pro-
duction firms use short-​term cost analysis due to the dependence of the production
process on growth and mortality per unit of time.
Total costs are the sum of fixed and variable costs. Fixed costs are expenditures
that do not change regardless of the output production or biomass level, e.g., lease
160 Fernando Aranceta Garza

of an area or office, aquaculture permit, administration costs, and depreciation

of the aquaculture infrastructure and equipment. Alternatively, the variable costs
change with the level of biomass or output production, of which the feeding costs
are highlighted as the most important. Other variable costs are associated with the
daily operation of the aquaculture firm, e.g., wages for labour, maintenance costs,
and energy expenses for aeration, filtration, and water pumping systems. Moreover,
other costs are incurred only once on the culture, e.g., seedling and harvesting
costs; the latter may include the unit cost of harvest management, marketing and
sales, and other miscellaneous costs.
The aquaculture company cost function C ( wt )� considers the daily operative
costs of the production system, which includes the sum of fixed and variable costs
obtained with the weight ( w ) gained per unit of time, calculated as:

C ( wt ) = ( cf ⋅ Ft ) + OVCt + FCt + ( hc ⋅ N t ) (10.16)

where ( cf ⋅ Ft ) is the unit cost of feeding per total feeding over time (see eq.
10.14) of cultured individuals; (OVCt ) is the other variable cost in time ( t ), such
as labour, the energy of water pumping, aeration, and water heating/​cooling system,
and maintenance costs; ( FCt )� is the fixed costs; and ( hc ⋅ N t )� is the harvesting cost
per individual.
Revenues represent the product of the harvested valuable biomass (in kilograms
or tonnes) multiplied by market price per kilogram or tonne. If the price varies
within the individual biomass-​at-​age, it can be calculated as follows:

Pt = Pmax (1 − exp( − rp*wt ) ) (10.17)

where Pmax is the maximum price obtained by the species; rp is the parameter
that indicates the velocity at which price increases in relation to individual weight
( wt ) of species over time/​age.

10.3.3.2 Profits and present value

Profits or utilities ( π t ) are the difference between total revenues and cost function
per unit of time ( t ):

T
π t = N t ⋅ Pt ⋅ wt − ∑C ( wt ) (10.18)
t =0

where the revenues are the product of the survivors ( N t ) times their weight
( wt ) times the price ( Pt ).
 Aquaculture bioeconomics: a brief introduction 161

The aquaculture analysis is dynamic (meaning it changes over time) because

of the species’ individual growth and natural mortality (i.e., species’ intrinsic
characteristics), which includes the accumulative costs until harvest time. Thus,
the present value allows analysing of the flow of discounted profits using an annual
discount rate (1+ r ) . The present value of profit per year ( PV π t ) is calculated as
t

follows:

πt
PV π t = � (10.19)
(1 + r )t

Once the bioeconomic aquaculture model is built, the modellers can calcu-
late the optimal harvesting period of the resource based on obtaining the time
( t ) where the net present value ( PV π t ) is maximum. This PV π t maximum
can be calculated numerically in a datasheet or analytically with the following
formula:

t
PV π t = e − rt  p ( wt ) wt N t  − ∫e − rt C ( wt ) N t dt (10.20)
0

where PV π t represents the maximum discounted profit in time t ; wt represents

the size in weight in time t , r is the discount rate; and p ( w (t )) is the sale price.
Another alternative for estimating the optimal time to harvest is applying a
marginal analysis, referring to the economic cost or gain of producing an add-
itional unit. According to microeconomic theory, the point that maximises a firm
utility is where marginal cost equals marginal revenue over time (MR =​ MC).
This point indicates the optimal time to harvest and corresponds to the optimal
time derived from equation (10.21). For further information on the subject, we
recommend reviewing the subject in specialised books on microeconomics (some
book examples are included in the references). In a competitive market structure,
marginal revenue is equal to the market price in equilibrium.
The marginal cost and marginal revenues can be calculated as follows:

changein total revenue ( Rt +1 − Rt )

MR = = (10.21)
changein time (t + 1 − t )

change in total cost (TCt +1 − TCt )

MC = = (10.22)
change in time (t + 1 − t )
162 Fernando Aranceta Garza

10.4 Final remarks

Aquaculture represents a productive activity that involves the cultivation of aquatic
organisms. The performance of an aquaculture firm under a semi-​intensive produc-
tion system will depend on production factors such as investment, capital, labour,
materials, environmental conditions, and time. At the same time, the firm’s produc-
tion will be restricted by the level of technology, characteristics of the cultivable
species, and production costs over time.
The above is carried out to achieve the objective pursued by aquaculture
companies, i.e., to maximise profits under a particular set of production factors.
Bioeconomic modelling provides a framework for developing microeconomic ana-
lysis of the production factors, leading to recommendations to improve aquacul-
ture production systems. It will also allow the analytical solving of fundamental
questions in aquaculture production related to which species to cultivate, the optimal
culture system, the optimal seeding and harvesting time, optimal harvesting size,
profit maximisation level, and optimal crop density, and also can estimate the level
of risk under different production strategies.

10.5 Chapter review questions

1 What is a bioeconomic model and what is its purpose?
2 What is understood as optimal harvest in bioeconomics and how do you esti-
mate it?
3 Can you think of two bioeconomic indicators and what are they used for?

Recommended readings
Allen, P, Botsford, L, Schuur, A, Johnston, W (1984). Bioeconomics of Aquaculture,
Developments in Aquaculture and Fisheries Science. Elsevier, New York.
Asche, F., Pincinato, R. B. M., & Tveteras, R. (2022). Productivity in Global Aquaculture.
In Handbook of Production Economics. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore, pp.
1525–​1561.
Cacho, O. J. (1997). Systems modelling and bioeconomic modelling in aquaculture.
Aquaculture Economics & Management, 1(1-​2), 45–​64.
Dorantes-​de-​la-​O, J. C. R., Maeda-​Martínez, A. N., Espinosa-​Chaurand, L. D., & Garza-​
Torres, R. (2023). Bioeconomic Modelling in Tilapia Aquaculture: A review. Reviews
in Aquaculture.
Kazmierczak Jr, R. F., & Caffey, R. H. (1996). The Bioeconomics of Recirculating
Aquaculture Systems (No. 1083-​2016-​87310).
Llorente, I., & Luna, L. (2016). Bioeconomic modelling in aquaculture: An overview of the
literature. Aquaculture International, 24, 931–​948.
Peñalosa Martinell, D., Vergara-​Solana, F. J., Almendarez-​Hernández, L. C., & Araneda-​
Padilla, M. E. (2020). Econometric models applied to aquaculture as tools for sustain-
able production. Reviews in Aquaculture, 12(3), 1344–​1359.
 Aquaculture bioeconomics: a brief introduction 163

Box 10.1 Evaluating the impact of technology appropriation on

economic profitability in aquaculture: the case study of the freshwater
crayfish Cherax quadricarinatus (redclaw)
Humberto Villarreal Colmenares
President of the World Aquaculture Society
Senior Researcher at CIBNOR, La Paz, BCS, Mexico

Freshwater species dominate annual worldwide aquaculture production with

over 55 million tons. Among freshwater crustaceans, the culture in China
of the American crawfish, Procambarus clarkii, has resulted in a significant
volume increase over the last 15 years with over 2 million tons produced in
2020, followed by the USA reaching 75,000 ton. Crayfish production in other
countries is somewhat limited. The Australian Cherax crayfish is the next
group in terms of production, with Australia (100 ton) and Malaysia (83 ton)
numbering 3 and 4 on the list of producing countries.
Production is extensive or semi-​intensive. In China, 48% of the area generates
62% of production using the Crayfish-​Rice Integrated System of Production
(CRISP) developed in the 80s. The fishery–​rice system, with annular ditches
around the rice field, generates 38% of production. Yields range from 1.5–​2.5
ton/​ha per year. However, there are significant constraints for resources (land
and water) and some regions are having to limit farm growth. In the United
States, 95% of production comes from Louisiana mainly using monoculture
(rice and crayfish) or rotation (alternate crops) systems. Yields range from
0.7–​2.5 ton/​ha per year. In Australia, production of different Cherax sp. comes
from WA, VIC, SA, and QLD using semi-​intensive clay ponds. Sizes vary
from 40 to more than 100 g, and yields vary from 1.5–​3 ton/​ha/​yr.
Commercial technologies used for crayfish production have not varied sig-
nificantly since their inception in different countries. In China, adaptation of
the species to traditional fish production systems allowed for a rapid increase
in volume as the international markets in Europe and United States absorbed
the initial output. From 2007, the dramatic increase in Chinese middle-​
class consumption of crayfish supported the rapid production increase
in the country, with a current unmet demand of around 300,000 ton/​year
strengthening the price to as high as US$12/​kg for 40 g crayfish. In Australia,
the semi-​intensive technologies used for the different species have also not
varied importantly in 35 years. Thus, yields and total volumes have remained
at the same level, with prices around AUD$25/​kg for 60–​100 g organisms.
Available literature shows that there are more efficient technologies avail-
able for commercial production. In this case study we use published informa-
tion from my R&D group at CIBNOR for Cherax quadricarintus to make an
economic comparison of the impact of commercial implementation of these
technologies on farm profitability.
I was part of the first commercial trials with the species in southern
Queensland in 1984–​85, based on production systems originally developed
164 Fernando Aranceta Garza

for marron, Cherax tenuimanus, in Western Australia. One cycle per year
from stocking density 5–​10 g juveniles resulted in yields of around 1.5 ton/​
ha. An opportunity to evaluate production in earthen ponds in Tamaulipas,
Mexico, occurred in 1994–​1997, using ponds previously used for tilapia,
with aeration and 5% water exchange. One cycle production yielded 2.5 ton/​
ha. In 1997–​1999, I managed the largest Redclaw farm in the world (50 ha)
in Ecuador, where we implemented a set of innovations, including in-​farm
juvenile production, a nursery phase, and mono-​sex grow out of preadults
on photo heterotrophic gravel-​lined ponds with continuous aeration and 5%
water exchange/​day, to attain a 60–​100-​gram commercial size and 10.5 ton/​
ha/​year in three grow-​out cycles. From 2003–​2015 I managed a commercial
farm and an Innovation and Technology Park in La Paz, BCS, Mexico, where
we optimised the photo heterotrophic technology in HPDE-​lined ponds
without water exchange, no discharges, and water reutilisation for several
production cycles. Initial trials showed that 3.5 ton/​ha/​cycle (10.5 ton/​yr)
could be achieved without water exchange. Improvements to the manage-
ment of the photo heterotrophic system allowed for yields for 2.5–​3 grow-​out
cycles per year to reach 4.8 ton/​ha/​cycle or 12–​14.4 ton/​ha. More recently,
from 2015 to 2021, we developed a genetic nucleus with a wide pool to
enhance production. Results showed a 43% increase in juvenile production
and a 14% improvement on growth rate compared to the parental group.
A comparison between the earthen, gravel-​lined, and HPDE-​lined systems is
presented. Cost and income data were generated for different three-​phase 20 ha
modules. Production costs were updated to 2022. Fixed costs included main-
tenance, pond preparation, personnel, chemicals and additives, and harvest.
Variable costs included the number of juveniles or preadults (25 g), feed, energy
for water exchange, and energy for aeration. A consulting fee was included for
years 1–​3 and a sale price of US$15.4/​kg was used for the analysis.
The intensive photoheterotrophic zero-​water exchange technology is highly
effective. With proper management of mono-​sex grows out, females grow at a
good rate and reach commercial size (> 40 g). The reported difference in rev-
enue with male ponds is less than 13%. This would prevent a common practice
at some farms that discard or sell females at small sizes (30–​40 g), improving
the efficiency of juveniles and reducing costs. Benefit/​cost increases 40% at the
most efficient commercial photo heterotrophic technology evaluated, compared
with traditional earthen pond production. However, the analysis shows that
increasing CAPEX must result in an increase in sales to maintain the desired B/​
C, as shown when HPDE-​lined ponds yield 3.5 ton/​ha/​cycle. This technology
is highly biosecure, environmentally friendly, sustainable, and economically
attractive. Preliminary trials using the wide-​pool genetic nucleus stock show
that B/​C is over 2. The knowledge-​based data supporting this technology pro-
vide certainty for investing in a commercial venture. With a growing demand
for crayfish worldwide (18%/​yr), the redclaw crayfish (Cherax quadricarinatus)
could become the next successfully mass-​produced crustacean.
 newgenrtpdf
Aquaculture bioeconomics: a brief introduction 165
System CAPEX Yield Sales Cost Cost Income Income IRR NPV B/​C Cost

($) kg/​yr ($) Yr 1-​3 Yr 4-​10 Yr 1-​3 Yr 4-​10 (%) ($) $/​kg

Earth 3,094,236 88,133 1,321,125 742,930 692,930 578,194 628,194 14.54 299,205 1.30 7.9
Gravel 3,214,236 123,386 1,849,574 833,150 783,150 1,016,424 1,066,424 29.91 2,402,865 1.70 6.4
HDPE3.5 4,752,204 123,386 1,849,574 833,150 783,150 1,016,424 1,066,424 17.60 1,029,679 1.45 6.4
HDPE4.8 4,752,204 169,214 2,536,559 950,498 900,498 1,586,061 1,636,061 31.63 3,903,408 1.82 5.3
166 Fernando Aranceta Garza

Appendix

Constructing an aquaculture bioeconomic model

To represent the construction of a bioeconomic aquaculture model, we will use
an example of a penaeid shrimp farm whose previously estimated parameters for
each sub-​model are in Table 10.4 (taken from Seijo 2004). These parameters must
be estimated each time a culture cycle is modelled under new species and techno-
logical conditions.
The farm is a semi-​intensive system where balanced feed is added to the juveniles
until they reach harvest size. The water in the ponds is renewed naturally with each
tide cycle. One primary research question is: What would the optimal harvest time
be for the shrimp farm? To answer the question, we will develop an evaluation using
a deterministic and dynamic bioeconomic model for a farm with an effective cul-
ture area of 100 ha, seeding 75 million individuals ( N t =0 ) , giving a density of 75
individuals/​m2. To avoid complicating the exercise, we will assume that the environ-
ment is stable and the growth rate of the seeded batch is homogeneous.
The mathematical development of the previous section equations using the
Table 10.4 parameters for each sub-​model that comprises the bioeconomic aqua-
culture model was elaborated using Microsoft Excel. The results are shown below.

A.1 Constructing the biological sub-​model

With the data obtained from Table 10.4, we can start constructing the biological
sub-​model. For this exercise, we are assuming that the best model that explained
shrimp growth was the von Bertalanffy growth model. We are calculating a culti-
vation period (t) of 24 months ( tmax =� 24) for demonstration purposes, but usually,
the duration of a shrimp culture could vary from 4 to 8 months. Thus, we start cal-
culating growth, survival, and biomass:
For growth, we use equations (10.4) and (10.5). The number of individuals sur-
viving the aquaculture production system is calculated by equation (10.12).

Equation Equation with values from Table 10.4

( 4) Lt = L∞ (1 − e − k ⋅(t − t ) )
0
Lt = 23(1 − e −0.26⋅(t − 0) )
(5)� wt = α ⋅ Lt β wt = 0.0037 * Lt 3
(12) Nt = N 0 * exp(− M *t ) N t = 75, 000, 000 * exp (−0.11*t )

t� =​time interval in months, from 1 to 25. Lt � =​length at the month t .

The dynamic biomass of the production system per month ( t ) in tonnes is

estimated with equation (10.13):

wt ⋅ N t
Bt =
1, 000, 000 g
 newgenrtpdf
Table 10.4 Bioeconomic parameters for a shrimp production semi-​intensive system divided in biological, technological, and economical sub-​model

Biological sub-​model

Parameters Symbol Value Units

Post-​larvae introduced in the production system in t = 0 N0 75,000,000 individuals

Age-​specific natural mortality M 0.11 month–​1
Curvature parameter of growth equation k 0.26 month–​1
Adjustment parameter t0 0 month–​1
Maximum length of species L∞ 23 cm
Parameter of length weight function α 0.0037 kg/​cm
Parameter of isometric growth β 3 –​

Aquaculture bioeconomics: a brief introduction 167

Technological sub-​model
Parameters Symbol Value Units
Food conversion rate FCR 1.7 ratio
Economic sub-​model
Parameters Symbol Value Units
Unit cost of food cf 0.6 USD/​kg
Unit cost of harvest hc 0.0025 USD/​ind
Unit cost of removing head hoc 0.0015 USD/​ind
Other variable costs OVC (labor, energy and maintenance costs) 55000 USD/​month
Fixed cost FC 5000 USD/​month
Price of species Pmax 21.6 US/​kg
Curvature parameter of price function rp 0.053 USD/​g
Rate of discount d 0.008 month–​1

Environmental sub-​model
Parameter Symbol Value Units
Risk factor e.g. disease rf 0.1 month–​1

Note: We can deal with other aquaculture production complexities, such as: continuous production systems (i.e. seasonality (Tian et al. 1993; Cacho et al. 1990),
alternative aeration and water circulation systems (Martinez & Seijo 2001; Huguenun and Colt 2002; Peñalosa Martinell et al. 2021) or varying production intensities
(Villanueva et al., 2013). Appropriate dynamic bioeconomic models should be used to represent such relevant factors of the farm production process. For long-​run invest-
ment analysis see Hanson et al. (1985), Hatch & Kinnucan (1993) and Martínez et al. (1994).
168 Fernando Aranceta Garza

A.1.1 Results of the biological sub-​model

Figure 10.2 shows the results of dynamic growth, natural mortality, and biomass.
The classic cohort survival trajectory can be observed shaped as a negative expo-
nential due to applying constant natural mortality ( M ). Figure 10.2 (top) shows
that at the initial phase or t� =​0, the culture cycle began with 75 million post-​larvae,
where at the following months ( t > 0 ), the individuals were subjected to a constant
10.4% of mortality for each month or unit of time, until t = 24 months, resulting in
survival of 5.3 million individuals at the end of the period.
Dynamic growth in length and weight are shown in Figure 10.2 (middle). The
weight trajectory curvature showed the highest growth rates at t =​4, followed by
a decline and stabilisation of the growth rate to 0 as juveniles approach their max-
imum weight value.
The product of the survivors with the weight at each month interval resulted
in the dynamic biomass curve in Figure 10.2 (bottom). The biomass trajectory
showed a maximum peak of 938 t in t =​ 8 under the assumed technology and
species intrinsic characteristics. After the peak, biomass decreases due to the drop
in growth rate and natural mortality of individuals.

A.2 Constructing the technological sub-​model

The technology sub-​model was based on the food conversion rate, and the feeding
over time is calculated in tons from Equation (10.14) as follows:

N t * ( wt +1 − wt ) *FCR
Ft =
1, 000, 000 g

A.2.1 Results of the technological model

The results for the technological model are shown in Figure 10.3, where the max-
imum food consumption was reached at t = 3 showing the relationship with the
expected weight change ( ∆w ) and the total individual survival for that month ( N t ).
The feed conversion rate (FCR) was 1.7 (an acceptable value but not so efficient in
cost terms), which is the amount of feed needed to be consumed by individuals to
gain a unit of weight or 1 gram of bodyweight.

A.3 Economic sub-​model

For determining the firm present value ( PV π t ) , first, the revenues and cost
functions must be estimated to obtain the profits in time, represented by equations
(10.16), (10.17), and (10.18).
 Aquaculture bioeconomics: a brief introduction 169

Figure 10.2 (A, B, C) Biological performance of a shrimp production semi-​intensive system

from top to bottom: individual survival in time; individual length and growth in
time; and biomass in time.
170 Fernando Aranceta Garza

Figure 10.3 Technological performance in a shrimp production semi-​intensive system from

top to bottom: feeding over time is the product of the feed conversion rate
(FCR) and the expected change in weight (∆w); expected change in weight per
individual in time.

C ( wt ) = ( cf ⋅ Ft ) + OVCt + FCt + ( hc ⋅ N t )

Pt = Pmax (1 − exp( − rp*wt ) )

T
π t = N t ⋅ Pt ⋅ wt − ∑C ( wt )
t =0
 Aquaculture bioeconomics: a brief introduction 171

Figure 10.4 Total costs, total revenues, and profits in the shrimp production process.

Subsequently, the discounting of the profits by the rate of discount per month
resulted in the present value per monthly interval as follows:

πt
PV π t =
(1 + r )t

Once the monthly present values are estimated, the research question about
establishing the optimal harvest time can be answered under the criterion of
the maximum PV value (equation 10.20). Another complementary alternative
addressed is applying the marginal analysis criterion (equations 10.22 and 10.23).

A.3.1 Results of the economic model

The total cost and revenues per unit of time (month) are shown in Figure 10.4. The
initial cultivation phase shows some economic losses in production, which have
derived from the fixed costs and post-​larva purchase (seedlings) with no revenue
generation. As these post-​larva grow in time, their potential economic value in rev-
enue increases concerning individual weight gain and survivorship. The dynamic
profits peaked in month 9 and decreased until reaching negative values in month
22. This negative trend is caused by a decrease in shrimp biomass (revenues)
concerning lower growth, constant mortalities, and relatively higher cost over time.
Figure 10.5 shows the optimal harvest timing was nine months with a total produc-
tion of 926 t/​100 ha of biomass of age nine individuals, representing a maximum
PV of ~US$ 132,000/​ha. This result was also supported under the marginal analysis
(Figure 10.5), showing the maximal-​present value under the condition MC� = MR .
172 Fernando Aranceta Garza

Figure 10.5 Determination of the optimal time of harvest using the complementary methods
of marginal analyses and the maximum present value of profits (PVπ). Arrow
denotes that when MC =​MR =​(PVπ).

As another possible extension of this exercise, incorporate a disease risk factor

( rf ) in the equation (10.20) as:

πt
PV π t =
(1 + r + rf )t

Now repeat the exercise and estimate the optimum harvest time under a dis-
ease risk, compare your results with the first exercise, and try to explain the new
harvesting decision as a shrimp production manager.

A.4 Applied examples using the aquaculture bioeconomic model

The following are literature references that use the bioeconomic aquaculture-​based
model developed in this chapter with other scopes, species, and scientific questions.

References
1. Martínez, J. A., & Seijo, J. C. (2001). Alternative cycling strategies for shrimp
farming in arid zones of Mexico: Dealing with risk and uncertainty. Marine Resource
Economics, 16(1), 51–​63.
2. Martínez, J. A., & Seijo, J. C. (2001). Economics of risk and uncertainty of alter-
native water exchange and aeration rates in semi-​intensive shrimp culture systems.
Aquaculture Economics & Management, 5(3-​4), 129–​145.
 Aquaculture bioeconomics: a brief introduction 173

3. Seijo, J. C. (2004). Risk of exceeding bioeconomic limit reference points in shrimp

aquaculture systems. Aquaculture Economics & Management, 8(3-​4), 201–​212.
4. Duarte, J. A., Villanueva, R., Seijo, J. C., & Vela, M. A. (2022). Ocean acidification
effects on aquaculture of a high resilient calcifier species: A bioeconomic approach.
Aquaculture, 559, 738426.
5. Kim, P. B., Klanian, M. G., & Seijo, J. C. (2020). Effect of size heterogeneity of Nile
tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) on the optimal harvest time: a bioeconomics approach.
Latin Merican Journal of Aquatic Research, 48(1), 65–​73.
6. Villanueva, R. R., Araneda, M. E., Vela, M., & Seijo, J. C. (2013). Selecting stocking
density in different climatic seasons: A decision theory approach to intensive aquacul-
ture. Aquaculture, 384, 25–​34.
7. Araneda, M. E., Hernández, J. M., Gasca-​Leyva, E., & Vela, M. A. (2013). Growth
modelling including size heterogeneity: Application to the intensive culture of white
shrimp (P. vannamei) in freshwater. Aquacultural Engineering, 56, 1–​12.
8. Seijo, J. C., Villanueva-​Poot, R., & Charles, A. (2016). Bioeconomics of ocean acid-
ification effects on fisheries targeting calcifier species: A decision theory approach.
Fisheries Research, 176, 1–​14.
9. Araneda, M., Hernández, J., Domínguez-​May, R., Vela, M. A., & Gasca-​Leyva, E.
(2018). Harvest time optimization considering the stocking density and heterogen-
eity of sizes in the culture of white shrimp in freshwater. Aquaculture Economics &
Management, 22(4), 431–​457.
10. Vela, M. A., Villarreal, H., Araneda, M., & Espinosa-​Faller, F. J. (2019). Growth and
survival of juvenile red drum, Sciaenops ocellatus, acclimated to freshwater at three
different stocking densities in a partial recirculation system. Journal of the World
Aquaculture Society, 50(1), 87–​103.
11. Peñalosa-​Martinell, D., Araneda-​Padilla, M., Dumas, S., Martinez-​Díaz, S., & Vela-​
Magaña, M. (2021). The use of probiotics in larval whiteleg shrimp (Litopenaeus
vannamei) production: A marginal analysis of bioeconomic feasibility. Aquaculture
Research, 52(3), 943–​951.
12. Musa, B. O., Hernández-​Flores, A., Adeogun, O. A., Duarte, J. A., & Villanueva-​Poot,
R. (2022). Stochastic bioeconomic analysis of intensive African Catfish cultivation
with three sources of uncertainty. Aquaculture International, 30(6), 2919–​2935.

Notes
i Firm: an organisation or enterprise that combines inputs of labour, capital, land, and
raw or finished component materials to produce outputs; in aquaculture the output is
tonnes of biomass.
ii Global market: interaction between potential buyers and sellers across national borders
occurring in a combination of demand and supply.
iii Perfecto competition: a market structure composed of many business competitors that
sell identical products.
iv Oligopoly: a market structure composed of few large firms that have all or most of the
sales in an industry.
v Monopoly: a market structure composed of one firm producing all the output in a
market.
vi Profits: total revenues —​total cost.
174 Fernando Aranceta Garza

vii Marginal analysis: examination of decisions at the margin, meaning a little more or a
little less from the status quo.
viii Marginal revenues: the additional revenue gained from selling one more unit.
ix Marginal costs: the additional cost of producing one unit.
x Marginal costs: the additional cost of producing one unit.

References
1 Baluyut, E. A. (1989). Aquaculture systems and practices: a selected review. United
Nations Development Programme and Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations, Rome. FAO ADCP Report 89/​43
2 Asche, F., & Bjorndal, T. (2011). The economics of salmon aquaculture. John Wiley &
Sons, Oxford, UK.
3 Subasinghe, R., Soto, D., & Jia, J. (2009). Global aquaculture and its role in sustainable
development. Reviews in Aquaculture, 1(1), 2–​9. doi:10.1111/​j.1753-​5131.2008.01002.
4 Karim, M., Leemans, K., Akester, M., & Phillips, M. (2020). Performance of emergent
aquaculture technologies in Myanmar; challenges and opportunities. Aquaculture, 519,
734875.
5 Anderson, L. (2004). The Economics of Fisheries Management. The Blackburn
Press, USA.
6 García, S. M. (1996) Indicators for sustainable development in fisheries. Paper
presented at the 2nd World Fisheries Congress. Workshop on Fisheries Sustainability
Indicators. Brisbane, Australia, August 1996.
7 Seijo, J. C. (2004). Risk of exceeding bioeconomic limit reference points in shrimp
aquaculture systems. Aquaculture Economics & Management, 8(3–​4), 201–​212.
8 Beverton, R. J. H. and S. J. Holt (1959). A review of the lifespans and mortality rates
of fish in nature, and their relation to growth and other physiological characteristics.
p. 142–​180. In G.E.W. Wolstenholme and M. O’Connor (eds.) CIBA Foundation
Colloquia on Ageing: The Lifespan of Animals. Vol. 5. J & A Churchill Ltd, London.
9 Troadec, J. P. (1991). Extensive aquaculture: a future opportunity for increasing fish
production and a new field for fishery investigations. In ICES Marine Science Symposia
(Vol. 192, pp. 2–​5).
11 Aquaculture
Uncertainty sources and risk quantification
techniques

Marcelo E. Araneda Padilla and

Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

Decision-​making in aquaculture is regularly made under the assumption of cer-

tainty, especially through their own experiences or those of other producers, even
when producers are aware of the probable occurrence of undesirable events.
This situation has caused some of the productive proposals to fail because the
stochasticity variable has not been considered, only deterministic scenarios.
Furthermore, this perception of risk and how it is managed has pushed away several
financial stakeholders, since they don’t understand the industry and are not willing
to assume unknown risks. This situation reduces the capacity of the industry as a
whole to invest in new technologies and keep growing. As a result, investment in
sustainable technologies is reduced and business as usual is maintained, creating a
negative cycle.
One of the alternatives to improve this condition has been the application of risk
and uncertainty analysis. This approach –​through decision theory and business
analytics –​allows estimating and evaluating the consequences of exposure to a
hazard or a source of uncertainty. Thus, the purpose of this analysis is to be able to
quantify “uncertainty” and then use it in the calculation of probabilities to achieve
the desired objective and/​or not incur undesirable events. Therefore, this chapter
reviews and discusses the importance of risk and uncertainty in decision-​making in
aquaculture production, presenting the main sources of uncertainty in aquaculture
activities.
Additionally, the different methods for estimating risk and uncertainty in aqua-
culture are explored and recent studies where these methods are applied are also
presented. Finally, the benefits of incorporating these types of studies into aqua-
culture activities are discussed, in addition to reviewing recent studies where risk
management has begun to be strengthened through the application of machine
learning and artificial intelligence techniques. The chapter ends with a basic pro-
posal for risk and uncertainty quantification.

11.1 Introduction
As mentioned at the beginning of this book, aquaculture is the fastest-​growing
food production centre in the world. This activity –​through different production

DOI: 10.4324/9781003174271-14
176 Marcelo E. Araneda Padilla and Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

methods –​has contributed not only to greater economic development and employ-
ment generation but also to food security in many developing countries. Despite
this remarkable growth and aquaculture potential, production could still be greater
since it has been carried out with an incomplete knowledge of variables and pro-
ductive factors that if known and managed could further increase the productive
yield of the species in culture under the technological conditions in which they are
produced.1 In this sense, aquaculture production yields are affected by changes
in the environment, intrinsic biological factors of the species, and surrounding
economies. These changes affect production decisions and many of them are
characterised by being unexpected. In the salmon hatchery, for example, unex-
pected events, such as microalgal blooms, have led to production shutdowns.
In shrimp farming, the movement of larvae, juveniles, and broodstock between
different locations or countries has generated the introduction and spread of a
series of diseases, causing a negative scenario for production that was neither fore-
seen nor sufficiently regulated at the beginning. At the economic level, unforeseen
changes in prices, and decreased supply and demand for inputs have also caused
inadequate planning and negative profits at the financial level in many hatcheries.
A better understanding of the sources of these changes could help in being better
prepared to cope with these hitherto stochastic processes.
Although aquaculture producers are aware of the likely undesirable events, they
often do not have quantitative tools to assess potential risks given the large number
of variables and sources of uncertainty. Thus, they continue making decisions trying
to incorporate as best as possible their previous experience or that of other produ-
cers. This situation has caused several of the current productive proposals to have
a high possibility of failure or not reaching their full potential because they have
not considered the likely future scenarios. Likewise, many other proposals –​in the
middle of the project study process –​are evaluated in a deterministic manner, i.e.,
all the inputs that influence the activity (biological, technological, and economic)
are considered to be stable without any variation. The use of quantitative tools that
increase the probability of making better decisions is an important objective in
optimising production processes by incorporating the main sources of change in
the production performance variables.
A fundamental piece to meet such objectives has been the implementation of
techniques to quantify risk in aquaculture. These methods are part of the operation
research branch2 and in recent years grouped in the business analytics approach.3
These techniques have been essential for evaluating productive and economic
processes applied to renewable natural resources, such as fisheries and forestry.
Much of the decision-​making associated with the management of these resources,
such as harvest rate and optimal harvest, depends on a wide range of sources of
uncertainty. In aquaculture, these tools have been used to estimate the risks that
this sector generates for society and the environment. However, in recent years
they have been used to assess the risks that affect the success and sustainability of
the industry. In particular, financial risk assessment and its application to optimal
technical-​economic management aims to measure the risks associated with uncer-
tainty in production decisions.
 Aquaculture: uncertainty sources and risk quantification methods 177

Therefore, the objective of this chapter is to show the importance of a risk and
uncertainty analysis on production decisions in aquaculture, how to evaluate them,
and what the possible scopes of their application are. To this end, (a) concepts
of risk and uncertainty in aquaculture are defined; (b) sources of uncertainty that
affect production decisions are classified; (c) different techniques to estimate risks
are explored, discussing the scopes in aquaculture research where they have been
applied; (d) beneficial effects of incorporating this type of studies are discussed;
and (e) basic steps to be taken into account are identified to implement risk quanti-
fication in aquaculture activity.

11.2 Risk and uncertainty in aquaculture

Uncertainty is understood as the “imperfect knowledge of the state or processes
of nature” definition reached by the Technical Consultation on the Precautionary
Approach to Capture Fisheries. According to Caddy and Mahon, “Risk should be
understood as the probability that something will go wrong”.4
Both concepts are inherent to aquaculture processes where lack of certainty is a
common condition with respect to future events since many of the processes occur
under conditions of incomplete knowledge of the state of nature (e.g. exogenous,
biological, ecological, and economic variables), over which the producer has no
control. The probability of these events occurring and causing undesirable or
unfavourable situations is, in general, what generates the risk, whether biological
(suboptimal yield) or financial (low return on investment). Quantitatively esti-
mating this level of risk is a challenge. Even when dealing with the same species,
the sources of uncertainty and levels of risk can be diametrically opposed. For
example, risks in Chile in salmon farming are substantially different from those
in Norway due to various factors, such as the timing of disease occurrence, input
costs, and harvesting times. Life cycles between species also have a different dis-
position to risk. Their effects can be simple or complex, depending on the stage of
production. In salmon farms, the pre-​spawning stage in freshwater presents very
different risks compared to growth in sea cages. Despite these difficulties, a large
number of factors –​common among species and productions –​intervene in the
processes. These factors are characterised by one of the following features: vari-
able but predictable or openly random behaviour. Thus, an initial phase of risk and
uncertainty analysis consists of identifying the main sources of uncertainty and
then determining their predictability.

11.2.1 Uncertainty sources in aquaculture

Several authors have made important contributions to identifying sources of uncer-

tainty in productive biological environments, mainly in fishery resources (see the
“Recommended readings” section at the end of this chapter).
Aquaculture also presents different sources of uncertainty. Their identification
is an essential step not only to determine the probability of a negative uncertainty
event occurring and make it somewhat predictable but also to evaluate the possible
178 Marcelo E. Araneda Padilla and Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

consequences that could be caused by the uncertainty variables if they were to

occur. Although no detailed description of such “sources of uncertainty” exists in
aquaculture literature, different reports have specified those that commonly occur,
regardless of the species’ geographical location and type of culture.

11.2.2 Uncertainty in environmental variables

Part of aquaculture’s productive and economic success depends on the environ-
mental conditions in which it develops, for example, temperature, luminosity, inor-
ganic nutrient content, salinity, water column stability, and others that are still under
investigation. In general, these conditions are characterised by high variations,
which often have a significant effect on production (see Chapter 4). However, their
magnitude depends on the type of production.
Obviously, aquaculture systems in the sea and lakes are much more exposed to
environmental components and oceanographic phenomena than those developed
inland with ponds and closed systems. Open aquaculture systems have a special
relevance that may seem unexpected, such as microalgal upwelling and blooming.
The occurrence of these phenomena depends on several environmental factors.
In fish, their appearance has surprised many producers by the mass appearance
of fish affected by sudden death, mainly in the early morning and for no apparent
reason: healthy, well fed, with no infections or diseases in sight. In molluscs, these
phenomena have caused the restriction of market sales, especially due to the high
accumulation and concentration of biotoxins. Additionally, the low heterogeneity
of growth, population, and survival are also due to the discontinuous levels of
upwelling that induce a decrease in food availability.

11.2.3 Uncertainty in operational and technological variables

Uncertainties in operational and technological variables are those threats that

appear due to a management action and have an impact on the species being farmed.
Due to improvements in the production processes of most species, the competition
among aquaculture producers is increasing. This situation has led them to increase
culture densities, introduce exogenous species with better performance, and change
traditional production methods. These measures at the commercial level are often
not without dangers. The decisions make the presence of a number of harmful bio-
logical factors possible, such as pathogens and predators that incur diseases and
parasites. In most cases, these disturbances cause death, injury, and stress to the
organisms, as well as damage to production systems and structures.
A large number of aquaculture companies have seen their profitability decrease
due to accidents or disturbances in production, which often originate fortuitously,
mainly due to failures in the mechanical equipment that controls water quality
parameters. Unlike traditional systems, recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS)
are much more prone to failures due to the series of devices that compose them.
For example, problems in degassing equipment lead to increased carbon dioxide
concentrations and decreased oxygen. The result of this situation is not only less
 Aquaculture: uncertainty sources and risk quantification methods 179

oxygen but also reduced ability of organisms to use the available oxygen, causing
harmful effects on the health of the population and their survival, resulting in large
economic losses.

11.2.4 Uncertainty in biological behaviour

Unlike the category described above, cases exist where variability is not manifested
by environmental changes that modify expression but by purely biological vari-
ation. Generally, production growth models are deterministic and the organisms
in a cohort are represented by an average size. This situation does not occur, and
the importance of individual variability in growth lies in the fact that size disper-
sion can significantly affect the economic performance of a company, especially in
species that are marketed by size (as in shrimp).
In addition, organisms are susceptible to being harvested not only once, but
through a partial harvest strategy. Thus, the risk study could include the individual
heterogeneity of the phenomenon more efficiently by using the coefficient of vari-
ation or growth rate variation. Studies combining deterministic models –​structured
to size and stochasticity in growth rates –​could be a good alternative since individ-
uals of the same size reach different growth rates that could be described by the fits
of a likelihood function.

11.2.5 Uncertainty associated with the market and financial institutions

In aquaculture, this type of uncertainty is particularly expressed through variations

in price, cost (product and inputs), and financial capacity. Commonly, reduced
demand or competition contributes to a decrease in price for the industry, resulting
in low sales revenue. For a producer, the increase in input costs (food, energy, seed
equipment, among others) produces a decrease in economic benefits. Likewise, a
limited supply of inputs increases financial risks. A particular case in this regard
occurred in Hawaii with the Hawaiian moi (Polydactylus sexfilis) hatchery. This
activity has high risks due to the incompatibility between the supply of fry and
the production levels needed to be profitable. One solution to these difficulties
has been “vertical integration” through the development of hatchery production.5
This procedure seeks new alternatives for the industry, which are not exempt from
causing risks. This helps producers make new investments (capital, operation, feed,
and equipment) and it is feasible for companies to get into debt, which depending
on interest rates, capital structure, inflation, and other economic aspects, may cause
new financial losses.

11.2.6 Uncertainty associated with institutional aspects

Other sources of uncertainty that have a strong impact on aquaculture develop-

ment are social and political conditions. At the socioeconomic level, its implemen-
tation and stability may be affected by society’s attitudes or behaviour towards
the activity. Commonly, innovation and transfer in aquaculture are not a task that
180 Marcelo E. Araneda Padilla and Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

ensures the success of the activity. In many cases, when technology is transferred,
mainly in rural areas, the possibility of failure is due to a lack of understanding and
identification of the basic needs of the “target population”, which complicates the
adoption of the new activity.
Another important element is its expansion. Normally, this activity requires a
series of resources for its development, mainly space. This expansion is slowed
down by the constant competition from other equally important industries, which
even can be a priority for the state and also antagonistic to aquaculture (i.e. recre-
ational tourism and maritime traffic).
Finally, at the political level, its development can be slowed down by a series of
economic policies reflected in new interest rate applications for producers, impos-
ition of tax incentives, trade restrictions, and environmental policies. If poorly
implemented, these policies can contribute to risk as they can be increasingly
demanding, costly in terms of time, and subject to change.

11.2.7 Uncertainty of undetermined origin

This type of uncertainty is especially dangerous because of the processes or factors

that may exist. This uncertainty is not only difficult to control but can also be abso-
lutely ignored. These sources constitute “surprises” that if an ongoing production
system is considered, it can have negative and disastrous effects on the fulfilment
of the expected objectives at the end of the production process. Previously reached
commitments are implied and may not be fulfilled, especially in key performance
indicators defined by the decision-​makers themselves. The unpredictable nature
of these factors highlights the importance of planning, constant monitoring, and
implementing sound management practices in aquaculture. The following are some
examples of the uncertainty of undetermined origin in aquaculture production.

a Climate conditions and changes: Changes in climate can affect water tempera-
ture, rainfall patterns, and water quality, which in turn can influence aquatic
organisms’ health and growth. Extreme weather events, such as storms, floods,
or droughts can have a significant impact on aquaculture production
b Diseases and pests: Diseases and pests are a constant challenge in aquaculture
production. The presence of infectious diseases or pests in aquaculture crops
can cause a decline in organisms’ health and growth and even massive popula-
tion loss.
c Water quality: Water quality is a crucial factor in aquaculture production. The
presence of contaminants, such as chemicals or excess nutrients, can negatively
affect aquatic organisms’ health. In addition, changes in water parameters, such
as pH, salinity, or dissolved oxygen concentration can have detrimental impacts
on production.
d Price fluctuations: Prices of aquaculture products can be affected by unpre-
dictable economic factors, such as changes in supply and demand, variations
in production costs, trade policies, or geopolitical situations. These fluctuations
can generate uncertainty in the profitability of aquaculture production.
 Aquaculture: uncertainty sources and risk quantification methods 181

e Government regulations and policies: Changes in government regulations and

policies can influence aquaculture production. For example, the imposition of
new environmental or sanitary restrictions, modification of production limits, or
the implementation of trade tariffs can have a significant impact on the viability
and profitability of aquaculture operations.

11.2.8 Uncertainty in bioeconomic models for projection purposes

The sources of uncertainty in a bio-​mathematical model that is used for produc-
tion control purposes, and evaluation of key performance indicators (KPIs), such
as production and economics, may vary depending on the context and the specific
elements of the model. However, some common sources of uncertainty can be
identified. Among them, the following points are highlighted:

• Incomplete or inaccurate data: Uncertainty in the input data used in a

bioeconomic model can come from inaccurate measurements, rough estimates,
or missing data. These limitations can affect the accuracy and reliability of
model results.
• Approximations and simplifications: Bioeconomic models often require
simplifications to make the problem tractable and feasible. These simplifications
can introduce uncertainty due to the lack of full representation of the com-
plexity of the real system. In addition, the numerical approximations used in
the calculations can also generate uncertainty. For example, in this area, three
important elements can be identified to take into account:
a Generalisations: Predictive models often rely on assumptions and
generalisations to simplify and represent the target system. However, these
assumptions may not be fully accurate or applicable in all situations, which
introduces uncertainty in the model results.
b Parameters and coefficients: Mathematical models involve the selection of
parameters and coefficients that quantify the relationships between model
variables. These values may not be known with certainty and may require
estimates based on limited data or assumptions. The choice of these parameters
introduces uncertainty into the projections of the bioeconomic model.
c Human behaviour: If a model incorporates human behaviour, as in eco-
nomic or decision-​making models, uncertainty may arise from variability in
people’s choices and actions. Accurate prediction of human behaviour can
be difficult due to the complexity and uncertainty inherent in individual and
collective decisions.
d Future conditions and unpredictable events: Mathematical models pro-
ject outcomes based on conditions and events known at the time they are
constructed. However, future conditions and unpredictable events can gen-
erate uncertainty in model results, including changes in the environment,
governmental policies, economic fluctuations, or other unforeseen external
factors.
182 Marcelo E. Araneda Padilla and Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

It is important to recognise that uncertainty is inherent in bioeconomic models

and not all uncertain aspects can be controlled or quantified. Understanding the
sources of uncertainty and performing sensitivity and robustness analyses can help
assess the impact of uncertainty on model results.

11.3 Techniques for quantifying risk in aquaculture

Quantification of risk and uncertainty in aquaculture involves assessing and meas-
uring the probability and impact of future events or conditions that could affect
the production and economic performance of aquaculture operations. To do so,
it is essential to identify, estimate, quantify, and evaluate uncertainty and the
consequences of its occurrence.6 Regularly, the result is shown by means of a tech-
nical solution where a level of risk occurrence quantifying a situation is considered
unacceptable given the uncertainty of the environment or an acceptable situation.
Thus, risk analysis aims to quantify the “uncertainty” for use in calculating the
probability of achieving the desired objective and/​or incurring undesirable events.
One of the most widely used approaches to meet these objectives has been through
decision theory. Decisions are compared between possible different states of nature
that would affect the system. That is, a situation where the outcome (performance)
of an individual decision depends on the action of another agent (state of nature or
source of uncertainty) over which one has no control. Currently, different methods
are involved in these principles, which include sensitivity analysis, stochastic mod-
elling, scenario analysis, and the Bayesian method, among others. The following is
a detailed description of each of these methods.

11.3.1 Sensitivity analysis

The sensitivity analysis is an important tool for assessing the risks associated with
aquaculture and understanding their impact on financial and operational results.
This type of analysis is a technique for evaluating how changes in certain variables
or parameters may influence the results of an aquaculture project activity or pro-
posal. In the case of aquaculture, these variables may include (i) product prices;
(ii) production costs; (iii) production volumes; (iv) mortality rates of cultured
organisms; and (v) other relevant factors.
First, the sensitivity analysis helps to identify the key variables that have a signifi-
cant impact on the results of the indicators defined as targets by the decision-​maker.
By running different scenarios and variations of these key variables, estimates of
the possible ranges of outcomes may be obtained, allowing a better understanding
of the level of risk and uncertainty associated with the targets. Thus, assessing the
robustness of the activity in the face of different conditions is possible. Another
important point is that by generating key changes identified as uncertainty, it is
important to know which aspects of the productive activity may be more sensi-
tive to fluctuations in the environment and, therefore, require greater attention and
planning to reduce their negative impact. For example, if the analysis shows that
salmon production in a particular climatic season is very sensitive to variations in
 Aquaculture: uncertainty sources and risk quantification methods 183

sale prices, the adoption of diversification strategies or implementing long-​term

contracts can be considered to mitigate the risk of price volatility.
This technique also provides a solid basis for the design of risk management
strategies in aquaculture. By understanding how certain events or changes in key
variables can affect outcomes, more effective risk mitigation strategies can be
developed. For example, if variability in the mortality rate of cultured organisms
is identified as a major source of risk, more rigorous management practices can be
implemented, such as improvements in water quality, disease control, and ongoing
monitoring of organism health. In terms of strategic decision-​making in aquacul-
ture, this approach allows different scenarios to be explored and their impact on
objective outcomes to be evaluated. Decision-​makers can also evaluate the feasi-
bility of different alternatives and optimise resource allocation, which is especially
relevant when considering capital investments, expansion of production, or the
introduction of new species.

11.3.2 Stochastic models: Monte Carlo simulation

Proper management of risk and uncertainty is essential in aquaculture to ensure

long-​term profitability and sustainability. By considering the random nature of
events and variables that influence aquaculture, stochastic analysis has become a
powerful tool for assessing and quantifying these risks and uncertainties. Stochastic
modelling uses random variables to model and analyse uncertain phenomena, as
in aquaculture to simulate various scenarios based on changes of key variables,
such as product prices and volumes, organism growth rates, and environmental
factors. Monte Carlo simulation models are one of the main applications of sto-
chastic analysis in aquaculture. These models produce numerous random scenarios,
assigning probability distributions to the main or key aquaculture variables. By
performing several simulation iterations, a wide range of possible outcomes can be
obtained, allowing the probability of occurrence of various events to be assessed
and the risks associated with them to be quantified. They are also used to calculate
measures of performance and risk, such as expected value, standard deviation, and
confidence intervals. These measures provide a quantitative view of risk and uncer-
tainty in aquaculture and help decision-​makers evaluate different strategies and
scenarios. In addition, the stochastic analysis allows the sensitivity of the results
to be evaluated through stochastic sensitivity analysis. In this approach, the prob-
ability of distributions assigned to key variables is different to assessing how these
variations affect outcomes and risk exposure, which helps to identify the most
influential variables and develop more effective risk mitigation strategies.

11.3.3 Scenario analysis

Scenario analysis is a technique for examining and evaluating different hypothet-

ical situations or scenarios that may occur in an economic activity. In the context
of aquaculture, it involves the construction of scenarios that represent different
combinations of key variables, including product prices, environmental changes,
184 Marcelo E. Araneda Padilla and Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

variations in market demand, and other relevant factors. The application of scenario
analysis to quantify risk and uncertainty in aquaculture involves the following steps:

1 Identification of key variables: The identification of key variables or uncer-

tainty variables is a relevant step in the application of scenario analysis because
they will have an important effect and relative importance on the results, for
example, of the profitability or viability of a particular aquaculture activity.
Among the relevant variables are sales prices, production costs, climatic
conditions, government regulations, and changes in market demand, among
others.
2 Scenario building: A second step is the definition of hypothetical scenarios
that represent unique combinations of values for the identified variables,
considering scenarios related to sales prices of the target aquaculture product,
growth rates of the organisms, changes in water quality, etc. Each scenario
should be credible and representative of a likely future situation.
3 Evaluation of the effects: Each proposed scenario should be analysed to know
the effect on the economic performance, productivity, or viability of an aqua-
culture project. For example, the target values for revenues, costs, profitability,
and other relevant indicators should be assessed in each scenario to understand
how changes in key variables may influence economic performance and the
associated risks.
4 Identification of risks and opportunities: When the different scenarios are
analysed, the risks and opportunities associated with each should be identified.
For example, some scenarios may present increased risks due to unfavourable
changes in sales prices or adverse environmental conditions. Other scenarios
may represent opportunities for improved profitability due to favourable
changes in market demand or production efficiency, to name a few.
5 Developing risk management strategies: Using the results of the scenario
analysis makes it possible to develop more effective risk management strat-
egies. For example, if high-​risk scenarios are identified, mitigation measures
can be considered, such as diversifying the products grown, implementing more
robust management practices, or securing long-​term sales contracts, to name
a few. Similarly, favourable scenarios that were previously identified can be
leveraged to take advantage of growth opportunities and maximise profitability.

