Inland shrimp aquaculture and

environmental impact assessment

in Ecuador
Juan Jos Alava1

Origin of Inland Farming

Inland shrimp farming is a productive activity that began
in Thailand more than a decade ago (Boyd 2001, Limsuwan
2001). In 1989 in the northeast part of Thailand, close to
Mahasarakham, there was evidence that underground saltwater was used by some shrimp farmers in conjunction with
Penaeus monodon production. In the 1990s, farmers cultured shrimp in water with initial salinities ranging from 5-8
ppt (Boyd 2001). In inland shrimp aquaculture with salinities lower than 10 ppt, diseases generated by a luminescent
bacteria (Vibrio harveyi) and White Spot Syndrome Virus
(WSSV), which has caused serious problems in production
associated with coastal shrimp saltwater aquaculture, are
practically absent or are attenuated (Limsuwan 2001). In
Thailand, the adaptation period for young stages of shrimp
(PL 15 to PL 20) is conducted salinities from about 5-9 ppt,
which is required prior to stocking in production ponds (Lin
2001). Small shrimp ponds released effluents to water bodies close to the production system, while mid and large size
ponds reused the water after treatment. One strategy employed was the construction of walls around ponds to avoid
or minimize salt contamination (Intriago 2002). The Thailand government banned inland production in 1998 because
of the concern of potential salinity contamination on land
and water used for crops.
Inland farming in USA is practiced in Texas, Florida,
Arizona and Alabama by using underground salt water
with about 0.7-16 ppt of salinity (Boyd 2001, Whitis 2001).
There, inland shrimp farming represents 16 percent (192200 ha) of the total marine shrimp culture industry (1,200
ha). In Alabama, from 1999 to 2000, farmers, who cultured
channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), initiated shrimp aquaculture with well water in which salinity oscillated from 2
to 6 ppt. For about 50 years the culture of channel catfish has been carried out using ground water (Boyd 2001).
An environmental assessment conducted on the activity in
Alabama revealed that there were no negative effects on
the environment (Boyd 2001). According to Boyd (2001),
the reason for that conclusion was a reliance on best management practices, such as ponds confined with walls, clay
soils with low filtration, no removal of sediments from the

54 September 2005

Fig. 1. Pattern of impact values (magnitude and significance)

for environmental components (non-biotic and biotic) during
the construction phase in inland shrimp farming projects in
Ecuador.

Fig. 2. Pattern of impact values (magnitude and significance)

for environmental components (non-biotic and biotic) during
the operational phase in inland shrimp farming projects in
Ecuador.

pond bottoms and drainage of ponds no more than twice

every fifteen years.

Inland Shrimp Farming in Ecuador

In Ecuador, South America, inland shrimp farming of
Pacific white shrimp, Litopenaeus vannamei, in low salinity

waters started in 1999, the year when WSSV also appeared.

This new culture activity was considered a good alternative
to mitigate the impact caused by the white spot syndrome
and it made financial and environmental management sense
because of the low investment required and the intensive
type system compared to the usual kind of shrimp aquaculture developed in mangrove and coastal zones in Ecuador when about 25 percent of the total mangrove area along
the Ecuadorian coast was decimated. That was the result of
not only shrimp farming but also from urbanization and
agriculture. At present, the total area of inland farming in
Ecuador is about 2,250 ha, of which 46 percent have water
recirculation systems. The average area of production units
or inland shrimp ponds is 52 ha (range = 1.65-250.0 ha).
The type of culture ranges from intermediate stocking with
20-30 animals/m2 to extensive or high stocking with 60-120
animals/m2 and the production oscillates between 900 and
6,400 kg/ha (Intriago 2002) with a potential yield of 9,000
kg/ha2. However, controversial points of view between inland shrimp farmers and the agriculture sector initiated a
contentious environmental issue regarding whether or not
inland shrimp farming can cause negative environmental effects on crops such as rice and mango, other land uses and
ground water quality.

