Briefly, sustainable aquaculture is the cultivation of aquatic organism for commercial purposes by means that have a good natured impact on the environment, contribute to local social community development and to generate an economic profit. This concept has evolved and grown along with growing evidence that wild fisheries are being overexploited and many fish species are becoming extinct.

Dear Azaza. It was not my meaning to sound like I was totally ignorant of what sustainability means. Looking at your answer, I see some of the same vague definitions as many people use. You mention "environmental impact", "contribution to local development" and "economic profit".

Taking the last point first, I think it's rather easy to agree on what "economic sustainability" is - a commercial aquaculture company has to make money.

It is the ecological perspective which is much more difficult. What you say is that a "sustainable" aquaculture operation should have good (=small) impact on the environment, but what is good? All aquaculture (as all other animal production) has some environmental impact. This can be through transports, energy usage, feed ingredients, phosphate and nitrogen discharges etc. So when does "good" become good enough to be called sustainable?

As for local societal impact - of course we all want aquaculture to generate jobs and contribute to the local community, but is that really a part of the sustainability definition? Are all companies which contribute to the local economy sustainable?

I think sustainability is something that requires input from all the 'actors and sectors' that are influenced by an aquaculture enterprise, socially speaking. And in that sense, you then have to look at social equity, and avoid conflict of interest. Economically, sustainability might mean to some people, a situation where they don't actually depend on an aquaculture enterprise, and only live off their wild stocks or it might mean being totally dependent on it, in order to preserve their wild stocks, for ecological or cultural reasons. Environmentally, it may depend on how we as humans can maintain an ecosystem as close as possible to an undisturbed or typical state. So in short, it's probably more a matter of interpretation, requiring a sound and more importantly local understanding of those people which are the stakeholders, as well as a good biophysical knowledge of a 'system' and the complexity that comes with the area or region in which the aquaculture enterprise operates.

I think real sustainable aquaculture at minimum should have little or no negative environmental impact. The real problem with all intensive agriculture is the fact that between the chemicals used, the wastes produced, and the diseases that are more prevalent in overcrowded situations, there is a huge negative environmental impact. I would think that the economic and social benefits are a side benefit but not the initial goal of sustainability. Veta La Palma in Spain is a prime example of sustainable aquaculture. Not only do they produce high quality stock (yes, it costs more, but that is a price of doing things the right way), they returned a decimated landscape to its previous splendor and actually improve it's surroundings (by acting as a natural filter/purifier of the river water before it is returned to the Atlantic). As was said in the TED talk that made this farm famous, "it's about relationships." Improve one thing, and everything else follows.

Yes, I understand what you mean. I am looking at it from the view of a brand new enterprise that is starting from scratch. That is where I believe that aquaculture and any enterprise or development for that matter, should begin with ensuring social sustainability. That then sets the scene or scope for the kind of farming activities that can take place or the potential impact it could have environmentally. Then you can begin to think about ecological sustainability, because it really needs to reflect social values and interests in the environment, to be truly sustainable, by avoiding objection or distrust among the stakeholders.

Hi Larraine,

I certainly don't want to criticize wetland restoration projects like Veta la Palma, it's a great imitative in itself, but it is what it is, a nature park with a little bit of extensive aquaculture on the side. As such, it does not provide any solution to how we make the world's aquaculture sustainable. Switching from intensive to extensive aquaculture, only in the USA, you'd have to find 3.000 square kilometers of land for finfish aquaculture, and in Asia, you'd need orders of magnitude more land. Today, about half of all fish consumed in the world is aquacultured, and FAO maintains that aquaculture needs to continue to grow to secure food for mankind.

In that perspective, it's not very practical to change modern aquaculture into the Veta la Palma model, which uses 32 square kilometers of land to produce meager 1200 tons of fish annually.

I realize I should modify my question and ask - "How do we make intensive aquaculture sustainable"?

Hi Daniel,

I like what you write, but I need clarifications. You argue that one should start by looking at "social sustainability" and then go on to "ecological sustainability". How do you define the former?

Social sustainability, right. What I mean by that is, that in order for an enterprise to be sustainable, it has to be considered as such, by the stakeholders that are influenced by it. That means, the locals in the community, tourism operators, government officials, indigenous people, simply everyone that could possibly stand to gain or lose something due to the presence and activities of the enterprise.

Once this is established, and there is some kind of consensus (although it will never be 100%, it can be reasonably close), on what the stakeholders consider sustainable, then it can be considered socially sustainable.as long as the enterprise is established and operated within those conditions or future visions, which the stakeholders have put forward.

