J. Appl. Ichthyol. 17 (2001), 194±206
Ó 2001 Blackwell Wissenschafts-Verlag, Berlin
ISSN 0175±8659
Received: September 10, 2000
Accepted: March 15, 2001 1
Social and economic policy issues relevant to marine aquaculture
By P. Burbridge1, V. Hendrick1, E. Roth2 and H. Rosenthal3
1
Department of Marine Sciences and Coastal Management, University of Newcastle, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, England;
Department of Environmental and Business Economics, University of Southern Denmark, Denmark; 3Institute for Marine Science,
University of Kiel, Germany
2
Summary
Introduction
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 the
sustainable development of mariculture are examined. Under
present sectoral approaches to policy, investment, development planning and natural resources management, these issues
continue to be treated in isolation. The four main challenges
presented in this paper are: (i) how to create a more objective
information base with which to assess the social, economic and
environmental factors that condition the sustainability of
mariculture; (ii) how to provide information from di€erent
disciplines in an easy to obtain and compatible format;
(iii) how to better integrate knowledge and skills from di€erent
disciplines to create a holistic and robust framework for
assessing options for mariculture development that integrates
social, economic and environmental parameters; and (iv) the
e€ective integration of these assessments into the formulation
of policy, investment strategies, spatial plans and natural
resources management for coastal areas.
Speci®c issues that need to be addressed within the framework for the integrated evaluation of the economic, social and
environmental parameters governing the sustainable development 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 factors
critical to the sustainable and equitable development of
mariculture;
· development of pro-active consideration of the coastal land
and water resource requirements of mariculture as part of
strategic economic planning, spatial planning and natural
resources management;
· the need for more equitable treatment of mariculture
regarding rights of access to sites for development and use
of resources;
· development of awareness among decision-makers, planners, and managers from di€erent sectoral agencies of the
contribution that mariculture may make in promoting the
sustainable use of coastal ecosystems;
· promotion of a shift in emphasis away from controlling the
end use of resources and toward a more balanced approach
to coastal development where emphasis is also given to
maintaining the health and productivity of coastal ecosystems and the resources they generate that sustain di€erent
forms of activity, including mariculture.
Coastal lands and shallow coastal seas contain some of the
most biologically diverse and productive ecosystems found on
earth. These ecosystems sustain a wide variety of human
activities and support a major part of the total harvest of
marine organisms as well as helping to sustain numerous
onshore activities such as agriculture, rural and urban development as well as tourism, recreation and leisure activities.
The world-wide decline of capture ®sheries has provided an
impetus for increased production from coastal lands and
waters through farming of marine resources. Fish and shell®sh
farming, or mariculture, currently forms a signi®cant and
rapidly 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 (FAO
1999a). In 1997, production from mariculture from the
European Union (EU) was estimated at 1 107 763 tonnes,
and valued at 1975 million euros (Public and Corporate
Economic Consultants (PACEC) and Stirling Aquaculture
1998). There are opportunities for increases in production in
most countries, with the general exception of Sweden,
Germany and Denmark, where mariculture may be perceived
to have only negative environmental impacts and potential
economic 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 aquatic
food supplies and can reduce ®shing pressures, yet it is unlikely
to compensate for the reduction in the production of marine
capture ®sheries, the latter being caused by both overexploitation and by damage to coastal ecosystems. At the
same time, mariculture has been cited as a contributing factor
to the collapse of ®sheries stocks world-wide due to the use of
wild ®sh as feed for cultured ®sh species, through habitat
modi®cation and wild seed stock collection (Naylor et al.
2000). Such accusations, although in¯uential in a political
sense, are not fully supported by scienti®c information and
ignore the major advances in mariculture technology and
management (Black et al. 1997; Asche and TveteraÊs 2000;
Roth et al. 2000). These accusations have also been taken up
by the media and have contributed to the negative public
image of mariculture.
The authors acknowledge there is heightened concern in
Europe over the safety of food produced by modern farming
systems, including marine aquaculture. Major problems, such
as BSE in cattle and dioxins in poultry and eggs and also in ®sh
U.S. Copyright Clearance Centre Code Statement:
0175±8659/2001/1704±0194$15.00/0
www.blackwell.de/synergy
Social and economic policy issues relevant to marine aquaculture
2 oils, as well as concerns over the welfare of ®sh, have raised
serious public health and ethical concerns on the part of the
general public. In turn this has heightened criticism of
intensive farming of marine animals such as salmon and has
raised questions concerning contamination of farmed animals
from chemicals such as dioxin. In addition, possible links have
been made between intensive salmon farming and reductions
in wild salmon stocks (mainly through escapee potential
interbreeding, and prevalence of sea lice).