11.3.4 Bayesian method

The Bayesian method quantifies and manages uncertainty by incorporating new

information and updating estimates as additional data become available. This stat-
istical approach relies on Bayes’ theorem to update initial estimates as new rele-
vant information becomes available. In the context of aquaculture, the Bayesian
method is used to quantify uncertainty and assess risks by combining observed data
with prior knowledge or initial assumptions. The essential steps in carrying out the
application of this approach are as follows:
 Aquaculture: uncertainty sources and risk quantification methods 185

• Definition of initial distributions: Initial probability distributions should be

defined for the variables of interest, such as crop yields, sales prices, production
costs, etc. These distributions can be based on historical data, expert knowledge,
or reasonable assumptions.
• Data collection: Obtaining data is an important action. Data can be collected
directly or obtained by designing studies to collect relevant information on the
variables of interest or uncertainty. This information may include data on crop
yields, market prices, environmental conditions, and economic information,
among others.
• Updating distributions using Bayes’ theorem: As new data become avail-
able, it is necessary to update the initial distributions using Bayes’ theorem.
This update combines the initial distributions with the likelihood function of the
observed data to obtain a posterior distribution that better reflects the updated
knowledge.
• Sensitivity and scenario analysis: Once the a posteriori distributions have
been obtained, it is necessary to perform a sensitivity and scenario analyses
with them to evaluate how the different combinations of values in the variables
of interest affect the results and decision-​making.
• Risk assessment and decision-​making: Having solved the above where the pos-
terior distributions and the results of the sensitivity analysis were incorporated,
the risks associated with different decisions or strategies may be assessed. This
step not only allows one to make informed decisions but also designs more
effective risk management strategies.

11.4 Risk and uncertainty studies in aquaculture

In recent years, the quantification of risk and uncertainty in aquaculture has become
an important milestone to address, especially when informed decision-​making is
required to help the activity’s sustainability, improving and optimising its processes.
So far, a series of studies applied to the aquaculture activity have been carried out,
which include different species of commercial interest and techniques to quantify
risk and uncertainty. The following is a description of some case studies where the
different methods previously described are addressed.
When we refer to sensitivity studies, they are generally associated or reinforced
with a stochastic model. This is the case of the study proposed by Ruiz-​Velazco
et al.,7 which investigated the profitability, uncertainty, and economic risk
associated with different partial harvesting strategies in semi-​intensive commer-
cial production of white shrimp, Litopenaeus vannamei. The authors recognise that
uncertainty and risk are important factors to consider when making decisions in
commercial aquaculture. Therefore, the study used sensitivity analysis and sto-
chastic modelling as tools to quantify and evaluate the impact of uncertainty on
profitability and economic risk of partial harvesting strategies. The application
of these methods to address risk first helped to identify and evaluate how eco-
nomic outcomes vary in response to changes in key parameters and input variables.
186 Marcelo E. Araneda Padilla and Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

The main variables identified as sources of uncertainty were shrimp selling price,
production costs, shrimp growth rate, and feed conversion rate. The sensitivity
analysis determined that the shrimp sales price and production costs had a sig-
nificant impact on the profitability and economic risk of the activity. In molluscs,
for example, Theodorou and Tzovenis8 provided a practical tool for assessing and
managing the risks associated with mollusc aquaculture in coastal Greece. These
authors determined that this aquaculture activity is exposed to a number of risks
and uncertainties, which have a significant impact on the production and profit-
ability of operations. The study addresses the problem by implementing a system-
atic approach to identify, assess, and mitigate these risks. This risk approach was
based on a combination of qualitative and quantitative risk assessment. Sensitivity
analysis tools, through the study of historical data, were used. This method was
strengthened by including the identification of hazards and vulnerabilities, estima-
tion of probabilities of adverse events, and impact and consequences analysis. The
data collected corresponded to environmental conditions, cultivation practices, and
markets, which were among the most important. The main risks associated with
mussel farming were also identified and their potential impacts in terms of pro-
duction and profitability were assessed. Finally, this risk quantification provided
a comprehensive view of the risks and uncertainties facing mussel aquaculture in
the Mediterranean region of Greece, allowing producers and decision-​makers to
implement more effective risk management strategies and take measures to reduce
vulnerability and improve the resilience of the industry.
On investment issues associated with aquaculture production, Landazuri-​
Tveteraas et al.9 examined the determinants of investment behaviour in salmon
aquaculture in Norway, including how risk and uncertainty are quantified. This study
used a quantitative approach to analyse the determinants of investment decisions
in salmon aquaculture. To quantify risk and uncertainty, the authors applied sen-
sitivity analysis and econometric modelling. The sensitivity analysis was used to
assess the impact of various variables on investment decisions, which involved
identifying key factors affecting profitability and risk in salmon aquaculture, such
as market prices, production costs, resource availability, and regulatory changes.
Econometric models were used to analyse the relationship between these factors
and investment decisions. These models considered the relationship between eco-
nomic and financial variables, and how they influence the profitability and risk of
salmon aquaculture investment. In addition, a scenario analysis was conducted to
assess the impact of possible future changes in key variables, such as market prices
or production costs. These results helped industry stakeholders to better understand
the implications of different scenarios and make informed decisions.
Regarding the use of stochastic models, it is interesting to mention that they
are the most employed methods to address risk or their combination with other
methodological approaches. Moor et al.10 addressed the issue of the financial via-
bility of shellfish aquaculture through the use of stochastic models. According to
the authors, shellfish aquaculture faces numerous challenges, including variability
in product prices, production costs, and environmental factors. These uncertain
factors can have a significant impact on the profitability and sustainability of
 Aquaculture: uncertainty sources and risk quantification methods 187

aquaculture operations. To address the problem, the researchers used a stochastic

modelling approach, which allowed them to capture variability and uncertainty in
the different economic and environmental parameters related to mollusc aquacul-
ture. The authors used advanced statistical techniques (Monte Carlo modelling)
to simulate multiple scenarios and analyse financial outcomes as a function of
different variables and assumptions. The results of the study provided important
information on the risks and uncertainty associated with shellfish aquaculture and
allowed industry stakeholders to make more informed and strategic decisions
Considering the effect of climate change, Sheng et al.11 evaluated the profit-
ability of freshwater aquaculture in China. The study focused on quantifying the
risk and uncertainty associated with these impacts. To quantify risk and uncer-
tainty, the authors used an approach based on economic and stochastic simula-
tion models. First, they developed an economic model to assess the profitability of
freshwater aquaculture under different climate scenarios. This model considered
key economic variables, such as production costs, selling prices of aquaculture
products, and market demand. They also used simulation techniques to generate
multiple climate scenarios and evaluate the impact of these scenarios on aqua-
culture profitability. These climate scenarios considered different relevant climatic
variables, such as water temperature, precipitation patterns, and availability of nat-
ural resources. The results of this research allowed identifying the most vulnerable
geographical areas and time periods, as well as estimating the potential economic
losses in freshwater aquaculture in China.
Considering the open sea, Jin et al.12 present an approach based on an invest-
ment and production model at the enterprise level to quantify risk and uncertainty.
This study focuses on the risk analysis associated with open-​water aquaculture
investment, considering both economic and biological factors. To quantify risk and
uncertainty, the authors used a bioeconomic modelling approach that integrates
several variables and scenarios. As economic variables, they considered invest-
ment costs, operating costs, sales prices of aquaculture products, and interest rates.
Among the biological variables, the main sources of uncertainty were the growth
rate of cultured species, mortality, reproduction, and feed availability. These bio-
logical factors are inherently uncertain and vary in different scenarios, which adds
another dimension of uncertainty to the risk analysis. The final model estimates the
financial and biological risks associated with investing in open-​water aquaculture.
The model also simulates different scenarios and calculates risk measures, such
as the probability of underperforming or suffering economic losses in open-​water
aquaculture.
The uncertainty associated with diseases and their economic effect on the activity
is another important milestone in the application of the risk approach. Hernandez-​
Llamas et al.13 present an approach to quantify risk and uncertainty in intensive
aquaculture of Litopenaeus vannamei. These authors address the economic risk
associated with white spot disease, as well as stochastic variability in economic,
zootechnical, and water quality parameters, affecting intensive white shrimp
production. To quantify risk and uncertainty, the authors used an approach that
combines economic analysis and stochastic modelling. First, an economic analysis
188 Marcelo E. Araneda Padilla and Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

was conducted to evaluate the costs and benefits associated with intensive white
shrimp production, considering factors, such as production costs, selling prices,
growth rates, and mortality. These economic factors were then used to estimate
the profitability and financial risk of shrimp aquaculture. In addition, stochastic
variability in zootechnical and water quality parameters influencing production
was incorporated. Uncertainty in growth rate, mortality rate, and dissolved oxygen
levels in the water were also considered. These parameters were modelled using
probability distributions to reflect their random nature. Using stochastic simulation
techniques, the authors generated multiple scenarios that allowed the calculation
of risk measures, such as the probability of economic loss or failure to meet pro-
duction targets. This provided a better understanding of potential risks that allow
producers to make informed decisions for optimal shrimp aquaculture management
considering the presence of the disease.
Risk analysis has also been used to compare technologies for production use.
Engle and Sapkota14 conducted a comparative analysis of economic risk in the
production of striped bass hybrid fingerlings in ponds and indoor tanks. To quan-
tify risk and uncertainty, the authors used the Monte Carlo simulation approach.
This method is based on the generation of multiple random scenarios to represent
variability and uncertainty in key study variables, such as production costs, selling
prices, and fry growth rate. For each of the scenarios, the economic performance
of striped bass hybrid fry production was estimated considering the technology
with ponds and indoor tanks. To strengthen the results, the authors also considered
other indicators of economic risk, such as volatility and sensitivity of the results
to changes in key variables, which provided a more complete picture of the risks
associated with fingerling production.
In the same area, Seijo15 addresses the risk of exceeding bioeconomic limits
in shrimp aquaculture systems. To quantify risk and uncertainty, this author uses
an approach based on the theory of decision-​making under uncertainty. In par-
ticular, the concept of “bioeconomic reference points” is used to assess the risk
of exceeding certain critical limits that could have negative impacts on the sus-
tainability and profitability of shrimp aquaculture systems. The method used
involved the construction of a bioeconomic model that relates key variables such
as sales prices, production costs, shrimp growth rate, and the carrying capacity of
the system. From this model, bioeconomic reference points were established that
represent critical thresholds to which attention should be paid to avoid significant
risks. Using this information, a stochastic-​sensitivity analysis was performed and
different sources of uncertainty were introduced into the model, such as market
price, production costs, and environmental conditions. By simulating scenarios and
generating multiple random realisations of these variables, the risk of exceeding the
bioeconomic benchmarks was evaluated. Through the simulation of the results, the
probability of shrimp aquaculture systems exceeding the established critical limits
can be determined. This simulation provides valuable information for decision-​
making in shrimp aquaculture, identifying appropriate management strategies and
policies to mitigate risk and ensuring the economic sustainability of the systems.
 Aquaculture: uncertainty sources and risk quantification methods 189

Regarding the application of scenario analysis, Yakabu et al.16 use scen-

ario analysis and land use change modelling to assess the opportunities and
challenges of sustainable aquaculture expansion in Nigeria. This study recognises
the importance of considering multiple factors, such as the availability of suit-
able land, production capacity, and socioeconomic aspects, when assessing the
potential for aquaculture expansion in Nigeria. Through the scenario analysis,
different possible future conditions were explored, and the expected impacts in
terms of aquaculture production and land use change were assessed. Land use
change modelling simulated and predicted aquaculture expansion patterns under
different scenarios. With these results, the most suitable areas could be identified
for the location of aquaculture farms and to evaluate possible land use conflicts
and associated environmental impacts. Another case was conducted by Couture
et al.,17 where this type of approach was used; these authors present a study using
scenario analysis as a tool to guide aquaculture planning and achieve sustainable
production objectives. The authors demonstrated that multiple factors should
be considered, such as the availability of suitable marine areas, environmental
impacts, market demand, and regulatory policies to plan for future growth of
marine aquaculture. Using the scenario analysis, they explored different com-
binations of factors and evaluated the expected outcomes in terms of aquaculture
production and sustainability. This approach made it possible to examine a wide
range of future possibilities and assess how different decisions and conditions
might influence the achievement of sustainable production goals. In addition,
they identified barriers and opportunities associated with each scenario, which
provided valuable informed decision-​making, especially for marine resource
managers and stakeholders involved in the aquaculture industry as decision-​
makers. Regarding the Bayesian approach, Hadley et al. provide a Bayesian
approach to quantify and address uncertainty in a macroalga-​based integrated
multi-​trophic aquaculture model. The authors identified as sources of uncer-
tainty model parameters and variability in the observed data. These two sources
were treated using the Bayesian approach by combining prior information and
observed data to obtain accurate and probabilistic estimates of model parameters
and predictions. The application of this approach finally facilitated the sensitivity
analysis to evaluate the relative influence of different sources of uncertainty on
model predictions. This analysis provided valuable information to understand
which variables and parameters have the greatest impact on the results and how
they can be most effectively managed. Furthermore, the ability of managers and
decision-​makers to assess the risks and viability of production systems improved.
Randall et al.18 also used the Bayesian method, combining this approach along
with mining data to assess risk and uncertainty in rice and shrimp aquaculture in
Vietnam. The authors developed a mathematical model to analyse the relation-
ship between various variables and estimate the probability of occurrence to dis-
cover hidden patterns and relationships in the data, which contributed to a better
understanding of the factors influencing yield and production in rice and shrimp
aquaculture in Vietnam.
190 Marcelo E. Araneda Padilla and Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

11.5 New techniques for risk management in aquaculture: machine

learning and artificial intelligence (AI)
In recent years, the use of machine learning and AI techniques in aquaculture risk
management has gained popularity because of their ability to analyse large data
sets, identify patterns, and make predictions. These techniques can help quan-
tify risk and uncertainty by providing more accurate and sophisticated analyses.
According to Aziz and Dowling19 the process of using machine learning and AI to
quantify risk involves the following steps:

• Data collection: Relevant aquaculture-​related data are collected, such as pro-

duction, environmental, and market data, besides other factors that may affect
the performance and profitability of aquaculture systems.
• Data preparation: Collected data are processed and prepared for analysis,
which involves data cleaning, removal of outliers, and data normalisation if
necessary.
• Feature selection: The most relevant features or variables to be used for ana-
lysis are selected, which may include variables related to water quality, tempera-
ture, production costs, market prices, among others.
• Model building: A machine learning or AI model is built using appro-
priate algorithms. These algorithms analyse the data and learn patterns and
relationships between variables to make predictions and decisions.
• Model training and validation: The model is trained using historical data and
validated using separate data sets to assess its accuracy and performance.
• Prediction and risk assessment: Once the model has been trained and validated,
it can be used to make predictions and assess risk, which involves using current
data to predict possible scenarios and risks associated with aquaculture, such as
disease probability, crop yields, and production costs, among others.
• Risk management: Based on model results and predictions, informed decisions
can be made to mitigate risk in aquaculture, which may include adjustments in
management practices, implementation of biosecurity measures, optimisation of
resources, and strategic planning.

Among the recent studies applying machine learning and AI is Yang et al.20.
This study addresses the importance of machine learning tools in the con-
text of risk assessment and safety in aquaculture operations. In the aquacul-
ture industry, appropriate operational limits should be established to ensure the
safety of systems and minimise the risks associated with operations. These oper-
ational limits are defined based on a variety of factors, such as environmental
conditions, the health of cultured organisms, and the availability of resources,
among others. The research highlights that machine learning tools play a key role
in determining these operational limits, since they can analyse large volumes of
data and extract relevant information for decision-​making. Machine learning
can identify complex patterns and relationships in the data collected from aqua-
culture operations, which helps to better understand the potential risks and
 Aquaculture: uncertainty sources and risk quantification methods 191

critical areas that require attention. According to the authors, the main advan-
tage of applying this approach is that it allows for a more accurate and objective
assessment of risks by taking into account multiple interrelated variables and
factors. In addition, early signs of potential problems or adverse events can
be identified, providing a faster and more effective response to mitigate risks.
Another highlight of this work is the ability of machine learning to continu-
ously improve risk and safety models in aquaculture. As more information is
collected and data are updated, machine learning algorithms can adapt and
improve their predictive capability, contributing to more efficient and accurate
risk management
In the same field, Gladju et al.21 present a comprehensive review of the
applications of data mining and machine learning framework in aquaculture and
fisheries. According to the authors, in the field of aquaculture and fisheries, the use
of data mining and machine learning has become increasingly important due to
its ability to analyse large volumes of data and extract valuable information. This
statement is in line with the previously described work, which also highlights that
these technologies can improve efficiency, productivity, and sustainability in these
sectors. Likewise, the techniques demonstrate their capacity in the detection and
prediction of diseases and pests in cultivated organisms, where identifying patterns
and early signs of diseases are also possible, allowing a rapid and precise response
to control their spread and minimise losses. Another highlight is the application
in feed and nutrition optimisation processes in aquaculture. These techniques can
analyse data related to water quality, feed composition, and organism growth to
develop customised feeding models that maximise feed efficiency and reduce costs.
Finally, the techniques can be applied in supply chain management and marketing
of aquaculture and fishery products. Moreover, they can analyse market data, con-
sumer preferences, and economic factors to improve decision-​making in product
marketing and promotion.

11.5.1 Facing uncertainty, a sustainable perspective

The risk analysis not only has an estimation of reaching a certain probability of
success or failure in culture, but when well-​applied, it is a powerful tool to focus
on future efforts to prevent risk and reduce the sources of uncertainty. In effect,
as a product of resampling the interest variables have a variance, which may be
explained in different percentages for each one of the uncertainty sources. For
example, a variance of 100% w% can be explained for natural mortality, x% prob-
ability of appearance of catastrophic diseases, y% variability in growth, z% envir-
onmental variability, and so on.
In this scheme, if the variables that are sources of uncertainty follow a hierarch-
ical order from those that most contribute to the final variance (which is the risk
likelihood), they may be developed, and some policies directed to reduce them
may be applied. Thus, the priority selection of inversion (i.e., in technology or
future studies that limit the uncertainty in such variables) contributes to the finan-
cial success of aquaculture. This priority selection may, in turn, have a significant
192 Marcelo E. Araneda Padilla and Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

impact on the performance of aquaculture activities, not only from an economic

point of view but also environmental and social.
As an example, the use of risk analysis applying a sustainable vision can be
seen in the work of Peñalosa Martinell.22 The author developed a risk analysis
from the point of view of sustainability adding a series of environmental and social
characteristics to the classical economic parameters to evaluate the performance
of white shrimp larval production with and without the use of new technologies.
In turn, the author evaluated the impact that the application of the current public
policies in Mexico has associated with aquaculture production and its implication
on greenhouse gas emissions. For this purpose, an indicator was selected for each
one of the sustainability spheres (CO2 emission for the environment; benefits per
cycle for the economy; and a point of social equilibrium for society). Then, a risk
analysis was used jointly to evaluate the probabilities to reach a series of goals. The
author concluded that when the existent subsidy was currently transferred from
the energy application to implement eco-​friendly technologies (such as the use of
probiotics in shrimp larva production), the risk of not reaching the point of social
equilibrium is reduced significantly.

11.6 Final remarks

Risk analysis is a technique that originated in the world of finance, and its applica-
tion has developed towards risk reduction to maximise financial returns. However,
efforts and tools have been initiated to find solutions to improve the performance of
the industry not only from an economic but also sustainable point of view.
Due to the number of variables and parameters involved, aquaculture systems
are highly complex, which makes the productive dynamics and success or failure
of the activity difficult to predict in terms of both sustainability and economics.
In addition to the above, these systems are subjected to high intrinsic biological
variability of the species, environmental and technological, among others. This
situation frequently leads to unforeseen events for which adequate and effective
responses are not always available. All this variability means that decision-​making
based solely on empirical experience only introduces new sources of uncertainty in
the success of the activity. All of the above makes aquaculture a high-​risk activity.
Bioeconomic systems modelling has emerged as an effective platform to
address the need for decision-​making when cognitive resources are limited. These
models analyse the complexity of aquaculture systems, evaluate different scenarios
and strategies, and make informed decisions to promote sustainable and profitable
production in aquaculture. These tools use a systemic approach to understand and
interrelate all aspects that influence aquaculture production (biological-​ecological,
technological, management methods, and economic, such as market characteristics,
profitability, or investment decisions). However, the need to identify the main
sources of uncertainty in aquaculture is essential in this process. The description
and knowledge of the main sources of uncertainty in aquaculture, presented in this
chapter, are essential for a correct analysis and quantification of risk because they
are an important guide for both producers and bioeconomists. In the case of produ-
cers, the main sources of uncertainty not only help to avoid making decisions under
 Aquaculture: uncertainty sources and risk quantification methods 193

assumptions of certainty or based solely on previous experience, but also recognise

the likely effects on production decision-​making. For economists, incorporating
these elements into quantitative formulations helps them to incorporate stochastic
scenarios into aquaculture programmes (optimisation and simulation), incorporate
reference points (targets and limits), and determine the probabilities of success or
failure in aquaculture projects or alternative harvesting and production techniques.
To quantify risk and uncertainty in aquaculture, sensitivity analysis methods,
stochastic models, scenario analysis, and Bayesian methods have become funda-
mental tools. These methodologies help to evaluate the impact of different variables
and scenarios, identify the main sources of risk, and make informed decisions to
effectively manage the risks associated with the activity. The sensitivity analysis
is particularly relevant, since it helps to understand how the model results change
when key or uncertainty inputs are varied, which allows identifying the most
influential and sensitive variables and focusing management and control efforts
to minimise risk. Stochastic models and scenario analysis help to incorporate the
inherent uncertainty in aquaculture and evaluate possible outcomes under different
conditions. These tools improve the understanding of the variability and limits of the
production systems, which is crucial for making informed and adaptive decisions.
On the other hand, the Bayesian method combines previous information and new
evidence to update risk estimates and make decisions based on probabilities. This
approach allows for more rigorous risk assessment by using updated information
to improve decision-​making. As a means to strengthen the previous techniques and
the bioeconomic models where these techniques are applied, we have currently
used and implemented new information technologies such as machine learning
and artificial intelligence. These methods are revolutionising risk assessment and
management in aquaculture. These technologies make it possible to analyse large
volumes of data, identify patterns and trends, and make more accurate predictions
about the behaviour of aquaculture systems. They definitely help to anticipate and
mitigate risks, optimise operations, and improve the profitability and sustainability
of aquaculture.
To address and apply the above, a logical sequence of steps should be established
to correctly address risk assessment in aquaculture. The following is a basic outline
that aims to provide a general and simplified overview of the process for analysing
risk and uncertainty in aquaculture (Figure 11.1). In practice, more detailed and
specific approaches may be required depending on the particular situation, how-
ever, this basis could guide and enhance this analysis itself.

1 Risk identification:
• Identify potential adverse events that could affect aquaculture production.
• Consider biological, environmental, economic, social, and regulatory risks.
2 Uncertainty analysis:
• Identify sources of uncertainty in aquaculture, such as price fluctuations,
changes in environmental conditions, etc.
• Assess the magnitude and extent of uncertainty associated with each source.
194 Marcelo E. Araneda Padilla and Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

Figure 11.1 Basics steps of the risk analysis and uncertainty in aquaculture.

3 Risk assessment:
• Assess the probability of occurrence of identified adverse events.
• Evaluate the potential impact of the events on aquaculture production and
operations.
4 Risk mitigation:
• Develop strategies and measures to reduce the probability of occurrence of
adverse events.
• Implement appropriate management practices, such as sanitary protocols,
early warning systems, species diversification, etc.
5 Continuous monitoring and review:
• Regularly monitor relevant conditions and variables.
• Evaluate the effectiveness of implemented risk mitigation strategies.
• Make adjustments and improvements to management strategies based on
changes and lessons learned.
6 Communication and decision-​making:
• Communicate the results of the risk and uncertainty analysis to stakeholders.
• Use the information obtained to make informed and strategic decisions in
aquaculture management.
 Aquaculture: uncertainty sources and risk quantification methods 195

11.7 Chapter review questions

1 What is a risk and how can we manage it?
2 Can risk be managed without historical data?
3 Which are the most common types of risk?
4 Can we use risk analysis and management to improve the sustainability of the
aquaculture industry?

Recommended readings
Bondad-​Reantaso, M. G., Arthur, J. R., & Subasinghe, R. P. eds. (2008). Understanding and
Applying Risk Analysis in Aquaculture. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of
the United Nations.
Engle, C. R. (2010). Aquaculture Economics and Financing: Management and Analysis.
John Wiley & Sons.
Ezondu, E. S., & Anyanwu, P. E. (2005). Potential hazards and risks associated with the
aquaculture industry. African Journal of Biotechnology, 4(13).
Kam, L. E., & Leung, P. (2008). Financial risk analysis in aquaculture. Understanding and
Applying Risk Analysis in Aquaculture, 153.
Rahman, M. T., Nielsen, R., Khan, M. A., & Ahsan, D. (2021). Perceived risk and risk man-
agement strategies in pond aquaculture. Marine Resource Economics, 36(1), 43–​69.
Rausand, M., & Haugen, S. (2020). Risk Assessment: Theory, Methods, and
Applications. Wiley.
Rico, A., & Van den Brink, P. J. (2014). Probabilistic risk assessment of veterinary
medicines applied to four major aquaculture species produced in Asia. Science of the
Total Environment, 468, 630–​641.

References
1 Bondad-​Reantaso, M. G., Arthur, J. R., Rohana, P. Subasinghe, eds. Understanding and
Applying Risk Analysis in Aquaculture. Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations, 2008.
2 Taha, H. A. Investigación de operaciones. Novena edición. México: PEARSON
EDUCACIÓN, 2012. ISBN: 978-​607-​32-​0796-​6
3 Albright, S. C., Winston, W. L. 2016. Business Analytics: Data Analysis & Decision
Making –​Standalone book 6th edition. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
4 Caddy, J. F., Mahon, R. Reference points for fisheries management. FAO Fisheries
Technical Paper. No. 347. Rome, FAO. 1995. 83p.
5 Kam, L. E., Leung, P. S., Ostrowski, A. C., Molnar, A. 2002. Size economies of a Pacific
threadfin Polydactylus sexfilis hatchery in Hawaii. Journal of World Aquaculture
Society, 33, 410–​424.
6 Luna, M., Llorente, I., Luna, L. 2023. A conceptual framework for risk management in
aquaculture. Marine Policy, 147, 105377.
7 Ruiz-​Velazco, J. M., González-​Romero, M. A., Estrada-​Perez, N. 2021. Evaluating
partial harvesting strategies for whiteleg shrimp Litopenaeus (Penaeus) vannamei
semi-​intensive commercial production: Profitability, uncertainty, and economic
risk. Aquaculture International, 29, 1317–​1329 .https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​s10​
499-​021-​00695-​5
196 Marcelo E. Araneda Padilla and Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

8 Theodorou, J. A., Tzovenis, I., 2023. A framework for risk analysis of the shellfish
aquaculture: The case of the Mediterranean mussel farming in Greece. Aquaculture and
Fisheries, 8, 375–​384. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.aaf.2021.04.002
9 Landazuri-​Tveteraas, U., Misund, B., Tveterås, R., Zhang, D. 2023. Determinants of
investment behavior in Norwegian salmon aquaculture. Aquaculture Economics &
Management, 6, 1–​19. doi: 10.1080/​13657305.2023.2208541
10 Moor, J., Ropicki, A., Anderson, J. L., Asche, F. (2022). Stochastic modeling and finan-
cial viability of mollusk aquaculture. Aquaculture, 552, 737963.
11 Sheng, L., Yang, Z., Nadolnyak, D., Zhang, Y., Luo, Y. 2014. Economic impacts of cli-
mate change: Profitability of freshwater aquaculture in China. Aquaculture Research,
47, 1537–​1548.
12 Jin, D., Kite-​Powell, H., Hoagland, P. 2005. Risk assessment in open-​ocean aqua-
culture: A firm-​level investment-​production model. Aquaculture Economics &
Management, 9(3), 369–​387. doi:10.1080/​13657300500242261.
13 Hernandez-​Llamas, A., Ruiz-​Velazco, J. M. J., Gomez-​Muñoz, V. M. 2013. Economic
risk associated with white spot disease and stochastic variability in economic,
zootechnical and water quality parameters for intensive production of Litopenaeus
vannamei. Aquaculture Research, 5, 121–​131.
14 Engle, C., Sapkota, P., 2012. A Comparative analysis of the economic risk of hybrid
striped bass fingerling production in ponds and indoor tanks. North American Journal
of Aquaculture, 74, 477–​484.
15 Seijo, J.C. 2004. Risk of exceeding bioeconomic limit reference points in shrimp
aquaculture systems. Aquaculture Economics & Management, 8(3–​4), 201–​212.
doi:10.1080/​13657300409380363
16 Yakabu, S., Falconer, L., Telfer, T. 2022. Scenario analysis and land use change mod-
elling reveal opportunities and challenges for sustainable expansion of aquaculture in
Nigeria. Aquaculture Reports, 23, 101071
17 Jessica L. C. and others. (2021) Scenario analysis can guide aquaculture planning to
meet sustainable future production goals. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 78(3), 821–​
831. https://​doi.org/​10.1093/​ices​jms/​fsab​012
18 Randall, M., Lewis, A., Stewart-​Koster, B., Anh, N. D., Burford, M., Condon, J. 2022.
A Bayesian belief data mining approach applied to rice and shrimp aquaculture. PLoS
ONE, 17(2), e0262402. https://​doi.org/​10.1371/​jour​nal.pone.0262​402
19 Aziz, S., Dowling, M. (2019). Machine learning and AI for risk management. In: Lynn,
T., Mooney, J., Rosati, P., Cummins, M. (eds) Disrupting Finance. Palgrave Studies
in Digital Business & Enabling Technologies. Cham: Palgrave Pivot. https://​doi.org/​
10.1007/​978-​3-​030-​02330-​0_​3
20 Yang, X., Ramezani, R., Utne, I. B., Mosleh, A., Lader, P. F. 2020. Operational limits
for aquaculture operations from a risk and safety perspective. Reliability Engineering
& System Safety, 107208, ISSN 0951-​8320. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.ress.2020.107​208
21 Gladju, J., Kamalam, B. S., Kanagaraj, A. (2022). Applications of data mining and
machine learning framework in aquaculture and fisheries: A review. Smart Agricultural
Technology, 2, 100061, ISSN 2772-​3755,. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.atech.2022.100​061
22 Peñalosa Martinell, D. (2020). Análisis bioeconómico del uso de probióticos
en la producción de larvas de camarón blanco (Penaeus vannamei, Boone,
1931): un enfoque sostenible (Doctoral dissertation, Instituto Politécnico Nacional.
Centro Interdisciplinario de Ciencias Marinas).
Part IV

Aquaculture and society

12 Aquaculture and food security
Fernando Aranceta Garza

Aquaculture allows the constant production of quality protein at affordable prices,

and there are success stories where social programmes have been implemented to
fill some of the social deficiencies of marginalised communities. Despite the above,
there are specific criticisms and challenges that the industry must overcome to
become a more widespread solution to strengthen food security and the sovereignty
of vulnerable communities.
Aquaculture cannot (and shall not) be considered entirely as an alternative to
fishing due to its dependence on inputs from the sea that can be fed directly or
used in other food production systems. Furthermore, a significant part of global
aquaculture production is concentrated in the few profitable species that compete
in global markets, so only a fraction of the production strengthens the food security
of communities, especially in developing countries.
Bearing these factors in mind, the current panorama of the relationship between
aquaculture and food security is presented, as well as specific case studies.

12.1 Introduction
The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs) requested transformative solutions, integrated approaches, and
innovative pathways to attain sustainable development. The fundamental role of
sustainable agriculture, forestry, and fisheries was also emphasised in connecting
people, the planet, and prosperity to achieve its global goals of ending hunger
and poverty through sustainable management and utilisation of natural resources.
As shown in the following sections, marine production, both in the fishery and
aquaculture sectors, contributes to global food security and nutrition, especially in
developing regions, while the livelihoods of millions of people around the globe
are also supported.
The SDGs comprise 17 global goals where SDG 2, “No Hunger”, directly attends
to the needs for food security, improved nutrition, and promoting sustainable agri-
culture around the globe, especially in undernourished countries such as some in
Africa (the region with the highest number of low-​income food-​deficit countries),
along with Asia and some countries in Latin America, including the Caribbean. The

DOI: 10.4324/9781003174271-16
200 Fernando Aranceta Garza

main SDG 2 goal is to end all forms of hunger and malnutrition by promoting sus-
tainable agricultural practices, supporting small-​scale farmers, and providing equal
access to land, technology, and markets. At the same time, searching for global
cooperation should continue to ensure investment in infrastructure and technology
to improve agricultural productivity. This goal also applies to other food produc-
tion systems, such as the marine and aquaculture sectors, to ensure sustainable
practices, ecosystem health, and enhance food production.
For the marine systems, SGD 14, “Life below water”, aims to conserve and use
the oceans, seas, and marine resources for sustainable development, protect marine
and coastal ecosystems from pollution, and strengthen their resilience to climate
change, e.g., ocean acidification. Marine and coastal zones contribute largely and
could be further enhanced to provide greater food security and nutrition. They
cover three-​quarters of the Earth’s surface, where more than 3 billion people (half
of the world’s human population) depend on marine and coastal biodiversity for
their livelihoods (including food security).

12.2 Matching food security with human population growth

The human population is 7.9 billion, and is increasing at a growth rate of 1.05%
per year to reach ~9 billion by the 2030s. Globally, the countries with the highest
relative populations are China (18.5%) and India (17.7%), followed by the United
States (4.2%) (see Figure 12.1).

Figure 12.1 Populations of the 20 most populated countries.

Sources: United States Census Bureau –​ International Database 2022 and UN World Population
Prospects 2019.
 Aquaculture and food security 201

Human population growth (including distribution, composition, and consump-

tion patterns) is impacting the Earth in two major ways: (1) by the consumption
of resources such as land, food, water, air, fossil fuels, and minerals and (2) by
the production and accumulation of associated waste products, such as air and
water pollutants, toxic materials, and greenhouse gases. Moreover, human impact
on the Earth has been so significant that it has created a new geologic era, the
Anthropocene.
Historically, providing food (e.g., hunting, agriculture) and housing to
humankind have unavoidably altered the Earth’s ecosystems. The terrestrial
environments provide most human dietary energy, comprising ~98% of global
calorie production,1 highlighting the relative importance of cereals, followed in
descending order of relative importance by oils and fats, roots, tubers and pulses,
sugars, meats, fishes, and seafood.2 The increase in demand for resources (e.g.,
food, fodder, fuel, and raw materials) related to the increase in human popu-
lation has enhanced land-​use changes and degradation, reducing the amount
of productive land available and jeopardising global food security. Currently,
farming uses half of all habitable land on Earth and this agricultural intensifica-
tion has not proven sustainable.1
Reducing the human impact on land to provide global food security can be
achieved by increasing sustainable production in aquatic ecosystems, particularly
fisheries and aquaculture. Aquaculture has proven to be the world’s fastest-​growing
food-​production industry and currently provides half of all the planetary seafood
(2018: 82 million tonnes [MT]). Moreover, aquaculture has higher nutritional
benefits than land-​based animal production systems3 and lower environmental
externalities. For example, aquaculture contributes less per unit weight to global
nitrogen and phosphorus emissions, has higher feed conversion ratios, and uses
less water.4 Furthermore, promoting recirculating aquaculture system production
technologies could increase water use efficiency, enhance biomass production,
and reduce wastage and pollution to the minimum. Additionally, aquaculture can
help reduce environmental impacts on the aquatic ecosystem, e.g., the cultiva-
tion of filter-​feeding bivalve molluscs (i.e., oysters, clams, scallops, and mussels)
promotes the filtration of pollutants from the environment.
However, as with other food systems, the high demand and productive intensi-
fication of aquaculture production also generates environmental externalities. The
most common of these are focal eutrophication, acidification, energy demand, cli-
mate change, coastal land occupation, and biotic depletion, which vary production
among species and technology, with the highest impacts observed in China and
Asia (major aquaculture producers).

12.2.1 What is food security?

Food security is defined as a situation that exists when all people, at all times,
have physical, social, and economic access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food
that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life.5
202 Fernando Aranceta Garza

Nutrition security is defined as the access to an appropriately nutritious diet coupled

with a sanitary environment, adequate health services, and care to ensure a healthy
and active life for all household members.6
Four food security dimensions are identified based on the food security defin-
ition: availability, access, utilisation, and stability (see Figure 12.2). Availability
addresses whether food is actually or potentially physically present, including
aspects of production, food reserves, markets and transportation, and wild foods.
Once the food is available, access refers to whether households and individuals
have sufficient physical and economic access to that food. Utilisation means
whether households are maximising adequate nutrition and energy consumption
and good feeding practices concerning intra-​household food distribution, clean
water, sanitation, and healthcare, which determine the nutritional status of indi-
viduals. Finally, if the other three dimensions are met, stability is the condition in
which the whole system is stable, thus ensuring that households are food secure.
However, instability drivers, such as climatic, economic, social, and political
factors can be frequent and variable. The four traditional food security dimensions
are measured by the specific indicators shown in Table 12.1.
The concept of food security is currently evolving to recognise other dimensions,
such as the centrality of agency and sustainability. Agency refers to the capacity
of individuals or groups to make their own decisions about what foods they eat
and/​or produce; how that food is produced, processed, and distributed within food
systems; and their ability to engage in processes that shape food system policies
and governance. Sustainability is defined as the long-​term ability of food systems
to provide food security and nutrition that does not compromise the economic,
social, and environmental bases that generate food security and nutrition for future
generations.

Figure 12.2 Traditional food security dimensions.

Source: Defined by FAO et al. (2021).
 Aquaculture and food security 203

Table 12.1 Food security indicators by dimension

Food security indicators Dimension

Average dietary energy supply adequacy Availability

Average food production value
Share of dietary energy supply derived from cereals, roots,
and tubers
Average protein supply
Average protein supply of animal origin
Percentage of paved roads over total roads Access
Road density
Railway density
Gross domestic product (in purchasing power parity)
Domestic food price index
Prevalence of undernourishment (PoU)
Share of food expenditure of the poor
Depth of the food deficit
Prevalence of food inadequacy
Cereal import dependency ratio Stability
Percentage of arable land equipped for irrigation
Value of food imports over total merchandise exports
Political stability and absence of violence/​terrorism
Domestic food price volatility
Per capita food production variability
Per capita food supply variability
Access to improved water sources Utilisation
Access to improved sanitation facilities
Percentage of children under 5 years of age affected by wasting
Percentage of children under 5 years of age who are stunted
Percentage of children under 5 years of age who are underweight
Percentage of adults who are underweight
Prevalence of anaemia among pregnant women
Prevalence of anaemia among children under 5 years of age
Prevalence of vitamin A deficiency in the population
Prevalence of iodine deficiency in the population

Source: FAO et al. (2015).

Globally, food insecurity is measured using the prevalence of undernourishment

(PoU) indicators and the Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES). PoU refers to an
estimated percentage of individuals in the total population that are in conditions of
undernourishment –​the condition of an individual whose habitual food consump-
tion is insufficient to provide, on average, the amount of dietary energy required
to maintain a normal, active, and healthy life. Likewise, FIES refers to the limited
access to food, at the level of individuals or households, due to the lack of money
or other resources.
Indicators of undernutrition are based on poor nutritional intake in terms of
quantity and/​or quality and poor absorption and/​or biological use resulting from
a disease. These indicators include stunting (low height-​for-​age), wasting (low
204 Fernando Aranceta Garza

Figure 12.3 Prevalence of undernourishment by region.

Note: Prevalence of undernourishment in Northern America and Europe is less than 2.5%. Values for
2020 are projections.
Source: FAO (2021c).

weight-​for-​age), low birth weight, and anaemia in women of reproductive age

(micronutrient deficiency: vitamin and minerals). Malnutrition –​ an abnormal
physiological condition caused by inadequate, unbalanced, or excessive intake of
macro-​and micronutrients –​includes all the undernutrition indicators plus over-
weight in children under five years old and adult obesity (body weight above the
average and excessive fat accumulation).

12.2.2 Food security status around the world

Before the COVID-​19 pandemic, world hunger and malnutrition were already not on
track to meet the pre-​established SDGs zero-​hunger goals in 2030. Furthermore, the
COVID-​19 pandemic exacerbated world hunger in 2020 (Figures 12.3 and 12.4a,b).
In 2020, nearly 10% of the world’s population suffered hunger (Figure 12.3 –​
dashed line), representing ~ 770 million people on the planet (Figure 12.4), where
Africa reported the world’s highest PoU prevalence of 21%, whereas other regions
were less than 10% in 2020 (Figure 12.3).
The number of people undernourished by region showed an alarming incre-
ment of 12% in Africa and 1% for Latin America, and a decline from 12% for Asia
(Figure 12.4a).
In 2020, 12% of the world’s population (928 M) was exposed to severe food
insecurity (FIES) and 18.5% (1.4 MM) to moderate food insecurity (Figure 12.5).
Severe and moderate food insecurity were the highest in Africa, followed by Latin
 Aquaculture and food security 205

Figure 12.4 (A, B) Number of people undernourished by region. Values for 2020 are
projections. Top: Historical number of people undernourished by region
(2000–​2020). Bottom: Number of people undernourished by region for 2020;
n.r. =​not reported, since the prevalence is less than 2.5%.
Source: FAO (2021c).

America and Asia (Figures 12.5 and 12.6). Furthermore, a gender gap showed
a prevalence of moderate and severe food insecurity levels, which revealed an
average difference of 10% higher among women than men with accentuated
differences in Latin America and the Caribbean (Figure 12.5). Food insecurity
levels have increased globally from 2014 to 2020, except for Northern America
and Europe, reporting a decrease of 1%. Africa showed the highest food insecurity
(FIES) (Figure 12.6). Latin America and the Caribbean recorded the highest rate of
change (ROC) in moderate food insecurity, with an increment of 9.5% compared
206 Fernando Aranceta Garza

Figure 12.5 Food insecurity levels by region and gender.

Source: FAO et al. (2021).

Figure 12.6 Food insecurity levels based on the Food Insecurity Experience Scale by region.
Source: FAO (2021c).
 Aquaculture and food security 207

to Africa and Asia (~4.2%). In the case of severe food insecurity, Africa showed
the highest ROC from 2014 to 2020 (8.2%), followed by Latin America and the
Caribbean (6.5%).
Malnutrition also remained a challenge for reaching the 2030 nutrition and SDG
goals. In 2020, 22.0% (149.2 M) of children under five years of age were affected
by stunting; 6.7% (45.4 M) were suffering from wasting; and 5.7% (38.9 M) were
overweight, with a potential increase due to the COVID-​19 pandemic. Most of
these children live in Africa and Asia (9/​10). Anaemia (caused by micronutrient
deficiency in adult women) revealed severe geographic differences: 30% of women
in Africa and Asia had anaemia compared to 14% in Northern America and Europe.
Moreover, adult obesity is increasing worldwide, with the highest levels observed
in Northern America (35.5%), Western Asia (30%), Australia, and New Zealand
(29). Latin America and the Caribbean, and Oceania (excluding Australia and New
Zealand) showed levels above 20%.7

12.3 Aquaculture’s role in food security

12.3.1 The aquatic food system

Aquatic food systems include all animals and plants (algae) reared or harvested
from water, including synthetic substitutes. A food system is defined as

a system encompassing the entire range of actors and their interlinked value-​
added activities involved in the production, aggregation, processing, distri-
bution, consumption, and disposal of food products. They comprise all food
products that originate from crop and livestock, forestry, fisheries, and aquacul-
ture production, as well as the broader economic, societal, and natural environ-
ments in which these diverse production systems are embedded.

A sustainable food system is “a food system that delivers food security and nutri-
tion for all in such a way that the economic, social and environmental bases to
generate food security and nutrition for future generations are not compromised”.8
An aquatic food system represents a complex network of all the interrelated
elements and activities of aquatic foods, including their interactions with other food
systems. These elements are interlinked in continuous adaptive growth, restruc-
turing, and renewal cycles. According to Figure 12.7, the conceptual framework
of an aquatic food system has five driver categories impacting the food system,
which affect three fundamental elements within, the system supporting food pro-
duction, supply chains, and consumer behaviour. This last element is related to
affordability/​accessibility to healthy diets that determine the nutritional and
health status of the consumer with economic and social consequences to the food
system. Finally, the food system can be regulated by policy actions, programmes,
and institutions that can cope with meeting national or global goals, such as the
Sustainable Development Goals.
 newgenrtpdf
208 Fernando Aranceta Garza
Figure 12.7 Conceptual framework of food systems for diets and nutrition.
Sources: HLPE (2020) and FAO et al. (2021).
 Aquaculture and food security 209

The aquatic food system comprises aquaculture and fisheries production (i.e.,
aquatic food). The social importance of aquatic food varies on different geograph-
ical scales, parallel with the production methods. Aquatic food plays a fundamental
role in the daily nutrition of many population groups or simply enriches a healthy
and diverse diet with essential nutrients. The motivations for its production, fishing,
or farming range from meeting the most basic food needs (hunger alleviation) to
generating huge profits for multinational companies in export markets.

12.3.2 Drivers affecting aquaculture and food security trends

Table 12.2 includes the drivers affecting aquaculture production and their relation-
ship to food security (see Figure 12.7). Demographic drivers encompass popula-
tion growth issues and the mechanisms to maintain food security. Environmental
drivers generally impact aquaculture’s extensive and semi-​ intensive yields.
Economic drivers impact aquatic food systems (including markets and supply
chains) and food security. Prices are affected and consumers’ accessibility to food
is altered, presented as an economic downturn (or economic recession), economic
shock (unexpected events, such as COVID-​19), or economic slowdown (i.e., eco-
nomic growth at declining rates), as a direct consequence of declining wages and
household income or unemployment. The political climate is important because
internal conflicts and wars can disrupt food systems and supply chains from pro-
duction to consumption. Direct impacts can include destroying production assets
and trade disruption by negatively affecting food availability and prices. Finally,
technology and innovation affect aquaculture by intensifying production and redu-
cing environmental externalities. Poverty and inequality exacerbate these major
drivers, ultimately affecting access to healthy foods, food security, and higher
nutrition outcomes.
Food systems can be transformed to address these major drivers to confront food
insecurity, malnutrition, and the unaffordability of healthy diets. Six pathways have
been recommended: (1) integrating humanitarian development and peacebuilding
policies in conflict-​affected areas; (2) scaling-​up climate resilience across food
systems; (3) strengthening the resilience of the most vulnerable to economic adver-
sity; (4) intervening along the food supply chains to lower the cost of nutritious
foods; (5) tackling poverty and structural inequalities, ensuring interventions are
pro-​poor and inclusive; and (6) strengthening food environments and changing
consumer behaviour to promote dietary patterns positively impacting human health
and the environment.

12.4 Global aquatic production status

The fisheries and aquaculture sectors are contributing significantly to global food
security and nutrition, especially in developing and low-​income food-​deficit regions,
while also supporting the livelihoods of millions of people around the globe.
Global production (Figure 12.8) from marine (~87%) and inland (~13%) fish-
eries totals 96.4 MT. The 2018 aquaculture production was 82.1 MT, of which
 newgenrtpdf
210 Fernando Aranceta Garza
Table 12.2 Effects on aquaculture production and impact on food security of major drivers

Driver Effects on aquaculture production Impact on food security

Demographic Continuous human growth rate (–​)

National strategies to maximise efficiency, minimise waste, and reduce fish-​ (+​)
based meals and fish oil to cope with human growth
Bio-​physical and environmental Heterogeneous climate change impact among culture systems and species (+​) and (–​)
Acidification and hypoxia in extensive culture systems of molluscs and marine (–​)
sea cages for farmed fish
Extreme climate events (–​)
Economic and market Increased availability of farm animals –​limitation of prices on the rise and (+​)
increase in their accessibility
Pandemic (COVID-​19) economic downturn (–​)
High-​income inequalities (–​)
Low productivity and inefficient food supply chain (–​)
Increased availability of aquatic (farmed) food limitation in price increase and (+​)
augment accessibility
Political and institutional National and international conflicts (+​)
Low institutional capabilities (–​)
Technology and Innovation Technologies for cultivation system intensification (+​)
Elite access to resources that negatively affect the access and entitlement of the (–​)
poor
Seed shortage in developing countries (–​)
Increased risk of disease and escape (–​)
Environmental degradation and habitat loss (–​)
 Aquaculture and food security 211

inland production represented 62% and coastal-​marine production 38%. In the

case of fisheries, their production has stabilised since the 1990s (Figure 12.8). In
2017, the stock fishery status worldwide reported that 59.6% were biologically sus-
tainable, 6.2% underfished, and 34.2% biologically unsustainable. Given current
management objectives, fishing technologies, and management approaches, it is
unlikely that wild catches will increase substantially without jeopardising resource
sustainability, economic performance, and biodiversity conservation agreements
(Jennings et al., 2016). The potential strategies to increase wild fishery yields for
human consumption are increasing management policies, decreasing waste in pro-
duction, processing, and the supply chain, and reducing the use of fishmeal (i.e.,
small pelagic) for farming purposes.
In this manner, while fish production remains stagnant, aquaculture produc-
tion has exceeded wild-​caught species, such as freshwater aquaculture species,
diadromous, and molluscs since the 1990s and for crustacean production since the
2000s (Figure 12.9). Additionally, aquaculture is showing a potential role in food
security by surpassing fish production, with a growth rate of 7.5% per year since
1970, accounting for 50% of all fish for human consumption and 43% of the total
seafood supply.9
The aquatic plants, including macroalgae or seaweeds, showed almost exclu-
sively aquaculture production globally (Figure 12.9). In 2019, aquatic plant
production reached a global maximum of 40 MT, being only surpassed by the pro-
duction of freshwater and marine fish (Figure 12.9). This global production reflects
the potential importance of macroalgae in food security worldwide.

Figure 12.8 World capture fisheries and aquaculture production.

Source: FAO (2022).15
212 Fernando Aranceta Garza

Figure 12.9 World fisheries production by capture and aquaculture (AQ), by ISSCAAP

divisions (1950–​2019).

