their combined expertise. It brings technical expertise to standard review discussions; it reviews and recommends revisions to the standard; and recommends further input from the Expert Working Groups and external experts.
First day of face-to-face discussions for the Aquaculture TAC
Dr Thierry Chopin Getting involved with the Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch Program
T
his past winter, I was invited to join the Aquaculture Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) of the Seafood Watch Program of the Monterey Bay Aquarium (MBA). Initially, I was not sure exactly what my role would be or what I would be able to contribute. As I was interested in understanding this elaborate program from the inside, instead of relying on what I have heard from others (both negative and positive) about this program, and because I could have an impact on its evolution, I accepted. On May 21-22, we had our face-to-face meeting at the MBA. I was very impressed by the professionalism of the Seafood Watch team and how the Aquaculture TAC was engaged, following a 60-day public consultation period, resulting in a 29-page document. The diversity and excellence of the expertise gathered on the 15-member Aquaculture TAC, covering many aspects of aquaculture, is also impressive. We were, I believe, sincerely listened to, as we offered our comments and recommendations on several challenges that the Seafood Watch team has encountered and intends to address in their draft revisions to the Seafood Watch Aquaculture Standard, which last underwent in-depth revisions back in October 2016.
The Seafood Watch Program
The overall approach of the Seafood Watch Program is to provide information (maintaining standards, assessing fisheries and aquaculture operations globally, improving tools for industry and governments), engage strategically (for regionally applicable improvement solutions and collaborative approaches to increase engagement and promote better understanding), and build partnerships (with industry, business, government, investors, regional staff, universities and NGOs). The Seafood Watch environmental performance evaluation of global aquaculture changes quite drastically depending on whether seaweed aquaculture is considered or not. When considered, 34% is best choice, 1% good alternative, 8% avoid, 16% are under assessment, 38% is not yet assessed and 2% is certified. Hence, 45% of global production is rated by the Seafood Watch Program or certified by a recognised eco-certification (by comparison, it is 21% for global fisheries). When seaweeds are not considered, 14% is best choice, 2% good alternative, 11% avoid, 23% are under assessment, 47% is not yet assessed and 3% is certified. Hence, 30% of global production is rated by the Seafood Watch Program or certified by a recognised eco-certification. This points, one more time, to the key role of the seaweed component in global aquaculture and how it can significantly shift statistics. This is also evident when one looks at FAO data.
The goals, tasks and responsibilities of the Aquaculture TAC
The primary charge of the Aquaculture TAC is to tackle substantive technical issues and to recommend changes to the standard, based on
The day started with the Seafood Watch team asking each member of the Aquaculture TAC: what “sustainable aquaculture” means; whether zero-impact or maximum sustainable impact (MSI) was reachable, and, if so, through what lens (ecological, societal or economic, or all of the above); and whether it should operate in a vacuum or not (in context with other industries, resources users, and at what scale). We were then presented with a series of topics for discussion, based on the public comments received. Below are the questions to which we tried to bring clarification.
Sustainable aquaculture and the precautionary principle
Where do theory and reality intersect and how should that point influence a “full score” and a representation of “green”? There was broad agreement that zero risk or zero impact are impossible, so the question becomes how do we distinguish between “strong sustainability” (there is an impact, but it is reversible so that other activities can take place) and “weak sustainability” (there is an impact, but it is accepted that it can be channeled towards one activity for a long time). Regarding impacts, countries often have a three-tier aquaculture site classification system based on negative externalities: -1: Good performing site with minimal remedial action required -2: Site causing adverse environmental effects; some remediation needed -3: Site causing severe damage to the environment; remediation needed in coordination with regulatory agencies Working with Janaina Kimpara (Embrapa, Brazil) and Marcia Kafensztok (Primar Aquacultura Orgânica, Brazil), I believe that we need two other categories to recognise and incentivise companies demonstrating neutral or positive impacts and externalities: 0: Site with zero discharge +1: Site demonstrating positive externalities through consideration of the ecosystem services provided (organic, Integrated MultiTrophic Aquaculture (IMTA), circular production, taking advantage of species interactions and using an ecosystem-based management approach).
Scope and scale
How should the scale of an industry contribute to the overall consideration and assessment of its sustainability? How should the Seafood Watch Program assess the scale of an industry, especially as it relates to similar impacts from a related industry? Should the Seafood Watch standard incorporate a mechanism to factor this scale into the scoring?
Interpretation of “affected habitat”
When considering the habitat effects of a farm, what are the boundaries/definition for the “habitat”? Should the Seafood Watch Program consider the impact to the area directly within the perimeter of a/the farm, or to the broader habitat in which the farm(s) are situated?
Determining chemical use risk
Should this criterion incorporate a risk-based and an evidencebased assessment option? Which factors, metrics, and outside research or literature sources should be included? Are there any key factors the standard is currently missing or could expand upon?
Scoring for predators and wildlife interactions
Given that data on wildlife mortalities are typically poor, and “proving a negative” (i.e. that mortalities are not occurring) is difficult, how can the Seafood Watch Program best balance the precautionary principle while ensuring that industries are not penalised unfairly?
16 | July 2019 - International Aquafeed