Whiteleg Shrimp, Giant Tiger Prawn Litopenaeus vannamei, Penaeus monodon

Image © Monterey Bay Aquarium

India Ponds

September 21, 2015 Matthew Thompson, Independent Research Analyst

Disclaimer Seafood Watch® strives to have all Seafood Reports reviewed for accuracy and completeness by external scientists with expertise in ecology, fisheries science and aquaculture. Scientific review, however, does not constitute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch® program or its recommendations on the part of the reviewing scientists. Seafood Watch® is solely responsible for the conclusions reached in this report. 2

About Seafood Watch®

Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch® program evaluates the ecological sustainability of wild-caught and farmed seafood commonly found in the United States marketplace. Seafood Watch® defines sustainable seafood as originating from sources, whether wild-caught or farmed, which can maintain or increase production in the long-term without jeopardizing the structure or function of affected ecosystems. Seafood Watch® makes its science-based recommendations available to the public in the form of regional pocket guides that can be downloaded from www.seafoodwatch.org. The program’s goals are to raise awareness of important ocean conservation issues and empower seafood consumers and businesses to make choices for healthy oceans.

Each sustainability recommendation on the regional pocket guides is supported by a Seafood Report. Each report synthesizes and analyzes the most current ecological, fisheries and ecosystem science on a species, then evaluates this information against the program’s conservation ethic to arrive at a recommendation of “Best Choices,” “Good Alternatives” or “Avoid.” The detailed evaluation methodology is available upon request. In producing the Seafood Reports, Seafood Watch® seeks out research published in academic, peer-reviewed journals whenever possible. Other sources of information include government technical publications, fishery management plans and supporting documents, and other scientific reviews of ecological sustainability. Seafood Watch® Research Analysts also communicate regularly with ecologists, fisheries and aquaculture scientists, and members of industry and conservation organizations when evaluating fisheries and aquaculture practices. Capture fisheries and aquaculture practices are highly dynamic; as the scientific information on each species changes, Seafood Watch®’s sustainability recommendations and the underlying Seafood Reports will be updated to reflect these changes.

Parties interested in capture fisheries, aquaculture practices and the sustainability of ocean ecosystems are welcome to use Seafood Reports in any way they find useful. For more information about Seafood Watch® and Seafood Reports, please contact the Seafood Watch® program at Monterey Bay Aquarium by calling 1-877-229-9990.

Disclaimer Seafood Watch® strives to have all Seafood Reports reviewed for accuracy and completeness by external scientists with expertise in ecology, fisheries science and aquaculture. Scientific review, however, does not constitute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch® program or its recommendations on the part of the reviewing scientists. Seafood Watch® is solely responsible for the conclusions reached in this report.

Seafood Watch® and Seafood Reports are made possible through a grant from the David and Lucile Packard Foundation.

3

Guiding Principles

Seafood Watch defines sustainable seafood as originating from sources, whether fished1 or farmed that can maintain or increase production in the long-term without jeopardizing the structure or function of affected ecosystems.

The following guiding principles illustrate the qualities that aquaculture must possess to be considered sustainable by the Seafood Watch program:

Seafood Watch will: • Support data transparency and therefore aquaculture producers or industries that make information and data on production practices and their impacts available to relevant stakeholders. • Promote aquaculture production that minimizes or avoids the discharge of wastes at the farm level in combination with an effective management or regulatory system to control the location, scale and cumulative impacts of the industry’s waste discharges beyond the immediate vicinity of the farm. • Promote aquaculture production at locations, scales and intensities that cumulatively maintain the functionality of ecologically valuable habitats without unreasonably penalizing historic habitat damage. • Promote aquaculture production that by design, management or regulation avoids the use and discharge of chemicals toxic to aquatic life, and/or effectively controls the frequency, risk of environmental impact and risk to human health of their use. • Within the typically limited data availability, use understandable quantitative and relative indicators to recognize the global impacts of feed production and the efficiency of conversion of feed ingredients to farmed seafood. • Promote aquaculture operations that pose no substantial risk of deleterious effects to wild fish or shellfish populations through competition, habitat damage, genetic introgression, hybridization, spawning disruption, changes in trophic structure or other impacts associated with the escape of farmed fish or other unintentionally introduced species. • Promote aquaculture operations that pose no substantial risk of deleterious effects to wild populations through the amplification and retransmission of pathogens or parasites. • Promote the use of eggs, larvae, or juvenile fish produced in hatcheries using domesticated broodstocks thereby avoiding the need for wild capture. • Recognize that energy use varies greatly among different production systems and can be a major impact category for some aquaculture operations, and also recognize that improving practices for some criteria may lead to more energy-intensive production systems (e.g. promoting more energy- intensive closed recirculation systems).

1 “Fish” is used throughout this document to refer to finfish, shellfish and other invertebrates. 4

Once a score and rank has been assigned to each criterion, an overall seafood recommendation is developed on additional evaluation guidelines. Criteria ranks and the overall recommendation are color-coded to correspond to the categories on the Seafood Watch pocket guide:

Best Choices/Green: Are well managed and caught or farmed in environmentally friendly ways.

Good Alternatives/Yellow: Buy, but be aware there are concerns with how they’re caught or farmed.

Avoid/Red: Take a pass on these. These items are overfished or caught or farmed in ways that harm other marine life or the environment.

5

Final Seafood Recommendation

Giant Tiger Prawn Penaeus monodon India Brackish water ponds

Criterion Score (0-10) Rank Critical? C1 Data 3.06 RED C2 Effluent 3.00 RED NO C3 Habitat 3.13 RED NO C4 Chemicals CRITICAL RED YES C5 Feed 4.24 YELLOW NO C6 Escapes 6.00 YELLOW NO C7 Disease 2.00 RED NO C8 Source 0.00 RED C9X Wildlife mortalities -4.00 YELLOW NO C10X Introduced species escape -0.80 GREEN Total 16.63 Final score 2.08

OVERALL RANKING Final Score 2.08 Initial rank RED Red criteria 6

Interim rank RED FINAL RANK

Critical Criteria? YES RED

Summary The final score for Indian farmed giant tiger prawn (P. monodon) is 2.08, which is in the red range, with six of the Criterions ranked red, including a critical score for chemicals, the final ranking is also red or “Avoid.”

Scoring note – scores range from zero to ten where zero indicates very poor performance and ten indicates the aquaculture operations have no significant impact.

6

Whiteleg shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei India Brackish water ponds

Criterion Score (0-10) Rank Critical? C1 Data 3.33 YELLOW C2 Effluent 6.00 YELLOW NO C3 Habitat 3.50 YELLOW NO C4 Chemicals CRITICAL RED YES C5 Feed 4.59 YELLOW NO C6 Escapes 3.00 RED NO C7 Disease 4.00 YELLOW NO C8 Source 10.00 GREEN C9X Wildlife mortalities -4.00 YELLOW NO C10X Introduced species escape -2.00 GREEN Total 28.42 Final score 3.55

OVERALL RANKING Final Score 3.55 Initial rank YELLOW Red criteria 2

Interim rank RED FINAL RANK

Critical Criteria? YES RED

Summary The final numerical score for farmed whiteleg shrimp (L. vannamei) from India is 3.55, which is in the yellow range but with two red criterion, of which one is a critical score, the final recommendation is a red “Avoid.”

Scoring note – scores range from zero to ten where zero indicates very poor performance and ten indicates the aquaculture operations have no significant impact.

7

Executive Summary Shrimp is the most widely consumed seafood item in the United States; in 2012, Americans ate an estimated 1.7 kilograms per capita. Approximately 90% of shrimp consumed in the US is imported. Toward the end of 2013, India became the largest shrimp exporter to the US. This was a result of a large increase in shrimp production in-country, as well as the previous top exporter (Thailand) being heavily impacted by disease.

Like many marine shrimp farming countries in Asia, the industry in India began by farming native species; mainly giant tiger prawn (Penaeus monodon) and the Indian white shrimp (Penaeus indicus). Disease outbreaks in the 1990s created financial risks that were too great for the industry to become consolidated, resulting in an industry dominated by tens of thousands of small-scale farms (less than 2 hectares in size) using traditional or improved extensive production practices. Regulation of an industry made up of so many small units is challenging, and after several failed attempts to effectively control the industry the Indian government introduced the Coastal Aquaculture Authority Act 2005. The Act mandated registration of all farms raising shrimp for the export market. It also established the Coastal Aquaculture Authority (CAA), an agency charged with regulating all aquaculture in the coastal zone (up to 2 kilometers inland from the high-tide line). A 2009 update of the Act authorized farming of the non-native whiteleg shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei), and production of this species has exploded (for example, whiteleg shrimp production increased from 1,731 metric tons (mt) at the end of 2010 to almost 81,000 mt at the end of 2012 with a predicted 140,000 mt by 2015), while giant tiger prawn production has been stagnant (at approximately 136,000 mt in 2012) and farming of the native Indian whiteleg shrimp has all but disappeared.

Data on Indian shrimp farming were present for average industry statistics and production, with the CAA website and annual reports being excellent resources, particularly regarding whiteleg shrimp farming. Regulations are readily available. However, with an industry made of thousands of farms there is low confidence that most data are representative and up-to-date. Data on environmental impact were especially limited. Peer-reviewed literature focuses on “hot-spot” issues to the farming industry, with mangroves and disease receiving the most attention. For some issues, little data were available and conclusions drawn were based on industry expert experience as well as characteristics of the predominant production systems used in the country. Whiteleg shrimp score 3.3 out of ten and a “yellow” ranking for the Data Criterion, whereas giant tiger prawns score 3.1 out of ten and a “red” ranking.

Regarding nutrient waste outputs from the farms, both species use commercial dry feed and may supplement pond nutrient levels using urea and diammonium phosphate as a fertilizer, but compared to giant tiger prawn, whiteleg shrimp have short production cycles, resulting in lower feed conversion ratios (FCRs) and greater efficiencies in terms of waste production per unit mass of shrimp being farmed. Whiteleg shrimp farms are generally more intensive and larger than giant tiger prawns and have a greater potential for impacts from effluents, but are likely to have lower water exchange rates and therefore potentially less discharge of wastes. This is reflected in the Indian regulations, with the management and enforcement of whiteleg shrimp 8

farming being more stringent than for giant tiger prawn; however, the overwhelming number and small-scale nature of both industries means that the CAA may have sufficient resources to inspect only a small number of farms for either species each year. Overall, the more efficient production, reduced water exchanges, and greater regulatory control for whiteleg shrimp farming results in an Effluent Criterion score of 6 or Yellow; whereas giant tiger prawns are scored as a 3 or Red.

Globally, shrimp farming has been linked to the historical conversion of ecologically important wetlands, including mangrove forests. The majority of losses occurred before the late ‘90s, after which a number of factors, including regulatory protection, the ability to grow shrimp at low salinities, and the knowledge that former mangrove soils negatively affect pond water quality have greatly reduced mangrove losses due to shrimp farming. In India, the CAA now prohibits farms to be constructed within 200 m of the high tide line, and while habitat conversion is a farm-specific occurrence, India as a whole is no exception to global pattern of historic mangrove loss and scores 4 out of 10 (Factor 3.1) for the conversion of ecologically important habitats >10 years ago.

The CAA is, in effect, a coastal zone management system with rules covering impacts on habitat and siting, but many farms were constructed (including potentially illegally sited operations) before it came into being in 2005 and were “grandfathered” in during the regulatory update. Whiteleg shrimp farms are now required to be inspected by the CAA, suggesting greater confidence in legal compliance than for giant tiger prawn where site inspections are optional for farms less than 2 ha (i.e., the largest segment of the shrimp farming industry). This difference in management effectiveness scores results in overall Habitat Criterion scores for whiteleg shrimp of 3.5 out of 10 or a low Yellow ranking, while giant tiger prawn farming scored 3.13 out of 10 or a Red ranking.

The primary concern regarding chemical use in Indian shrimp farming is antibiotics. No data were available on antibiotic usage in India in terms of the types and quantities used, but there is published evidence of illegal antibiotic residues in shrimp imports to the US, antibiotic resistance in bacteria in regions of traditional/extensive and intensive shrimp farming, and some potential contamination of feed by antibiotics. Many of these sources of this information did not differentiate between the two species of shrimp and as such both are considered having the same risk of environmental impacts. Oxytetracycline is one antibiotic known to be used and is listed as highly important for human health by the World Health Organization (WHO). It is likely that antibiotics listed as critically important are also used in India. According to the Seafood Watch methodology, the documented development of resistance to antibiotics that include highly important antibiotics for human health results in a critical score of zero. While it can be argued that the role the different types of shrimp farms (and indeed shrimp farming in general) play in the development of the observed resistance in India, it is somewhat unclear, there is the potential for the industry to be a significant driver, and therefore a precautionary score for the Chemical Use Criterion is Critical for both species.

9

As noted above, giant tiger prawns are generally less intensively farmed than whiteleg shrimp, but the latter have lower FCRs (1.4 compared to 1.6). Data on feed ingredients specific to India are limited; as such, general data on shrimp feeds were used for both species. While accepting that these general data may not accurately reflect typical Indian feeds, they showed relatively high fishmeal levels (25%) in the diets of both species, but fish oil inclusion levels were low (1.5%). No data were available on the use of byproducts, so no adjustment was applied; FIFO levels are moderate for both species. Data were also lacking on the sustainability and sources of direct marine ingredients used in feed. The net protein loss (also calculated form general shrimp feed data) is relatively high (>70%) for both species. The combination of high and low factors results in a moderate score for feed and a Yellow ranking for this criterion for both species (whiteleg shrimp scored 4.59 out of 10, giant tiger prawn scored 4.24.

Published information on the frequency, magnitude, or impacts of escapes from shrimp farms in India was not available. Pond systems generally use mesh screens to prevent escapes; though better practices, such as regular inspections and back-up systems are likely to be farm-specific practices and not necessarily industry norms. Ponds typically remain vulnerable to escape during flooding events, screen failures etc., and during key activities such as harvesting. Whiteleg shrimp farms are likely to avoid daily water exchange, thus reducing one potential avenue for escape, but giant tiger prawn farms are likely to frequently exchange water, resulting in a higher risk of escape from the native species. With regard to potential impacts, giant tiger prawn farming presents little risk of a reduction in genetic fitness of the wild population due to the use of wild-caught broodstock from Indian waters. Whiteleg shrimp are non-native and raised from imported broodstock, having a potentially larger escapement impact risk if they were to become established; albeit a risk that has not been shown in other countries where the species has also been introduced (though it remains poorly studied). Whiteleg shrimp are therefore considered a moderate risk of escapement but a high risk for impact on a precautionary basis, resulting in a score of 3 out of 10 or Red ranking for the Escape Criterion. The giant tiger prawn conversely presents a higher risk of escapes, but a low risk of impact, resulting in a score of 6 out of 10 or Yellow ranking.

