39(2)

Environmental management of cage aquaculture 229

J. Indian Soc. Coastal Agric. Res. 39(2): 229-238 (2021) https://doi.org/10.54894/JISCAR.39.2.2021.111852

Environmental Management of Fish Cage Aquaculture

PATRICK G. WHITE*
Self-employed International Consultant
21 Georges Bovet, Crest 26400, France

Received: 12.04.2021 Accepted: 26.08.2021

Most modern fish culture involves the intensive input of nutrients in the form of feed, yet only a small
proportion of these nutrients is converted into the target product; they can be largely lost to bacterial
degradation. However, when compared with other livestock production systems, aquaculture has
better feed conversion efficiency and feed conversion ratios (FCRs) are continuing to improve. High
levels of nutrients from fish cages may cause eutrophication and thus may affect fisheries adversely,
but on the contrary, the additional nutrients from the feed may have a beneficial effect, boosting natural
productivity including fisheries. The important components of fish farming waste comprise nutrients
(dissolved and particulate) resulting from the metabolism of fish food, uneaten food, escapees of
farmed fish affecting the genetic diversity of wild fish populations and chemical residues of disease or
parasitic therapeutant treatments. Potential management measures to mitigate environmental impacts
include public and private sector approaches. The public sector approaches include appropriate and
specific aquaculture policies, strategies, regulations, legislation, and management plans, adoption
and implementation of the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (CCRF) and Ecosystem
Approach to Aquaculture (EAA) strategies for planning, management, monitoring, and control. Zoning
for aquaculture space is to be based on the allocation of aquafarms on suitable areas, appropriate
evaluation of carrying capacity of the ecosystem, planning and management for disease prevention and
treatment and environmental control. Appropriate control of farm permits, licences, and registration by
the state is necessary to monitor and control aquaculture development. The private sector approaches
include improved feed formulation and feeding strategies to reduce the feed conversion ratio and
nutrient losses, the use of Integrated Multi-trophic Aquaculture (IMTA) to utilise nutrient outputs from
intensive aquaculture and thus regular environmental monitoring is the key to ensure that impacts
remain within acceptable limits.
(Key words: Aquaculture certification, Aquaculture impacts, Better management practices, Environmental
management, Fish cage culture, Integrated multi-trophic aquaculture)

Marine and freshwater cage culture is increasing
rapidly worldwide in terms of the establishment of new
farms as well as increasing the size and production
intensity at existing cage farms. This increased
production and productivity will increase the potential
impact on the environment unless carefully managed. A
review of potential pollution impacts from aquaculture
systems in South East Asia was reviewed by White
(2017). A comprehensive literature review of the
ecological effects of aquaculture was undertaken by
the Ministry for Primary Industries (2013). This review
highlights the potential impacts of fish cage culture
and recommends some appropriate management and
mitigation measures.
Fish cage culture can cause a wide range of
impacts that mainly cover parameters such as nutrients,
genetics, chemical, disease and invasive species.
*Corresponding author: E-mail: pwhitemobile@yahoo.com
The environmental impacts are primarily related to
biological, chemical, physical and social impacts. The
main biological impacts of cage culture are caused by
excess nutrients coming from cages, biofouling that
drops off the nets, the collection of broodstock and fry
from the wild, potential impacts of fisheries recruitment,
and the escape of cultured fish from the cages. Dissolved
nutrients from fish excretion can lead to the localised
eutrophication of water bodies. Particulate nutrients in
the form of faeces and waste food settle on the sediment
below the cages, which can cause changes in sediment
chemistry and biology. Biofouling from nets can drop
off or be cleaned off nets affecting sediment quality. The
use of low-value fish/trash fish to feed fish especially
in Asia where it is still widely used for carnivorous
fish culture, can increase pressure on coastal fisheries
to provide feed for aquaculture. The collection of wild
230 White 39(2)
broodstock for breeding or collection of wild fry for
stocking can reduce recruitment for wild fisheries.
Escapees of cultured fish can cause changes in the
genotypes of wild fish populations and biodiversity.
Several factors affect the level of nutrient impacts
from cage culture. These are mainly due to the
intensity of production, the species being cultured,
the water depth and water currents, the site selection
and management of the farms. At the farm level, the
production rate of dissolved and suspended solids within
a fish farm is affected by a range of factors, including
feed quality, feeding rate, feeding method, fish stocking
density, dissolved oxygen level, the efficiency of farm
management, and the skills of personnel.
