This article was downloaded by: [Florida State University] On: 27 April 2013, At: 10:53 Publisher: Taylor

& Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Applied Aquaculture

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjaa20

Relationship of Freshwater Aquaculture Production to Renewable Freshwater Resources

Claude E. Boyd , Li Li & Randall Brummett
a a a b

Department of Fisheries and Allied Aquacultures, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama, United States
b

World Bank, Washington, DC, United States Version of record first published: 25 May 2012.

To cite this article: Claude E. Boyd , Li Li & Randall Brummett (2012): Relationship of Freshwater Aquaculture Production to Renewable Freshwater Resources, Journal of Applied Aquaculture, 24:2, 99-106 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10454438.2011.627778

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Journal of Applied Aquaculture, 24:99106, 2012 Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1045-4438 print/1545-0805 online DOI: 10.1080/10454438.2011.627778

Relationship of Freshwater Aquaculture Production to Renewable Freshwater Resources

CLAUDE E. BOYD1 , LI LI1 , and RANDALL BRUMMETT2
1

Downloaded by [Florida State University] at 10:53 27 April 2013

Department of Fisheries and Allied Aquacultures, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama, United States 2 World Bank, Washington, DC, United States

At the country-level, freshwater aquaculture production was correlated (P < 0.05) with area, renewable freshwater, and population increasethe strongest tendency was with population. Intensity of freshwater use for aquaculture in 172 countries was estimated by dividing freshwater aquaculture production (ton/yr) by total natural renewable freshwater (km3 /yr). The freshwater aquaculture production:renewable freshwater ratio (AFR) varied from 0 to 15,000 ton/km3 . Country-level AFRs were assigned to classes: no freshwater aquaculture, (n = 35); low, <100 ton/km3 (n = 80); medium, 1001,000 ton/km3 (n = 45); and high, >1,000 ton/km3 (n = 12). Most renewable freshwater isin countries with no freshwater aquaculture or low AFR; countries with high AFR contain 11.1% of global renewable freshwater. By FAO region, AFR values were: Oceania,1.56 ton/km3 ; Latin America and Caribbean, 31.1 ton/km3 ; North America, 50.0 ton/km3 ; Europe, 68.7 ton/km3 ; Africa, 84.1 ton/km3 ; and Asia, 2,409 ton/km3 . Renewable freshwater appears adequate for considerable expansion of aquaculture, especially outside Asia. KEYWORDS Freshwater aquaculture production, water use in aquaculture, aquaculture and environment, water resources

Address correspondence to Claude E. Boyd, Department of Fisheries and Allied Aquacultures, Auburn University, 427 East Magnolia Avenue, Auburn, AL, 36849, USA. E-mail: boydce1@auburn.edu 99

100

C. E. Boyd et al.

INTRODUCTION
The urgent need to increase food production to nourish a growing world population is widely acknowledged. Approximately 15% of global animal protein supply is derived from sh and shellsh. The current population of 6.91 billion people consumes an estimated 117.8 million ton/yr of sheries products (Food Agriculture Organization 2010). Capture sheries apparently have reached or possibly exceeded a sustainable limit, while world population is expected to increase by about 32% to 9.15 billion by 2050 (World Bank 2010). Aquaculture currently contributes nearly 50% of current production, and of this freshwater aquaculture accounts for 35.0 million ton/yr or 63.5% (FAO 2010). With no change in per capita consumption, a population of 9.15 billion will demand about 156 million ton/yr of sheries products, of which freshwater aquaculture will need to contribute some 54 million ton/yr. However, resource use efciency is an issue for aquaculture (Pillay 2004; Tacon et al. 2006; Boyd et al. 2007; Tucker & Hargreaves 2008). With respect to water, Boyd (2005) presented procedures for estimating total and consumptive water use by aquaculture facilities. Verdegem and Bosma (2009) estimated that total water use in freshwater aquaculture averages about 16.9 m3 /kg production, representing 429 km3 /yr globally. This is between 1% and 4% of the usual estimates of the worlds renewable freshwater supply. There is considerable scope for obtaining more production per unit of water through intensication (Boyd 2005; World Bank 2006; Verdegem & Bosma 2009), but this will inevitably involve trade-offs with other natural resource uses. In any case, little information has been presented to date on the extent to which freshwater water supplies are a constraint to the expansion of aquaculture. The present study evaluates the current relationship between freshwater aquaculture production and renewable freshwater for different countries, and attempts to infer the degree to which aquaculture will be limited by availability of freshwater in the future.

