Press Release Index

February, 1997

Shrimps That Grew Into Monsters


By Someshwar Singh

Gland, SWITZERLAND: After a two-year investigation into widespread environmental destruction caused by shrimp farms in the coastal regions of India, a landmark judgement of the Indian Supreme Court has ordered the closure by 15 April this year of most farms and hatcheries along the coast.

This is not the first time the highest court in the land has intervened in an environmental matter. It was instrumental in saving the Taj Mahal, a World Heritage site, from excessive pollution. But the shrimp judgement is a remarkable one because it rules that India's coastal ecosystems must be protected even if that means forgoing almost US$1 billion in exports.

India is now producing about 70,000 tonnes of shrimps per year through aquaculture. There were plans to raise it to 200,000 tonnes by the year 2000. But the court has decided in favour of a cardinal principle of environmental protection the sustainable management and exploitation of natural resources.

"The judgement is a very positive development," says Dr Biksham Gujja, Manager of WWF-World Wide Fund For Nature International's Freshwater Programme. "This judgement will, hopefully, stop further degradation of coastal ecology and loss to the local people."

While many farmers have sold coastal land to shrimp producers, others have been affected by increasing salinity in their soils and denied access to both fresh water sources and the sea.

The Indian Supreme Court considered research by, among others, WWF and the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI). The Institute noting loss of casuarine forests, potable water, fishing income, and mangroves reached the conclusion that the cost of the damage was greater than the earnings from the sale of coastal aquaculture produce.

"The judgement will also send the right signal to the transnational corporations that have invested millions in the industry, as well as to the World Bank which is instrumental in promoting the shrimp industry through a US$300 million loan," adds Dr Gujja.

The court learned that, in addition to the hardships of farmers and fisherfolk which have led to public protests in some areas, the research institute's report had noted increases in skin, eye, and waterborne diseases among populations near the shrimp farms due to pollution.

Moreover, the indiscriminate destruction of mangrove areas near creeks, estuaries, and the sea has resulted in the loss of natural breeding grounds for shrimps. Elsewhere, the conversion of land to aquaculture is threatening river deltas, natural saltwater canals, and coastal villages.

The court order, addressing social and economic issues as well as environmental concerns, directed:

  • Closure of all shrimp farms, including hatcheries, within 500 metres of the high tide zone

  • No shrimp farms be allowed within 1,000 metres of important wetlands, several of which are Ramsar sites, like Chilka lake

  • Governments to constitute an Authority which will assess the damage caused by the industry to the environment and community and recover compensation based on the "polluter pays" principle

  • State governments to demolish existing shrimp farms by 15 April 1997, and report to the court on compliance

  • Conversion of agricultural lands for shrimp farming to be banned

  • Payment of compensation to farmers and workers in the shrimp industry.

In future, shrimp farms will have to pass strict environmental tests before they can be installed in the fragile coastal areas, with a powerful authority closely scrutinising every case.

All this means the shrimp industry can no longer justify its indiscriminate activities on the argument that its foreign exchange earnings entitle it to special treatment.

The Supreme Court has taken note of the fact that "even if some of the shrimp culture farms which are polluting the environment are closed, the production of shrimp by environmentally friendly techniques would not be affected and there may not be any loss to the economy".

While criticising the modern, intensive shrimp farming the Court noted that under the traditional rice/shrimp rotation aquaculture system, rice was grown during part of the year and shrimp and other fish were produced during the remainder. That system produced 140 kg of shrimp per hectare, as against the thousands of kilograms provided by intensive methods but earnings were not offset by overwhelming environmental costs.

The Indian judgement is likely to be studied closely by other countries, particularly Malaysia and Thailand. Eighty per cent of the world trade in farmed shrimps comes from Asian countries, many of which have been competing to provide concessions to the industry to boost export earnings. Taken into consideration of the price of the resulting environmental damage, however, could well lead to a change of strategy. In Malaysia, for instance, a rethink is reported to be underway already. (Ends 790 words)

*Someshwar Singh is a Press Officer with WWF International in Gland, Switzerland