Politics, science and shrimp farming – whose ‘objectivity’ counts?

Shrimp farming is a major industry in many developing countries, providing important foreign exchange and offering potential for economic development, particularly in rural areas. However, since the early 1990s, researchers, activists and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) have been protesting about its environmental and social impacts.

There are two main views about shrimp aquaculture: the Political Ecology (PE) argument and the Best Management Practices (BMP) argument. Recent research funded by the European Union examines how these contrasting views have influenced national and international policies during the last 20 years.

The PE argument is concerned with negative impacts of shrimp farming, including mangrove destruction, pollution and social conflict. Protesters had some successes in the 1990’s, causing national governments, international organisations and funding agencies to stop funding shrimp farm development, for example in India, Costa Rica and Thailand.

In response, the shrimp farming industry, scientists and engineers developed the BMP approach, aiming to solve the problems of shrimp farming through technical solutions. Since early 2000, the BMP position has overtaken the PE approach and now seems widely accepted by policymakers and international development agencies.

Several factors have influenced this shift towards BMP:

• BMP supporters agree on policy aims so they can focus on developing technical solutions. In contrast, PE is represented by a diverse group of NGOs, researchers, environmentalists and social activists. Disagreement between these groups has undermined their arguments.
• The language used by BMP proponents has excluded PE advocates by focusing on technical issues of pond management, while presenting PE as unscientific, negative and unwilling to work towards solutions.
• BMP supporters ignore many arguments about negative social impacts because they perceive such evidence as non-scientific.
• BMP supporters have presented studies that assert that large-scale industry is not implicated in the destruction of mangroves, which was one of the central arguments of the PE.

BMP proponents have managed to shift the debate towards technical issues because their scientific expertise is difficult to challenge and their solutions are relatively simple. They have reduced shrimp farming to a technical, non-political, issue and reformed it as a scientific challenge, sidelining PE as lacking evidence and unwilling to find solutions.

This has a number of policy implications:

• BMP policies essentially support large-scale shrimp farming industries, which support the PE argument that policies are made by exclusive powerful groups, often against the interests of small-scale producers and local communities.
• Neither side is objective. Scientists and technicians look for technical solutions to certain solvable problems; some of them have an interest in supporting the industry because their jobs depend on it. PE groups may overemphasise negative impacts to gain public attention. Recognising this is vital for producing effective policies.
• BMP focus on farm-level solutions, overlooking the interactions with other activities such as agriculture or fisheries. While they can reduce environmental impacts on individual farms, policies must be more cross-sectoral, integrated and wide-reaching.
• Implementing BMP technologies usually requires capital and high technical skills, which may not be economically or institutionally viable for many shrimp farmers, particularly small-scale farmers in developing countries. Presenting BMP as the single solution to the shrimp farming issue can be misleading.

Source(s):
‘The Good, the Bad and the Ugly: Discourse, Policy Controversies and the Role of Science in the Politics of Shrimp Farming Development’ Development Policy Review, 23 (5): 585-614, by Christophe Béné, 2005

Funded by: European Commission (Project INCO-DEV No. IC4-CT-2001-10042)

id21 Research Highlight: 27 January 2006

Further Information:
Christophe Béné
WorldFish Center,
Africa and West Asia Office,
PO Box 1261 Maadi,
Cairo
Egypt

Tel: +202 736 4114
Fax: +202 736 4112
Contact the contributor: c.bene@cgiar.org

WorldFish Center

Other related links:
'Shrimp farming at the cross roads'

'Keys to success in shrimp health management'

'Addressing challenges in co-management information systems'

'Small-scale fishing: a range of livelihood benefits for poor rural people'

One Fish research portal