In 2019, the top 10 aquaculture producers (excluding aquatic plants and non-​
food products) were China (48.2 MT), India (7.8 MT), Indonesia (6.0 MT), Viet
Nam (4.4 MMT), Bangladesh (2.5 MT), Egypt (1.6 MT), Norway (1.5 MT), Chile
(1.4 MT), Myanmar (1.1 MT), and Thailand (1 MT), with a total production of 75.4
MT (relative to 88.4% of total aquaculture production).
 Aquaculture and food security 213

Figure 12.10 World aquaculture production by ISSCAAP divisions. Total aquaculture pro-

duction was 85.3 million tons (MT).
Source: FAO (2021a).16

In 2019, aquaculture production by species groups showed the importance of

finfish, with a 66% contribution to total production, of which 55% were freshwater
fishes. The next species group was mollusc with 20.6%, crustaceans with 2.3%,
and 1.1% of other aquatic animal species (Figure 12.10).

12.5 General contribution of aquatic food to food security

Aquaculture plays an increasing role in aquatic food security worldwide. Recent
studies10 have shown a positive relationship between aquaculture production and
the country’s domestic aquatic food consumption. In the long term, as global pro-
duction increases, the cost decreases, resulting in greater accessibility. Moreover,
since domestic aquaculture has expanded, the consumption of aquatic food among
people experiencing poverty has increased.
Aquatic food system production (both wild-​caught and farmed production)
represents the most significant and cheapest source of proteins (35%) in com-
parison to other meat sources, such as poultry (23%) and pigs (21%), and even
higher than cattle (13%) (Figure 12.11), from which total animal protein produc-
tion represents 514 MT for 2019 (Figure 12.11).
Consumption of fish protein is regionally heterogeneous and driven by cultural,
economic, and self-​choice factors. In 2017, global fish consumption was 20.3 kg/​year
per capita, whereas Oceania (25 kg/​year), Asia (24.1 kg/​year), Northern America
(22.4 kg/​year), and Europe (21.4 kg/​year) were beyond the global per capita
214 Fernando Aranceta Garza

Figure 12.11 World production of meat including fish and seafood meat from 2000 to 2019.
Source: FAOSTAT (2021).17

consumption of fish, representing 75% of the world’s population (Figure 12.12 –​

top). Below the global average, fish consumption was 10.5 kg/​year and 9.9 kg/​year
per capita for Latin America (and the Caribbean) and African regions.
Economic grouping of countries (Figure 12.11 –​bottom) showed that fish con-
sumption was highest in industrialised/​developed countries, with 24–​27 kg/​year
per capita, followed by developing countries with 20.7 kg/​year per capita. Below
this global average, per capita consumption was minimum for least developed
countries (12.3 kg/​year) and low-​income food-​deficit countries (9.3 kg/​year).
Moreover, fish contribution to animal protein supply showed relatively higher
ratios in developing countries (i.e., least developed countries, developing coun-
tries, and low-​income food-​deficit countries, ranging from 19% to 30% of fish
share) than in developed countries (12% of fish share) (Figure 12.13 –​ bottom).
This pattern shows that aquatic food can have a pivotal role in daily nutrition
(or food security) for some regions and can provide variety and some essential
nutrients in already ample diets.
In 2017, 55 countries were the world’s major fish consumers, with 19% or
above of fish share to total proteins, representing 43% of the world’s population
(Figure 12.14 –​top), where 78% were from developing countries, 15% from least
developed countries, and 7% from developed countries. The per capita fish con-
sumption for these countries was 61 kg/​year for developed countries, 37 kg/​year in
developing countries, 26 kg/​year for least developed countries, and 17.8 kg/​year for
low-​income food-​deficit countries (Figure 12.14 –​ top). Fish contribution to total
proteins showed a similar tendency in fish consumption per capita (Figure 12.13 –​
bottom), and all the categories were beyond the global average of 6.8%.
 Aquaculture and food security 215

Figure 12.12 Fish consumption per capita by continent and economic groups. Dotted lines
represent the world’s average fish consumption at 20.3 kg/​year per capita.
Source: FAO (2021a).

Fish share to total animal proteins showed an inverse tendency, where con-
sumers recorded a higher share in less developed countries (42.2%) followed by
low-​income food-​deficit countries (38.2%), other developing countries (29.6 %),
and developed countries (26.5%) (Figure 12.14 –​middle).
Preliminary estimates for 2019 showed an increase in per capita consumption to
about 20.5 kg, with the share of aquaculture production in total available food fish
supply surpassing capture fisheries (11.1 kg vs. 9.5 kg).
216 Fernando Aranceta Garza

Figure 12.13 Fish protein contribution to animal or total proteins consumed daily per capita
by continent and economic grouping.
Source: FAO (2021a).

In the case of seaweed production, they are a rich source of minerals, fibres, poly-
unsaturated fatty acids, polysaccharides, bioactive compounds, and vitamins, whose
proportions vary among species and are very nutritious for the human diet. Hence the
ecological benefits of seaweed farming (CO2 sink, wave energy absorption, pH incre-
ment, water oxygenation, and alleviation of agriculture’s environmental footprint),
and the inclusion of seaweeds in diets is increasing. Seaweed serves as a source of
 Aquaculture and food security 217

Figure 12.14 Fish consumption per capita (a); fish share over animal proteins (b); and fish
share over total proteins (c) for the top 55 countries ranked by fish contribu-
tion to animal protein supply above 19%.
Source: FAO (2021a).
218 Fernando Aranceta Garza

food in Asian-​Pacific islands and is entering Western cultures, mainly in a variety of

presentations, e.g., dried and fried, and as an agent for flavour or a texture enhancer
on a variety of foods. Expanding seaweed farming to developing countries could help
reduce local poverty, improve ecosystem management, and aid climate change mitiga-
tion, aiming to produce valuable biomass for other wealthy countries with no new
land or water usage.11 However, the main challenges of making seaweed a common
diet for millions of people resides in making seaweed products accessible, affordable,
nutritionally balanced, and attractive to consumers.

12.6 Nutritional value of fish for human health

Fish is one of the most nutritious foods containing macro-​and micronutrients,
and is still an under-​recognised and undervalued source of micronutrients that can
play a significant role in global food safety.12 Small pelagic fish, e.g., herring, sar-
dine, and anchovy, supply abundant nutrition to low-​and middle-​income countries,
representing the cheapest animal protein in a daily diet for most of these countries. In
nutrient-​deficient countries, <20% of small pelagic catch would meet recommended
dietary intakes for all children living next to water bodies in sub-​Saharan Africa.13
The macronutrients are proteins, lipids, and carbohydrates. Over 60% of the
population in developing countries depend upon fish to cover a third of the animal
protein requirement because it is cheaper than other animal protein sources. Fish
proteins present higher quality than other proteins by containing all essential amino
acids. Lipids or fats are rich in unsaturated fatty acids such as mono-​(MUFA) or
polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA), providing essential fatty acids like omega-​3
fatty acids: eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA).
The micronutrients include vitamins and minerals. The vitamins present in
fish vary according to the fish species, being an essential source of vitamins A,
D, and B-​group. Fish are a fundamental source of minerals that are not widely
available from other food sources in the diets of poor people. Besides milk, fish
and fish bones are another important source of calcium (Ca). The consumption of
small pelagic species with heads and bones (e.g., sardines and anchovies) is rich in
iodine, selenium, zinc, iron, calcium, phosphorus, and potassium.
Following the global trend of increasing production of farmed fish species and
lower availability of wild fish species, studies in Asia show differences in the nutri-
tional content of micronutrients between each source of fish. Aquaculture sources
were less nutritious, with significant iron and calcium content differences than
wild-​capture sources. Therefore, a change in the paradigm of maximising produc-
tion at all costs to cope with the increasing human population rate should include
the nutritional quality of fish and optimising aquaculture’s complementary role in
improving nutrition and health.

12.7 Critical elements for food safety in the aquatic food system
The aquatic food supply will contribute to food safety by reaching the dimensions
of availability, access, utilisation, stability, and sustainability.
 Aquaculture and food security 219

12.7.1 Utilisation dimension in aquatic food systems

The utilisation dimension means the household maximisation of adequate nutri-

tion, which has been tackled in some regions, like Africa and Asia, promoting
backyard farming or polycultures, usually using tilapia as the main farmed species
as a source of omega-​3 fatty acids, among others.
Another important aspect of the utilisation dimension concerns the safety of food
consumption and minimising any risks to the consumer’s health. Unfortunately,
aquatic foods are highly perishable, and post-​harvest handling during processing
is crucial to extend their shelf life and reduce the risk of food poisoning or waste.
Moreover, national regulations related to aquatic food contamination, such as
human pathogens, chemicals, and radionuclides, establish limited reference points,
where traceability is essential in determining the origin of contaminated stocks and
separating those contaminated from the rest.
Biological hazards include human pathogens and biotoxins, whose excessive
consumption can lead to illness and death. The most common pathogens come from
the consumption of contaminated filtering molluscs (wild and cultivated) by protists
(Cryptosporidium spp. and the microsporidian Enterocytozoon bieneusi), bacteria
(Vibrio spp.) and viruses (hepatitis A and E and norovirus) from human faecal
sources. Biotoxins come from phytoplankton and bioaccumulate in filter-​feeding
molluscs. Some of the most common biotoxins are paralytic shellfish poisoning
(PSP), amnesic shellfish poisoning (ASP), lipophilic toxins (LT), including those
responsible for diarrhoeic shellfish poisoning (DSP), and azaspiracid shellfish
poisoning (AZP). Current and future changes in temperature and other environ-
mental parameters will affect toxin trends and distributions globally.
Chemical hazards include pollutants and veterinary residues that bioaccumulate in
fish and bivalves and represent a potential hazard to human health. Pollutants applied
in aquaculture include pesticides, heavy metals, and organic pollutants. Veterinary
residues include licensed veterinary pharmaceuticals (e.g., antibiotics, parasitical
treatments, anaesthetics), disinfectants (used to decontaminate equipment and eggs),
other biocidal chemicals used to control diseases (e.g., formalin), feed additives (e.g.,
flesh pigments), contaminated feed ingredients (e.g., persistent organic pollutants,
metals), and antifoulants applied to farm structures (e.g., copper oxide).
All the contaminants and their effects on human health have raised public
concerns worldwide. However, evidence suggests that the health benefits of their
consumption outweigh the potential risks they may cause.14

12.7.1.1 Availability dimension in aquatic food systems

Any food supply is sufficient and available if it meets human needs to provide
consumers with adequate nutritional requirements and desires (i.e., diet selec-
tion) regarding quantity and nutritional benefits. Particularly for low-​income
food-​deficit countries (Figure 12.14 –​ middle), fish consumption represents one
of the few available animal protein resources containing essential micronutrients,
where agencies or countries focus on providing sufficient aquatic food tackling
220 Fernando Aranceta Garza

undernutrition, and maternal and child health. On the other hand, in developed
countries, where other protein sources are available, aquatic fish food availability
is sufficient to meet their domestic demand. It is related to the health benefits of
consuming polyunsaturated fatty acids from fish and fish oil.
Another factor in availability is the fish commodity prices which vary the equit-
ability of its distribution among the population. When individuals or households
cannot obtain enough food to meet their nutritional needs, they are in food poverty.
This situation is common in developed countries where the poorest sector cannot
access high-​priced aquatic food. Some studies have positively related its consump-
tion with household income and educational level.

12.7.1.2 Stability dimension in aquatic food systems

Food supply is stable if it shows high resilience to shocks in production systems,

supply chains, and markets. Resilience at a national level can be achieved by
supplementing food from diverse sources and supply chains (i.e., portfolio effect)
and legislating and/​or putting in place structures, measures, and support to ensure
sustainability, security, and productivity sufficiency.
Global threats to resilience in food availability are political (e.g., wars, export
restrictions, bilateral land treaties, biofuel policies); technological (e.g., reduced
growth potential, investment, and skills); demographic and economic (e.g., world
population growth and income growth); environmental (e.g., climate, weather,
diseases, pests); and global health hazards (e.g., COVID-​19) (Figure 12.14 and
Table 12.2).
Environmental, legislative, and health factors are the most typical factors that
generate risks to stability in aquaculture production. For example, extreme wea-
ther events, such as ENSO, hurricanes, floods, droughts, and physicochemical
water variability negatively affect farming facilities and the species´ mortality or
growth performance, impacting farm production. Legislative factors are related
to restrictions on commercialisation due to a lack of certification or contaminated
products. Health factors are related to the risk of spreading diseases, such as white
spot syndrome virus in shrimp from Asia to America. Moreover, some of the main
fish-​farmed species in Europe and Asia (Atlantic salmon, Basa catfish, and Gilthead
seabream) are at constant risk of disease caused by the high intensity of their cul-
tivation. Other factors affecting aquaculture production are price instability, feed
availability, and lack of seed provision.
Risks to the stability of aquaculture supply chains include strikes, political
unrest, failures in feed quality standards, the collapse of production, storage facil-
ities or transport networks, economic factors (e.g., increased costs, reduced pur-
chasing power), health issues, pandemics, consumer boycotts, and trade restrictions
or embargoes.

12.7.1.3 Sustainability dimension in aquatic food systems

A sustainable aquatic food supply provides long-​term food security by protecting

ecosystem integrity and enhancing social and economic sustainability. For example,
 Aquaculture and food security 221

these practices measure human welfare and support the long-​term economic devel-
opment of producers/​nations while they protect the environmental, social, and cul-
tural elements of production and other elements of the supply system.
Aquaculture production sustainability is related to its resilience using produc-
tion factors, such as facility size, species, type of production system, feed input,
waste disposal, disease prevention, and local environment. Any threat to produc-
tion sustainability could be controlled locally, mainly by regulating/​controlling
feed, water quality, and disease. The environmental impacts on aquaculture pro-
duction generate a managers’ rapid and direct response (i.e., parasitism or oxygen
depletion causing biomass loss), usually bearing the total cost.
The impact of aquaculture on ecosystem sustainability depends on the type
of production system (i.e., extensive to intensive closed culture). Most adverse
effects negatively impact the surrounding habitat, communities, and farm sus-
tainability. At local scales, aquaculture affects the habitat by introducing support
structures (e.g., altering habitat and hydrodynamics), artificial organic enrichment
(e.g., eutrophication, changes in sediment redox potential, increased bottom bac-
teria, and deoxygenation), and contaminants (e.g., the release of heavy metals,
antibiotics, and pesticides). At larger scales, the resulting impacts produce high
fishing pressures for aquaculture feeds, introducing exotic species, transferring
pathogens, interbreeding wild stocks with escapes, and removing primary product-
ivity for wild species.

12.8 Final remarks

Many studies argue about the current contribution of fisheries and aquaculture to
food security worldwide. There is plenty of evidence about the high nutritional
value of finfish, particularly on small pelagic fishes, regarding their supply of
essential nutrients and micronutrients and relatively low prices. Besides Asia, there
is a need for information about food security in other developing countries, par-
ticularly in Africa. Furthermore, research must aim at understanding the variability
and importance of nutrients in aquatic foods produced under different contexts and
cultures, i.e., wild-​catch vs. farmed under different conditions.
Fish consumption is related to health benefits with some associated health risks.
On the one hand, there is evidence that fish consumption protects against various
health issues, such as strokes, high blood pressure, heart disease, and possibly
cancer. On the other hand, disease risks from its consumption result from the intake
and body accumulation of hazardous chemicals such as mercury and PCBs, which
affect the brain and nervous system development, early human life stages, and
cancer. However, the positive effects of its consumption far outweigh the adverse
effects.
The relationship between fish consumption and poverty is ambiguous.
Nevertheless, fish consumption is high in Pacific island developing states and
low-​income food-​deficit countries in Asia and Africa, suggesting some trends in
the aquatic food–​poverty relationship. Moreover, even given the relative import-
ance of fish consumption for nutrition in these countries, the reality is that most of
222 Fernando Aranceta Garza

their actual food consumption comes from vegetables. In the case of coastal and
fishing communities, there is evidence that higher fish consumption, via fishing or
farming, is consumed than in other inland households.
Interactions between production lines in wild-​caught fisheries and aquaculture
impact food security. Firstly, wild fisheries production is stalling, and aquaculture
availability is increasing and will substitute wild captures for farmed fish world-
wide. Also, the high farmed fish supply will prevent prices from rising, making
them commercially affordable and, in the case of backyard farming, with negli-
gible costs.
The main drivers of change in food security (i.e., population growth, climate
change, value chains, and global economy) have regional heterogeneous responses
between aquaculture and wild-​caught fish. While major negative effects are
expected in fisheries production, achieving future demand is possible for aqua-
culture production under sustainable management, including a reduction in its
dependence on fishmeal and fish oils.
In terms of value chains, the loss of aquatic food through poor management and
waste is still considerable, especially in artisanal fisheries. Moreover, inequity in
benefits distribution along the aquatic food chain values affects the supply chain
(i.e., artisanal fishers). One way to address asymmetries has been through certifica-
tion schemes, although they sometimes exclude artisanal operators.
Finally, as in wild fisheries, some trends in poverty alleviation are attended to,
directly and indirectly, by extensive and semi-​intensive production systems, pro-
viding food, income, and employment to producers and actors in the value chain.
Most intensive and hyper-​intensive production systems respond exclusively to
commerce and market demand, selling a top-​quality product with high prices and
focusing on objectives other than food security.

12.9 Chapter review questions

1 Is aquaculture a substitute for wild-​caught fisheries or should they be considered
complementary?
2 Aside from quantity, why is aquatic food a viable alternative to other animal
protein production systems?
3 Why is food security important to sustainability and what is the role of aqua-
culture in it?
4 What can be done to improve aquaculture’s contribution to food security in a
sustainable manner?

Recommended readings
Anderson, J. L., Asche, F., Garlock, T., & Chu, J. (2017). Aquaculture: Its role in the future
of food. En World Agricultural Resources and Food Security, 17, 159–​173. Emerald
Publishing Limited. https://​doi.org/​10.1108/​S1574-​871​5201​7000​0017​011
Bjerregaard, R., Valderrama, D., Radulovich, R., Diana, J., Capron, M., Mckinnie, C. A.,
& Forster, J. (2016). Seaweed Aquaculture for Food Security, Income Generation and
 Aquaculture and food security 223

Environmental Health in Tropical Developing Countries. Washington, DC: World

Bank Group.
Bogard, J. R., Farook, S., Marks, G. C., Waid, J., Belton, B., Ali, M., & Thilsted, S. H.
(2017). Higher fish but lower micronutrient intakes: Temporal changes in fish consump-
tion from capture fisheries and aquaculture in Bangladesh. PloS One, 12(4), e0175098.
Dovers, S., & Butler, C. (2015, June 18). Population and Environment: A Global Challenge.
Australian Academy of Science. www.scie​nce.org.au/​curi​ous/​earth-​envi​ronm​ent/​pop​
ulat​ion-​envi​ronm​ent
FAO. (2009). Declaration of the World Summit on Food Security.
FAO. (2021). The State of the World’s Land and Water Resources for Food and Agriculture –​
Systems at Breaking Point. Synthesis Report, 2021.
FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP, & WHO. (2021). The State of Food Security and Nutrition in
the World 2021: Transforming Food Systems for Food Security, Improved Nutrition
and Affordable Healthy Diets for All. FAO. https://​doi.org/​10.4060/​cb447​4en
Garlock, T., Asche, F., Anderson, J., Ceballos-​Concha, A., Love, D. C., Osmundsen, T. C., &
Pincinato, R. B. M. (2022). Aquaculture: The missing contributor in the food security
agenda. Global Food Security, 32, 100620.
HLPE. (2020). Food security and Nutrition: Building a Global Narrative Towards 2030.
A Report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the
Committee on World Food Security.
Jennings, S., Stentiford, G. D., Leocadio, A. M., Jeffery, K. R., Metcalfe, J. D., Katsiadaki,
I., … & Verner-​Jeffreys, D. W. (2016). Aquatic food security: Insights into challenges
and solutions from an analysis of interactions between fisheries, aquaculture, food
safety, human health, fish and human welfare, economy and environment. Fish and
Fisheries, 17(4), 893–​938. https://​doi.org/​10.1111/​faf.12152
Pradeepkiran, J. A. (2019). Aquaculture role in global food security with nutritional value: A
review. Translational Animal Science, 3(2), 903–​910.
Robinson, J. P. W., Mills, D. J., & Asiedu, G. A. et al. (2022). Small pelagic fish supply abun-
dant and affordable micronutrients to low-​and middle-​income countries. Nature Food,
3, 1075–​1084. https://​doi.org/​10.1038/​s43​016-​022-​00643-​3

References
1 FAO. (2021b). The State of the World’s Land and Water Resources for Food and
Agriculture—​Systems at breaking point. Synthesis report, 2021.
2 FAO. (2021c). World Food and Agriculture—​Statistical Yearbook, 2021.
3 FAO. (2020). The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2020. FAO. https://​doi.org/​
10.4060/​ca922​9en
4 The WorldFish Center. (2011). Blue frontiers: Managing the environmental costs of
aquaculture. The WorldFish Center.
5 FAO. (2009). Declaration of the World Summit on Food Security.
6 FAO, IFAD, & WFP. (2015). The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2015. Meeting
the 2015 international hunger targets: Taking stock of uneven progress.
7 FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP, & WHO. (2021). The State of Food Security and Nutrition
in the World 2021: Transforming food systems for food security, improved nutrition
and affordable healthy diets for all. FAO. https://​doi.org/​10.4060/​cb447​4en
8 HLPE. (2014). Food losses and waste in the context of sustainable food systems.
A report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the
Committee on World Food Security.
224 Fernando Aranceta Garza

9 FAO. (2020). The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2020. FAO. https://​doi.org/​
10.4060/​ca922​9en
10 Garlock, T., Asche, F., Anderson, J., Ceballos-​Concha, A., Love, D. C., Osmundsen,
T. C., & Pincinato, R. B. M. (2022). Aquaculture: The missing contributor in the food
security agenda. Global Food Security, 32, 100620.
11 Bjerregaard, R., Valderrama, D., Radulovich, R., Diana, J., Capron, M., Mckinnie, C.
A., ... & Forster, J. (2016). Seaweed aquaculture for food security, income generation
and environmental health in tropical developing countries. Washington, DC: World
Bank Group.
12 Bogard, J. R., Farook, S., Marks, G. C., Waid, J., Belton, B., Ali, M., ... & Thilsted,
S. H. (2017). Higher fish but lower micronutrient intakes: Temporal changes in fish
consumption from capture fisheries and aquaculture in Bangladesh. PloS one, 12(4),
e0175098.
13 Robinson, J. P. W., Mills, D. J., Asiedu, G. A. et al. (2022) Small pelagic fish supply
abundant and affordable micronutrients to low-​and middle-​income countries. Nature
Food, 3, 1075–​1084. https://​doi.org/​10.1038/​s43​016-​022-​00643-​3
14 Jennings, S., Stentiford, G. D., Leocadio, A. M., Jeffery, K. R., Metcalfe, J. D.,
Katsiadaki, I., … & Verner-​Jeffreys, D. W. (2016). Aquatic food security: Insights into
challenges and solutions from an analysis of interactions between fisheries, aquacul-
ture, food safety, human health, fish and human welfare, economy and environment.
Fish and Fisheries, 17(4), 893–​938. https://​doi.org/​10.1111/​faf.12152
15 FAO. 2022. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2022. Towards Blue
Transformation. Rome, FAO. https://​doi.org/​10.4060/​cc046​1en
16 FAO. 2021a. FAO yearbook. Fishery and Aquaculture Statistics 2019/​FAO annuaire
17 FAO. 2021. The State of the World’s Land and Water Resources for Food and
Agriculture –​Systems at breaking point. Synthesis report 2021. Rome. https://​doi.org/​
10.4060/​cb765​4en
13 Aquaculture and employment
Impact on livelihood and poverty

Francisco J. Vergara-​Solana

Previous chapters have covered the effects of aquaculture on world employ-

ment, food security, and global economic growth. While growth is essential, it is
equally important to focus on ensuring that this growth is sustainable. This means
considering the environmental effects of aquaculture production, the interests of all
stakeholders involved, and society’s needs. It is essential to note that community
conflicts can arise concerning aquaculture, and simply increasing income does not
always lead to positive changes in overall societal well-​being.
Given these considerations, this chapter examines proposals for evaluating these
aspects and emphasises the potential of using metrics associated with the concept
of a “social license to operate”. It also explores metrics related to the multidi-
mensional well-​being concept, which comprehensively takes into account material,
relational, and cognitive societal perceptions.
Statements on positive food impacts of aquaculture in the social context gener-
ally focus on nutrition and food security. However, another transcendental impact
on livelihoods is directly related to the economy of the families that obtain their
income directly or indirectly from this activity. This impact is especially relevant
when we consider that much of aquaculture occurs in remote regions with few
stable work alternatives.

13.1 Introduction
As aquaculture production grows, the number of jobs that depend on the activity
increases. Evidence of this growth is the total number of jobs associated with
fishing and aquaculture. In 1960 aquaculture jobs represented 17% of the total –​
as of 2016, the proportion exceeded 32%. In 2018, aquaculture generated 20.5 M
jobs worldwide, even more so if, in addition to production, the jobs associated
with processing and marketing circuits are considered. Undoubtedly, aquaculture
as an industry can transform communities, which comes with certain well-​being
trade-​offs.1
The way in which aquaculture can generate changes in the livelihoods of people
associated with the activity is diverse. It depends on several factors, such as pro-
duction technology, species to be produced, production scale, cultural aspects, and

DOI: 10.4324/9781003174271-17
226 Francisco J. Vergara-Solana

local idiosyncrasies to mention a few. For example, in the case of intensive aqua-
culture, such as shrimp and pangasius in Asia or salmon in Chile, there is a ten-
dency to increase wealth and reduce poverty in terms of income. This suggests that
the growth in aquaculture production does not work against the efforts made at the
national and international levels to alleviate poverty. It is important to note that
poverty should be viewed as a multidimensional phenomenon, and its measure-
ment should not be solely based on purchasing power.
At the same time, another positive impact of industrial aquaculture is price sta-
bilisation and reduction of the real price of some aquaculture commodities. This
is due to the increased supply and business competitiveness. As a result, con-
sumers can access seafood that was previously considered more inaccessible. For
instance, products like salmon and shrimp, which were once considered luxury
items reserved for special occasions, have become more affordable and have been
consumed more frequently in households over the past two decades. While they
may not be considered cheap products, their availability and affordability have
expanded, allowing a wider range of consumers to enjoy them on a regular basis.
On the one hand, with intensification in terms of scale, production can also
have negative consequences, for example, environmental degradation and land-
scape transformation. However, it is worth noting that, in general, intensive aqua-
culture systems strive for greater resource efficiency and reduced emissions per
unit produced, like other agrifood systems (refer to Chapter 5 for more details).
Additionally, while income tends to increase on average in intensive aquaculture,
there is a tendency to concentrate wealth. This can result in increased income
inequality –​a measure related to multidimensional poverty that gives us a proxy
for the cohesion of the social fabric in the communities (this topic will be further
discussed in this chapter).
On the other hand, small-​scale aquaculture allows that a greater profit per-
centage of the profits stays with the communities, besides facilitating access to
quality protein for both producers and communities. However, from another per-
spective, the survival rate (the quantity of businesses that can stay open over time)
of these enterprises tends to be lower, thus inhibiting the growth of this type of
aquaculture. For example, some of the challenges for this type of aquaculture are
the technical requirements necessary to carry out competitive production, financial
support required to invest throughout a cycle, and overcoming the intrinsic risks of
aquaculture activity, besides the difficulty (in some cases) in obtaining some of the
inputs and marketing and trading production from rural areas.
Therefore, the relationship between aquaculture, employment, and poverty is
a complex issue that depends on the interdependence of several aspects. Some
examples are production scale, project nature, location, mindset, and technical
and financial capacity of the producers. The relationship between aquaculture and
livelihoods is complex and multifaceted. However, by acknowledging the social
implications of aquaculture, we have the opportunity to develop well-​informed
public policies that can effectively enhance the well-​being of communities engaged
in this industry.2
 Aquaculture and employment: impact on livelihood and poverty 227

13.2 Employment and its impact on the sustainability pillars

The first step to better understanding the relationship of aquaculture to alleviate
poverty and positively impact the livelihoods of people directly and indirectly
associated with aquaculture is to review the relationship of employment with sus-
tainability. In Chapters 1 and 3 of this book, sustainability was explained in detail
and conceived as a concept consisting of three pillars (or dimensions): environ-
mental, economic, and social. In this sense, employment has a direct relationship
with the economic dimension because of the distribution of wealth generated by
aquaculture through family income.
The social implications of the aquaculture sector, both positive and negative,
are often overlooked despite their significance. This is because the impact of aqua-
culture extends beyond just the economic aspect, as it has the potential to bring
transformative changes in communities. For instance, the industry requires a work-
force to operate production units, which can lead to demographic shifts such as the
immigration of workers.
Another example is that aquaculture development can modify the cultural
practices associated with livelihoods (i.e., fishing tradition). It can also generate
income inequality between the community members, resulting in varying levels
of purchasing power, which has profound implications for the social fabric.
Aquaculture can even transform traditional landscapes, for example, by modifying
coastlines for water intakes and discharges, creating ponds, or installing floating
net pens, to name a few examples.
When considering aquaculture in the context of sustainability, it becomes evi-
dent that its significance extends beyond being a mere alternative source of fish
and shellfish production. Although the latter is of paramount importance by itself
to meet the growing food demand and reduce pressure on the oceans, directly
supporting the fulfilment of the Sustainable Development Goal No. 14 (underwater
life) of the United Nations.
It is important to highlight that the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were
introduced at the 2012 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development
held in Rio de Janeiro and officially adopted by member countries of the United
Nations in 2015. These goals replaced the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)
that were established in 2000. The MDGs were internationally agreed-​upon targets
aimed at addressing issues like extreme poverty, hunger, disease prevention, and
access to primary education, among other development priorities.
The SDGs consist of 17 ambitious and interconnected objectives, which collect-
ively strive to tackle the most significant environmental, political, and economic
challenges faced by humanity. Aquaculture is associated with almost all the SDGs;
it has an impact on 15 of them. This clearly demonstrates the sector’s potential to
promote sustainable development. In the context of poverty and livelihoods, it is
directly linked to several SDGs. Specifically, by promoting income generation,
ensuring food security, and providing employment opportunities, aquaculture is
aligned with four SDGs: SDG 1 (end of poverty), SDG 2 (zero hunger), SDG 3
(good health and well-​being), and SDG 8 (decent work and economic growth).
228 Francisco J. Vergara-Solana

13.2.1 Historical trends in aquaculture employment

According to the most recent FAO statistics, fishing and aquaculture were estimated
to have globally generated 59.5 M direct jobs in 2018, of which, as previously
mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, 20.5 corresponded to aquaculture (34%)
(Figure 13.1)1. Most of it comprises jobs related to small-​scale fishing and aqua-
culture production. These values only include the primary sector (i.e., production),
so if the jobs generated during the transformation and commercialisation circuit
are considered, the figures grow significantly. The importance of generating jobs
in fishing and aquaculture is not surprising, especially when fish and shellfish are
the most commercialised food products worldwide, even above coffee, corn, and
rice combined.
It is essential to note the correlation between job creation and production trends.
In this sense, job creation went from 7.8 M in 1995 to the current 20.5 M, which
means an average annual growth rate of 4.3%, while fishing jobs have grown at a
rate of 1.2% in the same period (Figure 13.2)1. Although the number of jobs has
grown, the number of jobs needed to produce a metric ton of seafood has reduced.
In 1995, approximately one job was generated for every 2 MT produced (0.5 jobs
for each metric ton). In 2018, this number decreased to one job for every 4 MT
(0.25 jobs/​MT). This trend illustrates the development of aquaculture production
systems towards modernisation and intensification.
Most jobs generated by the aquaculture industry are concentrated in developing
countries, primarily in Asia, which accounts for 78% of the total. Africa follows with
13% of aquaculture-​related jobs, and America accounts for 6%. Across continents,
there has been overall growth in aquaculture-​related jobs, albeit to varying degrees.

Figure 13.1 Historical series of jobs generated in fisheries and aquaculture in the world.
 Aquaculture and employment: impact on livelihood and poverty 229

Figure 13.2 Aquaculture employment distribution in the world by continent in 2018.

In contrast, there has been a decline in jobs associated with fishing in Europe and
Oceania over the past decade1.
Considering the gender perspective of aquaculture employment around the
world, 19% of the workforce are women. Although this is a low value, it is higher
than that observed in fisheries (12%). These statistics correspond to the primary
sector; if the transformation of fishing and aquaculture production is factored
throughout the entire production chain, the participation of women is estimated to
be close to 50% of the labour force.3
The role of women in aquaculture is an area that requires further research and
study. Understanding the specific contributions, opportunities, and challenges
faced by women in the aquaculture sector is essential for recognising their vital
role and ensuring their inclusion and empowerment. In recent years, studies with
a gender focus have multiplied,4 and despite the participation of women in aqua-
culture, the results suggest that in many cases women are assigned more unstable
positions or positions that are not very specialised. Therefore, they earn less pay
than men. Nevertheless, with the proper public and private policies, aquaculture
has the potential to be an activity to empower women and youth.
Clearly, the amount of employment generated is an important metric to under-
stand the role, and potential, of the aquaculture industry in alleviating poverty.
However, this metric by itself is an insufficient indicator because this employment
may not be fair and the working conditions may be inadequate, creating with the
employment a poverty trap. For this reason, this metric must be complemented
with more information to recognise what type of employment is required and what
practices should be promoted to increase well-​being, and thus, the sustainability of
the aquaculture sector.5 It is important not to lose perspective that, throughout the
world, both in developed and developing countries, violations of human and labour
230 Francisco J. Vergara-Solana

rights have been recorded throughout the seafood value chain, despite the efforts of
governments and the aquaculture industry itself to eradicate this situation.6

13.3 Poverty as a multidimensional phenomenon

In the previous section, income was defined as an important metric to measure the
role of aquaculture in alleviating poverty, but this figure is not sufficient by itself
to capture all the complexities related to poverty and quality of life expectations.
While the absolute numbers and trends in the number of jobs created may be
attractive, they do not mean that the job is well paid or the working conditions are
adequate. It is important that the jobs created by the aquaculture sector generate
well-​being for communities according to the perception, expectations, and culture
of the employees.
The quantification of aquaculture’s role in reducing poverty and improving
livelihoods is essential for the industry’s sustainable development but is a com-
plex issue. This complexity arises from the multidimensional nature of poverty and
well-​being, which becomes evident when considering the discussions presented
in earlier sections. Employment, for instance, intersects with multiple Sustainable
Development Goals (specifically, SDG 1, SDG 2, and SDG 8), highlighting the
simultaneous influence of poverty on two sustainability pillars (economy and
society).
For this reason, it is common to read or hear justifications to promote aqua-
culture development with powerful narratives related to the role of aquaculture
in alleviating poverty through job creation. However, these arguments are rarely
supported by studies that show how income is redistributed and used in the com-
munities.7 These studies have the potential to objectively direct the design and
implementation of public policies, planning production units, or following up on
projects, which are crucial to extract lessons learned around the world in the con-
text of the socioeconomic impacts of aquaculture. This is transcendental since
aquaculture projects can generate favourable conditions for employees and com-
munities if they are designed correctly, otherwise, they can have counterpro-
ductive implications.
For these reasons, and to promote the quantitative analysis of aquaculture’s
role to promote multidimensional well-​being (thus reducing multidimensional
poverty), the proposals of the most accepted indicators by the scientific commu-
nity to measure the objective and subjective aspects implicit in well-​being are
discussed below. This information is useful to know and evaluate the conflicts and
compensations that occur in the social sphere, which undoubtedly have important
implications for creating and promoting truly sustainable aquaculture.

13.3.1 How poverty and well-​being are measured

When people do not experience well-​being, they are in a multidimensional pov-

erty state, that is, well-​being and poverty are opposite concepts that reflect two
extremes of a personal situation. In general, well-​being is understood as a state that
 Aquaculture and employment: impact on livelihood and poverty 231

arises where human needs are satisfied, [acting] in a meaningful way to achieve
personal goals and [enjoying] a satisfactory quality of life. For this reason, social
well-​being is by nature a multidimensional concept since as previously mentioned
it implies not only people’s income and purchasing power but also simultaneously
considering complementary aspects.8 For example, equity, housing, health, and
education, as well as subjective components such as happiness and satisfaction
with life, are important. Following the above, projects, regulations, and public pol-
icies around the aquaculture sector are expected to consequently change society’s
well-​being.
Considering the information mentioned earlier, the evaluation of well-​being
should simultaneously consider three perspectives:

1 Material perspective: This perspective considers the tangible aspects of well-​

being, such as the available assets, including income, that contribute to satis-
fying personal needs.
2 Relational perspective: The evaluation of well-​being from a relational per-
spective focuses on assessing the social fabric and the quality of interpersonal
connections. It considers the individual’s relationships, social support networks,
and overall sense of belonging and connectedness.
3 Cognitive/​subjective perspective: This perspective centres around the
individual’s cognitive and subjective experiences, particularly their level of sat-
isfaction and contentment with their quality of life. It encompasses aspects like
personal fulfilment, happiness, and overall subjective well-​being.

This approach to well-​being analysis is known as the “3-​D well-​being frame-

work”, which is useful to systematically address the human aspects related to the
aquaculture sector. Since the publication of the study “The voices of the poor”
of the World Bank carried out by Narayan et al.,9 the need to include subjective
experiences to design effective policies for poverty reduction has become tangible.
Additionally, relational and subjective perspectives allow broadening the scope of
traditional studies that focus only on material objectives, which is relevant when
the importance of respecting “livelihoods” in job satisfaction is considered. Since
then, the concept of well-​being has evolved into analytical models associated with
indicators that together allow the analysis of the three perspectives of multidimen-
sional well-​being.
Despite the prevailing circumstances, to effectively measure well-​ being,
objective and subjective information needs to be obtained and integrated, which
requires information that is difficult to obtain. Nevertheless, it is unlikely that a
single indicator can reflect the complexities and interdependencies implicit within
the concept of multidimensional well-​being. Therefore, before evaluating poverty
or multidimensional well-​being, the scope and limitations of the existing indicators
should be known, as well as the information required to estimate them. The reason
for this is to effectively integrate them and design adequate sampling strategies to
achieve quantification of the aspects of interest according to the specific objectives
of each study.
232 Francisco J. Vergara-Solana

The multidimensional poverty and objective well-​being indices that do

not consider subjective aspects are the (i) Human Development Index; (ii)
Multidimensional Poverty Index; (iii) Indices of Social Development; and (iv)
Millennium Development Goals Index. Regarding the indicators that include sub-
jective well-​being measures, the following are highlighted: (i) Gross National
Happiness –​ Bhutan; (ii) OECD’s Better Life Index (Organisation for Economic
Co-​operation and Development); (iii) Gallup’s World Poll; and (iv) U-​Index
(Table 13.1).10
Although Table 13.1 shows the most widespread multidimensional poverty (or
well-​being) indicators, other indicators can also provide important complementary
information to describe the situation of a community. Probably one of the most
used is the Gini Equity Index, which measures how homogeneous the distribution
of income is among a group (or in contrast, how concentrated wealth is), which
is a proxy for social cohesion. To estimate this indicator, the income of a popula-
tion sample must be known and its distribution is contrasted (Lorenz curve) to an
idealised distribution curve (Figure 13.3).11 An advantage of this indicator –​com-
plementary to the ease of estimation and data collection –​is that it is commonly
estimated by governments at different levels (e.g., country, state, and municipal
levels), so there is usually an official value to compare (e.g., the Gini index of a
coastal community with respect to the country’s value).
Along these lines, several specific indicators can be used depending on
the questions (or aspects) to be evaluated, such as the gender inequality index,
women’s economic opportunities index, child development index, and index of
labour market well-​being, to name a few examples.
Regardless of the indicator or their combination used to represent the situation
of a community, it is important not to lose perspective on the complexity of the
socioeconomic aspects, and that the indices are simplifications with limitations.
The scope of the metrics should be recognised both to avoid making erroneous
inferences or, in the worst case scenario, to make interpretations with ethically
incorrect implications derived from this simplification.

13.4 Working conditions that promote sustainable development

According to that previously discussed, aquaculture development cannot be declared
sustainable even if it minimises its environmental impact and takes care of animal
welfare when working conditions are inadequate or the economic compensation
of the workers is unfair.12 Unfortunately, this situation is not usually assessed, des-
pite the sector generating millions of jobs. This pattern is tending to change and in
recent years initiatives coming from both governments and organised civil society
and academia have promoted the recognition of human and labour rights in food
production chains at the international, national, and regional levels.
One of the reasons that explains why it is relatively easier to clearly determine
good environmental practices in contrast to socioeconomic ones is due in part to
the fact that environmental recommendations and objectives tend to be the same
regardless of the region. Some examples are waste reduction, dependence on minor
 newgenrtpdf
Table 13.1 Most widespread multidimensional well-​being indicators10

Measures Dimensions Methodology Strengths Key critiques/​weaknesses

Human Development Capabilities Health, Knowledge, Aggregates a country’s Multi-​dimensionality Missing dimensions;
Index Income average achievements (moving beyond quality and availability

Aquaculture and employment: impact on livelihood and poverty 233

in the three dimensions; income focus); of data; measurement
equal weight is given to simplicity; issues (mixing of stocks
each dimension adaptability and flows; timeline;
aggregation issues;
choice of weights);
redundancy
Multidimensional Multiple Health, Education, Data are drawn from Multi-​dimensionality Missing dimensions;
Poverty Index deprivations Standard of Living household surveys; (HDI does not quality and availability
adopts an adjusted consider multiple of data; insufficient
headcount ratio; a deprivation); consideration of quality
household is considered simplicity; and availability of data;
multidimensionally poor adaptability; insufficient consideration
if the weighted indicators linkages with the of trade-​offs; insufficient
in which the household MDGs consideration of prices
is deprived add up to at
least 33%
Indices of Social Aspects of social Civic activism, Clubs Based on over 200 Coverage of new Scope and definitions;
Development development and associations, measures from 25 data dimensions; quality and availability
Interpersonal safety sources; method of high coverage of data; insufficient
and trust, Inter-​ aggregation involves a of countries; understanding of
group cohesion, variant of the matching comparative concepts and linkages
Gender equity, and percentiles method approach
Non-​discrimination
against women
(Continued)
 newgenrtpdf
Table 13.1 (Continued)

234 Francisco J. Vergara-Solana

Measures Dimensions Methodology Strengths Key critiques/​weaknesses

Millennium Development Poverty eradication, MDGs break down into Multi-​dimensionality Missing dimensions;
Development Goals goals Primary education 21 quantifiable targets (holistic view country focus (neglects
Gender equality, that are measured by 60 of poverty); outcomes of poorer
Child mortality indicators standardised groups); country focus
Maternal health measures; set (neglects outcomes of
HIV/​AIDs, malaria of entitlements; poorer groups); lack of
and other diseases, disaggregated a composite; quality
Environmental dashboard approach and availability of data;
Sustainability set of entitlements; measurement issues
Global Partnership disaggregated (linear projections, which
dashboard approach can be misleading)
Gross National Multidimensional Psychological well-​ Dimensions are equally Incorporates missing Value judgements; too
Happiness, Bhutan well-​being being, Time weighted. “Sufficiency dimensions; subjective
use, Community cutoffs” are established contributes to
vitality Culture, and applied for each positive state–​citizen
Health, Education, dimension; data are then relations; contributes
Environment, aggregated. The shortfalls to effective
Living standards, from gross national policy-​making/​
Governance happiness are identified outcomes; allows for
and the squared distances disaggregation and
from the cutoffs are tracking changes
calculated. The resulting
measure is the GNH
OECD Better Life Multidimensional Housing, Income, No established weights; Incorporates missing Focus on developed
Index well-​being Jobs, Community, the user decides. Each dimensions; countries; lack of
Education, country is represented by representation of guidance for policies;
Environment, a flower, of which each individual/​societal measurement issues
Governance, petal corresponds to a preferences; citizen
Health, Life dimension. The length participation;
satisfaction, Safety, of a petal represents a understanding
Work–​life balance country’s score for that of cross-​country
dimension; its width differences
 stands for the importance
that the user assigns to it
Gallup World Poll Multidimensional Business/​economics, Needs are operationally Incorporates missing Constraints on
well-​being Citizen defined as met dimensions; comparisons;
engagement, (1) or unmet (0) through broad-​based and measurement issues
Communications combinations of comparative;

Aquaculture and employment: impact on livelihood and poverty 235

and technology, surveyed items, all of representation
Education which were answered on of individual
and families, a dichotomous yes–​no perceptions;
Environment scale. Three types of measurement
and energy, subjective well-​being issues –​reducing
Food and shelter, tools are adopted in the influence of
Government and the survey –​global life past experiences
politics, Health, evaluation, positive missing dimensions;
Law and order, feelings, and negative broad-​based and
Religion and ethics, feelings comparative;
Social issues, Life representation
satisfaction, Work of individual
perceptions;
measurement
issues –​reducing
the influence of past
experiences
U-​Index Duration of an Measures the time An episode is classified Overcomes Interpretation issues;
unpleasant state that an individual as unpleasant or measurement issues limited coverage; limited
spends in an pleasant. U equals 1 re: personal, and understanding of cross-​
unpleasant state for an episode if max cultural differences; country differences
(negative emotions) › cardinal properties;
max (positive emotions), comparative;
and 0 otherwise. The U-​ psychological
index is the fraction of attributes
an individual’s waking
time that is spent in an
unpleasant state
236 Francisco J. Vergara-Solana

Figure 13.3 Graphical representation of Lorenz curve and function to estimate Gini coeffi-
cient (G): G=​A/​(A+​B).

pelagics for feed formulation, and reduced carbon footprint. This does not usually
happen in the social or economic dimension since each country has different social
and economic objectives, as well as contrasting regulatory frameworks. Even so,
some general guidelines can be recognised as good labour practices (e.g., avoiding
forced and child labour, and having grievance mechanisms).
Along these lines, regardless of the region, working conditions should at least
comply with the regulatory framework of each country. Meanwhile, the salary
of workers, in the worst case, should be equal to the income necessary to keep
employees above the poverty line defined in each country. The poverty line should
be understood as the amount of income necessary for a person to adequately cover
both their food requirements and basic non-​food needs (e.g., services, housing,
clothing, health, education, transportation).
In parallel, there are some international recommendations. For example,
although it is not specific to aquaculture, the FAO Strategic Program is available to
reduce rural poverty, which explicitly promotes decent work and social protection
in agriculture and covers aspects related to aquaculture and fisheries. In addition
to this instrument, the 2016 OECD-​FAO Guide for Responsible Supply Chains
in the Agricultural Sector was published, which contains the OECD Guidance
Elements for Multinational Enterprises, Committee on World Food Security (CFS)
Principles on Responsible Investment in Agriculture and Food Systems, and the
 Aquaculture and employment: impact on livelihood and poverty 237

Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries

and Forests in the Context of National Food Security.
The social dimension of aquaculture sustainability is usually addressed nation-
ally and internationally through policies commonly implemented in a top-​down
approach. Complementary to this strategy, market-​based strategies have proven to
help encourage companies to improve both working conditions and invest in the
communities beyond the legal requirements of each country. For example, through
third-​party certification and labelling, consumers can reward companies with their
purchase decision if they pay fair prices to their suppliers and invest in their com-
munities. Another tool is retail and hotel sourcing policies limiting their purchases
to suppliers that meet specific sustainability requirements.
Aquaculture and its value chain create many jobs and provide access to highly
nutritious food for millions of people. It also generates livelihood opportunities
for women, youth, and indigenous communities. However, for aquaculture to
have a greater chance of creating a positive multiplier effect, it is important to
evaluate the sector with a holistic vision that goes beyond production and value.
This is necessary so that when efforts and resources are invested in promoting
any type of aquaculture, the trade-​offs of each project are known. It should be
kept in mind that aquaculture is an extremely diverse sector, and this knowledge
is crucial for unlocking the sector’s contribution to the sustainability of global
food systems.
This knowledge is becoming increasingly accessible. From the private sector,
aquaculture companies are now reporting their non-​financial impacts in their
annual sustainability reports, using the Sustainable Development Goals as a ref-
erence. This is driven by sustainability certifications, the need for social licence to
operate, and impact investments. These forces are generating favourable incentives
to align commercial interests with sustainability in aquaculture.
While this is a favourable trend, there is still a need for a significant amount of
information to create the necessary evidence base for gaining deeper insights that
would enable better public policies. For example, official censuses should provide
more detailed data to understand the socio-​economic impact of aquaculture. It is
crucial to emphasise the gender perspective, as most official data currently are
gender blind. Aquaculture has great potential to contribute to global well-​being
but building this evidence base is necessary to coordinate efforts from the local to
international levels.

13.5 Final remarks

The intricate relationship between aquaculture, employment, and poverty highlights
the industry’s complexity of economic, social, and environmental dynamics. While
aquaculture’s rapid growth has undoubtedly led to job creation and income gener-
ation globally, the distribution of these benefits and their impacts on overall well-​
being are largely unknown.
Measuring aquaculture’s role in poverty alleviation is a complex endeavour due
to the multidimensional nature of well-​being. Merely quantifying jobs and income
238 Francisco J. Vergara-Solana

falls short; a more comprehensive approach integrating material, relational, and

cognitive perspectives is necessary.
Finally, the aquaculture industry presents opportunities and challenges for pov-
erty reduction and enhanced livelihoods. While job creation and income are piv-
otal, a comprehensive approach that embraces multidimensional well-​being, gender
equality, and sustainable development goals is indispensable. Such an approach is
crucial to inform policies and design strategies to foster sustainable aquaculture
growth.

13.6 Chapter review questions

1 How is the poverty threshold defined and how can it be measured?
2 What is the current situation of aquaculture with respect to sustainability from
a social point of view?
3 What documents exist at the international level as guidelines to promote social
sustainability?
4 What market-​based tools exist to promote sustainable production practices and
fair wages?

