Social and economic policy issues relevant to marine aquaculture

Social and economic policy issues relevant to marine aquaculture

By P. Burbridge1, V. Hendrick1, E. Roth2 and H. Rosenthal3

1Department of Marine Sciences and Coastal Management, University of Newcastle, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, England;2Department of Environmental and Business Economics, University of Southern Denmark, Denmark; 3Institute for Marine Science,University of Kiel, Germany

Summary

This paper presents a critical review of current social,economic and policy issues relevant to marine aquaculture(mariculture) in Europe. Tools for identifying the full range of

social, economic and environmental issues that in¯uence thesustainable development of mariculture are examined. Underpresent sectoral approaches to policy, investment, develop-

ment planning and natural resources management, these issuescontinue to be treated in isolation. The four main challengespresented in this paper are: (i) how to create a more objectiveinformation base with which to assess the social, economic and

environmental factors that condition the sustainability ofmariculture; (ii) how to provide information from di�erentdisciplines in an easy to obtain and compatible format;

(iii) how to better integrate knowledge and skills from di�erentdisciplines to create a holistic and robust framework forassessing options for mariculture development that integrates

social, economic and environmental parameters; and (iv) thee�ective integration of these assessments into the formulationof policy, investment strategies, spatial plans and naturalresources management for coastal areas.

Speci®c issues that need to be addressed within the frame-work for the integrated evaluation of the economic, social andenvironmental parameters governing the sustainable develop-

ment of mariculture include:· development of more accurate information on the economic,social and environmental bene®ts and costs of well-planned

and managed mariculture;· clearer de®nition of gaps in existing knowledge on factorscritical to the sustainable and equitable development of

mariculture;· development of pro-active consideration of the coastal landand water resource requirements of mariculture as part ofstrategic economic planning, spatial planning and natural

resources management;· the need for more equitable treatment of maricultureregarding rights of access to sites for development and use

of resources;· development of awareness among decision-makers, plan-ners, and managers from di�erent sectoral agencies of the

contribution that mariculture may make in promoting thesustainable use of coastal ecosystems;

· promotion of a shift in emphasis away from controlling theend use of resources and toward a more balanced approach

to coastal development where emphasis is also given tomaintaining the health and productivity of coastal ecosys-tems and the resources they generate that sustain di�erent

forms of activity, including mariculture.

Introduction

Coastal lands and shallow coastal seas contain some of themost biologically diverse and productive ecosystems found onearth. These ecosystems sustain a wide variety of human

activities and support a major part of the total harvest ofmarine organisms as well as helping to sustain numerousonshore activities such as agriculture, rural and urban devel-

opment as well as tourism, recreation and leisure activities.The world-wide decline of capture ®sheries has provided animpetus for increased production from coastal lands andwaters through farming of marine resources. Fish and shell®sh

farming, or mariculture, currently forms a signi®cant andrapidly growing component of world aquatic production.Indeed, the global production from mariculture has more than

tripled in biomass and value over the last 15 years (FAO1999a). In 1997, production from mariculture from theEuropean Union (EU) was estimated at 1 107 763 tonnes,

and valued at 1975 million euros (Public and CorporateEconomic Consultants (PACEC) and Stirling Aquaculture1998). There are opportunities for increases in production inmost countries, with the general exception of Sweden,

Germany and Denmark, where mariculture may be perceivedto have only negative environmental impacts and potentialeconomic or social bene®ts that could be derived from

mariculture may not be fully recognized.Globally, it is forecast that mariculture will further diversify

and production will continue to increase for both human

consumption and industrial use. Therein lies a paradox:mariculture can help to meet the increased demand for aquaticfood supplies and can reduce ®shing pressures, yet it is unlikely

to compensate for the reduction in the production of marinecapture ®sheries, the latter being caused by both over-exploitation and by damage to coastal ecosystems. At thesame time, mariculture has been cited as a contributing factor

to the collapse of ®sheries stocks world-wide due to the use ofwild ®sh as feed for cultured ®sh species, through habitatmodi®cation and wild seed stock collection (Naylor et al.

2000). Such accusations, although in¯uential in a politicalsense, are not fully supported by scienti®c information andignore the major advances in mariculture technology and

management (Black et al. 1997; Asche and TveteraÊ s 2000;Roth et al. 2000). These accusations have also been taken upby the media and have contributed to the negative publicimage of mariculture.

The authors acknowledge there is heightened concern inEurope over the safety of food produced by modern farmingsystems, including marine aquaculture. Major problems, such

as BSE in cattle and dioxins in poultry and eggs and also in ®sh

J. Appl. Ichthyol. 17 (2001), 194±206Ó 2001 Blackwell Wissenschafts-Verlag, BerlinISSN 0175±8659

Received: September 10, 2000Accepted: March 15, 2001 1

U.S. Copyright Clearance Centre Code Statement: 0175±8659/2001/1704±0194$15.00/0 www.blackwell.de/synergy

oils2 , as well as concerns over the welfare of ®sh, have raisedserious public health and ethical concerns on the part of the

general public. In turn this has heightened criticism ofintensive farming of marine animals such as salmon and hasraised questions concerning contamination of farmed animals

from chemicals such as dioxin. In addition, possible links havebeen made between intensive salmon farming and reductionsin wild salmon stocks (mainly through escapee potentialinterbreeding, and prevalence of sea lice).

Although the genuine concern on the part of consumers isunderstandable, criticisms levelled at mariculture are notalways balanced by scienti®c evidence or advances in husban-

dry, hygiene and other management practices. As a result, anegative approach to the value of mariculture in addressingurgent social and economic issues such as food security,

employment and maintenance of essential services in deprivedrural areas have not been put into perspective. This articlefocuses upon the positive social and economic features thatneed to be incorporated into a well-informed debate on the

future contribution that mariculture can make to the welfareof European society.The future success of the mariculture industry will depend

on: (i) improving environmental compatibility of culturesystems; (ii) improving public understanding of advancesin mariculture, maintaining the high quality environment

required for e�cient mariculture production; (iii) continuousmonitoring to ensure mariculture is protected from adverseimpacts from other activities; and (iv) e�ective formulation of

policy where stakeholders have been involved in the earlystages of decision making. To achieve sustainability, maricul-ture must be included in strategic development plans forcoastal lands and waters. Mariculture should also be granted

rights of access to coastal lands and waters equal to thoserights enjoyed by other forms of human development.In global terms some forms of mariculture are well

established and have been an integral part of coastal develop-ment for centuries; for example, the polyculture of milk®sh(Chanos chanos), shrimp (e.g. the tiger prawn, Penaeus

monodon) and other species in conventional brackish waterponds in Asia. However, the mounting demand for selectedspecies and the stimulus of high prices, has led to a rapidincrease in the expansion of mariculture in both tropical and

temperate regions. This has often taken place without dueconsideration of the environmental compatibility of suchactivities with other activities and the potential negative

economic or social e�ects on local communities. Examplesinclude the culture of the tiger prawn and other shrimp speciesin Asia, Africa and Latin America, and the initial phases of

salmon culture in Europe and North and South America. Inrecent years the expansion and diversi®cation of mariculture inEurope has been guided under carefully designed environmen-

tal controls. Such controls have not necessarily been applied toother forms of activity and mariculture operations have oftenbeen subjected to adverse impacts imposed by other forms ofhuman activity and as a result the productivity and ®nancial

viability of operations have often been reduced.With mounting population pressures and the desire of

nations to expand and diversify their economies, there are

corresponding pressures on coastal areas to accommodate newdevelopment. The 1991 United Nations Conference on Envi-ronment and Development (UNCED) and the International

Plan of Action set out in Agenda 21 recognized these pressuresand the need to integrate good environmental managementwith sound economic planning. Chapter 17 of the Agenda,

Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) gave priority toachieving sustainable and equitable development of coastal

lands and waters.The rate of progress in achieving the objectives of Agenda

21, Chapter 17 has varied between nations due to population

pressures, available natural resources, human resources andthe competence, interests and priorities of governance systemswith respect to rapid economic development. However there isa common purpose among nations to strive for optimum and

sustainable use of coastal resources that sustain food suppliesand maintain the economic and social welfare of coastalcommunities (FAO 1999b). Related goals include the main-

tenance of high levels of biodiversity and e�ective conservationof critical habitats. A primary mechanism for promoting this isICZM in which mariculture must be seen as a legitimate and

responsible partner with other natural resources users.

Critical social issues in¯uencing the sustainable development

of mariculture

Critical social and economic issues, such as the contributionthat mariculture can make to the welfare of rural regions, need

to be addressed before e�ective policies can be formulated tosupport the development of sustainable mariculture ande�ectively integrate its development with other coastal activ-

ities. These are discussed below in relation to the developmentof European mariculture.

