Introduction

Aquaculture provides high-nutritional-value food for human consumption and has experienced significant growth in recent decades, promoting food security and generating employment and income worldwide, including in the South American region (FAO 2022; Belton et al. 2018; Kumar and Engle 2016). However, this expansion of aquaculture has raised concerns about its environmental sustainability (Belton et al. 2020). According to Boyd and McNevin (2015), environmental impacts and negative consequences are linked to land use, energy consumption, fertilizer usage, fishmeal and fish oil consumption, water pollution, carbon emissions, introduction of exotic species, and impacts on biodiversity. Additionally, it is crucial to consider socioeconomic impacts and conflicts related to space, communities, consumers, and governance (FAO 2011; Marschke and Wilkings 2014; Hai et al. 2018).

In response to the environmental challenges posed by aquaculture, various sustainability initiatives and voluntary private governance mechanisms have emerged, commonly known as certification schemes, standards, or certifications. These mechanisms operate under an innovative market-based approach to promote sustainable production and business practices (UNCTAD 2022; Amundsen and Osmundsen 2020; Prein and Scholz 2014). Certification involves a certification body ensuring that a product, process, or service conforms to specified requirements, resulting in the issuance of a certificate (Pons and Sivardière 2002; OESA 2017). These certification schemes are predominantly managed by private institutions, companies, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), which utilize certification as a governance tool for industrial aquaculture (Bush et al. 2013; Saha 2022).

In addition to certifying environmental or other improvements, certifications offer competitive advantages for companies, such as sustained and enhanced market access, price premiums, product differentiation, preferred supplier status, enhanced reputation, and the potential to attract investments in the social and economic infrastructure of the local community (Amundsen & Osmundsen 2020; Peiró-Signes et al. 2020; Prein and Scholz 2014; Vormedal & Gulbrandsen 2020). Within the business sphere, adopting certification can improve aquaculture production and products (Olsen et al. 2021), enabling product traceability, standardization among global suppliers, and transparency in production processes (Washington & Ababouch 2011). It serves as a mechanism for transferring value, trust, and reward between producers and consumers (Yi 2019). It is noteworthy that alongside the growth of aquaculture in recent decades, there has been an increase in certification schemes with varied criteria (Osmundsen et al. 2020; Rector et al. 2022). The growth of environmental certifications in the aquaculture sector is a topic of interest for companies, institutions, governments, and researchers, as it can be both a competitive weapon and a sustainability tool.

On the other hand, there are barriers to the adoption of certifications, such as certification costs, lack of incentives, governance gaps, and sociopolitical resistance (UNCTAD 2022). Additionally, certification can become a limited approach for large aquaculture producers, increasing entry barriers for small producers (Osmundsen et al. 2020; Brugère et al. 2018; Bush et al. 2013). According to Miret et al. (2014), small businesses need support systems to assist managers with their development needs, while larger companies can afford a team of specialists. Taylor and Kluger (2018) indicate that criticisms are more focused on implementation than on the standards themselves. An evident proof is that they are more dedicated to species consumed in the European Union and USA, and to a lesser extent to Asian markets (Jonell et al. 2013). In this regard, Bush (2018) consider that certification is more likely for vertically integrated aquaculture value chains. It can have positive effects by stimulating new competitive advantages and investments, but it can also conceal underlying intentions to protect national industries and restrict market access (Subasinghe et al. 2009).

Certifications have grown significantly in global aquaculture production, not only in specific environmental sustainability issues but also encompassing social responsibility, animal welfare, and the health or safety of workers (Rector et al. 2022; Saha 2022). According to Naylor et al. (2021), non-governmental organizations and private companies have introduced between 30 and 50 voluntary labeling, certification, and rating systems. According to UNCTAD (2022), there are 56 certification schemes applied in aquaculture. According to Taylor and Kluger (2018), certifications cover a relatively small portion of aquaculture production, and their number has been steadily increasing. It is noteworthy that only 6% of global aquaculture production is certified (Bush et al. 2019). Saha (2022) mentions that various certification schemes compete to convince market actors (suppliers, buyers, retailers, and processors) to distribute seafood products bearing their certification marks.

As we have seen, environmental certifications in aquaculture are playing an increasingly important role globally. This role is beginning to be well studied in developing countries, and various studies focused on Asia are emerging lately, but so far, few studies have been conducted in South America. This research, focusing on Brazilian aquaculture, aims to identify and characterize certified aquaculture companies in Brazil, while also seeking to identify, through the opinions of aquaculture managers themselves, the drivers justifying certification and the barriers that hinder or impede it.

