RESEARCH PAPER NUMBER: 5
RESEARCH PAPER MNEMONIC: XSEAFOOD
RESEARCH PAPER NAME: Seafood TED Cases Analysis
DRAFT AUTHOR: Dandamudi Sreenivasa Rao
Seafood, around the world, is becoming increasingly popular
for health reasons. Unfortunately, the production of seafood has
some environmentally damaging affects. The analysis of the
following five case studies shows both the benefits, as well as
the
damaging consequences of seafood production. These cases
encompass: aquaculture in India; mangrove protection; shrimp and
sea turtles; tilapia, trade and the environment; and Thailand
shrimp.
Because it is a healthy alternative to other forms of meat,
seafood has become increasingly popular over the past two
decades.
This increasing popularity in the world market has slowly created
a scarcity for some seafood products. There is currently an on-
going depletion of worldwide seafood resources. This depletion
has
caused many fishermen to search for alternative methods of
harvesting fish. One such alternative is aquaculture.
Aquaculture
is practiced throughout the Third World and is discussed in four
cases: the Thailand shrimp case; the mangrove protection case;
the
aquaculture in India case; and the tilapia, trade and the
environment case. However, before jumping into aquaculture, it
is
best to begin with the shrimp and sea turtles case. This case
deals with traditional methods of harvesting shrimp from the
ocean.
According to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS),
catching shrimp in the ocean is considered to be the greatest
threat to the survival of five species of turtle. These five
species are the hawksbill, green, leatherback, Kemp's ridley, and
loggerhead. The problem in this situation is that turtles often
get
trapped in shrimp trawls and drown. In order to rectify this
problem, the NMFS has produced the turtle excluder device (TED).
TEDs are cage-like fixtures that are placed on the neck of a
trawl. They do not allow for the passage of turtles and large
fish. Instead, these larger animals are forced out of the cage
through an escape hatch. The United States has passed
legislation
requiring TEDs on all domestically caught shrimp. It is also
encouraging other governments to do the same. Mexico is looking
into such a requirement on its fishermen after the embargo of
Mexican tuna imports by the United States when precautions were
not
taken by Mexican tuna fishermen to protect dolphins.
As late as 1984, Thailand produced 90% of its shrimp from the
ocean. Now, over half of the shrimp produced in Thailand comes
from aquaculture farms. Many of these new aquaculture farmers
are
former rice farmers who converted their lands for the use of
aquaculture. This is because rice farmers who were making about
$500 a year suddenly began to make between $20,000 and $40,000 a
year in aquaculture. Unfortunately, proper measures have not
been
taken to protect and irrigate these shrimp farms. Therefore, the
average life of these farms is between two and four years.
Because
of a lack of proper irrigation, many of the shrimp began to choke
in their own excrement as well as a build-up of antibiotics and
fertilizer.
In addition to not protecting themselves, these shrimp farms
are the result of the destruction of many mangroves. At least
640,000 of the country's 960,000 acres of mangroves have been
destroyed for aquaculture. Of these lost mangroves, each 40,000
acres that is no longer available for use is estimated to cost
about $200 million in yearly economic loss. In addition to being
unusable for aquaculture, these destroyed mangroves affect
seafood
catches in the ocean because about two-thirds of the fish caught
for human consumption are dependent on mangrove ecosystems.
In addition to environmental obstacles, aquaculture, as a
long-term investment project, faces economic uncertainty. For
instance, in 1989, world shrimp prices dropped dramatically and
forced many investors in Thailand's upper three provinces to
terminate operations. However, in 1990, prices rebounded,
causing
new excitement in aquaculture. Eventually, this excitement caused
Thailand to replace the United States as the world's largest
seafood exporter.
Related to the Thailand shrimp case is the MANGROVE case.
This case deals with the protection of global wetlands. As
mentioned above, this is a big problem in Thailand, where
mangroves
are destroyed for aquaculture. The reason for concern over
global
wetlands is expressed in the preamble of the Convention on
Wetlands
of International Importance as Waterfowl Habitat ("Ramsar";
signed
by member countries on 2 February 1971). The preamble states
that
"wetlands constitute resource of great economic, cultural,
scientific, and recreational value, the loss of which would be
irreparable..." Thus, Ramsar was formed to protect global
wetlands.