In short, I guess that to be socially sustainable, an enterprise needs to be established and operated in a way that satisfies the idea of sustainability in the minds of as many stakeholders as possible.

Does that make sense now?

Hi Daniel,

Again, I find your thoughts on (social) sustainability well put. However, based on your definition it's obvious that social and ecological sustainability go hand in hand, as the social stakeholders will certainly base their views, positive or negative, to large extent on how they perceive the importance of the environmental impact.

Sustainable aquaculture is the production of aquatic organisms using efficient and cost-effective methods to improve human capacity utilize and conserve available resources and protect the environment

Sustainable aquaculture is the production of aquatic organisms using efficient and cost-effective methods to improve human capacity utilize and conserve available resources and protect the environment

Sustainable aquaculture is the production of aquatic organisms using efficient and cost-effective methods to improve human capacity utilize and conserve available resources and protect the environment

Hi all,

In my opinion, the best description of a sustainable activity is those that minimizes its carbon footprint without endangering economical activity.

The carbon footprint concept includes all processes needed to develop the activity, in the case of aquaculture it would include: construction of structures, feed production processes, cultured specimens physiological processes, transport of production to markets, environmental impact of the activity, etc, while the economical activity is measured by using different socioeconomic indices: No. of direct and undirect employments, sales volume, GDP fraction, etc.

This is an holistic description of sustainability, although is not easy to measure.

Hi all,

the word "Sustainability"

according to Wikipedia, In ecology, sustainability is how biological systems endure and remain diverse and productive. Long-lived and healthy wetlands and forests are examples of sustainable biological systems.Sustainability requires the reconciliation of these environmental, social equity and economic demands - also referred to as the "three pillars" of sustainability or the 3 Es.

in Many modern aquaculture practices emphasise the unsustainable production of species for high-value export markets. Rapid development and expansion of intensive aquaculture for species such as salmon and shrimp has, for example, resulted in widespread degradation of the environment and the displacement of coastal fishing and farming communities.

Unsustainable aquaculture also negatively impacts on the food supplies and food security of developing coastal countries. Aquaculture development often blocks access to common lands, used by local people for fishing and cleaning (collecting of seafood from the ground), and takes away traditional food sources, for use in fishmeal and oil production for aquaculture production.

There are no species that are sustainable as such. The sustainability of a species depends on its feeding and lifecycle habits, as well as the farming operation. Only species that are plant eaters, who can breed in captivity, and whose farming does not produce high levels of nutrient output can be cultivated sustainably.

There are a number of conditions an aquaculture operation must adhere to in order to be sustainable. Among other things, an aquaculture operation can only be regarded as sustainable if it:

* is continually moving towards plant-based feeds originating from sustainable agriculture;

* does not use fishmeal or fish-oil-based feeds from unsustainable fisheries and does not represent a net loss in fish protein yield;

*does not use wild-caught juveniles;

* only cultivates species that are native in open water systems, and then only in bag nets, closed-wall sea-pens or equivalent systems (if there is cultivation of non-native species, it must be restricted to land-based tanks);

* does not result in negative environmental impacts in terms of discharges and effluents to the surrounding areas;

*does not result in negative effects to local wildlife (plants as well as animals) or represents a risk to local wild populations;

*does not use genetically engineered fish or feed;

uses stocking densities that minimise the risk of disease outbreaks and transmission;

* does not deplete local resources, for example, drinking water supplies and mangrove forests;

*does not threaten human health;

supports the long-term economic and social well-being of local communities.

Achieving sustainability requires adhering to a full set of measures and cannot be reached through simply implementing one or two.

Bjorn, I think you posed a really interesting question: how to make intensive aquaculture farming (or any intensive farming, for that matter) sustainable. I'm not entirely convinced you can. The reality is too many cultures are taking on the Western diet mentality of animal protein as the primary source of food on the planet, when really it should be plant based foods and proteins which can be more sustainably produced with the right safeguards in place. I swear I'm not playing the whole vegetarian vs. meat eater argument, but with the true cost of producing animal protein, and increasingly on land not suitable for cattle, sheep, chickens, etc. (i.e. rainforest), and with the already known problems of intensive farming fish, meat and fish should be a rarity on the table and cost way more than it does now. And vegetables and fruits should cost way less. I shouldn't have to pay $4.99/lb for peppers but only $3.49/lb for ground beef.