With this objective, the need to study the implementation of sustainability certificates in South American aquaculture in general, and Brazilian aquaculture in particular, has been raised; in the following section, we analyze the specific characteristics of Brazilian aquaculture with a particular emphasis on its environmental impacts. Next, we present the methodology employed, which will be based on a questionnaire of closed-ended questions. In the subsequent sections, the results are presented and discussed, concluding with key findings.

Aquaculture in Brazil: production, marketing, and environmental impact

Brazil is a country of continental dimensions, with a vast territorial expanse of 8.5 million km2, an extensive coastline of 8698 km, and a population exceeding 203 million people. It boasts multiple bodies of water and aquatic resources and favorable climates across its five geographical regions of the north, northeast, midwest, southeast, and south, among other special characteristics that may allow for further aquaculture development (IBGE 2013, 2023b; Valenti et al. 2021). The main species in Brazilian aquaculture are tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus), with a turnover of 679.6 million US dollars; white shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei), with a turnover of 427 million US dollars; and tambaqui (Colossoma macropomum), with a turnover of 213.5 million US dollars. These three species represent over 80% of the total national production (Pedroza Filho et al. 2023; Valenti et al. 2021). However, Brazilian aquaculture encompasses over 25 cultivated species, justified by the country’s size and diversity (Pedroza Filho et al. 2020). In terms of business structure, by 2020, there were 1680 registered aquaculture companies in Brazil employing 14,114 individuals (Seafood Brasil 2022).

On a global scale, the Americas represent the second most important aquaculture region in terms of production after Asia (FAO 2022). In the aquaculture production ranking of the Americas, Brazil is one of the countries that has experienced significant growth in recent years. It currently ranks third, behind Chile and Ecuador (FAO 2023). According to the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics, IBGE (2023a), in 2022, the national aquaculture production reached a total of 739.37 thousand tons. From 2013 to 2022, significant growth was evident, primarily in fish farming, which transitioned from a production of 392.5 thousand tons valued at 593.2 million US dollars in 2013 to a higher production of 617 thousand tons valued at 1.106 billion US dollars in 2022. According to the IBGE (2023a), in 2022, fish farming accounted for 83.5% of aquaculture in Brazil. Of that percentage, tilapia represented 63.9% of Brazilian fish farming.

The growth of tilapia farming is related to the formation of productive hubs, the promotion of production intensification, and the establishment of companies, associations, and cooperatives, excelling in fry production, grow-out farming centers, processing, balanced feed factories, and other activities linked to the production chain in many regions of the country (Schulter and Vieira Filho 2017; Ribeiro and Pedroza Filho 2022). As a reference, Brazil is the fourth-largest tilapia producer globally, behind China, Indonesia, and Egypt (PEIXE BR 2023). According to Barroso et al. (2018), Brazil’s main difference from the leading global producers is that its production is geared towards the domestic market. Geographically, the three main tilapia-producing states are Paraná (39.6%), São Paulo (12.9%), and Minas Gerais (8.7%).

Tilapia recorded an export volume of 8347 tons, which accounted for 98% of fish farming exports, with a value of 23.2 million US dollars. Tilapia exports accounted for 1.52% of the total produced in 2022 (PEIXE BR 2023). Pedroza Filho et al. (2020) describe that, despite the growth, tilapia exports represent only a small portion of the total tilapia production, which mainly goes to the domestic market. According to Ribeiro et al. (2024), from 2013 to 2020, tilapia production grew by 103%. As for the target markets for Brazilian fishery products, the United States is the main importer with a volume of 5728 tons and a value exceeding 19 million US dollars, representing 81% of exports. Following are Canada (5%), Taiwan (2%), Libya (2%), and Mexico (2%) (PEIXE BR 2023).

As expected, the increase in tilapia production has not been without environmental impacts and limnological damages, as it is an intensive production system using high density and a large amount of feed (Camargo and Amorim 2020). According to Lima et al. (2016), tilapia is responsible for intensifying eutrophication, competing with native species, and introducing pathogens. In this regard, Bueno et al. (2023) recently estimated, using a bioenergetic model, that approximately 320 kg of total solid waste, including ~ 10 kg of solid nitrogen and ~ 5 kg of solid phosphorus, are released per ton of tilapia. Additionally, they estimated approximately 3 kg of dissolved phosphorus and 47 kg of dissolved nitrogen per ton of tilapia.

