This article was downloaded by: [McGill University Library]On: 18 November 2014, At: 08:08Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: MortimerHouse, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Sustainable Development &World EcologyPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsdw20

Assessing aquaculture sustainability: a comparativemethodologyJérôme Lazarda, Hélène Rey-Valetteb, Joël Aubinc, Syndhia Mathéb, Eduardo Chiad,Domenico Carusoe, Olivier Mikolaseka, Jean Paul Blanchetonf, Marc Legendree, FrançoisRenéf, Patrice Levange, Jacques Slembroucke, Pierre Morissensa & Olivier Clémentc

a CIRAD, Avenue Agropolis, Montpellier 34398, Franceb Faculté de Sciences Economiques, Université de Montpellier 1, CS 79606, Montpelliercedex 2 34960, Francec INRA, UMR Sol Agronomie Spatialisation, 65 rue de St Brieuc, CS 84 215, Rennes cedex35 042, Franced INRA, 2 place Viala, Montpellier 34000, Francee IRD, ISEM, Université de Montpellier 2, CC 065, Montpellier cedex 5 34095, Francef Ifremer, Chemin de Maguelone, Palavas-les-Flots 34250, FrancePublished online: 05 Nov 2014.

To cite this article: Jérôme Lazard, Hélène Rey-Valette, Joël Aubin, Syndhia Mathé, Eduardo Chia, Domenico Caruso,Olivier Mikolasek, Jean Paul Blancheton, Marc Legendre, François René, Patrice Levang, Jacques Slembrouck, PierreMorissens & Olivier Clément (2014): Assessing aquaculture sustainability: a comparative methodology, InternationalJournal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, DOI: 10.1080/13504509.2014.964350

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2014.964350

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose ofthe Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be reliedupon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shallnot be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and otherliabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Assessing aquaculture sustainability: a comparative methodology

Jérôme Lazarda*, Hélène Rey-Valetteb, Joël Aubinc, Syndhia Mathéb, Eduardo Chiad, Domenico Carusoe,Olivier Mikolaseka, Jean Paul Blanchetonf, Marc Legendree, François Renéf, Patrice Levange, Jacques Slembroucke,Pierre Morissensa and Olivier Clémentc

aCIRAD, Avenue Agropolis, Montpellier 34398, France; bFaculté de Sciences Economiques, Université de Montpellier 1, CS 79606,Montpellier cedex 2 34960, France; cINRA, UMR Sol Agronomie Spatialisation, 65 rue de St Brieuc, CS 84 215, Rennes cedex 35 042,France; dINRA, 2 place Viala, Montpellier 34000, France; eIRD, ISEM, Université de Montpellier 2, CC 065, Montpellier cedex 5 34095,France; fIfremer, Chemin de Maguelone, Palavas-les-Flots 34250, France

(Received 10 July 2014; final version received 8 September 2014)

Little work dealing with the evaluation of aquaculture system sustainability has so far been undertaken on a global andcomparative basis. Moreover, such work is mostly based on very unbalanced approaches in terms of the dimensions ofsustainable development that are taken into account. The approach adopted in this article is designed to encompass all thedimensions of sustainability including the institutional one (governance). The taking into account of this latter, in particular,together with the role played by aquaculture in sustainability at the territorial level gives the approach its original andinnovative nature. The process of establishing the checklist of sustainability indicators in aquaculture relies on a hierarchicalnesting approach which makes it possible to link indicators with general sustainability criteria and principles. At oncemultidisciplinary and participatory, the approach compares several countries with highly differentiated types of aquaculturesystem. An original finding from this work is that the technically most intensive farming model scores better than moreextensive systems, which might have been thought to be closer to natural systems in their environmental dimension andtherefore intuitively more ‘sustainable’. This result suggests relating sustainability outcomes to the level of control and ofdevolved responsibilities.

Keywords: aquaculture; sustainability; indicators; co-construction

1. Introduction

In the last 30 years, aquaculture has experienced an unpre-cedented development in global animal production with anaverage yearly growth rate of over 10% between 1980 and2000 (FAO 2010). Over the same period, capture fisheriessaw their progression gradually grind to a standstill andgrowth stopped in 1995. The growth of aquaculture,despite its benefits and the fact that it is the only way tomeet the increase in demand for sea products evaluated at192–270 Mt in 2050 (Wijkstrom 2003; Merino et al.2012), raises a certain number of issues directly relatedto its sustainable development.

Feed is a crucial topic that is the subject of signifi-cant controversy following the emblematic article byNaylor et al. (2000), which showed the impact oncatches of the massive use of fish meal and fish oil infish and prawn aquaculture and advocated a return toless input-intensive aquaculture systems, directlyinspired by traditional Asian systems. However, farmingsystems have continued to intensify; this has led to asustained increase in the use of fish meal and fish oils(Tacon & Metian 2008). Moreover, Naylor et al. (2000)contrast two aquaculture models: first, an input-intensivesystem, particularly as regards fish meal and oils, con-sidered to be non-sustainable; and second, extensive or

semi-intensive system, considered to be sustainable.Approaches taking into consideration the social domainas a sustainability pillar have provided contradictoryresults. Various examples that have been studied(Edwards 1999; Irz & Stevenson 2005) show that thefundamental question is whether there are specific aqua-culture systems that can contribute to poverty alleviationin parallel with profit-orientated systems.