Although the genuine concern on the part of consumers is
understandable, criticisms levelled at mariculture are not
always balanced by scienti®c evidence or advances in husbandry, hygiene and other management practices. As a result, a
negative approach to the value of mariculture in addressing
urgent social and economic issues such as food security,
employment and maintenance of essential services in deprived
rural areas have not been put into perspective. This article
focuses upon the positive social and economic features that
need to be incorporated into a well-informed debate on the
future contribution that mariculture can make to the welfare
of European society.
The future success of the mariculture industry will depend
on: (i) improving environmental compatibility of culture
systems; (ii) improving public understanding of advances
in mariculture, maintaining the high quality environment
required for ecient mariculture production; (iii) continuous
monitoring to ensure mariculture is protected from adverse
impacts from other activities; and (iv) e€ective formulation of
policy where stakeholders have been involved in the early
stages of decision making. To achieve sustainability, mariculture must be included in strategic development plans for
coastal lands and waters. Mariculture should also be granted
rights of access to coastal lands and waters equal to those
rights 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 development 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 water
ponds in Asia. However, the mounting demand for selected
species and the stimulus of high prices, has led to a rapid
increase in the expansion of mariculture in both tropical and
temperate regions. This has often taken place without due
consideration of the environmental compatibility of such
activities with other activities and the potential negative
economic or social e€ects on local communities. Examples
include the culture of the tiger prawn and other shrimp species
in Asia, Africa and Latin America, and the initial phases of
salmon culture in Europe and North and South America. In
recent years the expansion and diversi®cation of mariculture in
Europe has been guided under carefully designed environmental controls. Such controls have not necessarily been applied to
other forms of activity and mariculture operations have often
been subjected to adverse impacts imposed by other forms of
human 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 new
development. The 1991 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) and the International
Plan of Action set out in Agenda 21 recognized these pressures
and the need to integrate good environmental management
with sound economic planning. Chapter 17 of the Agenda,
195
Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) gave priority to
achieving 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 and
the competence, interests and priorities of governance systems
with respect to rapid economic development. However there is
a common purpose among nations to strive for optimum and
sustainable use of coastal resources that sustain food supplies
and maintain the economic and social welfare of coastal
communities (FAO 1999b). Related goals include the maintenance of high levels of biodiversity and e€ective conservation
of critical habitats. A primary mechanism for promoting this is
ICZM 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 contribution
that mariculture can make to the welfare of rural regions, need
to be addressed before e€ective policies can be formulated to
support the development of sustainable mariculture and
e€ectively integrate its development with other coastal activities. These are discussed below in relation to the development
of 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 the
Level 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 authors
suggest that a better estimate of ®sheries-dependent employment 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 in
1996/97 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 is
estimated to provide employment for a further 96 250
individuals (with a gross output of 11.3 billion ECU). Within
this context, aquaculture is estimated to provide a further
56 000 jobs and 80% of these are in mariculture. Available
data suggests that the inland ®sheries are small in comparison
with marine capture ®sheries and processing, employing only
9597 (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 ®sh
processing (59% of all jobs) and account for 31% of all jobs in
mariculture (see Table 1: based on data provided in Goulding
et al. 2000).There are signi®cant di€erences between regions in
Europe with respect to dependence on jobs provided by
capture ®sheries and mariculture.
In contrast to marine ®sheries and processing, dependency
on mariculture for employment is generally lower. For
example, for the larger area-based units, Pontevedra and La
196
P. Burbridge et al.
Production
Table 1
Principal economic dimensions of the
European Union ®shery sector
No. employed
Sector
Volume
Tonnes 1000
Value
ECU million
FT + PT
FTE
Men
Women
Marine ®shing
Fish processing
Marine aquaculture
Inland aquaculture
Inland ®shing
Other ®shery sector
5 610
NA
903
203
90
NA
6 287
11 351
1 385
632
258
NA
251
96
45
11
9
112
602
250
341
045
597
147
234 003
86 625
36 975
9 720
6 814
NA
236 016
39 270
32 464
9 410
NA
NA
15 600
56 980
12 877
1 635
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 data
available. 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).