Shrimp farms are connected to the environment and the transfer of shrimp diseases to wild populations and other susceptible species has been demonstrated. However, with the exception of one possible event in Mexico, significant impacts on wild populations have not been reported. Considering the difficulty of observing such impacts, this criterion is scored on a precautionary basis, taking into account the high disease prevalence and mortality on shrimp farms. A key difference between species is the high use of water exchange on giant tiger prawn farms, which whiteleg shrimp farms are less likely to use. As such, whiteleg shrimp are considered a moderate risk―4 out of 10, or Yellow―for this criterion, but giant tiger prawns are considered a higher risk--2 out of 10 or Red.

Giant tiger prawn farming in India is entirely reliant on wild-caught broodstock from stocks that are considered overfished, but whiteleg shrimp broodstock should be from specific pathogen free (SPF) sources, meaning all must come from farm-raised broodstock. Therefore, giant tiger 10

prawn is scored as 0 or Red but whiteleg shrimp is scored as 10 or Green on Criterion 8, Source of Stock – Independence from Wild Fisheries.

Data on wildlife and predator mortalities is lacking; however, general shrimp farming practices include treating ponds during the initial fill followed by passive and non-lethal measures, such as pond linings and fireworks to control diving birds. This results in a deduction of -4 out of -10 for the (Exceptional) Wildlife and Predator Criterion for both species.

Wild-caught giant tiger prawn broodstock represent a significant source of pathogens that can enter into the farming cycle, but their movements present little risk of introducing a novel disease even though biosecurity practices are poor at the broodstock landing centers, hatcheries and the farms. This results in an overall Exceptional Criteria score of -0.8 (out of -10) for Criterion 10X. Whiteleg shrimp farming relies on imported broodstock, which have been shown to be a source of pathogen movements globally and therefore present a potentially high risk of introducing a novel disease. However, biosecurity practices such as SPF sources, quarantine, regulation and enforcement is prioritized in India. The government also requires all imports of whiteleg shrimp broodstock to be channeled through a quarantine facility in Chennai. This is also considered to represent a low risk of introducing a non-native species during live shrimp movements, and results in an overall Exceptional Criteria score (i.e., a deduction) of -2.

As outlined in the following assessment, both giant tiger prawn and whiteleg shrimp present a high risk of environmental impacts. The final result for both species is Red or “Avoid” recommendation. While their final ranking is the same, the individual environmental risks presented by farming the two species are significantly different due to biological differences between the species, the differences in the intensity of production, and differences in regulation and enforcement. Ultimately, the biggest challenge in India is how to effectively regulate an industry made of tens of thousands of small farms. That challenge is one the CAA appears to be transparently working hard to address, particularly with whiteleg shrimp and, according to several experts, the Indian industry is rapidly improving. However, based on the data available, Indian farmed marine shrimp is ranked red or Avoid according to the Seafood Watch methodology.

11

Table of Contents

About Seafood Watch® ...... 2 Guiding Principles ...... 3 Final Seafood Recommendation ...... 5 Executive Summary ...... 7 Introduction ...... 12 Scope of the analysis and ensuing recommendation ...... 12 Production system overview ...... 13 Analysis ...... 19 Scoring Guide ...... 19 Criterion 1: Data quality and availability ...... 19 Criterion 2: Effluents ...... 23 Criterion 3: Habitat ...... 29 Criterion 4: Evidence or Risk of Chemical Use ...... 33 Criterion 5: Feed ...... 36 Criterion 6: Escapes ...... 39 Criterion 7: Disease; pathogen and parasite interactions ...... 42 Criterion 8: Source of Stock – independence from wild fisheries ...... 45 Criterion 9X: Wildlife and predator mortalities ...... 47 Criterion 10X: Escape of unintentionally introduced species ...... 48 Acknowledgements ...... 51 References ...... 52 Data points and all scoring calculations...... 57

12

Introduction

Scope of the analysis and ensuing recommendation

Species Whiteleg shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei) Giant tiger prawn (Penaeus monodon)

Geographic Coverage India

Production Methods Estuarine Ponds

Species Overview Two main marine shrimp species are farmed in India: the native giant tiger prawn (Penaeus monodon) and the non-native whiteleg shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei), which was authorized for farming in 2009 (MoA 2009). Farming of the native white shrimp (Penaeus indicus) used to occur, but currently there is minimal production and no export to the United States. Both P. monodon and L. vannamei have a similar life history in which adults spawn offshore, larvae move toward the coast and develop in estuaries and then move offshore as adults (Briggs, 2006, Kongeo 2005).

Production Statistics According to the Indian Coastal Aquaculture Authority (CAA) 2012/2013 Annual Report, production of whiteleg shrimp surged from 1,731 metric tons (mt) at the end of 2010 to almost 81,000 mt at the end of 2012 (CAA 2013a). By comparison, giant tiger prawn production increased from 119,000 mt to 136,000 mt during the same period (CAA 2012).

According to the Indian Ministry of Agriculture (MoA 2013) the increase in whiteleg shrimp production is expected to continue, with predicted values for 2012/2013 reaching 120,000 mt and increasing to 140,000 mt by 2015.

Import and Export Sources and Statistics Shrimp is the most widely consumed seafood item in the United States; in 2012 Americans ate an estimated 1.7 kilograms (kg) per capita (NFI 2013). It has been estimated that 90% of the shrimp consumed in the US are imported (Fluech and Krimsky 2011). In 2012, the US imported over 530,000 mt of shrimp.

Global markets for shrimp (specifically shrimp imports into the US) have been strongly influenced by an ongoing farmed shrimp disease, commonly referred to as early mortality syndrome (EMS). EMS was first detected in China in 2009 and has spread to Vietnam, Malaysia 13

(Nikolik and Kumar 2013) and Mexico (Undercurrent News 2013). Most significantly for the US market, it has also spread to Thailand, which has historically been the top exporter of farmed shrimp to the US (ERS 2012). Since 2010, exports from Thailand to the US have declined sharply (ERS 2012). In August 2013, it was reported that India had surpassed Thailand (which continued to decline), as well as other important exporting countries (Ecuador, Indonesia, and Vietnam), to become the top exporter of shrimp to the US market (Ramsingh 2013).

Also in 2013, EMS was thought to have been detected in a small number of farms in India, with the authorities reacting with a number of measures including a moratorium on pond stocking (termed a “shrimp holiday”) from November 2013 until February 2014 (Sackton 2013). However, the CAA now claims that India remains EMS free (CAA 2013a). Whatever happens with EMS and India, the country will likely be a highly important, if not the most important, farmed shrimp exporter to the US market in the future.

Common and Market Names

Scientific Name Penaeus monodon Litopenaeus vannamei Common Name giant tiger prawn, black tiger whiteleg shrimp, white shrimp, shrimp, tiger shrimp Pacific white shrimp, western white shrimp United States shrimp shrimp Spanish langostino jumbo camarón patiblanco French crevette géante tigrée crevette pattes blanches Japanese ushiebi

Product Forms Shrimp from India are available in a number of product forms including frozen or thawed, cooked and raw, head-on, head-off, peeled, and peeled and deveined. They may also be present in value-added goods like breaded shrimp or ready meals.

Production system overview Shrimp farming in India is brackish water, pond-based, and overwhelmingly small-scale in nature. Table 1 shows the number of registrations issued by the CAA to shrimp farms between December 2005 and March 2013. Over 86% of the approximately 26,000 registrations were issued to farms that were less than two hectares (ha) in size.

14

Table 1. Details of Registration Certificates issued by CAA between (December 2005 to March 2013). Copied from CAA 2013a.

Table 1 also shows that the vast majority of shrimp farms are operating in the State of Andhra Pradesh, along the west coast of the Bay of Bengal.

Table 2 shows the registration profile of whiteleg shrimp farms in India, which is again dominated by Andhra Pradesh but differs from the data in Table 1 in that the ratio of farm size per registration is much larger (~10.5 ha/registration). According to an industry expert, this is because initially the larger farms in the region are more able to access CAA’s resources than the smaller farms in the region. According to registration details listed on CAA’s website, these farms range from < 1ha to almost 200 ha in size (CAA 2013b).

15

Table 2. Details of Registration Certificates for whiteleg shrimp farms between 2009 to March 2013. Copied from CAA 2013a (TFA = Total Farm Area; WSA = Water Surface Area; both in hectares).

Production techniques are generally different between tiger prawn and whiteleg shrimp culture.

Ramaswamy et al. (2013) identified four categories of black tiger farming systems in India including traditional, extensive, modified extensive (referred to as “improved extensive” in this report), and semi-intensive.

Traditional farming systems are characterized by ponds ranging from less than 1 ha to 25 hectares in size, stocked with less than two postlarvae (PL) per meter (from both hatcheries or wild sources), with little supplemental feed and tidal water exchanges (Ramaswamy et al. 2013). These systems also use polyculture with other species such as barramundi (Lates calcarifer), giant river prawn (Marcobrachium rosenbergii), or tilapia (Ramaswamy et al. 2013).

Extensive farming systems use smaller ponds (between 0.5 and 2 ha) with a slightly higher stocking density (4 PL/m2) of hatchery-raised seed, and commercial dry feeds (Ramaswamy et al., 2013). Improved or modified extensive systems stock between 4-8 PL/m2 and use regular water exchange (up to 10% per day) and some aeration to maintain water quality (Ramaswamy et al., 2013). According to a representative case study in the Krishna District of Andhra Pradesh, the majority of traditional/extensive farmers exchanged around 20%–30% of the pond water each month but some had begun to adopt a zero-water change approach (Muralidhar et al. 2010).

Semi-intensive farming systems the smallest ponds, between 0.3 and 1 ha, which have constant aeration and pumped water exchange from 5% to 20% per week. This system can be stocked between 8-20 PL/m2 of hatchery-raised seed, which are fed commercial feed with some fertilization of the water for additional food (Ramaswamy et al. 2013.) Shailender et al. (2013) described an example of a larger (5-6ha) Indian semi-intensive tiger prawn farm in Andhra 16

Pradesh. The farm applied a stocking density of 10 PL/m2, used a combination of fertilizers and pellet feeds, and practiced approximately 18% water exchange every 5 days or as required based on water quality.

In 2005, approximately 80% of tiger prawn farming in India was either extensive or traditional culture (CAA, 2005), however according to Lyemperumal (pers. comm.) the majority of farms are now using improved extensive to semi-intensive production strategies. This was supported by a survey in 2010 by Ramaswamy et al. (2013) that found that all the farmers used feed of which 98% were commercial feeds and 2% used farm-made feeds. The survey of 183 ponds also found that in Andra Pradesh, approximately 50% were using extensive and improved extensive systems with 23% using semi-intensive systems and that the only traditional farming systems were found in West Bengal (Ramaswamy et al. 2013)

Tiger prawn PL’s are supplied from hatcheries that use local, wild-caught broodstock (FAO 2007).

Cluster farming (also known as farmer societies), where regional groups of small-scale farmers group together to share resources and apply common practices to reduce disease outbreaks, has been practiced in India. The key elements of tiger prawn cluster farming groups were summarized in Muralidhar et al. (2010) as: • Consisting of 20-75 farmers, with clear organization, strict conditions for voluntary membership, and elected board members. • Unique society production guidelines and BMPs, which were audited every year by Marine Products Export Development Authority (MPDEA). • All members required to have been registered with the CAA. • An initial membership fee (Rs. 1,000) and pay 0.5% of their revenue to the society corpus fund. • An agreed, cluster-wide, maximum stocking density. • Pls being purchased from contracted hatcheries. • “All-in” PLs stocking (all farms stocked within a 2 week period). • Cluster-wide agreement not to use any antibiotics and no/reduced chemical use.

The latest available data indicated that 383 societies were operating, covering over 3,800 ha of farm area, and producing over 4,000 mt (Muralidhar et al. 2010). Overall however, Muralidhar et al. (2010) described them as “unsuccessful” due to the regulatory agency not having the capacity to audit the societies and enforce compliance, while also being undermined by internal cluster politics.

Whiteleg shrimp farming is generally more intensive with much higher stocking densities of hatchery-raised seed, mechanical aeration of pond water, and with formulated feed providing most or all of the shrimp’s nutrition. Production is also much higher. The 2009 legal arrangement (G.S.R. 320(E)) allowing non-native whiteleg shrimp farming in India prescribed a 17

set of guidelines that these farms should follow in order to obtain registration by the CAA (MoA 2009). Several elements are relevant to this report, including (MoA 2009, CAA 2013a): • Required biosecurity measures, specifically 1) farm to be fenced (including crab fencing), 2) reservoirs for water intake, 3) bird scares/bird netting to prevent avian vectors, 4) No transfer of farm implements for each pond, 5) farm management and employees must be trained in biosecure farming approaches. • Farms should be fitted with an effluent treatment system (ETS) which can hold harvest- water for up to 2 days. This should allow for disinfection prior to release to the surrounding environment in the event of a disease outbreak. • Allow only farming of whiteleg shrimp if neighboring farms are not farming native shrimp and crab species. • Seed must be disease-tested and sourced from registered CAA hatcheries (for which guidelines were also developed with the aim of maintaining biosecurity). • Stocking densities should not exceed 60 PL/m2. • Farms must submit quarterly compliance reports to the CAA.

Specific data on actual stocking densities on whiteleg shrimp farms were not available; however, production in India reportedly ranges from 5.9 to 10.5 MT/ha with average production of 8.2 MT/ha, suggesting semi-intensive to intensive production strategies are employed. A great deal of variation occurs between farms; for example, according to one industry expert in the Krishna-Godavari Delta (Anon 2014), most of the whiteleg shrimp farms are in freshwater areas and raised in polyculture with freshwater carp.

According to the CAA “do’s and don’ts” guidance for whiteleg shrimp farmers, “Water exchange should be avoided, if possible” (CAA 2013b). This guidance also states that farms “Use only pelleted feed manufactured by reputed companies meant for SPF [specific pathogen free] L. vannamei in the prescribed quantity to minimize feed wastage. When necessary, reasonable reduction in feeding must be performed in order to improve the water quality. No banned chemicals/antibiotics should be used in the feed or in any other form.”

Cluster farming has also been used in whiteleg shrimp farming, enabling small-scale farmers to meet the requirement for an ETS for whiteleg shrimp farming by building a shared ETS (CAA 2012). By March 2013, there were 534 clusters, covering 2446 small-scale whiteleg shrimp farms, covering 5,172 ha farming area (CAA, 2013a). These operations accounted for 67% of the registered whiteleg shrimp farms and 61.4% of the farming area (CAA 2013a).

In summary, native shrimp species are most commonly farmed in small-scale, pond-based, brackish-water farms using improved extensive and semi-intensive practices and also using hatchery-raised seed from wild-caught broodstock. Non-native whiteleg shrimp farming generally occurs in slightly larger, pond-based, brackish water farms, using intensive farming practices, and under species-specific regulations, and using hatchery-raised seed and imported broodstock. Cluster-farming may be practiced for both native and non-native species. These general approaches are used in this report, however, it should be noted that there is great 18

diversity in the tens of thousands of farms in India and that the industry is in a rapid state of change following the introduction of whiteleg shrimp.

