Marine Policy 68 (2016) 187–194

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Marine Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol

Can environment management integrate into supply chain

management? Information sharing via shrimp aquaculture
cooperatives in northwestern Sri Lanka
Eranga K. Galappaththi a,n,1,2, Sarath S. Kodithuwakku b,1, Iroshani M. Galappaththi c,1
a
Department of Geography, McGill University, 805 Sherbrooke Street West, Montreal, QC, Canada H3A 0B9
b
Sultan Qaboos University, PO Box 34, Al-Khod 123, Sultanate of Oman
c
Manitoba Health, 300 Carlton Street, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3B 3M9

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper examines the effects of information sharing via community cooperatives on supply chain
Received 30 November 2015 management (SCM) in community-based shrimp aquaculture in northwestern Sri Lanka. Further, it
Received in revised form identifies how environment management integrates into SCM. The paper examined shrimp aquaculture
7 March 2016
operations in northwestern Sri Lanka using the case study approach. Main actors of the shrimp aqua-
Accepted 7 March 2016
culture supply chain (SC) are: brood-stock suppliers; hatcheries; farmers; collectors; and processing
Available online 24 March 2016
companies. Information shared is: post-larvae prices; feed brands; harvest prices; production quotas;
Keywords: disease spread; farming techniques; and management practices. This paper explores the existing in-
Information formation sharing network. Its findings reveal that community cooperatives play crucial roles within this
Cooperatives
network while functioning under a mixed governance regime (private; communal; government).
Supply chain management
Membership gives farmers a mechanism for networking and accessing information. This article discusses
Information commons
Shrimp aquaculture how such information can act as commons. An efficient network of information sharing is vital for the
Sri Lanka community's socio-economic wellbeing, as well as social-ecological sustainability. Sri Lankan shrimp
aquaculture exemplifies SCM that integrates environment and commons management.
Crown Copyright & 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction integrate into shrimp aquaculture SCM? Can effective information

Aquaculture performs an emergent role in global food supply
chains. Wild fish stock depletion and a growing demand for sea-
food are major reasons for reliance on aquaculture [1]. Supply
chain management (SCM) plays a significant role in getting sea-
food from pond to place at a reasonable price, with the best
quality, and without interruptions. Shrimp aquaculture is a unique
sector for SCM because of its high value, production-related un-
certainty, and shrimp supply chain (SC) perishability [2,3]. Con-
trarily, global shrimp aquaculture has a bad reputation in terms of
environment and social sustainability [4–7]. Sri Lankan shrimp
aquaculture is governed by community cooperatives with minimal
adverse environmental impacts [8–10]. This paper examining
small-scale shrimp aquaculture communities on the Indian Ocean
in northwestern Sri Lanka. Can environment management
n
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: erangakokila@yahoo.com (E.K. Galappaththi).
1
Postgraduate Institute of Agriculture, University of Peradeniya, Old Galaha
Road, Peradeniya 20400, Sri Lanka.
2
Natural Resources Institute, University of Manitoba, 70 Dysart Road, Winni-
peg, Manitoba, Canada R3T 2N2.
sharing on SC be attained through community cooperatives? Such
questions have theoretical significance for SCM as well as com-
mons management, and practical importance for sustainable
aquaculture. This paper examines the effects of information shar-
ing through community cooperatives on SCM in community-based
shrimp aquaculture in northwestern Sri Lanka.
SC is “a network of organizations that are involved, through
upstream and downstream linkages, in the different processes and
activities that produce value in the form of products and services
delivered to the ultimate consumer” [11: 3]. An SC consists of
multiple firms, both upstream (i.e., supply) and downstream (i.e.,
distribution), and the ultimate consumer. SCM highlights the long-
term benefit of the chain's actors [12]. SCM's concern is “how to
coordinate the independent players, so that they work together as
a unit, in the pursuit of the common goal of changing market
conditions” [13: 344]. Collaboration among SC's actors uses limited
resources and attempts to coordinate production through the en-
tire SC [14,15]. The “bullwhip effect”—originally applied to in-
formation distortion in SC—explains the aggregated impact along
the SC [16].
In literature, debates exist about information and knowledge
sharing in SC. Knowledge in the SCM context is valuable and

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.03.013
0308-597X/Crown Copyright & 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
188 E.K. Galappaththi et al. / Marine Policy 68 (2016) 187–194

actionable information [12,17]. Knowledge enables predictions or northwestern and eastern coastal belts, covering more than 5000
predictive decisions. Information simply gives us facts. Knowl- hectares [41].
edge's primary elements are data—unrelated facts that have their Operations depend on the environment. A particular soil is
own values. Data combined and placed in a context create in- required to establish a shrimp pond. The soil's rich nutrient con-
formation. When information goes through a critical and creative tent facilitates better algae growth [42], resulting in a healthy
thought process, it becomes knowledge [12,18]. In a business aquatic system. Water is an equally important resource. The area's
context, both information and knowledge sharing are combinable primary water source is the “Dutch canal,” which contains brack-
and interchangeable. Therefore, this paper used the term “in- ish water (a mix of salt and fresh water). It runs from south to
formation sharing.” Information sharing is a collaborative effort, as north and connects several salt water lagoons and fresh water
communication involves the information provider and seeker rivers, forming a common water body. Galappaththi and Berkes
[19,20]. Benkler [21] identified information as a public good in a [9,10] explain how shrimp farmers manage this common water
strict economic sense; information is also input into its own pro- body as commons. Farmers who have no access to this water use
duction process. Further, Benkler [21] recognized the possibility of pumped salt water from the sea and/or a lagoon and groundwater
communication systems managed as commons. from tube wells.
