Protest WWF's Shrimp Standards

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE GENERAL STEERING COMMITTEE OF THE

WWF SHRIMP AQUACULTURE DIALOGUE

4th May, 2011

Dear ShAD/GSC members,

After careful and considered reflection on the draft standards and the whole WWF-ShAD (Shrimp Aquaculture Dialogue) process, we the undersigned Conscientious Objectors -- NGOs working with local communities in the shrimp producer-nations and consumers in the shrimp-importing nations -- have unanimously decided that we cannot support the ShAD General Steering Committee (ShAD/GSC) and the Aquaculture Stewardship Council%u2019s (ASC) intentions or actions towards establishing standards for shrimp aquaculture certification. Many others who have added their names and organizational affiliations to our list have also joined us in our protest.

We must therefore continue our course to speak out publicly and campaign against the intent and the process that WWF-ShAD has endeavoured to undertake. The historical record and scientific evidence both indicate that certification will do much harm to both Local Resource Users and the coastal marine environment. The following reasons stand out among many others as indicators that we COs must continue to strongly oppose the ShAD process and the intended ASC and organize a wider resistance against ShAD and other shrimp certification schemes in both Europe and the USA:

1.       There has never been involvement nor representation in WWF-ShAD%u2019s so-called dialogue process for the majority of stakeholders or, more aptly, the Local Resource Users who are adversely affected by the shrimp industry in producer nations. ShAD%u2019s %u201Cstakeholders%u201D are overwhelmingly those invested in the growth of the shrimp-export industry.

2.       With each revision to the draft, the standards and their evaluation criteria have been progressively and deliberately diluted by the GSC to ensure that at least 20% of the existing shrimp industry can be certified immediately after the Standards are released. The process clearly demonstrates the bias of the ShAD/GSC.

3.       The ShAD/GSC has resolutely refrained from undertaking or commissioning serious research to collect meaningful and verifiable inputs and feedback from Local Resource Users in the manner prescribed by The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB).

4.       The GSC process for selecting its board members has not been fair from the beginning and is not representative of a transparent and democratic process. As such, the standards overwhelmingly represent industry interests -- for example: the whole of Africa is %u201Crepresented%u201D on the ShAD/GSC by shrimp industry nominees from Madagascar.

5.       Continued lack of proper legislation and enforcement in producer-nations makes adherence to any certification standard unfeasible.

6.       ShAD puts too much trust in the industry to monitor and regulate itself. The certification programme depends upon an untried and untested auditing system. Other critical aspects of the process too require a %u201Cleap of faith%u201D -- that previously disastrous practices will miraculously reverse their effects once the ShAD standards are released.

7.       The ShAD standards continue to perpetuate unsustainable and destructive open-throughput systems of aquaculture -- with a legacy of 400,000 hectares (and counting) of abandoned ponds in producer-nations.

The standards also promote bad practices relating to so-called %u201Cmitigation of the effects of mangrove loss%u201D.

8.       The process conveniently ignores wide-spread community displacement, human rights violations and environmental damage to many thousands of hectares of land by the shrimp industry prior to 1999. Under the present standards, ponds in these regions could be certified. Trends indicate that they will. The ASC becomes, therefore, a confessional for the shrimp industry and will grant indulgences in the form of certification.

9.       Export-oriented tropical shrimp production does not contribute towards food security. Food security should not be measured by the weight of export-production or the profit-curve of the industry, but instead by the availability of healthy and sustainable means of local food production for local consumption.

10.    There remains the great risk that WWF-ShAD certification, by placing a green stamp on tropical shrimp, will actually expand the demand for farmed tropical shrimp -- both certified and uncertified -- thus promoting the continued (and possibly more rapid) expansion of unsustainable practices.

11.    Feed issues are still not satisfactorily resolved and there is still no effective plan to meet increasing feed demands. The projected reliance on GM soy and palm oil is of great concern.

12.    The COs had requested a breakdown of development time spent by ShAD in developing their social, environment and technical standards. We have not received this, yet.

13.    ShAD/GSC and their offspring in the ASC have still not taken any direct and effective actions to influence consumers in the importing nations to reduce shrimp consumption -- extremely pertinent to the intent and purposes to any attempt at designing a certification program for shrimp.

We reiterate our demands that shrimp farming should not be located within the inter-tidal zone; it should not be allowed to affect productive agricultural lands, or displace members of local communities.

The final draft standards represent an extremely crude attempt at setting up %u201Cstandards%u201D. The process demonstrates a lack of careful thought and consideration of ground realities and concern for Local Resource Users -- people who will suffer the consequences of WWF-ShAD%u2019s actions.

The GSC%u2019s position that the standards will be released regardless of their merit and consequences leaves little scope for further dialogue.

As such, we the undersigned Conscientious Objectors reject the WWF-ShAD process and its shrimp aquaculture standards.