Downloaded by [Florida State University] at 10:53 27 April 2013

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Estimates of annual total natural renewable freshwaterthe sum of surface runoff within a country, all surface water owing into the country from neighboring countries, and renewable groundwaterwere obtained from Gleick (2009) for 172 of the worlds 224 countries. In most countries, ows of both surface water and groundwater enter from and exit to neighboring countries, but the amount of these gains and losses seldom balances at the country level. To avoid the problem of multiple accounting that would result from summing country-level data for a region, total internal natural

Freshwater Use in Aquaculture

101

Downloaded by [Florida State University] at 10:53 27 April 2013

renewable freshwater estimates for the FAO regions were obtained from the FAO Aquastat Program website (http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/ dbase/index.stm). The sum of the estimates of total internal natural renewable freshwater for the FAO regions of the world is 43,764 m3 /yrquite similar to the traditional estimate of 39,700 m3 /yr based on the difference between precipitation falling on land masses and evapotranspiration from land masses (Baumgartner & Reichel 1975). Freshwater aquaculture production data were obtained for these countries from FAO sheries statistics (FAO 2011). An indicator of the intensity of water use for freshwater aquaculture was estimated for each country using the following equation: AFR = AP/RF 100, where AFR is the freshwater aquaculture production to renewable freshwater ratio (ton/km3 ), AP is freshwater aquaculture production in 2008 (ton/yr), and RF is the total renewable freshwater (km3 /yr) according to Gleick (2009). The AFR also was estimated for continent and global levels by combining country data accordingly. Scatter diagrams were used to depict relationships at the country level among total renewable freshwater, land area (http://data.worldbank.org/), population (http://data.worldbank.org/), and freshwater aquaculture production. The range of these variables was great; log10 transformation was used to simplify graphical presentation.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Freshwater is not uniformly distributed globally, and differences in the availability of freshwater are one reason that population also is not uniformly distributed. It is therefore not surprising that the amounts of renewable freshwater and country surface areas were positively correlated (R2 = 0.557) (Figure 1). Positive correlations were also found between country surface area, amount of renewable freshwater, and population (Figure 1) (R2 = 0.570 and 0.421, respectively). In short, large countries tend to have more renewable freshwater and larger populations than smaller countries. Freshwater aquaculture production was not highly correlated with either renewable freshwater (R2 = 0.271) or area (R2 = 0.123) (Figure 1). A higher correlation (R2 = 0.513) was found between population and aquaculture production (Figure 1). This relationship seems logical because a country with a greater population will require proportionally more food than a country of smaller population. There are no doubt interactions among the relationships shown in Figure 1 and other factors. Availability of land suitable for aquaculture, climate, political stability, government policy, cultural food preferences, and sh market integration affect a countrys aquacultural production. Nevertheless, a countrys population size seems to be a major variable inuencing the amount of aquaculture. This is likely a key reason why

102

C. E. Boyd et al.

Downloaded by [Florida State University] at 10:53 27 April 2013

FIGURE 1 Scatter diagrams of relationships among area, total natural renewable freshwater, population, and freshwater aquaculture production of counties.

heavily populated Asian countries have such a large amount of aquaculture production compared to other regions (Table 1). The world average AFR of 721 ton/km3 is inuenced greatly by the high AFR (2,409 ton/km3 ) for Asia, and particularly by the AFR of 7,344 ton/km3 for China (Table 1). Removing China from the calculation reduces AFR for Asia to 957 ton/km3 and for the world to 263 ton/km3 . The global AFR excluding Asia is only 48.9 ton/km3 . Africa, North America, and Europe have fairly similar AFRsthese three continents have a combined AFR of

Freshwater Use in Aquaculture

103

TABLE 1 Renewable Freshwater, Freshwater Aquaculture Production, and Freshwater Aquaculture Production: Renewable Freshwater Ratio (AFR) by FAO Region Renewable freshwater (km3 /yr) 12,461 9,649 3,950 6,662 6,619 13,161 911 43,764 40,952 Freshwater aquaculture (ton/yr) 30,015,550 9,234,485 332,113 333,219 454,501 408,692 1,424 31,545,499 10,764,434