19

Analysis

Scoring Guide • With the exception of the Exceptional Criteria (9X and 10X), all scores result in a zero to ten final score for the criterion and the overall final rank. A zero score indicates poor performance, while a score of ten indicates high performance. In contrast, the two exceptional criteria result in negative scores from zero to minus ten, and in these cases zero indicates no negative impact. • The full Seafood Watch Aquaculture Criteria that the following scores relate to are available here http://www.montereybayaquarium.org/cr/cr_seafoodwatch/content/media/MBA_Seafood Watch_AquacultureCriteraMethodology.pdf • The full data values and scoring calculations are available in Appendix 1.

Criterion 1: Data quality and availability

Impact, unit of sustainability and principle . Impact: poor data quality and availability limits the ability to assess and understand the impacts of aquaculture production. It also does not enable informed choices for seafood purchasers, nor enable businesses to be held accountable for their impacts. . Sustainability unit: the ability to make a robust sustainability assessment. . Principle: robust and up-to-date information on production practices and their impacts is available to relevant stakeholders.

Criterion 1 Summary

Giant Tiger Prawn Data Category Relevance (Y/N) Data Quality Score (0-10) Industry or production statistics Yes 5 5 Effluent Yes 2.5 2.5 Locations/habitats Yes 2.5 2.5 Predators and wildlife Yes 0 0 Chemical use Yes 2.5 2.5 Feed Yes 2.5 2.5 Escapes, animal movements Yes 0 0 Disease Yes 5 5 Source of stock Yes 7.5 7.5 Other – (e.g., GHG emissions) No 0 N/A Total 27.5

C1 Data Final Score 3.1 RED 20

Whiteleg Shrimp Data Category Relevance (Y/N) Data Quality Score (0-10) Industry or production statistics Yes 7.5 7.5 Effluent Yes 2.5 2.5 Locations/habitats Yes 2.5 2.5 Predators and wildlife Yes 0 0 Chemical use Yes 2.5 2.5 Feed Yes 2.5 2.5 Escapes, animal movements Yes 0 0 Disease Yes 5 5 Source of stock Yes 7.5 7.5 Other – (e.g., GHG emissions) No 0 N/A Total 30

C1 Data Final Score 3.3 YELLOW

Brief Summary Data on Indian shrimp farming were present for average industry statistics and production, with the CAA website and annual reports being excellent resources particularly regarding whiteleg shrimp farming. Regulations are readily available. However with an industry made of thousands of farms there is low confidence that most data are representative and up-to-date. Data on environmental impact were especially limited. The commercial introduction of whiteleg shrimp was based on an importation risk analysis that informed the regulations controlling the importation and farming of the species, but no data were available on the actual environmental impacts that have resulted from the introduction of whiteleg shrimp. Peer-reviewed literature focuses on “hot-spot” issues to the farming industry with mangroves and disease receiving the most attention. For some issues, little data were available and conclusions drawn were based on industry expert experience as well as characteristics of the predominant production systems used in the country. Whiteleg shrimp score 3.3 out of ten and a Yellow ranking, whereas giant tiger prawns score 3.1 out of ten and a Red ranking.

Justification of Ranking The CAA, the body regulating aquaculture in the coastal zone, has clearly made efforts to be transparent about its work. The CAA website (www.caa.gov.in) provides the name, address, and some minor details on every registered shrimp farm in India. It also publishes a detailed annual report outlining production, enforcement and performance statistics, though this favors information on whiteleg shrimp farming. Regulatory information, such as the Coastal Aquaculture Authority Act, is also readily available. Data on industry and production statistics are considered moderately high quality for whiteleg shrimp but moderate for giant tiger prawns, scoring 7.5 and 5 respectively.

21

Detailed or representative data on effluent impacts were not available; however, regulatory information and recent industry statistics on feed conversion ratios (FCRs) were available from the CAA. Necessary data for the Seafood Watch methodology, such as information of protein inclusion in feeds and water exchange rates were only available for personal communications or from a single published resource on a single or small percentage of farms in India. Effluent data are therefore of low to moderate quality and insufficient to differentiate between the two species, resulting in both scoring 2.5.

Detailed or representative data on habitat impacts were not available; however, regulatory information was available from the CAA. Few recent papers could be found but Hein (2000) had summarized historical impacts. Habitat data are therefore of low to moderate quality and insufficient to differentiate between the two species, resulting in both scoring 2.5.

No published data were available on predator or wildlife impacts in India, thus the report scores were based on a general document written on shrimp farming by FAO in 1986. As a result both species score 0, indicating low data quality.

No data were available on legal chemical usage on Indian shrimp farms for either species but some regulatory information is provided by the CAA. Several studies and recent import data by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reveal the presence of recent antimicrobial abuses by some farms in the country but are not species specific. Two key recent studies for this report include Priyadarsani and Abraham (2013) and Abraham and Sasmal (2014) which identify the presence of antimicrobial resistant bacteria in shrimp farms in the region of India that they studied, though again these were not species specific. Effluent data are therefore of low to moderate quality and insufficient to differentiate between the two species, resulting in both scoring 2.5.

Recent and representative FCR data are available from the CAA but information on feed ingredients and inclusion rates are not publically available. Overview information was provided by leading experts in personal communications but these individuals declined their comments being directly attributed to them. Therefore, values for the Seafood Watch calculations had to be taken from Tacon and Median’s study in 2008, which was not species specific and is now dated. Feed data are therefore of low to moderate quality and insufficient to differentiate between the two species, resulting in both scoring 2.5.

Published information on the frequency, magnitude, or impacts of escapes from shrimp farms in India was not available, suggesting these issues are poorly studied. The assessment therefore had to be based on general information and used studies on other countries where whiteleg shrimp has been introduced. As a result, both species score 0, indicating low data quality.

Data on disease, pathogen, and parasite interactions are not available for India. However, the principle shrimp diseases, with the exception of Early Mortality Syndrome (EMS) are generally well studied and understood from other countries experiences. As such data for both species are considered moderate and score 5. 22

Information on seed is well documented, if a little dated. This includes a key report by the FAO that provided difficult to obtain data on the giant tiger prawn broodstock fishery and hatchery practices. Data quality is considered representative and moderate/high resulting in a score of 7.5 for both species.

Overall data availability and confidence for Indian shrimp farms is low. There is also the question of how representative the available data is due to the vast number of farms in the country and the rapid changes occurring as a result of the recent introduction of whiteleg shrimp.

The focus of government data is weighted toward whiteleg shrimp, which is the reason behind the slightly higher score compared to giant tiger prawns. Whiteleg shrimp score 3.3 out of 10 which is a borderline Yellow ranking, whereas giant tiger prawns score 3.1 out of 10, which results in a Red ranking.

23

Criterion 2: Effluents

Impact, unit of sustainability and principle . Impact: aquaculture species, production systems and management methods vary in the amount of waste produced and discharged per unit of production. The combined discharge of farms, groups of farms or industries contributes to local and regional nutrient loads. . Sustainability unit: the carrying or assimilative capacity of the local and regional receiving waters beyond the farm or its allowable zone of effect. . Principle: aquaculture operations minimize or avoid the production and discharge of wastes at the farm level in combination with an effective management or regulatory system to control the location, scale and cumulative impacts of the industry’s waste discharges beyond the immediate vicinity of the farm.

Criterion 2 Summary

Giant tiger prawn Effluent Full Assessment Effluent parameters Value Score F2.1a Biological waste (nitrogen) production per of fish (kg N ton-1) 71.18 F2.1b Waste discharged from farm (%) 51 F2 .1 Waste discharge score (0-10) 6 F2.2a Content of regulations (0-5) 2.5 F2.2b Enforcement of regulations (0-5) 1.25 F2.2 Regulatory or management effectiveness score (0-10) 1.25 C2 Effluent Final Score 3.00 RED Critical? NO

Whiteleg shrimp Effluent Full Assessment Effluent parameters Value Score F2.1a Biological waste (nitrogen) production per of fish (kg N ton-1) 57.08 F2.1b Waste discharged from farm (%) 24 F2 .1 Waste discharge score (0-10) 8 F2.2a Content of regulations (0-5) 3.25 F2.2b Enforcement of regulations (0-5) 2.75 F2.2 Regulatory or management effectiveness score (0-10) 3.575 C2 Effluent Final Score 6.00 YELLOW Critical? NO

24

Brief Summary Farming for both species uses commercial dry feed and may supplement pond nutrient levels when using urea and diammonium phosphate as a fertilizer. However, compared to giant tiger prawn, whiteleg shrimp have short production cycles, resulting in lower feed conversion ratios (FCRs) and greater efficiencies in terms of waste production per unit mass of shrimp being farmed. Whiteleg shrimp farms are generally more intensive and larger than giant tiger prawns and have greater potential for impacts from effluents, but they are also likely to have lower water exchange rates. This is reflected in the Indian regulations where the management and enforcement of whiteleg shrimp farming is more stringent than for giant tiger prawn. However, the overwhelming number and small-scale nature of both industries means that the CAA may have sufficient resources to inspect only a small number of farms for either species each year. Overall, the more efficient production and greater regulatory control for whiteleg shrimp farming results in an Effluent Criterion score of 6 or Yellow, whereas giant tiger prawns are scored as a 3 or Red.”

Justification of Ranking The Seafood Watch criteria assess the amount of waste produced by the shrimp and then the amount of that waste that is discharged from the farm. The effectiveness of the regulatory system in managing wastes from multiple farms is used to assess the potential cumulative impacts from the industry as a whole.

As described in the production system section of this report, giant tiger prawn farms are less intensive than whiteleg shrimp farms, however as a species, whiteleg shrimp exhibit generally lower FCRs. The protein content of feed is around 38% (Lyemperumal, pers. comm.). According to Boyd (2007) the protein content of harvested giant tiger prawn is approximately 18.5%, while whiteleg shrimp have an approximate protein content of 17.8%.

Between 2011 and 2012, whiteleg shrimp farms in India achieved average FCRs of 1.4 whereas giant tiger prawn farms averaged 1.6 (CAA, 2012), though some experts identified ranges between 1.2 and 1.5 for both species (Anon 2014). Water exchange on tiger prawn farms is approximately 18% water exchange every 5 days or as required, based on water quality (Shailender et al. 2013), whereas whiteleg shrimp farms are encouraged not to use water exchange practices (CAA 2013b). An ETS is mandatory for all whiteleg shrimp farms (MoA 2009) but are only required on tiger prawn farms greater than 5ha in size (MoA 2009). Less than 2% of giant tiger prawn farms are therefore required to have an ETS (CAA 2013a).

Farmers may apply around 8 kg/ha of urea to the ponds each production cycle (Iyemperumal, pers. comm.). Agricultural urea contains between 45% and 46% nitrogen (Wiess et al. 2009). The average annual production of whiteleg shrimp between 2012 and 2013 was 8.2 MT/ha (CAA, 2013a). Data wasn’t provided for the giant tiger prawn for this period, but during the year before, production was 1.04 MT/ha (CAA 2012). Using an average of 8 kg/ha of urea for both species, and assuming 45.5% of it is nitrogen, then shrimp farms are adding 3.64 kg/ha of nitrogen per cycle. Based on the annual production of each species, nitrogen inputs to whiteleg 25

shrimp farms was 0.44 kg of nitrogen per metric ton and nitrogen inputs on giant tiger prawn farms was 3.5 kg of nitrogen per metric ton.

Using the data available, the biological waste (nitrogen) produced by whiteleg shrimp farms was estimated to be 57.08 kg/mt of shrimp compared to 71.18 kg/mt for giant tiger prawn farms (see Seafood Watch Aquaculture Criteria document for effluent calculations). However, stocking densities are much lower for giant tiger prawns than whiteleg shrimp, meaning that the later are likely to produce more overall waste than the former.

Whiteleg shrimp farms are generally expected to discharge once per production cycle (i.e., exchange at harvest) and must be fitted with an ETS. Accordingly, the Seafood Watch criteria applies an adjustment of 0.34 to the system discharge score, with an adjustment of -0.1 for the ETS, indicating that only 24% of the waste produced by the farm is considered to be discharged as effluent. For the vast majority of giant tiger prawn farms, the Seafood Watch criteria applies an adjustment of 0.51 to the system discharge score, for daily water exchange and no requirement for an ETS, indicating that 51% of the waste produced by the farm is discharged as effluent. The remaining 76% of waste for whiteleg shrimp, and 49% for giant tiger prawn, is retained within the footprint of the farm and is considered in Criterion 3 – Habitat.

These data result in a waste discharge score (Factor 2.1) of 8 out of 10 for whiteleg shrimp farming and 6 out of 10 for giant tiger prawn farming in India.

In 2005, the country introduced the Coastal Aquaculture Authority Act G.S.R. 740 (E), which established the CAA and defined a new set of aquaculture specific controls for farms in the coastal zone (MoA 2005). This Act is currently most applicable to native shrimp production, as the Coastal Aquaculture Authority (Amendment) Rules 2009 were introduced specifically for whiteleg shrimp farming (G.S.R 302(E)).

The CAA’s area of influence is coastal and brackish water 2 kilometers inland from the high-tide line (CAA 2012). All export-orientated farms and farms built in this area must be registered with the CAA and meet the requirements of the Act (with exception of the rule excluding farms from 200 m inland from the high-tide line; farms built before the Act were “grandfathered” in) (CAA, 2012).

The CAA is supported by two main groups:―state level committees (SLCs) and district level committees (DLCs)―for all actions, but particularly actions regarding the registration of farms (CAA 2012). Table 4 details the membership requirements for each of these committees.

26

Table 3. Membership of the District and State Level Committees Supporting the CAA (From MoA, 2005). Membership Requirements of District Level Membership Requirements of State Level Committees (DLCs) Committees (SLCs) District Collector Secretary–in-charge of Fisheries of the State/ Union Territory Government Representatives of the State/ Union Territory: Secretary-in-charge of Revenue of the State/Union Revenue Department Territory Government Agriculture Department Environment Department. District Council (Zilla Parishad)

Assistant Director/District Level Fisheries Secretary-in-charge of Environment of the State/Union Territory Government Officer of the State/ Union Territory Fisheries Representative of the Marine Products Export Department Development Authority (MPEDA) Director/ Commissioner-in-charge of Fisheries of the State/Union Territory Government

The DLC has the primary responsibility to verify the information submitted by farmers on their registration forms (MoA 2005). For farms with less than a 2 ha water spread area (generally these would be farms less than 2.5 ha total size) it is up to the DLC to decide if they are satisfied with the form alone (it includes a signed declaration by the farmers’ family members that the information is correct) or if further action, such as inspection is required (MoA 2005). The DLC can submit these small-scale farms directly to the CAA for approval.

For farms over the 2 ha water spread area, the DLC is required to inspect the farm and verify the information submitted on the registration form. Afterwards the information is provided to the SLC, which decides if it will be recommended for registration by the CAA.

