The Effects of Near-real-time Deforestation Alerts

The Global Land Analysis and Discovery System, otherwise known as GLAD, is a popular tool that flags disturbances to the global forest canopy which may be due to deforestation. Developed by the University of Maryland’s Global Land Analysis and Discovery laboratory, the system relies on NASA’s Landsat satellite imageries and is mainly designed to provide law enforcement authorities, local communities, and the like near-real-time alerts of potential deforestation activity. An interactive map showcasing the alerts is available on Global Forest Watch.

A recent study by Maffette et al. (2021) has shown that the benefit GLAD has brought extends beyond its primary role as an alert system. The study, which analysed deforestation rates across 22 nations between 2011 and 2018—the last five years before and two years after GLAD was launched—indicated that GLAD has resulted in carbon sequestration benefits worth hundreds of millions of dollars in just the first two years of its use; in Africa alone, it is estimated that the social cost of carbon for avoided deforestation, i.e., the measure of economic harm due to carbon dioxide emissions, was worth between USD149-696 million within that same time period. Interestingly, according to Moffette:

“We think that we see an effect mainly in Africa due to two main reasons. One is because GLAD added more to efforts in Africa than on other continents, in the sense that there was already some evidence of countries using monitoring systems in countries like Indonesia and Peru. And Colombia and Venezuela, which are a large part of our sample, had significant political unrest during this period.”

SCMP: Improved Public Relations a Must in Malaysia's Defence of Palm Oil

Malaysia’s defence of palm oil against the EU continues, with the former’s more recent move being filing an official complaint with the World Trade Organisation (WTO) on grounds that the EU anti-palm oil campaign is in violation of WTO rules. SCMP, however, reports that experts believe Malaysia needs to improve its public relations in order to succeed in its complaint and its defence of palm oil in general. One of the interviewed experts is Segi Enam principal, Khor Yu Leng, who was quoted as below:

Khor Yu Leng, a political economist at Segi Enam Advisors, said the EU’s issues with the use of palm oil – including allegations of labour abuse within the industry, concerns over deforestation and other systemic risks – have threatened its future as a sustainable product.

“These issues need to be addressed with convincing evidence that this is of low incidence and there is an improvement plan,” she said.

“On the supply side, there has been a chronic shortage of labour in Malaysia over the years that has meant less than optimal operations and production,” she said, adding that the problems point to questions over “how the Malaysian authorities can address systemic labour market problems.”

“Flat denials from the authorities regarding deforestation or other oversights and no data transparency is a contrast to how commodity producers are nowadays aiming to charm their customers – the countries we export to,” she said.

“The other thing is to consider whether it serves palm oil‘s interest to be in the limelight too much. Being criticised on social media for poor human rights records is just not a good place to be,” she said, referring to the avalanche of bad publicity Malaysia received when the US slapped bans on the country’s top palm oil plantations.

US Agriculture Exports: Day 3 Highlights on Trade Deals, Weather, and Aquafeed

Day 3 of the AG Supply Chain Asia 2021 conference moved on to policy, economics, and weather factors relevant to the US grain industry. There were some interesting news and updates on these fronts, including ongoing evaluation of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) by the new Biden administration, expectations that the USD80 billion of farm purchases by China will push up US produce prices, and predictions of La Nina dissipating in the first month of spring in North America, resulting in sudden spells of precipitation to the region.

Source: Garriss (2021)

Interestingly, the third day of the conference also included presentation on aquaculture and aquafeed, particularly shrimp. It gave several interesting insights into the industry, such as projections of the aquaculture supply chain are also discussed, such as declining live marine fish processing, forcing players to look for ways that would allow them to keep their produce over a much longer period of time. Notably, however, the presentation emphasised on the sustainability of aquaculture practices, particularly that of unused feed, i.e., uneaten feed and feed passed into faeces, discharging into lakes and destroying the quality of water, and offered a distiller’s dried grain with soluble (DDGS) as a possible alternative to the usual soybean meal and wheat flour fed to shrimps.