An analysis of the main reference frameworks, such ascodes of conduct, guides of good practice, standards,labels (Boyd et al. 2005; FAO 1995; WWF 2008a,2008b among others), and initiatives for the constructionof sustainable development indicators (Consensus 2005;GFCM 2010) in aquaculture, shows that most of them arebased on very unbalanced approaches in terms of thedimensions of sustainable development that are takeninto account. Some of them, especially those being imple-mented on a wide geographical scale, are highly centra-lised with little reliance on participatory processes (Mathéet al. 2006). According to Bush et al. (2013), certificationin aquaculture, as with organic agriculture, follows anenterprise-level approach. Such narrow definitions of sus-tainability reflect the structure of standard-setting institu-tions and the feasibility of measurement and regulationusing technical parameters. Even the multi-stakeholder

*Corresponding author: Email: lazard@cirad.fr

International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 2014http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2014.964350

© 2014 Taylor & Francis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

08:

08 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

processes that are used to develop AquacultureStewardship Council standards have been criticised foradopting a technical focus that reflects the interests andvalues of the most powerful actors to the exclusion ofothers (Belton et al. 2010).

Our approach has been designed to encompass allthe dimensions of sustainability, including the traditionalpillars (economic, social and environmental) as well asthe institutional one (governance). A distinctive featureof the approach is that it addresses not only the sustain-ability of fish farms but also the contribution of aqua-culture to the sustainability of areas where such farmsare established. This additional level provides a link tothe ecosystem services provided by aquaculture inaccordance with the approach recommended by theMillennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA 2005) anddeveloped by FAO (2008). The approach is both multi-disciplinary and participatory and compares severalcountries and types of aquaculture systems, and resultsin a diagnosis and global recommendations. Lastly, wecompared the sustainability approach based on co-con-struction, with a standardised and normative approach,that is, a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), in order toevaluate the level of convergence of the conclusionsfrom the two types of assessment.

Moreover, our approach is based on the hypothesisthat sustainable development is a new reference frame-work that, in order to be taken on board, requiresspecific learning processes, the so-called ‘double-looplearning’ of Argyris and Schon (1996). It is not onlypractices but also values and objectives that have to bemodified and it therefore requires a continuous improve-ment process, starting from sustainable developmentvalues or principles that are deemed to be of the highest

priority for producers and stakeholders. Sustainability,as it was conceived and addressed in the work carriedout under the Evaluation of aquaculture system sustain-ability (EVAD) project from 2005 to 2010 (Rey-Valetteet al. 2008), is similar to that defined by Tlusty et al.(2012), that is, a continuous process, a ‘journey’ ratherthan a destination in terms of a sustainable, final andideal aquaculture product.

2. Material and methods

2.1. The areas

Six very different areas were carefully chosen in variousparts of the world to test the genericity of the method,based on the fish density level in the farming structures,the coastal and rural area, and the regulatory context(Table 1).

2.1.1. Rainbow trout farming in Brittany (France)

Rainbow trout farming is an intensive farming system basedon a high input level and on a high stocking rate. Currently,in Brittany, the number of trout farms is decreasing, farms arebeing concentrated, and overall production is decreasing dueto numerous constraints: environmental constraints, socialconstraints (farming activity acceptance, product image,etc.), along with regulatory and economic constraints (inputcost variation, competition with salmon, etc.).

2.1.2. Mediterranean sea bass and sea bream farming

In order to satisfy strong demand (tourists and indigen-ous population), the production of aquaculture fish(mainly sea bass and sea bream) started in 1980 and

Table 1. Location of the aquaculture systems studied according to three criteria: environment, regulation and intensification (stockingdensity).

Rural area Coastal area

Environment Low density High density Low density High density

Weak regulation Monoculture of Pangasius infresh water ponds inIndonesia (Tangkit,Sumatra, Indonesia)

Extensive shrimp fishpolyculture in brackishwater coastal ponds(Pampanga, Philippines)

Family-scale commercialpolyculture (tilapia,catfish) in fresh waterponds (WesternCameroon)

Strong regulation Carp + tilapia farming infloating cages in theCirata reservoir (WestJava, Indonesia)

Sea bream and bass culturein floating cages in theMediterranean Sea(France and Cyprus)

Intensive farming ofrainbow trout in freshwater flow-throughraceways (Brittany,France)

2 J. Lazard et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

08:

08 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

increased by 25% each year between 1990 and 2000(the current production is estimated at 200,000 tons peryear). Current production systems (consisting of sea-basedcages or land-based raceways) are in conflict with tourismand other models will have to be developed (Rey-Valette,Blancheton, et al. 2007). Due to recent crises, aquacultureactivity has become concentrated as fish farms have beenbought up by major groups.