In the second position of Brazilian fishery production is tambaqui (Colossoma macropomum), one of the main local species in the Amazon region, with production exceeding 109 thousand tons, representing 17.8% and together with tilapia representing 83.9% of national fishery production. However, this is mainly aimed at the local market; nevertheless, tambaqui exports totaled an export volume of 70 tons valued at 268,839 US dollars, making it the second most exported species (PEIXE BR 2023). In this sense, a strengthening of native species for the domestic market has been occurring in recent years (Pincinato & Asche 2016a).

Regarding the cultivation of white shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei, according to IBGE (2023a), in 2022, it recorded a production of 113.3 thousand tons valued at 427 million US dollars. The northeast region of Brazil represented 99.6% of the national shrimp production. According to ABCC (2023), the total export volume was only 218 tons valued at over 1.2 million US dollars. These sectoral data highlight the preference of the domestic market for cultivated shrimp. Regarding the consumer market for shrimp in Brazil, Pincinato and Asche (2016b) describe that since 2003, producers have increasingly focused on the domestic market, and most farmed shrimp production is now consumed within the country. This is evidenced by ABCC (2023) reports that reduced volumes of farmed shrimp destined for export have been recorded in recent years.

According to Ostrensky et al. (2017), the environmental impact of shrimp farming is related to mangrove deforestation, increased effluents, a large volume of water used, changes in biodiversity, and epidemic outbreaks (mainly caused by viruses). According to Kauffman et al. (2018), mangroves near shrimp ponds are significantly affected by effluents, which alter soil biogeochemistry, such as nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) enrichment, and increase greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from soils.

On the other hand, another significant sector in Brazilian aquaculture that plays a recognized productive, economic, and social role, mainly in coastal areas, is the cultivation of bivalve mollusks (oysters, mussels, and scallops). This aquaculture activity recorded a production of 8739 tons in 2022 (IBGE 2023a), with the main cultivated species being the Pacific oyster Crassostrea gigas, the mussel Perna perna, and the scallop Nodipeceten nodosus (Suplicy et al. 2015). According to Valenti et al. (2021), the activity still has a family and artisanal character and mostly serves the local market exclusively. It is carried out in various coastal states of Brazil, mainly in the southern region where the country’s largest production is concentrated (Landuci et al. 2021; Valenti et al. 2021).

Regarding the environmental impact of marine bivalve mollusk farming, Burkholder and Shumway (2011) point out that the effects on the surrounding environment are site-specific and depend especially on hydrography and the density of cultivated mollusks. The main environmental concern is related to the dynamics of biodeposits (feces and pseudofeces) from cultivated mollusks, which are dispersed and deposited on the seabed in farming areas (Gibbs 2007; Weise et al. 2009; Suplicy 2019). According to Tan et al. (2023), commercial-scale activity can cause alterations in phytoplankton and benthic community structures. On the other hand, mollusk farming has beneficial effects on the environment, such as carbon sequestration, nutrient cycling, control of harmful algal species, and habitat creation (Tan et al. 2023), and improvement of water quality through filtration processes (Suplicy et al. 2015).

On the other hand, Valenti et al. (2021) point out that the widespread use of exotic species and interspecific hybrids has been a problem, related to the escape of these fish threatening biodiversity through competition or predation of native species and the spread of pathogens or symbiotic microorganisms. According to Nobile et al. (2019), the invasion of non-native aquaculture species has been a systemic problem, and in some regions, they are affected by the spread of species from other basins within Brazil. In response to this, there is pressure from segments of society, NGOs, and government institutions for the production of native species (Valenti et al. 2021). In this regard, Valladão and Gallani (2016) highlight the native species tambaqui (Colossoma macropomum), a fish cultivated in several South American countries with desirable productive characteristics (domesticated, omnivorous, and easy to reproduce), and which has the greatest potential to economically compete with tilapia production in South America.

According to the data presented, Brazilian aquaculture shows expansion and productive growth, primarily driven by tilapia and tambaqui fish farming, followed by shrimp farming, and subsequently, to a lesser extent, other aquaculture crops. In general, aquaculture is becoming a significant productive chain, stimulating employment and income in different states of Brazil. However, this aquaculture expansion is not without environmental concerns, primarily related to the lack of planning and adequate legislation for aquatic biota (Nobile et al. 2019). In this context, the impacts of aquaculture can be reduced through management practices that focus on maintaining and optimizing the use of natural resources while remaining profitable (Bohnes and Laurent 2021). In this line, sustainability certificates can play an important role, and their implementation in the Brazilian aquaculture market deserves detailed study.