US Agriculture Exports: Day 2 Highlights on Supply and Logistics

The 3rd Agricultural Supply Chain 2021 has just ended its three-day run covering a wide range of topics surrounding the US grain and corn industry, and supplemented with discussions from agricultural and trade experts.

Day 2 of the conference focused primarily on the US and global agribusiness supply chain. Unsurprisingly, one subject matter of interest is how the Covid-19 pandemic has affected the industry. Production-wise, the pandemic has resulted in a significant loss of more than USD 4.7 billion between January and June 2020 for US soybean farmers and crushers, although projections have suggested much more optimistic conditions for crushers in 2021, with positive projections including strong demand for soybean meal productions and protein-based products.

Source: National Oilseed Processors Association (2021)

From a logistics and transportation viewpoint, one expert discussed the undergoing changes in the transportation network of the food supply chain in general as the world adapts to the “new normal” resulting from the Covid-19 pandemic.

Source: IHS Markit (2021)

Again, discussions on the impact of the coronavirus outbreak on the agribusiness supply chain is timely. News is surfacing about shipping carriers rejecting an estimated 177,938 containers of US agricultural products during October and November 2020, preferring allegedly more profitable Chinese exports instead. This occurred during a peak season for agricultural products, following the harvest of crops, and according to port trade data, has resulted in a loss of USD632 million from the Port of New York and New Jersey alone. US exporters have been petitioning the Federal Maritime Commission, warning that the delays from these refusals are undermining industry reputation and threatening profits.

Rising Soybean Demand in China Threatens Oil Palm

We are currently attending the 3rd Agricultural Supply Chain Asia 2021, a three-day conference organised by the US Soybean Export Council and US Grains Council, aiming to provide the latest updates on corn and soybean sectors.

Source: Bloomberg, 2021

The conference is timely, given the recent market development in the soybean industry. China’s palm oil imports are expected to dip following large amounts of soybean purchases recently made. As palm oil’s top contender, and the primary source of animal feed, the major Chinese importers are, according to Bloomberg, “scooping up unprecedented quantities of soybeans and corn on world markets to feed domestic hog herds that are rebounding after being devastated by the African swine fever.” Interestingly, there have been a resurgence of the African swine fever (as well as a new strain of the virus), expectations are that a possible outbreak would not be as deadly as that in 2019.

Accordingly, soy stocks in the US and other key origins, are forecasted at lows. But traders point out that world stocks have shifted to South America in the last few years (and the US operates on tighter stocks due to higher logistics costs and seasonal factors), so the world stock-to-use ratio may not be so bad (see DTn graph at the bottom ). The question now is how this would affect the palm oil trade, especially in light of the improving weather conditions in Brazil and Argentina over the past two weeks.

By Nadirah SHARIF, 26 Nov 2021

Editor: This reminds of our chat with some traders about the Malaysia palm oil stocks situation. While these were reported at multi-year lows, some pointed out that tanks were surprisingly full. Are well monitored stocks figures getting less reliable and/or representative? Commodity reporters have in recent years noted that the Malaysia MPOB (official count) stocks are perceived as less reliable. For Malaysia it is worth asking if more tank farms ended up in customs free zones. For palm oil, there is also attention on (mostly unofficial) estimates of stocks for Indonesia, China and India.

Farmed Seafood Versus Wild-caught: Environmental Impacts & Sustainability

In this article, we will be looking at the environmental impacts of aquaculture, and how they compare to the impacts of conventional fishing. In case you haven’t read the previous article, I answered some common questions people have when it comes to aquaculture as a source of our fish. Aquaculture for those unfamiliar with the term is essentially the commercial farming of fish and other marine organisms for consumption. 

Is aquaculture actually sustainable and/or environmentally friendly? How does it compare with conventional fishing practices? Well, let’s dive into it!

Environmental Impacts and Sustainability of Aquaculture

Simply put, aquaculture has negative environmental impacts if not properly carried out. But these problems can be and have been minimised with proper practices, and in some cases even result in positive environmental impacts. 