2.1.3. Fish and shrimp farming in coastal ponds in thePhilippines

Coastal ponds, primarily consisting of extensive shrimp-fishpolyculture, account for around 60% of overall aquacultureproduction. Observation of the development dynamics ofPhilippine aquaculture systems highlights the significantflexibility of extensive systems compared to the economicfragility of intensive fish farms when markets are saturated.

2.1.4. Small-scale fish farming in Indonesia

In Indonesia, although freshwater fish farming is gener-ally a small-scale activity, it nevertheless has one of thehighest yearly production rates in the world. Fish farm-ing production systems with high input rates haverapidly developed locally over the last 10 years: catfish(Pangasianodon hypophthalmus) in ponds in centralSumatra (Jambi province) and carp and tilapia in float-ing cages in the Cirata Dam reservoir (West Java).

2.1.5. Commercial fish farming in Family AgriculturalEnterprises in western Cameroon

Despite a fairly low overall level of aquaculture devel-opment, the high plateaux in the Western region are oneof the areas in Cameroon where the greatest number offish ponds have been constructed, with numerous fishfarming innovations involving input intensification.

2.2. The rationale underpinning the approach

The process used for the EVAD project is characterised byits transdisciplinary approach (Jahn et al. 2012; Schalteggeret al. 2013), with each phase of the project involving notonly human and biological sciences but also the stake-holders who are part of the procedural and participatoryapproach. The approach relies on the co-construction ofindicators for the sustainable development of aquaculture,which then become a tool to drive and legitimise sustain-able development (Boulanger 2007). The co-construction ofindicators with broad-based groups of stakeholders enablesthe development of a participatory approach and a collec-tive learning process and facilitates the adoption of sustain-able development (Fraser et al. 2006; Rey-Valette, Laloe,et al. 2007; Rey-Valette, Blancheton, et al. 2007; Hildenet al. 2008). Furthermore, the method favours a territorialapproach to sustainability, which tallies with Agenda 21 atthe Rio Earth Summit (Chapter 28) by combining two

complementary scales of approach: the sustainability offarms and of the aquaculture sector (sectoral approach)and the contribution of fish farms to the sustainability ofthe areas where they are located (territorial approach).

2.3. Methodology used to establish the co-constructedchecklist of principles and criteria

The process of establishing the checklist of sustainabilityindicators in aquaculture is based on a hierarchical nestingapproach which makes it possible to link indicators withgeneral sustainability criteria and principles (Prabhu et al.2000; Rey-Valette et al. 2008). This type of nesting placesthe definition of indicators in context enabling them to belinked to territorial and sectoral issues.

The co-construction methodology can be divided intothree phases: (1) a first preparatory phase to establish adiagnosis of the areas using surveys and expert opinion,(2) a selection/validation phase in order to finalise the listof PCIs (principles, criteria and indicators) and (3) animplementation phase to calculate the indicators and vali-date the diagnosis emerging from these evaluations. Thesephases are then subdivided into eight stages alternating‘laboratory’ research (i.e. between researchers) and workwith stakeholders in each of the study areas. These stagesare alternatively shown in grey and white in Figure 1.

2.4. Applying LCAs to the aquaculture systems studied

A second type of approach was used in our study, that is,the LCA method which is a standardised method (Jollietet al. 2005; ISO 2006a, 2006b) now widely used in theenvironmental evaluation of fish and aquaculture products(Henriksson et al. 2012; Aubin 2013). The functional unitselected was 1 ton of aquaculture product delivered to thefirst buyer. Calculations were based on the CML (2001)method modified in accordance with Papatryphonet al. (2004). Several categories of potential environmentalimpacts were selected within the project framework asthey were considered to be relevant for aquaculture(Pelletier et al. 2007; Aubin 2013). They were: (1) eutro-phication (kg PO4 eq.), which concerns the impacts onaquatic and terrestrial ecosystems associated with nitrogenand phosphorus enrichment; (2) acidification (kg SO2 eq.),which assesses the potential acidification of ground andwater due to the emission of acidifying molecules in theair, the ground or in water; (3) climate change (kg CO2

eq.), which assesses the production of greenhouse gases bythe system; (4) the use of energy (MJ), which concerns allthe energy resources used; and (5) the use of net primaryproduction (kg C), which represents the trophic level ofproducts from the quantity of carbon used and derivedfrom primary production. For some sites, the followingwere added: (6) water dependence (m3), which is definedas the amount of water flowing through the fish farm andrequired to produce fish; (7) the utilisation of the surface(m2), which reflects the way the production system takesover the land, including the production of inputs (in

International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

08:

08 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

particular the crops necessary for the manufacture of aqua-culture feed). Work carried out on the LCA under the EVADproject was based on the experience of similar approachesalready undertaken in aquaculture (Papatryphon et al. 2004;Aubin & Van Der Werf 2009; Aubin et al. 2009).