The CAA’s functions are “advise and extend support to the State/Union territory governments to construct common infrastructure viz., common water intake and discharge canals by the coastal aquaculture farms and common effluent treatment systems for achieving eco-friendly and sustainable development of costal aquaculture.” (MoA 2005). To this end, the CAA has the ability to inspect any farm for its contribution to pollution, then close and demolish any farm that pollutes, or drain or destroy crops on any farm that pollutes (MoA 2005). Several specific requirements pertinent to effluents are defined in the Act, including: • Farms over 5 ha in area must have a pond-based ETS covering at a minimum, 10 percent of the total farm area. This pond can also be used for secondary species culture including mussels, oysters, seaweed, and other finfish. • Recommendation for clusters of small-scale shrimp farms (less than 5 ha in size) to develop a common shared ETS. • A suggestion for 5%–30% daily water exchange depending on the availability of water and the quality of pond water, but a recommendation not to exchange with low-density culture and where water quality is good. • Effluent water quality standards (see Table 4). 27

• Farms greater than 40 ha must conduct an environmental impact assessment (EIA) that includes the potential impact of wastewater. Farms greater than 10 ha must provide written statements about their potential impact.

The 2009 amendment (G.S.R. 740 (E)) for whiteleg shrimp farming adds to these requirements (MoA 2009): • All whiteleg shrimp farms, irrespective of their size, must be fitted with an ETS. • In the event of a disease outbreak, the ETS must be able to hold water for a minimum of 2 days and be chlorinated then dechlorinated prior to release.

G.S.R. 740 (E) also encourages farms practicing zero-water exchange to switch to whiteleg shrimp farming (MoA 2009).

Aquaculture specific effluent water quality parameters were established in the 2005 Act and are shown in Table 4.

Table 4. Effluent discharge water quality parameters defined in the Coastal Aquaculture Authority Act, 2005. (Copied from MoA, 2005).

The presence of effluent regulation applicable to aquaculture results in a score of 1 for Question 1 of Factor 2.2a for both species. The values presented in Table 4 are generally suitable for the waterbodies the farms would be discharging into, though are not adapted to the site-specific conditions of each farm; this results in a score of 0.75 for Question 4 of Factor 2.2a. Since examples of group certification, with a shared ETS, exist for both species and may have some impact on cumulative farm impacts, a score of 0.25 is given on Question 3.

Differences between regulations for the species results in a variation in scores on Questions 2 and 5 of Factor 2.2a. ETS is required for all whiteleg shrimp farms, but not for more than 98% of giant tiger prawn farms, and as such, whiteleg shrimp and giant tiger prawns scored 0.75 and 0.25 respectively on Question 2 of Factor 2.2a. Additionally, since effluents are more likely to be 28

addressed during key impact conditions, such as harvest on whiteleg shrimp farms, a score of 0.5 is given for Question 5, versus a score of 0.25 for giant tiger prawn.

Factors 2.2a and 2.2b combine to give a score of 3.25 for whiteleg shrimp and 2.5 for giant tiger prawn.

Regulatory information for Indian shrimp farms is publically available and well defined; the CAA website provides a wealth of information for the requirements that both tiger prawn and whiteleg shrimp farms must meet, including those defined by the various national acts. The CAA also publishes a detailed annual report on its progress, enforcement actions and registration. These resources identify the magnitude of the challenge that CAA faces.

Table 1 shows that since the inception of the CAA in 2005, over 26,000 farms have been registered; however, during the 2012-2013 financial year only 1,835 new registrations and 19 renewals were approved by the CAA (CAA 2013a). Therefore, 7% of the registered farms in the country were inspected or reviewed by the CAA during the year. Additionally, less than 10% of these farms were over the 2 ha limit that would have triggered a site inspection by the DLC for giant tiger prawns. It is therefore possible that the majority of the newly registered farms and renewals could have been based on self-declared information provided by the farmer.

A site inspection by the CAA is a requirement to be registered for whiteleg shrimp farming (MoA 2009), suggesting confidence that these farms will meet the requirement for an ETS. The annual report details 45 whiteleg shrimp farm inspections conducted by the CAA during the financial year 2012-2013, with water quality tests performed during 14 of these, with some direction for farmers to carry out improvements (CAA, 2013a).

These data show that while the CAA is quite transparent, it may not have the resources to effectively manage the industry. Question 1 of Factor 2.2b is scored at “0.25” for both species. The annual report shows that active enforcement occurs, but since the ETS requirement is only applied for giant tiger prawn farms over 5 ha but is mandatory on all whiteleg shrimp farms, the former receives a score of 0.25, and the latter 0.75, on Questions 2 and 3 of Factor 2.2b. The additional inspection requirements and compliance information presented in CAA’s annual reports for whiteleg shrimp farming result in scores of 0.5 for both Question 4 and 5 of Factor 2.2b, compared to scores of 0.25 on both questions for giant tiger prawn farms.

The combined scores for Factor 2.2b, enforcement level of effluent regulations or management are 2.75 out of 5 for whiteleg shrimp farming and 1.25 out of 5 for giant tiger prawn farming.

Factors 2.1 and 2.2 combine to give a final numerical score of 6 for whiteleg shrimp and 3 for giant tiger prawn for Criterion 2 – Effluents.

29

Criterion 3: Habitat

Impact, unit of sustainability and principle . Impact: Aquaculture farms can be located in a wide variety of aquatic and terrestrial habitat types and have greatly varying levels of impact to both pristine and previously modified habitats and to the critical “ecosystem services” they provide. . Sustainability unit: The ability to maintain the critical ecosystem services relevant to the habitat type. . Principle: aquaculture operations are located at sites, scales and intensities that cumulatively maintain the functionality of ecologically valuable habitats.

Criterion 3 Summary

Giant tiger prawn Habitat parameters Value Score F3.1 Habitat conversion and function 4.00 F3.2a Content of habitat regulations 2.00 F3.2b Enforcement of habitat regulations 1.75 F3.2 Regulatory or management effectiveness score 1.40 C3 Habitat Final Score 3.13 RED Critical? NO

Whiteleg shrimp Habitat parameters Value Score F3.1 Habitat conversion and function 4.00 F3.2a Content of habitat regulations 2.50 F3.2b Enforcement of habitat regulations 2.50 F3.2 Regulatory or management effectiveness score 2.50 C3 Habitat Final Score 3.50 YELLOW Critical? NO

Brief Summary Globally, shrimp farming has been linked to the historical conversion of ecologically important wetlands, including mangrove forests. The majority of losses occurred before the late ‘90s, after which a number of factors, including regulatory protection, the ability to grow shrimp at low salinities, and the knowledge that former mangrove soils negatively affect pond water quality have greatly reduced mangrove losses due to shrimp farming. In India, the CAA now prohibits farms to be constructed within 200 m of the high-tide line, and while habitat conversion is a farm-specific occurrence, India as a whole is no exception to global pattern of mangrove loss and scores 4 out of 10 for points for historical (> 10 years ago) conversion of ecologically important habitats (Factor 3.1) in the 1990s.

30

The CAA is, in effect, a coastal zone management system with rules covering impacts on habitat and siting, but many farms were constructed (including potentially illegally sited operations) before it was created (in 2005) and were “grandfathered” in during the regulatory update. Whiteleg shrimp farms are now required to be inspected by the CAA, suggesting greater confidence in legal compliance than for giant tiger prawn where site inspections are optional for farms with less than 2 ha (i.e., the largest segment of the shrimp farming industry). This difference in management effectiveness scores results in overall Habitat Criterion scores for whiteleg shrimp of 3.5 out of 10 or a low Yellow ranking, while giant tiger prawn farming scored 3.13 out of 10 or a Red ranking.

Justification of Ranking Factor 3.1. Habitat Conversion and Function Mangrove loss in the Indian shrimp farming industry was summarized by Hein (2000); Historic and extensive mangrove loss occurred in India since the beginning of the 1900s. Initially these losses were due to collection of wood for fuel and timber, land conversion, grazing, and natural damage from cyclones. Shrimp farming expanded rapidly in India during the 1990s, adding almost 100,000 ha of shrimp farms between 1990 and 1999. At the time, it was estimated that around 5% of farms were sited in former mangrove areas, 14% in intertidal wetlands, and 18% in former rice paddies. The remainder was in fallow or other types of land. A case study in the Godavari delta area showed that 14% of farms were in former mangrove areas and accounted for 80% of the mangrove conversion in the area. However, mangrove conversion for shrimp farming was not the case in all regions; Jayanthi (2011) was able to demonstrate that in the Cuddalore District, in the south-east coast of India, shrimp farms in the region were sited behind, rather than in, the mangrove forests in the region.

While the conversion of mangroves is a farm-specific issue, the industry generally has experienced some significant regional historic (> 10 years ago) conversion of ecologically important habitat, resulting in an F3.1 score of 4 out of 10 for both shrimp species.

Factor 3.2. Habitat and Farm Siting Management Effectiveness (Appropriate to the Scale of the Industry) In India, shrimp aquaculture can only legally be sited 200 m inland from the high-tide line (MoA 2005). The CAA Act states that “mangroves, agricultural lands, saltpans and ecologically sensitive areas” should not be converted for shrimp farms, though this excludes farms built before the Act was introduced (CAA 2012). An environmental impact assessment (EIA) is required for farms larger than 40 ha (MoA 2005). There is also a requirement for an environment monitoring and management plan (EMMP) farms larger than 40 ha (MoA 2005). The EMMP must address (MoA 2005): • Impact on the watercourses in the vicinity • Impact on the ground water quality • Impact on drinking water sources • Impact on agricultural activities • Impact on soil and soil salinization 31

• Wastewater treatment • Green belt development (as per specifications of the local authorities)

Farms between 10 ha and 40 ha in size also need to present detailed information on the above in the form of a written environmental impact statement (EIS) (MoA 2005).

For registration, all farms must complete the “Application for Registration of Coastal Aquaculture Farm” form, which requires the farmer to describe how much of the farm’s footprint covers mangrove forest, salt pans, or wetlands (MoA, 2005). While farm-level inspections (which would likely validate claims on the form) are required for all whiteleg shrimp farms, they are only required for giant tiger prawn farms greater than 2 ha in size. Since the vast majority of these farms are below 2 ha, there is a potential for some farms to provide inaccurate information.

Since EIAs are required for large farms only, and considering there is a difference between the verification of registration information between giant tiger prawn and whiteleg shrimp, the scores on Question 1 of Factor 3.2a differ between species. Whiteleg shrimp score 0.5 and giant tiger prawn 0.25. Likewise, though further mangrove conversion is illegal, the difference in verification results in score of 1 for whiteleg shrimp, but only 0.75 for giant tiger prawn on Question 4 of Factor 3.2a.

The CAA Act is effectively a zone management system, since it controls aquaculture from 200 m to 2 km inland from the high-tide line, as well as all farms that export―even if they are inland. As the Act controls a range of environmental issues and industry development, a score of 0.5 is given for both species on Questions 2 and 3 of Factor 3.2a. No control measures to support mangrove or restoration could be found, resulting a 0 score on Question 5 for both species.

For Factor 3.2a, Regulatory or Management Effectiveness, whiteleg shrimp scored a total of 2.5 out of 5 compared to a total of 2 out of 5 for giant tiger prawn.

Described above and for Criterion 2, the vast number of small-scale farms in India indicates that the CAA is unlikely to have the resources to effectively enforce its rules, though it does have a public presence. Site inspections are a requirement for registration with the CAA for all whiteleg shrimp farms, but not for the majority of giant tiger prawn farms. As such whiteleg shrimp farming is scored 0.75, whereas giant tiger prawn is scored as 0.25 on Question 1 of Factor 3.2b.

The CAA Act results in both species being are scored as 0.5 on Question 2 of Factor 3.2b. However cumulative impacts do not appear to be assessed, resulting in a 0 on Question 3.

The CAA is quite transparent on its registration process, for example, it produces a public annual report and all registered farms are listed on the CAA website along with farmer name, farm location, and farm size. No details were available to specify if the EIA is publically available. As such, a score of 0.75 was given for both species on Question 4 of Factor 3.2b. 32

In terms of evidence of enforcement, Hein (2000) summarized the initial legal actions in India to protect mangrove forests, which began in 1991 with the identification of several coastal zone management areas, with several updates after the initial regulation proved unsuccessful. In 1996, it became illegal to expand aquaculture 200 m from the high-tide line, though operations constructed prior to this were eventually grandfathered in and allowed to remain in operation. However, the authorities did not have sufficient resources to fully implement the law.

The Coastal Aquaculture Authority Act (2005) also excludes aquaculture 200 m inland from the high-tide line and states that “mangroves, agricultural lands, saltpans and ecologically sensitive areas” should not be converted for shrimp farms, though this excludes farms built before the Act was introduced (CAA 2012).

In general, there seems to be a history of ineffective regulatory enforcement, which then allows illegal farms to be grandfathered in during the next regulatory change. No specific evidence of compliance was available; however, the CAA did report inspections on a small percentage of whiteleg shrimp and giant tiger prawn farms. Due to the requirement for a site inspection during the registration phase, whiteleg shrimp is scored as a 0.5 compared to 0.25 for giant tiger prawn on Question 5 of Factor 3.2b.

For Factor 3.2b, Siting Regulatory or Management Enforcement, whiteleg shrimp scored 2.5 out of 5 compared to 1.75 out of 5 for giant tiger prawn. Factors 3.2a and 3.2b combine to give a score of 2.5 out of 10 for whiteleg shrimp and 1.4 out of 10 for giant tiger prawn for Factor 3.2.

Factors 3.1 and 3.2 combine to give a final numerical score of 3.5 out of 10 for whiteleg shrimp and 3.13 for giant tiger prawn for Criterion 3 – Habitats.

33

Criterion 4: Evidence or Risk of Chemical Use

Impact, unit of sustainability and principle . Impact: Improper use of chemical treatments impacts non-target organisms and leads to production losses and human health concerns due to the development of chemical-resistant organisms. . Sustainability unit: non-target organisms in the local or regional environment, presence of pathogens or parasites resistant to important treatments. . Principle: aquaculture operations by design, management or regulation avoid the discharge of chemicals toxic to aquatic life, and/or effectively control the frequency, risk of environmental impact and risk to human health of their use.

Criterion 4 Summary Both Species Chemical Use parameters Score C4 Chemical Use Score CRITICAL C4 Chemical Use Final Score CRITICAL RED Critical? YES

Brief Summary No data were available on antibiotic usage in India but there is published evidence of illegal antibiotic residues in shrimp imports to the US, illegal antibiotic use, antibiotic resistance in bacteria in regions of traditional/extensive and intensive shrimp farming, and some potential contamination of feed by antibiotics. Many of these resources of this information did not differentiate between the two species of shrimp and, as such, both are considered to have the same risk of environmental impacts. Oxytetracycline is one treatment used and is a WHO-listed highly important antibiotic for human health. According to the Seafood Watch methodology, the documented development of resistance to antibiotics (including highly important antibiotics for human health) results in a critical score. While it can be argued that the role the different types of shrimp farms (and indeed shrimp farming in general) play in the development of the observed resistance in India, it is somewhat unclear. There is the potential for the industry to be a significant driver, and therefore a precautionary score for the Chemical Use Criterion is Critical for both species.

Justification of Ranking There are no public resources for learning the amount of antibiotic usage on shrimp farms in India nor details regarding the concentrations found in the waters of shrimp farming regions (Swapna et al. 2012). Infections with Vibrio species are the main drivers of antibiotic use in giant tiger prawn farms and hatcheries in India (Srinivasan and Ramasamy 2009)

Oxytetracyline is considered the most common treatment used in India (Priyadarsani and Abraham 2013). Oxytetracycline is listed by the WHO as a highly important antimicrobial for 34

human health due to its use as “limited therapy for infections due to Chlamydia spp. and Rickettsia spp” (WHO 2011).