Aquaculture ponds in the Northern Territory of Australia (CSPIRO/The Fish Site, 2020).

Brackish water fish farming in Malaysia (Hatchery International, 2019).

One core problem is the organic waste and uneaten feed which contain nitrates and phosphorus. In high density aquaculture farms, these are concentrated in one place when the farms are not located in moving currents or if the waste is not treated (Wu, 1995). This impacts water quality in that area, and could result in eutrophication (Chislock and Doster, 2013). Poor water quality has knock-on effects on the health of the fish, as it can irritate their gills or cause other health problems and diseases (Mannan et al., 2012). Eutrophication is the increased growth of algae from extra nutrients in the organic waste. This can be extremely detrimental for the ecosystem as it results in oxygen deprivation and the formation of dead-zones of low or no oxygen (Chislock and Doster, 2013); and the ecosystem may collapse. In this day and age, aquaculture farms are mostly set up in the right areas to prevent things like this from happening and work to treat waste adequately, but there are still cases where this could happen. 

One of aquaculture’s positive environmental features is its high resource efficiency in producing protein. It has a much lower feed conversion ratio, which means the amount of feed required to produce the same amount of protein is much lower for fish and shrimp compared to other proteins (Tacon and Metian, 2008); it takes less feed to produce a kilogram of fish than other meat. This is very sustainable as less feed crops need to be grown, potentially reducing cropland pressure. A whopping 36% of the world's cropland is used for animal feed (Cassidy et al., 2013). Food security could get a boost combining fish protein with land available for food crops. 

Besides that, another positive environmental impact is that the farming of seaweed and bivalves are beneficial to water quality (Buck et al., 2017). Bivalves are filter-feeding shellfish and are a type of extractive aquaculture, given this name due to their feeding habits extracting nutrients from the water (Buck et al., 2017). This prevents the aforementioned nutrient build-up from the farming of other fish species. They are sometimes farmed alongside other fish species to help combat the issue in a farming method called integrated multi-trophic aquaculture systems (Correia et al., 2020)! Think of this as an improved farm ecosystem. Species within the same trophic level share the same function in the food chain. Essentially you have both fish and shellfish on your aquaculture farm, where fish are in a higher trophic level while shellfish are on a lower trophic level, each playing a different key role in the system.

In terms of sustainability, aquaculture could improve the sustainability of wild fish stocks obviously. If we are farming more fish, we eat and demand less wild fish, therefore there should be less pressure on wild fish stocks . (If you have any questions about farmed fish vs wild fish, check out the previous article in this two-part series, where I look into common questions you may have about aquaculture.) The table below displays the most commonly caught endangered wild-fish species, which a conscious consumer might avoid. For example, tuna is the most popular wild-caught fish in the world, with about 4.6 million metric tonnes caught in 2018 (FAO, 2018). Furthermore, WWF points out that with population pressure, and 3 billion people already relying on seafood as a main source of food, aquaculture can help keep up with increasing demand without further pressure on the wild fish stocks (WWF, 2020a).

Sources: WWF (2020b), FAO (2017; 2018), Greenpeace (2020)

Environmental Impacts and Sustainability of Conventional Fishing

Before we get into any of these impacts, we will need to spend a little time on the types of fishing the world carries out. Let me ask you a question. Visualise the first thing that comes to mind when I say the word ‘fishing’.

You probably pictured an angler sitting by a lake leisurely, waiting for the fish to bite. Was I right? What I’ve described is recreational fishing. Unless you are going out to catch endangered species of fish, or on a week-long trip with a strict catch and don’t release policy, the average recreational angler won’t have much impact on fish stocks. The next type of fishing would be small-scale commercial fishing. This would be the ‘nelayan’ (fisherman) you see go out to fish in the coastal communities of Malaysia to make a living for themselves. This doesn’t really have a large impact on the environment or sustainability, as the amount of fish caught is usually in small amounts relative to the heavyweight I'm about to introduce. You probably guessed it, large-scale commercial fishing. This is industrial fishing with large trawlers or boats that are capable of catching and storing large amounts of fish.