Recommended readings
Asche, F., Bellemare, M. F., Roheim, C., Smith, M. D., & Tveteras, S. (2015). Fair enough?
Food security and the international trade of seafood. World Development, 67, 151–​160.
Costa-​Pierce, B. A. (2022). The anthropology of aquaculture. Frontiers in Sustainable Food
Systems, 6, 1–​20. https://​doi.org/​10.3389/​fsufs.2022.843​743?
Dasgupta, P. (2001). Human Well-​Being and the Natural Environment. Oxford University
Press on Demand.
FAO. (2022). The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2022. Towards Blue
Transformation. Rome: FAO. https://​doi.org/​10.4060/​cc046​1en
Giron-​Nava, A., Lam, V. W., Aburto-​Oropeza, O., Cheung, W. W., Halpern, B. S., Sumaila,
U. R., & Cisneros-​Montemayor, A. M. (2021). Sustainable Fisheries are Essential But
Not Enough to Ensure Well-​Being for the World’s Fishers. Fish and Fisheries.
Haider, H. (2011). Helpdesk Research Report: Wellbeing and Poverty Indices. Governance
and Social Development Resource Center.
Harper, S., Adshade, M., Lam, V. W., Pauly, D., & Sumaila, U. R. (2020). Valuing invisible
catches: Estimating the global contribution by women to small-​scale marine capture
fisheries production. PloS one, 15(3), e0228912.
Narayan, D. (2000). Voices of the Poor: Can Anyone Hear Us?. World Bank.
Solano, N., Lopez-​Ercilla, I., Fernandez-​Rivera Melo, F. J., & Torre, J. (2021). Unveiling
women’s roles and inclusion in Mexican small-​scale fisheries (SSF). Frontiers in
Marine Science, 7, 1201.
Tran, T. Q., Van Vu, H., & Nguyen, T. V. (2023). Aquaculture, household income and
inequality in Vietnam’s coastal region. Marine Policy, 153, 105634.
Troell, M., Costa-​Pierce, B., Stead, S., Cottrell, R. S., Brugere, C., Farmery, A. K., Little,
D. C., Strand, Å., Pullin, R., Soto, D., Beveridge, M., Salie, K., Dresdner, J., Moraes-​
Valenti, P., Blanchard, J., James, P., Yossa, R., Allison, E., Devaney, C., & Barg, U.
(2023). Perspectives on aquaculture’s contribution to the sustainable development
 Aquaculture and employment: impact on livelihood and poverty 239

goals for improved human and planetary health. Journal of the World Aquaculture
Society, 54, 251–​342. https://​doi.org/​10.1111/​jwas.12946

References
1 FAO. (2022). The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2022. Towards Blue
Transformation. Rome: FAO. https://​doi.org/​10.4060/​cc046​1en
2 Krause, G., Brugere, C., Diedrich, A., Ebeling, M. W., Ferse, S. C., Mikkelsen, E., ...
& Troell, M. (2015). A revolution without people? Closing the people–​policy gap in
aquaculture development. Aquaculture, 447, 44–​55.
3 Solano, N., Lopez-​Ercilla, I., Fernandez-​Rivera Melo, F. J., & Torre, J. (2021).
Unveiling women’s roles and inclusion in Mexican small-​scale fisheries (SSF).
Frontiers in Marine Science, 7, 1201.
4 Troell, M., Costa-​Pierce, B., Stead, S., Cottrell, R. S., Brugere, C., Farmery, A. K., … &
Barg, U. (2023). Perspectives on aquaculture’s contribution to the sustainable develop-
ment goals for improved human and planetary health. Journal of the World Aquaculture
Society, 54, 251–​342. https://​doi.org/​10.1111/​jwas.12946.
5 Campbell, L. M., Fairbanks, L., Murray, G., Stoll, J. S., D’Anna, L., & Bingham, J.
(2021). From blue economy to blue communities: Reorienting aquaculture expansion
for community wellbeing. Marine Policy, 124, 104361.
6 Mathew, S. (2010). FAO Workshop: Child Labour in Fisheries and Aquaculture. 14
to 16 April 2010, Rome Children’s Work and Child Labour in Fisheries: A Note on
Principles and criteria for employing children and policies and action for progres-
sively eliminating the Worst Forms of Child Labour in Fisheries and Aquaculture.
International Collective in Support of Fishworkers (ICSF).
7 Béné, C., Arthur, R., Norbury, H., Allison, E. H., Beveridge, M., Bush, S., ... &
Williams, M. (2016). Contribution of fisheries and aquaculture to food security and
poverty reduction: Assessing the current evidence. World Development, 79, 177–​196.
8 Charles, A., Allison, E. H., Chuenpagdee, R., & Mbatha, P. (2012). Well-​Being and
fishery governance, IIFET 2012 Tanzania Proceedings, 6.
9 Narayan, D., Patel, R., Schafft, K., Rademacher, A., & Koch-Schulte, S. (2000). Voices
of the Poor. Can Anyone Hear Us? The World Bank: Washington DC, pp. 334.
10 Haider, H. (2011). Helpdesk Research Report: Wellbeing and Poverty Indices.
Governance and Social development Resource Center.
11 Lorenz, M. O. (1905). Methods of measuring the concentration of wealth. Journal of
the American Statistical Association, 9, 209–​219. www.jstor.org/​sta​ble/​2276​207?seq=​
1#met​adat​a_​in​fo_​t​ab_​c​onte​nts
12 Bennett, N. J., Blythe, J., White, C. S., & Campero, C. (2021). Blue growth and blue
justice: Ten risks and solutions for the ocean economy. Marine Policy, 125, 104387.
14 Aquaculture and animal welfare
Fernando Aranceta Garza

Sustainability regards the system as a whole, in a holistic manner, since several of

its components are connected; affecting or impacting one part of the system will
affect other components. From a social perspective, animal welfare and how pro-
ducers and enterprises care for the animals they produce is highly relevant.
During the beginning of aquaculture as an industry, the capacity of fish and
shellfish to feel pain was in debate; even today, several industry stakeholders doubt
it or consider it insignificant to production and producers. Just as happens in other
animal production systems like poultry or cattle, the way in which we treat the
animals for production will have a significant impact on how society reacts to the
industry as a whole. Apart from the philosophical, moral, and ethical components
of animal treatment, the effect of social acceptance is incredibly significant to the
aquaculture industry and its sustainability. This chapter discusses the aspects of
animal welfare that impact aquaculture production.

14.1 Introduction
Aquaculture is a productive activity aiming for two global purposes1: producing
high-​quality food and restocking fish populations, mitigating the overexploitation
of wild fishery resources, and strengthening world food security. According to the
FAO2, global aquaculture production involves 408 species integrated by six phyla3,
where 68% belong to chordates (e.g., finfish), followed by molluscs (e.g., bivalves)
and arthropods (e.g., shrimps, prawns, and lobsters). Given the numerous species
and different phyla involved in aquaculture production, addressing welfare will
become a complex task for producers and governments/​institutions.
In recent decades, public awareness, civil organisations, and social pressure,
mainly from European consumers and markets, are increasing their awareness
to safeguard the welfare (i.e., how well an animal is biologically, behaviourally,
and emotionally coping with their environment1,2) of aquaculture species by cre-
ating policies that minimise impacts on their life quality (https://​api.worlda​nima​
lpro​tect​ion.org/​). Global organisations (e.g., European Commission and the World
Organization for Animal Health [WOAH; founded as OIE]) and some national
initiatives (e.g., Western Australia, Denmark, United Kingdom) have developed

DOI: 10.4324/9781003174271-18
 Aquaculture and animal welfare 241

guidelines and standards to protect the welfare of species used in aquaculture,

including phases, such as transport, slaughter, and destruction for disease con-
trol purposes (i.e., euthanasia). Unfortunately, these regulations are not binding
agreements in most countries. Currently, the United Nations is requested to support
the “Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare” (UDAW) proposal, promoting a
global commitment to make animal protection a priority. They also acknowledge
welfare as a critical element for achieving pain-​free animal production to assure
product quality and successful population restoration efforts.3 However, compared
to terrestrial livestock production, there is a significant lag in the application of
welfare in fishes (i.e., cultured fish and invertebrates) and 70% of the total aqua-
culture production2 lacks any welfare information. Of the remaining 30%, only 7%
presented five or more scientific publications on issues related to welfare.4 This
situation worsens in wild-​capture production, where most industries do not apply
welfare principles.
Historically, animal welfare has been exclusive to terrestrial species related to
the historical process of domestication and extensive studies about their biology
and welfare. On the other hand, the lag in the application of welfare in aquatic
species is the result of a combination of factors. These include, ideologies that
consider aquatic animals incapable of feeling pain or emotions associated with
a simple nervous system;5 the complexity in the study of welfare in aquaculture
species associated with their high biological diversity (400 spp.) in comparison to
terrestrial species (20 spp.); relatively few studies on neurological, physiological,
and behavioural aspects in some aquatic species, which are pivotal for the appli-
cation of welfare accordingly to the characteristics of the species;6 the rapid global
expansion of aquaculture has caused various degrees of inadaptability to captivity
for some recently domesticated wild species.9 Moreover, a global assessment9 of
welfare in 41 aquaculture species showed a trend of poor global welfare of farmed
fishes related to the lack of biological knowledge of species requirements and fish
farming technologies that do not fully address welfare issues.
New studies are reporting evidence that aquaculture species (i.e., finfishes,
arthropods, and molluscs) exhibit socially complex interactions and present behav-
ioural, cognitive, and affective abilities, including the ability to experience pain.7
Furthermore, fish have shown complex cognitive abilities, such as using tools,
individual personalities, and strong preferences for their environment. In the case
of invertebrates, such as cephalopods, they showed superior mental abilities,
whereas crustaceans displayed maze-​solving capabilities, sophisticated naviga-
tion mechanisms, and emotional behaviour.8 All these studies represent progress
towards acknowledging that invertebrates meet moral and ethical considerations in
protecting their welfare.
The study of the welfare of aquatic species represents one of the most complex
and challenging tasks of science due to the group’s unique biological characteristics.
Unlike terrestrial animals, they comprise diverse, divergent, and taxonomically
distant groups, ranging from marine mammals to invertebrates, with different anat-
omies, physiologies, and behaviours. The first welfare principles emerged for ter-
restrial animals, many of which share similar anatomies (e.g., birds, mammals),
242 Fernando Aranceta Garza

physiologies, and behaviours (including humans). Most animal welfare principles

assume that these similarities could indicate that the animal is sentient (i.e., is
aware and feels comfort or discomfort); therefore, it is unethical to allow or cause
them harm. However, these welfare principles are not straightforward in poikilo-
thermic aquatic animals (excluding the mammalian group), whose physiological
and morphological differences conceal that they also could be sentient animals.
Welfare measures in aquaculture species are related to high production perform-
ance. The failure in welfare results in decreased production caused by low indi-
vidual growth, disease spreading, and high mortality rates. In addition, humane
slaughter methods will result in minimum animal distress and high-​ quality
products.9 However, the application of welfare measures may represent an extra
cost for farmers, where products with animal welfare labelling provide a premium
price to compensate for the losses in the European Union, Asian, and American
markets.10

14.2 Pain in aquatic organisms

Currently, there is a continuous debate about whether fish can feel pain or suffer,
based primarily on the lack of advanced brain structures (i.e., the presence or
absence of the neocortex) and behavioural capacity for cognitive experience
observed8 in animals phylogenetically inferior to primates (i.e., fish, arthropods,
molluscs). On the other hand, other studies reached opposite conclusions about
the possibility that fish can perceive pain.11,12 These studies emphasise that teleost
fish, although they present anatomical differences with tetrapod, present functional
similarities, and cognitive development, shown by the ability to detect, conceptu-
alise, and respond to nociceptive stimuli, suggesting sentience.
Nociception is the ability to respond to a potentially harmful stimulus,
representing an essential sensory ability even present in bacteria. Therefore, almost
all organisms can generate a response to a noxious stimulus. Pain involves a sub-
jective experience of anguish, despair, suffering, and other negative affective states,
provoking behavioural changes that vary in species and can be misinterpreted,
sometimes obscuring the human ability for its detection.10 The definition of pain10
in animals is the ability to “quickly learn to avoid the noxious stimulus and dem-
onstrate sustained changes in behaviour that have a protective function to reduce
further injury and pain, prevent the injury from recurring, and promote healing
and recovery”. Direct comparison of pain responses among terrestrial (endotherms
including humans) and aquatic (poikilotherms) animals is complex or unfeasible
due to their intrinsic biological differences or inability to transmit their experiences.
Moreover, some animals might behave as if they were in pain, but their response
reflects nociception and not suffering16. It is sometimes impossible for humans to
express pain, depending on their ability to communicate or transmit their emotions.
Thus, the definition of human pain is not directly applicable to most animals, as
they cannot communicate what/​how they feel. However, the lack of ability to com-
municate (e.g., animals, human adults unable to communicate, neonates, or infants)
does not exclude the fact of experiencing pain. Therefore, the following criteria aid
 Aquaculture and animal welfare 243

in determining the ability to perceive pain in various animal groups, terrestrial and
aquatic.

14.2.1 The evolutionary function of pain

Nociception is a fundamental sensory system that alerts the organism to potential

harm or danger. The evolutionary pressures of nociception on species are based on
different noxious stimuli (e.g., temperature, pressure, chemicals) along with their
life history. To guarantee their survival in challenging habitats, which otherwise
result in disease and/​or death, some species must evolve their nociceptive systems
towards pain, becoming a driver that modulates their behaviour towards avoidance
of harmful stimuli, called associated aversive motivational state. The evolutionary
significance of pain is to increase fitness by assisting in long-​term protection. Thus,
the life-​history context of each species will define pain and how it is displayed. The
key principles for pain in animals are10 (1) responses that differ from innocuous
stimuli and (2) evidence of long-​term motivational changes that may include rapid
learning.

14.2.2 Animal neuroanatomy

The ideology behind applying ethical and animal welfare principles to poikilo-
thermic aquatic animals (i.e., fish and aquatic invertebrates) needs evidence of the
exhibition of superior cognitive abilities, i.e., to be aware of their environment and
the conditions that affect them. This demonstration of cognitive ability in aquatic
animals has been a complex and controversial task, with many counterarguments
based on neuroanatomical differences relative to mammals. The high levels
of mammalian consciousness (i.e., perception, memory, judgement, and emo-
tional responses) reflect neocortical functions and not simple reflexes to noxious
stimuli. In the case of teleost fish, studies showed that their neuroanatomy presents
specialised brain structures required for pain perception (e.g., the frontal lobe of
the neocortex), suggesting the capability to perceive, experience, and respond to
external factors consciously. Evidence in several teleost species10, such as carp,
trout, salmon, and goldfish, showed that pain is related to the activation of specific
brain areas (forebrain and midbrains, similar to mammals) and not restricted to
the hindbrain and spinal cord nociceptive reflex areas. Moreover, the connection
of the nociceptors to the central nervous system (i.e., the brain) indicates central
processing of the noxious stimulus, which also reaffirms the possibility that these
organisms can feel pain.
For arthropods and molluscs, the situation is not so clear. For example,13 the
supra-​oesophageal ganglion in crustaceans and the cerebral ganglion in molluscs
function as brains responsible for the somatosensory and motor coordination inte-
gration. However, some studies1 have suggested no information linking these
organs to true cognitive abilities; thus, they cannot experience pain, fear, or
suffering. However, behavioural experiments on crustaceans10 have demonstrated
long-​term changes in central nervous activity, suggesting information processing
244 Fernando Aranceta Garza

from nociceptors to central areas. Furthermore, cephalopod molluscs show a well-​

developed central nervous system with giant axons, capabilities of puzzle-​solving,
emotional changes in skin coloration, and long-​term changes in motivational state.

14.2.3 Evidence of pain in fish, arthropods, and molluscs

The pain assessments in teleost fishes10,16 comprise experimentation using different

noxious agents (e.g., compression, abrasion, electric shock, and injections with
painful chemicals) on carp, rainbow trout, and zebrafish, resulting in different
body responses (Table 14.1). Fishes showed capabilities to evade noxious stimuli
(the same stimuli that cause pain in mammals) like mechanical pressures and elec-
tric shock fields. The application of potentially painful stimuli (e.g., subcutaneous
injections of noxious chemicals) resulted in complex responses, displayed physio-
logically as the increment of operculum beat rate and plasma cortisol and reduced
swimming activity. Simultaneously, anomalous behaviours showed tail beating,
flapping, and rock rubbing, subsequently remedied with painkillers, indicating
their potential use as welfare indicators. Moreover, fishes can learn to avoid nox-
ious stimuli caused by long-​term motivational and behavioural changes,10 and even
display behaviours where they are willing to pay a cost by entering less preferable
habitats to access pain relief.14
In molluscs (i.e., bivalves, gastropods, nudibrachians, and cephalopods), sev-
eral studies have shown that species respond to noxious stimuli, displaying pain-​
associative learning. Responses of squids to inflicted injuries showed high visual
responsiveness to similar stimuli, relating to fearfulness. This long-​term change
in motivational state after noxious stimuli is related to pain.10 Other responses
have shown a change of predatory tactics in octopuses when using hermit crab
prey with stinging anemones, resulting in a change in the motivational state not
explained by nociception. These responses indicate the advanced learning ability
of cephalopods.
Most pain studies in decapod arthropods (i.e., crabs, lobsters, and shrimp)
focus on showing if their noxious stimuli are either nociception or a central ner-
vous system function (i.e., pain). In order to achieve the latter, four welfare cri-
teria15 were assessed in decapods: avoidance learning, physiological responses,
protective motor reactions, and motivational trade-​offs. The results showed that
beach crabs16 and hermit crabs18 learn to avoid electric shocks placed in spe-
cific sand dens or shells. In cases of physical damage, the behaviour focuses
on attending to the affected area, similar to some vertebrates. In extreme
cases, mutilations of a limb showed high physiological stress. Moreover, other
experiments showed that crustaceans could pay a cost by enduring a harmful
stimulus (i.e., electric shocks) upon detecting a predator. Finally, there is evi-
dence of motivational and physiological changes after the painful stimulus,
showing that these are not simple nociceptive reflex functions. For example, in
crayfish,17 experiments applying electric shocks resulted in a rise in serotonin and
blood glucose levels, indicating their ability to feel stressed and anxious, which
decreased after painkillers were applied.
 newgenrtpdf
Table 14.1 Criteria for pain perception per animal grouping10

General classification Criteria M B A/​R F C D

Receptors and central nervous Nociceptors ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

system structures
Pathways to CNS ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Central processing in the brain ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Receptors for analgesic drugs ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Physiological and behavioural Physiological responses ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
responses
Movement away from noxious stimuli ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Behavioural changes from average conditions ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Protective behaviour ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Responses reduced by analgesic drugs ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Altered behavioural choices/​preferences ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Aquaculture and animal welfare 245

Healing behavioural responses Self-​administration of analgesia ✔ ✔ ? ✔ ? ?
Relief learning ✔ ? ? ? ? ?
Rubbing, limping, or guarding ✔ ✔ ? ✔ ✔ ✔
Responses with high priority over other stimuli ✔ ✔/​? ? ✔ ✔ ✔
Trade-​offs in behavioural Pay-​cost to access analgesia ✔ ? ? ✔ ? ?
responses
Paying a cost to avoid a stimulus ✔ ✔ ? ✔ ? ✔
Trade-​offs with other requirements ✔ ✔ ? ✔ ? ✔

Note
M: Mammalia; B: Birds; A/​R: Amphibia/​Reptiles; F: Fishes; Agnatha/​Osteichthyes; C: Cephalopoda; D: Decapods; “✔”: at least one species within an animal class
fulfils the criterion; “?”: more evidence is needed or inconclusive.
246 Fernando Aranceta Garza

14.3 Animal welfare definition

Animal welfare has arisen in society to express ethical concerns about the quality
of life experienced by animals, particularly animals used by humans in production
agriculture.5 Other animal welfare definitions4 have the same principles about how
well an animal is biologically, behaviourally, and emotionally coping with their
environment, which has several implications:

Welfare is a characteristic of an animal, not something that is given to it,

Welfare will vary from very poor to very good, i.e., welfare continuum,
Welfare can be measured objectively and independently of moral considerations,
Measures of failure to cope and measures of how difficult it is for an animal to
cope both give information about how poor the welfare is,
Knowledge of the preferences of an animal often gives valuable informa-
tion about what conditions are likely to result in good welfare, but direct
measurements of the state of the animal must also be used in attempts to assess
welfare and improve it; and
Animals may use a variety of methods when trying to cope. There are several
consequences of failure to cope, so any one of a variety of measures can indicate
that welfare is poor, and the fact that one measure, such as growth, is normal
does not mean that welfare is good.

According to the Fisheries Society of the British Isles,18 the concept of animal
welfare is complex and challenging to define and apply. It is for this reason that
three general approaches to ascertaining the quality of life (or well-​being) of an
animal have emerged:

a The feeling-​based approach is set in terms of subjective mental states. Good

welfare is achieved by good mental health, free of negative and coupled with
positive experiences. This approach also relies on the controversial fact that
animals are sentient and conscious of their surroundings.
b The function-​based approach is based on the animal’s ability to cope with the
new environment. This approach is relatively easy to measure; animals are
either in good health or suffering in captivity.
c The nature-​based approach centres upon the species’ inherent biological nature.
Good welfare is related to expressing their natural behaviour under specific hus-
bandry installations for each species.

Other welfare definitions19,20 combine the three previous approaches known

as Brambell’s Five Freedoms or “welfare domains”21 (Table 14.2). They usually
represent the essence of the principles of animal welfare and terrestrial and aquatic
animal health codes by the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) [www.woah.
org/​en/​what-​we-​do/​standa​rds/​codes-​and-​manu​als/​aqua​tic-​code-​onl​ine-​acc​ess/​].
 Aquaculture and animal welfare 247

Table 14.2 Five freedoms, domains, and welfare actions included in the Brambell Report

Freedoms Domains Welfare actions

1 Freedom from Water and food Access to fresh water, and

hunger and thirst deprivation, appropriate nutrition to
malnutrition maintain health and vigour
2 Freedom from Environmental Access to a suitable
discomfort challenge environment with plenty
of resting area
3 Freedom from pain, Disease, injury, Any illnesses should be
injury, or disease and functional prevented, diagnosed, and
impairment treated
4 Freedom to express Behavioural/​ Access to adequate space
normal behaviour interactive and facilities, and when
restriction necessary, companionship
5 Freedom from fear Mental and physical Minimise conditions that
and distress suffering cause anxiety, fear, stress,
boredom, illness, pain,
thirst, hunger, etc.

The Five Freedoms framework was first established in birds and mammals and
then adapted to fish. For example, fish are poikilotherms and can experience long
periods of fasting in nature without adverse consequences, so domain 1 (Table 14.2)
is not as critical as in birds and mammals. On the contrary, water quality is vital for
their well-​being (domain 2), measured through their gills.

14.4 Measuring fish welfare

The observation of the natural behaviour of captive animals is fundamental for
welfare assessment. Behaviour is the most important indicator of biological status,
reflecting the individual’s physiological and mental state. To achieve welfare for
cultured fish, farmers must previously acknowledge the species’ aetiology relying
on unambiguous and robust welfare indicators to measure their health, emotional
states, and natural needs.9 Physiological responses in stressed fish release glucose
and hormones into the plasma (i.e., adrenaline and cortisol), which biologically
prepares the organism for escapement actions22,21. Some studies of behavioural
responses resulted in freezing, avoidance, or escapement.21 The long-​term perform-
ance under stressful conditions in cultured fish25,21 resulted in impaired growth,
reproductive suppression, decreased immune response, and death.
Physiological and behavioural responses are multifactorial and complex,
sometimes related to other factors other than species’ welfare, e.g., precar-
ious housing conditions cause stress and drastic energy reserve reductions in
fish. However, depending on their life history stages, fish can naturally undergo
periods of anorexia, like juvenile salmon during winter.23 Moreover, reproductive
events in fish could cause a loss of up to 70% of their energy reserves.24 These
248 Fernando Aranceta Garza

multifactorial responses showed that welfare indices could be noisy variables, and
recommendations to reduce uncertainty in welfare studies depend on collecting
data from several systems, e.g., physiology, health, body condition, biology, and
environment. Nowadays, statisticians have developed tools to examine and con-
dense multivariate datasets used to integrate welfare indices (e.g., in salmon25).

14.4.1 Welfare indicators in aquaculture

The scientific evaluation of fish welfare indices relies on valid and standardised
tools, whose successful adoption and application in the aquaculture industry26
will depend on their robustness (i.e., reliability and accuracy), ease of use, applic-
ability, and species selection. The technology in the welfare indices must continue
improving its performance by reducing operational costs, time requirements, and
the impact on the fish. Generally, monitoring fish welfare can be achieved using
non-​invasive and invasive methods27 (Figure 14.1), as described below.

Figure 14.1 Non-​invasive and invasive welfare monitoring methods applied in aquaculture

practices.27
 Aquaculture and animal welfare 249

14.4.1.1 Non-​invasive methods

Non-​invasive methods use behaviour, growth rate, or fish size data to assess fish
welfare (Figure 14.1). The main objective of behavioural monitoring is to pro-
vide external signs indicating the animal’s internal experience, including negative
mental states, perception of its environment, and coping responses. Generally,
monitoring comprises direct observations, analysis of recordings, or automatic
computer methods. Their application in intensive aquaculture focuses on the shoal
or group (i.e., cultured target) rather than individuals, thus making monitoring
more accessible and reducing stress on isolating individuals that could bias wel-
fare indicators. Moreover, facial recognition technologies already exist in fish to
improve individual monitoring and could offer an opportunity to measure wel-
fare variation at an individual level. The methods of behavioural monitoring have
been previously applied to trout, sardines, tilapia, and carp,30 providing insight into
their perceptions and affective states. In general terms, the non-​invasive welfare
behaviour monitoring methods comprise (Figure 14.1) avoidance and anticipation
testing, artificial intelligence, automated behaviour detection, quantification of
feeding behaviour, infrared behavioural analysis, and 3D tracking.
Fish size monitoring30 (Figure 14.1) measures the reduction or inhibition of
growth in fish reflected as alterations of growth rate. Growth is related to the
physiological stress responses affecting individual growth in several ways: (a) it
increases energy mobilisation and decreases its availability for growth, (b) inhibits
the production of the growth hormone, and (c) inhibits feed intake. Other factors
affecting growth are (d) conspecific competition, (e) poor water quality causing
reduced dissolved oxygen levels, and (f) individual heterogeneous growth.
Conventional methods for estimating individual weight and growth, such as a
scale or ruler, are time-​consuming and stressful for fish. Current methods of fish
size monitoring (e.g., ultrasonic technology, machine learning, and geometric
models; Figure 14.1) allow measurements to be made without disturbing the fish,
previously tested on gilthead sea bream (Sparus aurata), seabass (Dicentrarchus
labrax), and bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus). Finally, growth variation is multi-
factorial and must be associated with other indicators to measure fish welfare
adequately, e.g., sometimes the growth rate is not impaired under poor welfare
farm performance.30

14.4.1.2 Invasive methods

Non-​invasive methods may fail to reveal a poor welfare state in fish. Therefore, wel-
fare assessment should holistically include indicators of behaviour, health, physi-
ology, environment, and psychology.28 Invasive methods (Figure 14.1) include
biological sampling (i.e., blood or tissue) to assess physiological indicators, where
its application must consider a benefit-​impact analysis. Currently, novel invasive
methods consider their impact on the fish’s welfare and health to avoid damaging/​
stressing the organism (i.e., the product).
250 Fernando Aranceta Garza

Biological sampling commonly assesses the glucocorticoid hormone cortisol.

It is secreted and released into the bloodstream as a primary stress response by
the adrenal cortex using the hypothalamic–​pituitary–​interrenal axis (HPI). In this
way, cortisol can be correlated with susceptibility to disease, erratic behaviour, and
impaired cognitive performance.30 The sampling methods for measuring cortisol in
aquaculture fish have used blood and gill tissue in rainbow trout, scales in carp, and
faeces in salmon. All samplings involved handling and use of anaesthesia. Other
methods use fish skin as an indicator of welfare related to conditions of poor health,
diet issues, and psychological stress.29 Skin sampling also requires handling and
using light anaesthesia; nevertheless, this method may be more refined than blood
sampling for cortisol.30
Other invasive methods required the installation of biosensors/​bio-​loggers,30
which requires surgical implantation in fish, allowing to record environ-
mental, physiological, and behavioural responses. One main disadvantage is the
biosensor’s short-​ or long-​term impact on fish survival and health. However, the
advantage over biological sampling is the continuous biological assessment of glu-
cose (biosensors) and heart rate (bio-​loggers) over time, evaluating the entire stress
response during cultivation.
Acoustic telemetry is another method to assess the welfare, focusing on
swimming performance in marine floating cages.30 The typical acoustic telemetry
system consists of acoustic transmitter tags with one or more matching acoustic
receivers, where the acoustic transmitter tag is inserted in some individuals by
external attachment or surgical implantation.

14.5 Application of ethical and welfare principles to aquatic vertebrates

and invertebrates
The dimension of animal welfare, besides evaluating the state or condition of life
of animals in captivity, also involves an ethical component based on the underlying
values of the relationship between humans and animals. The ethical principles
that apply to animal welfare (see Section 14.3) will be fundamental to developing
and applying welfare standards focused on aquatic animals, serving as the foun-
dation for policies, guidelines, and regulations proposed by institutions and non-​
governmental organisations.
Human welfare is paramount in a world of scarce resources and a continuously
growing human population, so a critical question would be how much animal
welfare should be applied without affecting human welfare. It would be complex
and costly to apply high levels of welfare to aquaculture practices, where food
provisioning and a disputed capability of sentience for poikilothermic aquatic
animals can justify poor welfare practices. Other considerations besides animal
sentience1 for applying fish welfare are present in the domestication process
(mainly for livestock), where farmers have the moral responsibility for their wel-
fare. Also, due to their intrinsic value, they should be treated with dignity and
respect according to the animal’s distinctive character (Norwegian animal wel-
fare ordinance31). Furthermore, the European Code of Conduct (Holmenkollen
 Aquaculture and animal welfare 251

Guidelines) suggests that ethical principles that ensure the health and welfare of
fish, including humane killing (without pain and suffering), should govern the
industry. Unfortunately, the intrinsic value is biased towards teleost fish and is less
intuitive when applied to invertebrates.

14.5.1 Fish welfare

The animal welfare paradigm has traditionally focused on maintaining physical
health and mitigating negative well-​being impacts.32 Most recently, the import-
ance of directly incorporating measures that promote positive animal welfare has
been recognised globally (i.e., species-​specific mental and physical states that
exceed what is necessary for immediate survival). These positive animal welfare
measures rely on understanding the animal’s needs by showing their motivational
preferences with their successive incorporation into its welfare management. There
are three domains considered in motivation research:33

1 Motivation for value effectiveness: evaluates the motivation to have or avoid

specific material outcomes (e.g., tank colour preference, substrate, and light
intensity).
2 Motivation for control effectiveness: refers to the desire to control or manage
the outcome for the benefit of the animal (e.g., control over feed).
3 Motivation for truth effectiveness: In addition to the previous two, where
beyond having a good outcome or making a positive outcome occurs, animals
are motivated to explore, solve problems, and understand patterns.

Other positive welfare measures depend on establishing positive emotions

derived from the discipline of affective neuroscience.34 These emotions include
behavioural, autonomic (physiological and endocrine responses), and subjective
components (emotional experience) assessed by physiological and behavioural
parameters. The physiological parameters measure the functionality of the immune
system (e.g., immunoglobulin A level) and levels of neurotransmitters such as
dopamine (e.g., appetite satiation) and endorphins (i.e., related to social, repro-
ductive, play, and self-​grooming behaviour).
From the behavioural parameters, many documented behaviours, some in fish,
indicate a positive emotional experience37 corresponding to play, affiliative, self-​
grooming, vocalisations, and information-​gathering behaviours, with the first two
already studied in fish. Other positive behaviours in gregarious species are present
as communication and social bonding.
Other lines of research for alternative behavioural indicators of positive wel-
fare specific to fish (i.e., not related to anthropocentric behavioural manifestations)
could include vocalisations, chemical signing, coloration changes, electrical
impulses, and bioluminescence.
Some practical application of welfare testing in fishes was made on tilapias.
An assessment welfare protocol was performed for terrestrial animals over 12
tilapia farms in Brazil. The potential welfare indicators were categorised as
252 Fernando Aranceta Garza

health (examination of skin, eyes, gills, jaws, fins, and vertebral spine), environ-
mental (water physicochemical parameters and production system), nutritional
(body condition factor, feed conversion ratio, and feed crude protein ratio), and
behaviour (feed ingestion behaviour). The results evidenced heterogeneous wel-
fare among farms and the identification of welfare issues critical for the farmers’
application of prevention management actions. Other efforts to apply welfare
practices in aquaculture in Norway mandate welfare courses for fish farmers
involved in securing animal welfare and noting welfare challenges in the pro-
duction process.

14.5.2 Invertebrate welfare

Scientific advances for the welfare of invertebrates applied to the aquaculture

industry lag behind those of teleost fish. This lag is because some ideology sustains
that invertebrates cannot experience pain and suffering,8 and others question
the veracity of the welfare studies on invertebrates grounded on weak scientific
approaches.35 Conversely, welfare studies have shown evidence of the inverte-
brate capacity for exhibiting cognitive and spontaneous behaviours indicative of
affective pain experience, justifying the application of precautionary principles in
scientific research and aquaculture production.36
The welfare studies on Mollusca are very scarce and mainly examine octopods,
such as octopuses and squids, assessing their behaviour to pain experiences37,38
and feeding and digestive tract issues in aquaculture relevant to their welfare.39
In crustaceans, advances in welfare studies in decapods (i.e., crabs, shrimp,
crayfish, and lobsters) assess pain experiences based on four criteria: avoidance
learning, physiological responses, protective motor reactions, and motivational
trade-​offs,18 supporting evidence for welfare protection. Moreover, New Zealand,
Norway, Switzerland, and some Australian regions include the welfare of decapods
in their legislation. Notably, most lobsters in UK40 experience poor welfare (i.e.,
exhibited in aquarium displays) associated with their natural behaviour, presenting
claw restraints, high stocking density, lighting, and no shelter. Crayfish welfare in
aquaculture related to light intensity has also been a matter of research.41 Other
studies42,43 exposed that crustaceans can experience painful stimuli and complex
cognitive capacity, so slaughtering methods must address welfare considerations,
such as chilling and/​or knifing to the brain41.

14.6 Animal welfare legislation applied to fish

The fish welfare legislation and the recognition of their sentience are acknowledged
and enforced by a few countries worldwide. These countries (mostly European)
include Austria, Denmark, Holland, Switzerland, Sweden, Australia, and the UK
(https://​api.worlda​nima​lpro​tect​ion.org/​). Currently, many civil organisations world-
wide seek to raise awareness and promote a universally binding law supporting the
national and international protection/​welfare of animals (e.g., World Organization
for Animal Health, OIE; Fisheries Society of the British Isles).
 Aquaculture and animal welfare 253

Specifically, the European Union (EU) legal framework for farmed animal wel-
fare protection is set in the Council Directive 98/​58/​EC, which establishes min-
imum welfare standards for farmed animals, including fish. Moreover, in 2009,
the Lisbon Treaty recognised that animals are sentient beings deserving welfare
considerations for the EU countries.
Australia has no national laws that apply to animal welfare as contained in the
Animal Welfare Act 1999 of its neighbouring country, New Zealand. Nonetheless,
some Australian territories have included animal welfare laws, e.g., the guideline
on aquatic animal welfare for the aquaculture industry in West Australia; and the
Animal Welfare Legislation Amendment Bill in the Canberra territory; unfortu-
nately, the latter do not cover farmed animals or husbandry practices.
The Asian region includes the world’s biggest aquaculture producer, China.
Although China is a member of the OIE, animal welfare is not included directly in
any Ministry of China. However, animal welfare is addressed regionally in lower-​
level legislation following the International Cooperation Committee of Animal
Welfare (ICCAW).44 Also in Asia, India has included laws to protect terrestrial
animals since the 1960s, such as the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and, more
currently, the Slaughterhouse Rules in 2001. However, they do not mention any
welfare consideration for fish-​related species, focusing on domesticated animals.
In the case of the American region, the USA45 presents Federal laws that protect
terrestrial animals in their legislation, excluding farmed fish. In Latin America,
Peru has Law 30407 called Law for the Protection and Welfare of Vertebrate
Animals, which includes fish. Chile’s welfare legislation protects domestic and
wild animals and excludes fish. Nevertheless, a bill initiative called “Individuals,
not Tons” promotes the regulation of animal welfare standards for fish and other
aquaculture production species such as salmon. Mexico presents a national Federal
law that does not include fish welfare. However, some lower-​level legislation or
state laws, such as Mexico City and Michoacan, have included animal protection
based on the “Five Freedoms” for all animals in their legislation, including fish,
molluscs, and crustaceans.

14.7 Fish welfare and the Sustainable Developmental Goals

In 2015, the Member States of the United Nations adopted the Sustainable
Developmental Goals (“SDGs”) aiming to create a more equitable, sustainable,
and pacific world for 2030, where aquaculture production plays a crucial role
in achieving some of the SDGs,46 which can be enhanced if the welfare of the
fish becomes an integral component of aquaculture. Table 14.3 summarises fish
welfare’s role in some aquaculture SDGs.

14.8 The impact of intensive farming on fish welfare

The exponential growth of intensive aquaculture in the world, particularly from
teleost fish (e.g., salmon and trout), has been occurring in Europe (e.g., Norway
and the UK) and America (e.g., Canada and Chile).47 This growth is related to
 newgenrtpdf
254 Fernando Aranceta Garza
Table 14.3 Potential welfare effect in United Nations’ sustainable development goals related to aquaculture

Sustainable Development Goals Welfare effect

1 No poverty High levels of fish welfare promote farmers’ health and create added value on an ethical basis in
retail markets
2 Zero hunger The application of welfare practices in aquaculture production, particularly in developing
countries, reduces natural mortality and minimises habitat degradation
3 Good health and well-​being High levels of fish well-​being reduce diseases and bacterial spread to other locations and post-​
mortem infections
6 Clean water and sanitation Residual waters from aquaculture farms could contain food residues and antimicrobials affecting
its surroundings. The fish welfare enhancement will improve individual feed intake and health
by reducing food waste and disease susceptibility
12 Responsible consumption and production High levels of welfare reduce the ecological footprint by improving fish’s cultured conditions,
lowering food demand, improving survival rates, and decreasing residue production
14 Life below water More efficient production reduces waste generation, such as ammonia, from mariculture farms,
reducing aquatic life risks through harmful algae blooms. Also, high welfare levels reduce
disease and parasites transmitted between farmed and wild individuals
15 Life on land High levels of welfare reduce disease susceptibilities and the use of antimicrobials. Antimicrobial
waste to the nearby habitat will increment the risk of producing resistant bacteria strains to
antimicrobials in wild species, re-​infecting farmed individuals
17 Partnerships for the goals The application of fish welfare is expected to promote the involvement of international
stakeholders from various sectors (industry, government, institutions, and consumers),
promoting sustainability, economic stability, food security, and a more dignified and respectful
relationship with cultured fish
 Aquaculture and animal welfare 255

technologies capable of high stocking cultivation in reduced spaces and offshore

expansion using aqua pods and cages. However, this intensive aquaculture incre-
ment raises international concerns about the ecological footprint and fish welfare.
Specifically, there are four stages (i.e., breeding, growth period, transportation, and
slaughter31) in aquaculture production which set welfare concerns, as observed in
Table 14.4. Most aquaculture practices negatively impact fish welfare at all or at
some stage, mainly by physical/​mental distress and containment to externalise its
natural behavior.31
The breeding stage includes elements important to fish welfare, such as genetic
variation, selection, and reproductive practices. The first two include consequences
such as malformations due to endogamy and the selection of productive features.
The reproductive practice artificially intervenes to enhance gonad maturation by
altering photoperiods, inducing thermal shocks, and hormonal injections, which
affect the females’ welfare.
The growth stage covers most of the rearing time and is the most important stage
from a welfare perspective. Some factors (Table 14.4) will impact individual wel-
fare by causing stress and distress, producing impaired growth, high susceptibility
to diseases, and a low survival rate. Furthermore, abnormal behaviours triggered
by factors such as stocking densities and feeding methods will promote competi-
tion, aggressiveness, and cannibalism. This abnormal behaviour can also reflect
altered swimming events expressing the suppression of natural behavioural needs.
The capturing and transportation stage includes the transference of individuals
to other pens or for slaughter. Most impacts on fish welfare in transportation are
handling, crowding, body injuries, poor water quality, inadequate containment
tanks, and food deprivation (see Table 14.4). Finally, the slaughter stage is short but

Table 14.4 Aspects of animal welfare to consider under aquaculture production phases31

(1) Breeding (2) Growth Period

Genetic issues Facilities specifications
Selection issues Stocking density
Reproductive alterations Handling
Inbreeding Diseases
Larval feed regimen Abnormal behaviour
Feeding methods
Starvation
Water quality
(3) Capturing and transportation (4) Slaughter
Stocking density Failed stunning
Handling Distress/​pain
Low oxygen level Exhaustion
High ammonia level *Inhumane slaughter/​stunning methods:
Other water qualities Asphyxia
Exhaustion Ice/​CO2 water immersion
Injuries Direct gill cutting/​evisceration
Acclimatisation conditions Salt bath
Light level
256 Fernando Aranceta Garza

can be very stressful and painful, depending on the method employed per species.
Usually, before slaughtering, fish must be deprived of food and are stunned (i.e.,
lose conscience) irreversibly. The accepted stunning and slaughtering methods
on fishes31,45,48 are percussive or mechanical stunning (e.g., carp, salmonids);
spiking or coring, also known as iki jime (e.g., tuna, jacks); shot to the brain (e.g.,
tuna, large groupers); and electrical stunning and killing methods (e.g., carp, eel,
salmonids). Other non-​recommended methods are chilling with ice water, carbon
dioxide in holding water; salt or ammonia baths; asphyxiation; and exsanguination
without stunning. For crustaceans,41 the accepted slaughter methods are
chilling and/​or knifing to the brain (e.g., crabs, lobsters, crayfish). The unaccepted
slaughter methods are beheading live animals, live boiling, and consuming live
crustaceans.
For the case of euthanasia, one crucial aspect to consider is biosafety and animal
welfare using the recommended techniques of anaesthesia overdose, beheading,
and maceration.

14.9 Strategies to improve welfare in aquaculture

The improvement of welfare by aquaculture industries has been promoted by three
strategies, each producing beneficial results in global production:11

1 Species selection: Aquaculture companies should consider working with species

that flourish in cultured environments, choosing species with biological qual-
ities favourable to farming systems, and having domesticated lines (i.e., low
behaviour and physiological response).
2 Conditioned infrastructure: Husbandry systems should be conditioned accord-
ingly to species information, promoting welfare in vital aspects such as growth,
nutrition, and water quality. Additionally, other obscure elements, such as their
circadian cycle, feeding methods, and behaviour under different conditions
should be acknowledged.
3 Welfare index development: The industry should develop welfare indices for
each species and life history/​cultured stage. These indices can be employed
as early warning systems to identify and control emerging welfare problems.
Recommendations to managers are related to applying non-​invasive welfare
indicators (e.g., direct observation), such as changes in colour, ventilation rate,
swimming pattern, reduced food intake, body condition, fins, and growth.

14.9.1 Potential industry approaches to fish welfare in aquaculture

The global welfare application in aquaculture industries shows low inclusion in

husbandry systems. This tendency offers several disadvantages, from the species’
extreme/​distressing rearing conditions to preventing the productive welfare
benefits in terms of quality and quantity of production and revenues. Some alterna-
tive approaches encouraging the application of animal welfare in the aquaculture
industry are:49
 Aquaculture and animal welfare 257

1 Marketing approach: Application of animal welfare generates a premium price

as a type of welfare certification.
2 Production value approach: Increased fish welfare improves the value and
quality of production. However, some trade-​offs could occur between the
maximum production efficiency (i.e., highest densities and low costs) and the
optimum welfare scenario, but the global welfare benefit is higher.
3 Ethical approach: The industry is morally and ethically concerned regarding
animal welfare.

Currently, the aquaculture industry is already developing technologies

considering fish welfare. The following examples include advanced automated
feeding systems (i.e., the systems drive productivity by optimising FCR, increasing/​
homogeneous growth, minimising environmental outputs, and improving con-
sistency of size and flesh characteristics at harvest: www.fis​hfar​mfee​der.com/​en/​
blog/​adv​anta​ges-​feed-​aut​omat​ion-​syst​ems-​in-​aqua​cult​ure/​); fish-​grading devices
(i.e., designed to allow size-​grading of live fish in the water –​quickly, accurately,
and without physical damage to the fish: www.gra​ding​syst​ems.com/​resu​lts-​and-​
benef​its); and humane slaughter (i.e., painless, fearless, and stress-​free percussive
stunning for respective size ranges in finfishes such as salmon: www.global​seaf​
ood.org/​advoc​ate/​fish-​produc​ers-​bene​fit-​hum​ane-​slaugh​ter-​tec​hniq​ues/​).

14.10 Welfare implications for aquaculture system designs

As mentioned throughout this book, the three general farming systems for organisms
are extensive, semi-​intensive, and intensive (with its hyper-​intensive variant).
Species welfare in the extensive system could be very high during their growth
phase because of the high life quality provided by the species’ natural habitat,
where the system itself regenerates the target species through natural recruitment,
low densities/​low intra-​competition, and the species feed on local productivity.
Some studies mention that systems with thermal variability or thermoclines, as in
large coastal or inland water bodies, increase fish welfare by allowing species to
remove parasites with sudden temperature changes. However, during the capture
phase, enclosure techniques increase the stress on fish with additional rudimentary
killing techniques (e.g., direct freezing or asphyxiation) commonly associated with
extensive-​artisanal systems.
In semi-​and intensive production systems, the environmental quality decreases
associated with high fish densities and production-​related diseases. Additionally,
domesticated species may experience stress impairment associated with envir-
onmental changes and transportation. Some humane slaughter techniques may
be applied to increase the species’ welfare. Welfare in recirculating aquaculture
systems (“RAS”; hyper-​intensive production systems) in the case of salmon proved
to be highly related to higher growth rates and reduced mortalities. The technology
of RAS systems allows producers to relate growth performance, survival, welfare,
and stress responses with environmental variables, such as water velocity and sal-
inity to find productive biological optimums.
258 Fernando Aranceta Garza

Currently, the rapid expansion of aquaculture relies on a new concept called

precision aquaculture, which improves monitoring and control of the biological
processes, environmental variables, fish biomass, and feed optimisation during fish
production by using sensors and data in models and analytics. Additionally, data
mining and machine learning frameworks offer solutions to complex aquaculture
data sets.

14.11 Final remarks

The animal welfare trend worldwide is biased toward protecting domestic and
farmed terrestrial animals relative to farmed aquatic poikilothermic animals. This
trend responds to many factors of which the most important is the ideology that
aquatic poikilothermic animals, based on their neuroanatomical and behavioural
differences with mammals, are incapable of feeling pain and need no welfare con-
siderations. Conversely, other ideologies have shown that aquatic animals are sen-
tient and able to feel pain. Both confronted ideologies present robust evidence,
suggesting that the most logical path is applying a precautionary approach to
aquatic poikilothermic animals’ welfare. Moreover, with humanity’s continuous
growth, food security issues are critical. Sustainable aquaculture production
should be intensified, where welfare consideration will be paramount to achieve
rapid growth/​production and healthy/​quality animals with low mortality rates.
Furthermore, ethical and moral concerns should involve treating animals with dig-
nity and respect during the whole production process. To achieve these objectives,
international/​national efforts need to intensify to include aquatic poikilothermic
animal welfare considerations, involving gathering species-​specific biological
information and national/​international species-​specific regulation following the
guidelines of the World Organization for Animal Health, simultaneously promoting
positive animal welfare. Furthermore, aquaculture company participation is pivotal
for achieving this goal, but production benefits must be explicit to promote global
industrial welfare inclusion. Simultaneously, chain markets (i.e., retail markets and
final consumers) must encourage welfare practices by rewarding efforts through
premium prices.

14.12 Chapter review questions

1 How does science define pain and what is the consensus regarding aquaculture
animals’ capacity of feeling pain?
2 What is understood as animal welfare?
3 Is animal welfare necessary for sustainable aquaculture?
4. What can be done to improve animal welfare in aquaculture?

Recommended readings
Barreto, M. O., Rey Planellas, S., Yang, Y., Phillips, C., & Descovich, K. (2022). Emerging
indicators of fish welfare in aquaculture. Reviews in Aquaculture, 14(1), 343–​361.
 Aquaculture and animal welfare 259

Broom, D. M. (1991). Animal welfare: Concepts and measurement. Journal of Animal

Science, 69(10), 4167–​4175.
Franks, B., Ewell, C., & Jacquet, J. (2021). Animal welfare risks of global aquaculture.
Science Advances, 7(14), eabg0677.
Giménez-​Candela, M., Saraiva, J. L., & Bauer, H. (2020). The legal protection of farmed
fish in Europe: Analysing the range of EU legislation and the impact of international
animal welfare standards for the fishes in European aquaculture. In dA Derecho
Animal: Forum of Animal Law Studies, 11(1), 65–​118.
Huntingford, F. (2008). Animal welfare in aquaculture. In Aquaculture, Innovation and
Social Transformation. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 21–​33.
Stien, L. H., Bracke, M., Noble, C., & Kristiansen, T. S. (2020). Assessing Fish Welfare in
Aquaculture. The Welfare of Fish, 303–​321.