Impacts of nutrients
Nutrients are added in the form of juveniles and
feed to culture systems. However, not all the nutrients
from feed fed to the fish are utilised by the growing
fish. Some feed is not eaten by the fish and falls to
the sediment. Feed that is consumed is metabolised
with some accumulated as biomass and the remainder
excreted or eliminated as faecal matter. These unutilised
nutrients are then either assimilated by the environment
or accumulate in the water column or sediments below
the cages. Whether a nutrient impacts an aquatic
system depends on whether it is a limiting nutrient,
its concentration and the assimilative capacity of that
ecosystem. In freshwaters and the Mediterranean Sea,
phosphorus is typically the limiting nutrient for algal
growth, so its addition will influence the amount of
primary production. In marine environments, nitrogen
is typically the limiting nutrient.
Dissolved nutrients
Dissolved nutrients coming directly from the
metabolic processes are excreted (e.g., ammonium and
urea) and the nutrients dissolve in the water column.
Nutrients in the form of uneaten feed and faeces
accumulate in the sediments below the cages. Nutrients
are also released back into the water column from
the organic matter in the sediments. The extent of the
impact depends on factors such as fish biomass, feed
quality, FCRs, water current speed and direction. The
nutrients (primarily nitrogen and phosphorus) released
from fish cages can promote eutrophic conditions,
either by supplying nutrients to increase phytoplankton
density or by oxygen removal resulting from the
bacterial decomposition of waste solids. High-nutrient
concentrations can trigger algal blooms which can strip
oxygen from the water column when the organisms die,
sink, and decompose (Gowen, 2007).
There can be positive impacts from dissolved
nutrients released by cage farming operations due to
the increase in heterotrophic bacteria, phytoplankton,
zooplankton which can be a source of food for wild fish.
Particulate matter
Particulate nutrients are primarily made up of
uneaten feed pellets, feed dust (fines) caused by pellet
damage during transport or automatic feeding systems
and faecal matter and biofouling debris falling or being
washed off the net. Particulate nutrients can amount to a
large percentage of the feed used on a dry matter basis.
Particulate nutrients settle through the water column
and settle on the sediments below the cages, some are
eaten by wild fish and some may be resuspended into the
water column during storms or by strong water currents.
The build up of organic matter on the seabed
primarily causes physico-chemical and ecological
impacts. The deposition of faeces and uneaten feed
can lead to localised over-enrichment of the seabed
below the cages due to its high organic content. The
accumulation of nutrient solid waste will depend on the
local currents and depth. There is some benthic flux
where nutrients are released back into the water column
from these sediments.
This rain of organic matter can also smother benthic
and other sensitive species and habitats (such as corals
and seagrasses) and change species composition in the
near vicinity. Additional particulate material including
uneaten feeds and faeces can become direct food for
wild fish and enhance local fisheries.
Impacts on wild fish
The impact of fish cage farming on wild fish
populations can lead to an increase in biomass as a
result of increased natural and waste feed. Wild fish
may be attracted to the floating structures and escaped
fish may impact wild fish biodiversity and result in
the transmission of pathogens from farmed stocks to
wild fish populations (Ministry for Primary Industries,
2013). Wild fish are attracted around the cages due to
additional food sources due to the additional nutrients
released from the cage farm leading to increased phyto
39(2) Environmental management of cage aquaculture 231
and zooplankton as well as faeces and uneaten feed.
Wild fish are also attracted as the artificial floating
structures can act as a refuge (Fish Aggregation Device
- FAD). Wild fish can become trapped inside the cage
when small, and grow with the cultured fish. Fish
escapes from cages can lead to interbreeding with
potential impacts on wild fish genetics (especially from
genetically selected strains of cultured fish).
Impacts from chemicals
The main chemical impacts are from medications
and chemicals used to treat fish diseases and chemicals
in antifoulants applied to boats and the fish cage nets.
High intensive cage culture is prone to disease
outbreaks and so may require the use of therapeutics for
controlling diseases. Therapeutics include agents used
for the effective treatment and/or prevention of disease
and can include antimicrobials (including antibiotics),
anti-parasitics, fungicides, biologics (products of
biologic origin used in the diagnosis, prevention, and
treatment of diseases), hormones and other chemicals.
Therapeutics and other chemicals can be administered
to fish through medicated feed or by external treatments
in which the therapeutant is added directly to the water.
Therapeutics can be eaten by wild fish directly
when they eat medicated feed that falls through the nets
and faecal pellets that may contain residual amounts.
These fish may be caught and eaten by people, who
thereby ingest limited amounts of the therapeutant
which is undesirable, especially in the case of antibiotics
(Ministry for Primary Industries, 2013).