Contribution made by ®sheries, including mariculture,

to employment in the European Union

The recent European Commission Fisheries report on

Regional Socio-economic Studies on Employment and theLevel of Dependency on Fishing (Goulding et al. 2000)identi®es a direct employment for a minimum of 526 000

people in the European Union (EU) in 1996/97. The authorssuggest that a better estimate of ®sheries-dependent employ-ment in the EU can be reached through using an average

employment multiplier of 1.1 dependent jobs linked to every®shing job. Using this multiplier, Goulding et al. (2000)estimated the total number of jobs dependent on ®sheries in1996/97 could range between 580 000 and 600 000. These

®ndings might be criticized due to the simpli®ed models used.Goulding et al. (2000) report that marine capture ®sheries,

with an estimated output of 6.3 billion ECU, accounts for the

largest share of direct employment in the aquatic sector(251 600 recorded jobs, 234 000 full-time). Fish processing isestimated to provide employment for a further 96 250

individuals (with a gross output of 11.3 billion ECU). Withinthis context, aquaculture is estimated to provide a further56 000 jobs and 80% of these are in mariculture. Available

data suggests that the inland ®sheries are small in comparisonwith marine capture ®sheries and processing, employing only9597 (Goulding et al. 2000).Women play only a minor role in marine capture ®sheries

(6% of all jobs). However, they play a major role in ®shprocessing (59% of all jobs) and account for 31% of all jobs inmariculture (see Table 1: based on data provided in Goulding

et al. 2000).There are signi®cant di�erences between regions inEurope with respect to dependence on jobs provided bycapture ®sheries and mariculture.

In contrast to marine ®sheries and processing, dependencyon mariculture for employment is generally lower. Forexample, for the larger area-based units, Pontevedra and La

Social and economic policy issues relevant to marine aquaculture 195

CorunÄ a in Spain are the most dependent with mariculture

accounting for 2.8% of jobs in the ®sheries sector. CharentesMaritime in France and the Highlands and Islands of Scotlandalso have high levels of dependency on mariculture, as do Ria

de Arousa in Spain with 25% of the local employmentattributable to mariculture. Four regions in Finland are alsorelatively highly dependent on mariculture, these being

Houtskari (20.6%), InioÈ (17.2%), FoÈ gloÈ (15.5%) and BraÈ ndoÈ(13.7%). The rias of Galicia, with their extensive molluscculture, also contribute another six of the top 20 mariculture-

dependent regions, the balance being in Scotland whereemployment in salmon culture is important in NW Sutherland,Skye and Wester Ross and the Shetland Isles (Goulding et al.2000).

The expansion of mariculture in areas where there are fewalternatives for employment can play a major role in helping toreverse rural depopulation and in improving the quality of

peoples' lives. However opportunities for increasing employ-ment in mariculture can not always be created close totraditional ®shing ports where unemployment is now most

prevalent.

The contribution mariculture can make to rural development

Many of the recent mariculture activities in EU countries havedeveloped in the less populated areas. However, little infor-mation is available on the socio-economic impacts of such

activities. The social impacts of mariculture vary with the stageof economic development and between the di�erent actorsinvolved within the community. Integration of mariculture

into the economies of local communities also depends upone�ective consultation between the developer and local people.Where people are not consulted and involved in decisions

concerning the development of mariculture, it may not beaccepted by the community.Mariculture typically requires a high degree of input in the

form of local manpower and ancillary services. Consequently,

being a labour-intensive, physically demanding industry, it hasbeen instrumental in stemming emigration and providesgreater security for the local and remotely located coastal

communities where other opportunities and entrepreneurialenterprise are limited. As productivity is rising, opportunitiesemerge to earn higher wages and provide for an improved

material standard of living. However, improvements ine�ciency can also mean that the same level of productionrequires a smaller labour force and hence people can be made

redundant and become unemployed unless there are

alternative developments that can provide them with an

income. At the same time concentration of ownership withinthe industry may change the distribution of income. Marketforces might lead to long-term strong centralization, including

`dumping' where low prices force out competition, hostiletake-overs of small-scale companies, and other businesspractices that decrease diversity of ownership and bene®ts to

the local work force.Although signi®cant coastal mariculture production indi-

cates high potential for generating alternative employment in

coastal communities, in reality there are important limitationsthat must be recognized that can limit the potential contribu-tion of mariculture to the generation of new opportunities foremployment.

There appears to be limited overlap of skills such that majorcultural shifts are needed if rural people are to adjust to aculture mode of production [e.g. ®shers do not necessarily

make good farmers (Indo-Paci®c Fishery Commission 1994)].The majority of mariculture sites tend to be on the moresheltered coasts and frequently remote from the infrastructure,

such as harbours and good roads, that are needed to minimizetransport costs and ensure the freshness and value of theharvest. The sectors where skills might be more transferable,

such as the shell®sh sector, are already mature industries in themajor producing countries with production and demand notexpected to experience strong growth (Public and CorporateEconomic Consultants and Stirling Aquaculture 1998).

Little detailed study has been undertaken to investigate theimpact of mariculture on communal and cultural stability or ofthe contribution of mariculture to the social stability in EU

member countries. There is a need to further identify andassess the contribution of rural mariculture development tomaintaining the stability of rural communities. However,

circumstantial evidence suggests that several forms of activitycan provide local opportunities for part-time seasonalemployment, thereby stabilizing income among workforcegroups at time of low tourist activities. For example, in

Denmark, there are increased opportunities for seasonal jobsin ®sh processing from October to December that coincidewith low levels of activity in building and tourism.

One example of how mariculture may ease the problems ofdeclining populations in rural areas is illustrated by the socio-economic studies undertaken during the early to mid-1990s

relating to the Highlands and Islands of Scotland (McCunn1992; Public and Corporate Economic Consultants andStirling Aquaculture 1998). McCunn's study related to the

period when salmon farming and cage farming was still in its

Production No. employed

SectorVolumeTonnes 1000

ValueECU million FT + PT FTE Men Women

Marine ®shing 5 610 6 287 251 602 234 003 236 016 15 600Fish processing NA 11 351 96 250 86 625 39 270 56 980Marine aquaculture 903 1 385 45 341 36 975 32 464 12 877Inland aquaculture 203 632 11 045 9 720 9 410 1 635Inland ®shing 90 258 9 597 6 814 NA NAOther ®shery sector NA NA 112 147 NA NA NA

Total 6 807 19 912 526 034 374 137 317 160 87 092

FT, full-time; PT, part-time employment; FTE, full-time equivalent; NA, not available. FT and PT®gures are recorded numbers; FTE and gender estimates are extrapolated from regions with dataavailable. Other ®shery sector includes distribution, mollusc gathering, vessel construction and repair,and is likely to underestimate employment by 60±70 000. (after Goulding et al. 2000).

Table 1Principal economic dimensions of theEuropean Union ®shery sector

196 P. Burbridge et al.

early days. New infrastructure businesses were created such asnet manufacturing, boat building, service equipment manu-

facturers, insurance companies, and trade associations. Othersalso gained job opportunities, among them employees ofthe niversities, amenity and scenic interests, Scottish Natural

Heritage, Crown Estate Commissioners, Highlands andIslands Development Board ± partly as a result of thedevelopment of the ®sh farming industry. Other examplesinclude engineering workshops where the welder is preparing,

among other items, anchor-chains for ®sh farms.McCunn (1992) provided an interesting calculation based on

approximately 35 000 tonnes of annual production of salmon

(Salmo salar) in Scotland in the late 1980s to early 1990s. Onaverage, the investments for ®sh farm installations wouldamount to about £3500 per tonne capacity, leading to £120

million of total investment, of which 30% (amounting to £36million) might be ®xed capital and of that, half will depreciateover 5 years, which is equivalent to £3.6 million per annum.One-third of this amount is wage related, accounting for about

100 jobs. Moreover, there are spin-o� e�ects. During the 1980sand 1990s the rural communities for the ®rst time experiencedan increase in population size rather than a decline. There were

job opportunities and the younger generation could stay anddid not have to move to the larger cities. By the early 1990ssalmon farming was by far the biggest activity in the food

production sector of the Highland and Islands economy andwas valued at some £150 million. Next came beef (£80 million),which historically had been the principal component of the

economy. Another staple product is lamb at £40 million, witharable crops (£25 million) following behind.McCunn (1992) estimated that the salmon farming industry

in the late 1980s to the early 1990s was responsible for creating

direct and indirect employment of about 10 000 jobs, addingmuch to the social welfare of a rural area which is at the fringeof Europe with little other options for development. Maricul-

ture in rural areas often needs both infrastructure support anda direct workforce throughout the year, whereas othereconomic activities such as tourism are typically seasonal in

nature. The latter characteristically attracts a young labourforce from far away for a short-time period only. This does notcontribute greatly to the wealth of the area but extracts pro®tfrom it, although the local people may only be marginally

incorporated in the wealth-generating process of tourism.McCunn's study was a desk exercise based on existing data.