Like any real lifestyle change, we have to make the small changes to our individual lives and yes, we have to make some sacrifices. Perhaps the only way to sustainably "farm" fish is to keep it to wild caught specimens, only seasonally available, and with strict fishing practices in place. When fishing trawlers want to destroy seal and sea lion populations because they compete for the same fish resource, it's our hunger we should be questioning, not theirs.

I can appreciate your view of Veta la Palma, but the entire park of Isla Mayor is a combination (and was originally purchased and developed to be this combination) of natural park and farm. It produces rice and fish but does so in a way as to not disrupt the natural balance of the land around it. Similar practices are done in fishing as well. Whale numbers rebounded (well, as much as they can rebound) when intensive hunts were stopped and limited to only indigenous peoples and those countries that still practice. Species of fish and crustaceans are limited to the season they are available and only in certain numbers and to certain sizes.

I think in the end the solution is not a question of method, but a question of behavior. It's about changing the wasteful way in which people view food and not treating it like an unlimited resource.

Larraine, I don't know where you're from, but where I come from, we pay the high price for seafood, and the cheapest is the fresh fruit and vegetables. I think the reason that we pay so much for seafood in Australia (average of $25-$45 per kg), is that it is so strictly regulated and managed and that farmed products are so expensive because of the cost of production and relatively low profit margins associated with aquaculture production systems.

The strictness of fishing practices is not a solution, nor are wild caught fisheries. Aquaculture needs to become sustainable to ensure that with our astronomical rate of population growth, we can somehow sustain our hunger for quality protein. And unfortunately, as much as I appreciate your optimism, transforming the lifestyles of the 4 or 5 billion people in the developed world, toward a majority consumption of food originating from plants, is not going to happen.

Furthermore, the problem with limiting production and access to farming, whether terrestrial or aquaculture, is that they are linked too closely with the livelihoods of so many people, that the economic backlash would prevent anyone from even breathing on primary producers and suggesting that they cut down their production.

So, given this situation, making aquaculture sustainable is essential, not only because the demand for protein will continue growing on its merry way, but also because these conflicts with the natural environment and impacts on biodiversity need to be addressed in such a way that takes out the conflict, and most importantly to avoid these conflicts of interest among stakeholders, as I suggested. This is where the social sustainability comes in. In this day and age, you cannot say to someone, "Our environment is affected by your activities. Please stop conducting your business". There are incredibly complex economic and political implications which will usually get in the way. Besides, it takes an environmental catastrophe, in most cases, for something so drastic to happen. And that is where sustainable aquaculture needs to be properly defined.

The most advantageous feature of aquaculture is that it can produce (theoretically, at least for the time being) an almost unlimited amount of protein, but it needs to be more efficient, more appropriately managed and better funded to enable it to become a mainstream industry like terrestrial farming is.

Larraine. I can certainly agree with you that a part of the sustainability question is a change in consumer behavior. In Sweden, consumers are becoming much more aware of sustainability issues, and in choice of seafood, people check if it is MSC labeled or ASC for aquacultured products.

Just yesterday, WWF red-listed the locally fished shrimp on the Swedish west coast due to the fishing practices were not size-selective enough, and today, most restaurants in Gothenburg have stopped serving those shrimps, even if they're a very traditional part of Swedish seafood.

However, even if "responsible behavior" may be a part of the solution, I have to agree with Danial that this does not solve the major question of global food supply.

There's e.g. a new joint report by World Bank, FAO, and the International Food Policy Research Institute which looks at prospects for fisheries and aquaculture, and concludes that fish farms will produce nearly two thirds of global food fish supply by 2030. http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/213522/icode/

Further, FAO concludes:

Based on its dynamic performance over the last 30 years, and with fairly stable catches from capture fisheries, it is likely that the future growth of the fisheries sector will come mainly from aquaculture.