Large scale commercial fishing is the problem here. 

This involves a plethora of destructive and unsustainable fishing methods when not regulated (Pauly, 2006). It is NOT sustainable at all if left to its own devices. There is a world where such conventional fishing can be sustainable, but this is a highly unlikely scenario. Unless we regulate it, we face the Tragedy of the Commons. Essentially, firms will continue to exploit the fish stock resource as negative externalities (third-party costs caused by these firms), are not borne by them since no one ‘owns’ the oceans. Thus they continue to reap profit from fishing until there is no more profit to be gained, and overfishing is the norm as the full cost of doing so is not borne by them (Hardin, 1968). 

So what do we mean by sustainable? Sustainable fishing would require a certain sustainable level of fish to be caught annually. This level is called the maximum sustainable yield, which is equal to the level of growth of the fish stocks (Maunder, 2008).

What are the environmental impacts of volume-driven, unsustainable conventional fishing? First, methods such as bottom trawling and drift or gill nets are extremely dangerous to marine ecosystems and their denizens. Let’s take drift nets as an example. These are huge nets that are placed in the water column to catch anything and everything. Marine mammals, larger creatures and other fish species not being targeted end up in these nets as well, and die as bycatch (Lewison et al., 2004). Furthermore, these types of nets usually catch whole schools of fish, not leaving any behind to reproduce (FAO, 2020a). The damage does not stop there. Pieces of fishing gear might be discarded, or are abandoned if damaged or stuck on structures. These are near permanent environmental hazards for marine life, with more than 100,000 dolphins, whales, turtles and seals caught in abandoned gear annually (UNEP, 2018). 

Second, commercial fishing can destroy marine habitats and the seabed. This is an issue commonly associated with bottom-trawling, where large nets are dragged along the seabed to catch bottom-dwelling fish (FAO, 2020b). This completely destroys coral, sponges and other structures used as shelter for marine life. Coral reefs are key nurseries for many species, and damage to them adds to further fish stock decline on top of overfishing (Ecol et al., 2006). Another type of fishing involves dredging for clams in the sea-floor itself. This basically digs up the seabed, churning up sediment that is detrimental to water quality (Todd et al., 2014). This also dislodges worms and microorganisms whose actions are crucial for keeping the seabed habitable and supplied with oxygen (Coleman and Williams, 2002).

To conclude, aquaculture is the future, unless we find a way to reliably regulate the commercial wild-caught fishing industry. Proper regulation is extremely difficult due to the nature of the resource, and it is also hard to enforce on the high seas. A prime example is the super trawlers fishing off the coast of the UK now, as they scramble to exploit the UK's fishing grounds before Brexit happens, even when they are supposed to be regulated under EU regulation (Dalton, 2020). Even when people do care about preventing overfishing, there are also huge issues. In the EU for example, while they supposedly lead the push towards sustainability standards in food chains, only 1% of their marine protected areas out of about 3000 are protected by fishing bans (McVeigh, 2020). This shows us that aquaculture is the more sustainable and environmentally friendly option, and has obvious property rights and responsibilities, along with potentially easier regulation.

I hope this and the previous article has given you some insight into the world of aquaculture. Till next time!

By Robin GOON, Segi Enam intern, 25 Jan 2021 | LinkedIn

Edited by KHOR Yu Leng and Nadirah SHARIF

RCEP: What's the Big Deal?

As Trans-Pacific View author Mercy A. Kuo writes, “RCEP is literally a big deal… RCEP consists of diverse countries—rich and poor, vast and tiny, highly advanced and those just beginning to industrialize”. The signing of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) by the 10 ASEAN nations, China, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand, and Australia on 15th November 2020 does mark a historical moment. One cannot emphasize enough the geopolitical and economic impact this free trade agreement (FTA) would have towards the global economy.

To get started, here are some RCEP facts at the time this was written:  

• While China has existing bilateral trade agreement, RCEP represents their first regional multilateral trade deal.