CorunÄa in Spain are the most dependent with mariculture
accounting for 2.8% of jobs in the ®sheries sector. Charentes
Maritime in France and the Highlands and Islands of Scotland
also have high levels of dependency on mariculture, as do Ria
de Arousa in Spain with 25% of the local employment
attributable to mariculture. Four regions in Finland are also
relatively highly dependent on mariculture, these being
Houtskari (20.6%), InioÈ (17.2%), FoÈgloÈ (15.5%) and BraÈndoÈ
(13.7%). The rias of Galicia, with their extensive mollusc
culture, also contribute another six of the top 20 mariculturedependent regions, the balance being in Scotland where
employment 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 few
alternatives for employment can play a major role in helping to
reverse rural depopulation and in improving the quality of
peoples' lives. However opportunities for increasing employment in mariculture can not always be created close to
traditional ®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 have
developed in the less populated areas. However, little information is available on the socio-economic impacts of such
activities. The social impacts of mariculture vary with the stage
of economic development and between the di€erent actors
involved within the community. Integration of mariculture
into the economies of local communities also depends upon
e€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 be
accepted 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 has
been instrumental in stemming emigration and provides
greater security for the local and remotely located coastal
communities where other opportunities and entrepreneurial
enterprise are limited. As productivity is rising, opportunities
emerge to earn higher wages and provide for an improved
material standard of living. However, improvements in
eciency can also mean that the same level of production
requires 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 within
the industry may change the distribution of income. Market
forces might lead to long-term strong centralization, including
`dumping' where low prices force out competition, hostile
take-overs of small-scale companies, and other business
practices that decrease diversity of ownership and bene®ts to
the local work force.
Although signi®cant coastal mariculture production indicates high potential for generating alternative employment in
coastal communities, in reality there are important limitations
that must be recognized that can limit the potential contribution of mariculture to the generation of new opportunities for
employment.
There appears to be limited overlap of skills such that major
cultural shifts are needed if rural people are to adjust to a
culture 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 more
sheltered coasts and frequently remote from the infrastructure,
such as harbours and good roads, that are needed to minimize
transport costs and ensure the freshness and value of the
harvest. The sectors where skills might be more transferable,
such as the shell®sh sector, are already mature industries in the
major producing countries with production and demand not
expected to experience strong growth (Public and Corporate
Economic Consultants and Stirling Aquaculture 1998).
Little detailed study has been undertaken to investigate the
impact of mariculture on communal and cultural stability or of
the contribution of mariculture to the social stability in EU
member countries. There is a need to further identify and
assess the contribution of rural mariculture development to
maintaining the stability of rural communities. However,
circumstantial evidence suggests that several forms of activity
can provide local opportunities for part-time seasonal
employment, thereby stabilizing income among workforce
groups at time of low tourist activities. For example, in
Denmark, there are increased opportunities for seasonal jobs
in ®sh processing from October to December that coincide
with low levels of activity in building and tourism.