We reaffirm our support, as always,

For the mangroves and mangrove communities,

The Conscientious Objectors

Signed by:
%u2022    Pisit Charnsnoh, Yadfon Association, Thailand %u2022    Khushi Kabir, Nijera Kori, Bangladesh %u2022    Riza Damanik, KIARA (Fisheries Justice Coalition), Indonesia %u2022    Alfredo Quarto, Mangrove Action Project %u2022    Maurizio Farhan Ferrari, Forest Peoples Programme, UK %u2022    Natasha Ahmad, ASIA Solidarity against Industrial Aquaculture, India %u2022    Gudrun Hubendick, Stockholm Society for Nature Conservation, Sweden
%u2022    Don Staniford, Global Alliance against Industrial Aquaculture %u2022    Maria Delgado, ECOTERRA Intl. %u2022    Marieke Mutsaers, Trichilia ABC, Netherlands %u2022    Stanislav Lhota, Univ. of South Bohemia & Usti nad Labem Zoo, Czech
Republic
%u2022    Darlene Schanfald, Olympic Environmental Council, Sequim, Washington
%u2022    Paula Palmer, Director Global Response Program/Cultural Survival, Inc., USA
%u2022    Diane Wilson, Calhoun County Resource Watch, USA %u2022    Dr. Wolfram Heise, The JAF Foundation, Switzerland %u2022    Foundation for Deep Ecology, USA %u2022    The Conservation Land Trust, USA, Argentina, Chile %u2022    Conservacion Patagonica, USA, Argentina %u2022    Fundacion Pumalin, USA, Chile %u2022    Douglas and Kristine Tompkins, USA %u2022    Wolfgang Gerster, Germany %u2022    Madhusree Mukerjee, writer, Germany %u2022    Joanna Levitt, International Accountability Project, USA %u2022    Gabriella Zanzanaini, Food & Water, Europe %u2022    Wenonah Hauter, Executive Director, Food & Water Watch, USA %u2022    Nina Holland, Corporate Europe Observatory, Belgium %u2022    DeeVon Quirolo, Co-Founder of Reef Relief, USA %u2022    Guadalupe Rodriguez, Salva la Selva, Spain %u2022    Klaus Schenck, Rettet den Regenwald, Germany %u2022    Be%u0301atrice Gorez, CFFA - CAPE, Belgium %u2022    Anne Petermann, Global Justice Ecology Project, USA %u2022    Mary Bricker-Jenkins, USA-Canada Alliance of Inhabitants (USACAI),
USA %u2022    Robert Jereski, New York Climate Action Group, USA %u2022    Tim Keating, Rainforest Relief, USA
%u2022    Redmanglar Internacional, Latin America %u2022    Jorge Varela, CODDEFFAGOLF, Honduras %u2022    Henderson Colina, AEPA FALCON NGO, Venezuela %u2022    Alianza por los manglares, Litorales, Aguas y Suelos ALMAS
REDMANGLAR, Venezuela %u2022    La Ventana AC de Mexico, Mexico %u2022    Juan Carlos Cardenas, Centro Ecoceanos, Chile %u2022    Juan Manuel Guevara %u2022    Teresa Perez, World Rainforest Movement, Uruguay
%u2022    Rezwana Hasan, Bangaldesh Environmental Lawyers' Association, Bangladesh
%u2022    Hasan Mehedi, Humanitywatch, Bangladesh
%u2022    Shamsul Huda, Association for Land Reform and Development (ALRD), Bangladesh
3
%u2022    Meghnaguha Thakurata, Research Initiatives Bangladesh (RIB), Bangladesh
%u2022    Philip Gain, Society for Environment and Human Development (SEHD), Bangladesh
%u2022    Khorshed Alam, Alternative Movement for Resources and Freedom Society, Bangladesh
%u2022    Ashraf Mohammed, Bangladesh
%u2022    Anti-Debt Coalition (KAU), Indonesia %u2022    Black Tiger Shrimp Farmers' Union (P3UW), Indonesia %u2022    Institute of Global Justice (IGJ), Indonesia %u2022    Berry Nahdian Furqon, Indonesia %u2022    Ruddy Gustave, KONPHALINDO, Indonesia %u2022    Muhammad Reza, Serikat Nelayan Indonesia / Indonesia Fisherfolk
Union, Indonesia
%u2022    Nurhidayat Moenir, Jaringan Kerja Pemetaan Partisipatif (JKPP), Indonesia
%u2022    Geetha Lakmini, Food Sovereignty Network, Sri Lanka %u2022    Herman Kumara, National Fisheries Solidarity Movement, Sri Lanka %u2022    Shamith Roshan, Youth in Action (YinA), Sri Lanka
%u2022    Thomas Kocherry, National Fishworkers' Forum (NFF), India %u2022    Bijaya Kumar Kabi, Action for Protection of Wild Animals, India %u2022    Kunal Deb, Uthnau, India. %u2022    Samir Acharya, Society for Andaman and Nicobar Ecology, India
%u2022    Javier M. Claparols, Ecological Society of the Philippines, IUCN- CEESP, Philippines
%u2022    S.M. Mohamed Idris, Consumers' Association of Penang, Malaysia %u2022    Meenakshi Raman, Sahabat Alam Malaysia (Friends of the Earth
Malaysia), Malaysia %u2022    Chee Yoke Ling, Third World Network, Malaysia
%u2022    Akie Hart, Mangrove Forest Conservation Society of Nigeria %u2022    Tekena Opukunachukwu, Grassroots Coalition for Transparency and Good
Governance, Nigeria
%u2022    Nemi Tammuno, Rural Initiative for Community Empowerment, Nigeria
%u2022    Shedrach Philimon, Rural Communities Development Association, Nigeria
%u2022    Parker Lawson, Economic Empowerment and Environmental Protection Network, Nigeria
%u2022    Ibiwari Hector,Peace and Justice Foundation, Nigeria
%u2022    Henry Folawiyor, Child Rights Initiative, Nigeria
%u2022    Junior Pepple, Bethaisda Environmental Foundation, Nigeria
%u2022    Clifford Opusunju, Positive Change Advocates, Nigeria
%u2022    Nenibarini Zabbey, Centre for Environment, Human Rights and Development (CEHRD), Nigeria
%u2022    Ekindi Moudingo, Cameroon Wildlife Conservation Society, Cameroon %u2022    Edem Edem, African Mangrove Network, Nigeria %u2022    Wally Menne, Timberwatch Coalition, South Africa
%u2022    Rowland Benjamin, Information for Action, Perth, Western Australia
4