The later study by Public and Corporate Economic Consult-

ants and Stirling Aquaculture (1998) was more detailed,including ®eldwork and formal input/output analysis. Itindicated the total employment impact of salmon production

in the Highlands and Islands as rather less than 5000, althoughalmost 6500 for Scotland as a whole. However it has beensuggested that there could be some underestimation in that

assessment (Sutherland 2000). Whatever may be the exactemployment impact, Sutherland (2000) emphasizes the factthat the decline in the population of the Highlands and Islandshas certainly stopped since the growth of ®sh farming in the

area. Although this cannot solely, or perhaps even largely beattributed to the growth of ®sh farming, it must certainly haveplayed a part.

The Scottish experience also showed that by improving thecommunity stability and helping to establish a critical popu-lation size that is capable of supporting more infrastructure,

services to other resource users and the general publicimproved (Public and Corporate Economic Consultants andStirling Aquaculture 1998). Such spin-o� e�ects were seen in

improved transport linkages, for example: an increase in thefrequency of bus services, and enhanced harbour facilities; in

health services by encouraging settlement of specialized healthcare professionals; and retailing through establishment ofrepair shops.

In a comparable study of four counties along the westernseaboard of Ireland (White and Costelloe 1999), a survey oflocal opinion showed that the majority of local peoplerecognized that, without the mariculture industry, their com-

munities would change; that unemployment and emigrationlevels would be higher; and that the continuation of traditionalskills such as boat building would be threatened and the

cultural identity of their rural coastal communities wouldbecome more fragmented. The study concluded that theeconomic signi®cance of the mariculture industry in the

peripheral areas along the western seaboard is indisputable(White and Costelloe 1999). The industry which cultivates arange of ®n®sh and shell®sh species along with sea urchins, seaworms and some seaweeds provided an annual value to the

economy of approximately IR£60 m, and 1855 full time jobequivalents in 1997 (Bord Iascaigh Mhara 1999, cited in Whiteand Costelloe 1999).

In Ireland the extent of ancillary dependence or e�ect fromthe mariculture industry is also signi®cant and extends outsidethe marine sector reaching other industries and service

providers including, for example, the building industry (Whiteand Costelloe 1999). Furthermore, infrastructure is not onlyrelated to improved services in local areas, but in many cases

mariculture helps to develop and sustain the need for locallyproduced expertise as has been the case is the maricultureindustry of Tromso, Norway.An assessment of the in¯uence of mariculture in County

Galway, Ireland (White and Costelloe 1999), found that themaintenance of a sound community structure is essential to thesurvival and continuing evolution of the Irish language and its

associated cultural aspects. As European mass culture becomesincreasingly homogenous, the importance of cultural diversityin such coastal areas cannot be overstated.

To summarize, policies promoting the sustainable develop-ment of mariculture using available valuable and renewableindigenous and local resources, can improve the economic andsocial development of rural communities through enhancing

employment levels, reducing emigration and facilitatingimprovements in infrastructure. The e�ective participation ofstakeholders in the formulation and implementation of mari-

culture development policies, plans and management arrange-ments are desirable and e�ective means of promoting equitabledevelopment. However, few studies and projects with a socio-

economic component include a social anthropological compo-nent which could help to identify factors that could in¯uencethe acceptance of and support for mariculture development by

local people.

Changing social preferences for ®sh and ®sh products

Within Europe, changes in eating habits, the move towardseco-labelling, and increased demands from consumers andretailers for natural food have created additional pressure on

the dwindling supplies of ®sh stocks. This, combined with theBSE crisis and the recent outbreak of Foot and Mouth diseasehas led to a trend of decreased consumption of `red-meat'

coupled with greater consumption of convenience food andprocessed ®sh, which in turn have improved the marketposition of ®sh (Public and Corporate Economic Consultants


and Stirling Aquaculture 1998). With the shortfall in thesupply of landed ®sh, mariculture has been able to capitalize

on the demand for ®sh and ®sh products.

Property rights issues

To date mariculture has not generally been considered ashaving equal rights of access to and use of natural resources incompetition for sites in the coastal zone. Existing activities are

often protected by legislative systems that are typically basedon land laws that are not well suited for mariculture. As aresult, laws and regulations tend to favour existing activities

and may not be particularly bene®cial for the integration ofmariculture in coastal management plans (ICES 1998, 1999).Hence, with the exception of situations where mariculture has

a long history of being integrated into coastal land and wateruses (mainly shell®sh culture), the development of mariculturehas typically been tolerated only where there are no objectionsfrom other activities that might be a�ected.

In areas in which mariculture has been promoted withoutany consultation with other stakeholders, there has been agradual increase in resistance to its development. Con¯icts

over the control of natural resources inevitably arise whenmarket forces and public policies make new uses of theseresources, especially when customary uses were primarily for

self-provisioning and to supply local markets, whereas the newuses tend to meet the demands of higher income consumerselsewhere. Even those groups who retain their traditional

access to natural resources may ®nd them less productive thanpreviously, and their livelihoods are likely to deteriorate in thelong-run (Barraclough and Finger-Stich 1996). There istherefore a need to establish clearer user (property) rights

regimes.In cases where adequate property rights (preferably owner-

ship) are not in place, there is little opportunity to raise capital

for investment; for example, for the expansion of conventionalculture techniques or implementation of new technologies. Inthe absence of clear rights to property, banks and other

®nancial institutions will be reluctant to lend capital toentrepreneurs, thereby hampering long-term planning withinthe sector.Property rights for mariculture are not clari®ed in all

countries and are often controversially discussed as private useof public domain areas. Mariculture should be seen to haveboth a right to compensation where an adverse external

in¯uence, such as degradation of water is caused by others,and a responsibility towards the external environment. Thismeans that di�erent parties may enjoy rights of use of

resources within socially acceptable norms where one partydoes not impose harmful social, economic or environmentalimpacts on other parties (see Davidse et al. 1997).

The incentive for conservation of natural habitats andthereby conservation of the long-term productive capacity isendangered under most common property regimes (de®ned ascommon pool losses) (Libecap 1989). This is most frequently

expressed by the term `the tragedy of the commons' (implyingthe loss to society following an open access managementregime of scarce natural resources (land, ®sh stocks, forest)

(Hardin 1968; Ostrom 1990).

Control over access to resources

In most EU countries, the development of mariculture isprimarily restricted by conditions that limit permission for use

of a suitable site. This in itself is not an economic problem, butbarriers to entry do have an in¯uence on the level of

production and costs, and therefore on prices of marketableaquatic products to the consumer. The capital value ofmariculture development may therefore be in¯uenced less by

the bio-technical options the entrepreneur has at hand(e.g. suitable sites, risk assessment and environmental in¯uen-ces), and more by procedures necessary to obtain a permit toestablish a mariculture venture.

An example can be provided in Scotland, where developerswishing to establish mariculture farms are required to obtain anumber of permissions and licences from di�erent regulatory

authorities. These include leases for areas of the sea bed whichare allocated by the Crown Estate Commission (CEC),allowing regulation over certain types of development, and

hence in¯uencing the distances between adjacent developers(ICES 1997). The level of allowable production for a site isdetermined by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency(SEPA), which grants a discharge consent that serves as a

management tool to maintain acceptable environmental stand-ards around the farm (Gauld et al. 19983 ). Further permits foron-shore development associated with farms requires planning

permits (e.g. permanent construction below the level of meanhigh water springs) and a licence under the Food andEnvironmental Protection Act (ICES 1997). Consent to install

®sh farm equipment has to be obtained from the Departmentof the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) toensure that navigation is not impeded. Finally, all ®sh farms

are required to register with the Scottish Executive RuralA�airs Department (SERAD) (ICES 1997). These permits aregranted or refused following a consultation exercise involvingrelevant interest groups and organizations.

There are signi®cant di�erences in procedures throughoutEurope, which distort competition among member states(Rosenthal et al. 2000). These di�erences, coupled with

investment incentives that may not be linked to sustainableenvironmental conditions, may favour regions which are lesssuitable than others and may be less environmentally sound.

User rights and potential for integration of mariculture

with other coastal activities

There is a wealth of information on the environmental impactof mariculture and the minimization of its e�ects, and oninteractions of mariculture with other coastal resource users.