However, the present use of therapeutics, especially
antibiotics, is now strongly regulated in many countries
and the reduction of the use of therapeutics has been
noted due to the development of vaccines and the
implementation of effective biosecurity measures. The
development and use of vaccines in Asia have been slow
and there is still a dependence on antibiotic use although
there are increasing regulations on their use and now
strict control checks are performed on antibiotic residues
in fish when exporting to markets such as the U.S. and
the European Union.
Antifouling paints are sometimes used on cages
and nets to prevent biofouling. The buildup of these
organisms reduces the water flow through the cages
and decreases dissolved oxygen levels in the cages.
In the past, copper and zinc have been used as active
ingredients in the paints. The active ingredients in these
paints leach out into the water and can accumulate in
the water column and the sediments below the cages,
and may be toxic to organisms in the sediments below
the cages. The rate of release of chemicals from the
paint is affected by the toxin, temperature, water current
speed and water depth which affects dispersion. New
alternative antifoulants are being developed using
silicone which reduces the adhesion rate or changes the
physical properties of the netting (dyneema) which is
less prone to abrasion and so reduces the adhesion rate.
Impacts on biodiversity
The use of non-native culture species (such as trout,
Chinese carps and tilapia) is primarily due to those
species being successfully cultured in other parts of the
world and being easier to culture than native species.
However, non-native species can be potentially invasive
and have negative impacts on wild fisheries with endemic
fish species. The use of exotic predator species can
also become invasive species in certain environments
and have a great impact on local species; for example,
brown trout introduced in South Africa have eliminated
some native species (Cambray, 2003) and North African
catfish have hybridised with native catfish in Thailand
with the result that native clariid catfish are becoming a
threatened species (Senanan et al., 2004).
There is a risk of juvenile or adult fish escaping
from cage farms due to operational or technical failures
and this can also raise important concerns with respect
to ecological and genetic impacts. The ecological effects
of escapees on wild populations have been documented
for salmonids (Thorstad et al., 2008), but there is limited
documentation for other species. Escaped farmed fish
may affect wild populations through the transmission
of diseases, increased competition and predation and
genetic interactions such as breeding and hybridisation.
Other impacts
The main physical impacts are caused by changes
in water flow, for example, arising from the friction of
water passing through the nets and moorings of fish
cages. Other important physical impacts are caused
by jetties and service areas along the coast which can
restrict access to the coast or cause conflicts with other
users of the coastline,
The main social impacts are in the form of conflicts
232 White 39(2)
with other users of the coastline and can include visual/
scenic impacts (seascape), which may cause conflicts
with tourism or holiday homes and the use of sea space
that were formally fishing grounds for fishermen.
Factors affecting the severity and extent of impacts
There are certain practices undertaken by farmers
that may contribute to enhancing the impacts accruing
to cage farms. These practices are generally due to
insufficient knowledge on the part of the farmer or are a
result of economic decisions taken to save money.
Poor aquaculture planning and farm siting
Poor planning and siting of fish cage farms due
to lack of appropriate planning and zoning can lead to
both impacts on the environment, and cause continuous
production and management problems for the farmer.
For example, the siting of fish cages close to coral reefs
can smother the reef.
Cumulative impact from clusters of farms
Individual small-scale cage farms do not generally
cause significant environmental impacts; however, large
numbers of cages and also clusters of small-scale farms
can cause significant cumulative impacts and have a
major impact on the water quality, particularly dissolved
oxygen and to a certain extent cumulative nutrients.
There is a need for carrying capacity estimations
together with strict controls over the number and size
of farms in a particular water body or zone to limit this
type of overdevelopment.
Use of poor quality feeds and low-value fish/ trash fish
as feed
In Asia, a proportion of small and medium-scale
farmers use poor quality farm made feeds (such as
moist or cooked feeds used for catfish production in
the Mekong River Delta area), or low-value fish/trash
fish which can pose a biosecurity risk. Poor quality
pellet feeds generally have low binding properties so
that the feed either crumbles or dissolves into the water
as soon as it is put in the water and the small uneaten
particles settle to the bottom before it is eaten. Some
feed manufacturers offer favourable credit terms to
encourage farmers to buy their feed; however, such
feeds are not always the ones that give the best feed
conversion ratio (FCR) or economic food conversion
rate (eFCR).
Some farmers still use fisheries by-catch, low-value
fish/trash fish which are typically small fish which are
either the juveniles of larger edible fish or other species
that are unpalatable. The FCR of low-value fish/trash
fish to farmed fish can range between 8:1 and 2.5:1,
which is inefficient in the use of wild fish resources.
There is also a risk of transfer of disease from the low-
value fish/trash fish to the farmed fish.
