15. Water Certification (Pt. 1)

This section will use primarily documentary evidence and some field observations to describe how certifiers approach the issue of water management in their standards. Water is an important component of environmental certification, and different certifiers have different approaches to governing it, however, they maintain a relatively consistent focus on the farm and farmer. All four of the certification systems deal with issues of water, but come with different goals and assumptions which lead to different choices about what governance implements are appropriate. There are different focuses on on-farm water quality versus off-farm impacts of water pollution. Also the certifiers appear to have different degrees of sensitivity and flexibility when dealing with the local material and social context of water use, and different knowledge and expertise requirements. However, they are all similar in focusing on the farmers as the main control point for accomplishing their goals for intervention and change.

Water is also of primary concern to environmental certifiers. The four schemes researched here all included elements related to water quality, and water pollution in a variety of different contexts. The GlobalGAP draft contains at least 11 major criteria related to water management under the headings of Fish Welfare, Environmental Management and Pond Water Quality. The Vietnamese Pangasius Addendum attached to the SQF Standards has 5 very specific water quality criteria, while the Naturland standard has 9 under the headings of Water Pollution Control and System Design. The PAD criteria include 10 directly related to water quality under sections related to governing water use and water pollution. I have summarized the significant ideas from these standards in Table 1.

Among the documents reviewed there was very little description of why these certifiers were interested in water quality, impacts seem to be assumed. There is certainly a lot of international academic literature that highlights the potential negative impact of aquaculture on water resources, and the Vietnamese government has issued basic water quality standards for Pangasius farming. In the course I encountered no literature that actually quantified the impacts in the case of Pangasius aquaculture. This is not to say there are no negative impacts, though there is almost no documentary evidence to support this conclusion. The WWF process began with the circulation of proposed impacts, a list of generic impacts developed from academic literature and fieldworkers’ experience. These proposed impacts were then discussed and modified by stakeholders, including Vietnamese Pangasius farmers, to reach consensus, which resulted in a list particular to Pangasius which included this statement about water:

“The rapid growth of the sector has raised huge concerns among the different stakeholders on the sustainability of pangasius farming and the potential of water pollution and self-pollution of farming operations…”
(WWF 2007)

Perhaps other certifiers followed a similar process to the PAD in defining impacts, but I was not able to determine this. Regardless of process or farming reality though, certifiers have certainly made water pollution one of their targets for improvement in the Pangasius farming industry.

The focus of these four certifiers in regards to issues of water quality varies somewhat, particularly as concerns on-farm water quality versus the impacts of discharged water on surrounding water systems and users. This tension between different ideas is clearly visible in the above quote from WWF where the document drafters mention water pollution and self-pollution. The true costs of poor water quality can be both internal, affecting profitability of the farm operation, and external, affecting the environment surrounding the farm. From the perspective of the value-chain on-farm water quality can affect the health and quality of the fish produced. If a fish grows in poor quality water it can result in poor flesh quality, something of primary concern to processors and fish buyers. On farm water quality is something that can reasonably be included in a standard; however, this factor does not necessarily have a direct affect on the external impacts of an aquaculture operation. It is possible to remediate poor quality water prior to discharging it. It is also equally possible to concentrate the waste nutrients in the water released from a farm. In terms of environmental impact it is the total mass-balance equation of nutrients and contaminants released from a farm. The SQF standard is unclear whether its water quality standards are specific to on-farm water quality or environmental pollution, while the other three standards are quite clear with GlobalGAP and Naturland having elements of both and PAD focusing exclusively on effluents and external environmental impacts. Interestingly the single focus of the PAD standards seems to be in conflict with their earlier statement, but can probably be explained by the involvement of different stakeholders and the year and a half process between formulating the impact statements and the issuing of draft standards. The way in which these certifiers formulate their standards certainly seems to speak to their goals and assumptions. SQF is primarily a food quality standard that has had environmental standards added on afterward. On their website SQF clearly indicates that their environmental module is not to be considered comprehensive, stating:

“This standard is not designed to replace other more extensive programs that apply to assurance of good environmental practice. However, it provides the foundation needed to achieve more rigorous standards.”
(SQFI 2009)

GlobalGAP and Naturland both appear to serve dual purposes. Originally GlobalGAP’s standards focused on almost exclusively on food quality issues but have grown to include environmental impact in their various standards for quite some time. Naturland seems to have been equally interested in both aspects of food quality and environmental impact. On the other hand, PAD clearly orient their interest toward environmental and social sustainability, and appear to maintain that focus in their standards. This difference between food quality and environmental impact standards is very clearly seen in the certifiers’ treatment of water, and is a good example of how certifiers make choices to define the focus of their intervention, dependent on their goals and assumptions.