The Coastal Aquaculture Authority Act (MoA 2005) provides the following guidance on the use of antibiotics: “Prophylactic use of antibiotics or other drugs should be avoided and only permitted antibiotics, chemicals, etc. should be used. Probiotics should be used to the maximum extent possible.” Table 5 shows the list of banned antibiotics and chemicals in India but no data were presented on authorized shrimp treatments (MoA 2005). The CAA also has the power to take samples from farms and test for residues but no data were available on the results of the testing.

Table 5. Illegal antibiotics and other chemicals in India (Copied from MoA, 2005).

In 2011, Swapna et al. (2012) tested a small sample (11) of giant tiger prawns from Andrha Pradesh, finding six different antibiotic residues, including trace amounts of illegal chloramphenicol residues, and detectable amounts of sulfonamide, erythromycin, β-lactum, and tetracycline, the likely sources of which was proposed to be contaminated feed. Swapna et al. (2012) recommended feed testing and application of withdrawal periods to address the issue. However, illegal antibiotic residues in Indian farmed shrimp exports to the US continue to be a problem; between January and April 2015, India and Vietnam combined accounted for 27% of the import rejections by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for antibiotic residues (Ramsingh 2015). This is despite the Marine Products Export Development Authority (MPEDA) requiring evidence of testing done on all exports, and post-harvest tests for antibiotic residues on farmed shrimp from all registered farms. Another potential contributor to the problem is the high incidence of illegal shrimp farms in India. For example, in August 2015, 100 illegal, unlicensed farms, covering 3,500 ha in Tamil Nadu, were found and closed down by the CAA (Kearns 2015). FDA does not differentiate between tiger prawns and whiteleg shrimp, and as such, it is assumed that illegal antibiotic residues are an issue associated with both species. 35

Evidence of antibiotic resistant bacteria has also been detected in several regions in India, affecting both intensive and traditional farming systems. Antibiotic resistant Vibrio harveyi is a concern in India, as it can result in mass losses of PLs in hatcheries (Srinivasan and Ramasamy, 2009). Priyadarsani and Abraham (2013) demonstrated relatively high percentages of bacterial populations (> 40%) resistant to antibiotics, including some resistant to multiple types of antibiotics in traditional farms in West Bengal. This region―dominated by traditional, non-input farming with more intensive farms mixed in with the inlet water―was shown to be the major source of resistant bacteria in the traditional farms. However, Priyadarsani and Abraham considered that traditional farms were not a factor in the spread of resistance (2013). Abraham and Sasmal (2014) also detected antibiotic resistance, including resistance to oxytetracycline and multiple antibiotics, in bacteria in shrimp farms in Tamil Nadu and West Bengal, however the authors did not differentiate between the two shrimp species in the regions that they tested. Abraham and Sasmal proposed that high water exchange was a possible factor in increasing the spread of resistance (2014). Antibiotic resistance has been shown to be higher in giant tiger prawn hatcheries than in ponds (Srinivasan and Ramasamy 2009).

While there are no data available on antibiotic usage in India, there is published evidence of illegal antibiotic residues in shrimp imports to the US, antibiotic resistance in bacteria in regions of traditional/extensive and intensive shrimp farming, and some potential contamination of feed by antibiotics. Many of the sources of data did not differentiate between the two species of shrimp and as such both are considered to have the same risk of environmental impact. Oxytetracycline is one treatment used and is a WHO-listed, highly important antibiotic for human health. According to the Seafood Watch methodology, the documented development of resistance to antibiotics that include highly important antibiotics for human health results in a critical score. While it can be argued that the role the different types of shrimp farms (and indeed shrimp farming in general) play in the development of the observed resistance in India is somewhat unclear, there is the potential for the industry to be a significant driver, and therefore a precautionary score for the Chemical Use Criterion is Critical for both species.

36

Criterion 5: Feed

Impact, unit of sustainability and principle . Impact: feed consumption, feed type, ingredients used and the net nutritional gains or losses vary dramatically between farmed species and production systems. Producing feeds and their ingredients has complex global ecological impacts, and their efficiency of conversion can result in net food gains, or dramatic net losses of nutrients. Feed use is considered to be one of the defining factors of aquaculture sustainability. . Sustainability unit: the amount and sustainability of wild fish caught for feeding to farmed fish, the global impacts of harvesting or cultivating feed ingredients, and the net nutritional gains or losses from the farming operation. . Principle: aquaculture operations source only sustainable feed ingredients, convert them efficiently and responsibly, and minimize and utilize the nonedible portion of farmed fish.

Criterion 5 Summary

Giant tiger prawn Feed parameters Value Score F5.1a Fish In: Fish Out ratio (FIFO) 1.78 5.56 F5.1b Source fishery sustainability score -6.00 F5.1: Wild Fish Use 4.49 F5.2a Protein IN 54.50 F5.2b Protein OUT 14.52 F5.2: Net Protein Gain or Loss (%) -73.35 2 F5.3: Feed Footprint (hectares) 11.43 6 C5 Feed Final Score 4.24 YELLOW Critical? NO

Whiteleg shrimp Feed parameters Value Score F5.1a Fish In: Fish Out ratio (FIFO) 1.56 6.11 F5.1b Source fishery sustainability score -6.00 F5.1: Wild Fish Use 5.18 F5.2a Protein IN 47.69 F5.2b Protein OUT 13.97 F5.2: Net Protein Gain or Loss (%) -70.70 2 F5.3: Feed Footprint (hectares) 10.00 6 C5 Feed Final Score 4.59 YELLOW Critical? NO

37

In India, giant tiger prawns are generally less intensively farmed than whiteleg shrimp; however, the shorter production cycles (smaller harvest size) mean that whiteleg shrimp have lower FCRs than giant tiger prawns (1.4 compared to 1.6). Data on feed ingredients are limited, as such, general data on feed were used for both species. These general data for shrimp feeds showed relatively high fishmeal levels (25%) in the diets of both species but fish oil inclusion levels were low (1.5%). No data were available on the use of byproducts, so no adjustment was applied; FIFO levels are moderate for both species. Data were also lacking on the sustainability and sources of direct marine ingredients used in feed. The protein loss (also calculated from general shrimp feed data) is relatively high (>70%) for both species. The combination of high and low factors results in a moderate score for feed and a Yellow ranking for this criterion for both species (whiteleg shrimp scored 4.59 out of 10, giant tiger prawn scored 4.24).

Justification of Ranking

Factor 5.1. Wild Fish Use The average FCRs for whiteleg shrimp in India is 1.4, whereas giant tiger prawn averages 1.6 (CAA 2013a). By surveying feed mills in India, Tacon and Metian (2008) identified that the average inclusion rates of marine resources in Indian shrimp feeds were 25% fish meal (FM) and 1.5% fish oil (FO); the Ramaswamy et al. (2013) survey identified a range between 20%–40% of feed came from marine capture fisheries. No data were available on the amount of FM and FO that came from fisheries byproducts. Industry experts (who chose to remain anonymous) were divided on where the FM and FO comes from. One expert claimed that there is minimal sourcing of local marine resources for fishmeal and fish oil, the majority is sourced internationally from countries including Peru, however, another expert reported that in the last 5 years, FM and FO processing has been established along west coast of India (Karnataka, Goa, Maharastra and Gujarat) and that most of the FM and FO are locally sourced by the feed companies.

Without species specific information, Seafood Watch uses a general conversion factor of 22.5 % of whole fish to FM, and 5% for whole fish to FO. These data, as well as the average FCRs and feed inclusion rates give a Fish In: Fish Out (FIFO) ratio of 1.56 for whiteleg shrimp, meaning it takes 1.56 kg of whole fish to produce 1 kg of whole shrimp. The FIFO of giant tiger prawns was 1.78. These values give a Seafood Watch score of 6.11 for whiteleg shrimp and 5.56 for giant tiger prawn for Factor 5.1a.

Seafood Watch applies an adjustment score to the wild fish use score, based on the relative sustainability of the wild fish stocks that are utilized for feed ingredients. With a lack of clear data on sources of marine ingredients in feed on Factor 5.1b, Sustainability of the Source of Wild Fish, Seafood Watch uses a general adjustment score of -6.

The scores for Factor 5.1a are adjusted by the score for Factor 5.1b. The score for Factor 5.1 is 5.18 for whiteleg shrimp and 4.49 for giant tiger prawn.

38

Factor 5.2. Net Protein Gain or Loss Harvested whiteleg shrimp are composed of approximately 17.8% protein but this value is 18.5% for the giant tiger prawn (Boyd 2007). A general conversion used in the industry for the ‘whole shrimp’ to’ edible tail meat’ is 57%. According to Lyemperumal (pers. comm.), shrimp feed in India is composed of 38% protein; Ramaswamy et al. (2013) found protein content ranging from 45% in starter feeds to 30% in finishing feeds. Tacon et al. (2011) presented typical ranges of shrimp feed ingredient inclusion rates in India in 2007; the average of these included 6.5% byproducts from nonedible sources (e.g., squid) and 67% from a range of edible crop sources (soybean, wheat etc.). For the Seafood Watch calculations, it is assumed that 50% of the byproducts were protein and a third of the crop source was protein, giving 3.5% feed protein from byproducts and 24% of feed protein from edible crop sources. No data were available on the percentage of nonedible byproducts from harvested shrimp used for other food production; as such Seafood Watch uses a default value of 50%.

According to the Seafood Watch calculation, both whiteleg shrimp and giant tiger prawns are significant net consumers of protein. The net loss of protein was 70.7% for whiteleg shrimp and 73.4% for giant tiger prawn. The score for Factor 5.2 is 2 for both species.

Factor 5.3. Feed Footprint The feed footprint factor takes into account all the feed inputs on the basis of the area of primary productivity appropriated to produce them. Feed for both species is considered to contain around 26.5% marine ingredients (fishmeal and fish oil) and 67% from a range of edible crop sources (soybean, wheat etc.). Combined with their individual average FCRs, these factors result in an estimated requirement of 9.65 ha of ocean area and 0.36 ha of land area for whiteleg shrimp and 11.03 ha of ocean area and 0.41 ha of land for giant tiger prawn. The score for Factor 5.3 is 6 for both species.

Factors 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 combine to give a final numerical score of 4.59 out of 10 for whiteleg shrimp and 4.24 out of 10 for giant tiger prawn for Criterion 5 – Feed.

39

Criterion 6: Escapes

Impact, unit of sustainability and principle . Impact: competition, genetic loss, predation, habitat damage, spawning disruption, and other impacts on wild fish and ecosystems resulting from the escape of native, non-native and/or genetically distinct fish or other unintended species from aquaculture operations. . Sustainability unit: affected ecosystems and/or associated wild populations. . Principle: aquaculture operations pose no substantial risk of deleterious effects to wild populations associated with the escape of farmed fish or other unintentionally introduced species.

Criterion 6 Summary

Giant tiger prawn Escape parameters Value Score F6.1 Escape Risk 4.00 F6.1a Recapture and mortality (%) 0 F6.1b Invasiveness 8 C6 Escape Final Score 6.00 YELLOW Critical? NO

Whiteleg shrimp Escape parameters Value Score F6.1 Escape Risk 4.00 F6.1a Recapture and mortality (%) 0 F6.1b Invasiveness 4.5 C6 Escape Final Score 3.00 RED Critical? NO

Brief Summary Published information on the frequency, magnitude, or impacts of escapes from shrimp farms in India was not available, suggesting these issues are poorly studied. Pond systems generally use mesh-screens to prevent escapes, though better practices, such as regular inspections and back-up systems, are likely to be farm-specific practices and not necessarily industry norms. Ponds typically remain vulnerable to escapes during flooding events, screen failures etc., and during key activities such as harvesting. Whiteleg shrimp farms are likely to avoid daily water exchange, thus reducing one potential avenue for escape, but giant tiger prawn farms frequently exchange water, resulting in a higher risk of escape from the native species. With regard to potential impacts, giant tiger prawn farming presents little risk of a reduction in genetic fitness of the wild population due to the use of wild-caught broodstock from Indian waters. Whiteleg shrimp are non-native and raised from imported broodstock, potentially having a much larger escapement impact risk if they were to become established; albeit a risk 40

that has not been shown in other countries where the species has also been introduced, though it remains poorly studied.

Overall, whiteleg shrimp are therefore considered a moderate risk of escapement but a high risk for impact on a precautionary basis resulting in a score of 3 out of 10 or “red” ranking. Giant tiger prawn presents a very low escapement impact risk, but a high risk of escapes, resulting in a score of 6 out of 10 or Yellow ranking.

Justification of Ranking

Factor 6.1a. Escape Risk Data on farmed shrimp escapement in India were not available. According to an industry expert (Anon 2014), industry norms are for farms to use mesh-screens on the pond gates to prevent escapes during the production cycle and water exchange; however, secondary traps or ‘final filters’ on the effluent channel are not common. Flooding and pond wall failure offer potential escape risk factors, but data on the occurrence of this type of event were not available. Data supporting construction standards to 100- or 50-year storm events were also not available.

Water exchange is supposed to be avoided on whiteleg shrimp farms but can be high on giant tiger prawn farms. Better management practices, such as inspection of screens or the use of escape monitoring systems (for example, traps in the effluent canal), are likely to be farm- specific strategies.

The guidance given in the Seafood Watch criteria for scoring of Factor 6.1a suggests that whiteleg shrimp farming in India is between two scoring brackets: a higher risk or 4, resulting from the potential flooding risk and uncertain pond construction, and the lower risk or 6, resulting from the limited water exchange. For these reasons, a compromised score of 5 or Moderate risk has been used for this criterion. Water exchange practiced on giant tiger prawn farms is inconclusive, with reported ranges of 18% every 5 days (Shailender et al. 2013) and the advice given by the CAA that 5%–30% is exchanged daily to dilute effluents (MoA 2005). For this report, Moderate risk (daily water exchange of between 3%–10%) has been considered the most representative and results in a score of 4 for this risk factor.

If evidence of recapture or mortality of escapees exists, the escape risk score can be adjusted to reflect the mitigation of the impact of these escapes. No specific reference to recapture efforts for escaped shrimp were available; by default, Seafood Watch conservatively gives a 0% recapture/escapee mortality rate in the absence of data. The score for Factor 6.1a is 5 for whiteleg shrimp and 4 for giant tiger prawn.

Factor 6.1b. Invasiveness Giant tiger prawn are native to India. PLs are obtained from hatcheries that are dependent on wild harvested broodstock (FAO 2007). This results in a score of 4 on Part A of Factor 6.1b. Escaped giant tiger prawns would likely be able to compete―to some extent―with wild stocks for food, habitat and mates, but are unlikely to place additional predation pressure on wild 41

stocks, modify habitats to the detriment of other species (since any impact would be the same as the wild stocks), or have additional impacts on habitat or other species. This results in a score of 4 on Part C of Factor 1.b. However, it should be noted that wild giant tiger prawn populations in India have been shown to have a high genetic variation (Khedkar et al. 2013, Mandal et al. 2012) and in other countries (Thailand) the genetic impact of escaped prawns on wild populations is inconclusive (Benzie 2000), suggesting a small risk of impact in India, but care is still required as there are genetically distinct wild populations in Indian waters (Mandal et al. 2012). The score for Factor 6.1b is 8.