This article focus on information sharing through community
cooperatives for shrimp aquaculture resource management activ-
ities affecting SCM. Collectively managed resources can work 2. Methods and study area
better than privately or government-managed resources [22,23],
and “collective action” can solve commons problems better than The study adopted a qualitative design with a case study ap-
individual solutions [23]. Cooperatives are locally/member-owned, proach [43,44] and was conducted in the Muthupanthiya, Koth-
collectively managed entities that affect community wellbeing thanthive, and Karamba communities of northwestern Sri Lanka
[24,25]. Sri Lankan shrimp aquaculture management relies on (Fig. 1). Participants were selected using the snowball sampling
community cooperatives and a multi-level institutional structure technique due to the absence of a proper sampling frame. Primary
that serves as the governance system's backbone [8]. Cooperatives data were collected through: a) questionnaire-based interviews
are significant components of the community-based management with shrimp farmers and other stakeholders (e.g., feed suppliers,
system in northwestern shrimp aquaculture [9], adopting com- hatchery managers, government aquaculture extension officers);
mons and collaborative management approaches for challenges b) key informant interviews; and c) participant observations. The
like shrimp disease [9,10]. sample contained 53 stakeholders, including 35 shrimp farmers
In theory, commons institutions like community cooperatives (Muthupanthiya, 11; Koththanthive, 14; Karamba, 10). Five key
can solve the commons problem [8,26]. Such institutions address informant interviews were undertaken for data verification pur-
basic issues, i.e., the “tragedy of commons” [9,26-28], which de- poses. Primary data collection took place from September 2008
scribes how individual freedom to access the commons causes the through December 2009. From April to August 2012, the com-
system to fail [28]. The tragedy starts in an aquaculture context munities were re-visited to gather supplementary data.
due to excessive use and/or misuse of environmental resources as
inputs and waste discharge (mainly used pond water) to the sur-
rounding environment [9,10,29]. However, the commons’ scope is 3. Results
broad [30]. Charlotte Hess [31] identified evolving commons types
as “new commons”—cultural; medical and health; neighbourhood; 3.1. Supply chain overview of shrimp aquaculture
knowledge; markets; and global. Some literature even compares
information commons to library commons and/or digital com- Fig. 2 provides an overview of the Sri Lankan shrimp aqua-
mons [32,33]. culture SC. Several stages and players are involved. Parent shrimp
SCM integrates environment management into SC, and re- (i.e., brood stock) of sizes appropriate for breeding are caught from
searchers recognize the best practice called green supply chain
integration (GSCI) [34]. Literature acknowledges the significance of
combined environment management into SC [34,35]. Community
green supply chain integration stems from studies of community
stakeholder pressures [34,36,37]. Community GSCI is a strategic
collaboration with stakeholders in an SC to manage the SC's op-
erational/environmental impact by orchestrating resources across
community stakeholders [34]. Wong et al. [34] highlighted the
significance of feedback information of community stakeholders.
Further, feedback information is the key resource for community
GSCI practices. So far there is no or little evidence available on
community GSCI in shrimp aquaculture SC; the Sri Lankan case
study could be one to look at.
The dominant aquaculture operation in Sri Lanka involves
coastal shrimp [38]. The most common species cultured is black
tiger shrimp (Penaeus monodon). The industry produces more than
2000 tons annually, with a farm gate value of about $70 million
[38]. It provides more than 1000 direct jobs and about 1800 in-
direct jobs [39]. Export markets are Japan, the U.K., and the U.S.
However, local markets are also part of shrimp aquaculture SC.
Compared to the global shrimp industry, Sri Lanka leads the world
in productivity, with an average yield of more than 4500 kg per
hectare [40]. The industry contains medium and small companies
[8]. As of 2012, shrimp farming is found mainly in the Fig. 1. Study area in northwestern Sri Lanka.
 E.K. Galappaththi et al. / Marine Policy 68 (2016) 187–194
Fig. 2. Overview of Sri Lankan shrimp aquaculture SC.
the sea. They are sold to breeding stock suppliers who take them
to shrimp hatcheries. The parents are kept under controlled con-
ditions (temperature, salinity, pH value, lighting) until the eggs are
extracted. The eggs are kept in a separation tank until they spawn
into a post-larvae (PL) stage. PLs are considered raw material in
shrimp farming and are sold by quantity to farmers. The farmers
culture PLs in grow-out ponds until they reach a stage appropriate
for processing (harvest). The harvest is then sold either to seafood
processing plants (for export) or village-level shrimp collectors/
middlemen (for the local market). As of 2012, shrimp farmers sold
over 50% of the harvest to the local market. If the harvest is good
for export, its quality is graded and prices are set. If the harvest is
sold in the local market, it is given a single bulk price. The famer
decides which market to sell to based on price levels and the
harvest's quality. The number of actors involved in each stage, lead
times (i.e., the time taken to complete a particular stage), and
approximate unit values are given in Fig. 2.