Methodology

This study aims to analyze the implementation of environmental certificates in Brazilian aquaculture, as well as the drivers and barriers to their expansion, based on the opinions of aquaculture managers. To achieve this, both primary and secondary data sources were utilized. The descriptive analysis relied on secondary sources, incorporating data from public and private organizations at national and international levels. Information on the Brazilian aquaculture production chain, primary fish species, production regions, harvest statistics, and domestic and international market trends were gathered and assessed. Primary data, to be discussed in subsequent sections, was obtained through a questionnaire comprising several closed questions, completed by managers from various Brazilian aquaculture companies.

Prior to distributing the questionnaire, preparatory work was undertaken to identify relevant certifications, companies, and target respondents. In the global aquaculture context, four prominent non-organic aquaculture certification schemes were identified: the Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC), Best Aquaculture Practices (BAP), The Global Partnership for Good Agricultural Practice (GLOBALG.A.P.), and Friend of the Sea (FOS). These were selected based on previous studies by Osmundsen et al. (2020), Saha (2022), and Rector et al. (2022).

Next, Brazilian aquaculture companies certified under these schemes were identified using the respective websites of these entities. Data from the electronic portals of certification programs, including ASC (2024) (https://asc-aqua.org/find-a-farm), BAP (2024) (https://bapcertification.org/Producers), GLOBALG.A.P. (2024) (https://database.globalgap.org/globalgap/search/SearchMain.faces), and FOS (2024) (https://friendofthesea.org/certified-products-and-services), were accessed. During the study period, 2022–2023, two companies were found certified under ASC and eight under BAP in Brazil (see Tables 1 and 2).

Table 1 Brazil—interviewed companies certified with Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC)
Full size table
Table 2 Brazil—interviewed companies certified with Best Aquaculture Practices (BAP)
Full size table

Additionally, preliminary coordination efforts were conducted with representatives from major aquaculture institutions in Brazil, establishing favorable conditions for the research. Collaborating entities included the Brazilian Fish Farming Association—PEIXE BR, Association of Fish Farmers in São Paulo and Union Waters—Peixe SP, Brazilian Association of Shrimp Farmers—ABCC, Sectorial Chamber of Mariculture, State Association of Mariculture of Santa Catarina—MAR SC, Association of Penha Fish Farmers, Association of South Island Fish Farmers—AMASI, and other significant entities within the Brazilian aquaculture production chains.

Through these associations, the questionnaire was distributed to 160 companies, yielding responses from 80 companies (a response rate of 50%). All 10 certified companies in Brazil, as well as 70 non-certified companies, responded to the questionnaire during the study period.

The questionnaire, written in Portuguese, comprised three parts: the first part covered general participant data and company characteristics; the second part included six questions related to sustainability, certifications, perspectives on use, and environmental issues in aquaculture; the third part focused specifically on certifications in the aquaculture sector, featuring 32 questions regarding the application, shelf life, satisfaction, benefits, eco-labeling, decision-making processes, commercial roles, and customer relationships. In total, the questionnaire consisted of 38 questions. Subsequent data processing and analysis were conducted accordingly.

It is important to note that during the 2022–2023 period, interviews were conducted with managers from various aquaculture companies, totaling 10 certified and 70 non-certified ones. The consolidated data reveals 12 certificates across 10 companies, as one of them (MCassab) holds certifications for both the plant and the farm (including both BAP and ASC certifications). Tables 1 and 2 outline the details of the ASC- and BAP-certified companies that were interviewed, aligning with information available on the certification schemes’ portals for the years 2023 and 2024.

Results

First stage: general data

Of the 80 Brazilian aquaculture companies that responded to the questionnaire, 39 are engaged in marine aquaculture (49%), 32 in inland aquaculture (41%), and 8 in both sectors (10%). Almost all the companies primarily target the domestic market, although approximately 30% of the interviewed companies export a portion of their production. In terms of international markets, companies exporting with or without environmental certificates primarily target North America (41%, broken down into the USA (24%), Canada, and Mexico (17%), Latin America (22%), Europe (11%), Asia (11%), Oceania (2%), and other regions (13%).