A sustainable aquaculture strategy needs:

a recognition of the fact that farmers earn a fair reward from farming

to ensure that benefits and costs are shared equitably

to promote wealth and job creation

to make sure that enough food is accessible to all

to manage the environment for the benefit of future generations

to ensure that aquaculture development is orderly, with both authorities and industry well organized

The ultimate aspiration is for aquaculture to develop its full potential so that:

communities prosper and people are healthier

there are more opportunities for improved livelihoods, with an increased income and better nutrition

farmers and women are empowered

FAO recognizes the fast-growing contribution aquaculture is making to food security, providing technical assistance through the implementation of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, which:

promotes sustainable aquaculture development, especially in developing countries, through better environmental performance of the sector, through health management and biosecurity

provides regular analysis and reporting of aquaculture development status and trends at global and regional levels, sharing knowledge and information

develops and implements efficient policies and legal frameworks which promote sustainable and equitable aquaculture development with improved socio-economic benefits

Bjorn, as usual, you started a very interesting topic. You put a very tricky question. To my opinion, sustainable means at least "that can last for very long". Thus, in France we say "developpement durable". So I think that in fact the question is far broader. For example, the world aquaculture is based on import-export. So, it relies on petrole. Just with that, is it a sustainable system ?

Hi Neil,

Yes, I think that "locally produced" will become an important argument in European aquaculture. It's not just a question of favoring the local economy, tying in with social sustainability, but also, as you point out, what is the environmental impact of the international transports we see in fisheries and aquaculture?

However, apart from the costs of transports, it is also a question of quality. When fish caught in the north Atlantic is frozen, shipped to China where it is thawed, filleted and frozen again, to be shipped back to the USA and Europe, there's something seriously wrong with us. At some point, hopefully quality will start to be of greater importance for the consumers, even if I understand why a lot of people have to favour the lowest price.

Below is one of FAOs graphs over current international trade flows in fisheries and aquaculture

...and this one is for the EU

On the point of fish caught being frozen, transported to China, defrosted, filleted, packaged, then refrozen and sent back to where it came from, we have the same process happening here in Australia. Unfortunately, I think in some countries, where economic growth is going towards exponential (e.g. Australia), there is a strong capitalist undercurrent, which feeds these kinds of ridiculous chains of production, simply because it is profitable business practice. However, I feel that it may eventually get to a point where economic pressures push out locally produced seafood and ultimately cause those producers to fold and pull out of the game.

The price of seafood is probably high, at least in Australia here, because there is more supply than demand. What this means is that, if hypothetically the seafood industry were to crash due to poor demand, then, prices should drop, because nobody has to cover their losses or compensate for low sales. It would be much nicer if it was the other way around (high prices due to high demand) because then we could all work in the seafood industry and send the proceeds (and associated tax dollars) to universities and research institutes for developing more sustainable aquaculture practices.

Hi Daniel, Just an additional note on the fish transports around the globe. When I visited China in 2010, we were able to visit and freely photograph fish and shrimp farms, meed mills and fish markets. It was only in a fish filleting factory we visited we were not allowed to photograph, and I sort of understand why. It was the only really depressing and distressing visit of the tour. Anyone who's witnessed this practice of thawing, filleting, refreezing fish is not likely to buy the products!

What became also evident in discussions with Chinese fish farmers was that they felt that production prices in China were getting too high, and were in the process of moving some of the fish-farms to Vietnam and Laos. So the capitalistic carousel spins another round ;-)

Yes, that makes sense, considering that China is also experiencing a massive inflation problem. I had a feeling they would be in the same situation as Australia, but didn't want to venture a guess, because I don't really know much about China except what the reporters tell us about their economy.

On parle d'aquaculture durable quand elle s'exerce en harmonie avec le respect de l'équilibre de son environnement naturel. En pensant toujours à la gestion la plus rationnelle des systèmes adoptés et avec le moindre préjudice causé à l'environnement naturel et à ses ressources.

We talk about sustainable aquaculture when it is exercised in harmony with respect for the balance of the natural environment. Always thinking about the most rational management systems adopted and with the least harm to the natural environment and its resources.

MM Kraïem,

I hope you don't mind me saying this, but it is exactly because of such vague, general definitions, just as you've provided, that I posed the question. To me, phrases like "most rational" and "least harm" are subjective and rather meaningless. Who can e.g. define what is the "most rational" management system? I guess that the "least harm" must be no harm at all. However, I think that all animal production has some environmental impact, so how do we define what is "acceptable harm"?

I do not think that sustainable systems, developed to produce food, need to have zero impact (harm). Some argue that only plant food production can be sustainable, but scratching the ground in order to plant seeds is an impact. So, can't pond building and other water use methods also be sustainable even though there is an impact? Following the sustainable aquaculture strategy reported by Bjorn above seems logical to someone who desires aquaculture products, as I do. However, instead of seeking specific definitions, I would rather keep the general phrases and allow producers to add specifics that meet the approval of the market. An example is the market for "natural" foods rather than regulation-defined "organic" food.