References
1 Broom, D. M. Animal welfare: concepts and measurement. Journal of Animal Science
69, 4167–​4175 (1991).
2 Fraser, D., Weary, D., Pajor, E. & Milligan, B. A Scientific Conception of Animal
Welfare that Reflects Ethical Concerns. Ethics and Animal Welfare Collection (1997).
3 Toni, M. et al. Review: Assessing fish welfare in research and aquaculture, with a focus
on European directives. Animal 13, 161–​170 (2019).
4 Franks, B., Ewell, C. & Jacquet, J. Animal welfare risks of global aquaculture. Science
Advances 7, eabg0677 (2021).
5 Rose, J. D. The neurobehavioral nature of fishes and the question of awareness and
pain. Reviews in Fisheries Science 10, 1–​38 (2002).
6 Saraiva, J. L., Arechavala-​Lopez, P., Castanheira, M. F., Volstorf, J. & Heinzpeter
Studer, B. A Global assessment of welfare in farmed fishes: The FishEthoBase. Fishes
4, 30 (2019).
7 Sneddon, L. U., Elwood, R. W., Adamo, S. A. & Leach, M. C. Defining and assessing
animal pain. Animal Behaviour 97, 201 (2014).
8 Huntingford, F. Animal welfare in aquaculture. In Aquaculture, Innovation and
Social Transformation (eds. Culver, K. & Castle, D.), 21–​33. Netherlands: Springer
Netherlands (2008). doi:10.1007/​978-​1-​4020-​8835-​3_​2.
9 Poli, B. M., Parisi, G., Scappini, F. & Zampacavallo, G. Fish welfare and quality as
affected by pre-​slaughter and slaughter management. Aquaculture International 13,
29–​49 (2005).
10 Alfnes, F., Chen, X. & Rickertsen, K. Labeling farmed seafood: A review. Aquaculture
Economics & Management 22, 1–​26 (2018).
11 Braithwaite, V. & Huntingford, F. Fish and welfare: Do fish have the capacity for pain
perception and suffering? Animal Welfare 13, 87–​92 (2004).
12 Chandroo, K. P., Duncan, I. J. H. & Moccia, R. D. Can fish suffer?: Perspectives on
sentience, pain, fear and stress. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 86, 225–​250 (2004).
13 Sneddon, L. U. Evolution of nociception in vertebrates: Comparative analysis of lower
vertebrates. Brain Research Reviews 46, 123–​130 (2004)
14 Sneddon, L. Do painful sensations and fear exist in fish? in Distress Collection,
pp. 93–112 (eds. van der Kemp, T. A. & Lachance, M.), Carswell, Toronto (2013).
15 Elwood, R. Evidence for pain in decapod crustaceans. Animal Welfare 21, 23–​27
(2012).
260 Fernando Aranceta Garza

16 Magee, B. & Elwood, R. W. Shock avoidance by discrimination learning in the

shore crab (Carcinus maenas) is consistent with a key criterion for pain. Journal of
Experimental Biology 216, 353–​358 (2013).
17 Fossat, P., Bacqué-​Cazenave, J., De Deurwaerdère, P., Delbecque, J.-​P. & Cattaert, D.
Anxiety-​like behavior in crayfish is controlled by serotonin. Science 344, 1293–​1297
(2014).
18 FSBI. Fish Welfare Briefing Paper 2, Fisheries Society of the British Isles. Granta
Information Systems (2002).
19 Brambell Commitee. Freedom from Fear and Distress (1965).
20 Farm Animal Welfare Council. Report on the welfare of farmed fish (1996).
21 Mellor, D. & Stafford, K. Integrating practical, regulatory and ethical strategies for
enhancing farm animal welfare. Australian Veterinary Journal 79, 762–​768 (2001).
22 Barton, B. A. Stress in finfish: Past, present and future –​ a historical perspective. In
Fish Stress and Health in Aquaculture, pp. 1–​33 (eds. Iwama, G. K., Pickering, A. D.,
Sumpter, J. P. & Schreck, C. B.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK (1997).
23 Metcalfe, N. B. & Thorpe, J. E. Anorexia and defended energy levels in over-​wintering
Juvenile Salmon. Journal of Animal Ecology 61, 175–​181 (1992).
24 Jonsson, N., Jonsson, B. & Hansen, L. P. Changes in proximate composition and
estimates of energetic costs during upstream migration and spawning in Atlantic
Salmon Salmo salar. Journal of Animal Ecology 66, 425–​436 (1997).
25 Turnbull, J., Bell, A., Adams, C., Bron, J. & Huntingford, F. Stocking density and wel-
fare of cage farmed Atlantic salmon: Application of a multivariate analysis. Aquaculture
243, 121–​132 (2005).
26 Nilsson, J., Stien, L., Iversen, M. et al. Part A: Knowledge and theoretical background
fish welfare? In Welfare Indicators for Farmed Atlantic Salmon, 351 (2018).
27 Barreto, M. O., Rey Planellas, S., Yang, Y., Phillips, C. & Descovich, K. Emerging
indicators of fish welfare in aquaculture. Reviews in Aquaculture 14, 343–​361 (2022).
28 Bergqvist, J. & Gunnarsson, S. Finfish aquaculture: Animal welfare, the environment,
and ethical implications. Journal Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 26, 75–​99
(2013).
29 Guardiola, F. A., Cuesta, A. & Esteban, M. Á. Using skin mucus to evaluate stress
in gilthead seabream (Sparus aurata L.). Fish & Shellfish Immunology 59, 323–​330
(2016).
30 Hassan, W., Føre, M., Ulvund, J. B. & Alfredsen, J. A. Internet of Fish: Integration of
acoustic telemetry with LPWAN for efficient real-​time monitoring of fish in marine
farms. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 163, 104850 (2019).
31 Norwegian Ministry of Agriculture (2002–​2003). Government report to parliament: on
animal husbandry and animal welfare [in Norwegian]. 185 (2002).
32 Fife-​Cook, I. & Franks, B. Positive welfare for fishes: Rationale and areas for future
study. Fishes 4, 31 (2019).
33 Higgins, E. T. Beyond Pleasure and Pain: How Motivation Works. Oxford University
Press, NY, USA (2012).
34 Boissy, A. et al. Assessment of positive emotions in animals to improve their welfare.
Physiology & Behavior 92, 375–​397 (2007).
35 Diggles, B. K. Review of some scientific issues related to crustacean welfare. ICES
Journal of Marine Science 76, 66–​81 (2019).
36 Birch, J. Animal sentience and the precautionary principle. Animal Sentience 2 (16), 1
(2017).
 Aquaculture and animal welfare 261

37 Crook, R. J. Behavioral and neurophysiological evidence suggests affective pain

experience in octopus. iScience 24, 102229 (2021).
38 Alupay, J. S., Hadjisolomou, S. P. & Crook, R. J. Arm injury produces long-​term
behavioral and neural hypersensitivity in octopus. Neuroscience Letters 558, 137–​142
(2014).
39 Sykes, A. V., Almansa, E., Cooke, G. M., Ponte, G. & Andrews, P. L. R. The digestive
tract of cephalopods: A neglected topic of relevance to animal welfare in the laboratory
and aquaculture. Frontiers in Physiology 8, 492, (2017).
40 Carder, G. A preliminary investigation into the welfare of lobsters in the UK. Animal
Sentience 2 (16), 19 (2017).
41 Abeel, T., Vervaecke, H., Roelant, E., Platteaux, I., Adriaen, J., Durinck, G., Meeus,
W., Van de 296 Perre, L., Aerts, S. Evaluation of the influence of light conditions on
crayfish welfare in intensive aquaculture. In Food Futures: Ethics, Science and Culture
(eds. Olsson I. A.S., Araujo, S. M. & M. F. Vieira)., 244–​250. Wageningen Academic
Publishers, The Netherlands (2016). doi:10.3920/​978-​90-​8686-​834-​6_​37.
42 Bennison, S. Guidelines on aquatic animal welfare for the aquaculture industry in
Western Australia. Aquaculture Council of Western Australia (2006).
43 Conte, F. et al. Humane slaughter of edible decapod crustaceans. Animals 11, 1089
(2021).
44 Gibson, I., Fai, T. Y. & Cerqueira, M. Fish welfare scoping report. China: Fish Welfare
Iniciative (2020).
45 Nichols, A. Animal Welfare and Aquaculture “Quick Takes” (2018).
46 Lynch, A. J. et al. Inland fish and fisheries integral to achieving the Sustainable
Development Goals. Nature Sustainability 3, 579–​587 (2020).
47 FAO. FAO yearbook. Fishery and Aquaculture Statistics 2019/​FAO annuaire. (2021).
48 WOAH. The OIE Aquatic Animal Health Code World Organisation for Animal Health
(2021).
49 Kadri, S. (2008). Welfare and aquaculture industry practice. In Aquaculture, Innovation
and Social Transformation (eds. Culver, K. & Castle, D.) vol. 17, 52–​ 55, Springer,
Dordrecht, Netherlands (2008). https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​978-​1-​4020-​8835-​3_​4
Part V

Governance and
technologies
15 Governance, partnerships, and
cooperation
Francisco J. Vergara-​Solana and
Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

From the economic performance perspective, cooperation among stakeholders can

increase profitability, for example, by reducing costs through consolidated pur-
chasing, centralised processing, or aligning communication to convey compatible
messages to other sectors. Similarly, from the environmental point of view, this
cooperation allows the industry, state, organisations, and communities to coord-
inate the necessary monitoring and interventions to mitigate industrial impacts or,
in the best case, to restore ecosystem services. Moreover, in the social sphere, the
organisation of workers and communities plays a crucial role in incorporating their
needs into industrial decision-​making processes. This, in turn, leads to improved
benefits and working conditions for the workers, as well as advantages for the
communities.
These examples of cooperation could not be carried out without a sound govern-
ance system. Although later in the chapter, the implications of the term are explained
in detail, it refers to how organisations (regardless of their scale, corporate, sectoral,
or country-​level) are organised and make decisions. For this reason, governance is
the foundation for helping organisations to achieve their objectives, which in many
cases depend on cooperation. For this reason, the first section of the chapter focuses
on governance before moving on to a review of partnerships and cooperation.

15.1 Introduction
From an economic standpoint, collaboration among stakeholders can enhance prof-
itability. One illustrative scenario is when there is effective information sharing
regarding supply and demand throughout the supply chain. This information
enables optimised inventory management and production planning. Additionally,
the advantages of collaboration extend beyond conventional partners and apply
even between competitors. For example, costs can be lowered through consolidated
purchasing and centralised processing. Also, these pre-​competitive alliances can
permit better lobbying with the government to improve conditions or communi-
cate consistent messages across different sectors and to the general public (see
Box 15.1).

DOI: 10.4324/9781003174271-20
266 Francisco J. Vergara-Solana and Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

This collaboration not only permits profitability to be improved, it can reduce

the industry impact from an environmental point of view. Cooperation allows
the industry, state, organisations, and communities to coordinate the necessary
monitoring and interventions to mitigate industrial impacts or, in the best case,
to restore ecosystem services. Moreover, in the social sphere, the organisation of
workers and communities plays a crucial role in incorporating their needs into
industrial decision-​making processes. This, in turn, leads to improved benefits and
working conditions for the workers, as well as advantages for the communities.
All of this is key to achieving sustainable aquaculture, however these examples
of cooperation could not be carried out without a sound governance system.
Although later in the chapter, the implications of the term are explained in detail,
it refers to how organisations (regardless of their scale, corporate, sectoral, or
country-​level) are organised and make decisions. For this reason, governance is
the foundation for helping organisations to achieve their objectives, which in many
cases depend on cooperation.

15.2 Governance

15.2.1 What is governance and why does it matter?

Starting the chapter by outlining what the term governance is and what it implies
is important, as well as the profound implications this concept has for fostering (or
inhibiting) a truly sustainable aquaculture industry. To begin to explore this topic,
some of the definitions commonly used to explain the concept are shown below:

The activity of governing something.

Cambridge Dictionary

Are those agreements and rules that organize the relationships between the
members of the group, regulate decision-​making, and ensure the implementa-
tion of activities that will allow the changes desired by the group to be achieved.
Collective Leadership Institute

Governance encompasses the system by which an organization is controlled and

operates, and the mechanisms by which it, and its people, are held to account.
Ethics, risk management, compliance, and administration are all elements of
governance.
Governance Institute

Corporate governance involves a set of relationships between a company’s

management, its board, its shareholders, and other stakeholders. Corporate
governance also provides the structure through which the objectives of the com-
pany are set, and the means of attaining those objectives and monitoring per-
formance are determined.
Organisation for Economic Co-​operation and Development (OECD)
 Governance, partnerships, and cooperation 267

The system by which entities are directed and controlled. It is concerned with
structure and processes for decision-​ making, accountability, control, and
behaviour at the top of an entity. Governance influences how an organization’s
objectives are set and achieved, how risk is monitored and addressed, and how
performance is optimized.
www.gove​rnan​ceto​day.com/​

Structures and processes that are designed to ensure accountability, transpar-

ency, responsiveness, rule of law, stability, equity and inclusiveness, empower-
ment, and broad-​based participation. Governance also represents the norms,
values, and rules of the game through which public affairs are managed in a
manner that is transparent, participatory, inclusive, and responsive.
International Bureau of Education –​UNESCO

In short, the term governance encompasses the processes by which organisations

are directed, managed, and held accountable. Some of the fundamental reasons
why organisations should adopt good governance practices are:

• Preserve and strengthen the trust of stakeholders (e.g., employees, partners,

society);
• Create the foundation for a high-​performance organisation since achieving
business and sustainability objectives requires feedback and support at all
organisational levels;
• Ensure that an organisation can respond to a changing external environment in
the best possible way; and finally,
• Good governance is the basis for institutionalising organisations (regardless of
whether they are for-​profit or not-​for-​profit), which is key to their ability to
endure over time (e.g., facilitating succession).

In this line, effective governance is essential for including the perspectives of

stakeholders in decision-​making processes. Without such structures and processes
in place, it becomes challenging to implement the measures outlined in this book
that can drive aquaculture toward sustainability.1 These measures include, for
example: mitigating environmental impacts, reducing financial risks, advancing
technology development, negotiating fair labour benefits, and designing effective
public policies.
Although the benefits of a good governance scheme are widely recognised, it
is an aspect that is not commonly analysed formally since in the definitions, the
concept is somewhat complex, abstract, and difficult to quantify. Despite this, it is
an issue to which society is paying more attention, and aquaculture is no exception
to this trend.
Another point that is pertinent to highlight in the definitions of governance are
the terms “corporations” and “public affairs”, which tell us about the different
scopes of concept application, i.e. the scale of talking about governance at the
level of an aquaculture farm or on a larger scale, as the aquaculture industry of a
268 Francisco J. Vergara-Solana and Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

country. In the latter case, actors from different sectors (e.g., government, society,
and the value chain) can interact to make decisions and implement management
measures.
Often a misunderstanding of the meaning of the term governance occurs, which
causes it to be misused, mainly because it is a topic that, as mentioned above, is
becoming more and more relevant. One of the most common mistakes is to use
the term as a synonym for management. Management refers to the processes,
structures, and arrangements for mobilising and transforming available physical,
human, and financial resources to achieve concrete results, while governance
systems establish the parameters under which management and administration
systems operate. Governance refers to how power is distributed and shared,
policies formulated, priorities established, and stakeholders held accountable
(Table 15.1).
In this sense, considering what governance means and its implications, “good
governance” is a precondition for creating adequate environments that foster the
best conditions for doing business. While this is true, from a social development
perspective, “good governance” also reduces poverty and labour inequalities,
establishes accountability, and promotes sustainability in general.
In the context of the Sustainable Development Goals –​ due to the breadth and
complexity of the goals –​good governance schemes are required to achieve them.
For this, active, continuous, and efficient participation of public and private actors
is needed because good governance is expected to be participatory, transparent,
accountable, effective, and equitable in promoting the rule of law.
For these reasons, it is not surprising that governance can play an essential role
in facilitating the sustainable development of aquaculture. Therefore, the following
section explains how governance is implemented at the corporate level (i.e., within
a firm), followed by another section on governance at a sectoral scale, and finally,
the implications of governance for sustainability.

Table 15.1 Comparative table of the differences between governance and management

Governance Management
Set the norms, strategic vision, and direction, Run the organisation in line with the
and formulate high-​level goals and policies broad goals and direction set by the
Oversee managerial and organisational governing body
performance to ensure that the organisation Implement the decisions within the
is working in the best interests of the public, mission and strategic vision context
and more specifically the stakeholders who Make operational decisions and
are served by the organisation’s mission policies, and keep the governance
Direct and oversee management to ensure bodies informed and qualified
the organisation is achieving the desired Be responsive to requests for additional
outcomes and acting prudently, ethically, information
and legally

Source: Taken from IBE-​UNESCO.16

 Governance, partnerships, and cooperation 269

15.2.2 Private governance in aquaculture

Probably when “private governance” (also known as corporate governance) is

heard or read for the first time, it gives the impression of an arid, abstract topic,
relevant only for large companies or professionals dedicated to managing com-
panies. However, this situation changes when all of us have a relationship with sev-
eral organisations in our daily lives as a society. Thus, everyone would be affected
if companies did not have mechanisms for accountability and transparent decision-​
making processes.
In this vein, good governance puts societies in a better position to respond to risk
factors, such as climate change, health crises, supply chain failures, financial crises,
scarcity of financial resources, competition, and, in general, the effects of globalisation.
Governance is, therefore, key to facilitating the competitiveness and sustainability of
societies, and consequently also of jobs and livelihoods for virtually everyone.
One of the most straightforward cases that showed the implications of not having
an efficient corporate governance system, which generated lessons to improve
practices, was the case of the Enron Company. This company incorporated in 1985
was a US public corporation (i.e., listed on the stock exchange), mainly engaged
in the natural gas industry and became one of the largest and most innovative
companies in the United States, employing more than 21,000 people worldwide.
However, the payment of bribes, influence peddling, and fraudulent accounting
techniques endorsed by its auditing firm and subsidiaries led this company to bank-
ruptcy in 2001, and “Enron” became a synonym for corporate fraud.
With an adequate governance system in place, the Enron situation could have
been inhibited or at least detected on time. Good governance could have saved
losses for investors (as mentioned, it was a public company, i.e., anyone could
acquire shares) and the loss of thousands of jobs. As a result of situations such
as this one, the corporate governance structures currently in use were developed,
which should be noted, and must be implemented in all public companies.
Once the relevance of corporative governance has been clarified, the term should
be defined, evidently in line with the governance definition in the previous section of
this chapter. Thus, corporative governance is “The system through which societies are
controlled”. Specifically according to OCDE, the corporative government provides the
structure through which the society’s objectives are determined, as well as monitoring
its development and compliance. For this purpose, a corporative governance scheme
should determine the processes and the manner in which the society administration is
related to its board of directors, shareholders, and third parties involved.
Good corporate governance requires compliance with four fundamental
principles: (i) participation; (ii) responsibility and accountability; (iii) predict-
ability; and (iv) transparency.2 To achieve these principles, the corporate govern-
ance system must take into account the following points:

1 Equal treatment and protection of the interests of all shareholders;

2 Recognition of the existence of third parties and their importance in the
company’s performance, stability, and permanence over time;
270 Francisco J. Vergara-Solana and Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

3 Responsible issuance and disclosure of information and transparency in

management;
4 Ensuring a strategic vision of the company, oversight, and effective manage-
ment performance;
5 Exercise of the Board of Director’s fiduciary responsibility (fiduciary respon-
sibility refers to responsibility for third-​party matters, in this case, the Board of
Directors manages the company in favour of the shareholders);
6 Identification, management, control, and disclosure of the risks to which the
company is exposed;
7 Declaration of ethical principles and corporate social responsibility;
8 Prevention of illicit operations and conflicts of interest (conflicts of interest
occur in those circumstances in which the loyalty of the individual or legal
entity is compromised);
9 Disclosure of improper facts and protection of whistle-​blowers;
10 Compliance with the different regulations to which the company is subjected;
11 Provision of certainty and confidence to investors and interest in third parties
regarding the honest and responsible conduct of the company’s business.
It should be clarified that the decision to have corporate governance is voluntary
(except for those listed on the stock exchange). However, as previously mentioned,
corporate governance is a valuable instrument for institutionalising companies.
Although the corporate governance structure may vary according to the context of
each firm (i.e., company), the most common scheme is based on two governing bodies
that are over the management of the company and staff. The bodies are a board of
shareholders and a board of directors. The board of directors, in turn, has different
committees, such as finance and compensation. In addition, there may be other bodies,
such as a stakeholder advisory council or a technical advisory board (Figure 15.1).
The board of shareholders is the supreme corporation body and is constituted
by the totality of the partners. They meet in most cases annually and may hold
extraordinary meetings as required. The purpose of this meeting is to express the
collective will and agree and ratify the acts and operations of the corporation. The
person determined by this body carries out the meeting resolutions. Voting schemes
(e.g., consensus or majority) and the mechanisms of operation of this governing
body vary according to the type of company.

Figure 15.1 Diagram of the different bodies comprising corporate governance.

 Governance, partnerships, and cooperation 271

The board of directors sits between the board of shareholders and the chief
executive officer (CEO) who is in charge of the company’s day-​to-​day operation.
The board of directors is mainly responsible for defining the strategic vision, over-
seeing the operation, and approving management (e.g., appointing the CEO and
senior officers of the company and evaluating and approving their performance).
Through this body, the aim is that the shareholders can have transparent access to
information and ensure the value and permanence of the firm over time.
The board of directors should be comprised of three to 15 directors. Preferably,
at least 25% of these should be independent directors (i.e., they do not have shares
or commercial or personal interests in the company). This body usually meets quar-
terly, and to make informed decisions within the board, usually, committees per-
form auditing, evaluation, compensation, finance, and planning functions.
There are various ways in which a governance system (both its structure and
operation) can be implemented, which varies according to several factors beyond
business objectives (e.g., profitability). For example, the management and interests
of a family aquaculture farm vary from those of a corporate farm. Different
requirements exist for an aquaculture production unit located in an urban area from
one located in a protected natural area, just to mention a couple of examples. Along
these lines, each project has different contexts and stakeholders. These situations
influence how the company is governed.
Therefore, the governance structure of each firm will vary based on the unique
characteristics of each project. While corporate governance is mandatory for pub-
licly traded companies, it is important to highlight that a significant portion of
aquaculture occurs outside of this type of corporate setting. Much of aquaculture
production takes place in family-​owned businesses and, in many cases, by indi-
genous communities. As a result, these ventures will naturally be governed differ-
ently, not only due to their scale but also because their inherent objectives differ
from those of a public company.
For instance, in a family-​ owned company, succession planning and the
relationships among family members and non-​family members are key factors that
influence a significant portion of decision-​making.3,4 On the other hand, indigenous
community ventures often take the form of collective enterprises, where besides
economic, environmental, and social aspects associated with sustainability, spiritu-
ality can also be an equally important factor.5
Due to this diversity, the governance of an aquaculture firm varies significantly.
However, regardless of the structure and processes used to govern them, it is cru-
cial for their continuity to fulfil the four central aspects mentioned earlier: (i)
participation; (ii) responsibility and accountability; (iii) predictability; and (iv)
transparency.

15.2.3 Governance beyond the aquaculture farm

For aquaculture production, units are usually installed in a wide variety of areas,
for example, on the coastline, offshore, lakes, and rivers, and facilities are close
to urban areas. However, regardless of the type of production, the operation of an
272 Francisco J. Vergara-Solana and Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

aquaculture farm can generate externalities (positive or negative). These external-

ities can affect the environment and other farms or sectors (e.g., tourism, commu-
nities, fisheries, municipalities, conservation, processing, consumers).
For this reason, discussions related to the regulation and management of
aquaculture tend to be of interest to various sectors. When a rational use of nat-
ural resources is searched with a vision of long-​term sustainability, it is crucial
to consider the proposals and concerns of all stakeholders in territorial planning.
Therefore, a governance scheme that allows it to be done efficiently and transpar-
ently is paramount.
Governance on a regional or inter-​sectoral scale is understood as the network
of rules, institutions, and actors related to decision-​making in a sector, region, or
country. At this scale, in the aquaculture context, good governance is conceived
when support exists and where regulations and public policies provide security
for entrepreneurs to invest, without neglecting social welfare and regulations
associated with environmental impacts. In other words, good sectoral governance
is the foundation for promoting sustainable development.6
Governance of the aquaculture sector (regardless of the region), as mentioned
above, overlaps with the management system of other sectors (e.g., fisheries; more
on this point can be found in Chapter 8). For this reason, FAO emphasises that
good aquaculture governance promotes greater consistency in food supply (food
security), and generates better conditions for doing business, which results in
greater benefits for all interdependent sectors. On the other hand, failure to estab-
lish an effective and efficient governance system can translate into food security
erosion (mainly impacting the most vulnerable components of society), as well
as an increase in multidimensional poverty and degradation of the social fabric
in the associated communities (in many cases in remote areas with few labour
alternatives).
A clear example of how an aquaculture sector governance failure can lead to
environmental deterioration, reduced production yields, and increased risk for
the activity (in addition to causing long-​term reputational damage to the sector)
happened during the beginning of shrimp farming. In the 1990s, accelerated growth
in shrimp production took place but with minimal regulation. This growth resulted
in the deforestation of large areas of mangroves to create ponds, damaging the
ecosystem services (e.g. productivity, water quality) required to maintain produc-
tion, resulting in farm abandonment, which encouraged the impact on new areas
to maintain its growth. Areas that were subsequently damaged, further reduced
production and profitability.
On a global scale, the agri-​food system faces several uncertainties, such as the
disruption of supply chains or the impact of increasingly common extreme wea-
ther events. Contextualising these uncertainties with seafood demand growth in
response to population growth and changes in consumption patterns, good gov-
ernance of the aquaculture sector is necessary. This is the foundation for the sector
to grow (e.g., clarity in property rights, access to financing, effective regulation,
access to innovation) with a long-​term vision to avoid repeating the 1990s shrimp
farming history.
 Governance, partnerships, and cooperation 273

According to the World Bank (World Bank Governance Indicators; WBGI), six
indicators can provide a guideline on whether governance systems are adequate or
not: (i) voice and accountability; (ii) political stability and absence of violence; (iii)
government effectiveness; (iv) regulatory quality; (v) rule of law; and (vi) control
of corruption (Table 15.2).
From a global perspective, several of the emerging trends to promote aquacul-
ture development require particular emphasis on the regulation and governance of
the sector, for example, the diversification of species and technologies and pro-
duction intensification. For this reason, FAO stresses that good governance is a
prerequisite to being able to develop the aquaculture sector without exceeding the
ecosystem’s carrying capacity on which the industry depends (clearly ensuring
constant monitoring and appropriate mitigation measures). In this line, governance
models to foster a sustainable aquaculture industry should capitalise on lessons
from previous experiences (such as the case of the beginnings of shrimp farming)
and foster innovation, so that the aquaculture industry is compatible with current
circumstances and future demands.7

15.2.4 Governance for sustainability

Historically, companies have focused their efforts on the economic pillar (e.g.,
cost reduction, sales increase), often leaving environmental and social support

Table 15.2 World Bank Governance Indicators (WBGI)17

World Governance Indicators Definition

Voice and accountability The extent to which a country’s citizens are able to
participate in selecting their government, as well as
freedom of expression, freedom of association, and
free media
Political stability and absence of The likelihood of political instability and/​or politically
violence motivated violence, including terrorism
Government effectiveness The quality of public services, the quality of the civil
service and the degree of its independence from
political pressures, the quality of policy formulation
and implementation, and the credibility of the
government’s commitment to such policies
Regulatory quality The ability of the government to formulate and
implement sound policies and regulations that
permit and promote private sector development
Rule of law The extent to which agents have confidence in and
abide by the rules of society, and in particular the
quality of contract enforcement, property rights, the
police, and courts, as well as the likelihood of crime
and violence
Control of corruption The extent to which public power is exercised for
private gain, including both petty and grand forms
of corruption, as well as “capture” of the state by
elites and private interests
274 Francisco J. Vergara-Solana and Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

unattended. By concentrating their efforts on this pillar, although in the short term
it can improve profits, previous experience dictates that it can be counterproductive
in terms of profits in the long run, which is transcendental since all companies seek
to transcend. Along these lines, more and more companies are recognising and
convinced that it is in their best interest to include environmental impact mitigation
and social responsibility policies in their agendas (i.e., known as ESG policies).8
These organisations that work on the three sustainability pillars in their income
statement (ESG metrics), usually include, in addition to traditional financial
indicators, non-​financial performance indicators (e.g., CO2 emitted, m3 of water
treated, number of people trained) to monitor and quantify their impacts (positive
and negative). Complementarily, in many cases, they rely on assurance systems,
such as independent third-​party certifications, to obtain a trustworthy verification
mechanism that gives exposure and credibility to private sustainability improve-
ment efforts.9 These certification schemes (like those recognised by the International
Social and Environmental Accreditation and Labelling Alliance; ISEAL) minimise
the possibility of companies intentionally creating a false reputation for environ-
mental responsibility, known as greenwashing.
While the necessary improvements to comply with the requirements of the
certifications imply a significant investment for companies, it also generates clear
market-​based incentives. For example, certification can give a direct competi-
tive advantage (e.g., access to preferential markets, price premium), reputational
improvements, risk mitigation, and attract impact investment (i.e., investments that
explicitly pursue impacting all pillars of sustainability in addition to financial per-
formance), demonstrating that sustainability and profitability can be compatible.
This change in the way companies work is an increasingly widespread trend. This
situation makes sustainability work more commonplace for all of us (as mentioned
at the beginning of the chapter, we are all associated with various organisations),
transforming the way business is done.
Similarly, each country has the right to manage these aspects of the industry as it
sees fit. Given that aquaculture production methods and volumes are closely linked
to social, economic, and environmental performance, we would face a production
race in a system without agreements, partnerships, and cooperation. A race where
actors could be willing to destroy the environment, not sharing their technological
developments, and promoting consumerism to have the largest share of the pie, all
for short-​term profits with potentially disastrous long-​term effects (not only for the
environment, but also for the aquaculture sector). Thus, for the sake of a sustain-
able industry, partnerships between countries should be developed to encourage
cooperation, either in terms of establishing fair rules for production (for example,
prohibiting the deforestation of mangroves for all countries, or banning harmful
subsidies) or favouring technology transfer and jointly regulating market rules.
All these efforts at the corporate, sectoral, or national level require constant
work in governance. However, the benefits to society from the articulation of
partnerships and cooperation promotion are very clear, since they act as engines
of growth, ensuring social and environmental security, without losing the focus on
economic growth.
 Governance, partnerships, and cooperation 275

15.3 Partnerships and cooperation

15.3.1 Defining partnerships and cooperation

The development of public and private policies and management of any industry
is based on obtaining good information. This fact is probably the one point on
which everyone involved in decision-​making or policy implementation will agree.
However, the definition of what is good information, how to obtain it, and how to
analyse it appropriately may differ from person to person, since everyone has a
different background, different life contexts, and, in general, different opinions and
objectives. Nonetheless, the development of ideas naturally forms groups of people
with similar ideas, methodologies, and reasoning, i.e., allowing the formation of
societies. However, given the polarity of some ideas (such as favouring industrial
growth over the environment or vice versa), progress in certain aspects becomes
complicated and sometimes stagnated. Thus, governance by creating partnerships
and cooperation should avoid this type of situation.
A partnership can be defined as a close relationship between two or more people
or organisations. According to Penrose,10 a partnership is a cooperative relation-
ship with equal partners engaged in transparent and accountable actions. In recent
years, the term cooperation has been used as one of the main tools for achieving
sustainable development. However, as seen in Chapter 3 with the term sustain-
ability, there is no definitive consensus on what cooperation means in the context
of global development.
Partnerships are argued to be based on cooperation. In simple terms, cooper-
ation could be understood as the multilateral relationship between two or more
organisations. However, this definition is not sufficient to establish the spirit of
cooperation since a relationship between two organisations can be defined by com-
petition, coordination, or cooperation, the latter including aspects such as trust,
respect, consensus, and commitment.
Therefore, for a proper cooperative environment to exist, the organisations
involved must gain something from the proposed relationship. Otherwise, it is
unlikely that consensus and commitment exist, even if there is trust and respect.
Thus, it is necessary to generate a win–​win situation.
In addition to the term cooperation, the relationship of equals among the
participants in a partnership often has different nuances, which can have signifi-
cant consequences on the development of the necessary respect and trust for the
existence of cooperation. A clear example can be seen in the relationship between
countries that provide resources for development or “donors”, and countries that
receive these resources to improve the sustainable performance of their policies or
“recipients”.
Originally, donor countries provided economic resources and were not involved
in the effect that these resources would have, and an international stigma existed
among the countries receiving this aid, which reduced their global influence. In
recent years, a distinctive loss has been observed in the borders that exist between
donors and recipients of this aid, a shift from aid to development cooperation,
276 Francisco J. Vergara-Solana and Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

and a far greater range and number of organisations focusing on poverty reduction
and sustainable development. In addition, many countries are both recipients and
donors of aid for sustainability improvement, which reduces stigma and encourages
the development of cooperative relationships.
The move from a rhetoric of “providing aid” to one of “development cooper-
ation” is linked to this phenomenon of eliminating, or reducing, the boundary
between beneficiaries and donors. It denotes a shift toward a more horizontal,
rather than hierarchical, interaction between development actors, as expressed
in a partnership-​based relationship and terminology rather than donor–​recipient
relationships.
While a cross-​group collaboration used to achieve sustainability is not new,
agreements such as the Sustainable Development Goals have attempted to foster it
by aiming to build consensus across the development landscape around common
principles and objectives. The language of cooperation and partnership has been
ubiquitous in the 21st century to increase coordination across the increasingly
complex network of organisations and improve the effectiveness of development
operations centred on these goals. In Rebecca Schaaf’s words11 “The development
landscape in the 21st century has […] evolved into a complex, dynamic, interlinked
network of diverse development organisations”.

15.3.2 Types of partnerships

Due to the difficulty of defining the term “partnership” precisely, no consensus

exists on the partnership types or categories. According to the International
Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), the literature shows at least 18 types
of partnerships with a wide range of action.12
In the context of sustainability governance, the term “partnerships” has been
used to address different issues with a high range of scopes and applications, from
the development and implementation of international agreements to the creation
of partnerships to address a regional or local problem. Furthermore, partnerships
might involve a great number of different actors, which in turn makes each of
these partnerships different in nature. Therefore, a classification for partnerships is
proposed according to two big dimensions. The first dimension is the application
scale, whereas the second one accounts for the type of stakeholder involved.

15.3.3 Partnerships according to their scale of application

As discussed in Chapter 6 for the scales of climate change adaptation, partnerships

can have different scales of application, which can be at the (a) local, (b) national,
(c) regional, and (d) global levels (Figure 15.2).

a Partnerships at the local level involve concrete actions in a well-​defined

area. Independently if they are agreements between neighbours, between
smallholders, in the municipality, or some combination, local agreements have
a specific range of action limited to a particular area. This type of agreement is
 Governance, partnerships, and cooperation 277

Figure 15.2 Conceptual framework of different partnership scales: (a) local, (b) national,
(c) regional, and (d) global.

proper when a delimited problem needs to be solved. The most basic example
of this type of partnership is forming a company or contracts between private
companies and the state. In the case of aquaculture, this type of partnership
exists from the moment a production project is started. The development of
cooperatives in rural production, the investment between the private initiative
and government to deliver energy to some aquaculture farms, or the creation of
clusters and aquaculture parks at the state level are clear examples of
partnerships at the local level.
b The next level of organisation and cooperation is the national level. At this level,
actors involved in an issue of national importance can form partnerships and
collaborations to achieve results at this scale. Examples can be seen in state
contracts or tenders with companies to develop major infrastructure, such as
railways, roads, or ports. Contracts generate a type of partnership, and they are
also an example of cooperation. An exciting example of international cooper-
ation is the promotion of fish and seafood consumption in some countries. There
are initiatives that, although endorsed and supported by the government, aqua-
culture and fishery producers, processors, retailers, and restaurateurs carry out
coordinated activities to increase seafood per capita seafood consumption.
c The development of partnerships should not be confused where cooperation
is involved with the aspects of government and governance discussed before.
Although they are linked concepts, each plays a different role. Partnerships at
the regional level are common and varied. First, it is essential to define the term
regional. A region may be within the boundaries of a nation or it may be defined
by common characteristics –​language, culture, idiosyncrasies, economy, etc. –​
shared by several countries, such as regions of Southeast Asia, Latin America,
or the European Union. In the aquaculture context, a regional partnership exists,
for example, when agreements are generated between public and private actors
from various countries to exchange experiences and promote sustainability,
such as the Latin American summit on fishery and aquaculture sustainability.
278 Francisco J. Vergara-Solana and Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

d Finally, the broadest scale that an association can have from a geographic organ-
isational point of view is the global scale. Global organisations are, by defin-
ition, international and must be represented by a significant portion of all the
countries that exist. These types of partnerships are difficult to develop and
involve a large component of trust and cooperation, which often makes them dif-
ficult to manage. However, despite this, there are successful examples that have
great potential to benefit humanity, one which has been mentioned throughout
this book is the Sustainable Development Goals, in which aquaculture has an
important role to play in achieving the goals of this initiative.13

15.3.4 Partnerships according to their stakeholders

Partnerships can be mainly between (a) private or (b) public organisations, and
(c) civil societies. These partnerships can be very simple or highly complex,
since they may involve inter-​ and intra-​group relationships (e.g. public–​private
partnerships or PPPs). In some cases, the guiding principles and objectives of these
various organisations may be at odds with each other, which can lead to conflict,
making cooperation difficult. In addition, each of these actors is in turn composed
of different groups.
In modern aquaculture, private organisations are one of the most important
actors when talking about partnerships. In most cases, they are the seed of the
industry, those who start the activity by founding farms, laboratories, processing
plants, and other components of the supply chain associated with aquaculture pro-
duction. In general, the main objective of these actors is to increase the economic
benefits that derive from the production activity.
Public agencies are responsible for looking after the interests of society in gen-
eral. Thus, public agencies seek to maximise the social benefits of the activity, such
as employment generation and its quality, the production of quality food in suffi-
cient quantity, and compliance with the standards developed for the correct devel-
opment of the activity. As mentioned in Chapter 14, these actors are responsible
for developing, implementing, and overseeing the application of public policies.
Finally, civil organisations or associations –​characterised by acting as a third
actor that differs from the government and private initiative –​are responsible for
ensuring social benefits from an objective perspective without the purpose of profit
or public acceptance, i.e., they do not make decisions based on financial benefits
(private initiative) or electoral or other political considerations (the government).
In the case of natural resources (whether public or private), civil organisations play
a crucial role, since they care for some of the non-​market aspects of high value to
humanity, such as ecosystems, environment, and culture.
In accordance with most authors that deal with the topic of partnerships and
cooperation, in the universe of partnerships and cooperation for sustainability, def-
initely, all stakeholders must be involved and should impact all different scales of
application. There is no difference in aquaculture. Nonetheless, this endeavour is not
a simple task to be performed. If the industry wants to keep growing, concessions
must be made. Farms need to start looking into their social and environmental
 Governance, partnerships, and cooperation 279

externalities and invest in better practices, aiming at reducing environmental and

social damage. Otherwise, the industry will face failure. To be able to justify such an
investment, aquaculture needs to cooperate with the government, making sure that
the “game rules” are equal for all producers, reducing market distortions and per-
verse incentives. Nonetheless, the government alone usually does what is best for
its political capital. In other words, it is too costly for the government to “invest” in
unpopular policies (i.e. environmental protection at the cost of higher food prices),
which can be translated as unwillingness to cooperate. Civil societies can then use
their “neutral” stand to stir public perspective, showing how a certain policy has
social or environmental benefits, even if it is not evident in the short term.

15.3.5 Partnerships and cooperation in the aquaculture context

Thus far, some of the fundamental concepts associated with partnership building,
its properties (with particular emphasis on cooperation), and some possibilities for
classification have been described, but why are partnership building and cooper-
ation in aquaculture essential, and what are the benefits to society?14
Aquaculture is, among animal production activities, one of the most complex
due to management difficulty, interaction complexity, species diversity, lack of
knowledge in many areas relevant to production, and the fact that it has only been
an industrial activity for a few years (comparatively with other food production
industries).
Concluding from the previous chapters of this book, some of the characteristics
that have allowed aquaculture to grow during the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s are
described next.
The growth in demand for aquatic products is associated with the economic
growth of large consumers, such as China, and in general with the increase in global
purchasing power, particularly in Asia. In addition, Western culture has taken a
healthier lifestyle-​oriented route and has also embraced the nutritional benefits of
fish as a source of animal protein, essential fatty acids, as well as micronutrients
such as vitamins A, B, and D, phosphorus, magnesium, iodine, and selenium (par-
ticularly true for marine fish).
Growth permissiveness with a lack of restrictions derives from the lack of
knowledge about the negative externalities of the activity. Although today we
have a better picture of the extent of the impacts of aquaculture on the environ-
ment (see Chapter 5), this understanding of the aquaculture industry is relatively
recent and has been increasing hand in hand with the increase in production and
intensification.
Technological development is another important reason that has allowed indus-
trial growth, with essential innovations in most of the areas relevant to production.
Some of those that can be highlighted are the development and improvement of
infrastructure; improvement of bioremediation products for the protection, preven-
tion, and treatment of diseases; closing cycles of new species, greater detail and
knowledge about the nutritional requirements of the different species cultivated;
food engineering prepared to maximise their performance.
280 Francisco J. Vergara-Solana and Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

Furthermore, defining how the characteristics of industrial growth are managed,

promoted, and disseminated plays a significant role in the sustainability of the
industry. For example, if market growth is promoted in the wrong way (e.g.,
through the use of perverse subsidies), an undesirable social scenario may result.
An uncontrolled increase in demand would result in at least one of the following
options: (a) increasing prices, which would result in vulnerable communities not
having access to products of the high nutritional value of aquatic origin, and/​or
(b) racing to increase production to meet demand, which could have severe envir-
onmental impacts. In addition, this race would favour large producers, since they
have the capital to increase their production if demand increases, generating a poor
production distribution, which translates to wealth inequality.
Due to these particular situations of the sector, and to mitigate potential negative
externalities, aquaculture benefits significantly from partnerships and cooperation.
Private companies tend to start partnerships with private actors to improve produc-
tion processes, reduce production costs, maximise operational benefits, and develop
and implement technologies, among others. These partnerships occur in most indus-
tries. The beneficial effects they usually have for all those involved in the partnership
mean that they do not require special attention for their promotion by public agencies.
However, in the absence of an adequate regulatory framework, these partnerships can
lead to negative externalities, such as environmental deterioration, labour exploitation,
or, in extreme cases, monopolistic practices and market distortions.
Because of the relationship between aquaculture production and public and common
natural resources (see Chapters 4, 5, and 7), and the work of the state in protecting
public rights, private–​public partnerships (or PPPs) are of great importance. Likewise,
civil associations, which play the role of a third objective actor, are a crucial element
in ensuring that the partnerships created meet specific standards. Thus, a partnership
aimed at cooperation within the industry at least includes these three groups of actors
and society or the general public. Another group that is commonly included, especially
when there is a need for information for decision-​making, is academia.
Even though fines, taxes, and subsides may deter negative social and environ-
mental impacts, enforcing compliance with only state-​set standards can be com-
plex, expensive, and prone to malpractice, disputes, and conflicts. However, it has
been observed that involving and empowering those responsible for the problem in
finding a solution increases their likelihood of engagement and success.

15.3.6 Private–​public partnerships (PPPs)

With partnerships in general, the definition of a PPP can be very vague and can
lead to confusion. While a PPP can be understood in a very general way as any
relationship between a private initiative and the state, it is necessary to provide a
more detailed formal definition to understand how this type of partnership can be
useful for aquaculture.
According to the Canadian Council for Public–​Private Partnerships, a PPP is “a
cooperative venture between the public and private sectors built on the expertise of
each partner that best meets clearly defined public needs for services or infrastruc-
ture through the transfer between partners of resources, risks, and rewards.” This
 Governance, partnerships, and cooperation 281

definition allows to “escape” from the classical vision of a PPP in which a private
company is in charge of the investment and management of public service through
a contractual relationship with the state (e.g. telecommunications, rail transport, or
the exploitation of springs). According to Weiowski and Hall:15

The aim of PPPs is to structure the relationship between the public and private
sectors to serve these two purposes: to allocate the risks to those best able to
manage them and to add value to public services by using private sector skills
and competencies. importantly, PPPs are not incentives or subsidies given by
the public sector to attract private investments.

An obvious example of PPP benefits to aquaculture is the transfer of knowledge,

technology, and training. Public research institutions partner with private industries
to develop cleaner and/​or more efficient production technologies, create standards,
or estimate impacts.
Some examples of global societies that relate to aquaculture are, for example,
FAO (part of the United Nations system), and the World Trade Organization
(WTO). From the scientific perspective, the reference is the World Aquaculture
Society. From the civil sector, a wide variety of organisations that impact aqua-
culture can be found, from Greenpeace and the WFO to Oceana or the World
Aquaculture Alliance.
The good news is that, at some level, most stakeholders aspire to the same final
objective, which is to grow in a sustainable manner. However, the different object-
ives set by each stakeholder tend to send the industry towards a growth trap, where
an economic and social incentive keeps increasing the aquaculture production, but
the negative impacts of the industry associated with that production also increase
and constrain future growth and even endanger what has been achieved. Massive
environmental damage and social tissue depletion could, in extreme cases, elim-
inate aquaculture as it is now known.
As previously discussed in this book, if environmental, social, and economic
aspects are not introduced in the process of aquaculture growth, the industry poten-
tial will be restrained.

15.4 Final remarks

As discussed in earlier chapters, the shared objective of attaining sustainable
growth in aquaculture calls for balancing economic, social, and environmental
goals. This transformation responds to long-​term profitability that can be achieved
with a balanced approach to all sustainability pillars. To ensure responsible devel-
opment, foster partnerships, and positively impact society and the environment, the
establishment of effective governance is paramount.
Effective governance entails participation, responsibility, predictability, and
transparency. It guarantees that decisions are formulated with insights from various
stakeholders. This holds immense significance for multiple reasons, including pre-
serving stakeholder trust, achieving business and sustainability targets, adapting to
external shocks, and establishing enduring organisations. However, this ambitious and
282 Francisco J. Vergara-Solana and Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

indispensable objective can only be realised without partnerships and a commitment

to cooperation among stakeholders, from local to international contexts.

15.5 Chapter review questions

1 Discuss some reasons why organisations should adopt good governance
practices.
2 Why is governance not a synonym for management?
3 What are some reasons why forming partnerships between competing com-
panies can be a good idea?
4 Mention how public–​private partnerships can help the aquaculture sector to be
sustainable.

Recommended readings
Agere, S. (2000). Promoting Good Governance: Principles, Practices and Perspectives.
London: Commonwealth Secretariat, pp. 144.
Anh, P. T., Bush, S. R., Mol, A. P., & Kroeze, C. (2011). The multi-​level environmental
governance of Vietnamese aquaculture: Global certification, national standards, local
cooperatives. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 13(4), 373–​397.
FAO. (2018) Aquaculture governance and sector development. Food & Agriculture
Organization, June 5, 2018 –​Technology & Engineering, pp. 62.
IBE, UNESCO. www.ibe.une​sco.org/​en/​geqaf/​techni​cal-​notes/​conc​ept-​gov​erna​nce
Jentoft, S., & Chuenpagdee, R. (2013). Concerns and problems in fisheries and aquacul-
ture –​ Exploring governability. Governability of Fisheries and Aquaculture: Theory
and Applications, 33–​44.
Jolly, C. M., Nyandat, B., Yang, Z., Ridler, N., Matias, F., Zhang, Z., & Menezes, A. (2023).
Dynamics of aquaculture governance. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society, 54(2),
427–​481. Portico. https://​doi.org/​10.1111/​jwas.12967.
Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., & Mastruzzi, M. (2009). Governance matters VIII: Aggregate and
individual governance indicators, 1996–​2008. World Bank Policy Research Working
Paper (4978).
Partelow, S., Schlüter, A., O Manlosa, A., Nagel, B., & Octa Paramita, A. (2022). Governing
aquaculture commons. Reviews in Aquaculture, 14(2), 729–​750.
Ruff, E. O., Gentry, R. R., & Lester, S. E. (2020). Understanding the role of socio-
economic and governance conditions in country-​level marine aquaculture production.
Environmental Research Letters, 15(10), 1040a8.
Schaff, R. (2015). The rhetoric and reality of partnerships for international. Development
Geography Compass, 9(2), 68–​80. 10.1111/​gec3.12198
Stead, S. M. (2005). A comparative analysis of two forms of stakeholder participation in
European aquaculture governance: Self-​regulation and integrated coastal zone man-
agement. In Participation in Fisheries Governance. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands,
pp. 179–​192.
Vince, J., & Haward, M. (2019). Hybrid governance in aquaculture: Certification schemes
and third party accreditation. Aquaculture, 507, 322–​328.
Vormedal, I. (2017). Corporate strategies in environmental governance: Marine harvest and
regulatory change for sustainable aquaculture. Environmental Policy and Governance,
27(1), 45–​58.
 Governance, partnerships, and cooperation 283

Box 15.1 FAO Regional South-​South Cooperation on Integrated

Agri-​aquaculture in Latin America
Alejandro Flores-​Nava
FAO Regional office for Latin America and the Caribbean

There are more than 150,000 micro-​ and small-​scale aquaculture farmers
(SSAq) throughout Latin America, many of which are agriculturists with
aquaculture as a complementary economic activity. According to the FAO
definition, these are farmers with low productivity and low technological
inputs that employ some remunerated local labour and generate family cash
income, but whose low economic surplus and lack of access to credit, pre-
vent them from thriving to reach their full potential. In some countries such
as Bolivia, Colombia, and Paraguay, SSAq accounts for between 50% and
85% of the total national aquaculture production and contribute significantly
to local food security and rural employment. Women and youngsters are
active workers of these farms.
Within the framework of a regional technical cooperation programme
financed by the Government of Brazil, FAO designed and assisted a South-​
South cooperation programme whose main objectives were to introduce and
foster aquaculture production in rural poor areas of Guatemala, Costa Rica,
Colombia, Bolivia, and Paraguay. This objective was achieved through the
integration of fish culture into traditional agriculture systems, as a means
to increase local food production and family cash income. The programme
was based on demonstration farms in selected champion farms used as field
schools with a farmer-​to-​farmer knowledge sharing approach. Active infor-
mation and experience exchange mechanisms were set up and farmers from
different countries met and shared experiences and lessons (Figure 15.3).