Regarding production types, the majority of companies are involved in fattening (41%), followed by those engaged in all stages of the production cycle (larval and fry laboratory, pre-fattening, and fattening) (34%). Other categories include pre-fattening and fattening (15%), larval and fry laboratory (3%), and individual segments such as pre-fattening and laboratory, and fattening, each representing 1%. The remaining 5% corresponds to “others.”

Most of the interviewed companies operate within the tilapia production chain (34%), followed by those involved in mollusk farming (oysters, mussels, scallops) (23%), native fish (round and/or Amazonian) (16%), shrimp (12%), and seaweed and crustaceans (giant Malaysian prawn, river shrimp) each with a similar share of 7%.

Regarding the size of the interviewed companies: 4 companies have between 1200 and 500 workers, 6 companies have between 300 and 65 workers, and 70 companies have between 60 and 1 worker. Refer to Table 3 for further details.

Table 3 Characteristics of certified and non-certified companies in the aquaculture production chain in Brazil
Full size table

Second stage: sustainability and certifications

At this stage, the interviewees responded to six questions regarding sustainability and certifications in a broader context. In response to the first question, “Do you value the concept of sustainability in your company?”, 95% of the respondents answered affirmatively. Subsequently, to the second question, “What is the main environmental problem caused by aquaculture?”, the highest percentage of respondents cited the generation of waste and/or spills (36%), followed by water resource contamination (17%), none (16%), species escapes (15%), by-products generated (11%), and others (5%). See Fig. 1 for details.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Main environmental problem caused by aquaculture

Full size image

To the third question, “Do you believe that environmental certificates help sustainability?,” 98% responded affirmatively. Regarding the fourth question, “According to your perspective, what is the main benefit that entrepreneurs and producers obtain with sustainability certificates?," aquaculture managers responded that access to new markets would be the greatest benefit (37%), followed by improved brand image (25%), environmental improvements (23%), process improvement (12%), and other factors (3%).

At the conclusion of this stage, in response to the question “What type of certificates does your company use?,” interviewees provided individual responses indicating possession of environmental certificates (14%), production certificates (4%), quality certificates (5%), and no certificates (39%). Additionally, some respondents mentioned other types of certificates (3%). However, the majority of interviewees indicated various combinations of certificates (39%), with the most common combination being environmental, production, quality, and social certificates. These findings suggest that approximately 53% of the companies in the sample hold environmental certificates, contrasting with the figure of 10 out of 80 companies with international environmental certificates. This difference arises from many companies considering themselves certified due to compliance with quality and sanitary requirements mandated by various public and private bodies within the aquaculture supply chain.

Third Stage: Environmental certifications in aquaculture in Brazil

During this stage, the questionnaire focused exclusively on environmental certifications. Aquaculture managers interviewed indicated that 33% were aware of sustainability certificates in aquaculture. Among these, the BAP (Best Aquaculture Practices) certificate was recognized as the most prominent, followed by ASC (Aquaculture Stewardship Council), GLOBAL.G.A.P., and FOS (Friend of the Sea). However, a total of 67% of those interviewed were unaware of these certificates.

Out of the 27 interviewees who indicated awareness of environmental certifications, only 10 companies (11%) actually possess such certifications. The majority of the remaining companies (89%) do not hold any of the mentioned certifications. Among the total number of certified companies (10), 8 have obtained the BAP certificate, and 3 hold the ASC certificate; however, no data were recorded for certain companies.

This information, validated by the interviews, aligns with previous analyses of the certificates’ websites. It confirms a correlation between company size and certification status. Specifically, the four large companies (with 500 to 1200 employees) hold BAP (3) and ASC (1) certifications, while six companies with 65 to 300 employees are also certified. Conversely, all 70 non-certified companies are smaller in size, with workforces ranging from 1 to 150 employees. Refer to Table 3 for details.

In terms of product focus, all certified companies are dedicated to tilapia production, except for one company which focuses on shrimp. See Table 4 for further information.

Table 4 Brazil—number of certificates by certification body
Full size table

Focusing on the certified companies, five have been certified for more than 2 years, three for more than 5 years, and one company for 1 year. Regarding satisfaction, aquaculture managers expressed a neutral position (10%), satisfaction (70%), and very satisfaction (20%) with the certifying entity. No dissatisfaction was recorded. Additionally, 60% of those interviewed stated that they received technical support from the certifying entities.