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)

In 2001, the Ecuadorian government, through the Fishery and Industry, Farming and Agriculture and Environment Ministries, passed regulatory legislation to control and
regulate the construction and operation of inland farming
in view of its potential effects. The approach originated with
Ministerial Agreement 093, which was ultimately improved
and replaced for the Executive Order 1952-A mandating
that before an inland farming project was established and
developed, an environmental impact assessment (EIA) was
required and needed to be presented to the Environment
Ministry to get an environmental permit and authorization.
According to Glasson et al. (1999), an EIA is in essence a
systematic process examining, in advance, the environmental consequences of development actions.
Based on the information and data available from the
EIA, environmental government agencies plan actions and
make decisions on whether or not a given proposed project
is feasible and does not substantially affect the quality of
the environment. The Ecuadorian EIA outline that must be
completely developed and documented in a final EIA technical report is presented in Table 1.
Generally, assessment of impacts are evaluated using
magnitude, intensity or degree of strength or force of impacts and importance or significance scales of impacts (Tables 2 and 3), which can range, in increasing order of damage, from 1 to 5 or from 1 to 10 under a Leopolds Matrix
approach. Additionally, the importance of impacts is divided in reversibility, whether or not an impact is susceptible
to mitigation, recoverability, the capacity of an impacted
environmental resource to get back to original conditions
and duration of an impact. Duration can be a short-term or
(Continued on page 57)

Table 1.

Environmental Impact Assessment Outline

for Inland Farming in Ecuador

1. Study Presentation
1.1 Background
1.2 Objectives
1.3 Scope
1.4 Methodology
1.5 Legal Frame
2. Project Description
2.1 Structural Description
2.2 Operative Description
2.3 Technical Management Description
3. Determination of Influence Area
4. Environmental Baseline
4.1 Characterization of Physical Environmental
Components
4.2 Characterization of Biotic Environmental
Components
4.3 Characterization of Socioeconomic and Cultural
Components (Human Environment)
5. Description of Project Alternatives
6. Comparisons and Environmental Evaluation of
Alternatives (including zero alternative o without project
situation)
7. Environmental Selection of Optimal Alternative
8. Identification and Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
on Selected Alternative
9. Impact Mitigation Plan
9.1 Nullification Measures
9.2 Mitigation Measures
9.3 Prevention Measures
9.4 Monitoring and Surveillance Measures
9.5 Rehabilitation and Compensation Measures
9.6 Waste Control and Disposal Measures
9.7 Stimulation Measures
9.8 Environmental Education Measures
9.9 Contingency Measures
10. Environmental Management Plan
11. Conclusion and Recommendations
12. Bibliography References
13. Annexes, maps and plates
14. Professional Personnel responsible of conducting the
EIA
15. Executive Resume
Source. Guidelines for Environmental impact .Assessment, Annex
1, Executive Decree N 1952-A, October 3, 2001, Quito, Ecuador.

Table 2.

Scale of Impacts for Magnitude

Value
1

Low

Mid/Low

Meaning

Mid

Mid/High

High

World Aquaculture

55

long-term impact (Table 3). Impacts are

Table 3. Scale of Impacts for Significance.
direct or indirect changes in the physical, natural and social environment,
Value
Reversibility
Recoverability
Duration
which would be generated by proposed
1
Maximum
No measures are needed
Transitory
actions (Maya and Fono 1997). The