Despite its intent to protect global wetlands, there is some
concern over Ramsar. For instance, while eleven Asian countries
have signed onto Ramsar, many countries like Malaysia, the
Philippines, and Thailand, which have extensive wetlands, have
not
signed onto this agreement. Another concern about Ramsar is that
there are only three vague guidelines which need to be followed
by
signatories. Not a single one of these guidelines is legally
binding.
The first guideline is that each signatory must designate at
least one area of wetlands on a list for preservation. Member
countries must then formulate and implement a strategy that will
promote conservation of the wetlands included on their wetlands
list.
The second guideline is that the Convention Bureau must be
informed of any ecological changes in the wetlands. Finally,
signatories must establish and care for nature reserves on their
wetlands.
Moving onto India, the shrimp aquaculture in India case deals
with the rising amount of shrimp farming in India. The reason
for
this rise is that aquaculture has provided many benefits to
southern India. For instance, in Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu,
highly salinized land which is not adequate for traditional forms
of agriculture have finally been put to use for economic
productivity.
Furthermore, aquaculture provides employment. The World Bank
has lent $96.8 million for the development of Indian aquaculture
in
order to create about 2 million jobs in India. Furthermore,
these
jobs are raising the standards of living in India, according to
the
Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute (CMFRI). According
to
an October 1994 CMFRI report, seed collection in shrimp
hatcheries
has employed 25,000 in Andhra Pradesh and significantly raised
their standard of living for its employees. The high profits
that
aquaculture firms enjoy are shared among the villages in which
they
operate. For instance, Spencer's Aquaculture provides roads,
schools, clean drinking water, and televisions to villages in
which
they have projects.
There is also a downside to aquaculture, as mentioned earlier
in the Thailand shrimp case. Shrimp need salt water in order to
live, therefore water is shipped in from the ocean. Furthermore,
in order to keep the oxygen levels at a life sustainable level,
salinized water is continually pumped into these farms from the
ocean. The runoff from this salt water negatively affects nearby
rice farmers as well as the villagers themselves. The rice
farmers
are hurt because they are no longer able to grow their crops in
high saline conditions. The villages are hurt because the
salinized water seeps down and affects their drinking water.
Another problem is that shrimp farmers use many pesticides,
some of which are banned in other countries like the United
States.
Not only does this pesticide seep through and affect other
farming
and drinking water, but it also breaks down the immune systems of
the shrimp themselves. Because of this, in addition to the
aforementioned economic uncertainty in the international shrimp
market, the average life of a shrimp farm in India, according to
the NGO known as PREPARE, is five years. Furthermore, after this
five years, the land must be unused for another seven years
before
enough desalinization takes place to allow for traditional forms
of
agriculture to again take place.
Another point is that the government is being forced to
subsidize these shrimp farmers by helping pay the expense of
shipping clean drinking water into these villages. Therefore,
the
net profit that these shrimp farmers make does not reflect the
total expenses. According to Vandana Shiva, an environmental
activist in Tamil Nadu, the state's shrimp export revenue of $868
million in 1994 came at the expense of $1.38 billion in job loss
and environmental destruction. Therefore, Indian
environmentalists
argue that aquaculture is a scheme where the rich get richer
while
creating a negative impact in the overall national economy.
Moving away from shrimp aquaculture is the tilapia, trade and
the environment case. This case deals with the growing amount of
aquaculture around the world, specifically dealing with tilapia.
For instance, in 1993, about 84% of total fish production in the
world came from the sea. However, the amount of fishing has
been
decreasing. Between 1984 and 1993, aquaculture production had
risen from 6 million ton to 16 million tons. As mentioned before
in the Thailand shrimp case, the tilapia case discusses the
environmentally damaging techniques used in aquaculture.
Tilapia is favorable for aquaculture because it is a
freshwater fish, ending the problem of salinization that is
normally present in shrimp aquaculture. However, another problem
with tilapia is that it is carnivorous. Therefore, its
introduction into various parts of the world has led to a
decrease
in certain indigenous species of fish. For instance, tilapia is
believed to be the cause of depletion of the guapeta, a native
fish
of Costa Rica. Therefore, tilapia, while seen as an easy
commodity
to produce, can be environmentally damaging by contributing to
habitat loss.
One of the ways in which these cases divide into groups is in
the way in which a trade measure would relate to the environment.