Whiteleg shrimp are non-native to India; having been approved for commercial farming in 2009 based on an import risk assessment (MoA, 2009). According to an industry expert (Anon 2014), no analysis has taken place on the subsequent degree of impact that may or may not have occurred following the species’ actual introduction. In Thailand, where whiteleg shrimp have been farmed since 1998, no significant impacts have been evident to fishermen or the Thai Department of Fisheries (Briggs et al. 2004), but later studies show that whiteleg shrimp, including gravid females, were present in the wild in Thailand (Senanan et al. (2010), referring to 2005 and 2006 sampling data), but with their presence possibly due to repeated escapes, any conclusions regarding their establishment were not possible. This suggests that the potential impacts of escaped whiteleg shrimp on native shrimp stocks in general may be limited, but as similar shrimp species have become established in other countries, a score of 0.5 is given for Part B of Factor 6.1b.

Part C of Factor 6.1b, scores 4 as as there is no evidence yet that vannamei has established or is causing ecological problems after many huge escape events in SE Asia. As such, the overall score for Factor 6.1b is 4.5.

The factors are combined for each species to give a final numerical score of 3 for whiteleg shrimp and 6 for giant tiger prawn for Criterion 6 – Escapes.

42

Criterion 7: Disease; pathogen and parasite interactions

Impact, unit of sustainability and principle . Impact: amplification of local pathogens and parasites on fish farms and their retransmission to local wild species that share the same waterbody. . Sustainability unit: wild populations susceptible to elevated levels of pathogens and parasites. . Principle: aquaculture operations pose no substantial risk of deleterious effects to wild populations through the amplification and retransmission of pathogens or parasites.

Criterion 7 Summary

Giant tiger prawn Pathogen and parasite parameters Score C7 Biosecurity 2.00 C7 Disease; pathogen and parasite Final Score 2.00 RED Critical? NO

Whiteleg shrimp Pathogen and parasite parameters Score C7 Biosecurity 4.00 C7 Disease; pathogen and parasite Final Score 4.00 YELLOW Critical? NO

Brief Summary Disease outbreaks on shrimp farms have the ability to severely impact production and were the driving force behind India’s prevalence of small-scale farming. Shrimp farms are connected to the environment and the transfer of shrimp diseases to wild populations and other susceptible species. However, with the exception of one possible event in Mexico, significant impacts on these wild populations have not been reported. Considering the difficulty of observing such impacts, this criterion is scored on a precautionary basis, taking into account the high disease prevalence on shrimp farms. A key difference is the high use of water exchange on giant tiger prawn farms, which whiteleg shrimp farms are less likely to use. As such, whiteleg shrimp are considered a Moderate risk (4 or Yellow) for this criterion, but giant tiger prawns are considered a higher risk (2 or Red).

Justification of Ranking Transmittable diseases that may present serious socio-economic and/or public health threats are tracked globally by the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) (OIE 2013). OIE listed- diseases affecting farmed marine shrimp include whiteleg spot syndrome virus (WSSV), yellow head virus (YHV), Taura syndrome virus (TSV), infectious myonecrosis virus (IMNV), necrotizing hepatopancreatitis (NHP), and infectious hypoderma and haematopoietic necrosis virus 43

(IHHNV) (OIE 2013). Of these, WSSV, TSV, and YHV are the most problematic globally (Walker and Mohan 2009). YHV is thought to have limited impact on whiteleg shrimp relative to giant tiger prawn, with the reverse assumed of TSV, IMNV and IHHNV (Walker & Mohan 2009).

The WSSV outbreak in India in 1993 is considered to be the driving force behind the prevalence of small-scale farming in India, as large corporations felt shrimp farming was too risky to build large farms (Nagothu et al. 2012). Disease is a limiting factor to the production of giant tiger prawn in India and is thought to be behind the introduction of whiteleg shrimp in India, which has demonstrated an increased resistance to disease compared to giant tiger prawns (Briggs et al. 2004).

Of additional concern to shrimp farming is early mortality syndrome (EMS) (the common name for acute hepatopancreatic necrosis syndrome (AHPNS)) (Nikolik and Kumar 2013). EMS was first detected in China in 2009, and has since spread to Vietnam, Malaysia and Thailand (Nikolik and Kumar 2013) and was most recently detected in Mexico (Undercurrent News 2013a). Addressing claims that EMS had been detected on both giant tiger prawns and whiteleg shrimp farms in India, the CAA carried out random sampling for diseases on 58 farms throughout India (CAA 2013a). The survey identified mortality in 32 farms, but testing showed WSSV, IHHNV, and MBV as causes (CAA 2013a). As such, the CAA claims that EMS is not currently in India (CAA 2013a).

While the impact of diseases on shrimp farming can be well documented, the potential impacts of disease transfer from shrimp farms to wild shrimp populations remain poorly understood (Walker and Mohan 2009). Several farmed shrimp diseases can cross species boundaries, including WSSV, TSV and IMNV (Walker and Mohan 2009). Disease can pass from the farm to wild populations of both shrimp and other susceptible species (Walker and Mohan 2009). For example, WSSV can be carried by a wide range of species and has been found in crabs and wild shrimp populations in regions where infected shrimp have been farmed (Walker and Mohan 2009).

One proposed example of a farmed shrimp disease affecting wild shrimp populations occurred in the 1990s, with an IHHNV outbreak in Mexico that resulted in significant losses in both farms and wild fisheries for the blue shrimp, Penaeus stylirostris (Lightner 2011). WSSV has been reported on both wild and farmed populations in India, but the disease is not listed as a factor influencing the landings of broodstock (FAO 2007).

The available research suggests that farmed shrimp diseases can be significant on shrimp farms and can be transferred to wild populations and, while the available evidence suggests that wild stocks are not generally impacted in a significant way, further research into these issues is required.

In India, key differences between biosecurity practices on whiteleg shrimp farms and giant tiger prawns, particularly on water exchange, result in a greater risk from the latter species. Whiteleg 44

shrimp farms are rated as a Moderate risk 4 out of 10 for this criterion compared to a precautionary high risk 2 out of 0 for giant tiger prawn.

45

Criterion 8: Source of Stock – independence from wild fisheries

Impact, unit of sustainability and principle . Impact: the removal of fish from wild populations for ongrowing to harvest size in farms . Sustainability unit: wild fish populations . Principle: aquaculture operations use eggs, larvae, or juvenile fish produced from farm- raised broodstocks, use minimal numbers, or source them from demonstrably sustainable fisheries. Criterion 8 Summary

Giant tiger prawn Source of stock parameters Score

0 % of production from hatchery-raised broodstock, natural (passive) 0 settlement, or sourced from sustainable fisheries C8 Source of stock Final Score 0.00 RED

Whiteleg shrimp Source of stock parameters Score

100 % of production from hatchery-raised broodstock, natural (passive) 100 settlement, or sourced from sustainable fisheries C8 Source of stock Final Score 10.00 GREEN

Brief Summary Giant tiger prawn farming in India is entirely reliant on wild harvested broodstock from stocks that are overfished, but whiteleg shrimp broodstock come from farm-raised broodstock. Therefore, giant tiger prawn is scored as 0 or Red but whiteleg shrimp is scored as 10 or Green on Criterion 8, Source of Stock – Independence from wild fisheries.

Justification of Ranking Litopenaeus vannamei has been domesticated over many generations and all production of this species globally is based on postlarvae raised from farm-raised broodstocks. With no reliance on wild fisheries for either juveniles or broodstock, the score for whiteleg shrimp is 10 out of 10.

Conversely, the Indian giant tiger prawn industry is entirely reliant on wild-caught broodstock, which are then spawned in hatcheries to supply the farms (FAO 2007). Current and detailed information on the broodstock fishery in India is limited, but in 2007 the FAO published a detailed assessment that has been used as the basis for this report. According to the 2007 FAO assessment, the broodstock fishery is overfished and harvests are seasonal and irregular. In order to address concerns over availability and quality, the importation of broodstock from 46

outside Indian waters has reportedly been considered (FAO 2007), though no information was available on the percentage that had been moved from other waterbodies. In 2007, the Indian government was starting to develop sites to begin the domestication process of giant tiger prawn, with the view to develop specific disease resistant (SPR) and specific pathogen free (SPF) broodstock (FAO 2007), but current information on the success of this project are not available.

47

Criterion 9X: Wildlife and predator mortalities

A measure of the effects of deliberate or accidental mortality on the populations of affected species of predators or other wildlife.

This is an Exceptional criterion that may not apply in many circumstances. It generates a negative score that is deducted from the overall final score. A score of zero means there is no impact.

Criterion 9X Summary Both species Wildlife and predator mortality parameters Score C9X Wildlife and predator mortality Final Score -4.00 YELLOW Critical? NO

Brief Summary Data on wildlife and predator mortalities is lacking; however, general shrimp farming practices include treating ponds during the initial fill, followed by passive and non-lethal measures, such as pond linings and fireworks to control diving birds. This results in a Yellow ranking for both species.

Justification of Ranking Shrimp farming often requires the control of pests and predators, which can impact the cultured shrimp directly through predation and indirectly through competition for resources, such as food (FAO 1986). Burrowing crabs can also create an issue by damaging pond walls (FAO 1986). In general, predators on shrimp farms that feed directly on shrimp can include amphibians, birds, crustaceans, finfishes, mammals, and snakes (FAO 1986). General predator controls include passive exclusionary systems, such as screens on inlets, netting, or pond linings, and active control systems, such as pesticides.

References to the specific predators, such as their control impacts on their populations in the Indian shrimp farming industry were not available in the literature. In the authors experience, the farms generally applied non-lethal, exclusionary, techniques to scare birds away from the pond, such as fireworks or dogs during the production cycle. In shrimp farming, pond water is generally treated (before stocking) with substances such as chlorine to kill small fish that are drawn into the ponds when they were initially filled.

As some lethal control is applied when the ponds are initially filled, but without evidence that points to an impact on wild populations, a deducted score of -4 out of -10 is given for Criterion 9X - Wildlife and predator mortality for both species.

48

Criterion 10X: Escape of unintentionally introduced species A measure of the escape risk (introduction to the wild) of alien species other than the principle farmed species unintentionally transported during live animal shipments.

This is an Exceptional criterion that may not apply in many circumstances. It generates a negative score that is deducted from the overall final score.

Criterion 10X Summary

Giant tiger prawn Escape of unintentionally introduced species parameters Score F10Xa International or trans-waterbody live animal shipments (%) 9.00 F10Xb Biosecurity of source/destination 2.00 C10X Escape of unintentionally introduced species Final Score -0.80 GREEN

Whiteleg shrimp Escape of unintentionally introduced species parameters Score F10Xa International or trans-waterbody live animal shipments 0.00 F10Xb Biosecurity of source/destination 8.00 C10X Escape of unintentionally introduced species Final Score -2.00 GREEN

Brief Summary There are several key differences between the native giant tiger prawn and non-native whiteleg shrimp, however, these difference, overall, result in no major difference between the final scores and both are ranked Green.

Giant tiger prawn broodstock are wild harvested, primarily from Indian waters and, while they represent a significant source of pathogens into the farming cycle, they present little risk of introducing a novel disease. However, biosecurity practices are poor at the broodstock landing centers, hatcheries and the farms. This results in an overall Exceptional criteria score of -0.8 out of -10.

Whiteleg shrimp farming relies on imported broodstock, presenting a potentially high risk of introducing a novel disease. However, biosecurity practices such as SPF sources, quarantine, regulation and enforcement is prioritized in India. The government requires all imports of P. vannamei broodstock to be channeled through the Aquatic Quarantine Facility in Chennai. This results in a small deduction score (2 out of -10) for this Exceptional criterion.

49

Justification of Ranking

Factor 10Xa International or Trans-waterbody Live Animal Shipments The Indian giant tiger prawn industry is considered to be entirely reliant on wild-caught broodstock (FAO 2007). In order to address concerns over availability and quality, the importation of broodstock from outside Indian waters has reportedly been considered, as have programs to develop SPF and SPR (FAO 2007) but no data are available on the current status of these efforts. For this report, a precautionary estimate of between 0% and 10% of broodstock harvested from outside Indian waters has been used, giving a score of 9 out of 10 for F10Xa.

Whiteleg shrimp are not native to India, and as such, all broodstock likely would be imported or produced from hatchery-raised domestic broodstocks. According to Rosenberry (2014), India is unique in that the government requires all imports of L. vannamei broodstock to be channeled through the Aquatic Quarantine Facility (AQF) in Neelankarai, Chennai, where they are quarantined for five days. Without specific details on the proportions of imported and domestic whiteleg shrimp broodstock, this assessment assumes that all are imported, giving a score of 0 out of 10 for F10Xa.

Factor 10Xb Biosecurity of Source/Destination As described above, giant tiger prawn broodstock based on dated (2007) information are wild- caught mainly from Indian waters. Recent studies highlight the ongoing disease status of these sources, (e.g., Remany et al. (2012) studied WSSV and MBV diseases in wild shrimp from the southeast coast of India), and this is likely to be the case for any wild monodon around India or imported into India from other countries. At the time, broodstock were caught using specially designed traps or as bycatch from shrimp trawls. They were then transferred to broodstock holding facilities, which used filtered and disinfected seawater (FAO 2007). However, these facilities did not have access to disease testing or quarantine equipment, which resulted in high numbers of infected broodstock in hatcheries (FAO 2007). According to the FAO, there was also a lack of effective biosecurity practices at Indian hatcheries, noting the lack of effective quarantine and biosecure disposal practices for diseased broodstock (2007). Disease screening was also seldom performed on Indian hatcheries and farms, with most focused on WSSV and Monodon baculovirus (MBV) (FAO, 2007). Poor water quality at the hatchery was also considered an issue (FAO 2007).

It should be noted that the above concerns are counter to the recommended practices in the 2005 Coastal Aquaculture Authority Act (MoA, 2005). All hatcheries must be licensed by the CAA to operate; however, it is unclear whether compliance with the Act’s best practices are a requirement for licensing since most statements in the Act are prefaced with a “should” statement.

Due to the concerns listed above, a score of 2 is given for biosecurity of the source of animal movements. Additionally, the biosecurity on the farms is also a concern where high water exchange is practiced, this also results in a score of 2 for the destination of the seed. These two scores result in a total score of 2 for F10Xb. 50

The scores of F10Xa and F10Xb are assessed together, resulting in an Exceptional criterion score of -0.8 out of -10 for black tiger shrimp, which is subtracted from the overall total of all of the other criteria in this assessment.