Continent Asia (Asia without China) Africa North America Europe Latin America and Caribbean Oceania World (World without China)

AFR (ton/km3 ) 2,409 957 84.1 50.0 68.7 31.1 1.56 721 263

Downloaded by [Florida State University] at 10:53 27 April 2013

65.0 ton/km3 . Oceania, Latin America, and the Caribbean have lower AFRs their combined AFR is 29.1 ton/km3 . The AFR values were placed in four classes as follows: no freshwater aquaculture, 35 countries; low, 80 countries with AFR <100 ton/km3 ; medium, 45 countries with AFR >100 but <1,000 ton/km3 ; and high, 12 countries with AFR >1,000 ton/km3 (Tables 2 and 3). Africa had the most countries with no aquaculture, while Europe had the most countries with low AFR. The most countries with medium and high AFR were in Asia. The averages and standard deviations for AFRs by class were: low, 22.4 26.6 ton/km3 ; medium, 291.8 203.8 ton/km3 ; and high, 4,154.8 4,619.7 ton/km3 . Individual country AFRs were heavily skewed to the left (lower AFR), indicating considerable scope for expansion within the existing water resource base (Figure 2).
TABLE 2 Number of Countries (n) and Associated Amounts of Renewable Freshwater (Based on Sum of Country-Level Estimates) by FAO Region and Freshwater Aquaculture Production to Renewable Freshwater Ratio (AFR) Class None Continent Latin America and Caribbean North America Asia Europe Oceania Africa World n 1 0 7 3 2 18 35 km3 3.8 0 199 210 442 1,040 1,909 n 16 2 5 29 2 26 80 Low km3 14,917 6,369 441 7,035 1,227 4,122 34,087 n 7 0 17 14 0 7 45 Medium km3 3,370 0 7,985 1,096 0 475 12,926 n 0 0 9 2 0 1 12 High km3 0 0 6,247 22 0 87 6,356

None, AFR = 0 ton/km3 ; low, AFR <100 ton/km3 ; medium, AFR = 100 to 1,000 ton/km3 ; high, AFR >1,000 ton/km3 .

104

C. E. Boyd et al.

TABLE 3 Countries with Over 50 km3 /yr of Renewable Freshwater Listed by Freshwater Aquaculture Production to Renewable Freshwater Ratio (AFR) Classes. The top 10 Freshwater Aquaculture Producers are in Bold Font (FAO 2010) AFR class Low (<100 ton/km3 ) Country Angola, Cameron, Congo, Congo (DR), Cote DIvoire, Gabon, Madagascar, Mali, Mozambique, South Africa, Sudan, Zambia, Canada, Guatemala, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay,Venezuela, Cambodia, Japan, Korea (DPR), Austria, Greece, Iceland, Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, Russia, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Australia, and Papua New Guinea. Ghana, Nigeria, Uganda, Belize, Costa Rica, Honduras, United States, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Iraq, Korea, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Turkey, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Spain, and Ukraine. Egypt, China, India, Iran, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam.

Downloaded by [Florida State University] at 10:53 27 April 2013

Medium (1001,000 ton/km3 ) High (>1,000 ton/km3 )

Of the 172 countries for which renewable freshwater data were available, 35 reported no reported freshwater aquaculture to FAO. For the 137 countries reporting freshwater aquaculture production, AFR ranged from <1 ton/km3 to 7,344 ton/km3 in China, 11,324 ton/m3 in Israel, and 15,000 ton/km3 in Kuwait. The latter two of these are small, water-restricted countries, and two others in the high AFR class are large, water-restricted countries (Egypt and Iran). The amounts of total natural renewable freshwater represented by each AFR class were: no aquaculture, 1,909 km3 ; low, 34,097 km3 ; medium, 12,926 km3 ; and high, 6,356 km3 . Thus, about 65% of the worlds renewable freshwater is in countries that have no freshwater aquaculture or fall into the low AFR class. The projected freshwater aquaculture production needed to maintain current world consumption of sheries products was estimated to be about 55.1 million ton/yr by 2050. This level of production equates to a world AFR of 1,259 ton/km3 . Tripling production in the low-income and food insecure countries of Latin America and Africa would result in AFR in these regions, increasing from 31.1 ton/km3 to 93 ton/km3 and from 84.1 ton/km3 to 252 ton/km3 , respectivelystill below the theoretical technical maxima measured in high AFR countries. From our analysis, overall availability of freshwater at country and regional levels is not a constraint to meeting future global sh and shellsh demand by increasing aquaculture. The main negative environmental issues related to high freshwater aquaculture production at the country level are competition with other water uses and water pollution resulting from aquaculture (Boyd et al. 2007). Based on regional studies of individual aquaculture industries, such as channel catsh (Ictalurus punctatus) in the