3. Results

The approach was validated in the six aquaculture systemsstudied under the project. The diagnoses of the sustain-ability of aquaculture systems were first established foreach area (territorial diagnoses, § 3.1), then at global levelby developing a synthesis of these diagnoses (into a meta-diagnosis, § 3.2). These diagnoses were undertaken at thecriterion level, which is the most relevant analytical levelto qualify the sustainability factors of these systems, andcomplemented by the LCA (§ 3.3).

3.1. Territorial diagnoses of aquaculture systemsustainability

Typologies carried out by area (Lazard et al. 2009, 2010)revealed quite a large diversity in production and regulatorysystems. Leaving aside the Tangkit site (Indonesia) whereaquaculture systems are very homogeneous, three or fourdifferent farm types were identified in each area, regardlessof whether or not there was a large number of farms.

The global overviews of the sustainability of the var-ious aquaculture systems are presented (Figure 2) at theprinciple level in order to facilitate comparison. Workingat this level made it possible to generate general diagnosesby area which highlighted the strengths and the weak-nesses of the relevant aquaculture system.

3.2. Meta diagnosis of the aquaculture systems studied

A database was built from the selections made by theactors from the different countries. It comprised 13principles (Table 2), 64 criteria and 129 indicators

(Rey-Valette et al. 2008). Despite system diversity, 10principles and 25 criteria were common to four of thesix areas. The proportion of common indicators wassignificantly lower with only 30 indicators common tothree areas. Although the technical systems studied inIndonesia were highly differentiated as regards bothfarming systems (cages and ponds) and aquacultureoperators (farmers and entrepreneurs), many criteriawere common to the two Indonesian areas of Tangkitand Cirata. This observation tended to show the impor-tance of cultural and institutional aspects for sustain-ability. Conversely, Cameroon, where aquaculture isstruggling to develop, was a particular case whichstood out from other areas in terms of principle selec-tion and prioritisation. This situation tended to indicatethat the degree of maturity of the sector was also adetermining factor for sustainability.

Table 2 presents the number of criteria selected in atleast three countries by principle, distinguishing betweenthose relating to farm sustainability, those relating to theevaluation of their contribution to territorial sustainabilityand those concerning both levels. Furthermore, the analy-sis of the types of criteria selected according to the areashowed that actors tended to select criteria relating toaspects which seemed to them to be problematic. Thisapproach was therefore perceived by them as a manage-ment and programming tool to facilitate progress in theiraquaculture systems. This was a different process to label-ling approaches or certification schemes which are oftenlinked to marketing strategies and where the emphasis ison strengths in order to build the image of the sector.

Considering Figure 2, Brittany proved to be relativelywell placed in terms of sustainability with, however,differentiated scores depending on the variousprinciples. On the other hand, the Mediterranean andthe Philippines had more regular profiles whichshowed some homogeneity in the results for all the prin-ciples, with no outstanding strengths/constraints. Lastly,Cameroon and Indonesia had, like Brittany, uneven

Figure 1. The eight stages of the EVAD project methodology.

4 J. Lazard et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

08:

08 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

profiles based on the principles but at a lower level ofsustainability. This varying homogeneity in the scores isa fundamental result for defining sector-specific accom-panying policies.

3.3. Environmental diagnoses of aquaculture systemsbased on the LCA method

Figure 3 reveals that there was no direct relationshipbetween the level of intensification of the farming system

Table 2. Number of criteria selected by at least three countries for each principle according to the dimension of sustainabledevelopment.

S T C (*)

EnvironmentalP3. Ensure that natural resources and the environmental carrying capacity are respected 1 2 1P4. Improve the ecological yield of the activity 2P5. Protect biodiversity and respect animal well-being 1

SocialP1. Contribute to meeting nutritional needs 1 3P8. Strengthen sectoral organisation and identity 1P9. Strengthen companies’ social investment

EconomicP6. Increase the capacity to cope with uncertainties and crises 3 1P7. Strengthen the long-term future of farms 3P2. Develop approaches that promote quality 1

InstitutionalP10. Strengthen the role of aquaculture in local development 1 1P11. Promote participation and governance 1P12. Strengthen research and sector-related information 3P13. Strengthen the role of the state and of public actors in establishing sustainable development 2 1

Notes: S = Sector; T = Territorial; C = Common (several indicators were common to the sector and territory dimension). (*) They relate to the number ofcriteria selected by several sites; other site-specific criteria may have been jointly picked.