Secondary businesses evolved around the shrimp industry:
supplying feed for PLs in hatcheries and growing adults in farms;
antibiotics to prevent disease; processing plants to produce value-
added products; machinery rentals (paddle wheels, generators,
water pumps); money lending arrangements (banks and informal
money lenders); middlemen and collectors who buy harvests from
farmers and sell them to processing plants; laboratory services to
test the quality/diseases of PLs (e.g., the Polymerized Chain Reac-
tion [PCR] test); and advisory services to provide extension ser-
vices/guidance/information on culturing, management practices,
and disease prevention.
Nevertheless, while the shrimp industry attracts businessmen
due to its high profit margins and relatively short crop lifecycle, it
has high risk due to price fluctuations and shrimp's susceptibility
to disease. Further, wild catch (i.e., shrimp caught directly from the
189
sea) is quantity-wise significant. The wild catch goes through the
same SC pathway and competes against farm-produced crops for
better prices. Shrimp sold at local markets do not undergo value
addition or processing. However, before being sold at foreign
markets, the yield must be processed to increase its shelf life and
add value. Value addition is also done based on buyers’ guidelines
(e.g., head on, shell on; headless, shell on; peeled and deveined;
tail on). Shrimp farmers are the primary actors in the shrimp
aquaculture supply chain. Their role is to maintain timely, con-
sistent shrimp production to SC.
Shrimp farm characteristics varied based on farm size (number
of shrimp ponds) as well as ownership type. Shrimp farm ponds
varied in size from 0.2 hectares to 0.8 hectares. Forty-six percent
(46%) of the farmers operated one to three ponds; 27% operated
four or five ponds; and the rest operated six or seven ponds. Se-
venty-two percent (72%) of the shrimp farms in the sampled area
were family businesses (in which one or more family members
were full-time shrimp farmers); the rest are owner-managed
farming operations. Shrimp farmers’ family members (mostly,
wives and adult children) were involved in bookkeeping, labour,
sales, managing and investing. Furthermore, family members at-
tended monthly meetings of the shrimp farmers' community co-
operative. Communities engaged in two farming cycles (i.e., har-
vests) per year. Shrimp farmers worked through community co-
operatives to manage their activities.
3.2. The community cooperative
The institution that facilitates networking among farmers is the
community cooperative (called “samithiya” in the local language).
Community cooperatives are farmer-initiated entities established
in the mid-1990s. Though the cooperatives serve the same
190 E.K. Galappaththi et al. / Marine Policy 68 (2016) 187–194
purpose, they gained legal status through various sources–the
Cooperatives Act or registration under the acts of government
institutions such as divisional secretariat offices and the National
Aquaculture Development Authority (NAqDA). A cooperative's
membership is between 20 and 60 farmers (Muthupanthiya, 23;
Koththanthive, 60; Karamba, 30). To engage in a community's
shrimp aquaculture, farmers must become members of the com-
munity cooperative. The elected officers include president, vice
president, secretary, treasurer, and assistant treasurer. These co-
operatives have constitutions to govern activities such as decision
making; finance management; and the election process. Monthly
and special meetings are held as needed. Collective decision
making is a significant characteristic [10,22].
These cooperatives collectively form the Sri Lanka Aquaculture
Development Association (SLADA), the national entity represent-
ing shrimp farmers. The cooperatives also represent an overriding
group which makes decisions related to shrimp farming. From a
resource management perspective, the cooperative is the lowest-
level self-organized community entity within the hierarchy of the
shrimp aquaculture governance structure. Government aqua-
culture extension officers (NAqDA) attend meetings and work
closely with the cooperatives to ensure that farming practices
comply with national regulations. However, the extension officers
do not influence the cooperatives’ decisions; instead, they provide
information and guidance.
3.3. Types of information shared
Table 1 provides details about the types of information shared/
used; information origins; users; the purpose of use; and the
mechanism(s) of information sharing by the cooperative. Accord-
ingly, shrimp post-larvae-related information (availability, quality,
and prices) are generated by shrimp hatchery owners according to
the quality of the post-larvae produced in each hatchery. Direct
users of this information are shrimp farmers who must decide
where to buy, at what price, and of which quality. Post-larvae price
information is shared through cooperatives and personal contacts
and is based on previous buying experiences. Some shrimp
farmers prefer to buy post-larvae from different hatcheries for
individual ponds to minimize the risk of low-quality or disease-
infected materials. Cooperatives do not formally recommend
hatcheries, but share information related to post-larvae price and
availability with their members.
Information related to feed brands and prices is crucial, as a
substantive portion of the production cost relates to feed. Feed
cost-related details are generated and managed collectively by
feed importers; selling companies; and/or sales agents. Direct
users of this information are farmers who must decide where to
Table 1
Information sharing in the community.