Most of the material is assembled in the Reports of theWorking Group on Environmental Interactions of Maricul-ture of ICES (e.g. ICES 1995, 1997, 1998, 1999; 2000); and of

the Report on the Workshop on Mariculture and the CoastalZone held in Kiel, in 1995 (ICES 1995). Unfortunately, theeconomic and social interactions among di�erent coastal

development activities and between these activities and mari-culture have not been comprehensively assessed or understood.With unequal rights of access to and use of resources incomparison with other activities, it is di�cult to predict the

potential for fully integrating mariculture with other forms ofcoastal development.

Conservation of resources and maintenance of the economic

and social welfare of communities is promoted throughintegration of di�erent resource users. Integration may takethe form of polyculture systems in which di�erent species are

cultured together. Such systems are more e�cient at utilizingavailable food and water resources (i.e. surface and bottomfeeders) of the pond system, and consequently reduce costs and


increase productivity relative to monoculture systems. Integ-rated systems can also diversify products and increase

productivity while reducing e�uents. Studies have shown,for example, that seaweed and mussels grow well in the wastewater from intensive and semi-intensive systems, thereby

reducing nutrient and particulate loads to the environment(Soto and Mena 1999; Troell et al. 1999). E�uent output fromsalmon farming, when used to produce a seaweed crop, canadd revenue from the sale of the seaweed that can more than

pay for the extra infrastructure needed for the integrationsystem. Policies that require producers to internalize theenvironmental costs of e�uent discharge can make such

systems even more pro®table.Mariculture, in tandem with stock enhancement schemes,

has been a bene®cial form of diversi®cation for inshore

®sherman su�ering from the negative e�ects of stock depletionin areas such as Valentia Harbour, Ireland, where there hasbeen a historic traditional scallop ®shery but where stockmanagement is now essential (White and Costelloe 1999).

Recreational freshwater ®sheries bene®t highly from restock-ing of trout, sea trout and salmon in several EU countries(i.e. Denmark, Germany), which also provides potential for

commercialized tourism angling. The development of alter-native ®shing sites, namely private catch and release initiativesalso relies on cultured ®sh for stocking of `ponds'. The long-

term genetic implications on natural stocks for many of theranching activities remain to be fully assessed.Finally, integration of mariculture with tourism has also

proved successful for French oyster farmers. Farm personnelwere specially trained by the Ministry of Tourism. Thisincluded the provision of information lea¯ets and videodemonstrations for farm visitors and the sta� also provide

sample tastings of the oysters and other products at a modestcharge. In support of this form of integration, the developmentof suitable o�shore and submerged shell®sh and ®n®sh culture

techniques is currently under investigation and if successfuland feasible would reduce any adverse visual impact onpopular tourist destinations (White and Costelloe 1999).

Although such technologies for sustainable integration exist,their application varies widely across Europe. It is anticipatedthat in some areas of the Mediterranean, mariculture will seemore integration with other resource users much along the

lines of the Valli-Coltura development in Italy. Con¯icts willincrease in most Mediterranean countries as soon as environ-mental awareness increases, as is the case in areas where

tourism has developed rapidly and often in poorly controlledconditions as a result of increasing demand. In some Medi-terranean countries, the environmental impact assessment

(EIA) and the subsequent management adjustment of theproduction limits for mariculture have not yet reachedstandards that are comparable with those in northern Europe.

In fact, although the regulations are in place, most authoritiesdo not have the skills and experience required to treatmariculture in a manner that is equivalent to that applied toother forms of development. Controlling benthic impact and

adjusting production to site-speci®c carrying capacity has notreally been undertaken in most Mediterranean countries. Inmany cases compliance with controls is more lip service than

reality.The absence, or failure to apply, appropriate standards of

environmental management can lead to the foreclosure of

options for future expansion and diversi®cation of economicdevelopment. To avoid this impediment to sustainable devel-opment, more emphasis needs to be placed on making o�cials

more aware of the positive linkages between sound environ-mental management and the enhanced returns that can be

gained from both public and private investment.

Public participation in mariculture development

(policy, planning, management and monitoring)

The positive roles of any industry, particularly in remote areas,are: (i) to create new jobs; (ii) to integrate industrial activities

into the cultural structure of the local community; (iii) to gainacceptance and common agreement among the relevant stake-holders (Papayannis 1999); and (iv) to enhance and maintain

quality of life. Hence, the mariculture industry has to stimulatepublic awareness of the relative bene®ts that can be derivedfrom it (based on objective scienti®c and socio-economic

information). E�ectively designed public sector awarenesscampaigns should be considered to create a `climate' of fairnessbetween planners and investors as wells as coastal communities.This will help to stimulate closer co-operation between all

stakeholders while sharing complementary objectives (e.g. risksand bene®ts). Such a strategy would provide the pro-activeapproach that is essential to the anticipation of potential

con¯icts prior to their development, while formulating equit-able solutions early in the planning process rather than seekingthe resolution of con¯icts after the damage is done.

Methods that can be employed for raising awarenessinclude: (i) organization of an open forum to facilitatestakeholder interaction and expression of opinions and posi-

tions which can help strengthen commitment to coastalmanagement in general, and the achievement of a consensusregarding speci®c management actions; and (ii) arrangingnational and regional policy workshops and conferences to

promote a dialogue among policy makers, resource managers,representatives of development aid and ®nancial institutions,non-government organizations and the media. In all of these

activities, it is important to disseminate factual information inorder to create the climate for consensus building or forreaching negotiated settlements, because prior to negotiations

many stakeholders and the public in general are oftenmisinformed.

The need for co-management with stakeholders directly

a�ected or involved

For any management policy to be e�ective, it must be accepted

by those with stakes in the resource to be managed. Supportand co-operation is therefore needed from all segments of thepublic and private sector involved, including individual stake-

holders, and community and special interest groups. A briefreference was made during the meetings in Faro and Crete tothe 1998 and 1999 Reports of the ICES Working Group on

Environmental Interactions of Mariculture in which theseissues are addressed (ICES 1998, 1999). Principal conceptshave been outlined in the ICES (1995, 1998) reports whichidentify the need for a pro-active planning, monitoring and

regulatory process that encompass more than just the environ-mental issues and mitigate ill-informed reactions against anynew mariculture development initiatives. A more bottom-up

(participatory) approach embodying stakeholder involvement,incorporation of ecological knowledge held by the communityand by ®shers into the decision process should be taken.

Responsibility and accountability for group action are man-datory and need to evolve into a consensus-based decisionprocess or negotiated settlement.


Economic issues associated with mariculture development

One major problem faced by the mariculture industry is thelack of a framework for its objective economic evaluation,

resulting into a distorted and inconsistent view of theassociated costs and bene®ts of expanding and diversifyingmariculture. Mariculture, as a new development, is a compet-

itor for resources. Ideally, this competition should be judgedon the basis of the e�ciency of resource use as well as theenvironmental compatibility. Furthermore, common criteriashould be employed in the evaluation of all users. A thorough

economic evaluation, including socio-economic and environ-mental costs and bene®ts, is a good way with which to achievethis.

There is considerable knowledge on ®nancial managementof di�erent forms of mariculture. Examples include Tisdell andAllan (1994) and Jolly and Clouts (19934 ). However, there is a

shortage of authoritative information on the relative bene®tsand costs associated with mariculture development in com-parison with other forms of development. In developing

countries, ICLARM and AIT (Asian Institute of Technology)have carried out some of the work on the integration offreshwater aquaculture and agricultural systems. However,mariculture often represents a new form of development and

can be subjected to a higher level of scrutiny and control thanactivities which have played a signi®cant role in localeconomies for a long period of time.

Many environmental groups currently consider maricultureto require extremely tight regulations in comparison with otherinvestments. However, such views are not necessarily based on

realistic estimates of the relative costs and bene®ts (includingenvironmental costs) associated with mariculture and otherforms of development.Mariculture development initially focused on biological and

technical aspects of production. Although established andproven technologies exist for some types of culture, for others(e.g. new species, highly intensive systems) these bio-technol-

ogies are still in need of further basic studies before theeconomic viability can be properly assessed. In contrast,economic research has often been neglected by natural

scientists involved in mariculture development. Socio-econo-mic considerations in particular are often omitted whenplanning and managing mariculture development in coastal

rural areas in most of the EU countries. Fortunately, thenatural science community is gradually recognizing the valueof economic and market research into the cost-e�ectiveness ofdi�erent mariculture systems, and the importance of social

anthropological issues.The identi®cation of areas in which strategic economic

research would assist in ensuring that a development is

sustainable would allow the relative bene®ts of alternativedevelopments to be assessed. This relates in particular to thosethat have potentially high payo�s in the long term (e.g. in the

face of growing competition for essential resources).