A

012345

P3P4

P5

P6

P7

P2P1P8

P9

P10

P11

P12

P13

Brittany

012345

P4

P6

P1

P8P10

P12

P13

Cameroon

012345

P3

P4

P5

P6

P7P2

P1

P8

P12

P13

Mediterranean

012345

P3

P6

P7

P1

P8

P9

P12

P13

Philippines

012345

P3

P4

P5

P6

P7

P2P1

P8

P10

P12

P13

Tangkit

012345

P3P4

P5

P6

P7

P2P1

P8

P10

P12

P13

Cirata

B

Legend

012345

P3

P6

P2

P1P10

P11

P13

Brittany

012345

P6

P1

P10P11

P13

Cameroon

012345

P3

P5

P6

P1

P10

P13

Mediterranean

012345

P5

P6

P1P10

P13

Philippines

012345

P3

P4

P6

P8

P1

P10

P11

P13

Tangkit

012345

P3

P6

P1P11

P13

Cirata

Environmental Economic Social Institutional

Figure 2. Evaluation at principle level (Pn) of (A) the sustainability of aquaculture enterprises by country and (B) the contribution ofaquaculture enterprises to territorial sustainability by country. The larger the area of the kite, the more sustainable the aquaculture system is.

International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

08:

08 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

and the level of impact. In particular, the Cirata fish farmsin Indonesia (cages) and the bass and bream production inthe Mediterranean, also in cages, both were very intensive,but showed a very low level of impact for the former and avery high level for the latter. This might be explained bythe species choice (predominantly planktivorous/omnivor-ous) and the goal of maximum productivity (by associat-ing species: common carp and tilapia) in the first case andby the choice of carnivorous species (bass/bream) and apoor food conversion ratio (FCR) in the second case,which was confirmed by Mungkung et al. (2013). Themarkedly lower impact of trout culture (Brittany) mightbe explained by its low FCR.

In the case of polyculture in Cameroon, only twoimpact categories showed high levels: eutrophication andwater dependency, due to the poor capacity of the systemto make use of the nutrients provided by the inputs,combined with inadequate water management (EfoleEwoukem et al. 2012).

Polyculture impacts were found to be relatively high inthe Philippines. They showed the low productivity of thesystem; as a result, the quantity of inputs did not producesufficient output; and the same was true for land andwater.

In Pangasius fish farms in Tangkit, the predominantimpact was the use of net primary production due toexcess levels of fish meal (based on local species andtrash fish) incorporated into the feed.

4. Discussion

The ranking of areas with respect to sustainability obtainedfrom the multicriteria evaluation corresponded, in terms ofrelative priority, to the classification obtained from theresults of the LCA. In both cases, Brittany obtained the

best scores, whilst more extensive systems, which mighthave been thought to be closer to natural systems in theirenvironmental dimension and therefore intuitively more‘sustainable’, scored much lower. In fact, at the studiedsites, it appeared that intensive systems related to situa-tions where farming regulatory and control systems werefar more developed and effective.

At first sight, the environmental performance evalu-ated by LCAs was not consistent with the perception thatemerged from the diagnoses established on the basis ofcriteria and principles selected by the actors in the variousareas. In particular, the high level of environmental impactfound in the Mediterranean cage farming system did notappear at all at farm level but only just at territorial level.This situation may be explained by two characteristics.LCA indicators (impact categories) relate mainly to twolevels: a local level (e.g. eutrophication or water use) and aglobal level (e.g. climate change, acidification or the useof net primary production) or a mixture of the two levels(e.g. energy use). For this reason, actors feel that cagesplaced in open surroundings where the water resourceseems to be endless, like the sea, have no impact on theenvironment. In contrast, trout fish farming in Brittany isthought to have a higher impact as it uses fresh water, anatural resource considered to be under threat. As a result,principles relating to territorial carrying capacity and eco-logical performance at farm level were selected. However,when impacts were calculated in tons of fish, they werelower than those found in Mediterranean marine cages.

The Filipino fish farms of Pampanga, which arespread over significant areas and are therefore assimi-lated to extensive practices, were not considered byactors to have worrying environmental impacts despitehigh levels of impact on climate change and acidifica-tion per ton of fish.

Polyculture Philippines

0

20

40

60

80

100Eutrophication

Climate Change

Acidification

Energy U. N. Prim Production U.

Surface U.

Log Water dep

Cirata cages

0

20

40

60

80

100Eutrophication

Climate Change

Acidification

Energy U. N. Prim Production U.

Surface U.

Log Water dep

Pangasius Tangkit

0

20

40

60

80

100Eutrophication

Climate Change

Acidification

Energy U. N. Prim Production U.

Surface U.

Log Water dep

Polyculture Cameroon

0

20

40

60

80

100Eutrophication

Climate Change

Acidification

Energy U. N. Prim Production U.

Surface U.

Log Water dep

Sea Bass Sea Bream Mediterranean sea

0

20

40

60

80

100Eutrophication

Climate Change

Acidification

Energy U. N. Prim Production U.

Surface U.

Log Water dep

Trout in Brittany

0

20

40

60

80

100Eutrophication

Climate Change

Acidification

Energy U. N. Prim Production U.

Surface U.

Log Water dep

Figure 3. Life cycle assessment (LCA)-based environmental profile of the six aquaculture systems studied under the EVAD project.Kites compare the relative environmental impact, for seven impact categories, for the six fish production systems. Points closer to thecentre of the graph display the lowest environmental impact. Values for water dependence have been log10-transformed.