The regulatory controls on hatcheries for nonnative whiteleg shrimp are more stringent than for the native giant tiger prawn. According to the 2009 revision of the Act, whiteleg shrimp hatcheries are required to import SPF broodstock (MoA 2009). Legally imported SPF broodstock are held at the Aquatic Quarantine Facility in Chennai, which has access to quarantine and disease testing facilities (Rajiv Gandhi Centre for Aquaculture 2013). No additional information on the source of the SPF broodstock could be found, but to be SPF the facility must be a biosecure environment and unlikely to be a source of an unintentionally introduced species.

Enforcement of hatchery regulations seems to be priority for the CAA; in 2012, the CAA inspected 126 licensed hatcheries compared to 45 shrimp farms (CAA 2013a). However in the same year, the CAA found 26 unapproved hatcheries producing illegal PLs from pond-raised (and therefore no longer SPF) whiteleg shrimp broodstock (CAA 2013a). Of these hatcheries, 18 were closed down and all the illegal shrimp were destroyed (CAA 2013a). In 2015, The Hindu reported that “at least 300 to 400 illegal pond-cum-hatcheries are involved in supplying the vannamei seed along the coastline between Visakhapatnam and Nellore” and that “incidence of whiteleg spot disease was rampant in vannamei seed, developed in the ponds instead of hatcheries.” While pond sourced whiteleg shrimp broodstock are an issue for biosecurity at the farm, they are unlikely to be the origin of an unintentionally introduced species during live shrimp movements.

As such, the source of the imported SPF broodstock is likely to be highly biosecure and results in a score of 8 out of 10. Whiteleg shrimp farms are required to use limited water exchange, employ biosecurity measures, and must be inspected by the CAA to be registered, as such a score of 6 is given for the biosecurity of the destination of the seed. These two scores result in a total score of 8 out of 10 for F10Xb. This means that the overall score for whiteleg shrimp is a deduction of -2 out of -10 for the Exceptional Criterion.

51

Acknowledgements

Scientific review does not constitute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch® program, or its seafood recommendations, on the part of the reviewing scientists. Seafood Watch® is solely responsible for the conclusions reached in this report.

Seafood Watch® would like to graciously thank two anonymous experts who reviewed this report for scientific accuracy.

52

References

Abraham, T.J., & Sasmal, D. (2014). Multiple Antibiotic Resistance in Planktonic Luminous Bacteria of Indian Penaeid Shrimp Farms. J. Sci. Res. 6 (1), 153-159.

Babu, Y.M., Ramudu, K.R., Dana, S.S., & Dash, G. (2013). An overview of Litopenaeus vannamei farming practices in India, current issues, problems and future perspectives. International Journal of Current Research 5(8): 2118-2122.

Benzie, J. A. H. (2000). Population genetic structure in Penaeid prawns. Aquaculture Research, 31(1), 95-119.

Bridson, P. (2015). Personal communication.

Briggs, M. (2006). Cultured Aquatic Species Information Programme. Penaeus vannamei. Accessed 9/29/13. Available at: www.fao.org/fishery/culturedspecies/Litopenaeus_vannamei/en.

Briggs, M., Funge-Smith, S., Subasinghe, R., & Phillips, M. (2004). Introductions and movement of Penaeus vannamei and Penaeus stylirostris in Asia and the Pacific. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, RAP publication 2004/10.

Coastal Aquaculture Authority (CAA). 2013a. Annual Report 2012-2013.

Coastal Aquaculture Authority (CAA). 2013b Do and Don’ts of white shrimp farming.

Coastal Aquaculture Authority (CAA). 2013c. Farms permitted for culture SPF L. vannamei. Accessed 12/29/2013. Available at: www.caa.gov.in/uploaded/doc/Farms25-10-2013.pdf

Coastal Aquaculture Authority (CAA). 2012. Annual Report 2011-2012.

Coastal Aquaculture Authority (CAA). (2005). Guidelines for Regulating Coastal Aquaculture.

Economic Research Services (ERS) 2012. Aquaculture Data. Available at: www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/aquaculture-data.aspx#.UhvXEdJBUpg

Fluech, B. and Krimsky, L. (2011). Wild vs. Farmed Shrimp: The choice is yours. Accessed 8/24/13. Available at: collier.ifas.ufl.edu/SeaGrant/pubs/Shrimp%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). (2007). Improving Penaeus monodon hatchery practices. Manual based on experience in India. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 446. Rome, FAO. 2007. 101p. 53

Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO). (1986). Shrimp culture: pond design, operation and management. Available at: www.fao.org/docrep/field/003/AC210E/AC210E00.htm

Hein L. (2000). Impact of shrimp farming on mangroves along India’s East Coast. Unasylva 203 (51): 48-55

Jayanthi, M. (2011). Monitoring brackishwater aquaculture development using multi-spectral satellite data and GIS - a case study near Pichavaram mangroves south-east coast of India. Indian J. Fish., 58(1) : 85-90

Kearns, M. (2015). India court cracks down on unlicensed shrimp farms. Accessed 8/11/15. Available at: www.seafoodsource.com/news/aquaculture/india-court-cracks-down-on- unlicensed-shrimp-farms

Khedkar, G.D., Reddy, A.C., Ron, T.B., Haymer, D. (2013). High levels of genetic diversity in Penaeus monodon populations from the east coast of India. SpringerPlus 2:671.

Kongkeo, H. (2005). Cultured Aquatic Species Information Programme. Penaeus monodon. Accessed 12/29/13. Available at: www.fao.org/fishery/culturedspecies/Penaeus_monodon/en

Mandal, A., Rao, D., Karuppaiah, D., Gopalakrishnan, A., Pozhoth, J., Samraj, Y.C., & Doyle, R.W. (2012). Population genetic structure of Penaeus monodon, in relation to monsoon current patterns in Southwest, East and Andaman coastal waters of India. Gene. 491(2):149-57

Muralidhar, M., Kumaran, M., Muniyandi, B., Abery, N.W., Umesh, N.R., De Silva, SS., and Jumnongsongd, S. (2010). Perception of climate change impacts and adaptation of shrimp farming in India: Farmer focus group discussion and stakeholder workshop Report (2nd edition). Network of Aquaculture Centers in Asia-Pacific, 75 p.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2007. Improving Penaeus monodon hatchery practices. Manual based on experience in India. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 446. Rome, FAO. 2007. 101p.

Food and Drug Administration (FDA). (2013). 2013 FDA Seafood List. Accessed 9/29/13. Available at: www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/SEARCH_SEAFOOD/index.cfm?other=complete

Ministry of Agriculture (MoA). (2013). Results Framework Document for Coastal Aquaculture Authority, Chennai, 2013-2014.

Ministry of Agriculture (MoA). (2009). G.S.R.302(E).

Ministry of Agriculture (MoA). 2005. Coastal Aquaculture Authority Act. 54

National Fisheries Institute (NFI) (2013). Top 10 Consumed Seafoods. Accessed 11/10/13. Available at: www.aboutseafood.com/press/press-releases/seafood-s-top-10-most-popular- illustrate-america-s-comfort-zone

Nagothu, U.S., Muralidhar, M., Kumaran, M., Muniyandi, B., Umesh, U.R., Prasad, K.S.K, De Silva, S. (2012). Climate Change and Shrimp Farming in Andhra Pradesh, India: Socio-economics and Vulnerability. Energy and Environment Research 2(2): 137-148

Nikolik, G. and Kumar, P. (2013). Shrimp in a Crimp. Challenges and Expectations in Global Shrimp Aquaculture. Rabobank International.

Marine Products Export Development Authority (MPEDA). (2013). Candidate species for export oriented aquaculture. Accessed 12/29/13. Available at: www.mpeda.com/inner_home.asp?pg=aquaculture

Priyadarsani, L. & Abraham, T.J. (2013). Ecology of antibiotic resistant vibrios in traditional shrimp farming system (bhery) of West Bengal, India. Journal of Coastal Life Medicine 2013; 1(4): 265-272

Ramaswamy, U.N., Mohan, A.B. and Metian, M. 2013. On-farm feed management: practices for black tiger shrimp (Penaeus monodon) in India. In M.R. Hasan and M.B. New, eds. On-farm feeding and feed management in aquaculture. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No 583. Rome, FAO. pp. 303–336.

Ramsingh, M. (2015). Major US Shrimp Suppliers Not Behind Surge in FDA's Sharply Higher Antibiotic Refusals. www.seafoodnews.com/Story/974569/75011/MajorUSShrimpSuppliersNotBehindSurgeinFDAs SharplyHigherAntibioticRefusals

Ramsingh, M. (2013). India jumps Thailand and Ecuador as top US shrimp supplier with 65% surge in August imports. www.seafoodnews.com/newsemail.asp?key=906038.

Rajiv Gandhi Centre for Aquaculture. 2013. Available at: Aquatic Quarantine Facility for L. vannamei (AQF). www.rgca.org.in/aqf.php.

Remany, M., Daly, C., Nagaraj, S., Panda, A, Jaideep, K.,Samraj, Y. (2012). Evidence for the presence of white spot syndrome virus (WSSV) and monodon baculovirus (MBV) in wild Penaeus monodon (Fabricius) broodstock, in the southeast coast of India. Journal of Fish Diseases 35 (11): 793–798.

Rosenberry, B. 2014. India Production Increases in 2013. Shrimp News International. April 5 2014. 55

https://www.shrimpnews.com/FreeReportsFolder/NewsReportsFolder/IndiaProductionIncreac esIn2013.html

Sackton, J. (2013). MPEDA confirms small amounts EMS in India, sets moratorium on stocking. www.seafoodnews.com/newsemail.asp?key=906038

Senanan, W., S. Panutrakul, S., Barnette, P., & Manthachitra, V. (2010). Ecological risk assessment of an alien aquatic species: a case study of Litopenaeus vannamei (Pacific whiteleg shrimp) aquaculture in the Bangpakong River, Thailand in C. T. Hoanh, B. W. Szuster, K. Suan-Pheng, A. M. Ismail, and A. D. Noble, editors. Tropical deltas and coastal zones: food production, communities and environment at the land-water interface. COBI, Oxfordshire, UK.

Shailender M., Suresh Babu C.H., Krishna P.V. (2013). Recent culture methods of giant black tiger shrimp, peneaus monodon (fabricius) in Andhra Pradesh, South India. International Journal of Research in Fisheries and Aquaculture 2013; 3(2): 34-37

Sharma, DC. (2012) Drug-tainted Indian shrimps raise stink in US. India Today. Available at: indiatoday.intoday.in/story/drug--tainted-indian-shrimps-raise-stink-in-us/1/199098.html

Sivaraman Iyemperumal (2013). Personal Communication

Srinivasan, P. & Ramasamy P. (2009). Occurrence, Distribution and Antibiotic Resistance Patterns of Vibrio species associated with viral diseased Shrimp of South Indian Aquaculture Environment. International Journal of Agriculture Sciences 1(2): 01-10

Swapna, K.M., Rajesh, R., Lakshmanan, P.T. (2012). Incidence of antibiotic residues in farmed shrimps in southern states of India. Indian Journal of Geo-Marine Sciences. 41(4): 344-347

Tacon, A.G.J., Hasan, M.R., & Metian, M. (2011). Demand and supply of feed ingredients for farmed fish and crustaceans: trends and prospects. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 564.

The Hindu. (2015). Vannamei shrimp farmers left in the lurch. Available at: www.thehindu.com/news/national/andhra-pradesh/vannamei-shrimp-farmers-left-in-the- lurch/article7246690.ece

Undercurrent News (2013). Scientists Confirm EMS in Mexico. Accessed 9/2/13. Available at: www.undercurrentnews.com/2013/08/28/mexico-has-ems-confirms-lightner/#.UiUSW9KMt8E

Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Import Alert 16-129. Accessed 4/27/14. Available at: www.accessdata.fda.gov/cms_ia/importalert_31.html

56

Vasudevappa C. and Seenappa D., (2002). Literature Review of Shrimp Farming in India. Individual Partner Report for the Project: Policy research for sustainable shrimp farming in Asia. European Commission INCO-DEV Project PORESSFA No.IC4-2001-10042, CEMARE University of Portsmouth UK and FRS University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore – India, 48 p. + Annexes

Walker, P. J., & Mohan, C. V. (2009). Viral disease emergence in shrimp aquaculture: origins, impact and the effectiveness of health management strategies. Reviews in Aquaculture, 1(2), 125–154.

Weiss, J., Bruulsema, T., Hunter, M., Czymmek, K., Lawrence, J., Ketterings, Q. (2009). Nitrogen Fertilizers for Field Crops. Agronomy Fact Sheet Series. Fact Sheet 44.

World Health Organization (WHO). 2011. Critically important antimicrobials for human medicine - 2nd rev. apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/77444/1/9789241501439_eng.pdf

World Organization for Animal Health (OIE). (2013). OIE Listed diseases. Retrieved 10/14, 2013, from www.oie.int/en/animal-health-in-the-world/oie-listed-diseases-2013

57

Data points and all scoring calculations

This is a condensed version of the criteria and scoring sheet to provide access to all data points and calculations. See the Seafood Watch Aquaculture Criteria document for a full explanation of the criteria, calculations and scores. Yellow cells represent data entry points.