However, there is an increasing trend to move
from the use of low-value fish/trash fish to pellet
feeds, from compressed pellets to extruded pellets, and
from sinking feeds to floating feeds, to increase feed
quality and reduce overfeeding. Training of farmers on
understanding the importance of eFCR (the ratio of the
value of the feed fed to the value of the fish produced)
would assist this process.
Poor feeding practice (overfeeding)
Farmers are often prone to overfeeding their
fish in an attempt to grow them to market size faster.
Overfeeding of fish will allow the fish to grow at their
maximum potential, but at the same time, it increases
the FCR, thereby increasing the feed production cost
and increasing nutrient releases to the environment
from uneaten or partially digested food. Some feed
manufacturers publish feeding tables that encourage
higher feeding rates, which lead to increased sales, but
reduced FCR. Proper awareness and capacity building
in the form of training can play an important role for the
farmers to understand the fish feeding behaviour and to
be able to calculate optimal ration size, duration of the
feeding, and timing of the feeding.
Mitigation of environmental impacts
The mitigation of environmental impacts can be
made at three different levels: public sector approaches;
coordinated, public-private sector approaches and
private, farm-level approaches (White, 2017).
The principal goal for aquaculture governance
frameworks should be to promote sustainability
enabling the sector to prosper over an extended
period. Sustainability comprises economic viability,
social acceptance, environmental protection and
technical feasibility. Aquaculture operations should
be economically viable and profitable over time and
be competitive. Social acceptance of aquaculture by
neighbouring communities, other users of the aquatic
resources and the wider society, determines where
39(2) Environmental management of cage aquaculture 233
and how much aquaculture development can occur.
Environmental protection requires mitigation of
negative impacts so that farmers can continue production
activities at the same production site over a long period.
Public sector approaches
There are several public sector approaches for
planning, management, monitoring and control of
aquaculture development to minimise aquaculture
impacts. In countries that already have strong aquaculture
development or large potential for future development,
there needs to be strong governance to plan, manage
and control the industry. This needs to be coordinated
between the fisheries or aquaculture department and the
environmental department to ensure that environmental
concerns are addressed appropriately.
Aquaculture legislation and regulations
For sustainable and responsible aquaculture
development, there should be enabling legislative and
regulatory frameworks that facilitate responsible and
sustainable cage culture development. There should
be specific measures for freshwater and marine cage
culture covering, zoning, permitting and licensing,
environmental management and disease management.
Good governance should manage and control
aquaculture inputs, resource use, and outputs. The most
common issues of poor governance include the lack of
integrated planning, overlap or gaps in the jurisdiction,
lack of political will, limited capacity for planning
and management and lack of understanding of the
legislation, and regulations by farmers.
Planning and management guidelines and strategies
Code of conduct for responsible fisheries (CCRF)
The CCRF (the Code) was adopted by FAO in
1995 and remains key to achieving sustainable fisheries
and aquaculture (FAO,1997). The Code provides a
framework and its implementation is steered by four
international plans of action, two strategies, and 28
technical guidelines, which have evolved to embrace the
ecosystem approach.
Two instruments are becoming important in support
of the implementation of the Code: the Ecosystem
Approach to Aquaculture (EAA) and zoning, siting, and
area management through spatial planning. Governments
and other stakeholders should work to effectively
implement the Guidelines for Fisheries and Aquaculture
within the CCRF. Aquaculture development has been
driven by market demand and does not always address
ecological conservation, food security, and poverty
alleviation. However, there are efforts to reduce key
negative environmental impacts through certification
schemes, Aquaculture Codes of Conduct and Good
Aquaculture Practice. However, greater efforts are
needed for implementation, especially focusing on
the clustering of small-scale cage farm producers in
developing countries.
EAA planning, management, monitoring and control
Several countries have adopted the EAA to develop
sustainable aquaculture. The EAA is a strategy for
development and management that considers physical,
ecological, social and economic systems, as well as
the participation of a wide range of stakeholders in
formulating and implementing management plans.
The three main principles of EAA are (a) aquaculture
development and management should take into account
the full range of ecosystem functions and services
and should not threaten their delivery to society; (b)
aquaculture should improve human well-being and
equity for all relevant stakeholders; and (c) aquaculture
should be developed in the context of other sectors,
policies and goals (FAO, 2010). This holistic approach
aims to find management solutions to aquaculture
development issues (including environmental concerns)
and requires the adoption of a management plan which
is regularly monitored and evaluated against specific
objectives with feedback to be obtained and developed
to improve the management plan and ensure good
control of the process. However, the EAA has not yet
been routinely applied at the national level in many
countries.
Implementation of the EAA can be best achieved
in designated aquaculture management areas. These
can be aquaculture parks, farm clusters, or any area
where farms share a common water body and would
benefit from a common management system. Following
the EAA strategy ensures that the management
plan balances environmental, socio-economic and
governance objectives and considers the sharing of
benefits with local communities and their involvement
(as appropriate) in the development of a management
plan, its implementation and monitoring.