6 J. Lazard et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

08:

08 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

In the case of Cameroon, there was some consistencyconcerning the hot spot of the system, which was the highrelease of nutrients into the environment (reflected by theeutrophication indicator).

The two Indonesian fish farming systems appearedparticularly well optimised and their impact, calculated intons of product, was low. Nevertheless, worrying environ-mental impacts remained for these two types of farming.

Generally speaking, these results showed no real con-cordance between local actors’ preoccupations as definedby the participatory approach and the information pro-duced by LCAs, except indirectly through productionsystem efficiency. They were therefore clearly two com-plementary evaluation approaches with different spatiallevels of preoccupation as actors were not very sensitiveto global impacts. Perceptions of environmental issuesdepended greatly on resource availability, and this wasnot reflected by the LCA when it was calculated in unitsof product weight. These findings challenge the use ofLCAs in the context of certification or ecolabellingschemes (Mungkung et al. 2006; Pelletier & Tyedmers2008) as they could lead to standards or communicationprocedures that are misunderstood or misinterpreted bylocal producers and decision-makers.

5. Conclusion

Lessons learnt from the work carried out in the variousareas suggested a number of more general conclusions thatdemonstrated the value of the method.

(1) Combining a participatory and proceduralapproach with the integration of internationalreference frameworks proved to be effective. Afair level of learning and appropriation wasachieved during the evaluation exercise.Producers considered that the approach adopted(i.e. the co-construction of PCIs) was a manage-ment tool that could help in the development oftheir fish farms. The indicators were used becausethey were closely related to the farming character-istics in each of the countries. But comparisonswere possible at criterion and principle levels.This approach is thus more appropriate than cer-tain certification schemes which are generallyviewed as external norms imposed on farming(Belton et al. 2010).

(2) The lessons learnt from this project – one elementof proof is the diversity in the choice of indicators– confirmed the idea that sustainable developmentcannot be fractal, that is, have the same contentregardless of scale. One dimension that appearedto be essential, although it is usually missing inthe field of animal or vegetal productions, was thatconcerning the contribution of enterprises to thesustainable development of the territory in whichthey are located. This approach to sustainabledevelopment is close to the ecosystem approaches

suggested by the MEA (2005). Such an approachoffers a positive vision of environmental protec-tion and makes it more acceptable for actors.

(3) Between coercion, mimicry and professionalisa-tion (Aggeri et al. 2005), which are differentways of adopting sustainable development, ourapproach clearly followed the third route. Itemphasised the decisive importance of the choiceof route for implementing sustainable develop-ment, for its adoption and the emergence of inno-vations within aquaculture systems.

(4) Lastly, the use of the LCA in this study showedthat it is probably worthwhile involving stake-holders in weighting the impacts calculated bythis standardised method, in order to adjust theirrelevance in contrasting territories. A complemen-tary approach would consist in more effectivelyintegrating into LCAs the sensitivity of territoriesto impacts, as was done by Pfister et al. (2009) forthe use of water. Nonetheless, using the LCAmade it possible to compare different situationswith standardised indicators and to widen thefield of evaluation to a global scale, where thepolitical interest goes beyond that of the territory.

AcknowledgementsThe results reported in this article came from the ‘EVAD’ Project(‘Evaluation of aquaculture systems sustainability’) carried outfrom 2005 to 2010 within the ‘Agriculture and SustainableDevelopment’ programme of the French National ResearchAgency (ANR, Agence Nationale de la Recherche).

The authors wish to thank all their partners for their activeinvolvement in the ‘EVAD’ Project: in Cameroun, AQUACAMfish farmers, Mr. S. Tangou, Dr. V. Pouomogne, Dr. GabrielToumba; in Cyprus, Mr. G. Georgiou, Mr. A. Petrou; in France,Mr. T. Gueneuc, Mr. A. Tocqueville, Mr. Philippe Riera, Mr. J.Y.Colleter, Ms. E. Moraine; in Indonesia, Mr. D. Day, Ir Maskur, Mr.J. Haryadi, Dr. T.H. Prihadi, Prof. K. Sugama, Mr. A.T. Shofawie;and in the Philippines, Dr. R.E. Ongtangco, Dr. L. Bontoc, Dr. R.D. Guerrero III, Ms. M. Ocampo, Mr. R.N. Alberto.

ReferencesAggeri F, Pezet E, Abrassart C, Acquier A. 2005. Organiser le

développement durable. Expériences des entreprisespionnières et formation de règles d’action collective. Paris:Vuibert-Ademe. [in French].

Argyris C, Schon D. 1996. Organizational learning II. Theory,method and practice. Bruxelles: De Boeck Universite, Coll.Management.

Aubin J. 2013. Life cycle assessment as applied to environmentalchoices regarding farmed or wild-caught fish. CAB Rev. 8:n°011. doi:10.1079/PAVSNNR20138011

Aubin J, Papatryphon E, Van Der Werf HMG, Chatzifotis S.2009. Assessment of the environmental impact of carnivor-ous finfish production systems using life cycle assessment. JClean Prod. 17:354–361. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.08.008

Aubin J, Van Der Werf HMG. 2009. Fish farming and theenvironment: a life cycle assessment approach. Cah Agric.18:220–226. [in French, English summary].