Figure 15.3 A conceptual framework of the agri-​aquaculture demonstration

farms programme (SSC=​South-​South Technical Cooperation).
284 Francisco J. Vergara-Solana and Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

Some success stories stemming from the programme include the

following: (i) Indigenous populations of [a poor area in] the highlands of
Guatemala, a poor area traditionally living on remittances from migrant
families, are now able to culture rainbow trout Onchorhynchus mykiss, in
flow-​through earthen ponds, integrated to greenhouse vegetables and goat
production. Technical assistance was provided by government technicians
from Costa Rica. Due to the economic success of a demonstration farm, after
two years of operation, there are 38 new trout farms which are starting to
consolidate their production to access better markets and, most importantly,
have stopped migrating, given that families have substantially increased their
cash income.
In Paraguay, an agreement was made with a champion farmer with a couple
of tilapia ponds on the North-​eastern part of the country to incorporate live-
stock (pigs) and an orchard in an integrated system and make it function as
a field school. While the original technical guidance was provided by FAO
along with some technical cooperation from Brazil, the farmer’s expertise
was crucial and the farm proved highly profitable, hence stimulating local
farmers to replicate it, hence there are more than 280 new aquaculture
farmers within the same region of the country, which have created an associ-
ation and operate a processing facility.
The programme has resulted in a number of achievements, which include
the introduction of aquaculture and consequently availability of fish protein,
an increase in the productivity of integrated food systems (fish/​vegetables/​
livestock/​poultry) and an overall increase in cash income for the families
involved. In the case of Colombia, alternative, low-​cost feeds in farm manu-
facturing has been introduced, thus increasing economic sustainability
of SSAq. In turn, knowledge and experiences have been transferred from
South-​South Cooperation to SSAq of Nicaragua. The table below shows pro-
duction and economic indicators derived from a demonstration farm of the
Department of Vera Paz, Guatemala.

Indicator Baseline After 2 years

Surface area of production 1,200 m2 7,000 m2

Average fish yield/​yr 0 1140 kg/​yr
Average vegetables yield/​yr 460 kg 3,200 kg/​yr
Average livestock/​yr 670 kg 890 kg
Cash income (US/​day) 1.25 15.33
 Governance, partnerships, and cooperation 285

References
1 Partelow, S., Schlüter, A., O Manlosa, A., Nagel, B., & Octa Paramita, A. (2022).
Governing aquaculture commons. Reviews in Aquaculture, 14(2), 729–​750.
2 International Social Security Association (2023), ISSA Guidelines: Good Governance.
Checked online in 2023 at ww1.issa.int/​guidelines/​gg
3 Villalonga, B., Amit, R., Trujillo, M. A., & Guzmán, A. (2015). Governance of family
firms. Annual Review of Financial Economics, 7, 635–​654.
4 Aguilera, R. V., & Crespi-​Cladera, R. (2012). Firm family firms: Current debates of cor-
porate governance in family firms. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 3(2), 66–​69.
5 Colbourne, R. (2017). An understanding of Native American entrepreneurship. Small
Enterprise Research, 24(1), 49–​61.
6 Jolly, C. M., Nyandat, B., Yang, Z., Ridler, N., Matias, F., Zhang, Z., ... & Menezes,
A. (2023). Dynamics of aquaculture governance. Journal of the World Aquaculture
Society.
7 Hishamunda, N., Ridler, N., & Martone, E. (2014). Policy and governance in aquacul-
ture: lessons learned and way forward. FAO Fisheries and aquaculture technical paper
(577), I.
8 Escrig-​Olmedo, E., Muñoz-​Torres, M. J., & Fernandez-​Izquierdo, M. A. (2010).
Socially responsible investing: Sustainability indices, ESG rating and information pro-
vider agencies. International Journal of Sustainable Economy, 2(4), 442–​461.
9 Kruijssen, F., Bitzer, V., Sonneveld, A., & Steijn, C. (2022). Defining incentives and
claims in Aquaculture Improvement Projects (AIPs). KIT Royal Tropical Institute,
Amsterdam.
10 Penrose, A. (2000). Partnership. In Robinson, D., Hewitt, T. and Harriss, J. (eds)
Managing Development: Understanding Inter-​ Organisational Relationships Sage
Publications: London; Thousand Oaks; New Delhi. pp. 352.
11 Schaff, R. (2015). The rhetoric and reality of partnerships for international develop-
ment. Geography Compass, 9(2), 68–​80, 10.1111/​gec3.12198
12 Creech, H., Paas, L., & Oana, M. (2008). Typologies for Partnerships for Sustainable
Development and for Social and Environmental Enterprises: Exploring SEED winners
through two lenses (Report for the SEED Initiative Research Program).
13 Troell, M., Costa-​Pierce, B., Stead, S., Cottrell, R. S., Brugere, C., Farmery, A. K.,
... & Barg, U. (2023). Perspectives on aquaculture’s contribution to the Sustainable
Development Goals for improved human and planetary health. Journal of the World
Aquaculture Society, 54(2), 251–​342.
14 Leach, W. D., Weible, C. M., Vince, S. R., Siddiki, S. N., & Calanni, J. C. (2014).
Fostering learning through collaboration: Knowledge acquisition and belief change
in marine aquaculture partnerships. Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory, 24(3), 591–​622.
15 Weirowski, F. & Hall, S.J., (2008) Public private partnerships for fisheries and aquacul-
ture. Getting started. World Fish Center Manual number 1875. The World Fish Center,
Penang, Malaysia.
16 IBE, UNESCO –​www.ibe.une​sco.org/​en/​geqaf/​techni​cal-​notes/​conc​ept-​gov​erna​nce
17 Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., & Mastruzzi, M. (2009). Governance matters VIII: aggregate
and individual governance indicators, 1996–​2008. World bank policy research working
paper (4978).
16 New technologies as a means
to achieve sustainability
Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

Aquaculture is a relatively new industry when compared to other productions with

less than 50 years as a significant source of human food. For this reason, it has
the advantage of starting its industrial age based on the scientific breakthroughs
and technological advances that other food production industries have already
developed.
Over the following pages, we will cover the main technological advancements
and outlooks that have been developed and which open several new avenues for
sustainable aquaculture production.
We will first briefly describe what is needed to be considered a sustainable tech-
nology in the aquaculture industry, then we will continue to describe the different
groups of technological advancements and their current status starting with digital
technologies, such as automation, the Internet of Things, and artificial intelligence;
then moving through breeding and genetics; systems technologies and infrastruc-
ture; biotechnologies; disease treatment; nutrition management; and traceability.
Finally, we have a brief reflection on the importance of research and tech-
nology as well as on the current aquaculture status and the pieces that need to be
accommodated to achieve sustainable aquaculture.

16.1 Introduction
Aquaculture currently represents more than 50% of the total fish and shellfish
volume destined for human consumption. In 2018, the harvested aquaculture
products totalled 114.5 million tonnes, with an annual average growth of around
5% in the last five years. This growth is not exempt from an associated envir-
onmental and economic impact, which must be considered to keep the industry
growing.
In the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s, the aquaculture industry grew without any
restriction or environmental care. Vital ecological areas were deforested, such
as mangroves; seed and juveniles were captured from the environment, directly
impacting fishers and natural stocks; and exotic species were introduced, polluting
the genetic pool and creating significant impacts on local ecosystems (Chapter 5).

DOI: 10.4324/9781003174271-21
 New technologies as a means to achieve sustainability 287

Furthermore, the dependence on aquafeeds on reduction fisheries resulted in little

contribution to global food security.
Later, during the 2000s and 2010s, intensive production began to dominate in
some species, which led to crossing breeders that had the best genetic traits for pro-
duction, in some cases, in the absence of a genetic programme. Water exchanges
and organism escapes led to genetic contamination of native species and the loss of
other important traits for the species in the wild.
As a result of the increased production, capture of wild juveniles and larvae,
lack of regulation, and inadequate management, many disease outbreaks have been
observed in the aquaculture industry as a whole, causing severe damage to its pro-
duction and reputation. To manage these disease outbreaks, a series of methods
were applied, with two main strategies that stand out. The first method was used to
control water quality and replace rearing water, incurring the consumption of large
amounts of energy and causing the emission of effluents with high concentrations
of nitrogen and phosphorus to the marine environment. All these can negatively
impact the local environment (Chapter 5).
The second step to attack diseases consisted of applying antibiotics and other
chemicals to eliminate viruses, bacteria, parasites, or other pathogenic organisms.
However, the abuse of these substances can have devastating long-​term side
effects, both for production and humanity in general. Different reasons can explain
the permissiveness of these practices. One of them is the absence of environmental
awareness, lack of regulation in the matter, ignorance of good management and
cultivation practices, and, above all, the tremendous economic impact of diseases
on the activity. For example, in Ecuador, shrimp farming represented about 0.7%
of the country’s GDP in 2020. The activity represented significant value for the
country’s agricultural production, with a value of 801 million dollars and 180,000
ha dedicated to the production of shrimp in the same year.
During the beginning of industrial aquaculture production, technologies focused
on mastering the reproduction of broodstock to obtain seed, maximising growth,
increasing the cultivation area, and studying diseases and treatments through the
use of drugs, reducing the cost of aquafeed, among others. The technologies previ-
ously mentioned mainly focused on increasing productivity at any cost; very high
densities were allowed in large cultivation spaces without any control or bioremedi-
ation –​an aspect that exacerbated the disease cycles –​resulting in huge losses and
farm abandonment. Furthermore, to maintain these systems, energy consumption,
antibiotic application, and soil deterioration increased significantly. In addition, the
Food Conversion Ratios created a very negative fish-​in–​fish-​out relation in carniv-
orous species, but profitable due to the low costs of fishmeal and fish oils.
These factors allowed growth in the industry but led to the contamination of
aquifers and eutrophication of soils –​a negative impact on food security and a
major one on fisheries –​ besides the proliferation of diseases capable of killing
entire crops in a couple of days.
However, not all growth was bad news. Associated with the incredible develop-
ment of aquaculture, there has been an increase in researchers’ interest and oppor-
tunity in aquaculture. Knowledge and technology advancements have increased
288 Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

along with the development of industry in various aspects that seek to keep farms
within profitability and economic attractiveness while risks and environmental
impact are reduced.
Today, aquaculture is on the verge of a technological revolution with applications
in infrastructure and production systems. Biotechnologies improve the perform-
ance of the organisms, genetic engineering and selection, automation systems and
digital technologies, cleaner energy consumption, artificial intelligence and data
management, and traceability, among others. The technologies currently developed
have diverse functions and tend to have a multi-​criteria approach with an increasing
focus on sustainable production.
To be considered sustainable, new technologies must make sure that: (1) prod-
uctivity can increase (improving survival and growth, increasing crop density);
(2) environmental impact is reduced (reducing the use of antibiotics, the concen-
tration of fishmeal and fish oil in the diet, water use, improving nutritional per-
formance, and using renewable energy); (3) management and control improve
(optimising resources, harvesting and sowing equipment, traceability, sensors, arti-
ficial intelligence).
Currently, farms are increasingly focused on these technologies and, instead of
uncontrolled growth, require a sustainable increase in production to continue their
activity for an indeterminate time with positive economic-​financial aspects. In the
meantime, the adverse effects on society and the environment are minimised, bene-
fitting both society’s and farmers’ own interests. After reviewing the state of the art
in aquaculture, the technologies are classified into five groups:

1 Digital technologies: This group includes all the technologies that have to do
with aquaculture 4.0 and digital information management including the appli-
cation of sensors, Internet of Things (IoT), big data, artificial intelligence (AI),
geographic information through satellite images, and all other digital technolo-
gies that can be applied to aquaculture.
2 Breeding and genetics: This group of technologies focuses on improving animal
breeding capacity and quality, biosecurity measures, functional genomics, sex
control, genomic prediction, selective breeding, quantitative genetics, genome
technology, genetics of diseases and stress, genetics of nutrition, epigenetics,
genomics and metabolomes, population genetics, and environmental risks.
3 Systems technologies and infrastructure: This group has changed much since
the beginnings of industrial aquaculture. Nowadays, the ability to produce with
very little water loss, small-​scale energy consumption per kilogram produced,
disease resistance, and in less space is available through the use of recirculation
systems, new materials, and production systems like biofloc or aquamimicry.i
4 Nutritional development: Since modern aquaculture began to grow, it has been
one of the most researched topics. Feed is one of the costliest aspects of fed
aquaculture production. It is also one of the most criticised characteristics of
aquaculture. Research focuses mainly on fishmeal and fish-​oil substitutes and
their impact on animal health, growth, immune system boosting, and its reper-
cussion on the final composition of the actual product as a human food source.
 New technologies as a means to achieve sustainability 289

5 Traceability: Traceability is the ability to track production “from cradle to

grave”. In this sense, we can derive different and exciting aspects of trace-
ability, from environmental elements, such as production methods and carbon
footprint to social factors such as fair labour and the number of intermediaries.
This group is particular since it combines a series of previously described tech-
nologies to produce the ability to trace a product. There are several techniques
for traceability, such as auditing, labelling, genetic and biochemical markers,
and blockchain.

16.2 Digital technologies in aquaculture

When information is stored, transmitted, or forwarded in digital format, it
is converted into numbers –​at the most basic machine level as “zeroes and
ones”. The term digital technology represents technology that relies on the use
of microprocessors; hence, computers and applications that are dependent on
computers as the Internet, as well as other devices such as video cameras, and
mobile devices such as phones and personal digital assistants.
Digital technology is a way in which we interact and store data. The diffe-
rence between analogue and digital technology is that the first one converts data
into electric rhythms of multiple amplitudes. In digital technology, information is
converted into the binary system, i.e., zeroes or ones, where every bit is the symbol
of two amplitudes.
Digital technologies cover a vast amount of innovations, from the automation of
systems to the optimisation of the decision-​making process. This numerous group
of technologies has revolutionised the way we do business. In the case of aquacul-
ture, the wave that incorporates production with this kind of technology is known
as Aquaculture 4.0.

16.2.1 Automation

Automation consists in using technology to perform tasks with almost no need for
human intervention. It can be implemented in any industry where repetitive tasks
are carried out. In the case of aquaculture, there are several tasks susceptible to
automation, of which the most common are feeding, water quality assessment, and
counting. The inclusion of sensors, automatic feeders, counters, and other similar
machines helps to increase data flows, reduce labour costs, and improve manage-
ment and production control, which also leads to improved biosecurity and reduced
risk. Since the number of people interacting directly with water and the organisms
is reduced, the possibility of transmitting diseases from one pond to another is also
reduced, hence the spread of a disease may slow down.
Even though strictly speaking automation is not necessarily a digital technology
(although it may be in most cases) since it can be achieved through analogic
methods, it is one “must” to use other digital technologies due to the capacity
to generate information and make the processes quick, efficient, and with fewer
errors. This group of technologies allows increasing production, both in area and
290 Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

intensity. Furthermore, since human error is reduced, productivity can be improved,

and risks lessened, significantly impacting financing and insurance availability in
aquaculture.
Automatic feeders are already very advanced; when the IoT is included, as
discussed in the next point, feeding can be done from anywhere in the world,
and with optimal rations; it can be programmed and provided in specific times
and manners. For water quality, there is a vast number of sensors and integrated
systems that gather data every minute (or more often if necessary), letting us know
different indicators, of which the most used are dissolved oxygen, temperature, pH,
salinity, and alkalinity. This constant flow of information allows for automating
other equipment such as aerators or water pumps.
In automation, leading research consists in developing counters, which are espe-
cially difficult in turbid water systems; due to water turbidity and the presence of
noise, cameras do not function as well as in transparent systems. In this regard,
three main strategies have been applied to counting: methods based on sensors,
computer vision, and acoustic technology. Because of the difficulties mentioned
above, the methods based on acoustic technology have obtained better results
in high turbidity and can obtain high-​quality images through sonar even in dark
waters.
Usually, the automation of a farm requires significant investment, first in
equipment and then in maintenance and management, which results in a smaller but
more specialised workforce. This aspect is the main bottleneck for implementing
these technologies, especially in cheap labour regions (such as Latin America
and South East Asia), where they opt for a more artisanal production rather than
investing in automation.
The costs of implementing sensors and machinery should be contrasted, not
only with the hiring of labour but also with the increased efficiency and product-
ivity, as well as the risk reduction and sustainability of the industry as a whole.

16.2.2 IoT and cloud computing

IoT, which is short for the Internet of Things, consists of the connection of digital
objects with the Internet. At the same time, cloud computing refers to the practice of
employing a network of remote servers hosted on the Internet for storage and data
processing. This technology has enormous implications when combined with the
other digital technologies mentioned in this chapter. The IoT connects the farmer
and other interested stakeholders with production at all times, understanding the
situation better and making safer, informed decisions.
Furthermore, the use of cloud computing results in the development of man-
agement platforms with powerful tools to control and forecast production, helping
farmers to take control and advantage of all the data generated (Box 16.1).
The application of the IoT to aquaculture has been increasing at an exponen-
tial rate, with more applications in fish production. Salmon farmers can now see
the fish they are rearing, which are in sea cages far away from the coast anywhere
in the world. This application allows observing if any strange behaviours occur,
 New technologies as a means to achieve sustainability 291

which might indicate a disease, if the salmon are eating well or if they are being
fed more than needed, and keeping predators at bay. This connection also permits
observing and storing water quality indicator information, creating a production
history, and obtaining more output information. Furthermore, if the farm is highly
automated, it can be connected through the IoT and create a central management
board, making all decisions centralised, reducing inefficiencies and redundancies,
and, overall, optimising production.
Thanks to satellite Internet, this technology also takes floating cages deeper into
the ocean, making travel less recurrent and reducing the impact on the shore and
coastal communities.
In most species, this kind of technology is only starting to gain momentum,
mainly in water quality assessment and control. However, the future is promising
when other digital technologies merge, such as artificial intelligence and big data.
Together, they might help detect diseases before an outbreak, improve feeding, and
optimise management from a centralised office, allowing more production in more
remote areas.

16.2.3 Business intelligence and big data

As stated in the first point of this list, production automation allows for generating
an enormous amount of data in one production cycle. With the proposed digital
technologies so far, information would only serve to control and secure production
quality in real time, but the data generated would remain useless. Unfortunately,
this is happening in many aquaculture farms where data are gathered manually,
kept in physical logs, archived or rewritten in a spreadsheet, and kept in a digital
archive, besides being decentralised. Precisely the lack of exploitation of the data
generated makes most farmers shy away from automation.
Thus, what can farmers do with all these data? The answers are multiple, but one
of the most interesting for farmers is to use the data to improve productivity and, in
the end, increase their profits or production (depending on the farmers’ goal). The
goals can be achieved using data science, in particular, with business intelligence.
Business intelligence (BI) refers to the set of strategies, applications, data,
products, technologies, and technical architecture focused on the administration and
creation of knowledge about a system through analysing existing data in an organ-
isation or company. In the case of aquaculture, the use of bioeconomic modelling
combined with big data generates recommendations for optimising the operations,
making the farm more profitable and more sustainable using fewer resources.
As stated in the definition, the use of BI depends greatly on the availability
of big data sets, which allow the modeller (or the software) to produce better
parameters specific to the farm. In turn, better forecasts are produced as well as
improved recommendations. In addition to a large quantity of data, its quality is
also important to determine the accuracy of BI implementation.
Some of the most current BI applications are the development of key perform-
ance indicators (KPIs) and their benchmarks. For example, forecast models deter-
mine the best management strategies, improve environmental efficiency, develop
292 Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

growth strategies, manage risk, and negotiate insurance premiums; other invest-
ment analyses include the acquisition of new genetic lines, the effectiveness of new
technologies, or purchasing new infrastructure.
Nevertheless, data analysis is not only for profit. New waves of policy-​making
are arising through the application of big data that helps to better understand
the current situation of aquaculture in a country (i.e. through the use of satellite
imagery). This technology helps to map out the status of aquaculture, finding the
locations that would optimise production with the minimum harm to the environ-
ment, leading to sustainable policies driven by data science.

16.2.4 Artificial intelligence, machine learning, and deep learning

In recent times, increased computing power has made the development of complex
and powerful algorithms that can “learn” from a data set and make decisions based
on that possible data. Powerful tools can be found, such as machine learning, deep
learning, and artificial intelligence among these computing techniques.
Previously, when automation was discussed, the development and application
of counters in aquaculture were included. The use of these data-​driven tools has
helped in the development of such counters. By training an algorithm with a large
amount of known data, a software engineer can, for example, develop a program
that learns from images, sound waves, reflection, or any known data that might
help identify the number of organisms in a pond, cage, tank, or net. The more data
the program has available, the better it gets at predicting it. Applications for these
groups of technologies are immense and barely in their infancy stage. One exciting
application that has been developed is feed optimisation tools driven by the sound
that shrimp make when eating. By implementing sound detectors in the pond and
with known data, an algorithm can be developed and trained to know how many
shrimp are in the pond and how much they are eating.1
Another interesting application is detecting and preventing disease outbreaks
before they even happen by image recognition and water quality assessment, which
has already been implemented in the appearance and treatment of sea lice in the
Norwegian salmon industry. This has started to be applied by Indian shrimp produ-
cers. Another application in this regard is diagnosing disease and the recommended
treatment without using a laboratory, reducing biosecurity costs.2
Other applications are the screening of healthy seeds, water quality monitoring,
and prediction and processing, demonstrating that the use of AI in aquaculture can
reduce wastage and significantly decrease costs.3

16.2.5 Geographic information systems (GIS) and remote sensing

As discussed in this book, aquaculture has various space-​(and time-​) related issues,
most of which can be associated with environmental and social aspects, such as
mangrove area depletion, area expansion, site suitability, production impact, water
use and deterioration, and livelihood and socio-​economic impacts. To track and
 New technologies as a means to achieve sustainability 293

tackle these issues, aquaculture stakeholders have looked into the use of GIS.
Nonetheless, governments, research groups, and NGOs have promoted these
methods more than the farmers themselves. Currently, GIS technology is gaining
attention, not only because of the numerous policy and sustainability applications
possible but also as a tool to improve management, control, and productivity, and
reduce risk from climate derivatives.
Some studies have been developed regarding the possibility of using satellite
imagery to monitor and gather water quality information.4 This satellite imagery
would be a significant breakthrough since it would monitor large areas with mar-
ginal cost as opposed to installing a substantial number of sensors in the ponds. In
this manner, GIS information could be linked with machine learning to develop
business intelligence protocols and management with a fraction of the cost
associated with full farm automation.
Furthermore, the development of new low-​orbit satellites increases image avail-
ability, resolution, and spectrum bands while their costs are reduced. This develop-
ment opens a unique panorama for machine learning and AI integration with GIS
as to how they interact with ponds. Since satellite bands gather spectra that capture
information, it is impossible (or incredibly expensive) to obtain with the currently
available technology.
Although these digital technologies have been presented as separate tools, they
work together to produce high-​impact applications that can improve aquaculture in
a sustainable manner. Finally, as much as these technologies already exist and have
been successfully applied in agriculture and salmon aquaculture, their acceptance,
introduction, and use are still the main issues for their full implementation in aqua-
culture as a whole. The application of innovative contracts and proof of value are
a couple of the several ways of boosting the use of digital technologies in aqua-
culture. Moreover, their application makes it possible to increase profitability for
farmers, reduce unit production costs, increase production, and improve control,
which in turn reduces risks and creates information, opening the panorama for
more significant capital investors, cheaper credits, insurance primes, and further
industry growth overall.

16.3 Breeding and genetics

One of the main bottlenecks in aquaculture is achieving reproduction in captivity,
which has limited growth of tuna, octopus, eel, and barnacle aquaculture, among
others. It was also the case with shrimp back in the 1960s. Once the reproduction
is achieved, the next difficulty is to establish a constant and sufficient amount of
larvae to stop depending on the natural stock –​because of uncertainty, biosecurity,
and environmental damage –​gradually achieved by installing and promoting the
creation of hatchery laboratories, as long as the species and its production are
considered profitable.
During the first stages of achieving reproduction in captivity, the main research
objectives are to maximise the breeders’ quantity and quality of eggs. The principal
294 Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

focus is made on broodstock nutrition with significant advances in understanding

the biological process of maturation and fertilisation. The lipid and protein profiles
that maximise the quality and quantity of oocytes and sperm quality and perform-
ance need to be detailed and understood. Furthermore, the procurement of cost-​
effective sources of such profiles needs to be accomplished.
Once reproduction in captivity is achieved, the next step is to use one of the
oldest genetic techniques known by humanity. Breeders start looking for individ-
uals that can grow at a higher rate, reduce the FCR, or increase productivity in
a similar manner; hence the process of genetic selection (or selective breeding)
starts, along with the creation of the first genetic lines.
Despite the positive effects of genetic selection, the speed at which the desired
genetic traits are inherited is low compared to the observed growth of the industry.
Therefore, scientists and industry leaders tend to look into newer and more
sophisticated techniques to improve productivity. Although this is not a simple
task, since a single genetic trait tends to be interlinked with the performance of
other aspects, it makes this selection a multicriteria decision if one intends to main-
tain efficiency.
Along the following lines, some of the most significant advances in genetic
biotechnologies and techniques used in aquaculture are reviewed to improve prod-
uctivity while searching for holistic solutions, incorporating the environment and
other aspects of aquaculture production.

16.3.1 Population genetics

For biodiversity conservation and aquaculture, population genetics strives to

learn about allelic variety, genetic diversity, inbreeding, and interactions between
wild and cultivated populations. Research in this area is important, i.e., to main-
tain a sustainable genetic pool and avoid genetic pollution derived from farm
escapes.
The majority of population genetics studies compare genetic diversity between
wild and cultured populations and offer useful advice for aquaculture and breeding
the species in question. For example, the process of artificial selection looking for
disease resistance and growth usually tends to reduce genetic variability. The use
of population genetics allows for keeping this aspect under control and avoids the
loss of important genetic traits and inbreeding.
The main tools used in this area of research are the analysis of mitochondrial
DNA, the use of microsatellites, restriction-​ site association DNA sequencing
(RAD-​seq.), and genotyping by sequencing (GBS). This last one is the most prom-
ising because of its cost and time efficiency.
Population genetics is expected to play an essential role in aquaculture and in
collecting new understanding of the genetic differences seen in cultivated and wild
populations of species of interest. Furthermore, its application and follow-​up are
critical to the development of genetic lines and successful hatchery development;
it is also one of the main tools of traceability technologies, as will be discussed
further in this chapter.
 New technologies as a means to achieve sustainability 295

16.3.2 Quantitative genetics and selective breeding

In contrast to discretely identifiable phenotypes and gene-​products (such as the

presence or absence of a particular biochemical), quantitative genetics deals with
phenotypes that change over time (such as weight, length, or FCR). This area of
research is particularly interesting in animal breeding, including aquaculture.
The principal technique for genetic improvement in aquaculture is currently
and will remain for the coming years conventional selective breeding with the use
of quantitative genetics. To accelerate genetic improvement and the introduction
of new traits, new technologies, including marker-​assisted and genomic selection,
and also genome editing, are being integrated into selective breeding programmes.

16.3.3 Genome technologies

The term “genomic technology” refers to the tools that are used to manipulate
and interpret genomic data. DNA cloning, sequencing, synthesis, macromolecular
structure analysis (X-​ray crystallography and NMR), polymerase chain reaction
(PCR) amplification, and transgenic animals are all new technologies in this field.
Genome sequencing and transcriptome analysis (Crispr/​Cas9) are still the most
common methods for obtaining genomic data for genetic research.
The use of genome editing to create new traits is one of the most exciting advances
in genetics and breeding. Something to keep an eye on while implementing these
technologies is the perception the public has of them (for example, the possible
rejection of GMOs). Correct implementation could lead to shorter production
cycles, highly resistant strains, better FCRs, and, overall, a more sustainable and
productive industry.
Genome editing, as in agriculture, undoubtedly has a significant impact on aqua-
culture breeding programmes as well. Currently, few genes in aquaculture species
are known to play a role in phenotyping. Furthermore, the majority of economic-
ally significant genes are quantitative in nature and influenced by a variety of genes,
environmental factors, and interactions. Through technologies, such as quantitative
trait locus (QTL) mapping, genome-​wide association studies (GWAS), and pos-
itional cloning, more of the causal genes can be located in aquaculture species in
the future, which allow the genes to be tweaked to improve the associated qualities.

16.3.4 Market genetics and genetic bioeconomics

Another interesting branch of research associated with genetics and breeding is
genetics bioeconomics. In this area, each gene is associated with an economic
value depending on its performance and the market’s importance of each trait.
For example, the “growth” trait or the fillet proportion might have a higher eco-
nomic weight than the fat percentage in tilapia production, but it might be entirely
different in tuna aquaculture. In this manner, economic values may be provided to
the genome, evaluating the profits associated with promoting specific expressions.
Furthermore, assessing the profitability of a genetic plan allows adding the
296 Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

hereditability of a trait along with its value to estimate the time in which the pro-
gramme will be successful. Finally, the genes that will optimise the economic per-
formance of the hatchery are selected.
These technologies and techniques have been applied successfully in salmon
aquaculture, leading to the development of location-​specific genetic lines. In other
words, lines that perform better in specific environments and boost their pheno-
typic expression.

16.3.5 Sex control

Fish and shellfish have very diverse reproductive systems from gonochoric
species where sex is defined and separated into males and females to sequential
hermaphroditism, where organisms change their gender over time, passing through
very diverse mechanisms of reproduction. In some cases, the sexual specification
can be controlled with physical or biochemical sources, which opens the possibility
of obtaining single-​gender offspring.
In most cases, one gender tends to achieve larger sizes and quicker growth rates
than their counterparts. Therefore, producers prefer this gender (in shrimp, for
example, females tend to grow faster than their male counterparts, and it is the
other way around for tilapia).
Apart from growth differences, one reason to produce single-​gender productions
is to slow or stop the gonad maturation process. The reproductive process is highly
demanding in terms of energy, so when fish start, they turn their energy consumption
focus from growth to reproduction, which is undesirable for aquaculture producers.
In some cases, sexual maturation starts far before organisms achieve market size,
such as tilapia; therefore, growth is slowed down, and production becomes costlier.
This problem can be avoided by having all-​male, all-​female, or sterile offspring.
This sex control technique is very well known and applied in the production
of tilapia. Tilapia breeders use a method based on the application of hormones
before the fry determine their gender, achieving populations of around 98% males.
Although this is the most widespread method, it presents some environmental
concerns, such as dumping high concentrations of masculinising hormones into
the natural habitat, negatively impacting the reproductive capacity of wild stocks.
To deal with this problem, the tilapia industry has developed a method to produce
males that contain the sexual chromosome YY (also known as supermales), so
when they interbreed with their female counterparts (with XX chromosomes) they
produce all-​male (with XY chromosomes) offspring.
In shrimp, research has been focused on gene silencing for those genes involved
in sex differentiation. For this purpose, it is essential to determine the potential
sex-​determining genes and their locus. In some freshwater prawn productions, a
technique has already been applied to promote the production of all-​female and
all-​male offspring. In the case of Macrobrachium rosenbergi, all-​male cultures
outperformed all metrics, including survival rate, yield per hectare, and body size
uniformity, resulting in more marketable animals from a given pond.5
 New technologies as a means to achieve sustainability 297

In most shrimp and prawn productions, sex control is still a new technology in
the research state, but its implementation in hatcheries is imminent and could give
shrimp aquaculture a significant boost in terms of productivity and management.
In the case of oysters, a significant genetic technology has been developed to
promote the creation of infertile seeds through the creation of triploid zygotes.
Since no energy is devoted to the development of gonads, most energy generated
by the triploid oysters is devoted to muscle growth, resulting in higher growth
rates, especially in places where water does not have ideal conditions for growth.
Furthermore, this technology results in the inhibition of spawns in summer, which
results in smaller environmental impacts, especially in places where oysters can be
an introduced species.

16.3.6 Hologenomics

Hologenomics is the study of a system genome and includes the whole eco-
logical niche of such a system. In most cases, the organism’s genome should be
studied along with the microbial biota in the gut and in the pond (bacteria, fungi,
microalgae, macroalgae, zooplankton, viruses, etc.). The genetic entity composed
of the host plus the microbiome genome is known as the holobiont.
Specific genes and their expression have been proven to be linked with the
presence/​absence of other ecosystem components (the holobiont epigenetics, its
transcriptome, as well as gut metagenome and metatranscriptome). Furthermore,
the metaproteome (the set of proteins expressed by the holobiont) and the
metametabolome (the complete set of metabolites produced by the holobiont) need
to be studied and understood to better use this technology and improve shrimp
productivity.6
A simple application of hologenomics has been used in the production of tiger
shrimp in Australia, where its study of diverse ponds differentiates high yield from
low productivity ones depending on the presence/​absence of some genes related to
specific microbial biota in the shrimp’s gut. These applications can help to better
characterise and detect stressors and improve productivity forecasts. Despite the
numerous technical words, the main objective of these technologies is to include
both the fish or shellfish produced and the microbiota in the analysis of the desired
genetic traits in ponds and, particularly, in gut microbiota, both in fattening phases
and in hatcheries.

16.3.7 Epigenetics and epigenomics

Epigenetics and epigenomics deal with the expression of genes and the genome
where no changes in the DNA occur. Most of these expressions are regulated
by changes in the environment and, as discussed in the previous paragraph, the
presence and existence of other organisms in the environment that interact with
aquaculture organisms.
Most studies in epigenetics have been done in finfish, mainly tilapia, rainbow
trout, and barramundi. For tilapia, some results suggest that there is epigenetic
298 Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

regulation of growth in tilapia, which could be affected by several genes, the envir-
onment, and even associated in a sex-​specific manner.
The mechanism underpinning epigenetic control of essential features in most
species is poorly understood. Future studies could concentrate on figuring out how
the DNA, environment, and gut microbiomes interact to influence gene and pheno-
type expression. Nonetheless, its application is very promising in aquaculture,
especially in systems that are able to control environmental features like tempera-
ture and water quality.
As discussed in the paragraphs above, new research and improved techniques
have made genetic technologies affordable and applicable to several aquaculture
species. This area of research is booming with new ideas and applications surging
each year. Market perspective, commercial applications, and cost-​effective use of
such technologies are the main points that need to be carefully taken into account
to implement them in commercial aquaculture.

16.4 Systems technologies and infrastructure

As described at the beginning of this chapter, new technologies need to address
three main aspects to be considered sustainable: increase productivity, improve
management, and reduce negative impacts (mainly environmental and social).
The performance of aquaculture, in general, is highly tied to the production
methods used. Water use and treatments vary highly depending on the infrastruc-
ture design. Furthermore, management can significantly change the performance
of the farm, even with the same infrastructure. Different biotechnologies have been
developed to reduce the use of antibiotics, maximise the FCR, minimise energy and
water consumption, and improve wastewater outputs.
To discuss the relevance of each technology, the focus is on their impact on
water and energy, wastewater treatment and quality, productivity increase in terms
of biomass per unit of area, and management benefits.

16.4.1 Infrastructure-​related technologies

One of the main issues in conventional open-​system aquaculture (especially in fed

aquaculture) is the high proportion of water used and the high level of nutrients and
pollutants present in wastewater output. This issue represents several others, from
environmental damage to future impacts on the industry. For example, the dissem-
ination of diseases and the presence of algal blooms could damage oxygen levels
for the water input in other farms and, in the end, reduce productivity and even
produce immense impacts on the industry’s survival.
Furthermore, open systems (or traditional pond systems, presented in
Figure 16.1) reduce water management capacity since their quality depends on the
water source, which lessens the production capacity with high densities due to the
lack of control and reduces the productivity per unit of area. To tackle these issues,
the major technological advance in aquaculture has been the recirculating aquacul-
ture system (RAS) approach.
 New technologies as a means to achieve sustainability 299

Figure 16.1 Example of a classic clear water pond system.

The idea behind RAS technology is quite simple and intuitive. Instead of intro-
ducing clean water and discharging low-​quality water every time the system needs
to improve water quality, the infrastructure is designed to treat and reintroduce the
water used. In other words, the idea is to go from an open system to a closed one
(Figure 16.2). This change allows the farmer to improve water quality and control
in the ponds (or tanks), allowing higher densities and better productivity per square
metre (m2) of land and per cubic metre (m3) of water.
Although the idea is simple, its deployment is more complicated than traditional
pond aquaculture. The inclusion of equipment to disinfect, reduce ammonia, elim-
inate undesired dissolved gasses, increase the availability of dissolved oxygen, and
eliminate organic and inorganic suspended particles is necessary to recirculate the
water and use it effectively. Before venturing into RAS aquaculture, the know-
ledge to control and manage water quality and the related equipment needs to be
considered.
Despite the benefits of RAS systems, some drawbacks need to be addressed.
The first one is an environmental issue, associated with the energy consumption
required to produce a kilogram of product (in the case of shrimp, 3 kWh/​kg in
conventional system vs. 4.3 kWh/​kg in RAS). Recirculating water needs the use of
water pumps. Moreover, water quality improvement involves using several extra
pieces of equipment, some of which require additional energy to function. The
problem with energy is mainly associated with its source. If the energy used to
recirculate comes from fossil fuel combustion, it means an increase in greenhouse
gas emissions. On the other hand, if the energy comes from clean sources, the issue
is much less significant in terms of sustainable production.
300 Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

Figure 16.2 Example of a semi-​recirculating and water treatment system in pond

aquaculture.

The second problem associated with RAS technologies is the investment

needed and the highest total costs of production. A recirculating system has
higher infrastructure, equipment, and energy requirements and more specialised
labour required; furthermore, RAS production requires more capital to operate
and higher initial investment. Even so, farm automation and greater productivity
result in higher yields, which reduce average unit production costs, making this
kind of system more profitable than traditional ones. Nonetheless, other factors
should be considered, such as the increased amount of equipment needed, the
complexities of their management, and the risk associated with an increase in pro-
duction densities.
Over the last few decades, much attention has been drawn to recirculating
systems, making new and better approaches to improve energy use and water quality
management, making it possible to produce very high yields in minimal land space.
This possibility is particularly interesting for countries where space is an issue or
for farmers looking to produce closer to the targeted markets disregarding climate
challenges, such as temperature or water availability.
The technologies developed for RAS production have improved exponen-
tially using integrated water treatment and ultrafiltration systems, clean energy
generators, and even multitrophic aquaculture for a more holistic approach. Some
cutting-​edge examples of RAS production are observed in modular aquaculture,
especially vertical aquaculture and container production.
 New technologies as a means to achieve sustainability 301

16.4.2 Biotechnologies

Even if you have two exactly equal farms in terms of infrastructure, farm manage-
ment can severely impact productivity. The way water is treated and controlled,
biosecurity and disease management, improvement in FCR and protein source, and
biological performance improvement are some ways that management can impact
productivity and profitability.
Several technologies are aimed at these management strategies, where aquafeed
research is one of the main topics. Since this group of technologies has its own
separate review, the focus now is on ground-​breaking biotechnologies designed to
improve productivity.
Apart from improving growth and survival, this group of technologies also
looks into working cost-​effectively and aims to reduce the negative environmental
impacts associated with older technologies, such as antibiotic therapy, intensive
aeration, and water exchange. Although these biotechnologies look into covering
the greatest number of aspects of production, this group has been divided into three
categories depending on their main objective: pond management, biological per-
formance improvement, and disease control.

16.4.2.1 Pond or tank management

Pond or tank management refers mainly to water quality control. Water quality is key to
obtaining high yields in aquaculture and reducing production risks. The main parameters
to observe are dissolved oxygen, nitrogen compounds (especially ammonia), feed
availability, potentially pathogenic organisms, and other physicochemical parameters
(mainly pH, salinity, and temperature). Currently, two leading pond management tech-
nologies are considered in inland aquaculture: aquamimicry and biofloc.
Biofloc technology basically consists of promoting the growth of bacteria,
fungi, and other microorganisms that have a positive impact on water quality and
growth. The main aspects tackled by this technology are:

• Bioremediation. By promoting nitrification and denitrification bacteria in the

pond water, the ammonia produced by shrimp excreta and uneaten feed is
transformed into atmospheric nitrogen and bacterial biomass.
• Pathogen control. The process through which this technology promotes
pathogen control is known as competitive exclusion. Promoting “positive” bac-
teria improves their ability to compete with pathogenic bacteria for nutrients and
space, preventing the growth of some hazardous bacteria such as Aeromonas or
Vibrios responsible for significant losses.
• Environmental protection. Biofloc technology severely reduces the need to
exchange pond water (this technology is also known as “zero discharge”).
Bioremediation and pathogen control eliminate the need to exchange water,
reducing wastewater discharges and energy consumption associated with water
pumping. It also makes it unnecessary to recirculate water, eliminating the
energy used for water treatment.
302 Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

On top of the benefits described above, biofloc technology promotes the cre-
ation of organic matter aggregates (known as bioflocs, hence the name of the tech-
nology), composed of bacteria, aquafeed, fungi, algae, and other microorganisms.
During production, the reared organisms eat these flocs, improving the FCR and
significantly reducing feed administration and production costs.
Aquamimicry is similar to biofloc in several aspects, but its application and
management are somewhat different. The idea behind aquamimicry is to mimic the
natural environment where the targeted aquaculture organism grows, enhancing
the elements that improve biological performance and inhibiting those that could
compromise productivity. As a result, the “matured water” includes the beneficial
bacteria present in biofloc technology and other organisms, such as polychaetes
or copepods. Furthermore, the pond is supposed to have a “mature water” system.
It can function as a natural buffer for high variation in water quality parameters,
reducing risks and improving growth due to a reduction in physiological stress.
On top of that, all benefits enabled by biofloc technology are present in
aquamimicry. Still, a significant drawback exists: the maturation of the pond water
is difficult to obtain and manage and could increase the time needed to have ponds
ready for production.
New technologies in pond management are continuously evolving. One of the
most interesting is the hybrid between biofloc technology and RAS. The objective
is to increase water management and control, permitting higher intensities and
biosecurity, reducing operation costs and risk.

16.4.2.2 Biological performance improvement

Apart from the pond water management systems, several technologies have been
developed to improve individual biological performance, looking mostly for higher
survival and improved FCR, administrated through the feed. The main technolo-
gies in this group are pro-​and prebiotics and antioxidants.
Probiotics technology promotes the growth of beneficial bacteria present in the
gut. By adding these bacteria to the feed or directly in water, probiotics are expected
to colonise the intestine, reducing the possibility of getting a bacterial infection and
improving feed digestion by the release of pre-​digestive enzymes. Probiotics are
often used in biofloc technology, and in some cases, the terms probiotic and biofloc
are used as synonyms in an industrial environment.
Prebiotics are undigestible particles that promote the growth of certain bacterial
strains in the shrimp gut. The main difference between these two is that probiotics
consist of the addition of live bacteria to the feed or water, while prebiotics consists of
nutrients and particles that promote the growth of beneficial bacteria already present
in the gut; hence, prebiotics do not use any living organism while applied, making
them easier to manage and stock. Most of the time, pre-​and probiotics are combined
(this technology takes the name of symbiotics). This way, the producer assures the
presence of the desired bacteria and promotes their growth by using prebiotics.
Another way to improve aquaculture organisms’ biological performance is by
boosting their immune system. Since invertebrates do not have an acquired immune
 New technologies as a means to achieve sustainability 303

system, there is no possibility of developing vaccines as they are known for verte-
brate species. Nonetheless, there is a possibility of boosting their innate immune
response, preparing them better for possible diseases. Researchers have focused on
using antioxidants (such as β-​glucan) with mixed results. For this technology, the
dosage is extremely relevant; a too-​low dose has no significant effect, just increasing
production costs, while a too-​high dose can overstimulate the immune response,
causing damage to the muscular tissues and reducing the pond’s productivity. Since
it is very hard to manage and apply antioxidants in an industrial context, their appli-
cation is still under research, looking for an optimal way of using them.
Other compounds, like phytobiotics (similar to probiotics but from a vegetal
source), bile acids, vitamins, and micronutrients also have been studied to improve
the shrimp’s biological performance.

16.4.2.3 Disease treatment

Most of the previously mentioned technologies aim to increase shrimp’s strength

against pathogens and reduce the probability of their proliferation but are not
developed to be used once a disease outbreak occurs. When this happens, the go-​
to solution remains the use of antibiotics, but this practice leads to increasingly
resistant bacteria, which could result in dangerous pandemics for the industry and
even threaten human health. One of the most interesting developments in disease
treatment is phage therapy.
Phage therapy consists, broadly, of the development of specific high-​
proliferation bacteriophages through genetic engineering. Phages are created in a
way that recognises and acts specifically on pathogenic bacteria, infecting them
and using them to proliferate and disperse through the pond until the disease is con-
trolled. The main advantage of this technology is its innocuousness and specificity.
Its main drawback is the fact that, just like antibiotics, it only functions in bacterial
pathogens, which makes the farm still vulnerable to viral diseases.
Most aquaculture technologies developed today are heavily looking into sustain-
able production, the reduction of risks, and productivity improvement. Overall, we
could expect these technologies to be ever-​more applied in the global aquaculture
industry, which leads to more advanced facilities with higher qualified employees
and intensive use of technologies for management and control. The combination
of digital technologies (reviewed first in this chapter) with infrastructure and bio-
technologies makes it plausible to increase the technification of aquaculture in a
profitable and sustainable manner.

16.5 Nutritional development

Over the last four decades, aquaculture has been growing at an impressive rate,
being the animal production system with the highest annual growth.
Despite this, many challenges need to be addressed to feed the global population
sustainably, especially in the case of fed aquaculture, and even more so in the case
of carnivorous species, such as salmon, tuna, eel, seabass, and shrimp.
304 Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

As discussed in Chapter 8, the core problem of fed aquaculture consists of their

own protein demand. During the beginning of aquaculture, the extruded or pelleted
feed (or aquafeed) produced had a high component of fishmeal and fish oil due to
the nutritious characteristics of these components. These ingredients were cheap,
abundant, and had the perfect balance for carnivorous fish and shellfish to grow.
The industry growth described above came hand in hand with an increased demand
for these ingredients. Their source is the key to understanding why keeping those
aquaculture practices was unsustainable and the enormous research efforts made
across the globe in aquaculture nutrition and aquafeeds.

16.5.1 Aquafeed: the use of fishmeal and fish oil

Fishmeal and fish oil are milled fish and fish by-​products, treated and separated for
their ingredients. The fish used for this process come from an industry known as
reduction fisheries that catch small pelagic fishes and crustaceans with very low
market values that are not usually for human basket diet consumption, such as the
Peruvian anchovy, Antarctic krill, or herring. Then, aquaculture growth is highly
tied to these fisheries, which are already fished at their highest sustainable yield.
Therefore, if fish capture keeps increasing, the availability for future catches will
diminish, eventually collapsing the natural stock.
Due to the nature of the fisheries described, where a cyclical component
is observed on captures, and since many of them are sustainably managed, the
industry’s output could not increase. Since the ingredient demand rose exponen-
tially, so did the prices, passing from 400 USD per tonne in the 1990s to almost 800
USD per tonne in the 2010s.7
Apart from the economic aspects of the aquafeed industry, a deeper social issue
is hidden in the use of fishmeal and oil concerning global food security, and that
is the concept of fish-​in and fish-​out. The reasoning behind it is very simple: if
aquaculture is meant to feed the world’s population with high-​quality animal pro-
tein, then why is high-​quality animal protein used to produce it? For example, to
produce 20 million metric tonnes of fed aquaculture in 2002, the industry relied
upon 21–​22 million metric tonnes of wild fish.8
Apart from the economic and social aspects of ingredient sourcing, other elem-
ents have been gaining importance in selecting the components of aquafeed, such
as environmental footprint and import dependency.
Thus, most research regarding aquaculture nutrition, especially carnivorous
species, can be divided into two main categories: one concerning aquafeed
manufacturers, which is the feed components or their ingredients, and the other is
for farmers directly, which is the on-​farm feed management.

16.5.2 Feed ingredients

Aquafeed is the single most expensive part of fed aquaculture production,

representing up to 70% of average production costs. Therefore, feed producers need
to look for substitute ingredients that perform at least as well as fish meal and fish oil.
 New technologies as a means to achieve sustainability 305

Unfortunately, it is not as simple as looking for something with a similar protein

profile. Other factors are involved than only macronutrients, for example, micronu-
trient needs, attractants and repellents, antinutritional factors, palatability, stability
in the water column, and nutrition stability (which means the profile remains the
same after the heat and pressure used to produce the pellets).
Furthermore, the ingredients need to be cheaper than fishmeal, have a lower
environmental impact, be highly available, and have little to no effect on global
food security.
In summary, substitutes need to account for several factors: (a) organism’s nutri-
tion; (b) effective growth; (c) acceptability by the reared organisms; (d) stability
(both for processing and in the water column); (e) storability; (f) cost-​effectiveness;
and (g) null or reduced impact on human food safety and negative environmental
impacts.
Ingredient substitutes for fishmeal come from plants, algae, insects, or other
animal by-​products, especially terrestrial animal productions. In the case of plants,
one of the main sources has been soybean protein, with satisfactory results in terms
of biological and economic performance but with some issues regarding anti-​
nutritional factors and food security. As soy protein is one of the highest resource
proteins for low-​income countries, its use in aquaculture could increase its price
and reduce its availability. Furthermore, soy plantations can have some environ-
mental issues, such as deforestation to increase plantation areas or the use of envir-
onmentally unfriendly chemicals.
Animal by-​products have also been researched for fishmeal and oil substitutes.
Some of the by-​products used are poultry discards (mainly feather meal and oil),
fisheries, and even aquaculture discards (i.e. guts or heads that come from trans-
formation facilities). The good part of these ingredients is that they have no value
for human nutrition and can be revalorised and reintegrated into the economy,
following circular-​economy principles, making the industry a little more sustain-
able. On the downside, these products need much processing; their source might
not be constant, and they have not presented significantly better results in terms
of growth and cost. Furthermore, there is a significant worry about consumer
acceptance of this source of protein for aquaculture species.9
One of the most promising substitute ingredients is the use of microorganisms
such as microalgae, cyanobacteria, yeasts, and bacteria. These cells are easy to
treat, assist management, cheap to grow, and highly available. Furthermore, they
do not present a shock to human global food security and can even improve reared
organisms’ health. Right now, microorganism growth in ponds coupled with indus-
trial feed has improved feed conversion ratios, reducing the use of fishmeal by the
aquaculture industry as a whole. The limitations to serving aquaculture as a whole
are the protein profiles and content of the microorganisms produced, as well as the
scalability of production to serve the aquaculture industry as a whole.10
Finally, an emerging trend is moving towards the production and use of insects as
an alternative protein source for aquafeed. Insects have several advantages from a
high fecundity and short life-​cycle to high protein levels and interesting amino acid
profiles, besides waste management and production. Despite showing promising
306 Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

results, current production costs and availability remain an issue. As a solution,

some authors have proven that a combination of insect meal along with other new
or traditional ingredients has a promising result for new aquafeed formulations.11
Apart from the substitute ingredients, some products have been used in diets
and shown positive effects on growth, such as beta-​glucans, chitin, nucleic acids,
mannan oligosaccharides, beta-​carotene, B-​complex, torulene, and torularhodin.
Others, like amylases, chitinases, phytases, and proteases are used to enhance gut
maturity and digestive enzyme activity in larval stages.
Aquaculture feed formulation and nutrition is one of the most prolific research
areas in the industry. Feed is not only the main cost for fed aquaculture, but also the
main component of the carbon footprint, contributing up to 57% of the total green-
house gas emissions from aquaculture.12 Research is now focused on the reduction
of the GHG emissions associated with feeding practices, at the same time as the
rest of the criteria listed earlier are accounted for.