Aquaculture zoning
Unplanned aquaculture development has sometimes
234 White 39(2)
triggered environmental and social concerns, leading to
unsustainable aquaculture development and a negative
public perception of aquaculture. Spatial planning,
including zoning and site selection, is increasingly being
used to ensure that aquaculture takes place in appropriate
areas and minimises conflict with other resource users.
Spatial planning is recommended for new aquaculture
developments where new production areas need to be
identified (FAO/World Bank, 2015).
Aquaculture zoning is now well established in
countries such as Norway, Scotland, Australia, Turkey
and Malta but is not so well applied in Southeast
Asia except for zoning for disease control (White,
2017). The allocation of aquaculture zones supports
integrated planning and avoids conflicts with fisheries
(for example spawning and nursery areas), as well as
improving regulation of the siting of cage farms. It may
also be used as a basis for coordinated management of
aquaculture areas using area management plans.
The development of aquaculture or mariculture
parks provide zones for clusters of small-scale farmers
that can be managed and monitored sustainably and
responsibly and often use shared infrastructures such as
jetties and market areas as well as shared services such
as the provision of ice and chill storages. By ensuring
that production activities are conducted sustainably,
such a strategy has also resulted in increased socio-
economic benefits to communities. The Bureau of
Aquatic and Fisheries Resources in the Philippines has
developed mariculture parks as a strategy for controlled
aquaculture development.
Carrying capacity estimation
Each environment has a different capacity to
assimilate the excess loading of organic compounds and
nutrients from a cage farm. Carrying capacity estimation
is undertaken as part of aquaculture zoning and or
licensing of farms to ensure that the environment can
assimilate nutrient inputs with the planned production
(Ross et al., 2013). Carrying capacity assessments are
usually based on depositional models (particle tracking)
such as Depomod Modelling Software (Keeley et al.,
2013) which predict the organic footprint below the
cages to estimate the potential impact on the sediments.
Particulate tracking models use water current data to
predict the severity and extent of the accumulation of
particulates falling from the cage. Government planning
departments need to have the capacity to undertake
the carrying capacity estimations or have access to
specialists who can make these assessments. In this
way, informed decisions can be made on sustainable
production in aquaculture areas.
Farm permitting, licences, and registration
The aquaculture licensing system is a legal
procedure that allows the authorities to issue permission
for establishing a cage farm to be located at a particular
location, with operating conditions (set production
and effluent limits), for a specific period over which
permission is valid. In this way, the location, size,
and the number of farms can be controlled to prevent
cumulative environmental impacts. All permitting and
leasing systems should include consideration of distances
between farms and other potentially conflicting uses.
Environmental impact assessment
Environmental impact assessment is the process of
identifying, evaluating and mitigating environmental
and social impacts before the implementation of the
farm development. This assessment can be made for
large areas using a strategic environmental assessment
(SEA), for individual farms that have a potential for high
impact using Environmental impact assessment (EIA)
or for small and medium-sized farms with less potential
for impact using initial environmental examination
(IEE) (FAO, 2009).
Strategic environmental assessment (SEA)
The SEA is used as a tool for identifying potential
conflicts and impacts in new, large geographical
areas identified for aquaculture development so that
strategic sustainable production targets can be set for
particular waterbodies and licences/rights can be issued
accordingly. The SEA is a key tool in the delivery of
sustainable development and the implementation of
the associated ideas of the ecosystem approach and the
precautionary principle.
Initial environmental examination (IEE)
An IEE is required to identify whether or not a full
EIA is required. Smaller projects that do not have the
potential to cause significant environmental impacts
may be required to undertake an IEE. However, a full
EIA study may be required after an evaluation has found
that an IEE is not sufficient to address the environmental
impacts of the project.
39(2) Environmental management of cage aquaculture 235
Environmental impact assessment (EIA)
The EIA is a widely used tool for planning and
licensing individual large cage farms (the threshold size
varies between countries). In many counties, it is a legal
requirement to undertake an EIA to identify and predict
potential biological, physical, and social impacts of
aquaculture, plan management, and mitigation measures
within an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) and
consider reasonable alternatives (FAO, 2009). The EIAs
are individual farm based. At present some governments
are requiring Cumulative EIAs.
Environmental management plan (EMP)
An EMP is normally a requirement of an EIA.
An EMP is a site- or project-specific plan developed
to ensure that appropriate environmental management
practices are followed during the construction or during
the operation of a project to minimise environmental
impacts.