The distinction between `®nancial' and èconomic' analyses

Financial analysis is commonly and incorrectly referred to asèconomic' but actually embodies a totally di�erent accountingstance from more broadly based economic analysis. The

principle di�erences between ®nancial and economic analysesare simpli®ed and illustrated in Fig. 1. In general terms,®nancial analysis deals with the factors that govern the costs of

production and marketing, and pro®ts from the sale of

products associated with an individual enterprise, such as a®sh farm. For the individual entrepreneur, the most criticalissue is maximizing pro®ts. In contrast, economic analysisemploys a more broad accounting framework that incorpor-

ates factors that may be ignored by the individual entrepreneurbut which can have a signi®cant impact on other activities andmay impose social or environmental costs on society. Pollution

from poorly managed and ine�cient industry is one example,imposing costs on other activities, but the polluting industrymay be able to ignore these costs if there are no measures to

make the polluter pay. From an economic accounting stance,the costs imposed by the pollution must be recognized and canbe accounted for as an economic cost that is external to the

®nancial accounting of the polluting industry. However, thesecosts ± if real and demonstrable ± can place a ®nancial burdenon other activities and a�ect their pro®ts. If these costs areconsidered to impose an unfair ®nancial burden on another

activity, public or private action can be taken to force thepolluting industry to stop the pollution and compensate thoseactivities that su�er from the costs imposed by the pollution

(`Polluter Pays Principle'). Economic analysis can also be usedby public agencies to assess the relative merits of di�erentoptions for the development of an area and its resources.

Financial analysis

The optimal production of a site or of a regional industry is

basically dependent on the overall productive e�ciency of thesystems employed. The interpretation of e�ciency is closelylinked to the ®nancial decisions taken by the entrepreneur and

the management regime to which he/she has to respond (costs).Further, the productive optimum also depends on possiblesubsidies, duties, taxes, licences and other permit fees and

other bene®ts and costs imposed on the production unit. The®nancial decisions taken by the mariculturist (or investor) aredependent on the market forces he/she is exposed to which can

limit management choices for both inputs and outputs.

Fig. 1. Schematic presentation comparing ®nancial and economicfeasibility of mariculture. In this context externalities are ùncompen-sated costs' and `bene®ts' to ®rms and individuals. Some of these netcosts are losses to society. Societal losses to the environment rest on amoral judgement and may be valued through `willingness-to-pay' or`willingness-to-accept' compensation by individuals


Optimizing pro®ts from a ®nancial viewpoint is in the short-run related to input costs (restricted by ®xed capital costs) and

the market value of outputs. The timing of production also hasa major in¯uence on pro®ts. For example, choice of speciesand manipulation of their life cycles can be used to counteract

annual cycles in the ¯uctuation in prices and rates of interestcharged on borrowed capital (e.g. growth rates as compared todiscount rates). Very little substitution is obviously possible in®n®sh culture between the major inputs: feed and labour;

however, the composition of feed and its nutritional value canbe changed. The skills of the workforce can also be improved.In shell®sh grow-out the only possible variable is labour (more

maintenance of racks and raft to maximize output in terms ofvolume and product quality).Within an intermediate time frame where several forms of

investment are available that will improve productivity inexisting production units, the scale of production may bechanged in order to optimize the economies of production.Furthermore, one may decide to close down small units in

favour of new investments in larger farm units if there arebene®ts to be gained by an economy of scale. Here, substitu-tion between capital and labour is to some extent possible

(better equipment, improved labour productivity). However,within this intermediate time frame, few of the expectedbene®ts from innovative processes may actually be realized.

For example, reduced prices may be negotiated on the basis ofan increased scale of operations where large quantities ofinputs (e.g. feeds) become cheaper per unit while labour costs

per unit of production also become cheaper because of betteroverall planning.In long-term planning all production factors are variables

and new ventures may enter the sector thereby changing the

critical mass of products in the market place (either individu-ally or co-operatively) while increasing cost-e�ectivenessthrough implementing innovations. Least-cost methods of

production and economies of scale, as well as the size of thesector with interacting producers, may theoretically lead toboth productive and allocative e�ciency under ideal assump-

tions. In reality, development is most often achieved throughmarginal changes in inputs, management and production.Examples include improved husbandry, better feed conversionratios due to the development of better ®sh feed, improvements

in broodstock attained through breeding programmesdesigned to achieve higher rates of growth and/or better feedconversion, more reliable surveillance of culture and immun-

ization programmes leading to lower mortality of the culturedspecies, and better hygiene to reduce risks of contaminationand disease outbreaks.

Looking at these scenarios it is clear that there is scope formore e�ective use of ®nancial analyses in improving presentmanagement practices. Such analyses will also help managers

to deal with the long-term need to foster a pro-active approachtowards innovation and diversi®cation, and to adapt in atimely way to changing markets and societal preferences.Many management systems do not provide reliable informa-

tion on intermediate and long-term stability options and focusinstead on short-term pro®ts while not even being aware of thelong-term options which they forgo (see Table 2). As a result

the managers as well as society forfeit potential economicdevelopment. For example, if educated labour is not available,innovative developments cannot be translated into practical

operation, as the skills they depend on are not available.Another example is related to research and development funds.If new inventions are not being supported from the laboratory

bench via pilot units to full-scale operations, the industry willhave di�culty in remaining competitive in a global market and

it will also be di�cult to avoid or mitigate environmentalproblems.Apart from the possible direct adjustments of production

and adaptation of new technology, the ®nancial results areconditional upon the development of the market for bothinputs and production. Market research on ®shmeal and oilshow that the markets for ®shmeal follow the price trends of

the much larger market for feed protein (Asche and TveteraÊ s2000). These market forces cannot be in¯uenced by themariculturists, but are subject to great variations due to both

natural forces (El Nino) and management of ®sh stocksutilized for reduction to ®shmeal and oil. The marketinnovations faced by the mariculture industry are expected

to change in the near future. Firstly, to cater for the demandfrom the well-informed consumer; secondly, because theindustry has an economic incentive to segment the market tocapture a higher share of consumers surplus as producers

surplus, and thirdly, the public preference for using marketforces as economic incentives for nature conservation maydrive this development (certi®cation and labelling schemes,

eco-labelling and labelling for seafood safety, which havedirect implications for consumers perception of the broaderterm quality). (Wessels and Anderson 19955 ; Wessels 1998;

Wessells et al. 19996 ). The private initiative by the MarineStewardship Council to have Thames Herring and WesternAustralian rock lobster covered by ®sheries certi®cation is one

of the foremost practical manifestation of these new marketand management trends. In the Nordic countries, certi®cationand labelling will be developed as part of a public programmethat is seen as safeguarding the democratic control of

mariculture. In Denmark the process was started in 1997under the Act of Parliament No. 233, of 16 April 1997. TheDanish Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries published

a report on the practical development of a label for òrganic'mariculture products in March 1999 (Ministry of Food,Agriculture and Fisheries 1999). The scheme is not yet

implemented.

Economic analysis (accounting for societal options)

Economic theory makes it possible to treat environmentalexternalities as economic externalities and to validate costs andbene®ts in money terms to di�erent groups as part of an

economic analysis. As ideal economic conditions are neverpresent, there has to be aggressive competition to ascertain themost appropriate form of activity to have access to renewable

and other resources. Environmental externalities may include

Table 2Importance of the level of independence of variable production factorsfor planning and management during perceived time scales

Options for system management

Timehorizons

Labour,feed,energy

Capital(new plant,investments)

Technologicaldevelopment(inventions,innovations)

Short-term + + ) )Intermediate + + + )Long-term + + + + + +

+ +, Option for change; ), not variable during given time frames.


obtaining fry for stocking from wild stocks (where hatcheryproduction is not possible or not feasible, because of availab-

ility in nature), for feed (again obtained from various sourcesof wild stocks, directly or indirectly) and high quality of watersources (inputs) whereas outputs (wastes) may be treated as

`free releases' (`sink of wastes') to natural receiving waterbodies. Increasingly ± because of tight environmental regula-tions ± considerations are given to multiple uses where wastes(organic substance or nutrients) are no longer considered as

wastes per se but also as new resources that serve the nextcoastal resource users downstream.In economic terminology, these external in¯uences on other

stakeholders may not only be negative but also positive.Environmental externalities may be transformed into an inputto another production system through integrated management

of di�erent resource users, thereby changing external costs toexternal bene®ts. This can only be achieved if planning takessuch options into account (e.g. the integrated farming systemof the Italian Valli-Coltura where the wastes of the intensive

farm provide the basis for the food chain in the extensivelystocked lagoon from which bird sanctuaries and eco-tourists(bird watchers) receive further bene®ts). Table 3 tries, in a

simple form, to delineate the elements for comparison of®nancial and economic issues. Negative èxternalities' or `spill-over' e�ects ± negative impacts imposed on others than those

undertaking the o�ending activity ± are pervasive in coastalareas and have origins both from inside the ®sheries and fromother sectors.