When asked about the main benefits of aquaculture certification, most respondents mentioned that the primary benefit was access to markets (29%), followed by improvements in production, traceability, and added value (18%), enhanced brand image (14%), and improved quality (10%). However, responses varied between certified and non-certified companies. Refer to Table 5 for details.

Table 5 Main benefits of aquaculture certification for certified (n = 10) and non-certified (n = 70) companies
Full size table

From the above, it can be observed that, for both certified and non-certified companies, the main benefits are access to markets and production improvements. The difference lies in the third option, where sustainability is highlighted for certified companies, whereas non-certified companies prioritize the enhancement of brand image. Additionally, there is alignment between both positions regarding.

Continuing with the discussion on the advantages that environmental certification can bring to aquaculture companies, a series of dichotomous questions (yes/no) were posed to all interviewees from both certified and non-certified companies (n = 80).

A significant 94% of the aquaculture managers interviewed indicated that certified companies would experience improvements in aspects related to the company’s brand. Regarding whether certification would enable them to sell at better prices, 74% responded positively, while 21% responded negatively. See Table 6 for details.

Table 6 Aquaculture certification and its relationship with brand image, prices, traceability, access to specialized markets, and process improvement among certified and non-certified companies
Full size table

Directly addressing aquaculture certification and access to specialized and/or organic markets, 94% of the aquaculture managers responded affirmatively. Additionally, 90% of the certified companies stated that certification allows access to international markets, with Europe being the primary target market, followed by the USA, other countries in the Americas such as Canada, Chile, and Colombia, and finally Asia. Non-certified companies reported 86% positive responses regarding access to international markets with certification.

Concerning improvements in aquaculture production processes, 86% of those interviewed believed that certification could benefit them in this area, and 93% considered that product traceability would be advantageous. When asked how they would improve the production process, most responses were related to management, quality control, and good practices, among others. There is a consensus among the interviewees on these issues, regardless of whether the company is certified or not. This consensus is significant as it indicates that non-certified companies also recognize the advantages of environmental certification in aspects of production and traceability.

The question of whether environmental certificates allow companies to raise their selling prices warrants a detailed analysis. Out of the 80 companies surveyed, 59 responded affirmatively, while 17 answered negatively; the remaining did not provide a response. Notably, 3 out of the 10 companies that answered negatively are certified. Among the certified companies, 30% believe that environmental certifications do not enable them to raise prices, a percentage higher than that among non-certified companies.

Regarding the environmental improvements attributed to certifications, 89% of respondents expressed positivity, citing various reasons for validation. The majority mentioned options such as control, treatment, reduction, and reuse of waste, alongside environmental management, good business practices, and quality control of water and aquaculture effluents. Refer to Table 7 for further details.

Table 7 Aquaculture certification and environmental benefits
Full size table

Regarding the question of whether clients require aquaculture certification, 55 respondents (69%) stated that it was not required, while 22 respondents indicated otherwise. Among the certified companies, 8 out of 10 acknowledged that their clients demanded certification. Similarly, among the non-certified companies, 14 reported being required to obtain certification.

In the realm of barriers hindering the implementation of eco-labeling in Brazilian aquaculture companies, three primary obstacles were identified: high cost emerged as the primary barrier, followed by a lack of knowledge regarding certification and eco-labeling processes, and significant bureaucracy alongside a lack of government support. See Fig. 2 for details.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Disadvantages hindering the acquisition and/or implementation of eco-labels in aquaculture companies

Full size image

When asked whether the government should promote aquaculture certification, 73% of those interviewed responded positively. In that sense, they stated some actions, such as tax reduction (26%), consumer promotion campaigns (24%), and collaboration agreements (21%) as the main ones, followed by business training (18%) and subsidies (11%). See Fig. 3.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Actions that the government should promote aquaculture certification

Full size image

In response to the question regarding the prospects for growth of certifications in Brazilian aquaculture, 71 respondents expressed optimism, with 23 foreseeing high growth and 48 predicting moderate growth. In smaller proportions, four respondents indicated null growth, three anticipated a decrease, and two did not provide a response.

Regarding the reasons that would prompt them to choose an aquaculture certification, the majority of interviewees cited brand value as the main factor, followed by marketing and promotions, and finally, prices.