Environmental monitoring audit
An environmental impact audit undertakes
evaluations intended to identify environmental
compliance and management system implementation
gaps along with related corrective actions. This checks
whether the environmental impacts remain within the
accepted limits or not.
Public-private approaches
In many Southeast Asian countries, there are
insufficient capacity and resources within the government
departments to monitor environmental impacts and
mitigate pollution impacts from aquaculture. The private
sector is becoming more fully engaged, shouldering
more responsibility for achieving sustainability, and,
together with the public sector, has developed certain
measures and approaches.
Area management of farm clusters
The management of aquaculture farms in a zone or
area is a good way for the private and public sectors to
work together to coordinate and cooperate to balance
environmental, socio-economic and governance issues
and objectives (Aguilar-Manjarrez et al., 2017). Such
designated aquaculture management areas can be
aquaculture parks, clusters, or any area where farms share
a common waterbody or source and may benefit from a
common management approach. Typically, clusters of
farms in a defined aquaculture area form a management
committee to foster cooperation and coordination
between the members. This approach encourages a
coordinated approach to promote biosecurity, fish
health, and environmental management. Environmental
management of these areas can include the fallowing of
sites to allow sediments and water quality to recover at
the end of a production cycle.
The group of farmers should identify the key
management measures to include in the area management
plan. The measures should be the most cost-effective
set of management arrangements designed to generate
acceptable performance in pursuit of the objectives.
The area management for each zone should be
based on Good Aquaculture Practice that is undertaken
by all farmers within the zone. Environmental,
health management and biosecurity measures in the
management areas can include:
l Development of a common aquatic animal health
and biosecurity plan for the area. This defines the
approach taken to mitigate disease risks for the
area with corrective measures to be taken against
non-conforming or non-compliant farmers.
l Ensuring good health status of newly stocked
juvenile fish. There should be an agreement on
the quality of the juveniles to be stocked into a
management area which may include: disease
status of juveniles; use of vaccines; sourcing
juveniles from specific pathogen-free sources;
and tests for specific pathogens before stocking.
l Vaccination of all juveniles before stocking.
l Regular disease surveillance and synchronised
disease and parasite treatments with the same
medication. Authorised or approved medication
should be used.
l Regular monitoring and reporting of aquatic
animal health status, regular monitoring of
disease within the management area.
l Control of movement of gametes/eggs/stock
between the farms in the zone and from external
sources.
l Disinfection of equipment, well boats, etc.
between different farms and defining the
disinfection protocols.
236 White 39(2)
l Synchronised fallowing of aquaculture areas
which leaves cage farm sites empty of cultured
fish for a specified time. This is a biosecurity as
well as an environmental management measure.
It helps to break the disease and parasite cycle
and allows the sediments and water quality to
partially recover.
l Farms should have only a single year class of
fish on site. If the culture period is more than one
year, there should be a nursery site for fry and
fingerlings and a separate site for ongrowing fish.
Fry and adults should not be mixed on the same
site so that fry are not infected from the larger fish
held on the same site.
l Different fish species should not be mixed on the
same site so that one species is not infected from
the other species held at the same farm site.
l Cage farm sites should be operated on an all-in,
all-out basis followed by site fallowing. A farm
is initially stocked with juveniles that are grown
to harvest size and then harvested. The site is
then left empty (fallow) for a specified time
say for example three months depending on the
sediment recovery rate before stocking again
with juveniles. This breaks any disease cycle and
allows the environment to recover before new
fish are stocked.
l Regulatory monitoring from public authorities by
way of auditing on annual basis to keep check on
various operational activities.
Good aquaculture practices (GAP), Better management
practices (BMPs) and Codes of practice (COP)
GAPs and COPs are a practical and economically
feasible way to improve production practices to an
agreed standard and at the same time reduce adverse
environmental impacts of aquaculture at the farm level
and also at a larger scale, and to reduce conflicts with
fisheries and other resource users. Implementing GAPs
requires action from both the government (in the form
of better policy, regulation, enforcement, planning
and management procedures) and industry (through
BMPs and COPs). COPs are generally developed by
aquaculture producer organisations to ensure that their
members conform to good standards of production.
GAPs and COPs are mandatory and so have to be
followed whatever the cost. BMPs and Certification is
voluntary and it is up to the farmer to assess whether
following these guidelines are cost effective.
Environmental monitoring
Farm environmental monitoring is often part of the
EMP in the EIA report. The monitoring protocol proposes
the type of indicators that should be used to monitor the
impact of the farm at various points in time. It usually
focuses on environmental parameters such as water and
sediment quality. Sediment quality can be monitored
by physical and chemical analysis as well as changes
in species diversity as indicators of impacts/changes.