Type of information Origin (who generates the
information)
Post-larvae availability, quality, and Hatchery owners
prices
Feed brands/prices Feed suppliers (importers, Farmers to decide where to buy, which
sales agents)
Farm gate shrimp (harvest) prices Processing companies
Production quota/stocking dates NAqDA, SLADA
based on national crop calendar
Disease prevalence/spread SLADA, NAqDA, cooperatives, Farmers to take disease prevention and
individual farmers
Shrimp farming techniques/better NAqDA, cooperatives, in-
management practices dividual farmers
buy, which brand, and at what price. Availability of feed-related
information depends on the marketing approaches taken by the
feed sales and distribution companies. However, in Muthu-
panthiya, feed supplying is accomplished by a single agent based
on a trust relationship that includes the complimentary facilities of
informal credit arrangements and consultancy/extension services
provided with the feed. Both Koththanthive and Karamba access
multiple feed suppliers and constantly make changes to achieve
better-quality harvests.
Farm gate price (the price at which a farmer sells produce to
the buyer or processing company) is based on market price levels.
Farm gate price details are crucial to farmers as they determine
profit margins. A listing of prices is available based on the average
weight of a shrimp ready to harvest. These prices fluctuate daily
based on the international market's supply and demand; the local
supply; and the currency exchange rate. Processing company re-
presentatives are in contact with shrimp farmers to communicate
their daily farm gate prices.
Production quantities (quotas) for each season are determined
by a committee consisting of representatives from the government
line institution (NAqDA) and the national shrimp farmers’ industry
association (SLADA). Multiple factors are considered: farming ca-
pacity of a community; prevailing shrimp disease conditions;
availability of shrimp post-larvae; and availability of parent stocks
to produce post-larvae. A crop calendar is designed for the
northwestern area, and production quotas (i.e., the maximum al-
lowed harvest quantity in kilograms) are announced along with
the stocking periods (i.e., when the post-larvae should be added to
the ponds) for each area. NAqDA, SLADA, and cooperatives si-
multaneously disseminate this information among all the co-
operatives before the stocking periods. Farmers hear about this
and decide how much to stock and by when. This information is
also available in national newspapers. The development of the
crop calendar is a collective decision-making process [10]. Even
though production quotas and stocking dates are publicized by
NAqDA and SLADA, shrimp farmers and cooperatives play a major
role in the annual crop calendar's development as farmers escalate
their input/feedback to national levels via farmer representatives
(i.e., community cooperative leaders).
Disease-related information is also crucial. White spot disease
can destroy a harvest within 24 hours. Moreover, the shrimp
production cycle's success depends on the harvest being disease-
free. Disease-related information can be generated by different
groups: SLADA; NAqDA; cooperatives; and other individuals or
groups of farmers. The information flows to shrimp farmers
through the cooperatives. However, in rare instances, disease-re-
lated information becomes limited if the individual/groups of
farmers do not disclose the information—considered unlawful—so
Direct users and purpose of use Mechanism(s) of sharing
Farmers to decide where to buy, at what Via cooperatives and personal contacts (within the
price, of which quality, when (date) the PLs cooperatives’ membership in an informal manner)
become available
Via cooperatives and personal contacts (within the
brand, and at what price cooperatives’ membership in an informal manner)
Farmers to decide to whom to sell and at Via personal contacts, processing factory re-
what price presentatives, the cooperatives
Farmers to decide how much and when to Via cooperatives and published in national
stock newspapers
Via cooperatives
control measures
Farmers to improve shrimp growth/quality Via cooperatives and workshops organized by
and to minimize disease risk NAqDA and SLADA
 E.K. Galappaththi et al. / Marine Policy 68 (2016) 187–194
that the harvest's marketability is not affected. Non-disclosure of
information may further intensify the spread of the disease. The
information becomes publicly available if known by SLADA, NAq-
DA, or the cooperatives. The community cooperative takes the
following actions against those who do not disclose this in-
formation: it refuses to issue permits for the crop season and/or
inflicts penalties.
Shrimp farming techniques and better management practices
provide two benefits. Farmers can: (1) improve performance by
enhancing shrimp growth and harvest quality; and (2) minimize
disease risk by adopting preventive measures. Better management
practices are designed by NAqDA and are to be implemented by
shrimp farmers under the purview of community cooperatives [9].
Specifications for disinfecting ponds and pumping water from the
canals are examples of better management practices. Shrimp
farming techniques are developed by NAqDA, SLADA, cooperatives,
and/or individual farmers. Workshops are held by NAqDA and
SLADA to share new technologies. Furthermore, community-level
sharing of experiences occurs through the cooperatives as well as
informally among farmers.
3.4. Role of community cooperatives in information sharing
To investigate the role of community cooperatives in the in-
formation-sharing structure, a network of interactions was de-
veloped (Fig. 3). The network is based on: (1) the direction of in-
formation flow among stakeholders; and (2) the strength of the
information shared. If an interaction/relationship is strong, the
information is likely shared broadly and the ability to trust and act
upon it is high. The inverse it also true. This diagram represents
overall information flow, not for individual types of information
discussed above (such as feed, PL, or farm gate price).
The strength of information shared among stakeholders was
determined as follows. Respondents were asked to choose one of
three options (strong, moderate, or low) to describe information
sharing based on the information each stakeholder provided. The
level of satisfaction was determined based on average values (part
of the original study). For example, 88% (31 out of 35) of shrimp
farmers said that the information from their cooperatives was
“strong”; thus, on average, they experienced a strong information
relationship.
The information sharing network is a mix of communal
Fig. 3. Present network of interactions among stakeholders.