Discussion

According to the results, aquaculture managers primarily value sustainability within the aquaculture enterprise and acknowledge that certifications can aid in this process (97%). However, this perception does not necessarily translate into the adoption of certification. Respondents indicated that the main reasons for implementing environmental certification are associated with gaining market access and enhancing aquaculture production. This aligns with the notion that certifications serve as market tools and support the production process, quality assurance, and product attributes, as extensively detailed by UNCTAD (2022) and Olsen et al. (2021). Additionally, certifications communicate environmental benefits to consumers and enable vendors to differentiate their products (Bimbo et al. 2022), thereby potentially becoming a requirement for suppliers. Our findings indicate that 7 out of 10 certified aquaculture companies reported that their clients demanded environmental certification, while 14 of the non-certified companies acknowledged that their clients had requested it at some point. This demand appears to be linked to export markets, particularly in Europe and the United States, which are the primary importing and consuming regions of certified aquaculture products (Yi 2019; Oglend 2020).

Given Brazil’s status as a continental country with promising prospects in global aquaculture, ranking third in the Americas, the comparatively low number of certifications among Brazilian aquaculture companies, especially when compared to neighboring countries such as Chile and Ecuador, is noteworthy (FAO 2023). According to the websites of the aforementioned certification bodies BAP (https://bapcertification.org/Producers) and ASC (https://asc-aqua.org/find-a-farm/), Brazil significantly trails behind in the number of certificates compared to South American countries with similar aquaculture production profiles, such as tilapia, shrimp, and bivalve mollusks. In the BAP scheme, Brazil has 7 certificates, while Chile has 460, Colombia 77, Ecuador 81, and Peru 10. In the case of ASC, Brazil has 3 certificates, whereas Chile has 274, Colombia 6, Ecuador 55, and Peru 10. Another noteworthy observation is that a country like Mexico, which is not located in South America but shares similar main aquaculture species with Brazil, such as shrimp and tilapia, possesses 37 BAP certificates and 11 ASC certificates.

As mentioned in a previous section, tilapia production in Brazil has more than doubled over a period of 7 years (from 2013 to 2020), and almost all of this growth has been absorbed by the domestic market. In contrast to Brazil, the aforementioned Latin American countries are renowned for their aquaculture offerings to the international market. In the specific case of tilapia, according to Milanez et al. (2019), countries like Colombia and Mexico have invested in both production and export development, with the premium segment in the United States being the most important target market.

Milanez et al. (2019) identify obstacles hindering Brazilian tilapia exports, primarily related to competition with the domestic market. Considering lower logistic costs, the prices in the domestic market are more attractive than export prices. Consequently, companies capable of exporting prefer to allocate their volumes to the domestic market, which is reflected in the limited scale of production. Companies focused on the domestic market have less incentive to consolidate volumes through cooperative efforts such as vertical integration or strategic alliances. In this context, Ribeiro et al. (2024) suggest that vertically integrated companies demonstrate better performance in tilapia exports, owing to their larger scale and capacity to ensure product quality through international certifications such as BAP and ASC.

A similar situation arises with Brazilian shrimp aquaculture exports. Valenti et al. (2021) note that exports ceased as of 2017 and are currently negligible. They attribute this to factors such as operational ease, reduced bureaucracy, and attractive domestic prices, which make the domestic market a more appealing sectoral option. Additionally, exporting is subject to challenges related to logistics, trade agreements, and international and national regulations in various importing countries. A similar scenario may be observed in bivalve mollusk mariculture. While many companies from South American countries hold certifications in these markets, there is only one certified Brazilian white shrimp company and none for bivalves.

Valenti et al. (2021) suggest that certification is not yet a common practice in Brazilian aquaculture, and they propose that labeling of aquaculture products could add value and open new markets, facilitating exports. However, Brazilian aquaculture companies seem to prioritize the domestic market. The international fishery products market, especially for leading species like shrimp and tilapia, is complex, with different producing countries competing for access to lucrative markets such as the United States, the world’s largest tilapia market (Milanez et al. 2019), and the European and Japanese markets.

In this context, Brazil, despite significant aquaculture production volumes, struggles with exports due to an inability to even satisfy its vast domestic market. Approximately 20% of the fish consumed in Brazil is imported (Valenti et al. 2021). While a considerable proportion of respondents agreed that adopting certification could lead to higher product prices (73%), this sentiment was less pronounced among certified companies (67%). Nevertheless, at present, these anticipated price premiums only seem to offset the costs and challenges associated with exporting for larger companies.