The environmental monitoring results support decision-
makers as well as the producer with an estimation of
the size of the impacts (extent and severity) and ways to
improve management and regulate the activity.
Environmental certification
There are several certification schemes such as the
Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC) and Global
Aquaculture Alliance (GAA) and other eco-labels that
aim to promote farm-scale environmental sustainability,
product quality and social responsibility using market
mechanisms. Such environmentally certified farms
credibly demonstrate that their production practices
are sustainable with respect to pollution, disease
transmission and ecological impacts. Certification is
often market driven and focussed at farmers who are
exporting their products rather than supplying local
markets. Therefore, there is a need to create local and
national incentives for certification and labelling; for as
followed in China, to make local consumers more aware
so choose environmentally friendly products.
Some countries such as Vietnam have introduced
state-mediated certification procedures to ensure that
aquaculture products are safe to consume as they are
farmed following environmental standards. The Global
Aquaculture Alliance is also developing certification
schemes for clusters of small-scale farmers. The
aquaculture sector would benefit from international
standards and certification systems to promote
environmentally acceptable products, especially for
exportable commodities.
Farm-level approaches
Intensification of aquaculture practices has resulted
in farms generating greater volumes of dissolved
nutrients in the water column and suspended solids
39(2) Environmental management of cage aquaculture 237
on the sea bed. This is particularly true where several
fish cage farms are located close together. Nutrient
concentrations increase where there is a low rate of
dilution by water currents or marine tides.
Regular environmental monitoring
Monitoring is often proposed at the end of the EIA
in the form of an Environmental Management Plan
(EMP) and is part of the EIA statement. Environmental
monitoring surveys collect data at various points in time
and this is compared with baseline, pre-development data
as well as with contemporary reference data. Monitoring
is designed to show changes over time due to the farming
activities and in this respect, natural environmental
changes not related to the farming activities also need
to be taken into consideration. The environmental
monitoring results support decision-makers as well as
the producer and provides an estimation of the size of
the impacts (extent and severity) and that mitigation
measures need to be taken to improve management and
regulate the activity.
Better management practices (BMPs)
BMPs are a set of guidelines that promote
improved farming practices to increase production
and profitability through responsible and sustainable
aquaculture. There is a significant level of variation in
BMPs for different commodities, culture systems, and
locations. In the Philippines, mariculture parks often use
operations manuals containing production guidelines
and management measures. Following the principles of
Good Aquaculture Practices, and serves as a guideline
for all activities within the parks. The guideline covers
zone and farm location, layout and design, biosecurity,
sanitation and hygiene, waste storage and removal,
good farm management measures including feeds and
feeding, farm effluent treatment, worker health and
safety, disease diagnosis, treatment and chemical use,
harvesting, postharvest, traceability and food safety.
Improved feed formulation and feeding strategy
It is possible to significantly reduce the impact of
wastes through the use of good quality feeds and by
practicing good on-farm feed management. Innovations
in automated feeding technologies and feed formulation
and manufacturing have significantly reduced feed
inputs and effluent loads per unit of production while
maintaining productivity. In salmon farming over
the past decade, the feed conversion ratios have been
steadily decreasing, from 2.08:1 in 1974 to 1.0 to 1.1
(Wang et al., 2012). Such reduction in FCRs result in
lower feed use per production volume and consequently
lower discharges of organic matter and nutrients into
the environment per unit of production. However, other
types of aquaculture (e.g., milkfish and grouper in Asia
and European seabream and European seabass in the
Mediterranean) still need to improve their feed quality
and feed conversion ratios and strong regional efforts
are being made to address this task.
Farms should try to improve their feeding efficiency
and optimise feed conversion ratios to increase
profitability and to decrease nutrient and organic matter
losses. This can be achieved by using better formulated
and quality feeds (higher digestibility, better binders)
and improved feeding strategies to optimize feeding
rates and minimize overfeeding.
Integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA)
IMTA is the production of fish, invertebrates (e.g.,
bivalves) and plants (seaweeds) grown together in such
a way that the invertebrates and/or plants recycle the
nutrients that are lost from the fish cage culture. Fish
grown in cages are fed feed. A proportion of the feed,
all of the faeces and most of the nutrients in the feed
will be lost to the environment. However, with bivalve
culture near the fish farm, these filter-feeders benefit
by consuming some of the particles of feed and faeces.
Additionally, with seaweed culture near the fish farm,
the plants utilise the nitrogen excreted by the fish and the
bivalves. The end result is that there is a net reduction
of nutrient losses to the environment and additional
production of bivalve and seaweed crops. Mixed culture
of fish, bivalves and seaweeds practiced in the coastal
bays of China is a good example. If densely located,
even extractive aquaculture systems can cause negative
impacts on the environment, especially on sediments, as
a result of faecal and pseudofaecal accumulation.