Negative external economic impacts

Mariculture production practices, their requirements for

resources and their impacts on the environment vary widely.The impacts are determined, to a large extent, by facility siting,intensity of culture methods and cropping patterns. Although

factors such as food supply, water system (on the sea bed,suspended structures, ponds, tanks, cages), and waste produc-

tion are also in¯uential in the balance of costs and bene®ts,economics will dictate which practice is more sustainable in

any given situation. Consequently the types of culture methodspractised and the species cultured in coastal mariculturesystems evolve in response to market incentives. However,

policies intended to generally encourage development of themariculture sector have also in¯uenced the location of sitessigni®cantly, choice of species and adoption of various culturetechniques. For example, concessions on public land can

signi®cantly in¯uence the siting of facilities. Similarly, tari�exemption on materials and equipment and energy subsidieswill tend to favour capital-intensive culture. This was the case

in India, where the Government introduced a deliberate policyto promote modern shrimp culture in view of its potential toearn foreign exchange. This has led however, to the imposition

of negative externalities on the environment and local popu-lation in the southern zone of Andhra Pradesh, and toeconomic distress for the farmers of the central zone as a resultof improper technology and sub-optimal investment (Viveka-

nanda and Kurien 19997 ). Environmental problems related topollution tend to be addressed when they a�ect commercialmariculture production, particularly if this is related to water

quality on which mariculture is highly dependent (Barracloughand Finger-Stich 1996). However, the impacts on aquaticbiodiversity, natural resource loss and conversion a�ecting

other land and water uses and users, and also numerous otherconsequences are frequently ignored both by the industry andpublic agencies. Mariculturists and supporting agencies are

primarily concerned with mitigating those impacts that con-strain further expansion of the mariculture industry.

The environmental impacts of mariculture have been widelydiscussed in the literature and hence do not warrant a full

review here. However, as with social issues, environmentalimpacts should be taken into consideration in a thorougheconomic appraisal of any mariculture undertakings in order

to achieve a valid assessment of sustainability. Relevant issuesinclude the impacts of habitat modi®cation, collection of wildseed stock, food web interactions, introduction of exotic

species and pathogens that harm wild ®sh populations, andsediment/nutrient loading, as well as recreational valuesforegone.

The logic of environmental-economic thinking is to optimize

the use of the available natural services to stakeholders, ®rst onan individual basis. These may be for inputs into theproduction process, but may also be as wastes for which the

environment acts as a sink. Environmental services may alsoserve non-materialistic functions valued by society (e.g. main-tenance of biological diversity), but in general, moral judge-

ments are usually tied to sustainability conditions andtherefore represent a factor in both the private and publicpreference domain.

The most logical approach to achieving sustainable levels ofutilization of environmental and economic goods and serviceswould be to accurately assess the rate at which they can bereplenished by each subsystem. This would help to de®ne a

limit of utilization that can be sustained and would enhanceperceptions of the value of the subsystems as producers ofresources that are essential to the sustainability of human

activities. This also implies that the global system must bemaintained within similar criteria of sustainability limits ofhuman use. This is a very strong sustainability criterion and in

reality this is not necessarily very realistic, as it would preventany kind of development which utilizes compensation meas-ures for intended loss of and gain from natural resources

Table 3Checklist on items to be considered in a comparative analysis whendealing with ®nancial (farm level) and economics (societal costs),confronting bene®ts and costs (after Neiland (1993))

Financialconsiderations(farm level)

Economicconsiderations(societal level)

Bene®tsSales (market prices) XXSales (market/shadow prices) XXSubsidies XXLoans XXIndirect bene®ts XXIntangible bene®ts XXSecondary bene®ts XX

CostsCapital and operating costs atMarket value XXMarket/shadow value XX

Duties XXTaxes XXPrinciple and interest payments XXLicence and permit fees XXSocial security payments XXIndirect costs XXIntangible costs XXSecondary costs XX


within subsystems. For example, urban development(or harbour development along the coast) would be an

irreversible process `destroying' natural areas. If it is possibleto substitute for these losses somewhere else, the societaldecision can still be in favour of the development and will still

achieve sustainability because substitution between di�erentrenewable resources balances the bene®ts to society (Pearceand Atkinson 1993).Mariculture can serve as a good example in estimating

environmental sustainability by evaluating each of the varioussubsectors in relation to their resource use. If, for example,seed collection and feed production are operating at a level

that permits sustainable use of the underlying resources and ifthe waste that is released can be assimilated by the surroundingenvironment, then the entire mariculture operation is environ-

mentally sustainable. If one of the local subsystems (e.g. seedcollection) is used in a non-sustainable manner, substitutionmay be possible only for small-scale systems as the overallrecruitment depends on large areas and is not hampered in

principle.Furthermore, the development of any human activity in

pristine areas alters the function of the natural system in which

this activity will take place. However, it is the scale of theoperation and the growth of the production in an area thatdetermines the level of impact relative to the level of

acceptability or substitutability between human and naturalcapital that might be incorporated into an assessment ofsustainability.

The ®nancial decisions taken by entrepreneurs are largelyin¯uenced by the political management framework in generaland by the costs and bene®ts accompanying the managementpractice in particular. It must be assumed that economic

motives govern decisions taken by private businesses, as in thecase of mariculture where di�erent management options andassociated management tools have di�erent implications for

private costs and private bene®ts for the individual company.A management system which does not take into account themost cost-e�ective way to reach the stated policy objectives,

has simply failed an obligation to sustain human welfare andutilize all resources in an e�cient and sustainable manner.There are many management options available to minimize

®nancial and socio-economic costs. They may be divided in

di�erent groups based on ®nancial incentives or physicallimitations (which also have ®nancial implications on theoverall operation and will change the pro®tability of the

business). The impact of di�erent management practices onsocial conditions can vary considerably: these can include lossof employment, loss of income and e�ects on patterns of

human settlement, thereby causing social costs. One could opt

for management strategies that would override strict economicrationality. For example, management priorities could be set

that meet societal objectives, as in the case of Sweden wheremariculture development has been restricted in order to meetsocially de®ned environmental objectives. The knowledge

about trade-o�s between con¯icting objectives when agreeingto compromises may be best achieved by looking at the®nancial bene®ts and costs and economic impacts to substan-tiate the social choices to be taken.

Management tools may also include the provision of marketincentives through, for example, individual transferable quo-tas. Both production (output-regulations) and environmental

e�ects (e�uent loads within assimilative capacity) must beconsidered. These may be set by physical limits determiningthe capacity of a habitat as a `sink' for wastes, which may then

be managed through an independent monitoring system. Inmariculture these may be de®ned in similar ways as has beendone for other land-based industries through allocation ofrights and duties. Table 4 lists some of the management

options when considering physical and economic interactions.

Environmental accountability

A high degree of reliance on a speci®c industry can raise theissues of environmental responsibility. Where dependence is

high, people may be reluctant to reduce adverse environmentalimpacts out of fear of losing their jobs. At the same time, it isimportant to ensure that the industry and local communities

do not su�er from unsustainable management practices. Theonus is on operators in the industry and researchers to developand run the industry with a long-term environmental con-sciousness for maximum sustainable bene®t to local commu-

nities and all resource users. This can be referred to asènvironmental accountability' and can be reinforced throughsetting environmental performance standards, monitoring

parameters that describe those standards and adapting man-agement procedures to meet speci®ed standards. Co-operativeinvolvement of all marine users in the area where mariculture

is being developed is very important in meeting environmentalstandards, as is demonstrated in the Single Bay ManagementPlans for a whole area established under the Co-ordinatedLocal Mariculture Management Systems Scheme in Kilkieran

Bay, Ireland by the Department of the Marine and NaturalResources.Mariculture development has been heavily promoted and

subsidized by international and national lending agencies thatoften cite global food security needs as a justi®cation(Huisman 1990). However, the main bene®ciary of these

subsidies, the shrimp industry, caters predominantly to luxury

Table 4Management considerations associated with physical, legal and economic variables in¯uencing production and sustainability

Established, institutionaland legal framework

Input regulationsto production Production process Output Market

Physical Barriers to entry andproperty rights

Input regulation on:water, capital,equipment feed

Fish density, chemicalusage, water usage(intensive, extensive,recycle)

Production limits,water quality,product quality

Import/export quotas,labelling schemes

Economic Capital requirementcredit facilities,licences fees, etc.