191
(cooperatives, SLADA), government (NAqDA), and private sector
(feed suppliers, processing companies, shrimp hatcheries) stake-
holders. The interaction between shrimp farmers and the co-
operative is a two-way process and shows a strong information
relationship. A similar interaction exists between the cooperative
and feed suppliers. The information flow between shrimp hatch-
eries and community cooperatives occurs both ways and shows a
strong relationship. NAqDA and SLADA collaboratively provide
information to the cooperatives (two-way strong interaction) and
shrimp hatcheries (strong one-way interaction). NAqDA also
maintains a direct communication channel with the cooperatives
through field extension officers. NAqDA and SLADA frequently
communicate between themselves, especially to inform officials
who represent the parties in the collaborative decision-making
body. SLADA, by its mandate, keeps the cooperative informed.
NAqDA, SLADA, and the cooperatives maintain multiple commu-
nication channels to meet information needs. Further, shrimp
farmers share information both ways with shrimp hatcheries, feed
suppliers, and processing companies.
The “collaborative decision-making body” is a joint committee
consisting of SLADA and NAqDA officials, mandated to respond to
all shrimp-industry-related matters [8]. Strong interactions/lin-
kages can be observed between the SLADA and NAqDA collective
decision-making body and the cooperatives. However, the co-
operative does not show strong interaction with processing com-
panies, resulting in a moderate link with one of the most influ-
ential stakeholders. The processing companies can act relatively
independently, as they do not completely rely on aquacultured
shrimp harvests as raw material. (Shrimps caught directly from
the sea, i.e., wild capture, is another raw material option.) Cultured
versus captured shrimp harvest quantities vary seasonally based
on factors like local market demand; time of the year; quality of
cultured shrimps; and disease conditions.
Much communication happens during regular meetings, but
cellular phones are used extensively to communicate with farmers
and other stakeholders. By constitution, the secretary is re-
sponsible for sharing information, messages, and other corre-
spondences. Meeting minutes keep track of the records. Mem-
bership provides farmers with a means of networking and in-
formation exchange. The types of information shared through the
cooperative are important to daily farming operations and the
long-term management of community-level aquaculture business.
Such information relates to: markets and prices; resource gov-
ernance; and disease spread. Shrimp farmers deal daily with new
and emerging problems (such as diseases and the quality of lagoon
waters) and argue among themselves in community cooperatives
over ways to overcome these challenges. As new challenges ap-
pear, they debate new approaches.
3.5. Information sharing effects on SC
Historical examples from northwestern shrimp aquaculture
explain how changes in the information sharing mechanism in
small-scale shrimp aquaculture affect its SC.
First, from 1999 to 2006 shrimp farming cooperatives did not
function well in some communities [8]. Lack of regular meetings,
low membership, and de-motivation due to uncontrollable disease
were some of the recorded reasons for this dysfunctionality. The
situation continued until SLADA and NAqDA strengthened the
cooperatives to implement the zonal crop calendar system [10].
The zonal crop calendar system is a new management approach
that minimizes the spread of the shrimp disease by controlling the
access to common lagoon water bodies through establishing
commonly agreed temporal and spatial boundaries [10]. Disabled
cooperatives could not share timely, accurate, and complete in-
formation among the information sharing network (Fig. 3). As a
192 E.K. Galappaththi et al. / Marine Policy 68 (2016) 187–194
result, PL price, farm gate price, and shrimp production quantities
fluctuated unexpectedly. National annual shrimp aquaculture
production records showed a prominent inconsistency [45]. A
number of actors, including hatcheries (about 20), framers (about
100), and processing companies (e.g., Agro Marine) left the in-
dustry due to unfavorable conditions.
Second, in 2006 shrimp farmers, with government support,
implemented the zonal crop calendar to manage shrimp diseases
using a collaborative approach [10]. The multi-level institution
structure was introduced and set up by shrimp farmers, SLADA,
and NAqDA to support the zonal crop calendar system [8]. Sharing
of updates and accurate information was the key aspect of this
new system. As a result, community cooperatives were strength-
ened and started functioning smoothly. Government monitored
these community cooperatives through extension officers. The
information sharing network also began running smoothly. PL and
shrimp farm gate prices, and national shrimp aquaculture pro-
duction, became consistent and relatively stable. This situation
brought some hatchery owners, farmers, and new processors (e.g.,
the Srimic seafood processing company) to the SC.
Accordingly, the relationship between the cooperative's func-
tionality, effective information sharing, and SC performance were
identified (Fig. 4). Better functioning of community cooperatives
affords effective and timely information sharing among shrimp
farmers, which helps them make better decisions. Outcomes are
reflected in the SC. The SC's better performance is reflected in the
fact that consistent production reached consumers at a reasonable
price.
4. Discussion
The Sri Lankan shrimp aquaculture SC shows the effectiveness
of information sharing via cooperatives in SCM. A positive re-
lationship exists among community cooperative functionality, ef-
fectiveness of information sharing via cooperatives, and SC per-
formance. How does information sharing via cooperatives work in
the context of Sri Lankan shrimp aquaculture? First, a well-es-
tablished community-based management system is represented
by the cooperatives in farming communities. Cooperatives and
associations exist for hatcheries, brood-stock collectors, and
Fig. 4. Relationship of effective information sharing via community cooperatives to
small-scale shrimp aquaculture SC.
processing companies. Second, community cooperatives are re-
cognized by shrimp aquaculture sector stakeholders. The govern-
ment institution NAqDA has identified community cooperatives as
formal entities for shrimp aquaculture management purposes [10].