Belton B, Murray F, Young J, Telfer T, Little DC. 2010. Passingthe panda standard: a TAD off the mark? Ambio. 39:2–13.doi:10.1007/s13280-009-0009-4

International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

08:

08 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

Boulanger PM. 2007. Political uses of social indicators: overviewand application to sustainable development indicators. Int JSust Dev. 10:14–32. doi:10.1504/IJSD.2007.014411

Boyd CE, McNevin AA, Clay J, Johnson HM. 2005.Certification issues for some common aquaculture species.Rev Fish Sci. 13:231–279. doi:10.1080/10641260500326867

Bush SR, Belton B, Hall D, Vandergeest P, Murray FJ, Ponte S,Oosterveer P, Islam MS, Mol APJ, Hatanaka M, et al. 2013.Certify sustainable aquaculture? Science. 341:1067–1068.doi:10.1126/science.1237314

CML. 2001. Handbook on impact categories [Internet]. Leiden:Institute of Environmental Sciences, Leiden University.[cited 2012 Jul 2]. Available from: http://www.leidenuniv.nl/cml/ssp/projects/lca2/index.html

Consensus. 2005. Defining indicators for sustainable aquaculturedevelopment in Europe. A multi-stakeholder workshop heldin Ostende, Belgium; 2005 Nov 21–23; Ostende: EAS(European Aquaculture Society).

Edwards P. 1999. Aquaculture and poverty: past, present andfuture prospects of impact. A Discussion Paper Preparedfor the Fifth Fisheries Development Donor Consultation;Feb 22–24; Rome: FAO.

Efole Ewoukem T, Aubin J, Mikolasek O, Corson MS, TomediEyango M, Tchoumboue J, Van Der Werf HMG, OmbredaneD. 2012. Environmental impacts of farms integrating aqua-culture and agriculture in Cameroon. J Clean Prod. 28:208–214. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.11.039

FAO. 1995. Code of conduct for responsible fisheries. Rome:FAO.

FAO. 2008. Building an ecosystem approach to aquaculture.FAO/Universitat de les Illes Balears Expert Workshop. In:Soto D, Aguilar-Manjarrez J, Hishamunda N, editors. FAOFisheries and aquaculture proceedings 14, Palma deMallorca, 2007 May 7–11. Rome: FAO; p. 221.

FAO. 2010. The state of world fisheries and aquaculture. Rome:FAO.

Fraser EDG, Dougill AJ, Mabee WE, Reed M, McAlpine P.2006. Bottom up and top down: analysis of participatoryprocesses for sustainability indicator identification as a path-way to community empowerment and sustainable environ-mental management. J Environ Manag. 78:114–127.doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2005.04.009

[GFCM] General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean.2010. Indicators for sustainable development of aquaculture.Third coordinating meeting of the working groups; Feb 24–26, 62–73; Rome: FAO.

Henriksson PJG, Guinée JB, Kleijn R, De Snoo GR. 2012. Lifecycle assessment of aquaculture systems-a review of meth-odologies. Int J Life Cycle Ass. 17:304–313. doi:10.1007/s11367-011-0369-4

Hilden M, Rosenström U, Hildén M. 2008. The use of indicatorsfor sustainable development. Sust Dev. 16:237–240.doi:10.1002/sd.375

Irz X, Stevenson RJ. 2005. Aquaculture and poverty. A casestudy of five coastal communities in the Philippines. In:Aquaculture compendium. Wallingford (CT): CABInternational.

[ISO] International Organization for Standardization. 2006a.Environmental management–life cycle assessment–principlesand framework. Brussels: European Committee forStandardization.

[ISO] International Organization for Standardization. 2006b.Environmental management–life cycle assessment–require-ments and guidelines. Brussels: European Committee forStandardization.

Jahn T, Bergmann M, Keil F. 2012. Transdisciplinarity: betweenmainstreaming and marginalization. Ecol Econ. 79:1–10.doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.04.017

Jolliet O, Saadé M, Crettaz P. 2005. Life cycle assessment. Howto understand and carry out a LCA. Lausanne: Presses poly-techniques et universitaires romandes/Collection gérer l’en-vironnement. [in French].

Lazard J, Baruthio A, Mathé S, Rey-Valette H, Chia E, ClémentO, Aubin J, Morissens P, Mikolasek O, Legendre M, et al.2010. Aquaculture system diversity and sustainable develop-ment: fish farms and their representation. Aquat LivingResour. 23:187–198. doi:10.1051/alr/2010018

Lazard J, Baruthio A, Mathé S, Rey-Valette H, Chia E, Clément O,Morissens P, Mikolasek O, Legendre M, Levang P, et al. 2009.Adaptation of aquaculture system typologies to the require-ments of sustainable development. Cah Agric. 18:199–210.[in French, English summary].