Giant Tiger Prawn

Criterion 1: Data quality and availability

Data Category Relevance (Y/N) Data Quality Score (0-10) Industry or production statistics Yes 5 5 Effluent Yes 2.5 2.5 Locations/habitats Yes 2.5 2.5 Predators and wildlife Yes 0 0 Chemical use Yes 2.5 2.5 Feed Yes 2.5 2.5 Escapes, animal movements Yes 0 0 Disease Yes 5 5 Source of stock Yes 7.5 7.5 Other – (e.g., GHG emissions) No 0 N/A Total 35

C1 Data Final Score 3.06 RED

Criterion 2: Effluents

Factor 2.1a–Biological waste production score Protein content of feed (%) 38 eFCR 1.6 Fertilizer N input (kg N/ton fish) 3.5 Protein content of harvested fish (%) 18.5 N content factor (fixed) 0.16 N input per ton of fish produced (kg) 100.78 N in each ton of fish harvested (kg) 29.6 Waste N produced per ton of fish (kg) 71.18

58

Factor 2.1b–Production System discharge score Basic production system score 0.51 Adjustment 1 (if applicable) 0 Adjustment 2 (if applicable) 0 Adjustment 3 (if applicable) 0 Discharge (Factor 2.1b) score 0.51

51 % of the waste produced by the fish is discharged from the farm

2.2 – Management of farm-level and cumulative impacts and appropriateness to the scale of the industry Factor 2.2a–Regulatory or management effectiveness Question Scoring Score 1–Are effluent regulations or control measures present that are designed Yes 1 for, or are applicable to aquaculture? 2–Are the control measures applied according to site-specific conditions and/or do they lead to site-specific effluent, biomass or other discharge Partly 0.25 limits? 3–Do the control measures address or relate to the cumulative impacts Partly 0.25 of multiple farms? 4–Are the limits considered scientifically robust and set according to the Mostly 0.75 ecological status of the receiving waterbody? 5–Do the control measures cover or prescribe including peak biomass, Partly 0.25 harvest, sludge disposal, cleaning etc.? 2.5

Factor 2.2b–Enforcement level of effluent regulations or management

Question Scoring Score 1–Are the enforcement organizations and/or resources identifiable and Partly 0.25 contactable, and appropriate to the scale of the industry? 2–Does monitoring data or other available information demonstrate active Partly 0.25 enforcement of the control measures? 3–Does enforcement cover the entire production cycle (i.e., are peak discharges Partly 0.25 such as peak biomass, harvest, sludge disposal, cleaning included)? 4–Does enforcement demonstrably result in compliance with set limits? Partly 0.25 5–Is there evidence of robust penalties for infringements? Partly 0.25 1.25 F2.2 Score (2.2a*2.2b/2.5) 1.25

C2 Effluent Final Score 3.00 RED Critical? NO 59

Criterion 3: Habitat

3.1. Habitat conversion and function

F3.1 Score 4

3.2 Habitat and farm siting management effectiveness (appropriate to the scale of the industry)

Factor 3.2a–Regulatory or management effectiveness Question Scoring Score 1–Is the farm location, siting and/or licensing process based on ecological Partly 0.25 principles, including an EIAs requirement for new sites? 2–Is the industry’s total size and concentration based on its cumulative Moderatel 0.5 impacts and the maintenance of ecosystem function? y 3 – Is the industry’s ongoing and future expansion appropriate locations, and Moderatel 0.5 thereby preventing the future loss of ecosystem services? y 4–Are high-value habitats being avoided for aquaculture siting? (i.e., avoidance of areas critical to vulnerable wild populations; effective zoning, or compliance Mostly 0.75 with international agreements such as the Ramsar treaty) 5–Do control measures include requirements for the restoration of important No 0 or critical habitats or ecosystem services? 2

Factor 3.2b–Siting regulatory or management enforcement Question Scoring Score 1–Are enforcement organizations or individuals identifiable and contactable, Partly 0.25 and are they appropriate to the scale of the industry? 2–Does the farm siting or permitting process function according to the zoning Moderatel or other ecosystem-based management plans articulated in the control 0.5 y measures? 3–Does the farm siting or permitting process take account of other farms and No 0 their cumulative impacts? 4–Is the enforcement process transparent–e.g., public availability of farm Mostly 0.75 locations and sizes, EIA reports, zoning plans, etc.? 5–Is there evidence that the restrictions or limits defined in the control Partly 0.25 measures are being achieved? 1.75

F3.2 Score (2.2a*2.2b/2.5) 1.40 C3 Habitat Final Score 3.13 RED Critical? NO

60

Criterion 4: Evidence or Risk of Chemical Use

Chemical Use parameters Score C4 Chemical Use Score CRITICAL C4 Chemical Use Final Score CRITICAL RED Critical? YES

Criterion 5: Feed

5.1. Wild Fish Use Factor 5.1a–Fish In: Fish Out (FIFO)

Fishmeal inclusion level (%) 25 Fishmeal from byproducts (%) 0 % FM 25 Fish oil inclusion level (%) 1.5 Fish oil from byproducts (%) 0 % FO 1.5 Fishmeal yield (%) 22.5 Fish oil yield (%) 5 eFCR 1.6 FIFO fishmeal 1.78 FIFO fish oil 0.48 Greater of the 2 FIFO scores 1.78 FIFO Score 5.56

Factor 5.1b–Sustainability of the Source of Wild Fish (SSWF)

SSWF -6 SSWF Factor -1.066666667

F5.1 Wild Fish Use Score 4.49

5.2. Net protein Gain or Loss Protein INPUTS Protein content of feed 38 eFCR 1.6 Feed protein from NON-EDIBLE sources (%) 3.5 Feed protein from EDIBLE CROP soruces (%) 24 61

Protein OUTPUTS Protein content of whole harvested fish (%) 18.5 Edible yield of harvested fish (%) 57 Non-edible byproducts from harvested fish used for other food production 50

Protein IN 54.50 Protein OUT 14.5225 Net protein gain or loss (%) -73.3526 Critical? NO F5.2 Net protein Score 2.00

5.3. Feed Footprint

5.3a Ocean area of primary productivity appropriated by feed ingredients per ton of farmed seafood Inclusion level of aquatic feed ingredients (%) 26.5 eFCR 1.6 Average Primary Productivity (C) required for aquatic feed ingredients (ton C/ton fish) 69.7 Average ocean productivity for continental shelf areas (ton C/ha) 2.68 Ocean area appropriated (ha/ton fish) 11.03

5.3b Land area appropriated by feed ingredients per ton of production Inclusion level of crop feed ingredients (%) 67 Inclusion level of land animal products (%) 0 Conversion ratio of crop ingredients to land animal products 2.88 eFCR 1.6 Average yield of major feed ingredient crops (t/ha) 2.64 Land area appropriated (ha per ton of fish) 0.41

Value (Ocean + Land Area) 11.43

F5.3 Feed Footprint Score 6.00

YELLO C5 Feed Final Score 4.24 W Critical? NO

62

Criterion 6: Escapes 6.1a. Escape Risk

Escape Risk 4

Recapture & Mortality Score (RMS) Estimated % recapture rate or direct mortality at the 0 escape site Recapture & Mortality Score 0 Factor 6.1a Escape Risk Score 4

6.1b. Invasiveness

Part A – Native species Score 4

Part B – Non-Native species Score

Part C – Native and Non-native species Question Score Do escapees compete with wild native populations for food or habitat? To some extent Do escapees act as additional predation pressure on wild native populations? No Do escapees compete with wild native populations for breeding partners or To some extent disturb breeding behavior of the same or other species? Do escapees modify habitats to the detriment of other species (e.g., by feeding, No foraging, settlement or other)? Do escapees have some other impact on other native species or habitats? No 4

F 6.1b Score 8

Final C6 Score 6.00 YELLOW Critical? NO

Criterion 7: Diseases

Pathogen and parasite parameters Score C7 Biosecurity 2.00 63

C7 Disease; pathogen and parasite Final Score 2.00 RED Critical? NO

Criterion 8: Source of Stock

Source of stock parameters Score C8 % of production from hatchery-raised broodstock, natural (passive) settlement, or 0 sourced from sustainable fisheries C8 Source of stock Final Score 0 RED

Criterion 9X: Wildlife and predator mortalities

Wildlife and predator mortality parameters Score C9X Wildlife and Predator Final Score -4.00 YELLOW Critical? NO

Criterion 10X: Escape of unintentionally introduced species

Escape of unintentionally introduced species parameters Score F10Xa International or trans-waterbody live animal 9.00 shipments (%) F10Xb Biosecurity of source/destination 2.00 C10X Escape of unintentionally introduced species Final -0.80 GREEN Score 64

Whiteleg Shrimp

Criterion 1: Data quality and availability

Data Category Relevance (Y/N) Data Quality Score (0-10) Industry or production statistics Yes 7.5 7.5 Effluent Yes 2.5 2.5 Locations/habitats Yes 2.5 2.5 Predators and wildlife Yes 0 0 Chemical use Yes 2.5 2.5 Feed Yes 2.5 2.5 Escapes, animal movements Yes 0 0 Disease Yes 5 5 Source of stock Yes 7.5 7.5 Other – (e.g., GHG emissions) No 0 N/A Total 30

C1 Data Final Score 3.33 YELLOW

Criterion 2: Effluents

Factor 2.1a–Biological waste production score Protein content of feed (%) 38 eFCR 1.4 Fertilizer N input (kg N/ton fish) 0.44 Protein content of harvested fish (%) 17.8 N content factor (fixed) 0.16 N input per ton of fish produced (kg) 85.56 N in each ton of fish harvested (kg) 28.48 Waste N produced per ton of fish (kg) 57.08

Factor 2.1b–Production System discharge score Basic production system score 0.34 Adjustment 1 (if applicable) -0.1 Adjustment 2 (if applicable) 0 Adjustment 3 (if applicable) 0 65

Discharge (Factor 2.1b) score 0.24

2.2 – Management of farm-level and cumulative impacts and appropriateness to the scale of the industry Factor 2.2a–Regulatory or management effectiveness Question Scoring Score 1–Are effluent regulations or control measures present that are designed for, Yes 1 or are applicable to aquaculture? 2–Are the control measures applied according to site-specific conditions and/or Mostly 0.75 do they lead to site-specific effluent, biomass or other discharge limits? 3–Do the control measures address or relate to the cumulative impacts of Partly 0.25 multiple farms? 4–Are the limits considered scientifically robust and set according to the Mostly 0.75 ecological status of the receiving waterbody? 5–Do the control measures cover or prescribe including peak biomass, harvest, Moderatel 0.5 sludge disposal, cleaning etc.? y 3.25

Factor 2.2b–Enforcement level of effluent regulations or management

Question Scoring Score 1–Are the enforcement organizations and/or resources identifiable and Partly 0.25 contactable, and appropriate to the scale of the industry? 2–Does monitoring data or other available information demonstrate active Mostly 0.75 enforcement of the control measures? 3–Does enforcement cover the entire production cycle (i.e., are peak Mostly 0.75 discharges such as peak biomass, harvest, sludge disposal, cleaning included)? Moderatel 0.5 4–Does enforcement demonstrably result in compliance with set limits? y Moderatel 0.5 5–Is there evidence of robust penalties for infringements? y 2.75 F2.2 Score (2.2a*2.2b/2.5) 3.575

C2 Effluent Final Score 6.00 YELLOW Critical? NO

66

Criterion 3: Habitat

3.1. Habitat conversion and function

F3.1 Score 4

3.2 Habitat and farm siting management effectiveness (appropriate to the scale of the industry)

Factor 3.2a–Regulatory or management effectiveness Question Scoring Score 1–Is the farm location, siting and/or licensing process based on ecological Moderatel 0.5 principles, including an EIAs requirement for new sites? y 2–Is the industry’s total size and concentration based on its cumulative impacts Moderatel 0.5 and the maintenance of ecosystem function? y 3 – Is the industry’s ongoing and future expansion appropriate locations, and Moderatel 0.5 thereby preventing the future loss of ecosystem services? y 4–Are high-value habitats being avoided for aquaculture siting? (i.e., avoidance of areas critical to vulnerable wild populations; effective zoning, or compliance Yes 1 with international agreements such as the Ramsar treaty) 5–Do control measures include requirements for the restoration of important or No 0 critical habitats or ecosystem services? 2.5

Factor 3.2b–Siting regulatory or management enforcement Question Scoring Score 1–Are enforcement organizations or individuals identifiable and contactable, Mostly 0.75 and are they appropriate to the scale of the industry? 2–Does the farm siting or permitting process function according to the zoning or Moderatel 0.5 other ecosystem-based management plans articulated in the control measures? y 3–Does the farm siting or permitting process take account of other farms and No 0 their cumulative impacts? 4–Is the enforcement process transparent - e.g., public availability of farm Mostly 0.75 locations and sizes, EIA reports, zoning plans, etc.? 5–Is there evidence that the restrictions or limits defined in the control measures are Moderately 0.5 being achieved? 2.5

F3.2 Score (2.2a*2.2b/2.5) 2.50

C3 Habitat Final Score 3.50 YELLOW Critical? NO

67

Criterion 4: Evidence or Risk of Chemical Use

Chemical Use parameters Score C4 Chemical Use Score CRITICAL C4 Chemical Use Final Score CRITICAL RED Critical? YES

Criterion 5: Feed

5.1. Wild Fish Use Factor 5.1a–Fish In: Fish Out (FIFO)

Fishmeal inclusion level (%) 25 Fishmeal from byproducts (%) 0 % FM 25 Fish oil inclusion level (%) 1.5 Fish oil from byproducts (%) 0 % FO 1.5 Fishmeal yield (%) 22.5 Fish oil yield (%) 5 eFCR 1.4 FIFO fishmeal 1.56 FIFO fish oil 0.42 Greater of the 2 FIFO scores 1.56 FIFO Score 6.11

Factor 5.1b–Sustainability of the Source of Wild Fish (SSWF)

SSWF -6 SSWF Factor -0.933333333

F5.1 Wild Fish Use Score 5.18

5.2. Net protein Gain or Loss Protein INPUTS Protein content of feed 38 eFCR 1.4 Feed protein from NON-EDIBLE sources (%) 3.5 Feed protein from EDIBLE CROP sources (%) 24 68

Protein OUTPUTS Protein content of whole harvested fish (%) 17.8 Edible yield of harvested fish (%) 57 Non-edible byproducts from harvested fish used for other food production 50

Protein IN 47.69 Protein OUT 13.973 Net protein gain or loss (%) -70.6981 Critical? NO F5.2 Net protein Score 2.00

5.3. Feed Footprint

5.3a Ocean area of primary productivity appropriated by feed ingredients per ton of farmed seafood Inclusion level of aquatic feed ingredients (%) 26.5 eFCR 1.4 Average Primary Productivity (C) required for aquatic feed ingredients (ton C/ton fish) 69.7 Average ocean productivity for continental shelf areas (ton C/ha) 2.68 Ocean area appropriated (ha/ton fish) 9.65

5.3b Land area appropriated by feed ingredients per ton of production Inclusion level of crop feed ingredients (%) 67 Inclusion level of land animal products (%) 0 Conversion ratio of crop ingredients to land animal products 2.88 eFCR 1.4 Average yield of major feed ingredient crops (t/ha) 2.64 Land area appropriated (ha per ton of fish) 0.36

Value (Ocean + Land Area) 10.00

F5.3 Feed Footprint Score 6.00

YELLO C5 Feed Final Score 4.59 W Critical? NO

69

Criterion 6: Escapes 6.1a. Escape Risk

Escape Risk 4

Recapture & Mortality Score (RMS) Estimated % recapture rate or direct mortality at the 0 escape site Recapture & Mortality Score 0 Factor 6.1a Escape Risk Score 4

6.1b. Invasiveness

Part A – Native species Score 0

Part B – Non-Native species Score 0.5

Part C – Native and Non-native species Question Score To some Do escapees compete with wild native populations for food or habitat? extent Do escapees act as additional predation pressure on wild native populations? No Do escapees compete with wild native populations for breeding partners or disturb To some breeding behavior of the same or other species? extent Do escapees modify habitats to the detriment of other species (e.g., by feeding, No foraging, settlement or other)? Do escapees have some other impact on other native species or habitats? No 4

F 6.1b Score 4.5

Final C6 Score 3.00 RED Critical? NO

70

Criterion 7: Diseases

Pathogen and parasite parameters Score C7 Biosecurity 4.00 C7 Disease; pathogen and parasite Final Score 4.00 YELLOW Critical? NO

Criterion 8: Source of Stock

Source of stock parameters Score C8 % of production from hatchery-raised broodstock, natural (passive) settlement, or 100 sourced from sustainable fisheries C8 Source of stock Final Score 10 GREEN

Criterion 9X: Wildlife and predator mortalities

Wildlife and predator mortality parameters Score C9X Wildlife and Predator Final Score -4.00 YELLOW

NO Critical?

Criterion 10X: Escape of unintentionally introduced species

Escape of unintentionally introduced species parameters Score F10Xa International or trans-waterbody live animal shipments (%) 8.00 F10Xb Biosecurity of source/destination 6.00 C10X Escape of unintentionally introduced species Final Score -2.00 GREEN