• RCEP was eight years in the making.

• The trade deal covers 15 countries with a population of 2.2 billion people with a combined GDP of $26.2 trillion or 30% of global GDP.

• An analysis by the Peterson Institute suggests RCEP would boost global trade by $500 billion in the next ten years (a 1% boost to trade flow?) 

• World income is promised to increase $209 billion annually (or $27 for each of the 7.8 billion people)

• India opted out but are still welcome to join should the South Asian country change its mind.

• Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership is not as comprehensive as the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). 

Source: Heijmans and Nguyen (2020)

Economic significance

RCEP covers 30% of the world’s economic output (GDP), making it the largest free trade area. The signing of RCEP amid a Covid-19 pandemic is not a coincidence or a stroke of luck—the deal was concluded after eight long years of negotiations, a feat considering that the coronavirus has laid waste to economies both local and global.

While the pandemic is expected to result in nations become more inward-looking in their policies, the fruition of RCEP is testament to the contrary. Cross-border investment, intellectual property, goods and services, government procurement, financial services, and e-commerce are just some of the areas that the FTA covers. Specifically, according to Bloomberg, RCEP is meant to eliminate tariffs on imported goods, strengthen the value supply chain with common rules of origin and codify new e-commerce rules (but tariffs are already low).

Furthermore, the US-China trade war has made RCEP indispensable. The tit-for-tat tariff banter between the two superpowers have threatened to upend the value supply chain in the international economy. RCEP is thus a means for East Asian economies to be interdependent among one another without relying on a developed economy like the US, signifying a world order where the US plays a less significant role.

The withdrawal of the US from TPP further suggests that the country at that time had no intentions of forming an FTA with East Asian economies, with the Trump administration adopting a protectionist approach when it comes to foreign economic policies. It is worth noting, however, that the overall sentiment of the US towards China has always been underlined with suspicion, even before Donald Trump became President; this suspicion towards Beijing was merely heightened under the Trump administration and is unlikely to disappear anytime soon. The question now is: will President-elect Joe Biden come to the same decision regarding the RCEP and reconsider joining CPTPP, or will he remain on the fence? 

A JP Morgan report identifies sectors that would benefit from RCEP:

• manufacturing

• electronics

• industrial machinery

• autos

China’s Dual Circulation Strategy

Interestingly, RCEP complements China’s overall economic strategy. As the name suggests, the country’s dual circulation strategy is a two-part plan in effort to become self-sufficient in a time full of economic uncertainty. The strategy is part of China’s 14th five-year plan (2021-2025), with an emphasis on the internal circulation, i.e. stimulating the domestic market, without abandoning the external circulation, i.e. export-oriented development strategy.

It is in the external circulation bit that RCEP complements China’s economic strategy. While developing its domestic market to boost self-sufficiency, China would open the country to more trade relations with other nations. The signing of RCEP laid the foundation as China’s first multilateral FTA. It would simply a matter of time before China would consider joining other more advanced FTAs, such as CPTPP.  

Why is there RCEP when CPTPP exists?

Source: Loh (2020)

TPP was signed under the Obama administration in early February 2016 with a particular goal in mind: to foster economic and geopolitical cooperation among the nations that house the Asia-Pacific region (but it was announced by Hilary Clinton in the Department of State, so that is seen as geopolitical). TPP member countries consisted of the 11 Asia-Pacific nations of CPTPP with the inclusion of the US. However, the following year saw the Trump administration withdrawing the US from the FTA. Following this, TPP reformed itself into CPTPP, with most of the free trade terms still intact.

To reiterate, CPTPP is one of the largest free trade agreements, comprising 13.5% of global GDP centered on Asia-Pacific economic cooperation. Then there is the RCEP, which is arguably the largest FTA, covering 2.2 billion people with a combined GDP of $26.2 trillion.