2
Medium
Low
level
measures
are
needed
Short-term
term effect is used sometimes as a synonym of impact.
3
Regular
Mid-level measures are needed
Mid-term
The environmental components 4
Minimum
Major measures are required
Long-term
evaluated in an EIA process have physi- 5
Non-reversible
High level measures required/no
Permanent
cal or non-biotic, biotic and socioeco-
measures can be applied
nomic components. Non-biotic components are air and atmosphere or air
quality, water resources and water bodies, water quality and
1; SDD = 0.0). The magnitude of impacts are higher during
quantity, soil and geology, classification, erosion, risks, hythe construction period than in the operational phase bedrology and hydrogeology, climate (including temperature,
cause of the extension of human activities and the influence
rainfall, wind and evaporation) and landscape characterisof construction work on air, including emissions from vetics (including the quality of landscape and energy, light,
hicles and electric generators, soil from land movement and
noise and vibrations). Biotic components are integrated by
erosion, flora, the clearing of vegetation, the visual impact
flora and fauna. The effects on wildlife also include degradaon the landscape and generation of solid wastes, including
tion of habitat, loss of biodiversity, alteration of food web
debris and soil contamination. To the contrary, the imporand extinction of species. Finally, the socioeconomic aspect
tance of impacts is higher in the operational phase than in
is focused on the human environment, which considers the
the construction phase because of the duration and recoversocioeconomic and cultural elements, such as economic
ability of the impacts during operation and production. To
structure, employment, labor markets, demography, housface these potential impacts, the EIA process contributes an
ing, services (such as education, health and law enforceenvironmental management approach called mitigation.
ment) lifestyles and values. In this article, only environmenMitigation strategies are measures of compromise, which
tal impact assessment on non-biotic and biotic components
are described under the Environmental Management Plan
have been reviewed because socioeconomic issues deserve a
where the goals are the reduction or minimization of immore extensive analysis by sociologists, anthropologists and
pacts from established projects that can cause adverse effects
environmental economists.
on the environment. Mitigation combines the following elThe prediction and assessment of impacts is conducted
ements: avoidance, preservation, minimization, rehabilitaduring the construction and operational phases of a protion, restoration, replacement, improvement, augmentation,
posed project. Based on 10 EIAs carried out on inland
development and diversification. One of the first mitigashrimp farming projects in Ecuador, the magnitude and
tion elements that must be considered in inland farming
significance of impacts (range scale = 1-5; Tables 2 and 3)
is the set up of a vegetation buffer zone around the ponds
for construction and operational phases are shown in Figwith a width of about 30 m to be used as a bioindicator
ures 1 and 2, respectively. During the construction phase,
of health. Similarly, the use of retention ponds or settling
the environmental elements most affected regarding the
basins as a best management practice strategy for the colmagnitude and significance of impacts are vegetation/flora
lection and reuse of effluents, as well as to trap sediments,
(average=3.75; SD=0.5; range = 3-4), landscape (average =
is a recommended measure to avoid the loss of produc4; SD=0.82; range = 3-5) and impacts from solid wastes retion water to natural habitats. Retention ponds can also
leased to the environment (average=3.25; SD=1.71; range =
be used to accumulate the water and runoff that flows or
1-5). Low impacts were predicted and evaluated for air (averseeps from production ponds during strong rainfalls (Boyd
age=1.5; SD = 0.58; range = 1-2) and those related to noise
2001). Sediments or mud taken from the bottom of ponds
(average =1.5; SD = 0.58; range = 1-2). Impacts on aquatic
during drying after cycles of production must be used to
and terrestrial fauna were low (average = 2.5; SD = 0.58;
reconstruct pond levees, and not disposed of in natural arrange = 2-3) and middle (average = 2.5; SD = 0.58;range
eas. The salinity of underground water and soil should be
= 2-3). In the operational phase, the impacts on the same
monitored periodically to ensure that no infiltration of salt
criteria as those mentioned above were concentrated on relawater is occurring. As usual, daily sampling of dissolved
tively high values for soil (average = 3.5; SD = 0.58; range
oxygen, pH and salinity in production ponds are traditional
= 3-4), flora/vegetation (average = 3.25; SD = 0.96; range
environmental parameters used to monitor the production
= 2-4) and landscape (average = 3.25; SD = 0.5; range =
specified in the management plan. An important point that
3-4); impacts at mid levels for waste solids were found in
inland projects can incorporate in their operational plan is
this phase, as well. Impacts assessed for surface and ground
environmental education and awareness through environwater were relatively low (average = 1.75; SD = 0.5; range
mental management system programs addressed to the facil= 1-2) and mid values (average = 3.0; SD = 0.0) when comity workers to perpetuate friendly environmental practices,
pared to the impacts pointed out above. Low impacts were
such as recycling, minimization of energy and water usage
reflected for air (average = 1; SD = 0.0) and noise (average =
and conservation of wildlife, including the avoidance of
World Aquaculture

57

hunting endangered aquatic birds and reforestation. Thus,

environmentally friendly shrimp production must be addressed by the incorporation of best management practices
or good management practices to enhance operational activities and practices that reduce levels of pollution or other
environmental impacts (Boyd 2003). Codes of conduct for
responsible aquaculture of the Global Aquaculture Alliance
to avoid water pollution and other negative effects has already been established and they represent guiding principles
in how aquaculture should be conducted by companies and
individuals involved in inland farming (Boyd 1999). Shrimp
farmers have incorporated technical solutions through better management practices to make sure that their activities
are as harmless as possible to reach and promote environmental sustainability of shrimp farming (Macintosh 2002).
According to Boyd (2003), shrimp production practices are
currently less likely to produce environmental liabilities or
social conflicts than those carried out 10 years ago.
In conclusion, the spirit of an EIA is a proactive and positive process rather than a reactive process that inland aquaculture owners, managers, technicians and decision-makers
need to understand and undertake to accomplish a friendly
balance between human activities and nature under the precautionary principle. As indicated by Glasson et al. (1999)
Prevention is better than cure.
In Ecuador, a significant proportion of the economic
incomes has depended on shrimp production and fisheries
for decades. Therefore, the perpetuation of those benefits
demand outstanding management of environmental and
natural resources to ensure continued profits and minimized
environmental costs in the long term.