16.6 Management
One of the most concerning issues regarding aquaculture environmental impacts
is the excessive concentration of nutrients (mainly nitrogen and phosphorus) in
water discharges. It is especially important in fed aquaculture, where most of the
production is done in open or semi-​open systems, with pollutants concentrated in
discharged water. With the intensification of freshwater aquaculture production in
public, semi-​open systems like rivers, lakes, or dams, pollution awareness of such
public water sources has increased.13
Excessive nutrients in water have a significant impact on local resources. The
availability of nitrogen and phosphorus coupled with high water temperatures and
light are a perfect mix for algal blooms. These blooms can come in different forms,
with areas of hypoxia, loss of natural stocks, and even toxic components that may
be harmful to humans, besides having severe adverse effects on other aquaculture
facilities, fisheries, and industries tied to the sea, such as tourism.
The primary source of nutrients present in discharge water is excess feed, espe-
cially in the case of carnivorous species, which need high concentrations of pro-
tein. Non-​consumed feed is harmful to the environment, as it is for the survival of
the farm.
Poorly managed feed strategies can severely affect farm profitability.
Furthermore, it is a vector for the proliferation of pathogenic bacteria and even for
introducing those responsible for other diseases.
Feed strategies can be optimised through the use of data analysis techniques.
Data gathering coupled with computing and software services can improve and
optimise feed use, reducing production costs and minimising negative environ-
mental impacts. The introduction of smart feeders and management platforms
is critical for the aquaculture of the future since the farms that optimise their
operations will be the ones able to produce at lower costs, obtain certifications for
exports, and compete for better prices, eventually making unprofitable the farms
that do not adapt.
 New technologies as a means to achieve sustainability 307

16.7 Traceability
Among the food production systems, aquaculture is the most biologically diverse
in terms of variety.
Agriculture is associated exclusively with the production of plants and their
derivatives. When talking about animal production, it gets even more specific. Very
few non-​vertebrate land animals are produced as a source of human feed. A sig-
nificantly reduced number of species are predominant, all of them vertebrates and,
except for one, mammals: beef, pork, poultry, lamb, and goat.
In the case of aquaculture, all aquatic species, from algae to salmon, are
included. Plants, animals, and microorganisms are currently produced in aquacul-
ture. Among animals, the variety is immense. Vertebrate and invertebrate animals
and their derivatives from an enormous range of phyla are part of today’s aquacul-
ture production.
Apart from the enormous number of options, the final products are often
consumed after processing, making it very difficult to differentiate between them
(is this fillet from flounder or turbot? Is it farmed or is it wild?), which opens the
door to food fraud, that is, selling a food (usually of a lower value) as if it were
some other (usually with greater market appreciation).
On top of consumers knowing what they are eating, nowadays they want to
know how and where their food was produced; if it is friendly to the environment;
if the company has fair wages and how the staff is treated; if it has social and envir-
onmental programmes; and how their consumption will impact the system and its
sustainability.
The process of following a product from farm to fork, information of where the
product comes from, and where it passed through before landing in your hands is
known as traceability.

16.7.1 Why does traceability matter in aquaculture?

Apart from dealing with food fraud, traceability has several other applications and
implications that can make aquaculture a more sustainable form of production.
From a human safety perspective, traceability allows following a disease out-
break (i.e. food poisoning) from the source to the final destination; the specific
products are withdrawn from the market without impacting the industry as a whole
and affecting other producers, while the safety of the products is ensured. Moreover,
some traceability systems follow the cold chain –​that is, the temperature kept from
harvest to plate –​making the products safer for storage and keeping the consumer
informed regarding the treatment of the products bought.
One key aspect that needs to be understood to appreciate the advantages of
traceability to a farm is something called “consumer power” (see Chapter 7), which
refers to the pressure that the consumer’s preference can have on the industry
practices by giving priority to a product that complies with their preferences, even
if said product is more expensive. Today, one of the main preferences for con-
sumers regarding seafood is traceability.
308 Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

Traceability makes it possible to know the source of a product, which alone

provides much information. From reducing the possibility of forced labour to
ensuring good production practices, it is useful to know where the product was
farmed. For example, if one country has higher environmental and social protec-
tion laws than another, knowing that a product comes from the first country prob-
ably makes it more desirable for buyers, giving it a “reward” or a competitive
advantage over the product that has lower responsibility on sustainable production.
The same logic can be applied to certifications, such as Best Aquaculture Practices
(BAP) or the Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC).
Different seafood sources (i.e., farmed vs. wild-​caught) would benefit from a
traceability programme even within the same country. A perfect example is the
case of Mexican shrimp in 2021, where the US (its primary buyer) banned Mexican
industrial fisheries shrimp due to the lack of compliance in the deployment of sea
turtle exclusion devices. Since the ban was only applied to a specific fishery, small-​
scale shrimp fisheries and farmed shrimp commercialisation were open to trading
with the US. Nonetheless, in the absence of an effective traceability programme,
the ban had to be applied to all the shrimp produced in Mexico. A good traceability
programme implementation would have made it possible to differentiate between
products, keeping the US market open for small-​scale fisheries and aquaculture,
and reducing the consequent economic impacts.

16.7.2 Which are the problems and the existing solutions when
implementing traceability?

Even though the principles and benefits of traceability programmes seem pretty
straightforward and logical, implementing a robust traceability system is not that
simple.
A traceability system rests mainly on trust. The consumer trusts that the infor-
mation provided by the producer is reliable and/​or that there is a system that
forces such a producer to tell the truth (i.e., an import restriction or a law). In the
second scenario, the consumer must also trust that the government is implementing
correctly the measures needed to assure that the producer is telling the truth.
Unfortunately, surveillance and compliance are costly and challenging to follow, so
the state has to either trust the producer or perform some sort of random audit; even
so, this method is open to corruption of functionaries and falsification of proof.
One existing method to promote traceability is using molecular biotechnology,
using DNA markers or molecular profiles of the products traded. If the markers are
selected correctly, they can assure the species sold is correct and associate the lot
to a region (in the case of fisheries) or even to a specific hatchery (in the case of
aquaculture) and separating the methods of production at the same time (farmed
vs. wild-​caught). The main problem with this method is the cost of carrying out
the laboratory tests on each batch and the pace at which these tests are carried out,
which might be too slow to keep up with the industry trade rate.
Another existing solution is the use of information technologies. One of the most
important research trends in the food sector is electronic traceability and condition
 New technologies as a means to achieve sustainability 309

monitoring with technologies such as radio frequency identification (RFID), QR

codes, and wireless sensor networks. The case of QR codes is especially interesting
due to the reduced associated costs as opposed to RFIDs.
Apart from the hardware used, the core issue of traceability, which is trust,
remains. To face this problem, the aquaculture industry looked into an innova-
tive solution developed to attack that same issue in the finance world. The answer
was found in the development of Bitcoin, and it refers to the backbone of all
cryptocurrencies, Blockchain.
As its name describes, Blockchain is nothing but a chain of transactions
characterised by a series of data blocks. For this purpose, a data block is developed
(for example, a fish lot) and then its movement throughout the production chain is
logged and saved in a server. This is fairly simple and not innovative at all. The
innovation of Blockchain is the architecture by which this system provides confi-
dence, and it is mainly done by two means:

Security: All blocks are encrypted, meaning no one can change what is written
in a block. Once logged, data cannot be modified, and the register persists no
matter what.
Community: Several users (also known as nodes) who are in charge of verifying
the transactions need to validate them, and thus the block corresponding to that
transaction is registered.

In the case of food traceability, a third point is crucial for it to work:

Transparency: All blockchain network users need to be able to see all transactions
made along the chain. In this manner, the consumers can make an informed
decision on what they are buying.

In the case of the food industry, the “nodes” are somewhat a sensible component
of the chain. Validating the transactions and composing the chain, in the case of
bitcoin, is done by a process known as mining. Since validating the transactions
requires much computing power, energy, and time, the miners are rewarded with,
in this example, bitcoins. In the case of food, one cannot reward the miners with
the product itself, so there is a centralised third party, which needs to be a trusted
intermediary that takes the role of validating the blocks, always in a transparent
way, and that charges for the validating or mining service.
As described in this text, food product traceability, especially in the case of
fish and shellfish, is a crucial component of sustainable aquaculture. Society is
more aware than ever that action needs to be taken urgently if climate change
is to be mitigated to some degree. Furthermore, it becomes clear that production
needs to change to better practices if it intends to, at least, keep producing feed for
humanity at the same rate indefinitely. When combined, the technologies that have
been described in this chapter can produce higher amounts of product at lower
costs and with a smaller ecological footprint. Implementation is sometimes diffi-
cult and costly, but it is the only way of maintaining aquaculture in the long run.
310 Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

On that note, governments have an opportunity to subsidise aquaculture logically

and sustainably through the availability of cheap credits and insurance that reduce
the risks to farmers, which is already high, incentivising them to take action, and
making way for a better and cleaner aquaculture industry.

16.8 Final remarks

As we have seen in this book, aquaculture already plays a significant role in securing
access to highly nutritious protein in several countries, especially developing ones.
Furthermore, the industry is starting to become a significant player in the economic
development of some of these countries, being a noteworthy source of jobs, foreign
exchange, and development in rural areas. Nonetheless, current aquaculture pro-
duction is not sufficient to satisfy the world’s future demand for fish and shellfish,
and the capacity of commercial fisheries to do so is limited by the natural avail-
ability of the stocks and the necessity of managing them sustainably. Therefore,
to meet future aquatic feed demand, aquaculture needs to keep growing, but, to
avoid unwanted environmental damage and to keep the industry going for future
generations, this growth needs to happen sustainably.
Technological advances and development are the only way to continue sustain-
ably increasing the world’s aquaculture production. The technologies described in
this chapter are only a few of the different applications researchers and industry
leaders have developed, but there are several more and, usually, they depend sig-
nificantly on the species produced. To keep improving the industry and maintaining
the sustainable course that aquaculture has started, continuous support of research,
both basic and applied, is a necessity. Not only aquaculture-​specific research is
needed to grow sustainably, but as we have seen, aquaculture’s sustainability is a
multi-​and intradisciplinary endeavour, touching several disciplines from the bio-
logical sciences such as genetics, ecology, physiology, and aetiology, all the way to
social sciences including economics, law, and political sciences, and even engin-
eering approaches, to further develop and apply infrastructure and equipment that
can improve the use of resources.
Unfortunately, research and technological advances are only a part of the puzzle.
Public and private governance structures need to work in sync to further grow
the industry sustainably. A correct legal framework to develop public policy and
properly allocate funds to the industry to promote the application of sustainable
technologies at the same time as the environmental, economic, social, and even
ethical components of aquaculture are accounted for is a significant challenge, but
this is an essential task for governments, producers, decision-​makers, and all of
aquaculture’s value chain stakeholders.
Aquaculture is a human necessity and its growth is not only desired but inev-
itable. How we direct and control this growth will determine the sustainability of
the industry.
 New technologies as a means to achieve sustainability 311

16.9 Chapter review questions

1 Which are the main aspects a technology needs to consider to be considered a
“sustainable technology” in the aquaculture industry?
2 Can you think of an additional category of technologies that is not covered in
this chapter?
3 Which group of technologies do you think could have a greater impact on the
sustainability of the industry?
4 How can traceability improve the sustainability of the aquaculture industry?

Recommended readings
Antonucci, F., & Costa, C. (2020). Precision aquaculture: A short review on engineering
innovations. Aquaculture International, 28(1), 41–​57.
Falconer, L., Middelboe, A. L., Kaas, H., Ross, L. G., & Telfer, T. C. (2020). Use of geo-
graphic information systems for aquaculture and recommendations for development of
spatial tools. Reviews in Aquaculture, 12(2), 664–​677.
García-​Poza, S., Leandro, A., Cotas, C., Cotas, J., Marques, J. C., Pereira, L., & Gonçalves,
A. M. (2020). The evolution road of seaweed aquaculture: cultivation technologies and
the industry 4.0. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health,
17(18), 6528.
Granada, L., Lemos, M. F., Cabral, H. N., Bossier, P., & Novais, S. C. (2018). Epigenetics in
aquaculture –​the last frontier. Reviews in Aquaculture, 10(4), 994–​1013.
Hough, C. (2022). Regional Review on Status and Trends in Aquaculture Development in
Europe –​2020. Food & Agriculture Org.
Lorenzo, J. M., & Simal-​Gandara, J. (Eds.). (2021). Sustainable Aquafeeds: Technological
Innovation and Novel Ingredients. CRC Press.
Perković, L. et al. (2022). Biotechnological enhancement of probiotics through co-​cultivation
with algae: Future or a trend?. Marine Drugs, 20(2), 142.
Prapti, D. R., Mohamed Shariff, A. R., Che Man, H., Ramli, N. M., Perumal, T., & Shariff,
M. (2022). Internet of Things (IoT)-​based aquaculture: An overview of IoT application
on water quality monitoring. Reviews in Aquaculture, 14(2), 979–​992.
Shen, Y., & Yue, G. (2019). Current status of research on aquaculture genetics and genomics-​
information from ISGA 2018. Aquaculture and Fisheries, 4(2), 43–​47.
Vo, T. T. E., Ko, H., Huh, J. H., & Park, N. (2021). Overview of solar energy for aquacul-
ture: The potential and future trends. Energies, 14(21), 6923.
Vu, C. (2021). Global trends 2040: A hyperconnected future?. https://​ccn.unis​tra.fr/​websi​
tes/​ccn/​docume​ntat​ion/​IA-​Tech​nolo​gie/​CO21​061.pdf
Xu, Y., Li, X., Zeng, X., Cao, J., & Jiang, W. (2022). Application of blockchain technology
in food safety control: Current trends and future prospects. Critical Reviews in Food
Science and Nutrition, 62(10), 2800–​2819.
Yue, K., & Shen, Y. (2021). An Overview of Disruptive Technologies for Aquaculture.
Aquaculture and Fisheries.
312 Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

Box 16.1 Data as the most valuable resource in the aquaculture

industry
Ciaron McKinley
CEO of Shrimpl Pte. Ltd.

“If you can’t measure it you cannot improve it”. Although this is attributed
to several authors, from Lord Kelvin to Antoine-​Augustin Cournot and the
authorship is not clear, the reasoning behind it is sound and is one of the core
ideas behind business management.
Data, understood as information collected for its use, are the foundation of
business and particularly a sustainable and profitable one.
From a historical perspective, data have always played a crucial role
in optimisation. In the past, businesses relied on handwritten ledgers,
spreadsheets, and other manual records to store and manage information.
The data have always been in the production ecosystems. However, for some
industries, the technologies and methodologies have not been readily avail-
able for business owners prior to the advent of standardised digital tech-
nology platforms revolutionising how data are collected, structured, stored,
analysed, and utilised by businesses.

1 Data collection The advancements of data collection solutions for aqua-

culture are advancing to encompass a previously unmeasurable amount of
information. A broad array of data from analogue sensors, digital sensors,
optical sensors, sonar, industrial automation software, the Internet of
Things, and traditional information such as financial records and pri-
cing data can all be collected in seconds from application programming
interfaces (APIs).
2 Data management Challenges for all data users are dealing with the volume
(size), variety (structured/​unstructured), velocity (speed of data), and ver-
acity (reliability and predictability of imprecise data) of the data collected.
However, the technology to automate these processes and data architectures
is now handled by software platforms that are readily available.
3 Analysis Data analytics is the process by which businesses use statistical
methods and technologies for analysing data in order to gain insights and
improve their strategic decision-​making. The process used by sophisticated
aquaculture platforms follows three key elements.
a Descriptive analytics:
This tells us what has already happened; it is used to uncover trends
and patterns and display visual data representations like line, bar, and
pie charts.
b Predictive analytics: This shows us what could happen and uses prob-
abilities to make assessments of what could happen in the future. It
uses statistical modelling and machine learning techniques to identify
the likelihood of future outcomes based on historical data.
 New technologies as a means to achieve sustainability 313

c Prescriptive analytics: This informs businesses what should happen in

the future; it shows the business which option is the best for the given
situation.
Whilst each of these methods is incredibly useful when used individually,
they become more powerful when used together.

4 Implementation A single data series can have significant value for a spe-
cific use case, such as measuring chemical compounds or temperature.
That data can also be reused across multiple domains and applications to
enable biological optimisation, cost optimisation, and labour optimisa-
tion. Importantly, when taking a holistic approach and combining these
individual data series into bioeconomic and predictive analysis models,
we can begin to statistically reduce risk, and enable financial services,
insurance, and optimised sales outcomes. By leveraging data effectively,
businesses can make data-​driven and risk-​conscious decisions, improve
operational efficiency, and be able to deliver and receive tailored solutions,
ultimately driving growth and success.

Data: The creator of value

Optimising aquaculture production requires a holistic approach that considers
multiple parameters and integrates various facets of the production process
and value chain. Focusing solely on one aspect without considering the inter-
connectedness of the entire components of the production ecosystem can
indeed lead to suboptimal results, resource waste, and missed opportunities.
To create a sustainable production ecosystem, the industry must focus
on value creation and not value transfer. This can only be achieved through
sound data management and analysis to increase efficiencies and add value
to the produced product that can be authenticated and traced through the data
recorded.

Note
i Aquamimicry is a management technology that aims to mimic the nature of aquatic
ecosystems through promoting growth of beneficial bacteria and microalgae while also
promoting the presence of other zooplanktonic organisms that do not represent a risk for
the species produced.

References
1 Reis, J., Peixoto, S., Soares, R., Rhodes, M., Ching, C., & Davis, D. A. (2022). Passive
acoustic monitoring as a tool to assess feed response and growth of shrimp in ponds and
research systems. Aquaculture, 546, 737326.
314 Daniel Peñalosa Martinell

2 Gupta, A., Bringsdal, E., Knausgård, K. M., & Goodwin, M. (2022). Accurate wound
and lice detection in Atlantic salmon fish using a convolutional neural network. Fishes,
7(6), 345.
3 Mustapha, U. F. et al. (2021). Sustainable aquaculture development: A review on the
roles of cloud computing, internet of things and artificial intelligence (CIA). Reviews
in Aquaculture, 13(4), 2076–​2091.
4 Gernez, P., Palmer, S. C., Thomas, Y., & Forster, R. (2021). Remote sensing for aqua-
culture. Frontiers in Marine Science, 7, 638156.
5 Mohanakumaran Nair, C. et al. (2006). Economic analysis of monosex culture of giant
freshwater prawn (Macrobrachium rosenbergii De Man): A case study. Aquaculture
Research, 37(9), 949–​954.
6 Limborg, M. T., Alberdi, A., Kodama, M., Roggenbuck, M., Kristiansen, K., & Gilbert,
M. T. P. (2018). Applied hologenomics: Feasibility and potential in aquaculture. Trends
in Biotechnology, 36(3), 252–​264.
7 Peñalosa Martinell, D. et al. (2006). Closing the high seas to fisheries: Possible impacts
on aquaculture. Marine Policy, 115, 103854.
8 Tacon, A. G. (2004). Use of fish meal and fish oil in aquaculture: a global perspective.
Aquatic Resources, Culture and Development, (2004), 12-​pp.
9 Luthada-​Raswiswi, R., Mukaratirwa, S., & O’Brien, G. (2021). Animal protein sources
as a substitute for fishmeal in aquaculture diets: A systematic review and meta-​analysis.
Applied Sciences, 11(9), 3854.
10 Hua, K., Jennifer, M. C., Andrew, C., Kelly, C,, Dean, R. J,, Arnold, M., Christina, P.
et al. (2019). The future of aquatic protein: implications for protein sources in aquacul-
ture diets. One Earth, 1(3), 316–​329.
11 Tran, H. Q., Nguyen, T. T., Prokešová, M., Gebauer, T., Doan, H. V., & Stejskal, V.
(2022). Systematic review and meta-​analysis of production performance of aquaculture
species fed dietary insect meals. Reviews in Aquaculture, 14(3), 1637–​1655.
12 MacLeod, M. J., Hasan, M. R., Robb, D. H., & Mamun-​Ur-​Rashid, M. (2020).
Quantifying greenhouse gas emissions from global aquaculture. Scientific Reports,
10(1), 11679.
13 Boyd, C. E., Louis, R. D., Brent, D. G., David, C. H., Lorenzo, M. J., George, S. L.,
Aaron, A. M. et al. (2020). Achieving sustainable aquaculture: Historical and current
perspectives and future needs and challenges. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society,
51(3), 578–​633.
Part VI

Future expectations
17 Future directions
Francisco J. Vergara-​Solana

As we saw in Chapter 16, several exciting innovations are being developed in the
aquaculture sector. However, the sector’s future is not only based on developing
new technologies.
Innovation in aquaculture is also driven by the sector’s maturation and oppor-
tunities that arise from changes in society. These changes include new regulations,
shifts in consumption patterns, increased environmental awareness, and
advancements in technology.
In this way, even though we lack a crystal ball to predict the future of aquacul-
ture, we do know society’s needs and how industries and products are likely to
change over the course of their existence. We can create ideas on the path the aqua-
culture sector and its subsectors will take using this knowledge.
This chapter is divided into two main sections based on this logic. The first
discusses the stages that businesses and industries often go through as they develop,
while the second examines the market opportunities in the aquaculture sector.

17.1 Introduction
Over the last few decades, we have seen exciting technological developments.
For example, computing power has grown exponentially, the Internet has become
faster and more accessible worldwide with satellite constellations, and drones are
now widespread work tools. As discussed in the previous chapter, these techno-
logical developments have driven the development of several exciting innovations
in the aquaculture sector. However, the sector’s future is based on more than just
developing new technologies. Instead, innovation in aquaculture is driven by the
sector’s maturation and the opportunities that arise from societal changes in a
broader sense.
Societal changes are the force that drives and directs the evolution of all indus-
tries. These drivers can be diverse in nature; to mention a few examples, they could
come from new regulations, household income distribution changes, migration,
increased environmental awareness, and advancements in technology that can
make production more efficient.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003174271-23
318 Francisco J. Vergara-Solana

Although we do not have a crystal ball to foresee the aquaculture future, we know
society’s needs and the expected evolution of products and industries throughout
their life cycle. With this logic, this chapter is divided into two main sections. The
first deals with the phases that products and industries usually go through as they
mature, and the second analyses the aquaculture sector opportunity landscape.
With this information, in this chapter, we will discover notions of the direction
that the aquaculture sector and its subsectors could take. In this case, this exercise
is carried out from the perspective of aquaculture in general with a global vision.
However, using the same logic, this approach can also detect driving forces and
trends in specific aquacultural situations.

17.2 Aquaculture life cycle

One strategy that can guide us to infer the direction aquaculture will take is by
reviewing the life cycle of products.1 Reviewing the life cycle of products in
different industries will first help us to understand what phase aquaculture is in
as an industry or each of its subsectors (e.g., salmon farming, feed production,
cephalopod aquaculture), so that once we understand what stage they are in, we
can contextualise the various changes and situations we see today (and that we
have addressed throughout this book) and lay the groundwork for inferring what
changes could come as the industry matures.
It is generally considered that the product life cycle can be divided into four
phases or stages: (i) development, (ii) growth, (iii) maturation, and (iv) decline
(Figure 17.1). These phases are commonly related to changes in sales volume over
time. The duration of each stage will vary in each case, depending, for example,

Figure 17.1 Product life cycle stages.

Source: Modified from Levitt (1965).
 Future directions 319

on each product’s value proposition, the market needs at the time of launch, or the
presence of substitute products.1 For example, the life cycle curve of a new shrimp
genetic line with better feed conversion and growth will have more accelerated
growth towards maturity than a water filter technology. This is because there are
several alternatives to filtration systems, and probably the companies that are oper-
ating have already made an investment that solves this need, while the change of
shrimp seedling can be done from one cycle to another and has the potential to
impact the profitability of the farm immediately.

17.2.1 Stage 1 –​Development

The first phase, the development stage, is characterised as being the first approach
of a product, or service, to the market. Therefore, it is often in this phase that the
need for the product (demand) is validated. At this stage, the products usually have
several shortcomings in their value proposition (minimum viable product), the
sales volume is usually short, and the products are usually comparatively expen-
sive, with modest profit margins (sometimes even with losses).
In this first stage, products are usually first tested by early adopters, who are usu-
ally well-​informed consumers who follow the development of a particular sector.
In this phase, two situations can occur: if the product is successful and the market is
validated, the sales volume will grow, and there will be an incentive to improve the
product, its production, and subsequent commercialisation, but if not, the product
will disappear from the market.
This situation makes this stage very risky from the investor’s point of view.
The risk of developing products, especially getting them to market, is big because
this phase requires significant investments. Furthermore, these investments can be
lost if the product fails to the next stage. However, on the other hand, the poten-
tial reward for early-​stage investors is attractive; if the product is successful, they
will be the first to take advantage of the opportunity. Because of this risk and the
time required to develop some products, it is not uncommon to see subsidies at this
stage, such as research projects financed by governments or philanthropic funds
(e.g., research to close a cycle of a new aquaculture species).
An example of an aquaculture-​related product in the development stage is cell-​
based seafood, also known as cultivated cell seafood. These products are based on
the culture in bioreactors of muscle, fat, and connective tissue cells extracted from
biopsies of species of commercial interest (e.g., extra fatty and extra expensive
Bluefin O-​toro) and then reconstituted to formulate products.
Currently, more than 20 companies with significant investments are working
on optimising and scaling up production of these cell-​based seafood products.
Products derived from this technology are expected to reach the final consumer by
2030. Cell-​based seafood is not only an exciting technology but also has generated
much speculation from the business side. This is due to the growing demand for
seafood, the nutrient and energy efficiency of this type of production, and it is
cruelty-​free and molecularly identical to wild seafood.
320 Francisco J. Vergara-Solana

Along with cell-​based seafood, some other products and technologies are in the
development phase, such as the application of machine learning, development of
the cultivation of new species (e.g., octopus aquaculture), or blockchain to improve
traceability. These, and other examples, present a lot of risk at this stage but have
great growth potential,2,3 a situation that, as mentioned above, is a characteristic of
the development phase.
The acceptance and competitiveness of these novel technologies and other
innovations concerning current solutions remains to be seen, to confirm whether
they will develop in the next stage or disappear as others have done in the past.
For example, at the beginning of shrimp farming, the cultivation of several species
of shrimp was tested and stopped being produced (e.g., yellowleg shrimp); due to
growth, efficiency, behaviour, and the market, the industry is currently dominated
by whiteleg shrimp and tiger prawns.

17.2.2 Stage 2 –​Growth

Once the product or service demand is demonstrated, the incentive to fine-​tune the
product, production, and marketing is generated. At this point, products enter the
accelerated growth phase, also known as take-​off. This phase is especially attractive
for investors since validation risk ceases to exist. At this stage, profit margins tend to
be attractive, and there is a lot of speculation about the market potential. However,
on the other hand, this phase of the product life cycle is characterised by being a
highly competitive space with many players since there are usually relatively few
entry barriers for those who want to try to seize this new business opportunity.
Aquaculture as an industry is an example of a sector in the growth phase. This
is evidenced by aquaculture being the fastest-​growing food production sector in the
world (although growth rates are tending to stabilise4). According to FAO data from
2016 to 2018, aquaculture has had an average annual growth of 3.6%, registering a
faster growth than the world population (1.1% per year) (Figure 17.2). This accelerated
increase reflects the business and investment opportunities offered by this sector.
The aquaculture sector has many examples of products in the growth phase
at the product level. For example, the finfish farming sector has several well-​
established species, such as salmon, but several species are moving from the devel-
opment stage to the growth stage. Due to price, demand, and growth potential,
these species, such as jacks of the genus Seriola (amberjack, yellowtail), cobia,
and red snapper, generate attractive business opportunities, so it is expected that
production of these species will increase rapidly in the near future.

17.2.3 Stage 3 –​Maturation

As the product matures, there is a point where sales growth slows down and begins
to stabilise, tending to be asymptotic or with marginal growth. This stage is when
the industry or product is considered to be in a mature stage. It should be noted that
a product can remain indefinitely in this stage (or generate small growth in specific
periods), generating new presentations, seeking new market segments, or through
innovations to remain relevant for the consumer5 (Figure 17.3).
 Future directions 321

Figure 17.2 Historical data and compound annual rate of world aquaculture production, as
well as global population growth.
Sources: Data from FAO (2022) and World Bank (2020).

Figure 17.3 Hypothetical life cycle of a product that extended its life cycle.
Source: Modified from Levitt (1965).
322 Francisco J. Vergara-Solana

This stage is characterised by being capital intensive, meaning that significant

investments are required to be competitive in this space. On the other hand, the
market volume is usually attractive (i.e., the volume of sales), and profit margins
per unit sold tend to be lower and lower. Thus, only the most efficient companies
are those that will remain in business.
The automotive industry, for example, is a sector that has been in the maturation
stage for many decades. Some characteristic signs of this stage are that in the com-
petitive space, relatively few manufacturers have acquired several firms throughout
their history. Manufacturers are large companies that, in search of efficiency, are
well integrated along the entire value chain, and each link is highly specialised. In
turn, through the creation of new segments, the development of new technologies,
and innovations, this sector has been able to generate constant extensions of its life
cycle (Figure 17.3).
Due to the need to optimise operations in the maturation phase, fusions and
acquisitions of companies are common, as well as the presence of public com-
panies (i.e., that sell shares on stock exchanges). Similarly, players in this space
constantly implement strategies to use capital efficiently. Many of the firms are
vertically integrated. For example, in aquaculture, a group can own several firms
in different value chain links (e.g., seed production, fattening, feed production, and
marketing). It is also characterised by the emergence of specialised companies that
offer peripheral services to the sector (for example, harvesting services or mainten-
ance of grow-​out pens).
Although, as mentioned in the previous section, the aquaculture sector is clearly
in a growth phase, some subsectors could be considered to show signs of maturity.
For example, despite maintaining attractive growth (compound annual rate from
2016 to 2018 of 4.11%), salmon farming is a subsector with relatively few players
with high capitalisation and technification. In addition, it has global supply chains
and satellite companies that provide highly specialised services. In addition, pro-
duction has been significantly optimised, making salmon increasingly accessible to
eat. This product has gone on a few years from being a sumptuous product intended
only for special occasions to a staple commodity of many families.6

17.2.4 Stage 4 –​Decline

Finally, if products do not innovate, substitute products emerge with a more attractive
value proposition, or consumption patterns simply change, the products tend to enter
a stage of decline and may even disappear from the market. A classic example is that
businesses dedicated to renting movies in physical format disappeared due to the emer-
gence of streaming. An example closer to the aquaculture sector is the disuse of hen-
equen (a natural fibre) to manufacture nets due to the emergence of synthetic fibres.

17.3 Aquaculture opportunity landscape

Knowing what characteristics distinguish each stage of the life cycle of industries
and products is by itself a valuable tool for inferring the future directions of the
 Future directions 323

sector. This is a strategy that allows us to be able to analyse any particular situ-
ation of interest in aquaculture and infer what stage it is in and what to expect as
it matures.
Another strategy that can give us elements to infer the aquaculture sector’s
future direction or some of its elements is to review the forces that generate the
sector’s trends. To clarify what we mean by this point, it is easier to do this using an
example. An example of force is the changes in several countries’ regulations that
now restrict antibiotic concentrations in food. In response to this force, the industry
has demanded solutions, which are the trends. In this example, the trends could
be the use of probiotics that, through competitive exclusion, displace pathogens,
another trend in this same line would be improvements in management systems to
reduce bacteria proliferation or the selection of genetic lines with a higher degree
of pathogen resistance.
One way to perform this kind of analysis to have more clarity on the sector
direction is through an opportunity analysis. Several methodologies can guide us
in performing this type of analysis. One of the best-​known is the PESTLE ana-
lysis, which is the mnemonic of Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Legal,
and Ecological. The PESTLE model can also be expanded to STEEPLE and
STEEPLED by adding Ethical and Demographic factors.
To perform the PESTLE analysis, it is necessary to address each aspect (e.g.,
Political, Legal, Ecological) separately. To develop each segment, we must ask
ourselves questions that help us understand the current and future situations of
each analysis dimension. For example, from the political perspective, what is the
region’s political situation where we want to install an aquaculture production unit,
and how could it affect the project? From the economic perspective, what are the
economic perspectives of our target market? For the social dimension, it could be,
what social considerations exist in the region where we want to work? Or what
social or cultural aspects affect our market (e.g., such as Lent, which in markets
with a high percentage of Catholics generates considerable demand for seafood at
one time of the year)? For the technological dimension, it could be, what are the
innovations that are on the horizon that could affect the market structure? Or for
example, from the legal perspective, what are the current legislations and proposed
laws that could affect a given project? Finally, from the environmental perspec-
tive, what are the industry’s concerns? These questions are examples, since the
method is not prescriptive in terms of the structure of the questions, these must be
formulated depending on each project or situation.
Another tool that can be used to perform an opportunity landscape analysis is
the methodology of Dr. James V. Green of the University of Maryland called The
Opportunity Analysis Canvas. This methodology is based on a canvas with nine
sections (Figure 17.4) with different aspects to consider. It is like PESTLE, but
with a more extensive scope. This is due to the fact that the sections are grouped
into three. The first is an analysis of the entrepreneur where topics such as mindset
and motivation are explored. The second comprises four sections covering various
sectoral and market aspects. The last one is designed to use the information from
the first two sections for the identification of a business opportunity.
324 Francisco J. Vergara-Solana

Figure 17.4 Opportunity analysis canvas. Dark grey corresponds to the entrepreneur-​related

components. Light grey refers to the sections of the business opportunity iden-
tification. The white section represents the market and sectoral components.
Source: Modified from Green (2015).

From an entrepreneur’s perspective, taking advantage of these tools (and others

that exist to analyse the opportunity) is very useful to generate the elements to
develop a business model that capitalises on the opportunity. From a company’s
management perspective, these tools provide the basis for strategic decision-​making
(e.g., to invest in research and development or to develop a new product or service).
However, they are also helpful in inferring the future direction of a sector since these
tools help to detect sector trends, trends that generate incentives to develop research
or to attract investment since opportunities are like a void that tends to be filled.
In this case, to outline some areas of opportunity in the aquaculture sector,
which can be used to infer the future directions of the industry, we will address two
modules of the opportunity landscape analysis methodology: (i) macroeconomic
change and (ii) industry condition. This exercise will be carried out from the per-
spective of aquaculture in general with a global vision, dissecting the sector’s trends
in each analysis module. It is essential to clarify that this exercise can be done to
address specific projects or problems (e.g., aquaculture in Canada, formulated feed
development, alternatives to the use of antibiotics, harvesting technology) where
the methodology will give different results.

17.3.1 Macroeconomic change

In this first module, we will analyse macroeconomic change, where we will seek
to explore how significant changes in society generate opportunities. This is to
 Future directions 325

identify a gap between this societal change and the industry; as we mentioned
previously, this gap is fertile ground for developing new businesses or changes in
how business is done. So it is a strategy to detect where the future direction of the
sector is pointing.
To analyse these macroeconomic changes, we will do so from several
perspectives such as the PESTLE analysis. First, we will review the new technolo-
gies, which, as we saw in Chapter16, generate profound changes and, therefore,
exciting opportunities. Then we will review the opportunities brought about by
demographic changes, such as social health, the average age, or changes in the
average income of a region, all of which have repercussions on seafood consump-
tion. We will then look at the opportunities arising from societal psychographic
changes (i.e., the psychological traits of consumers, such as lifestyle, feelings,
interests, concerns, and desires), such as concerns about climate change or the
importance of community support. Finally, we will evaluate policy and regulatory
changes, such as changes in regulations related to water discharges and the use of
antibiotics for disease control.

17.3.2 Technological change

The development of new technology is probably the situation that has the most
significant potential to generate opportunities and change the way business is
done in a given industry. This is because, as technology evolves, new markets
are generated or modified, creating incentives for companies to try to compete
to take advantage of them. For example, broadband Internet enabled movie
streaming, which led to a change in the business model of how to rent multi-
media content (it is no longer necessary to go to a physical store to see if there
is the availability of the movie of interest), this allowed the creation of new
companies and others, which did not adapt, closed. In the aquaculture con-
text, this technology has allowed remote monitoring of production units, cloud
computing, and logistics optimisation, among other areas of opportunity.7 New
business opportunities have arisen in each of these areas, which in turn has been
transforming the sector.
It is clear that not all technologies have the same disruptive potential; we cannot
compare the market-​changing potential of the Internet with that of a new, more
energy-​efficient water pump design (i.e., inverter technology). However, regard-
less of the magnitude, every technological change derives new opportunities. As
long as it has commercial potential, it has to be technically feasible, and the eco-
nomic benefits outweigh the costs, including the cost of change.
In Chapter 16 there is a detailed review of some of the new aquaculture
technologies. The most widespread innovations that will drive the evolution
of aquaculture are digital technologies (such as automation, the Internet of
Things, and cloud computing). Other important areas are breeding and gen-
etics, systems and infrastructure technology innovations, biotechnology, nutri-
tion, and traceability.
326 Francisco J. Vergara-Solana

17.3.3 Demographic change

The objective of demography is to statistically analyse changes in populations. The

field of demography focuses on the statistical analysis of the status and dynamics
of these populations. Among the demographic variables of state, size, geographic
distribution, age structure, and gender distribution stand out. Meanwhile those
of dynamics highlight fertility, mortality, and migration. From the perspective
of business opportunities, any change in these variables leads to changes in the
markets since the demand for products and services is modified.
Some examples of this relationship are the demographic growth of developing
countries concerning developed countries. This means that seafood consumption in
certain countries will grow faster than in others, regardless of per capita consump-
tion, thus opening up opportunities for the sector in these areas, such as expanding
domestic production. Another example, in contrast, may be that many countries
have an aging population or an unhealthier society. This situation will translate
into demand for species considered healthier options, such as salmon, which is
recognised for its omega content, or the production of supplements with omegas
from microalgae or seafood processing. Another example is how migration phe-
nomena cause an ethnic diversity increase, opening up clear opportunities for spe-
cific products in new areas.
From a global perspective, it is predicted that these demographic changes will
result in the need to increase production by 35–​40% by 2030, to supply the popu-
lation with nutritious food. This need is obviously favourable for aquaculture as an
engine that will generate many business opportunities in the sector. This projected
growth in demand will probably require the intensification and technification
of production systems without losing sight of the fact that this growth must be
sustainable.

17.3.4 Psychographic change

Although psychographics is related to demographics, they are different concepts.

Psychographics refers to the characterisation of populations according to psycho-
logical criteria, for example, how consumers think, their personality, values, life-
style, fears, and preferences. This is a handy tool to anticipate changes in demand,
which is why consumer segmentation by psychographic variables is a common
marketing strategy. For example, from how Nespresso promotes itself, it is clear
that it is a brand focused on people with refined tastes. This can be seen in the
details around its image, its designs, the ads’ personalities, and even the font used
in its promotions.
An example of how changes in psychographics transform markets can be seen
in how health concerns and environmental care have increased the preference for
organic agricultural products. A few years ago, these products were difficult to
find and could only be found in some supermarkets. Now they are no longer at the
back of the shelf. There are sections dedicated to this type of product, and there
are now specialised retail chains where only these types of products can be found.
 Future directions 327

Figure 17.5 Most concerning environmental threats for North American fish and seafood
consumers.
Source: Modified from GlobeScan (2020).

Evidently, this market signal has had repercussions throughout the entire supply
chain of agricultural products.
Although there are regional differences in seafood consumption, in general, the
main environmental concerns of consumers are climate change, pollution, and bio-
diversity loss. On the other hand, freshness, safety, taste, and sustainability are the
primary motivators that trigger the consumer’s purchasing decision. It is worth
noting that these buying motivators are more relevant in many cases than price
(Figures 17.5 and 17.6).
These concerns, and these preferences, translate into market trends such as the
search for healthy products (e.g., products with high omega content), preference
for local consumption to reduce the carbon footprint of our purchases as well as to
consume fresher products, changes in packaging aiming to minimise plastic use,
the preference to purchase sustainable aquaculture products (no use of antibiotics,
formulation of balanced feed from sustainable sources, reducing the impact of
their water discharges, etc.). To satisfy these preferences, traceability systems and
328 Francisco J. Vergara-Solana

Figure 17.6 Top drivers of fish and seafood purchase in North America.

Source: GlobeScan (2020).

independent certifications with credible sustainability standards (e.g., ASC, BAP)

are tools that are clearly aligned with these trends.

17.3.5 Political and regulatory change

Policy and regulatory changes can generate opportunities in different ways. This
can be through implementing norms to regulate the activity or public policies dir-
ectly related to productivity, such as imposing taxes or subsidies.
The beginning of Mexican shrimp farming is an example of how a regulatory
change unrelated to productivity can generate opportunities. When shrimp farming
began in this country, participation was restricted to social groups (cooperatives).
However, this restriction was lifted at a certain point, and the private sector was
given the option to participate in the industry, which generated many opportunities
and detonated the growth of the sector. On the other hand, a regulatory change
associated with production may be that, in several countries, taxes are charged
 Future directions 329

for the volume of discharged water due to the contamination it generates. This tax
generates an incentive to improve practices on farms and creates business oppor-
tunities in formulating optimised feed to maintain water quality, for the design of
better filtration systems, or for using probiotic bacteria to maintain water quality.
Some global regulatory trends are already generating changes in how business
is done in the seafood industry. One of these is the development of traceability
systems by several governments (e.g., the Seafood Import Monitoring Program
implemented by NOAA in the USA) as a strategy to mitigate some of the main
problems of the seafood industry, such as IUU (Illegal, Underreported, and
Unregulated) fishing, product substitution, and forced and child labour. In this
sense, there is a clear opportunity for solutions that help exporters to comply with
these traceability requirements or mitigate the risk of importers acquiring non-​
compliant products (since they are legally responsible in case of infringement).
Another clear trend is that governments are increasingly monitoring sea-
food imports more and more efficiently to evaluate product safety, searching
for pathogens, and evaluate the concentration of antibiotics. As for antibiotics,
their use is increasingly controlled due to the emergence of resistant bacteria. In
response, countries are also increasingly regulating the use of antibiotics in their
production units. Because of this situation, several clear trends exist, such as the
improvement of production systems and the search for antibiotic alternatives. In
this line, there are several alternatives to reduce antibiotic use, for example, genetic
improvement, bioremediation (e.g. use of lumpfish to control sea lice in salmon
farming), bacteriophages (i.e., viruses that infect bacteria), and natural compounds
(e.g., essential oils).
The opportunities generated by political and regulatory changes will vary
depending on the countries where production occurs or the target market. In this
sense, the opportunities generated for an aquaculture product produced in Thailand
and consumed in China will differ from the Ecuadorian production marketed in
the USA. It is therefore advisable to evaluate how regulatory changes can lead to
opportunities in each case.

17.4 Industry condition

In order to develop this section, two points are addressed. The first is the knowledge
conditions required to participate in the industry, and the second, which refers to
the market demand in the industry of interest.
Before going into the details of the module, it is essential to describe what we
mean by the word industry. By industry, we mean a broad economic activity cat-
egory. For example, aquaculture could be considered an industry, but a project
that serves the aquaculture industry could belong to another industry. For example,
suppose we develop vaccines for fish. In that case, the project could be considered
to belong to the pharma industry, or perhaps we are referring to a logistics pro-
ject which would be part of the transportation and warehousing industry. Other
examples of industries that could be associated with aquaculture include finance
330 Francisco J. Vergara-Solana

and insurance, waste management and remediation services, and professional sci-
entific and technical services, to mention a few.
Therefore, although this book focuses on aquaculture, an aquaculture-​related
project may belong to another industry. In this sense, the success and develop-
ment potential of a given project or technology will depend to a large extent on
the correct industry selection. As we saw in the previous section (i.e., industry life
cycle), not all industries favour new players.

17.4.1 Knowledge condition

In this context, knowledge condition means the amount and type of knowledge
needed to participate in an industry. In general, those areas that require a lot of
knowledge are attractive to investments and foster new developments since they
tend to be less competitive spaces than situations in which the success of new
players is based on the amount of money, social capital, or location.
Aquaculture, in general, can be considered a knowledge-​intensive industry.
Animal production is based on non-​linear biological processes which are affected
by the environment and other factors that generate risks that are not entirely under
control (e.g., diseases, storms). In addition, unlike other agri-​food systems, aqua-
culture deals with water management, bringing additional challenges.
However, if we break down aquaculture, some aspects or areas of the industry
require more (or less) knowledge. Let us look at it from the perspective of pro-
duction species. There are several commodities whose technological packages
are relatively well developed (e.g., tilapia, shrimp) on which the bulk of produc-
tion is based. However, there are many other species for which the cycle has not
yet closed (or which have only recently been brought to a commercial scale (e.g.,
snapper, bluefin tuna), and it is these situations that are of particular interest to
attract investment. In this sense, although aquaculture’s future is expected to main-
tain the growth of the sector’s staple species, an essential part of this future will rest
on species diversification.
It is important not to lose perspective that aquaculture as an industry is not only
the fattening of aquaculture species. The sector depends on a supply chain with
many areas requiring expert knowledge, so there are several attractive opportun-
ities to attract investment. Some examples are information management to improve
decision-​making and optimise production (big data, business intelligence, AI, auto-
mation; see Box 17.1). Another example can be the development of equipment
and the Internet of Things to facilitate various aspects of production (robots for
net cleaning, feed dosing, and biomass monitoring). There are also areas for
development concerning the health of fattening organisms and sanitary risk miti-
gation, such as antibiotics alternatives, vaccines, and probiotics. Other attractive
fields for investment and development include, for example, genetic improvement,
assurance, traceability, logistics, quality, and vertical production. Therefore, it is
clear that aquaculture has an exciting future ahead.
 Future directions 331

17.4.2 Demand conditions

As we have just seen, there are several attractive areas for aquaculture innovation.
However, attractive demand conditions must exist to develop and permeate the
sector. As we have seen previously, aquaculture is the fastest-​growing industry
in the agri-​food sector, with an average growth rate of 3.6%. This growth and
the projected seafood need of the world’s population can be considered a posi-
tive tide that will drive many of the innovations mentioned throughout this book.
Nevertheless, as we have also mentioned, some elements grow at different rates
within aquaculture and its supply chain.
One strategy to see the areas where this growth potential is especially attractive
may be to look at the venture capital funds aquaculture investments. Among these
investments are seafood production from cell cultures, production of micro-​and
macroalgae, and uncommon growth species, such as halibut or sea cucumber.
Another interesting area is innovations in production systems, such as land-​
based salmon farming, recirculation system solutions or novel equipment such as
predator deterrents, equipment for dignified fish slaughter (which also improves
final product quality), and monitoring systems. Companies looking for protein
alternatives from unicellular and insect sources are an attractive segment. Disease
management is also an area of interest that attracts investment, especially those
seeking antibiotics alternatives, such as the use of bacteriophages (i.e., viruses that
infect bacteria). Also, in waste management, there are several opportunities to gen-
erate high-​value products from discards or reuse effluent nutrients to produce other
species (e.g., microalgae).

17.5 Final remarks

When we delve into the various sub-​sectors of the aquaculture industry, we observe
a significant diversity in their levels of development. Some areas and regions have
matured in their aquaculture practices, while others, such as cellular meat pro-
duction, are still developing or growing. This diversity in developmental stages
presents numerous opportunities for the advancement of aquaculture, paving the
way for a promising future.
However, it is noteworthy that the annual growth rates of aquaculture pro-
duction, although still the highest among the other food production sectors, is
exhibiting a decelerating trend. As explored in this chapter, this trajectory aligns
with the typical progression observed in industries over their lifecycle.
This situation mirrors the reality that the aquaculture sector is transitioning from
a phase of rapid growth to one of maturity. This maturation phase is pivotal to
optimising the use of the production inputs and efficient production. Nonetheless, it
is crucial to highlight the indispensable role of innovation in sustaining this growth.
The growth of aquacultural production is particularly significant given the role of
aquaculture in helping to close the global food gap.
332 Francisco J. Vergara-Solana

17.6 Chapter review questions

1 Why can we consider that the global macroeconomic outlook is favourable for
aquaculture?
2 The culture of organisms in floating growth-​out pens in the sea is considered to
be at what stage of the product life cycle?
3 What are the consumer concerns and projected demographic changes in your
country? How do you think the aquaculture sector in your country will respond
to these forces?