Subsidies, taxes andexcise, ®nes, etc,

Subsidies, taxes andexcise, ®nes, fees

Subsidies, taxes andexcise, ®nes, fees,ITQs

Import/export duties,price-subsidies, taxes

ITQs, individual transferable quotas.


demand from developed nations while putting at risk thelivelihoods and food security of many coastal populations

(Barraclough and Finger-Stich 1996). These issues of account-ability and equity have been addressed in the recent ECCommunication from the Commission to the Council and the

European Parliament on Fisheries and Poverty Reduction(Com 2000 724 Final EC, Brussels).

The social, economic and environmental bene®ts and burdens

in perspective

There has been a progressive evolution in the development of

mariculture throughout Europe. Through improved formula-tion of mariculture development plans, management arrange-ments designed to enhance the environmental and economic

performance of mariculture systems, and environmental con-trols, there have been signi®cant improvements in both theenvironmental and economic performance of the industry(e.g. site rotation of cages, improved feed conversion e�ciency,

reduced feed wastage, reduced nutrient output and reduced useof antimicrobials). In essence, environmental and economicimprovements of the industry have gone hand-in-hand,

although some of the interactions with the environment stillremain to be solved (e.g. predation of cultured species by seals,birds and other wildlife and potential dilution of genetic

diversity through escapees breeding with wild stocks). Thepotential adverse impacts on mariculture from other activitiessuch as the introductions of pests and diseases through

uncontrolled discharge of ballast water have received lessattention (see ICES 1995, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000).Although a great deal of attention has been given to

improving the environmental performance of mariculture, less

attention has been given to the assessment of the social andeconomic bene®ts and possible negative implications ofmariculture development on both a local and national scale.

Introduction of mariculture into rural areas of Europe hashelped to expand and diversify opportunities for employment,reduce rural depopulation and help to maintain public and

private service provision.The future of the industry is di�cult to predict given the

uncertainties associated with the vulnerability of maricultureto adverse environmental and economic impacts posed by

issues such as the introduction of diseases from ballast waterdischarge or from less well-regulated human activities withinthe terrestrial environment. Given equal opportunities to those

that are enjoyed by other forms of development such astourism, the development of mariculture may be characterizedby (i) increased diversi®cation of species cultured; (ii) further

development of polyculture and integrated culture systems;and (iii) improved productivity (lower unit cost of production).A real threat to its development appears to be further

tightening of environmental regulations pertaining to maricul-ture but not applied as rigorously to other forms of humanactivity.It is anticipated that potential con¯icts of interest between

mariculture and tourism could arise. In a recent Finnish studyit was noted that the development of ®sh farming in the Gulfof Finland `¼ has not until now had any signi®cant

detrimental e�ects on the tourist industry or any other branchof the economy' (Salo et al. 2000). Reducing mariculturewould not necessarily create more opportunities for the

development of other activities. On the contrary, ®sh farmingand its associated support activities could o�er opportunities

for bene®cial collaboration with other economic endeavourssuch as tourism and ®sheries (Salo et al. 2000).

The question that needs to be better addressed is `whatwould happen if mariculture development was stopped orrefused permission to develop further?' There is a real danger

that the imposition of unnecessary regulation could imposecosts that could discourage investment in expanding anddiversifying mariculture operations. This would mean thee�ective foreclosure of opportunities for sustainable develop-

ment using available renewable resources and a consequentreduction in human welfare. In a recent Finnish study it wasshown that, apart from increasing employment opportunities,

a signi®cant proportion of the impact on incomes goes to thepublic sector in the form of state and local taxes (Salo et al.2000). For rural districts that derive bene®ts from mariculture,

cessation or any major reduction in mariculture could causemajor problems. A reduction in mariculture would naturallya�ect production, income and employment in the surroundingregion and it would be di�cult to replace jobs lost in

mariculture, as alternative job opportunities are scarce.

Conclusions

Mariculture forms a socially and economically importantcomponent of the ®shery sector. Growth in mariculture

production and employment can play a major role in helpingto improve food security and increase and diversify economicopportunities at both national and more local scales. Increas-

ing dependency on mariculture can be interpreted as a sign ofincreasing employment opportunities in remote areas wherethere are few alternative forms of employment. Enhancedemployment in mariculture can help to reduce outward

migration from rural regions and help to maintain essentialservices that maintain the quality of life for rural populations.

These and other bene®ts need to be assessed in a more

comprehensive manner where the private pro®ts and losses aswell as the welfare gains and losses to society are analysed.This would allow a more balanced approach to decision-

making and the adaptation of management plans. Suchanalyses also make it possible to identify a broad range ofmanagement tools that can be e�ective in meeting societalwelfare objectives while minimizing the cost imposed on

mariculture operations. This will help to optimize the use ofavailable natural, human and ®nancial resources in the longerterm and sustainable development of mariculture.

Sustainable mariculture development depends on a numberof critical factors, including:· con®dence on the part of the consumer and the retailer

based on the establishment and maintenance of a reputationfor high quality mariculture products;

· that mariculture systems are designed to have minimal

adverse impacts on the environment and can help topromote improved management of coastal ecosystems andresources;

· the availability of suitable natural resources;

· freedom from adverse environmental and economic impactsfrom other forms of human activity;

· careful site selection and high standards of site preparation

and environmental management of the mariculture system;· availability of human resources and infrastructure;· policies developed through inclusive and e�ective participa-

tion of stakeholders that encourage appropriate forms andlevels of mariculture development;


· equal status with other natural resource users competing foraccess and rights;

· improved use of economic incentives as well as economicregulation mechanisms that encourage economic e�ciency,social equity and protection of the environment.

To facilitate sustainable and equitable development ofmariculture there also needs to be major improvements inthe dissemination of scienti®c information and advice in formsthat can be e�ectively utilized by policy makers, spatial

planners and resource managers with responsibilities forcoastal areas. It is also important to make people more awarethat ùncertainties' associated with ®ndings and available

information from the natural sciences need not impede gooddecision-making and need to be balanced with similar ùncer-tainties' concerning the social sciences as well as moral and

legal considerations. This requires an holistic perspective onenvironmental, social and economic factors that in¯uencesustainable development of mariculture and other forms ofhuman endeavour.

These diverse factors need to be e�ectively integrated intoeconomic, environmental and social development planning ifmariculture is to enjoy a `level playing ®eld' in which it can

achieve sustainable production with the potential economic,social and environmental bene®ts it can bring. Unfortunately,the realization of these bene®ts is constrained by the absence of

such integrated development planning frameworks and thepredominance of sector-based planning and management.More needs to be done to establish adequate property rights

for mariculture development to improve access to credit andfacilitate planning for long-term investment. Improvement inproperty rights would also improve the legal rights ofmariculture operations in defending themselves from adverse

in¯uences from other activities.The recent EU Demonstration Programme on Integrated

Coastal Zone Management provides a much needed review of

coastal planning in Europe and the coastal strategy that isbeing developed by the EC may well provide a series ofincentives that will help to improve the conditions under which

mariculture can be integrated into regional and more localdevelopment plans.There is a strong case for the EU and national ®sheries

authorities to look to the EU Water Framework Directive, the

ICZM Demonstration Programme and other EU and nationalinitiatives as tools that could be used to improve the policycontext, investment strategies and environmental management

context under which mariculture can be further developed.Finally, there is an urgent need to improve communications

and the dissemination of information between all actors at all

levels of involvement, and at all stages in the development ofplans and management strategies to achieve major progress inthe integrated evaluation of economic, social and environmen-

tal factors that in¯uence the sustainable development ofmariculture.

References

Asche, F.; TveteraÊ s, S., 2000: On the relationship between aquacultureand reduction ®sheries. In: Proceedings IIFET 2000 (InternationalInstitute of Fisheries Economics and Trade), Oregon StateUniversity, 10±14 July 20008 . Corvallis, OR, USA: Oregon StateUniversity. 28 pp.

Barraclough, S.; Finger-Stich, A., 1996: Some Ecological and SocialImplications of Commercial Shrimp Farming in Asia. Discussionpaper 74. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations Research Institutefor Social Development (UNRISD). 62 pp.

Black, E. A.; Gowen, R.; Rosenthal, H.; Roth, E.; Stechy, D.;Taylor, F. J. R., 1997: The cost of eutrophication from salmonfarming ± a comment. J. Environ. Management 50, 105±109.

Davidse, W. P.; Harmsma, H.; McEwan, I. L. Y.; Vestergaard, N.;Frost, H., 1997: Property Rights in Fishing: E�ects on theIndustry and E�ectiveness for Fishery Management Policy.Onderzoekverslag No. 159. The Hague, The Netherlands: Agri-cultural Economics Research Institute. 329 pp.