Notes
1

Earth and Environmental Resources Management Program,

School of the Environment, University of South Carolina, University of South Carolina, 702G Byrnes Building Columbia, SC
29208 USA. E-mail: jalva@environ.sc.edu; fax: (803) 777-5715.

Environmental Consultant for the Center for Environmental

Studies (CEMA)/ESPOL, Guayaquil, Ecuador.
2
Andrs Romeloroux, Aquaculture National Chamber (CNA),
Guayaquil, Ecuador.

References
Boyd, C.E. 1999. Codes of practice for responsible shrimp farming. Global Aquaculture
Alliance, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
Boyd, C.E. 2001. Inland shrimp farming and the environment.
World Aquaculture 32: 10-12.
Boyd, C. E. 2003. The status of codes of practices in aquaculture.
World Aquaculture 34:63-66
Glasson, J., R. Therivel and A. Chadwick. 1999. Introduction to
Environmental Impact
Assessment. 2nd Edition, UCL Press, London, Philadelphia,
PA.USA.
Intriago, P. 2002. El cultivo de camarn tierra adentro en Ecuador:
Una de las
estrategias para combatir el Virus de la Mancha Blanca. Revista
ESPOL-Propuestas, 14:32-34.
Limsuwan, Ch. 2001. Cultivo de camarn tierra adentro en
Tailandia. Paginas 1-3
En Centro de Servicios para la Acuicultura. Manejo de camaroneras tierra adentro. CSA, Guayaquil, Ecuador.
Lin, C.K 2001. Cultivo de Camarn Tigre Negro Tierra Adentro
en Tailandia. En:
Revista de Resmenes, Congreso Ecuatoriano de Acuicultura
Congreso Latinomericano de Acuicultura, Estrategias de una
nueva industria. Octubre/2001, Guayaquil, Ecuador.
Macintosh, D. 2002. The tragedy of the Commons: Perspectives on
sustainable aquaculture. World Aquaculture 33:21-22.
Maya, O.L. and A.L. Fono. 1997. Federal environmental law: the
users guide. West
Publishing Co. St. Paul, MN.USA.
Whitis, G.N. 2001. Cultivo de Camarones Penaeidos en los Estados
Unidos con nfasis
en los Mtodos de Produccin de Alabama. Paginas 1-14 En
Centro de Servicios para la Acuicultura Manejo de camaroneras tierra adentro. CSA, Guayaquil, Ecuador.

AwF begins project in West Tripura, India

Aquaculture Without Frontiers (AwF) has a new project
in West Tripura, India, that will integrate aquaculture in watershed management programs to benefit poor to marginal
tribal farmers.
The one-year project is intended to improve existing
ponds, train local people in aquaculture skills and provide
initial funds to stock and feed the fish.
Thirty farmers have been selected to work on this project.
They will be trained by using the family approach where both
husband and wife are trained in fish culture. These farmers will then renovate their own ponds, which currently are
used for water storage, wild fish capture, and, in some cases,
stocking or cultivated variety of fish. A popular carp species
along with some self-recruiting species will be introduced to
ensure sustainability. Integration of fish ponds with other
agricultural activities will be encouraged.

58 September 2005

The Bishramganj-India AwF Project is located approximately 35 km from Agartala. The project area consists of
10 villages inhabitated by tribal, Muslim and Hindu families.
AwFs partners in the project are St. Fancis Xaviers, a
local non-governmental organization in Bhisramganj, the
Fishery College at Lembucherra and the ICAR Regional
Office in Tripura.
Follow-up support and monitoring will be provided by
the project partners. This project will help create employment in the region and increase fish consumption. Improved
watershed management will help recharge groundwater resources, reduce soil erosion, decrease runoff speed and increase agricultural productivity.
Continuing reports on this project will be posted on the
AwF website, www.aquaculturewithoutfrontiers.org.