Third, all shrimp farmers must be members of community co-
operatives. Shrimp farmers’ dependence on community co-
operatives makes overriding systems (SCM and aquaculture
management) run efficiently.
Sri Lankan shrimp aquaculture SC consists of small-scale actors.
The main actors are: brood-stock suppliers (10); shrimp hatcheries
(40); shrimp farmers (600); shrimp collectors (10); and shrimp
processing companies (4) (Fig. 2). Though processing companies
get seasonal captured shrimp from fishermen, shrimp aquaculture
SC is dominated by shrimp farmers and is a primary producer of
aquacultured shrimp. Compared to other culture crops, shorter
crop lifecycles and a disease-sensitive nature are embedded fea-
tures of shrimp aquaculture SC, bringing uncertainty and risk to all
actors. A consistent supply of shrimp production and healthy price
variations are key factors in the overall SCM; they also ensure
actors’ income generation activities. Hence, disease control
through a good environment and natural resource management
are significant features of this SC and affect the performance of
shrimp aquaculture SC and SCM.
Environmental and commons management aspects of north-
western shrimp aquaculture affect SCM. Sri Lankan shrimp aqua-
culture is managed by a mixed regime of communal (community
cooperatives)/state (NAQDA)/private (family/farmer-owned
shrimp farms and SLADA) entities [8–10,46,47]. The existence of
community-based management [8] and management of natural
resources are unique features [9]. There is a multi-level and bot-
tom-up institutional structure with a collaborative decision-mak-
ing body composed of the government institution NAqDA and
sector association SLADA [8]. The strategy for shrimp disease
control involves a crop calendar system with the support of a
multi-level institution structure and collaborative management
[8,10,48]. The community cooperative is the key commons in-
stitution widely recognized by state authorities. Effective sharing
of information via cooperatives is another equally important
characteristic.
The types of information shared through community co-
operatives are: post-larvae prices; feed brands/prices; farm gate
shrimp (harvest) prices; production quota and stocking dates
based on the national crop calendar; disease prevalence/spread;
and shrimp farming techniques and management practices. The
community cooperative is the main communication system (or
mechanism), sharing a substantial portion of information. Further,
the cooperative acts as an information hub and shows strong in-
teractions/linkages between most other SC actors. Being a member
of a community cooperative gives farmers access to market-,
production-, and environment-related information for shrimp
farming operations. Such information can influence the opera-
tional success of farming at both the individual farmer level and
the community level. It also determines the performance of SC and
is an important aspect for SCM.
In an economic sense, information is a resource for carrying out
income-generating/business activities [21]. If information is
shared widely and available readily, Sri Lankan shrimp farmers
learn about prices; product quality; new technologies; and com-
petition, and can adjust their actions (e.g., price comparisons;
bargaining for prices) accordingly. Such conditions allow farmers
to operate at an optimum level (i.e., zero discrimination based on
information) while maximizing overall economic returns. Simi-
larly, if the information is not readily accessible, it could become a
barrier, resulting in the absence of a competitive market and
leading to a “market failure”, which results from market dis-
equilibrium [49,50]. Moreover, information generates “signals”
 E.K. Galappaththi et al. / Marine Policy 68 (2016) 187–194
[51] that have significant social, economic, and ecological benefits.
As such, information can behave as commons (or ‘information
commons’ as named by authors), affecting the overall wellbeing
(welfare) of shrimp farmers and social-ecological systems [4,8–10].
Consequently, shrimp farmers’ actions (e.g., used pond water dis-
posal) determine how the natural ecological system is utilized
and/or affected.
These findings are consistent with the concept of GSCI [34]. Sri
Lankan shrimp aquaculture SCM exemplifies multiple environ-
mental management aspects integrated into SC. First, the co-
operative's role in disseminating information related to production
quotas based on the national crop calendar system allows for
management of the lagoon by optimizing shrimp farmers’ water
usage [10]. Second, cooperatives are sharing information to control
diseases throughout the lagoon. Shrimp farming cooperatives in
Sri Lanka show a high level of compliance with collective action
design principles, indicating good governance [9,22]. Third, Sri
Lankan shrimp aquaculture can rely on cooperatives and their
simplicity because of the operations’ small-scale nature. This scale
and simplicity allow shrimp farmers to rely on fewer environ-
mental resources. On the other hand, farmers minimize environ-
mental impacts by managing water intake and pond water dis-
charge [9].
5. Conclusion
Community cooperatives play a vital role in sharing specific
information among farmers within the shrimp aquaculture SC in
northwestern Sri Lanka and act as a platform for information
sharing. This paper explored the positive relationship among the
functionality of community cooperatives, effective information
sharing, and the performance of shrimp aquaculture SC. The
findings highlight the importance of community cooperatives for
SCM in community-based shrimp aquaculture. An efficient net-
work of information sharing is vital for the community's socio-
economic wellbeing, as well as social-ecological sustainability.