I think that's what I was getting at, Gary. That market approval and overall social sensitivity needs to be a key determinant of what is sustainable. Not necessarily what are the impacts or the degree of impact. Although the social perception and sensitivity of course need to be moderated by the importance of real ecological and environmental impacts.

On one hand the inputs especially the feeds are made from local ingredients as far as possible,so that overheads are not incurred for importing it from far off places,& opening a market for those ingredients produced locally.The system doesn't infuse an overload of waste minerals from these culture waters to the immediate environment.It doesn't lead to proliferation of diseases in the neighborhood.In some of the developing countries it has been found that the new comers take to shrimp culture without knowing the technique of fin fish culture,with the result there is a back lash,& the time,energy,money are wasted,& places the legislators in confusion. Reference & reading is out of the question for these law makers as they just can't read the literature which is mostly in English.

Dear Chandravadan,

You make a number of interesting points, some of which I think illustrate well the complexity of the "sustainability" issue. You make the point for the developing countries, but I see very similar thing in the developed countries as in Sweden and the other Nordic countries. I'm e.g. a participant, with colleagues from Denmark, Iceland and Norway in a project which has as a goal to find locally produced feed ingredients for fish aquaculture, where we're in particular looking at mussels and algae.

The backlash you mention, when people start aquaculture operation, get others to invest and then go bankrupt because it turns out that they have little or no basic knowledge - we've seen this happen time and again in both Iceland and Sweden, and this has resulted in long periods where nobody has been willing to invest in aquaculture.

We see also in Sweden a lack of knowledge by the legislators and inspectors, similar to what you mention, so apart from a few countries where aquaculture has become a very established, large-scale industry, the points you mention are globally fairly widespread .

When I think of sustainable aquaculture, I always remember one talk that Dan Barber (a chef) presented at a TED conference: http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_barber_how_i_fell_in_love_with_a_fish

In my opinion, it helps us to understand better the social and environmental issues that surround the aquaculture industry.

Well, I'm not familiar with the aquaculture industry, but I've been working in the sustainable supply chains research field. There are several definitions of sustainability and it really can be seen by some as a vague, somewhat utopic concept that no one can really measure, and therefore, no one can really control. I prefer to use, instead, the term "social (and environmental) responsibility" since a sustainable business/ supply chain should focus on reducing the social and environmental negative impacts of its activity and on promoting a social and environmental responsibility (towards its stakeholders - owners/shareholders, suppliers, clients, workers, local communities, government, our planet/ the environment and, eventually, future generations…) while guaranteeing its economic/ financial "health" (also a responsibility - towards shareholders, owners, investors, workers, suppliers, clients, etc.).

There are already several initiatives (the United Nations Global Compact (UNGC), the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), the Ethical trading initiative, sectorial initiatives such as Marine Stewardship Council Environmental Standard, etc.) and instruments (codes of conduct, certification (SA 8000, ISO 26000, ISO 14000), third-party labeling standards, the UNGC principles and assessment tools, the GRI guidelines for sustainability reports, …) - see, for instance, the annex in http://www.oecd.org/investment/mne/40889288.pdf, for a more detailed list. They provide guidelines and propose some performance indicators.

I'm very fond of the UNGC 10 principles ( http://www.unglobalcompact.org/abouttheGc/TheTenprinciples/index.html), organized in 4 main areas (human rights, labor rights, environment and corruption).

Another instrument that I'm also very fond of is the framework for strategic sustainable development, based on the four "system conditions for sustainability" of the non-profit organization, founded by a Swedish scientist, "The Natural Step" (http://www.naturalstep.org). According to this framework, companies, people, governments, non-profit organizations should reduce (and, hopefully, eliminate) its/our/their contribution to:

systematic increases in concentrations of substances from the Earth's crust (scarce minerals, fossil fuels, … - extract less, use more efficiently)

systematic increases in concentrations of substances produced by society (chemicals, unhealthy foods, toxic components, … - replace with organic/ non-toxic products, produce less, use more efficiently).

systematic physical degradation of nature through overharvesting, depletion, foreign introductions and other forms of modification. (well-managed eco-systems, reduce modifications in eco-systems)

conditions that undermine people's ability to meet their basic human needs, both in our society and worldwide (living wages, good working conditions (healthy, safe, family-friendly), …)

As to the sustainable aquaculture question, I found the "Aquaculture Sustainability Reporting Initiative" (www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/aquaculture/programs-programmes/sus-rep-ini-eng.htm) as a interesting instrument, with key performance indicators in the triple bottom line (economic, social and environmental).