Cage culture development in some countries is
well planned and managed (for example Norway,
Scotland and Turkey) but in many countries, it is still
characterised by weak and sometimes poor governance
which can result in poor planning, poor management,
and in some cases, boom-bust cycles from algal
blooms and associated fish kills. Many environmental
impacts accruing to cage aquaculture result from the
sum of individual farms but they are rarely addressed
at the zonal scale. While EIAs, licensing are required
238 White 39(2)
by some countries for individual intensive/large-scale
fish cage farms, limited management measures cover
the overall impact of many small cage farms clustered
together. Further implementation of aquaculture
zoning and carrying capacity assessment, followed by
environmental and biosecurity management and control
has to be adopted.
Effective governance through sound policies,
strategies, and action plans incorporating the principles
of an EAA and good linkages between government
policies and sustainable management of aquaculture are
required. More effective mechanisms of governance need
to be developed, including legislation and regulations,
planning and management, together with voluntary
GAPs and COPs, and responsible self-management.
The private sector together with the public sector
has developed certain measures and approaches such
as area or zonal management of environmental and
biosecurity measures and environmental certification.
The private sector is becoming more fully
engaged, shouldering more responsibility for achieving
sustainability and reducing impacts by the selection of
better quality feed, improved feeding strategy, following
BMPs and applying IMTA.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
The author has no conflicts of interest.
REFERENCES
Aguilar-Manjarrez, J., Soto, D. and Brummett, R.
(2017). Aquaculture Zoning, Site Selection
and Area Management under the Ecosystem
Approach to Aquaculture. Full document, Report
ACS113536, World Bank Group, Washington DC
and FAO, Rome. 395 p.
Cambray, J.A. (2003). The global impact of alien trout
species - a review with reference to their impact in
South Africa. African Journal of Aquatic Science
28(1): 61-67.
Ministry for Primary Industries. (2013). Literature
Review of Ecological Effects of Aquaculture.
Ministry for Primary Industries, Wellington, New
Zealand. 19 p.
FAO. (1997). Fisheries Management. FAO Technical
Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries No. 5., FAO,
Rome. 40 p.
FAO. (2009). Environmental Impact Assessment and
Monitoring in Aquaculture. FAO Fisheries and
Aquaculture Technical Paper. No. 527, FAO,
Rome. 57 p.
FAO. (2010). Aquaculture Development. 4. Ecosystem
Approach to Aquaculture. FAO Technical
Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries. No. 5,
Suppl. 4., FAO, Rome. 53 p.
FAO/World Bank. (2015). Aquaculture Zoning, Site
Selection and Area Management under the
Ecosystem Approach to Aquaculture - Policy
Brief, FAO, Rome and World Bank, Washington,
DC. 4p.
Gowen, R.J. (2007). Managing eutrophication associated
with aquaculture development. Journal of Applied
Ichthyology 10(4): 242-257.
Keeley, N.B., Cromey, C.J., Goodwin, E.O., Gibbs, M.T.
and Macleod, C.M. (2013). Predictive depositional
modelling (DEPOMOD) of the interactive effect
of current flow and resuspension on ecological
impacts beneath salmon farms. Aquaculture
Environment Interactions 3: 275-291.
Ross, L.G., Telfer, T.C., Falconer, L., Soto, D. and
Aguilar-Manjarrez, J. (2013). Site Selection
and Carrying Capacities for Inland and Coastal
Aquaculture. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture
Proceedings No. 21. FAO, Rome. 46 p.
Senanan, W., Kapuscinski, A.R., Na-Nakorn, U. and
Miller, L.M. (2004). Genetic impacts of hybrid
catfish farming (Clarias macrocephalus × C.
gariepinus) on native catfish populations in central
Thailand. Aquaculture 235 (1): 167-184.
Thorstad, E.B., Fleming, I.A., McGinnity, P., Soto, D.,
Wennevik, V. and Whoriskey, F. (2008). Incidence
and Impacts of Escaped Farmed Atlantic Salmon
Salmo salar in Nature. NINA Special Report 36,
Trondheim. 110 p.
Wang, X., Olsen, L.M., Reitan, K.I. and Olsen, Y.
(2012). Discharge of nutrient wastes from salmon
farms: environmental effects, and potential for
integrated multi-trophic aquaculture. Aquaculture
Environment Interactions 2(3): 267-283.
White, P. (2017). Aquaculture Pollution: An Overview
of Issues with a Focus on China, Vietnam, and the
Philippines. World Bank, Washington, DC. 52 p.