For instance, by affecting the industry, a trade measure may
require the industry to be more environmentally sound.
In the cases of the tilapia and shrimp, the main problem is
species loss. Since tilapia is a carnivorous breed, its
production
in aquaculture leads to the loss of other sea species. In the
shrimp and sea turtles case, the practice of catching shrimp in
the
seas is damaging to sea turtles, which get caught in the fishing
nets.
The United States, which imports shrimp from other countries
that do not use TEDs is looking into enforcing legislation which
requires exporting countries to use TEDs in their fishing nets.
TEDs allow up to 97% of turtles to leave the fishing nets
unharmed
while not allowing more than a loss of 2% of shrimp in the
process.
Mexico, a major shrimp exporter to the United States, is looking
at
the possibility of requiring TEDs for all locally caught shrimp
so
that it will not be hit with export restraints by the United
States.
Tilapia is currently being bred in over 85 countries. The
main problem with tilapia is that in the process of raising this
fish, they prey on other species of fish. This is causing a
decline in the numbers of many indigenous species of fish where
tilapia aquaculture has been introduced. To demonstrate the
extent
to how carnivorous tilapia is, this species of fish will even
prey
upon its own eggs when hungry. One measure being looked into is
the ban of tilapia imports by importing countries. Europe is a
major importer of tilapia. The European Union (EU), for a brief
period of a few months, banned the import of this fish from
Africa
because of reports that they were feeding on the dead bodies of
people killed in the Rwandan civil war. However, this ban was
lifted and tilapia continues to be a major export for many
developing countries. In both of these cases, the problem with
the
process of these products is the loss of other species. However,
in the case of tilapia, the main motivation was ethical, rather
than environmental, when the EU decided to briefly ban its
imports.
Two other cases which are related are the mangrove case and
the Thai shrimp case. In both of these cases, the process
relates
to habitat loss. Actually, both of these cases deal with the
destruction of mangroves. In the Thai shrimp case, mangroves are
being destroyed in order to create more aquaculture projects. The
mangrove case looks at this same topic. Basically, it states
that
mangroves are being destroyed in Southeast Asia, mainly for
shrimp
aquaculture. Both cases feel that it is important to protect
mangroves. The mangrove case suggests that nature reserves be
created for the protection of mangroves. The Thai shrimp case
states that environmental groups in Europe and the United States
have begun campaigning to end shrimp imports from developing
countries, which are the main sources for shrimp aquaculture.
Either way, the aim is to protect habitat loss.
The shrimp aquaculture in India case deals with land loss due
to soil erosion. Salt water from the sea is needed to sustain
shrimp. This salt water drifts away from these shrimp ponds and
causes erosion of the soil, which hinders the production of
traditional agricultural projects. One solution being suggested
is
to have the government of India designate certain areas, away
from
traditional agriculture and drinking water reserves, for use in
aquaculture. The main goal in this situation is to end the land
loss caused by salinization in the aquaculture process.
These five cases share both similarities and differences in
the case of the process of production. This is evident by the
three groups into which they were broken. One area in which all
five cases share a similarity is in the industrial sector to
which
they all belong. This is the food industry. It is clear to see
that the shrimp aquaculture in India, Thailand shrimp, shrimp and
sea turtles, and tilapia cases all deal with food, since the main
point of discussion deals with the production of a food item.
Similarly, the mangrove case also deals with food, since the
greatest threat to mangroves is aquaculture.
Another area worth looking into is the effect of culture on
these cases. For four of these cases, culture is not considered
to
be an issue. However, in the case of tilapia, culture is
considered to be an issue. Despite this, the effect of culture
in
the tilapia case may also be transferred to the other cases. For
instance, in many tropical areas, most recipes call for salt
water
fish. For this reason, tilapia is mainly an export rather than a
domestically used product. Secondly, the current trend among
people of developed countries, the main importers of aquaculture
products, is to eat more seafood which is considered to be
healthy.
Likewise, in Japan, the main importer of Indian seafood, the diet
has traditionally consisted of a high seafood content.
Therefore,
the culture of the importing countries is an important factor in
the production of this food product.
However, from the standpoint of the producing countries,
shrimp is normally not a main part of the culture. In fact,
shrimp
is mainly sent out for export because few indigenous people can
afford it themselves. Therefore, from this point of view,
culture
is not an important factor. The developing countries are only
interested in an important source for foreign revenue and would
be
involved in another such activity if the market was favorable.