Freshwater Use in Aquaculture

105

Downloaded by [Florida State University] at 10:53 27 April 2013

FIGURE 2 Frequency distribution histograms for the ratio of annual, freshwater aquaculture production to renewable freshwater resources (AFR) for countries with low (upper), medium (middle), and high (lower) AFR values.

southeastern United States (Boyd et al. 2000; Tucker & Hargreaves 2008) and Pangasius catsh in Vietnam (Bosma et al. 2009), aquaculture appears to be a relatively small contributor to water pollution and water use conicts as compared to some other activities. AFR roughly approximates aquaculture production system intensity, and increasing AFR may thus be the most environmentally affordable means of raising overall output within the existing freshwater resource base. Technology to reduce water consumption by over 60% is already available (Verdegem & Bosma 2009). However, increasing AFR in many Asian countries, and especially in China, would result in higher AFRs in a region where values are already much greater than in the rest of the world and could reach levels that confront environmental, energy, and input constraints to further increases.

106

C. E. Boyd et al.

Eco-label certication programs are increasingly used to create market incentives for aquaculture producers to use systems that treat the environment responsibly (Clay 2008). Water use efciency and intensity should be considered important components of environmental sustainability. Considering that freshwater availability overall is a major concern for 21st century global society, AFR, which embodies these, might thus serve as a useful indicator of wise water management in aquaculture.

REFERENCES
Baumgartner, A., and E. Reichel. 1975. The world water balance. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier. Bosma, R.H., C.T.T. Hanh, and J. Potting (Eds.).2009. Environmental impact assessment of the pangasius sector in the Mekong Delta. Wageningen, The Netherlands: Wageningen University, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Department of Aquaculture. Boyd, C.E. 2005. Water use in aquaculture. World Aquaculture 36(3):1215 and 70. Boyd, C.E., C. S. Tucker, A. McNevin, K. Bostick, and J. Clay. 2007. Indicators of resource use efciency and environmental performance in sh and crustacean aquaculture. Reviews in Fisheries Science 15:327360. Boyd, C.E., J. Queiroz, J. Lee, M. Rowan, G.N. Whitis, and A. Gross. 2000. Environmental assessment of channel catsh, Ictalurus punctatus, farming in Alabama. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society 31:511544. Clay, J.W. 2008. The role of better management practices in environmental management. In Environmental best management practices for aquaculture, edited by C.S. Tucker and J.A. Hargreaves, 5572. Ames, IA:Wiley-Blackwell. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2010. The state of world sheries and aquaculture. Rome, Italy: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department. FAO. 2011. FISHSTAT electronic database. Rome, Italy: FAO. Gleick, P.H. 2009. The worlds water 20082009. Washington, DC: Island Press. Pillay, T.V.R. 2004. Aquaculture and the environment , 2nd ed . Oxford, UK:Blackwell. Tacon, A.G.J., M.R. Hasan, and R.P. Subasinghe. 2006. Use of shery resources as food inputs to aquaculture development: trends and policy implications. FAO sheries circular no. 1018 . Rome, Italy: FAO. Tucker, C.S., and J.A. Hargreaves (Eds.). 2008. Environmental best management practices for aquaculture. Ames, IA: Wiley-Blackwell. Verdegem, M.C.J., and R.H. Bosma. 2009. Water withdrawal for brackish and inland aquaculture, and options to produce more sh in ponds with present water use. Water Policy 11(Supplement 1):5268. World Bank. 2006. Aquaculture: changing the face of the waters, meeting the promise and challenge of sustainable aquaculture. Agriculture and rural development report no. 36622-GLB. Washington, DC: World Bank. World Bank. 2010. World development report: Development and climate change. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

Downloaded by [Florida State University] at 10:53 27 April 2013