Concurrently, there are two FTAs that are centered around the economies in the Asia-Pacific region. The questions that arise are: (1) why are there two FTAs; and (2) what separates them apart? To answer the latter, one includes China and the other does not, although that may soon change. However, a more notable contrast between the two agreements is simply that RCEP is not as comprehensive as the CPTPP when it comes to the terms of trade. CPTPP outlines provisions regarding sustainable practices of the environment, labour, human rights, and the need for transparency and freedom of information, which are missing from RCEP.

The fact that there are two FTAs centered around the same region insinuates geopolitics in play by means of who stands to benefit from a multilateral economic expansion and who stands to lose. This would explain some of countries stance on RCEP, particularly the US and India, who may be of the opinion that signing the FTA is not entirely favourable to them. 

Geopolitical significance

The narrative spun by western news outlets would have us believe that RCEP is a China-led initiative, with the sensational headlines such as “Why is China Creating a New Asia-Pacific Trade Pact” circulating the media, creating a misunderstanding especially if the rest of the write-up goes unread. It is worth reiterating here that RCEP is an ASEAN-led initiative and, had it been spearheaded by China, the likeliness of RCEP coming to fruition would be slim.

Nevertheless, China does stand to be the biggest beneficiary of the RCEP, allowing the Asian giant to expand its economic influence over Asia-Pacific. The FTA provides China with the opportunity to create new value supply chains amongst REP member countries, establishing itself as a possible hegemon in a time where US influence is diminishing (although suggesting that the US is no longer the global economic hegemon is a highly contested argument itself).

Interestingly, while RCEP was presented as a step towards multilateralism, sceptics believe otherwise. There is underlying pattern of countries being more confrontational towards China, stemming from the US-China trade war—trade tensions between Australia and China is a notable example. The worry amongst political and economic stakeholders is that countries will become more vocal in expressing their dissatisfaction against China in matters of world affairs, creating tension among RCEP member countries and potentially compromising the FTA. 

The future of RCEP?

Now that RCEP is signed, the implementation of the FTA shall only take place once it is ratified by each participating country, a process that may take years. There are still uncertainties regarding the agreement and the effect it will have in the Asia-Pacific region and its Western allies. The uncertainties stem from the future of trade amidst the backdrop of an ongoing pandemic and how RCEP will evolve to cater to unforeseeable changes, including the likelihood of India re-joining, the US position in this new global economic order, and future of trade multilateralism as a whole. 

As with any multilateral trade agreement, there will be winners and losers, so the real question here is: are the countries ready to shoulder the burden of the losers? Only with the unravelling of time would we see these questions being answered.

By Cyrene PERERA, Segi Enam intern, 14 Jan 2021 | LinkedIn

Edited by KHOR Yu Leng and Nadirah SHARIF

Wilmar International: Suppliers and Deforestation

Various NGOs have investigated and challenged the inclusion of mill suppliers who deforest; and there is controversy over suspending or engaging with errant suppliers. Wilmar says to avoid suspension contributing to “a growing leakage market” or negatively impacting oil palm smallholders, post-suspension engagement is crucial... to assist suppliers in bringing their operations to compliance.” Its “Suspend then Engage” grievance approach took effect in January 2019.

For human rights complaints, a supplier must take steps “to address the grievance with regard to the development and implementation of the time bound action plan which includes corrective actions, remediation actions and actions to demonstrate systemic and group-wide change.”

Under its “Re-engagement Protocol”, Wilmar may resume sourcing from suppliers suspended for deforestation and/or peatland development if re-entry criteria (specifying minimum terms and conditions) are met. An example is the so-called GAMA Group, apparently consolidated under KPN Plantation (and associated with Martua Sitorus, a Wilmar founder). Its recovery plan interventions centers on "social recovery, specifically supporting the development of hutan desa (community social forestry) programmes in the area to support community empowerment and improving livelihoods. The recovery plans also consider landscape recovery where feasible, such as creating wildlife corridors."

