Environment and aquaculture in developing countries

Criteria for Assessing
Environmental Impact and Benefits

Sets of summary criteria, impacts and
benefits have been published for appraising
developing-country aquaculture
development (McAllister 1988; Pullinl989;
Tables 5 and 6). Table 5 highlights social
and environmental criteria and touches
oninternational equity issues. Its message
is that the route to the greatest good for
the greatest number is fraught with.
complex issues and side effects. The table

merely notes these and makes no explicit

judgments.

Table 6 takes a more structured

approach to the social and environmental

pros and cons of different types of

aquaculture. Here the judgments are more

explicit and clearly favor the development

of semi-intensive systems.

Both tables identi,fy only the broad

categories of impacts and benefits. More

detailed frameworks are required for

specific situations.

Table 5. Social, environmental and esthetic criteria for and against aquaculture development projects
(McAllister 1988).

ES

Favorable project

mk

Less favorable or

unfavorable project

SOCIAL

Whose income does it

benefit?

Capital needed

Return to worker1

family

Operated by

Gender

Disturbance to

culture, customs

Working conditions

-capture fishery or

gleaning

Nutritional quality

-natural food

Food for

Efkct on public

health (drinking water,

rnosquitos, parasites,

ctc.)

Who made the decision?

Poor

Inw capital

Self-employment

Individual, family

co-op or community

Benefits men,

women & children

None

High quality

Equal to or

greater than

Poor

Low

Local community

after mature

debate & discussion

Middle class. rich

Capital intensive

Low wages

Company

Exploitdneglects

women and children

Some, much

Low quality

Lower than

Wealthy

High

NGO, Washington,

London, Ottawa,

consulting company

Culture method Polyculture Monoculture

continued