Another interesting instrument is the Technical Guidelines on Aquaculture Certification (http://www.fao.org/docrep/015/i2296t/i2296t00.htm), from FAO - Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, covering 4 main areas (food safety, animal health and welfare, environmental integrity, socio economic aspects) - http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/aquaculture/programs-programmes/msr-sus-eng.htm.

Dear Catarina,

Thank you so much for a thorough and highly informative responses to my question. Instinctively, I feel that the terms "social and environmental responsibility" are in some ways more tangible than "sustainability" and thus of greater help in setting concrete goals for aquaculture operations.

A point in case is the slave labour used by the Thai seafood industry as just revealed by The Guardian http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2014/jun/10/supermarket-prawns-thailand-produced-slave-labour. The prawn production itself may be environmentally sustainable, but it's certainly not socially acceptable.

You're quite right! I've been tracking some supply chain-related scandals like the one you pointed out (the most famous is probably the Nike sweatshop scandal, back in the 90's) and it is amazing how some problems are still arising, specially in terms of labor conditions, discrimination and local communities (another great video on this is the Annie Leonard's "story of stuff": www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GorqroigqM).

Big corporations (and the smaller ones too) are realizing the advantages in being seen as "social responsibility"-oriented (consumers response, risk management benefits, workers motivation, etc) - and they do more and disclose more in their webpages and in (voluntary) sustainability reports. However, when analyzing those reports we realize that much of that work is still excessively oriented towards the environmental impact and the efficient use of resources. And that makes sense! Being efficient in the use of the materials, energy or fuel reduces costs, and therefore increases profits - that's one of the pillars in the popular lean thinking approach.

The way I see it, the social issues regarding workers, suppliers, local communities, etc. are still not being addressed with the same focus and effort as the environmental issues are. That could simply mean that companies are not seeing them as opportunities to increase profits, but rather as issues they are forced (or externally pressured) to tackle. (in fact one can argue that the increase in the workers' motivation and the strategic alliances with local producers and communities can be important reasons for addressing those issues).

Another way of analyzing this is by understanding the gap in the effort and changes that need to be done. It's easier (and cheaper) to replace some light bulbs or to start using recycled paper than it is to change workers conditions or to change the relationship and impact in local communities (I'm not considering philanthropy initiatives here). The bigger the challenge, the bigger the level of commitment needed, the deeper the change needed and the bigger the conflicts within the organization. It's a much more difficult process, the economic impact can be more difficult to measure and it may be difficult to persuade all the agents involved to embrace the changes. That leaves us the pressure imposed by activists, journalists and the general public.

However, in my opinion, since we generally use one term (corporate social responsibility) for both social and environmental aspects of sustainability, some companies can be seen as socially responsible when in fact they are, at the most, environmentally responsible. That's why I prefer to separate the two aspects and use two different terms instead of just "social responsibility" or "sustainability". By separating the terms (and the types of reporting), I think companies become more aware of the social aspects of the triple bottom line (and also would become more transparent and accountable).

By addressing this kind of social issues, big companies can have a strong impact in local communities and on its stakeholders, for sure, but also, as the contributors/ agents in the development of new standards that sometimes are far more protective than local laws and traditions (child labor, discrimination, abuse, access to education and healthcare services, safety levels) they can really contribute to boost the development of the countries in which they have their plants (or producers). Step by step, this might help to reduce the gap between developing and developed countries, in terms of new policies and norms. And that, for some authors, is the role that every organization should be playing in the society - even the for-profit ones.

See http://www.fao.org/docrep/017/i3194e/i3194e.pdf

This new position paper on Priorities for environmentally responsible aquaculture in the EU by several important European NGO's is an interesting and important contribution to this discussion. Please read and comment!

Dear Sir,

Amazing question,

In reference book view: there are such a large number of definitions accessible. This topic is consistently on hot discussion due association of striking quality of partner. It is extremely hard to clarify due assortment of partner, social orders, law, nation, topographical location and era.

How it could create in amicability with environment objectives? Aquaculture Scientist vs. Environmental Scientists are not in concurrence with one another for example: water, species, stocking density, flow & feed type. While, as an aquaculture educator I will recommend multi tropic cultivating with sensible use of feed and fertilizer & by keeping away from waste, antibiotic, anti-fouling, pesticides, maximal water use, unnecessary bolstering of protein rich and supplement tainting.

Regards,

Alok