Mathé S, Brunel O, Rey-Valette H, Clément O. 2006.Recensement des initiatives en faveur de la durabilité del’aquaculture. Montpellier: CEP/UICN-Université deMontpellier 1. [in French].

Merino G, Barange M, Blanchard JL, Harle J, Holmes R, Allen I,Allison EH, Badjeck MC, Dulvy NK, Holt J, et al. 2012. Canmarine fisheries and aquaculture meet fish demand from agrowing human population in a changing climate? GlobalEnviron Chang. 22:795–806. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.03.003

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). 2005. Ecosystemsand human well-being: synthesis. Washington (DC): IslandPress.

Mungkung R, Aubin J, Prihadi TH, Slembrouck J, Van Der WerfHMG, Legendre M. 2013. Life cycle assessment for envir-onmentally sustainable aquaculture management: a casestudy of combined aquaculture systems for carp and tilapia.J Clean Prod. 57:249–256. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.05.029

Mungkung RT, De Haes HAU, Clift R. 2006. Potentials andlimitations of life cycle assessment in setting ecolabellingcriteria: a case study of Thai shrimp aquaculture product (5pp). Int J Life Cycle Ass. 11:55–59. doi:10.1065/lca2006.01.238

Naylor RL, Goldburg RJ, Primavera JH, Kautsky N, BeveridgeMCM, Clay J, Folke C, Lubchenco J, Mooney H, Troell M.2000. Effects of aquaculture on world fish supplies. Nature.405:1017–1024. doi:10.1038/35016500

Papatryphon E, Petit J, Kaushik SJ, Van Der Werf HMG. 2004.Environmental impact assessment of salmonid feeds usinglife cycle assessment. Ambio. 33:316–323.

Pelletier N, Tyedmers P. 2008. Life cycle considerations forimproving sustainability assessments in seafood awarenesscampaigns. Environ Manag. 42:918–931. doi:10.1007/s00267-008-9148-9

Pelletier NL, Ayer NW, Tyedmers PH, Kruse SA, Flysjo A,Robillard G, Ziegler F, Scholz AJ, Sonesson U. 2007.Impact categories for life cycle assessment research of sea-food production systems: review and prospectus. Int J LifeCycle Ass. 12:414–421. doi:10.1007/s11367-006-0275-3

Pfister S, Koehler A, Hellweg S. 2009. Assessing the environ-mental impacts of freshwater consumption in LCA. EnvironSci Technol. 43:4098–4104. doi:10.1021/es802423e

Prabhu R, Colfer C, Dudley R. 2000. Guidelines for developing,testing and selecting criteria and indicators for a sustainablemanagement of forests. Montpellier: Cirad. [in French,English summary].

Rey-Valette H, Blancheton JP, René F, Lazard J, Mathé S, ChiaE. 2007. The sustainable development: a challenge for

8 J. Lazard et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

08:

08 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

Mediterranean marine aquaculture. Cah Agric. 16:1–10. [inFrench, English summary].

Rey-Valette H, Clement O, Aubin J, Mathe S, Chia E, LegendreM, Caruso D, Mikolasek O, Blancheton J-P, Slembrouck J,et al. 2008. Guide to the co-construction of sustainableindicators in aquaculture. Montpellier: Cirad. [in Frenchand English].

Rey-Valette H, Laloe F, Le Fur J. 2007a. Introduction to the keyissue concerning the use of sustainable development indica-tors. Int J Sust Dev. 10:4–13. doi:10.1504/IJSD.2007.014410

Schaltegger S, Beckmann M, Hansen EG. 2013.Transdisciplinarity in corporate sustainability: mapping thefield. Bus Strategy Environ. 22:219–229. doi:10.1002/bse.1772

Tacon AGJ, Metian M. 2008. Global overview on the use of fishmeal and fish oil in industrially compounded aquafeeds:

trends and future prospects. Aquaculture. 285:146–158.doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2008.08.015

Tlusty M, Tausig H, Taranovski T, Jeans M, Thompson M, ChoM, Eppling M, Clermont JJ, Goldstein J, Fitzsimons E. 2012.Refocusing seafood sustainability as a journey using the lawof the minimum. Sustainability. 4:2038–2050. doi:10.3390/su4092038

Wijkstrom U. 2003. Short and long-term prospects for consump-tion of fish. Vet Res Commun. 27:461–468. doi:10.1023/B:VERC.0000014202.83258.95

WWF. 2008a. Tilapia aquaculture dialogue draft standards ver-sion 1.0. [cited 2010 Feb 24]. Available from: http://www.worldwildlife.org/what/globalmarkets/aquaculture/WWFBinarytem10225.pdf

WWF. 2008b. Pangasius aquaculture dialogue. Meeting Summary.[cited 2010 Feb 24]. Available from: http://www.worldwildlife.org/what/globalmarkets/aquaculture/WWFBinaryitem11128.pdf

International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

08:

08 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014