When shared broadly and available readily, information can be-
have as commons. Sri Lankan shrimp aquaculture serves as evi-
dence for community GSCI practices [34] by integrating the com-
mons management approach into SCM.
Acknowledgement
We sincerely appreciate the support of shrimp farmers and
community members of northwestern Sri Lanka. I gratefully ac-
knowledge Rohan Paaris from SLADA and all the staff of NAQDA
Battulu-Oya shrimp farming monitoring and extension unit, for
their invaluable support and guidance. All authors owe a debt of
gratitude to Dr. Fikret Berkes, Canada Research Chair in Commu-
nity-Based Resource Management, for his financial (The Canada
Research Chairs Program: http://www.chairs-chaires.gc.ca) and
intellectual support and advice regarding early drafts of this paper.
References
[1] R.L. Naylor, R.J. Goldburg, J.H. Primavera, N. Kautsky, M.C.M. Beveridge, J. Clay,
C. Folke, J. Lubchenco, H. Mooney, M. Troell, Effect of aquaculture on world fish
supplies, Nature 405 (2000) 1017–1024.
[2] J. Barnaby, A. Vincent, An assessment of the sustainability of shrimp pur-
chasing at UBC, The University of British Colombia Sustainable Seafood Pro-
ject-Phase II 2007, p. 27.
[3] A. Cascorbi, Farm-raised shrimp worldwide overview. Seafood Watch Seafood
Report: Farmed Shrimp, Final report 2004: 26.
[4] P.K. Nayak, F. Berkes, Whose marginalization? Politics around environmental
justice in Indian's Chilika lagoon, Local Environ. 15 (6) (2010) 553–567.
193
[5] J.H. Primavera, Socio-economic impacts of shrimp culture, Aquac. Res. 28
(1997) 815–827.
[6] R. Bhatta, M. Bhat, Impacts of aquaculture on the management of estuaries in
India, Environ. Conserv. 25 (2) (1998) 109–121.
[7] M. Huitric, C. Folke, N. Kautsky, Development and government policies of the
shrimp farming industry in Thailand in relation to mangrove ecosystems, Ecol.
Econ. 40 (3) (2002) 441–455.
[8] E.K. Galappaththi, F. Berkes, Institutions for managing common-pool re-
sources: the case of community-based shrimp aquaculture in northwestern Sri
Lanka, Marit. Stud. 13 (2014) 13.
[9] E.K. Galappaththi, F. Berkes, Drama of the commons in small-scale shrimp
aquaculture in northwestern, Sri Lanka, Int. J. Commons 9 (1) (2015) 347–368.
[10] E.K. Galappaththi, F. Berkes, Can co-management emerge spontaneously?
Collaborative management in Sri Lankan shrimp aquaculture, Mar. Policy 60
(2015) 1–8.
[11] J.T. Mentzer, W. DeWitt, J.S. Keebler, S. Min, N.W. Nix, C.D. Smith, Z.G. Zacharia,
Defining supply chain management, J. Bus. Logist. 22 (2) (2001) 25.
[12] C.A.A. Rashed, A. Azeem, Z. Halim, Effects of information and knowledge
sharing on supply chain performance: a survey based approach, J. Oper.
Supply Chains Manag. 3 (2) (2010) 61–77.
[13] J.R. Montoya-Torres, D.A. Ortiz-Vargas, Collaboration and information sharing
in supply chains: a literature review over the period 2000–2012, Estud. Ger-
enc. 30 (2014) 343–354.
[14] M. Caridi, R. Cigolini, D. De Marco, Improving supply-chain collaboration by
linking CPFR, Int. J. Prod. Res. 43 (20) (2005) 4191–4218.
[15] E. Verwaal, M. Hesselmans, Drivers of supply network governance: an ex-
plorative study of the Dutch chemical industry, Eur. Manag. J. 22 (4) (2004)
442–451.
[16] H.L. Lee, V. Padmanabhan, S. Whang, The bullwhip effect in supply chains,
Sloan Manag. Rev. 38 (3) (1997) 93–102.
[17] S. Wadhwa, A. Saxena, Knowledge management based supply chain: an evo-
lution perspective, Glob. J. e-Bus. Knowl. Manag. 2 (2) (2005) 13–29.
[18] D. Hart, The wise supply chain: Knowledge as its component of success. in:
Proceedings of the 13th Biannual Conference of Australian Rangeland Society,
Alice Springs, NT 2004, pp. 154–160.
[19] G.M. Wittenbaum, A.B. Hollingshead, I.C. Botero, From cooperative to moti-
vated information sharing in groups: moving beyond the hidden profile
paradigm, Commun. Monogr. 71 (3) (2004) 286–310.
[20] M.J. Shaw, Information based manufacturing with the web, Int. J. Flex. Manuf.
12 (2/3) (2000) 115–129.
[21] Y. Benkler, The political economy of commons, Upgrade 4 (3) (2003) 7.
[22] E. Ostrom, Governing the Commons: the Evolution of Institutions for Collec-
tive Action, Cambridge University Press, New York, 1990.
[23] E. Ostrom, Collective action and evolution of social norms, J. Econ. Perspect. 14
(3) (2000) 137–158.
[24] ICA. International Cooperative Alliance; 2014. 〈http://ica.coop/en/whats-co-
op/co-operative-identity-values-principles〉. Accessed 22.11.14.