According to ‘Wilmar’s Supplier Monitoring Programme’ of Sep 2018 (the latest report, accessed 10 Dec 2020):

1. Suppliers report their current compliance to Wilmar’s NDPE policy via Its online self-reporting system and there is follow-up verification for 10% of mills. The verification programme included satellite monitoring of 11 million hectares and 500 mills by Sep 2018.

2. “16 suppliers (were suspended) at a group level, as they failed to convincingly improve their policies and/or actions, supply chain exclusion at a group level has been imposed,” and for Indonesia a million tonnes worth of supply has been suspended while about 1.2 million tonnes was under ongoing engagement. The total under complaint (suspension and engagement status) was 3 million tonnes of supply (including Malaysia and rest of the world). This tonnage under complaint is about 12% of Wilmar’s 25 million annual tonnes of palm products handled in 2019.  The Indonesia complaints seen by Wilmar relate to about 5% of Indonesia’s palm oil production of about 43 million tonnes per year; and they likely appear as complaints for other Indonesia-based trader-processors too. 

Editor’s note: Interestingly, Wilmar exited from the High Carbon Stock Approach in April 2020, citing governance and financial issues. The company, however, insisted that it “firmly committed to the adoption and implementation of the HCSA toolkit”. Wilmar’s press statement on its exit can be read here.

Aquaculture: Common Questions

What do tilapia, shrimp and cockles have in common?

They are all key products of the aquaculture industry in Malaysia (FAO, 2020a). But what exactly is aquaculture? Aquaculture is farming, but with fish or other delectable aquatic organisms intended for human consumption. This practice has become increasingly common globally, and now makes up about 54% of the world’s fishery production (FAO, 2018). In Malaysia, aquaculture makes up a substantial 21% of our fishery production (DOSM, 2019). When it comes to aquaculture here, it is commonly split into two types; freshwater and brackishwater aquaculture. Freshwater aquaculture, as the name suggests, is the breeding and raising of aquatic animals such as tilapia, catfish and carp in freshwater lakes, ponds, rivers or even reservoirs for economic purposes (Li and Liu, 2019). Brackishwater aquaculture, on the other hand, is the dominant aquaculture in Malaysia, making up about 70% of our aquaculture production, where it is the breeding of mainly bivalve molluscs like cockles and clams in waters that have a salinity fluctuating between 0.5% to full strength salinity (FAO, 2020b). These conditions can be commonly found in estuaries, bays and lagoons.

Now that we have the introduction out of the way, lets address some common questions people might have when it comes to aquaculture.

Is wild caught fish really better than farmed fish?

This is a question that stems from what I have heard come up countless times in conversations about wild vs farmed fish among family and friends, as well as in studies (Verbeke et al., 2007). There is this assumption by the general public that wild fish seem to have the edge over farmed fish when it comes to quality. Well luckily for you, I'm here to do the research and answer this question once and for all.

The answer: There really isn’t much difference from a nutritional standpoint. In fact, farmed fish has the potential to be more beneficial than wild fish. Some studies have shown that because farmed fish can be controlled in terms of diet and water quality, this could result in fish with lower levels of potentially toxic heavy metals, compared to their wild counterparts (Cahu et al, 2004). While it is true that farmed fish in some cases can have higher fat content than wild fish, this can be easily tweaked through the composition of the fish feed used, as well as the size of the fish enclosures (Nettleton and Exler, 1992; Cahu et al, 2004). 

But what about the antibiotics?

Another common question involving farmed fish is the fear of antibiotics and other artificial substances that may be used on farmed fish affecting us human beings. 

The answer: Yes, this is a potential issue with some farmed fish. The issue stems from the risk of antibiotic resistance. For those who aren’t familiar with this term, antibiotic resistance is when bacteria start to develop resistances to the antibiotics used to destroy them. Antibiotics are commonly used in aquaculture to fight bacterial infections and keep the fish healthy. While fine to use moderately, antibiotics are sometimes overused by the farmers, which then leads to antibiotic resistance issues. Residues of the antibiotics tend to stay in the fish when overused, which is then passed on to us humans when we then eat the fish (Miranda et al., 2018). This could then result in bacteria in our body developing resistances to antibiotics. It is important to note however, that this is still a relatively new field of research. There are limited studies done on the long term effects of antibiotic residues, as well as just how impactful it is on human health (Chen et al., 2020). It can only get better over the next few decades, as it will take time for more scientific studies to be carried out to determine the right doses of antibiotics and alternative methods to combating bacterial infection in aquaculture (Chen et al., 2020).

