The development of Brazilian aquaculture: Introduced and native species

ABSTRACT

Brazil’s aquaculture production has increased rapidly during the last two decades, growing from basically zero in the 1980s to over one half million (metric) tons in 2011. However, with an increased focus on the domestic market and native species, the development in Brazil has been very different from most other successful aquaculture producers, particularly in Latin America. As in many other countries, the development started with introduced international species such as shrimp and tilapia in a typical developing country fashion, but has shifted to an increasing share of native species and focus on the domestic market. This article analyzes the main aspects concerning this development by the relative productivity of the main species, regulations and markets. Regulations and the technology spreading from international species may be considered as important factors for this somewhat unusual development. The future prospects for the Brazilian aquaculture industry development are positive, since there is not only space available for expansion for both exotic and native species, but also an untapped domestic market.

KEYWORDS:

• Aquaculture productivity
• aquaculture regulations
• exotic species
• native species
• production share

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Professor Trond Bjørndal for valuable input.

Notes

See e.g., Tveterås (2015) for a discussion of Honduras and Peru.

Seafood trade has increased rapidly in recent decades, and appears to be a cash crop for many developing countries (Asche, Bellemare, Roheim, Smith, & Tveteras, 2015).

The methodology used by the government to estimate the Brazilian aquaculture production is under review according to Kubitza (2015). However, based on the estimation provided by Kubitza (2015) for the 2011 and 2014, the authors believe that the Brazilian farmed species production shares did not change significantly.

Diseases have at different times also substantially influenced production of other species in South America such as shrimp in Ecuador and salmon in Chile (Asche, Hansen, Tveteras, & Tveteras, 2009).

It is also worthwhile to notice that the development of aquaculture is mostly undertaken by private investment (Madrid, 2005), and obtaining credit for aquaculture is difficult not only because of environmental issues, but also due to the farm areas remain governmental domain, i.e., public areas regulated by the government, so sites cannot be used as collateral for credit (Frota, 2005). Barroso et al. (2015) cite the license as one of the reasons for the delay in receipt of credit capital.

Apicuns are supratidal hypersaline areas associated with mangroves ecosystem (Forest code, Law No. 12,727 of 2012).

Feed price is likely to be a continuing challenge as the fishmeal market is volatile (Asche, Oglend, & Tveteras, 2013), and other feeds are becoming more expensive (Tveterås et al., 2012).

Despite the fact that, in recently years, the northeast and southeast regions have been suffering from water crises, which has locally limited the production and use of reservoirs, particularly for tilapia production (Barroso et al., 2015).

Prices are likely to be volatile as seafood and food prices are highly volatile in general (Dahl & Oglend, 2014; Asche, Dahl, & Steen, 2015).

The influence of regulations on the aquaculture growth have been discussed in several articles (Asche et al., 2003; Engle & Stone, 2013; Kite-Powell et al., 2013; Dresdner & Estay, 2016). In general, comprehensive, but streamlined regulation, as in Norway, influences growth positively, while cumbersome regulations, such as in USA seems to restrict growth. Loose environmental regulation may give some competitive advantage in the international market, but it can also make the industry more vulnerable to diseases outbreaks, as in Chile.