Therefore, culture is not a clear cut issue in these cases.
The main theme which must be kept in mind when looking at a
solution for the environmental problems of these cases is
compromise. For instance, neither side should not be seen as
completely wrong and environmentally detrimental. Nor should they
be seen as a necessity for developing countries to gain foreign
revenues and improve their economic situations. Compromise was
suggested in both the mangrove and Indian aquaculture cases. By
allowing the government to designate certain areas for
aquaculture,
traditional agriculture, and nature preserves, all sides may
benefit. In the case of tilapia, the government may look into
designating certain sections of freshwater for indigenous fish
where the production of tilapia is prohibited while allowing
tilapia production in other areas. In this way, both sides can
stand to gain. The growing amount of aquaculture among
developing
countries is making the shrimp and sea turtles case almost
irrelevant, since aquaculture is slowly taking over the shrimp
industry. Solutions do not have to be seen as a winner-take-all
situation. There is room for all sides to benefit.
"Asia: Prawns and Profits Kill Mangroves," Inter Press Service
(15
December 1993).
Balarin, John Dominic, Tilapia: A Guide to Their Biology and
Cutlure in Africa, University of Sterling (1979).
BBC World Broadcast, "Andhra Pradesh Exportss Worth Rs. 10
Billion," All-India Radio (9 June 1993).
Bell, Nancy, "House OKs Protection of Species (Even Turtles),"
BioScience Vol. 38 (March 1988:162)
Bishop, Katherine, "Lawsuit Seeks Ban on Shrimp Imports," The
New
York Times (25 February 1992:A13).
Cohen, Dan, "Aquaculture+Agricutlure=Profits," Agribusiness
Worldwide, Vol. 16, No. 1 (1994:6-9).
Cohen, Gary, "Aquaculture Floods Indian Villages,"
Multinational
Monitor (July/August 1995).
Edwards, P. and R.S.V. Pullins, "Wastewater-fed Aquaculture
Proceedings of the International Seminar on Wastewater
Reclamation
and Re-use for Aquaculture, Calcutta, India," Environmental
Sanitation Information Center, Bangkok: Asian Institute of
Technology (6-9 Decembero 1988).
"Environmental Group Sues Government Over a Failure to Ban
Certain
Shrimp Imports," International Trade Reporter, (BNA, 4 March
1992).
"Enviros Plan Campaign Against Imported Shrimp," Greenwire (13
February 1995).
Fish Farming International, "India Project Compares Shrimp
Feeds,"
(October 1991).
Fitzgerald, Tricia, "Shrimp Farms Threaten Cambodian Coast,"
United
Press International (13 February 1995).
Ganapathy, R., "Shrimp Retains Dominant Position in Rising
Indian
Seafood Exports; Industry Overview," Quick Frozen Foods
International (January 1994).
Greenpeace International, It Can't Go On Forever: The
Imperfections
of the Global Grab for Declining Fish Stocks, Amsterdam (1993).
Hamilton, Joan, "All You Can Stomach," Sierra, Vol. 79
(November/December 1994:36-38).
Hinman, Ken, "The Real Cost of Shrimp On Your Plate," Sea
Frontiers
Vol. 38 (February 1992:14-19).
International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management
(ICLARM)/Consultative Group on International Agricultural
Research
(CGIAR) (1995). From Hunting to Farming Fish, background to a
press release. Manila: ICLARM, and Washington: World Bank
(CGIAR).
International Trade Forum, Vol. 20 (April/June 1984:4-7,
29-31).
Jamieson, Cheryl L., "An Analysiis of Municipal Wetland Laws
and
Their Relationship to the Convention on Wetlands of International
Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat (Ramsar)." Pace
Environmental Law Review, Vol. 4 (1986:177-220).
Jayaraman, Nityanand, "Big Fry vs. Small Fry, Booming Shrimp-
Farming Business Spawns Protest," Far Eastern Economic Review (12
January 1995).
Kawanich, Supradit, "Illegal Prawn Farms Destroying Wetlands,"
Bangkok Post (23 May 1994).
Kenworthy, Tom, "US Strengthens Sea Turtle Protections," The
Washington Post (2 December 1992:A6).