Recommended readings
FAO. (2022). State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2022: Towards Blue Transformation.
Food & Agriculture Organization.
Garlock, T., Asche, F., Anderson, J., Bjørndal, T., Kumar, G., Lorenzen, K., & Tveterås,
R. (2020). A global blue revolution: Aquaculture growth across regions, species, and
countries. Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture, 28(1), 107–​116.
GlobeScan. (2020). The Rise of the Conscious Food Consumer: COVID, Climate, and
Conservation; How Will These Affect Consumer Habits? Marine Stewardship Council.
Green, J. (2015). The Opportunity Analysis Canvas. A New Tool for Identifying and
Analyzing Entrepreneurial Ideas. Venture Artisans.
Joffre, O. M., Klerkx, L., Dickson, M., & Verdegem, M. (2017). How is innovation in aqua-
culture conceptualized and managed? A systematic literature review and reflection
framework to inform analysis and action. Aquaculture, 470, 129–​148.
Joffre, O. M., Klerkx, L., & Khoa, T. N. (2018). Aquaculture innovation system analysis of
transition to sustainable intensification in shrimp farming. Agronomy for Sustainable
Development, 38, 1–​11.
Levitt, T. (1965). Exploit the Product Life Cycle (Vol. 43). Graduate School of Business
Administration, Harvard University.
Lewis, S. G., & Boyle, M. (2017). The expanding role of traceability in seafood: Tools and
key initiatives. Journal of Food Science, 82(S1), A13–​A21.
Mustapha, U. F., Alhassan, A. W., Jiang, D. N., & Li, G. L. (2021). Sustainable aquaculture
development: A review on the roles of cloud computing, internet of things and artificial
intelligence (CIA). Reviews in Aquaculture, 13(4), 2076–​2091.
Rubio, N. R., Xiang, N., & Kaplan, D. L. (2020). Plant-​based and cell-​based approaches to
meat production. Nature Communications, 11(1), 6276.
Sumaila, U. R., Pierruci, A., Oyinlola, M. A., Cannas, R., Froese, R., Glaser, S., & Pauly, D.
(2022). Aquaculture over-​optimism?. Frontiers in Marine Science, 9, 2200.
World Bank. (2020). Total Population. https://​datos.banco​mund​ial.org/​indica​tor/​SP.POP.
TOTL?end=​2019&start=​1960&view=​char
 Future directions 333

Box 17.1 Business intelligence

Marcelo E. Araneda Padilla
Benchmark Genetics Chile

The aquaculture industry, like other production systems that include living
organisms, carries an implicit risk. They depend on biological-​environmental,
management, bio-​ technological, regulatory, and economic elements that
I know are interrelated. These characteristics make it vital to apply tools
that facilitate data-​based decision-​making processes. Nowadays, data are an
important tangible value, therefore, they are required to be at the forefront in
the study of information and to have updated methods that ultimately help
to solve with evidence the good performance of natural resources and their
sustainability. Moreover, the speed at which information systems change
and prosper forces us to adapt to these changes. With this type of tool, the
objective is to transform “Data into Information” in order to support and
optimise decision-​making. This support is based on three specific objectives;
(i) increase understanding of yield and bioeconomics in sustainable aquacul-
ture production; (ii) provide predictions of the performance potential of aqua-
culture resources and their externalities, especially the environmental and
social effects; and (iii) provide decision-​making tools for better management
in the control, monitoring, and periodic evaluation of the key performance
indicators (KPIs) that have been defined to be efficient in the care and proper
use of the aquaculture resource. To address these objectives, the methodo-
logical principles associated with the Analytics of Sustainable Aquaculture
Businesses are presented (Figure 7.7), which involve statistical techniques
and predictive models (bio-​econometrics) applied to animal production.
This approach can be subdivided into four consecutive activ-
ities: Descriptive Analytics, Diagnostic Analytics, Predictive Analytics, and
Prescriptive Analytics.

1 Descriptive analytics: The purpose of this analysis is to obtain an approxi-

mate idea of the behaviour of the historical-​current data (photograph) and
to compare, according to the factors that intervene, for example, envir-
onmental variables, the results in the production, social or economic
indicators. This comparison and analysis can be carried out using non-​
parametric statistical techniques. From these results, it is necessary to
focus on finding patterns. In Figure 17.7, in its description of Descriptive
Analytics, it is possible to visualise the cable question and the types of
analysis that can be applied, more details can be discussed with technical
literature associated with the statistical approach.8
2 Diagnostic analytics: This analysis is used to determine what has
happened and why. In this case, it is possible to study the main variables
that explain or contribute to the growth results of an aquaculture species,
 newgenrtpdf
334 Francisco J. Vergara-Solana
Figure 17.7 A study of aquaculture information through the Sustainable Aquaculture Business Analytics approach: methodological process and
key questions. Through these methods it is possible to study and establish trends, and answer questions such as why certain results
occur in order to make an informed estimate of how these results might develop in the future.
 Future directions 335

productive performance, or the economic result and social impact that

the productive activity has achieved on society. For this, it is necessary to
apply data mining and correlation analysis tools.
3 Predictive analytics: This analysis allows, under different scenarios
that can be defined by experts in the field, to predict possible future
results (biological-​productive, economic-​social) using the models
designed and validated in the previous phase. In this case, the prediction
is based on all the qualified information (without outliers) available that
was previously studied in the two previous phases (descriptive and diag-
nostic). In detail, this information can be collected and implemented in
a database where the information is extracted and then converted into
predictive models that help determine which variables explain these
results and what could be changed to improve them. For example, mul-
tiple records resulting from cages, sea sites vs. systems on land (RAS)
if we focus on the salmon industry. Likewise, this approach reinforces
the learning and knowledge process in the productive-​economic per-
formance, environmental effect, or others in common conditions and
under different environmental and management scenarios such as tem-
perature, planting time, geographical location, planting weight, and
densities, among others.
4 Prescriptive analytics: This vision allows defining courses of action
to evaluate the aquaculture product in relation to objectives and KPIs
outlined to be met. This brings a considerable advantage since the
decision-​makers themselves take into account the previously known
results through the study of their own history and thereby define their
potential returns (maximum, average, and minimum) and probable
production, capital, or investment costs. Through this definition, for
example, bio-​economic decision models are implemented for compara-
tive purposes, management, and production control, in addition to the
design and evaluation of previously established performance indicators
(KPIs). This allows, for example, to permanently monitor the KPIs of
each production cycle with respect to the objectives and adjust the man-
agement as necessary. In short, all these elements help to minimise the
risk in the possible results and productive, environmental, economic, and
social impacts generated by the aquaculture activity, which is an advan-
tage if we take into account that the positive or negative consequences
of a decision made through only intuition or experience are seen at the
end of a production cycle “Dato kills Story”. This makes the application
of this approach more relevant because it precisely helps minimise this
risk and measure consequences.
336 Francisco J. Vergara-Solana

References
1 Klepper, S. (1997). Industry life cycles. Industrial and Corporate Change, 6(1),
145–​182.
2 Kim, D.Y., Shinde, S.K., Kadam, A.A., Saratale, R.G., Saratale, G.D., Kumar, M.,
Syed, A., Bahkali, A.H. and Ghodake, G.S., (2022). Advantage of species diversifica-
tion to facilitate sustainable development of aquaculture sector. Biology, 11(3), 368.
3 Lewis, S. G., & Boyle, M. (2017). The expanding role of traceability in seafood: Tools
and key initiatives. Journal of Food Science, 82(S1), A13–​A21.
4 Sumaila, U. R., Andrea, P., Muhammed, A. O., Rita, C., Rainer, F., Sarah, G., Jennifer,
J. et al. (2022). Aquaculture over-​optimism?. Frontiers in Marine Science, 9, 984354.
5 Audretsch, D. B., & Feldman, M. P. (1996). Innovative clusters and the industry life
cycle. Review of Industrial Organization, 11, 253–​273.
6 Asche, F., Guttormsen, A. G., & Nielsen, R. (2013). Future challenges for the maturing
Norwegian salmon aquaculture industry: An analysis of total factor productivity change
from 1996 to 2008. Aquaculture, 396, 43–​50.
7 Mustapha, U. F., Alhassan, A. W., Jiang, D. N., & Li, G. L. (2021). Sustainable aqua-
culture development: A review on the roles of cloud computing, internet of things and
artificial intelligence (CIA). Reviews in Aquaculture, 13(4), 2076–​2091..
8 Páez-​Osuna, F. (2001). The environmental impact of shrimp aquaculture: Causes,
effects, and mitigating alternatives. Environmental Management, 28(1), 131–​140.
doi:https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​s00267​0010​212
Index

Note: Page numbers in bold indicate tables; those in italics indicate figures.

academia 280 antibiotics 287, 303; aquaculture’s effect

acoustic technology 250, 290 on the environment 56–​57; fisheries 119,
acquisitions 322 121; opportunities 323, 327, 329, 331
Agenda 21: 28 antioxidants 303
air temperature 72 application programming interfaces (APIs)
algae: bioremediation 65; capture-​based 312
aquaculture 121; carbon sequestration Aquaculture 4.0 288, 289
66; dissolved oxygen 43; dissolved Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC)
particles and compounds 46–​47; gas 79, 308, 328
exchange 12; lower lethal temperature aquafeed see feed, commercial
42; nutrition 14; pharmaceutical industry aquamimicry 301, 302
98; production/​management systems aquaponic systems 18, 77
16, 19; water quality effects 56; see also aquifer contamination 287
macroalgae; microalgae arthropods: global aquaculture production
algal blooms 49, 56; bioeconomics 159; 240; welfare 241, 242, 243, 244; see also
bioremediation 65; climate change 72, specific arthropods
74; technologies 298, 306; uncertainty artificial intelligence (AI) 288, 292, 330;
and risk 176, 178 risk management 190–​192
amberjack 320 asexual reproduction 12
ammonium/​ammonia 47 assisted evolution 65
amnesic shellfish poisoning (ASP) 219 Atlantic salmon 9, 220
amphibians 50, 60, 245 atmosphere, aquaculture’s effect on 57;
anaemia 207 greenhouse gas emissions 57–​58; life
anchovy 119, 218, 304 cycle analysis 58–​59
animal by-​products, as aquafeed ingredients Australia: animal welfare 240, 252, 253;
305 bioeconomics 163–​164; marine spatial
animal welfare 240–​242, 258; defined planning 124; technologies 297
246–​247, 247; ethics 250–​252; Australian Aborigines 9
improving 256–​257; indices 256; Austria 252
intensive aquaculture 253–​256, 255; automation 289–​290, 330
legislation 252–​253; measurement autotrophs 14
247–​250, 248; pain 242–​244, 245; azaspiracid shellfish food poisoning (AZP)
production/​management system designs 219
257–​258; Sustainable Development
Goals 253, 254 bacteria: antibiotics 56, 57; aquaculture’s
Antarctic krill 304 effects on the environment 56, 57; as
Anthropocene 201 aquafeed ingredient 305; dissolved
338 Index

particles and compounds 47; water bioremediation 65, 301; climate change
temperature 42 mitigation 77; dissolved particles and
bacteriophages 329, 331 compounds 47; opportunities 329
Bangladesh 134, 212 biosensors 250
barnacle 293 biotechnologies 301–​303, 308
barramundi 297 biotoxins 219
Basa catfish 220 birds: aquaculture’s effects on 60, 62;
bass 14, 17, 188, 249, 303 Brambell Five Freedoms 247; pain
Bayesian method 184–​185, 189 perception 245; predators 50
beach crab 244 Bitcoin 309
beneficial outcomes from aquaculture, bivalve molluscs: bioeconomics 159;
potential 62; assisted evolution 65; capture-​based aquaculture 121; climate
biological control 62; bioremediation 65; change 74; dissolved particles and
climate change mitigation 65–​66; coastal compounds 46, 48; environmental
defence 64–​65; ex situ conservation benefits 201; food safety 219; global
63–​64; habitat protection 63; habitat aquaculture production 240; growth 13;
rehabilitation 64; habitat restoration nutrition 14; production/​management
63; overabundance species removal systems 17, 20; proliferation 56; red
64; species recovery 63; wild harvest blooms 49; reproduction 12; water
replacement 64 temperature 42; welfare 244; see also
Best Aquaculture Practices (BAP) 79, 308, specific bivalve molluscs
328 blockchain 309, 320
Better Life Index 232, 234 blue abalone 74
Bhutan, Gross National Happiness 232, blue carbon 65–​66
234 bluefin tuna: climate change 73; high seas
big data 288, 291–​292, 330 closure to fishing 126–​127; industry
bile acids 303 condition 330; O-​toro 319; production/​
biodiversity: aquaculture’s effect on 59, 60; management systems 20; welfare 249
genetics 294; Millennium Development Blue Revolution 3, 9
Goals 29 blue whiting 119
bioeconomics 145–​152, 162; crayfish board of directors 270, 271
163–​165; genetic 295–​296; indicators board of shareholders 270–​271
152–​153, 154; model 153–​161, 151, body temperature 11–​12, 41
166–​172, 181–​182; uncertainty and risk Bolivia 283
181–​182, 187, 188 Brambell Five Freedoms 246–​247, 247,
biofilters 47 253
biofloc (probiotics) 47, 57, 301–​302, 323; Brazil 283, 284
climate change mitigation 77; effects on breeding see reproduction
aquaculture organisms 50; effects on the broodstock maintenance stage 17, 42
environment 56 Brundtland Commission/​Report 28, 29, 30
biofouling 49, 56 bullfrog 61
bio-​loggers 250 business analytics: climate change
biological control 62 mitigation 78; uncertainty and risk 175,
biological performance improvement 176
302–​303 business intelligence (BI) 107, 291–​292,
biological pollution 61 293, 330, 333–​335, 334
biology 10; circulatory system 10–​12;
growth 12–​14; immune response 14–​15; calcium carbonate 47–​48
reproduction 12; species 10, 11 caligidosis 68
biomass: bioeconomics 157, 166, 168, Canada 122, 253
169, 171; harvested 83, 84; multitrophic capture-​based aquaculture 20, 116, 119,
aquaculture 77; production function 98, 121
99; profit function 100 capture stage, and animal welfare 255, 255
 Index 339

carbon dioxide, dissolved 44, 72 80, 86–​88; bioeconomics 150, 152;

carbon markets 79 calcium carbonate 48; coastal defence
carbon sequestration 65–​66 65; externalities 102; governance 269;
Carlowitz, Hans Carl von 27 impacts 72–​75, 81–​84; Millennium
carnivores: dissolved particles 55; growth Development Goals 28–​29; mitigation
14; production/​management systems 16, 65–​66, 75–​79, 218; production/​
119; technologies 303, 304; value chain management systems 17, 34; supply and
analysis 133 demand 97; Sustainable Development
carp: dissolved particles and compounds Goals 29, 200; technologies 309;
47; high seas closure to fishing 126; uncertainty and risk 180, 187; water
history of aquaculture 9; nutrition 14; exchanges 54; see also meteorological
production/​management systems 15, 16, phenomena
17, 19; welfare 243, 244, 249, 250, 256 closed production/​management systems
carrying capacity 15 17–​19; bioeconomics 146; effect on
catfish 19, 220 the environment 55, 63; food security
caviar 12, 146 221; restocking aquaculture 20, 63;
cell-​based seafood 319–​320, 331 uncertainty and risk 178; unwanted
CEO (chief executive officer) 271 organisms 49
cephalopods: circulatory system 11; cloud computing 325
welfare 241, 244, 245; see also specific coastal defence 64–​65
cephalopods cobia 73, 320
certification 237; animal welfare 257; cold chain 307
climate change mitigation 79; consumer cold stenotherms 41
power 109; fisheries 120, 122; food Colombia 283, 284
security 220, 222; governance 274; comb clam 74
opportunities 328; traceability 308 common resources 101
Chapman growth model 156 competitive exclusion 301
chief executive officer (CEO) 271 conservation, ex situ 63–​64
children: food security 207; mortality 28 consumers: buying motivators 327, 328;
Chile: animal welfare 253; aquaculture environmental concerns 327, 327; power
production 212; climate change 79, 108–​109, 307
adaptation 86–​88; employment consumption and production, relationship
226; macroeconomics 98; marine between 105–​106
spatial planning 124; Ministry of the cooperation 265–​266, 274, 279–​280,
Environment 86; salmon industry 281–​282; defined 275–​276; FAO
68; uncertainty and risk 177; regional South–​South Cooperation
Undersecretariat of Fisheries and 283–​284, 283; see also partnerships
Aquaculture (SUBPESCA) 86 coral/​coral reefs: aquaculture’s effect on 59;
China: animal welfare 253; aquaculture dissolved particles and compounds 48;
production 212; bioeconomics 163; fisheries 119; restoration 63
economic growth 279; environmental corporate governance 269–​271, 270
externalities 201; history of aquaculture cortisol 250
8–​9; macroeconomics 97; population Costa Rica 283, 284
200; uncertainty and risk 187 costs: bioeconomics 159–​161, 168, 171,
circadian rhythms 49 171; marginal 161, 171; uncertainty and
circular economy 105–​106, 305 risk 179
circulatory system 10–​12; immune COVID-​19 pandemic 204, 207, 209
response 14; water temperature 42 crab: bioeconomics 146; invasive species
civil partnerships 278–​279, 280 61; production/​management systems 17;
clam 17, 74, 201 dissolved particles and compounds 48;
clean technologies 77 welfare 244, 252, 256
climate change (CC) 53, 57, 71–​72, crayfish: bioeconomics 163–​165; welfare
84–​85; adaptation mechanisms 79–​81, 244, 252, 256
340 Index

Crayfish–​Rice Integrated System of 55–​57; effects on aquaculture organisms

Production (CRISP) 163 40, 46–​48
crenation 45 domestication 8, 9, 250
Crispr/​Cas9 295 donor countries 275–​276
crocodile 98
crustaceans: aquaculture production 211, Earth Summit 28
212, 213, 213; circulatory system 11; ecdysis 13
climate change 73; dissolved particles ecdysone 13
and compounds 46, 48; growth 13; eco-​labelling 79, 140
habitat modification 119; production/​ ecological economics 103–​104
management systems 17; reproduction ecological trap 53–​54, 54, 55; habitat
12, 62; water temperature 42; welfare rehabilitation 64; proliferation of primary
241, 243–​244, 252, 256; see also specific organisms 56; wildlife 60, 62
crustaceans economics 5, 33, 93–​94, 109–​110; case
cryptocurrencies 309 study 111–​113, 112; climate change
cultivated cell seafood 319–​320, 331 mitigation 76; natural resource
culture medium see rearing medium management 100–​102; neoclassical 26,
cyanobacteria, as aquafeed ingredients 305 31, 104; scales 94–​95; schools of thought
cytolysis 45 102–​106; supply and demand 95–​97, 96;
tool for sustainable aquaculture 106–​109;
data: big 288, 291–​292, 330; mining 191, see also bioeconomics; macroeconomics;
258; science 78; value of 312–​313 microeconomics
decapods 244, 245, 252; see also specific economic sustainability see sustainability:
decapods weak
decision theory 175, 182 ecosystem engineers 63
decline stage (product/​industry life cycle) Ecuador 62, 98, 124, 164, 287
318, 322 education 28
deep learning 292 eel: history of aquaculture 9; production/​
demand conditions, industry 331 management systems 20; technologies
demographic change 326 293, 303; welfare 256
Denmark 240, 252 Egypt 139, 212
density, rearing 15–​16 Eisenia arborea 74
descriptive analytics 312, 333, 334 electronic traceability 308–​309
development stage (product/​industry life emission quota 79
cycle) 318, 319–​320 employment 5, 20, 33, 34, 176, 225–​226,
diagnostic analytics 333–​335, 334 237–​238; by continent 228–​229, 229;
diarrhoeic shellfish poisoning (DSP) 219 cooperation 266, 269; fisheries 124;
diffused gases 43 gender inequality 28, 33, 229, 237;
digital technologies 288, 289–​293, 325 governance 272; historical trends
directors 270, 271 228–​230, 228; macroeconomics 97;
disease 287; animal welfare 242; mussel industry 111; partnerships and
aquaculture’s effect on environment cooperation 280; poverty 230–​232,
61–​62, 68; bioeconomics 172; caligidosis 233–​235; public sector economic tools
68; climate change 73; fisheries 116, 118, 108; sustainability pillars 227–​230;
120–​121, 124; food security 220, 221; technologies 290, 300; working
opportunities 331; rearing density 16; conditions 232–​237, 266
technologies 289, 291, 292, 303, 307; endorphins 251
uncertainty and risk 176, 178, 180, 183, energy consumption: atmospheric effects
187–​188, 191 57–​58; bioeconomics 158; recirculating
dissolved gases: climate change 72; effects aquaculture system 77; technologies 299
on aquaculture organisms 40, 42, 43–​44, enhanced fisheries 116, 118, 121
46 Enron 269
dissolved particles and compounds: environment: aquaculture’s effect on
aquaculture’s effect on the environment 53–​66; effects on aquaculture organisms
 Index 341

39–​51; impact on aquaculture 72–​75, uncertainty and risk 191; value chain
81–​84; see also climate change analysis 133–​134, 135
environmental economics 104–​105 feed conversion rate (FCR) 158–​159, 168,
environmentalism and sustainability, 170
distinction between 31 feeding habits: light 49; pH 46; water
Environmental, Social, and Corporate temperature 42
Governance (ESG) 107–​108, 274 fertility, aquaculture’s effect on 62
environmental sustainability 31 Fick’s laws 43
environmental trap see ecological trap filter feeders: nutrition 14; proliferation
epigenetics and epigenomics 297–​298 56; red blooms 49; see also bivalve
equality/​inequality: food security 205, 206, molluscs; specific filter feeders
207, 209; governance 268; income 226, fines 280; climate change mitigation 76, 79
227, 232, 236, 280; value chain analysis finfish: aquaculture production 213;
140; see also gender in/​equality circulatory system 11; global aquaculture
escaped organisms 287; fisheries 116, 118, production 240; life cycle stages 320;
119, 120; food security 221; technologies nutritional value 221; reproduction 12;
294; wildlife effects 61; see also invasive species recovery 63; technologies 297;
species water temperature 41; welfare 241, 257;
ethics: animal welfare 241, 242, 243, 246, see also specific finfish
250–​252, 257; governance 266, 270 fisheries 115–​116, 124; ecological
ethnicity 326 interactions 116–​121, 117–​118; future
European Code of Conduct 250–​251 trends 122–​124; high seas closure to
European Commission 240 fishing 126–​127; reduction see
European Union: animal welfare 242, 253; reduction fisheries; socioeconomic
wild fishery products 122 interactions 121–​122, 123; tragedy of the
euryhaline organisms 45, 73 commons 32
eurytherms 41 Fisheries Society of the British Isles 252
eutrophication 59, 159, 287 fishing bans 116, 117, 126–​127
evolution, assisted 65 Five Freedoms 246–​247, 247, 253
evolutionary function of pain 243 fixed costs 159–​160
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) 126 Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)
excretion 55 86, 281; employment 228; global
exotic species see escaped organisms aquaculture production 240; governance
exponential extinction model 157 272, 273; Guide for Responsible Supply
ex situ conservation 63–​64 Chains in the Agricultural Sector 236;
extensive production/​management regional South–​South Cooperation 283,
systems 16; animal welfare 257; 284; Strategic Program 236
bioeconomics 146, 147, 150, 163; food Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES)
security 221 203, 204, 205, 206
externalities 32, 201; economics 101–​102; food poisoning 219, 307
fisheries 115, 116, 122, 124; governance food poverty see food security
272 food safety 218–​221, 307, 329
food security 5, 20, 33, 146, 176, 199–​200,
Fair Trade 79 221–​222, 287; aquatic food system
Fan Lee/​Fan Li/​Fau Lai 9 207–​209; aquatic food’s contribution to
fashion industry 98 213–​218, 214, 215, 216, 217; climate
fattening stage 17 change 75; dimensions 202, 202, 203;
feed, commercial: aquaculture’s effect drivers 209, 210; fed aquaculture 304;
on environment 55, 58, 60, 61; fisheries 124, 127; food safety 218–​221;
bioeconomics 158–​159; externalities global aquatic production status
102; fisheries 116, 118, 119–​120; 209–​213, 211, 212, 213; governance
opportunities 327, 329; production 220, 272; macroeconomics 97; nature of
function 99; supply and demand 201–​204; nutritional value of fish 218;
95–​96; technologies 290, 292, 303–​306; population growth 200–​201, 200; public
342 Index

sector economic tools 108; rural/​small-​ Global Value Chain (GVC) analysis 140
scale aquaculture 19; status around the goldfish 243
world 204–​207, 205, 206; technologies Gompertz growth model 156
304, 305 governance 4, 5, 21, 31–​32, 34,
food systems 207–​209, 208 265–​266; animal welfare 252–​253;
fouling 49, 56 aquaculture’s effect on environment 60;
free-​riders 101–​102 Environmental, Social, and Corporate
future directions 317–​318, 331; business Governance (ESG) 107–​108, 274;
intelligence 333–​335, 334; industry fisheries 115–​116, 122–​124; food
condition 329–​331; life cycle stages security 220, 272; importance 267–​268;
318–​322, 318, 321; opportunities management compared 268, 268; nature
322–​329, 324, 327, 328 of 266–​267; opportunities 328–​329;
partnerships and cooperation 275, 277;
Galicia 111–​113, 112 private (corporate) 269–​271, 270; for
Gallup World Poll 232, 235 sustainability 273–​274; tragedy of the
gas diffusion 43 commons 102; uncertainty and risk 181;
gas dissolution: climate change 72; effects on value chain analysis 134, 135, 138, 140,
aquaculture organisms 40, 42, 43–​44, 46 141; wide scale 271–​273; World Bank
gas exchange 11, 12 Governance Indicators 273, 273
gastropods 48, 244; see also specific Greece 186
gastropods Greenpeace 281
gender in/​equality: climate change greenwashing 30, 274
adaptation 86, 87; cooperation 283; gross domestic product (GDP) 97–​98
employment 28, 33, 229, 237; food Gross National Happiness –​Bhutan 232,
security 205, 206, 207; Millennium 234
Development Goals 28; Sustainable groupers 256
Development Goals 29; value chain growth (aquaculture organisms) 12–​14;
analysis 133 animal welfare 249, 255, 255;
general system theory 145, 153 bioeconomics 153–​157, 166, 168, 169,
genetic bioeconomics 295–​296 171; dissolved oxygen 44; dissolved
genetics 287; animal welfare 255; particles and compounds 46–​47, 48;
assisted evolution 65; bioeconomics light 49; partnerships and cooperation
158; biological pollution 61; disease 279; salinity 45–​46; uncertainty and
transmission 120–​121; escaped species risk 179; unwanted organisms 49; water
120; fisheries 116, 120–​121; growth 13; temperature 41
opportunities 329; stock enhancement growth hormone 13, 41, 249
programmes 121; technologies 288, growth stage (product/​industry life cycle)
293–​298; water temperature 42 318, 320, 321
genome editing 295 Guatemala 283, 284
genome technologies 295
genome-​wide association studies (GWAS) habitat: artificial 117, 119; degradation 116;
295 modification 116, 117, 119; protection
genotyping by sequencing (GBS) 294 63; rehabilitation 64; restoration 63
geoducks 74 haemocyanin 11
geographic information systems (GIS) 288, haemoglobin 11
292–​293 haemolymph 11, 42, 46
Ghana 134 halibut 331
gilthead sea bream 220, 249 hard water 47–​48
Gini Equity Index 232, 236 harvested biomass 83, 84
Global Environment Facility (GEF) 86 harvest weight 83, 84
globalisation 10; governance 269; history hatchery stage 17
of sustainability 27; macroeconomics 97; Hawaii 9, 179
value chain analysis 135, 140–​141 Henry’s Law 43
 Index 343

herbivores: growth 14; production/​ International Institute for Sustainable

management systems 16, 19 Development (IISD) 276
hermit crab 244 International Social and Environmental
herring 218, 304 Accreditation and Labelling Alliance
heterotrophs 14 (ISEAL) 274
high seas, closure to fishing 126–​127 Internet of Things (IoT) 288, 290–​291, 325,
high-​value ecosystems, aquaculture’s effect 330
on 59 invasive species 61, 287; biological control
history: of aquaculture 8–​10; of 62; climate change 75; fisheries 116;
sustainability 26–​29 see also escaped organisms
Holland 252 invertebrates: circulatory system
Holmenkollen Guidelines 250–​251 11; welfare 252; see also specific
holobiont 297 invertebrates
hologenomics 297 Ireland 120
Human Development Index 232, 233 ISO 14001 certificate 79
hunger: Millennium Development Goals IUU (Illegal, Underreported, and
28; Sustainable Development Goals 29; Unregulated) fishing 329
see also food security
hydrology 17–​18 Japanese oyster 120, 121; climate change
hyper-​intensive production systems 146, 61, 74, 87
257 Jevons paradox 106
job market see employment
Iceland 134
Illegal, Underreported, and Unregulated key performance indicators (KPIs) 291, 335
(IUU) fishing 329 killing see slaughter
immune response 14–​15, 150; acquired knowledge condition, industry 330
14; animal welfare 247, 251; innate 14; krill 304
pH 46; rearing density 16; technologies
302–​303 labelling 237; animal welfare 242; climate
income function 99–​100 change mitigation 79; value chain
income inequality 226, 227, 232, 236, 280 analysis 140
India 200, 212, 253, 292 labour force see employment
Indices of Social Development 232, 233 land, aquaculture’s effect on 59
indigenous community ventures 26, 237, land use change modelling 189
271, 284 larval harvesting: light 48; production/​
Indonesia 98, 134, 212 management systems 16–​17; wildlife
industrial aquaculture 19 effects 60
Industrial Revolution 27 legal framework see governance
industry condition 329–​331 life cycles: aquaculture organisms 12, 58–​59,
inequality see equality/​inequality 177; product/​industry 318–​322, 318, 321
inland production/​management systems light 48–​49
18–​19 limited reference points (LRPs) 153
inorganic particles 56–​57 lipophilic toxins (LT) 219
insects: aquafeed ingredients 305–​306; lobbying 265
opportunities 331; predators 50 lobster: dissolved particles and compounds
Integrated Multitrophic System (IMS) 15 48, 55; global aquaculture production
intensive production/​management systems 240, 244; nutrition 14; production/​
16; animal welfare 253–​256, 255, management systems 17; value chain
257; bioeconomics 146, 148, 158; analysis 141; welfare 252, 256
employment 226; food security 221 logistic growth model 156
interest rates 180 Lorenz curve 232, 236
International Cooperation Committee of lower lethal temperature 41–​42
Animal Welfare (ICCAW) 253 lumpfish 329
344 Index

machine learning 292, 293; animal uncertainty and risk 192; white spot
welfare 258; life cycle stages 320; risk virus 62
management 190–​192 microalgae: aquaculture’s effect on the
mackerel 119 environment 56; as aquafeed ingredients
macroalgae: aquaculture production 211; 305; nutrition 14; opportunities 326, 331;
aquaculture’s effect on the environment production/​management systems 19;
56; carbon sequestration 66; climate unwanted 49; water temperature 42
change 74, 75, 77; fisheries 119; microeconomics 94–​95, 98; marginal
gas exchange 12; opportunities 331; analysis 161; production function
production/​management systems 19; 98–​100; profit function 100; supply and
reproduction 12; uncertainty and risk 189 demand 95–​96, 96
Macrocistis pyrifera 74 micronutrients 14, 303
macroeconomics 94, 97–​98; changes microplastics 50
324–​329; supply and demand 95 microsatellites 294
macronutrients 13–​14 migration, human 326
Malaysia 163 Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)
malnutrition 204; see also food security 28–​29, 227; Index 232, 234
mammals: Brambell Five Freedoms 247; mitochondrial DNA analysis 294
pain perception 245; predators 50 moi 179
management, comparison with governance molecular biotechnology 308
268, 268 molluscs: aquaculture production 211,
management systems see production/​ 212, 213, 213; bioeconomics 153;
management systems, types of bioremediation 65; climate change
mangroves, aquaculture’s effect on 59, 63 mitigation 77; exotic species 120;
marginal analysis 161, 171, 172 food safety 219; global aquaculture
mariculture 19, 115–​119, 117–​118, production 240; habitat modification 119;
121–​124, 123 reproductive capacity 62; uncertainty and
Marin Trust 120 risk 178, 186, 187; water temperature 42;
marine protected areas (MPAs) 119, 122 welfare 241, 242, 243–​244, 252; see also
marine spatial planning (MSP) 124 bivalve molluscs; gastropods; specific
Marine Sustainability Council (MSC) molluscs
120 monocultures 15
market capitalism 102–​103 monopoly 146
market genetics 295–​296 Monte Carlo simulation models 183, 187,
marketing: animal welfare 257; 188
employment 225; uncertainty and risk mortality see natural mortality; slaughter
191 moulting 13
market mechanisms 75, 79 Multidimensional Poverty Index 232, 233
maturation stage (aquaculture organisms) multitrophic aquaculture 78; climate
see broodstock maintenance stage change mitigation 77–​78; uncertainty
maturation stage (product/​industry life and risk 189
cycle) 318, 320–​322, 321 mussel: climate change adaptation 87;
metabolism, atmospheric effects on 58 economics of aquaculture 111–​113, 112;
meteorological phenomena 72, 73, environmental benefits 201; predators
74; coastal defence 65; effects on 50; production/​management systems
aquaculture organisms 50–​51; food 17; uncertainty and risk 186; water
security 220; governance 272; temperature 42
uncertainty and risk 180 Myanmar 212
methylation 42
Mexico: animal welfare 253; bioeconomics national development 97
164; climate change 81–​84, 82–​83; natural mortality: animal welfare 242,
reduction fisheries 126; shrimp 247; bioeconomics 157, 168, 169, 171;
aquaculture 328; technologies 308; uncertainty and risk 178, 183
 Index 345

natural resource management 100–​102 osmotic pressure 45

neoclassical economics 26, 31, 104 overabundant species removal 64
neuroanatomy, and pain 243–​244 overweight 207
neurotransmitters 251 oxygen, dissolved: climate change 72;
New Zealand 124, 252, 253 effects on aquaculture organisms 40, 42,
Nicaragua 284 43–​44, 46
Nigeria 189 oyster: atmospheric effects 57;
nitrogen compounds: aquaculture’s effect bioeconomics 146, 153; climate change
on the environment 56; effects on 61, 74, 87, 87; disease transmission
aquaculture organisms 46–​47 121; environmental benefits 201; exotic
nociception 242, 243, 244 species 120; habitat modification 119;
no-​fishing zones 116, 117, 126–​127 history of aquaculture 9; production/​
non-​renewable resources 100 management systems 17; technologies
Norway: animal welfare 250, 252, 297; value chain analysis 133; water
253; aquaculture production 212; temperature 42; wildlife effects 61
environmental regulation 34; escaped
species 120; macroeconomics 98; packaging 327
technologies 292; uncertainty and risk pain in aquatic organisms 242–​244, 245,
177, 186 252
nudibrachians 244 pangasius 226
nursery stage 17 Paraguay 283, 284
nutrition (aquaculture organisms): paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP) 219
dissolved oxygen 44; growth 13–​14; parasites: animal welfare 257; aquaculture’s
technologies 288, 303–​306; water effect on environment 61, 62; climate
temperature 41; see also feeding habits change 73; fisheries 116, 120–​121; sea
nutrition (human) see food security lice 61, 68, 329; uncertainty and risk 178
nutritional value of fish 218 partnerships 265–​266, 274, 279–​280,
nutrition security 202 281–​282; defined 275–​276; public–​
private (PPPs) 278, 280–​281; types
obesity (human) 207 276–​279, 277; see also cooperation
Oceana 281 pathogens: food safety 219; food security
octopus: bioeconomics 153; life cycle 221; technologies 301
stages 320; technologies 293; welfare pearls 98
244, 252 pen shell 75
oligopoly 146 perfect competition 146
open production/​management systems Perkinsus sp. 74
17–​18, 19; aquaculture’s effect on the Peru 95, 253
environment 54–​58, 62; bioeconomics PESTLE analysis 323, 325
150; climate change 81–​84; technologies pH: climate change 72, 73–​74, 75;
298, 299; uncertainty and risk 178, 187 dissolved particles and compounds 47,
opportunities 322–​331, 324, 327, 328 48; effects on aquaculture organisms
Opportunity Analysis Canvas 323, 324 40, 46
optimal harvest time (OHT): bioeconomics phage therapy 303
150, 152, 161, 166, 171, 172, 172; pharmaceutical industry 98
climate change 82, 83, 84 photoheterotrophic production system 164
optimum growth temperature 41 photoperiod 40
Organisation for Economic Co-​operation photoreceptors 48
and Development (OECD): Better Life photosynthesis 12, 14, 44
Index 232, 234; governance defined 266; phytobiotics 303
Guide for Responsible Supply Chains in pigmentation 48
the Agricultural Sector 236 Pigouvian tax 76, 122
ornamental aquaculture 64 plasmolysis 45
osmoregulation 45–​46, 45 political economics 97
346 Index

political framework see governance technologies 288, 298–​303; uncertainty

pollution: food safety 219; public sector and risk 178–​179
economic tools 108; wildlife effects 61 production quotas 76
polycultures 15, 219 production systems see production/​
population genetics 294 management systems
population growth 53, 320, 321; food production zoning 76
security 200–​201, 200; governance profit function 100
272 profits: bioeconomics 146, 150, 153,
positional cloning 295 159, 160–​161, 168–​171, 171, 172;
poverty: and employment 226, 229, 236, climate change 83, 84; cooperation 266;
237–​238; food security 209, 213, 218, economic tools 106–​107; fisheries 121,
220, 221–​222; governance 268, 272; line 122, 124, 126, 127; governance 274; life
236; measurement 230–​232, 233–​235; cycle stages 319, 320, 322; margins 3–​4;
Millennium Development Goals 28; technology 293; uncertainty and risk
multidimensionality 230–​232, 233–​235; 186–​187, 188; value chain analysis 133,
partnerships and cooperation 276; 134, 141
Sustainable Development Goals 29; property rights 32, 101, 122–​124
value chain analysis 133, 140 psychographic change 326–​328, 327, 328
prawn 240, 296–​297 public partnerships 278–​279, 280
prebiotics 302 public–​private partnerships (PPPs) 278,
precision aquaculture 258 280–​281
predators: aquaculture’s effect on public sector: climate change mitigation
environment 56, 61, 62; deterrents 331; 75–​76; economic tools 108
effects on aquaculture organisms 49–​50; Putter growth model 156
uncertainty and risk 178
predictive analytics 312, 334, 335 QR codes 309
prescriptive analytics 313, 334, 335 quantitative genetics 295
present value 161, 168–​171, 172 quantitative trait locus (QTL) mapping 295
prevalence of undernourishment (PoU) quotas, production 76
203, 204, 204
price fluctuations 180 radio frequency identification (RFID) 309
price-​takers and price-​setters 96, 99–​100, rainbow trout 244, 250, 284, 297
146 rearing density 15–​16
private governance 269–​271, 270 rearing medium: climate change 73,
private partnerships 278–​279 77; determining and limiting factors
private resources 101 13; growth 13; inland production/​
private sector: climate change mitigation management systems 19; nitrogen
75, 76–​78; economic tools 106–​108 compounds 46
probiotics see biofloc recipient countries 275–​276
production and consumption, relationship recirculating aquaculture system (RAS) 18,
between 105–​106 19, 34; animal welfare 257; aquaculture’s
production factors 146, 149 effect on the environment 55, 58;
production function 98–​100, 146–​150 bioeconomics 146; climate change
production/​management systems 15; animal mitigation 77; dissolved carbon dioxide
welfare 256, 257–​258; environment’s 44; dissolved particles and compounds
effects on 50–​51; food security 221; 47; externalities 102; food security 201;
hydrology 17–​18; infrastructure 34, 50, opportunities 331; technologies 298–​300,
78, 256, 298–​300; intensity criteria and 300, 302; uncertainty and risk 178–​179
characteristics 146, 147–​148; location redclaw crayfish 163–​165
of facilities 18–​19; number of species red river crab 61
produced 15; optimisation 78; production red seaweed 87
objective 19–​20; rearing density 15–​16; red snapper 73, 153, 320
seed origin 20; stage produced 16–​17; red tides 49, 74, 111
 Index 347

reduction fisheries 119–​120, 122, 126, 287; sea lice 61, 68, 329
technologies 304; value chain analysis sea lion 50
133 sea ranching see capture-​based aquaculture
reference points: limited 153; target 153 sea surface temperature (SST) 72, 73,
regulatory framework see governance 81–​84, 95
remote sensing 292–​293, 325 sea urchin 13, 64
renewable resources 100–​101 seaweed 87, 211, 216–​218
reproduction 12; animal welfare 255, 255; selective breeding 295
circadian rhythms 49; dissolved oxygen semi-​closed systems 18, 19; restocking
44; technologies 288, 293–​298; water aquaculture 63
temperature 42 semi-​intensive production systems: animal
reptiles: pain perception 245; predators 50 welfare 257; bioeconomics 146, 147,
restocking aquaculture 20, 63 150, 158, 163, 166–​172; uncertainty and
restriction-​site DNA sequencing risk 185
(RAD-​seq.) 294 sensitivity analysis 182–​183, 185–​186, 188;
revenues 160, 168, 171, 171; marginal 161, Bayesian method 185
171; uncertainty and risk 179 sentience 242, 246, 252, 253
RFID (radiofrequency identification) 309 sex control 296–​297
Rio Summit 28, 227 sexual maturation 12, 13; technologies
risk see uncertainty and risk 296
Roman Empire 9 sexual reproduction 12
rural/​small-​scale aquaculture 19; climate shareholders 270–​271
change adaptation 86–​87 shellfish: predators 50; reproduction 12;
technologies 296, 297; uncertainty and
salinity: climate change 75; effects on risk 186–​187; see also specific shellfish
aquaculture organisms 40, 44, 45–​46 shrimp: affordability 226; atmospheric
salmon: affordability 226; atmospheric effects 57; bioeconomics 146, 158,
effects 58; bioeconomics 146; business 166–​172; climate change 73, 81–​84,
intelligence 335; caligidosis impact 82–​83; disease transmission 121;
reduction 68; climate change 73; dissolved particles and compounds 47,
dissolved particles 55; escaped 120; 55; Ecuador 287; employment 226;
food security 33, 220; high seas closure fisheries 119, 122, 126; food security
to fishing 126; history of aquaculture 33, 220; global aquaculture production
9; land effects 59; life cycle stages 320, 240, 244; governance 272, 273; habitat
322; macroeconomics 98; nutrition 14; modification 119; habitat restoration 63;
opportunities 326, 329, 331; predators high seas closure to fishing 126; history
50; production/​management systems 15, of aquaculture 9; industry condition
17, 18, 19; sea lice control 329; supply 330; land effects 59; life cycle 319, 320;
and demand 96; technologies 290–​291, nutrition 14; opportunities 328; predators
292, 293, 296, 303; uncertainty and risk 50; production/​management systems 15,
176, 177, 182–​183, 186; value chain 16, 17, 18, 34; supply and demand 96;
analysis 133, 140; welfare 243, 247, 248, technologies 292, 293, 296, 297, 299,
250, 253, 256, 257 301, 302, 303, 308; uncertainty and risk
sardine 119, 218, 249 176, 179, 185–​186, 187–​188, 189, 192;
satellite imagery 288, 292–​293 value chain analysis 133, 134, 140, 141;
scallop 201 welfare 252; wildlife effects 62; see also
scenario analysis 183–​184, 189; Bayesian white shrimp
method 185 Singapore 134
Scotland 34 site selection 11
sea bass 14, 249, 303 slaughter 241, 242, 251, 252, 255–​256,
sea bream 14, 73, 220, 249 255, 257, 331
sea cucumber 64, 331 small pelagic fisheries see reduction
seagrass 119 fisheries
348 Index

small-​scale aquaculture see rural/​small-​ sustainable food systems 207

scale aquaculture sustainable growth 26
Smith, Adam 105 Sweden 252
snapper 73, 153, 320, 330 Switzerland 252
snook 55 symbiotics 302
Social Development Indices 232, 233 systems science, general theory of 145,
social economic tools 108–​109 153
society 33; climate change 72; Millennium
Development Goals 28 target reference points (TRPs) 153
soft water 47–​48 tariffs 181
soil eutrophication 59, 159, 287 Taura syndrome 73, 121
sole 17 taxation 108, 280; bioeconomics 150;
Solow economic growth model 104 climate change mitigation 76; fisheries
soybean protein 305 122; opportunities 328–​329; uncertainty
Spain 61, 111–​113, 112 and risk 180
spillovers: fisheries 119, 122; marine technologies 21, 286–​289, 310; animal
protected areas 119; market capitalism welfare 255, 257; antibiotics, reduction
103 in 57; artificial intelligence 292;
squid 244, 252 automation 289–​290; big data 291–​292;
stakeholders’ map 137–​138, 137 bioeconomics 146, 150, 163–​165;
STEEPLE(D) analysis 323 breeding and genetics 293–​298;
stenohaline organisms 45 business intelligence 291–​292; clean 77;
stenotherms 41 climate change mitigation 76, 77; cloud
stochastic models 183, 185, 186–​188 computing 290; data, value of 312–​313;
stock enhancement programmes 116, 118, deep learning 292; food security 209;
121 geographic information systems
striped bass 188 292–​293; Internet of Things 290–​291;
stunting 207 life cycle stages 319–​320; machine
subsidies 280; bioeconomics 150; climate learning 292; management 306;
change mitigation 76; life cycle stages nutritional development 303–​306;
319; uncertainty and risk 192 opportunities 325; partnerships and
succession planning 271 cooperation 279; production systems
super-​intensive production systems see 288, 298–​303; remote sensing 292–​293;
hyper-​intensive production systems traceability 307–​310; uncertainty and
supply and demand 95–​97, 96; consumer risk 175, 180, 188; weak sustainability
power 109; cooperation 265 34–​35
supply chain management 191, 272 temperature see air temperature; body
survival: aquaculture’s effect on 62; climate temperature; sea surface temperature;
change 83, 84 water temperature
suspended particles 40, 50 Territorial Use Rights for Fisheries (TURF)
sustainability 24–​25, 33–​35; defined 28, 124
29–​30, 34; dimensions 30; governance Thailand 98, 212
31–​32, 273–​274; history 26–​29; spheres/​ tiger shrimp 297, 320
pillars 8, 10, 24–​26, 25, 32, 93, 103, tilapia: bioeconomics 146; climate change
227–​230, 274; strong 31; types 30–​31; 74; cooperation 284; dissolved particles
weak 31, 34–​35, 104, 105, 106 and compounds 47; food security 219;
sustainable development 26, 31; defined 29, high seas closure to fishing 126; industry
30; governance 32 condition 330; nutrition 14; production/​
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 4, management systems 16, 17, 19;
29, 199–​200, 204, 207, 227, 230, 237; technologies 295, 296, 297–​298; value
animal welfare 253, 254; food systems chain analysis 133, 134; welfare 249,
207; governance 268; partnerships and 251–​252
cooperation 276, 278 tourism 115, 180
 Index 349

traceability 289, 307–​310; life cycle stages vertebrates: circulatory system 11–​12;
320; opportunities 327, 329 immune response 14; see also specific
tragedy of the commons 32, 101, 102 vertebrates
transportation stage, and animal welfare vertical integration 322
255, 255 veterinary residues 219
trophic networks, aquaculture’s effects on veto players 138
59 Vietnam 98, 134, 189, 212
trout 47, 284, 297; welfare 243, 244, 249, vitamins 303
250, 253 von Bertalanffy growth model 155–​156,
tuna: body temperature regulation 11; 166
food security 33; high seas closure to
fishing 126–​127; industry condition 330; warm stenotherms 41
technologies 293, 295, 303; welfare 249, wasting 207
256; wildlife effects 60; see also bluefin water consumption 77
tuna water exchanges 54, 99, 287
TURF (Territorial Use Rights for Fisheries) water quality 287; animal welfare 249;
124 aquaculture’s effect on the environment
54–​57, 60, 62, 65; effects on aquaculture
U-Index 232, 235 organisms 39–​51, 40; fisheries
uncertainty and risk 175–​177, 192–​193; 116, 117, 119; food security 221;
life cycle stages 319; machine learning opportunities 329; production function
and artificial intelligence 190–​192; 99; recirculating aquaculture system 77;
quantification 182–​185; sources technologies 290, 291, 292, 299,
177–​182; steps 193–​194, 194; studies 301–​302; uncertainty and risk 180, 183
185–​189 water temperature: bioeconomics 159;
undernourishment: indicators 203–​204; climate change 74, 75, 81–​84, 83;
prevalence of (PoU) 203, 204, 204; dissolved oxygen 43–​44; effects on
see also food security aquaculture organisms 40, 41–​42; shocks
United Kingdom 27, 34, 240, 252, 253 42; uncertainty and risk 180; unwanted
United Nations: animal welfare 241; history organisms 49; see also sea surface
of sustainability 27–​29; ocean science temperature
decade 4; see also Food and Agriculture welfare see animal welfare
Organization; Millennium Development well-​being: measurement 230–​232,
Goals; Sustainable Development Goals 233–​235; multidimensionality 230,
United States: animal welfare 253; 233–​235
bioeconomics 163; history of whiteleg shrimp 320
sustainability 27; oyster diseases 61; white shrimp: climate change 81–​84,
population 200; shrimp trade 308; 82–​83; disease transmission 121; food
traceability systems 329 security 220; history of aquaculture 9;
Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare reproduction 12; uncertainty and risk
(UDAW) 241 185–​186, 187–​188, 192
unwanted organisms 49–​50 white spot disease/​virus 62, 121; climate
upper lethal temperature 41, 42 change 73; food security 220; uncertainty
and risk 187–​188
vaccines 14, 57, 329 wild harvest replacement 64
value chain analysis (VCA) 132–​134, wildlife, aquaculture’s effects on 59–​60;
141–​142; applications 139–​140; food abundance 60; infection rates 61–​62;
security 222; globalisation 140–​141; physiological changes 60–​61; pollution
method 134–​139 (biological) 61; species richness
value chain cartography 136–​139, 136, (diversity) 60; survival and fertility 62
137 wireless sensor networks 309
variable costs 159–​160 working conditions 232–​237, 266
venture capital 331 World Aquaculture Alliance 281
350 Index

World Aquaculture Society 281 yeasts, as aquafeed ingredients 305

World Bank Governance Indicators yellowhead disease 121
(WBGI) 273, 273 yellowleg shrimp 320
World Commission on Environment and yellowtail 320
Development (WCED) see Brundtland youth 283
Commission/​Report
World Organization for Animal Health zebrafish 244
(WOAH) 240, 246, 252, 253 zero discharge systems 18, 55, 301; climate
World Poll 232, 235 change mitigation 77
World Trade Organization (WTO) 281 zoning, production 76