Regarding the barriers to aquaculture environmental certifications, the high cost emerges as the primary challenge for Brazilian aquaculture managers. This aligns with similar observations in other countries, where certifications are criticized for being expensive and acting as a hindrance for small aquaculture producers in developing countries reliant on fish exports (FAO 2016; Roheim et al. 2018; Osmundsen et al. 2020). In Brazil’s case, with less export dependence, this issue may not be perceived as significant. According to Davis and Boyd (2021), large aquaculture or corporate companies are more likely to obtain certification or produce sufficient volume on smaller, highly intensive farms to absorb certification costs.

Rodrigues et al. (2012) highlight international experiences of countries that enhanced their presence in the international market. Examples include Indonesia, where less intensive production systems cater to the domestic market, while intensive systems focus on exporting shrimp and tilapia adhering to stringent criteria and standards; Vietnam, which improved its production processes to obtain international quality certificates; and Thailand, which bolstered the competitiveness of its aquaculture sector through technical assistance programs, certification, and the establishment of a comprehensive traceability system and environmental preservation measures. Moreover, there are agreements between governments and certification bodies to develop national versions of private eco-labels aimed at small-scale aquaculture in developing countries, such as VietGAP in Vietnam, ThaiGAP in Thailand, and IndoGAP in Indonesia, among others (FAO 2016; Azizah et al. 2020). While this topic is of great interest, it may necessitate specific analysis within the South American context, where Brazil appears to be an exception due to its immense domestic market.

Similarly, Brazilian aquaculture managers exhibit a lack of understanding of the functionality of certifications and eco-labels, which may be attributed to the limited interest in exporting when operating in a sufficiently large domestic market characterized by small-scale farms. This correlates with the lack of motivation among producers to adhere to sustainability criteria, as their target markets do not offer better prices or access (Naylor et al. 2021). Consequently, companies are inclined to implement sustainability measures only if they prove profitable (Roheim et al. 2018). The majority of respondents expressed support for a national aquaculture label (84%) and advocated for government promotion of aquaculture certification, suggesting tax reductions and consumer promotion campaigns as primary government actions.

Conclusions

Brazilian aquaculture managers acknowledge the potential role of environmental certification in promoting sustainability within the sector and mitigating its environmental impact. However, access to markets and enhanced production are the primary benefits identified by the sector in adopting environmental certification processes. These findings are consistent with similar studies conducted worldwide. Nevertheless, the implementation of environmental certificates in Brazil remains scarce, especially when compared to countries in the same region with similar or smaller aquaculture sectors.

The uniqueness of the Brazilian aquaculture companies with environmental certification, predominantly large-scale operations focused on tilapia aquaculture production chains (with a single exception in shrimp), primarily oriented towards the US and European markets, raises questions. Brazilian aquaculture producers prefer the BAP and ASC certification schemes, with no GLOBALGAP or FOS-certified companies in Brazil.

This distinctiveness prompts the question: Why are Brazilian aquaculture companies less certified compared to their counterparts in neighboring countries? The answer seems to lie in the strength of a domestic market with limited competition, Brazil’s modest aquaculture exports, and the small-scale nature of the majority of farms. Brazil possesses a formidable domestic market, and even a significant domestic aquaculture sector struggles to meet its demands, resorting to imports. The reasons cited by companies for seeking certification, such as access to new markets or production improvement, do not appear to be priorities for the Brazilian aquaculture sector, which, unlike many export-oriented neighbors, prioritizes the domestic market. Consequently, companies lack strong incentives to explore new markets or pursue larger scale or greater production efficiency.

While these conditions may yield short-term benefits, they could pose challenges in the medium and long term, potentially eroding competitiveness vis-à-vis competitors. This not only severely restricts exports but may also impact domestic competitiveness as products from other countries penetrate the Brazilian market. Despite significant natural advantages and a robust domestic market, the lack of incentives for improvement, including environmental enhancements, may isolate the Brazilian aquaculture sector from the international market and deter measures aimed at enhancing competitiveness, logistics, sustainability, production scale, and regulatory reduction.

Environmental certification serves as an example, exerting pressure through markets and economic incentives to induce management changes (Mussells and Stephenson 2020). However, Brazilian aquaculture companies do not currently perceive such pressure. This study underscores the necessity of specifically analyzing different aquaculture markets. While most research focuses on developed markets such as the United States and Europe, with growing interest in the Asian market, aquaculture and its environmental certification in South America present a dynamic and intriguing landscape, albeit one marked by heterogeneity, as evidenced in this study focused on Brazil.