Kortbech-Olsen, Rudy, "The Shrimp Trade-A Big Business for
Developing Countries."
Lavallee, Michael, "Thai Frozen Seafood Market," United States
Foreign Commercial Service (30 August 1994).
Mallet, Victor, "Seafresh Sees ‘Miracle' in Lowly Shrimp
Shells,"
Bangkok Post (15 August 1994).
Pethick, John, "Marshes, Mangroves, and Sea Level Rise,"
Geography
Vol. 76 (January 1991:79-81).
Platt, Anne E., Review of Wetlands in Danger: A World
Conservation
Atlas bby the IUCN-World Conservation Union, edited by Patrick
Dugan, Oxford University Press, New York (1993). Review in World
Watch Vol. 7, No. 1 (January/February 1994:37-38).
Quarto, Alfredo, "Rainforsts of the Sea: Mangrove Forests
Threatened by Prawn Aquaculture," Vol. E, No. 5 (February
1994:16).
Quick Frozen Foods Internationa, "Shrimp Farming in Andhra
Pradesh," (July 1995).
"Ramsar Meeting in Hokkaido to Debate Waterfowl Habitats,"
Kyodo
News Service (26 May 1993).
Ranjani, C.M., "Seafood Promise Attracts India's Big
Companiies,"
Fish Farming International (March 1992).
Rudloe, Jack and Anne Rudloe, "Shrimpers and Lawmakers Collide
Over
a Move to Save the Sea Turtles," Smithsonian Vol. 20 (December
1989:44-55).
"Rules Protect Turtles From Shrimp Trawlers," National
Wildlife
Vol. 25 (October/November 1987:30-31).
Rush, James, "The Last Tree: Reclaiming the Environment in
Tropical
Asia," The Asia Society, New York (1991).
Scott, David Clark, "Stung by US Tuna Ban, Mexico Protects
Turtles," The Christian Science Monitor (14 May 1992:7).
"Seminar Tackles New Aquaculture Issue," Bangkok Post (20
February
1995).
Stern, Amy, "Endangered Species Bill Passed: Senate Votes for
Shrimpers Over Sea Turtles," Congressional Quarterly Weekly
Report,
Vol. 46 (30 July 1988:2113).
"Stricter Rules Urged to Save Sea Turtles," The Washington
Post (22
April 1992:A16).
"Success of Prawn Culture Reaps Big Rewards for Country,"
Bangkok
Post (1 May 1991).
Supapohn Kanwerayotin, "Vietnam: CP to Run Experimental Shrimp
Farm
in Vietnam," Bangkok Post (22 December 1992).
"Thai Wetlands May Become Ramsar Sites," Bangkok Post (24
September
1994).
"Thailand Passes US as Biggest Seafood Exporter," Bangkok Post
(1
August 1994).
"Thailand to List Shrimp Farms as Pollution Sources," Xinhua
News
Agency, (10 February 1995).
Timoshenko, Alexandre S., "Protection of Wetlands by
International
Law," Pace Environmental Law Review Vol. 5/2 (Spring
1988:463-472).
"Turtles Versus Shrimp," The Economist, (2 September 1989:30).
Tutwiler, Margaret D., "Sea Turtle Conservation in Commercial
Fisheries," US Department of State Dispatch (6 May 1991:338).
United Nations Industrial Development Organization, "Vietnam
Policy
Reform and International Cooperation," New York, UNIDO (1991).
US Department of Commerce, "Dispersal of Living Organisms Into
Aquatic Ecosystems," Proceedings of National Shellfisheries
Association symposium (February 1989).
Wathen, Thomas, "A Guide to Trade and the Environment,"
Environmental Grantmakers Association Consultative Group on
Biological Diversty (1992).
World Bank, "Strategy for Forest Sector Development in Asia,"
Washington, DC:Land Resurces Unit, Asia Technical Department
(1992).
World Resources Institute, "World Resources 1992-3," Oxford
University Press (1992).
Zweig, Ronald D., "An Integrated Fish Culture Hydroponiic
Vegetable
Production System," Aquaculture Magazine, Vol. 12, No. 3
(1986:34-40).
I. Abstract
II. Issue
Background
III. Relevant
TED Cases
A. Case Listings
Cases
Other Cases
B. Comparison and Contrast
IV. Further
Information
Bibliography
Go To Superpage