FAO, 1999a: Aquaculture Production Statistics 1988±97. Rome, Italy:FAO.

FAO, 1999b: Report of the Consultation on the Application of Article9 of the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries in theMediterranean Region. FAO Report No. 606. Rome, Italy: FAO.208 pp.

Gauld, J.; Munro, A. L. S.; Davies, I. M., 1998: Country ProductionReport Scotland ± Fish ± 1996. Report to the InternationalCouncil for the Exploration of the Seas (ICES) Working Groupon Environmental Interactions of Mariculture. (M98/F:Mariculture Committee).9

Goulding, I.; Hallam, D.; Harrison-May®eld, L.; Mackenzie-Hill, V.;da Silca, H., 2000: Regional Socio-economic Studies onEmployment and the Level of Dependency on Fishing. FisheriesReport Lot No. 23. Brussels, Belgium: Commission ofthe European Communities, Directorate-General for Fisheries.15 pp.

Hardin, G., 1968: The tragedy of the commons. Science 162, 1243±1248.Huisman, E. A., 1990: Mariculture research as a tool in10 international

assistance. Ambio 19, 400±403.ICES, 1995: Report of the ICES Workshop on Principles and Practical

Measures for the Interaction of Mariculture and Fisheries inCoastal Area Planning and Management. CM 1995/F:56. Copen-hagen Denmark: International Council for the Exploration of theSeas (ICES) (Mariculture Committee). pp. 1±31.

ICES, 1997: Report of the Working Group on EnvironmentalInteractions of Mariculture. Report 1995/F:5. Copenhagen Den-mark: International Council for the Exploration of the Seas(ICES) (Mariculture Committee).

ICES, 1998: Report of the Working Group on EnvironmentalInteractions of Mariculture. Report 1995/F:2. Copenhagen,Denmark: International Council for the Exploration of the Seas(ICES) (Mariculture Committee).

ICES, 1999: Report of the Working Group on EnvironmentalInteractions of Mariculture. Report F:2. Copenhagen, Denmark:International Council for the Exploration of the Seas (ICES)(Mariculture Committee). pp. 1±120.

ICES, 2000: Report of the Working Group on EnvironmentalInteractions of Mariculture. Report 1995/F:2. Copenhagen.Denmark: International Council for the Exploration of the Seas(ICES) (Mariculture Committee). 106 pp.

Indo-Paci®c Fishery Commission, 1994: Report of the symposium onsocio-economic issues in coastal ®sheries management. In: Socio-Economic Issues in Coastal Fisheries Management11 . Bangkok,Thailand: Regional O�ce for Asia and the Paci®c (RAPA) Foodand Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations.pp. 1±23.

Jolly, C. M.; Clouts, H. A., 1993: Economics of Aquaculture. London,UK: Food Products Press Books on Aquaculture. Haworth Press.

Libecap, G. D., 1989: Contracting for Property Rights. Cambridge,UK: Cambridge University Press. 132 pp.

McCunn, G., 1992: Socio-economic impact of aquaculture in theHighlands and Islands of Scotland. In: E�ciency in AquacultureProduction: Production Trends, Markets, Products andRegulations. (Conference Proceedings)13 Eds: H. Rosenthal andE. Grimaldi. Verona Italy: Fierre Di Verona. pp. 61±70.

Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, 1999: Strukturdirekto-ratet, Rapport vedrùrende udvikling af en mñrkningsmodel forùkologisk akvakulturproduktion. Town: Publisher. 28 pp.

Naylor, R. L.; Goldburg, R. J.; Primavera, J. H.; Kautsky, N.;Beveridge, M. C. M.; Clay, J.; Folke, C.; Lubchenco, J.;Mooney, H.; Troell, M., 2000: E�ect of mariculture on world®sh supplies. Nature 405, 1017±1024.

Neiland, A. E., 1993: The Future Potential for Economic Research inAquaculture. Report No. 25. Portsmouth, UK: Centre for theEconomics and Management of Aquatic Resources, University ofPortsmouth. 34 pp.

Ostrom, E., 1990: Governing the Commons. The Evolution ofInstitutions for Collective Action. Cambridge, UK: CambridgeUniversity Press. 280 pp.


Papayannis, T., 1999: European Foundation for the Improvement ofLiving and Working Conditions (EFILWC). Athens, Greece:Thymio Papayannis and Associates Inc. 90 pp.

Pearce, D. W.; Atkinson, G., 1993: Capital theory and the measure-ment of sustainable development: an indicator of weak sustain-ability. Ecol. Econ. 8, 103±108.

Public and Corporate Economic Consultants (PACEC) and StirlingAquaculture, 1998: The Economic Impact of Scottish SalmonFarming. Cambridge, UK: Public and Corporate EconomicConsultants. 122 pp.

Rosenthal, H.; Schnack, D.; Hilge, V.; Read, P. A.; Fernandes, T. F.;Miller, K. L.; Davies, I. M.; Rodger, G. K., (eds), 2000:MARAQUA The monitoring and regulation of marine aqua-culture in Europe. Proceedings of the First MARAQUA Work-shop held at the University of the Algarve, Faro, Portugal, 6±8September 1999. J. Appl. Ichthyol. 16 (4±5), 138±229.

Roth, E.; Rosenthal, H.; Burbridge, P. R., 2000: A discussion of theuse of the sustainability index: Ècological Footprint' in aqua-culture production. J. Aquat. Res. 13, 461±469.

Salo, H.; Storhammar, G.14 ; Kustula, V., 2000: Kalankasvatuksenmerkitys Saaristomeren alueella ± alueelliset ja paikalliset va-ikutkset (in Finnish) (The Signi®cance of Fish Farming in theArchipelago Sea ± Regional and Local Impacts). Institute ofEnvironmental Research Bulletin 153. JyaÈ skylaÈ , Finland: Univer-sity of JyaÈ skylaÈ .

Soto, D.; Mena, G., 1999: Filter feeding by the freshwater mussel,Diplodon chilensis, as a biocontrol of salmon farming eutrophic-ation. Aquaculture 171, 63±81.

Sutherland, R., 2000: Fish farming in the Scottish Highlands andIslands: a case study on the socio-economics of aquaculture.Paper presented at the Third MARAQUA Workshop held atNapier University, Edinburgh Scotland, 28±31 August 2000(unpublished report).15

Tisdell, C.; Allan, J.16 , 1994: Economics of Giant Clams. Canberra,Australia: Australian Centre for International AgriculturalResearch.

Troell, M.; Kautsky, N.; Folke, C., 1999: Applicability of integratedcoastal aquaculture systems. Commentary. Ocean Coastal Man-age. 42, 63±69.

Vivekananda, V.; Kurien, J., 1999: Socio-economic and politicaldimensions of shrimp culture development in India: the case ofAndhra Pradesh. In: Sustainable Aquaculture. Eds: N. Svennevig,H. Reinertsen and M. New. Rotterdam, The Netherlands:Balkema. pp. 117±127.

Wessels, C. R., 1998: Assessment of the e�ectiveness of ecolabelling asa market-based approach to sustainable seafood production.In: Proceedings Int. Inst. Fish Economics Trade, (IIFET),Tromso, Norway, IIFET, July. 1 (1998). Town: Publisher.317±321.

Wessels, C. R.; Anderson, J. L.,18 1992: Innovations and progressin seafood demand and market analysis. Mar. Res. Econ. 7,209±228.

Wessells, C. R; Anderson, J. L.,19 1995: Consumer willingness to pay forseafood safety assurances. J. Consumer A�airs 29, 85±107.

Wessells, C. R.; Johnston, R. J.; Donath, H., 1999: Assessingconsumer preferences for eco-labeled seafood: the in¯uence ofspecies, certi®er, and household attributes. Paper presented atAmerican Agricultural Economics Association, Nashville, USA,August 8±11, 1999.20

White, F.; Costelloe, J., 1999: Socio-economic Evaluation of theImpact of the Aquaculture Industry in Counties Donegal,Galway, Kerry and Cork. Marine Resources Series 7. Dublin,Ireland: Marine Institute. 95 pp.

Authors' addresses:21 P. Burbridge (for correspondence), V. Hendrick,Department of Marine Sciences and CoastalManagement, University of Newcastle, Newcastleupon Tyne, NE1 7RU, England. E-mail:[email protected]; E. Roth, Department ofEnvironmental and Business Economics,University of Southern Denmark, Denmark;H. Rosenthal, Institute for Marine Science,University of Kiel, Germany


Documents

Social and economic policy issues relevant to marine aquaculture