Does aquaculture hurt the fish or have any negative effects regarding welfare?

Where are the animal rights activists at? This is also a pretty common question when it comes to aquaculture, where people question whether the welfare of the fish is taken care of.

The answer: It would probably be no surprise to you that aquaculture does have negative effects on fish welfare, given that they are commonly reared in enclosures that are smaller than the size of an ocean or river. Generally, issues such as the handling and manipulation of fish, malformation and inducing reproduction all commonly affect aquaculture fish (Saraiva et al., 2019). However, most studies on fish welfare are usually limited to several popular aquaculture species, and a lot more research needs to be done in order to better understand both the physiological and behavioural measures we have to account for to maintain good fish welfare in the farms (Ashley, 2007).

Why support aquaculture?

So you’re telling me that I should buy farmed fish and support aquaculture even when you have just pointed out some of its issues?

Well, like any food source, there will always be pros and cons. I could also write an article on how wild caught fish could potentially be just as harmful, if not more harmful to our health (maybe I will). Arguably, the welfare of wild fish isn’t doing so well either, with severe overfishing plaguing the high seas. The reasons why aquaculture has been painted in this slightly negative light mainly stem from media portrayal, as well as a lack of knowledge among the public on aquaculture (Froehlich et al., 2017). Furthermore, a relatively new technique of procuring fish, when compared to the practice of catching wild fish for thousands of years is bound to have some initial wrinkles that need to be ironed out. Only through continuing to support the transition to more aquaculture based fish production can we move forwards. 

Let’s not forget the main reason aquaculture is being pushed in the first place. Overfishing has left global wild fish stocks dangerously low, and we need alternative food supplies. This is not an environmentalist push to protect wild fish stocks for the sake of preserving nature. The world population is growing every day. With about three billion people in communities around the world reliant on seafood as the main source of food, dwindling fish stocks are a pressing food security issue (WWF, 2020). Aquaculture is looking to be the perfect solution to the problem, we just need to refine it.

Aquaculture production has surpassed wild catch since 2012, with an average person now consuming almost double the amount of seafood compared to the past 50 years (Ritchie, 2019).

I hope this article has given you some insight into the aquaculture scene, and gotten you hooked! Stay tuned for the next article on the environmental impacts of aquaculture, and how they compare to the impacts of conventional fishing.

By Robin GOON, Segi Enam intern, 10 Dec 2020 | LinkedIn

Edited by Nadirah SHARIF

Meat Alternatives in China: Beyond Pork vs Tofu?

Last Wednesday, Beyond Meat introduced a new product to the Chinese markets: meatless minced pork. Dubbed the "Beyond Pork”, the plant-based alternative is available at five restaurants in Shanghai for a limited time, with Beyond Meat China general manager Candy Chan stating that it is the company’s “first plant-based meat product created specifically for the Chinese market”.

Source: Fickling, 2020

This is not, however, the first time Chinese consumers are offered pork substitutes. Companies such as OmniFoods and Whole Perfect Food have already been offering consumers their take on plant-based pork products before the official introduction of Beyond Pork in China. And while Beyond Pork will continue to compete with more rival products as the meatless industry continues to expand, it may have a much more contender with an existing dominant role in Chinese cuisine since the ancient times: tofu. Used extensively in imitation poultry dishes, tofu comprise 1/5 of a typical Shanghainese’s diet; this trend, according to Bloomberg Opinion columnist David Fickling, remains unchanged since several decades ago. While the introduction of the Beyond Pork is welcome, it may be interesting to see how it fares in a country that has already had its own meat alternative hundreds of years ago.

Source: Fickling, 2020