[25] O. Amarasinghe, M. Bavinck, Building resilience: fisheries cooperatives in
southern Sri Lanka, in: S. Jentof, A. Eide (Eds.), Poverty mosaics: Realities and
Prospects in small-scale Fisheries, 383–406, Springer, Dordrecht, 2011.
[26] E. Ostrom, J. Burger, C.B. Field, R.B. Norgaard, D. Policansky, Revisiting the
commons: local lessons, global challenges, Science 284 (1999) 278–282.
[27] G. Hardin, The tragedy of the commons, Sci., New Ser. 162 (3859) (1968)
1243–1248.
[28] D. Feeny, F. Berkes, B.J. McCay, J.M. Acheson, The tragedy of the commons:
twenty-two years later, Human. Ecol. 18 (1) (1990) 1–19.
[29] F. Pa´ez-Osuna, The environmental impact of shrimp aquaculture: causes, ef-
fects, and mitigating alternatives, Environ. Manag. 28 (1) (2001) 131–140.
[30] C. Hess, E. Ostrom, Understanding Knowledge as a Commons, from Theory to
Practice, The MIT Press, Cambridge, 2007.
[31] C. Hess, Mapping the new commons. Presented at the 12th Biennial Con-
ference of the IASC, Cheltenham, UK, 14–18 July; 2008.
[32] D. Beagle, Conceptualization an information commons, J. Acad. Librariansh. 25
(2) (1999) 82–89.
[33] R. Bailey, B. Tierney, Information commons redux: concepts, evolution, and
transcending the tragedy of commons, J. Acad. Librariansh. 28 (5) (2002)
277–286.
[34] C.Y. Wong, C.W.Y. Wong, S. Boon-itt, Integrating environment management
into supply chains: a systematic literature review and theoretical framework,
Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 45 (1–2) (2015) 43–68.
[35] R.D. Klassen, The integration of environmental Issues into manufacturing:
toward an interactive open-systems model, Prod. Oper. Manag. 4 (1) (1993)
82–88.
[36] G. Kassinis, N. Vafeas, Stakeholder pressures and environmental performance,
Acad. Manag. J. 49 (1) (2006) 145–159.
[37] M.R. Hill, Sustainability, greenhouse gas emissions and international opera-
tional management, Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 21 (12) (2001) 1503–1520.
[38] Anon, Ten year development policy framework of the fisheries and aquatic
resources sector (2007–2016), Ministry of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources;
2007: 4. 〈http://www.fisheries.gov.lk/English_link/10%20year%20plan.pdf/〉.
Accessed 22.02.12.
[39] FAO, World review of fisheries and aquaculture (part 1), Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations; 2010: 18. 〈http://www.fao.org/docrep/
013/i1820e/i1820e01.pdf〉. Accessed 23.11.15.
[40] Anon, Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Act No. 2 of 1996 of Sri Lanka, Section
66, 2011: 21. 〈http://www.customs.gov.lk/docs/25295.pdf〉. Accessed 03.03.12.
194 E.K. Galappaththi et al. / Marine Policy 68 (2016) 187–194
[41] J.M.P.K. Jayasinghe, Shrimp Culture in Sri Lanka: Key Issues in Sustainability
and Research 1998, pp. 48–51. 〈http://aciar.gov.au/files/node/2196/pr90chap
ter07.pdf〉. Accessed 19.03.12.
[42] A.W. Fast, L.J. Lester, Marine Shrimp Culture: Principles and Practices, Devel-
opments in Aquaculture and Fisheries Science, Elsevier 1992, pp. 345–398.
[43] J.W. Creswell, Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods
Approaches, Third edition, Sage Publications, Lincoln, 2009.
[44] R.K. Yin, Case Study Research, Design and Methods, Volume 5. Applied Social
Research Method Series, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2009.
[45] FAO, National Aquaculture Sector Overview, Food and Agriculture Organiza-
tion of the United Nations; 2015: 4. 〈http://www.fao.org/fishery/coun
trysector/naso_sri-lanka/en〉. Accessed 22.11.15.
[46] P.K. Nayak, F. Berkes, Commonisation and Decommonisation: understanding
the processes of change in the Chilika lagoon, India, Conserv. Soc. 9 (2) (2011)
132–145.
[47] T.T.T. Huong, F. Berkes, Diversity of resource use and property rights in Tam
Giang lagoon, Vietnam, Int. J. Commons 5 (1) (2011) 130–149.
[48] R.S. Pomeroy, R. Rivera-Guieb, Fishery Co-management: a PHhandbook, In-
ternational Development Research Centre, Ottawa 2006, pp. 16–17.
[49] E. Ostrom, C. Chang, M. Pennington, V. Tarko, The Future of the Commons:
Beyond Market Failure and Government Regulation. Institute of Economic
Affairs Monographs, Indiana University, Bloomington School of Public & En-
vironmental Affairs Research, 2012, Paper no. 2012-12-02: 57.
[50] B.D. Ottum, W.L. Moore, The role of market information in new product suc-
cess/failure, J. Product. Innov. Manag. 14 (4) (1997) 258–273.
[51] H.R. Varian, Microeconomic Analysis, Third edition, W.W. Norton and Com-
pany Inc, New York 1992, p. 469.