One example of how mariculture may ease the problems of
declining populations in rural areas is illustrated by the socioeconomic studies undertaken during the early to mid-1990s
relating to the Highlands and Islands of Scotland (McCunn
1992; Public and Corporate Economic Consultants and
Stirling Aquaculture 1998). McCunn's study related to the
period when salmon farming and cage farming was still in its
Social and economic policy issues relevant to marine aquaculture
early days. New infrastructure businesses were created such as
net manufacturing, boat building, service equipment manufacturers, insurance companies, and trade associations. Others
also gained job opportunities, among them employees of
the niversities, amenity and scenic interests, Scottish Natural
Heritage, Crown Estate Commissioners, Highlands and
Islands Development Board ± partly as a result of the
development of the ®sh farming industry. Other examples
include 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. On
average, the investments for ®sh farm installations would
amount to about £3500 per tonne capacity, leading to £120
million of total investment, of which 30% (amounting to £36
million) might be ®xed capital and of that, half will depreciate
over 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 1980s
and 1990s the rural communities for the ®rst time experienced
an increase in population size rather than a decline. There were
job opportunities and the younger generation could stay and
did not have to move to the larger cities. By the early 1990s
salmon farming was by far the biggest activity in the food
production sector of the Highland and Islands economy and
was 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, with
arable 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, adding
much to the social welfare of a rural area which is at the fringe
of Europe with little other options for development. Mariculture in rural areas often needs both infrastructure support and
a direct workforce throughout the year, whereas other
economic activities such as tourism are typically seasonal in
nature. The latter characteristically attracts a young labour
force from far away for a short-time period only. This does not
contribute greatly to the wealth of the area but extracts pro®t
from 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 Consultants and Stirling Aquaculture (1998) was more detailed,
including ®eldwork and formal input/output analysis. It
indicated the total employment impact of salmon production
in the Highlands and Islands as rather less than 5000, although
almost 6500 for Scotland as a whole. However it has been
suggested that there could be some underestimation in that
assessment (Sutherland 2000). Whatever may be the exact
employment impact, Sutherland (2000) emphasizes the fact
that the decline in the population of the Highlands and Islands
has certainly stopped since the growth of ®sh farming in the
area. Although this cannot solely, or perhaps even largely be
attributed to the growth of ®sh farming, it must certainly have
played a part.
The Scottish experience also showed that by improving the
community stability and helping to establish a critical population size that is capable of supporting more infrastructure,
services to other resource users and the general public
improved (Public and Corporate Economic Consultants and
Stirling Aquaculture 1998). Such spin-o€ e€ects were seen in
197
improved transport linkages, for example: an increase in the
frequency of bus services, and enhanced harbour facilities; in
health services by encouraging settlement of specialized health
care professionals; and retailing through establishment of
repair shops.
In a comparable study of four counties along the western
seaboard of Ireland (White and Costelloe 1999), a survey of
local opinion showed that the majority of local people
recognized that, without the mariculture industry, their communities would change; that unemployment and emigration
levels would be higher; and that the continuation of traditional
skills such as boat building would be threatened and the
cultural identity of their rural coastal communities would
become more fragmented. The study concluded that the
economic signi®cance of the mariculture industry in the
peripheral areas along the western seaboard is indisputable
(White and Costelloe 1999). The industry which cultivates a
range of ®n®sh and shell®sh species along with sea urchins, sea
worms and some seaweeds provided an annual value to the
economy of approximately IR£60 m, and 1855 full time job
equivalents in 1997 (Bord Iascaigh Mhara 1999, cited in White
and Costelloe 1999).
In Ireland the extent of ancillary dependence or e€ect from
the mariculture industry is also signi®cant and extends outside
the marine sector reaching other industries and service
providers including, for example, the building industry (White
and Costelloe 1999). Furthermore, infrastructure is not only
related to improved services in local areas, but in many cases
mariculture helps to develop and sustain the need for locally
produced expertise as has been the case is the mariculture
industry of Tromso, Norway.
An assessment of the in¯uence of mariculture in County
Galway, Ireland (White and Costelloe 1999), found that the
maintenance of a sound community structure is essential to the
survival and continuing evolution of the Irish language and its
associated cultural aspects. As European mass culture becomes
increasingly homogenous, the importance of cultural diversity
in such coastal areas cannot be overstated.
To summarize, policies promoting the sustainable development of mariculture using available valuable and renewable
indigenous and local resources, can improve the economic and
social development of rural communities through enhancing
employment levels, reducing emigration and facilitating
improvements in infrastructure. The e€ective participation of
stakeholders in the formulation and implementation of mariculture development policies, plans and management arrangements are desirable and e€ective means of promoting equitable
development. However, few studies and projects with a socioeconomic component include a social anthropological component which could help to identify factors that could in¯uence
the 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 towards
eco-labelling, and increased demands from consumers and
retailers for natural food have created additional pressure on
the dwindling supplies of ®sh stocks. This, combined with the
BSE crisis and the recent outbreak of Foot and Mouth disease
has led to a trend of decreased consumption of `red-meat'
coupled with greater consumption of convenience food and
processed ®sh, which in turn have improved the market
position of ®sh (Public and Corporate Economic Consultants
198
and Stirling Aquaculture 1998). With the shortfall in the
supply 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 as
having equal rights of access to and use of natural resources in
competition for sites in the coastal zone. Existing activities are
often protected by legislative systems that are typically based
on land laws that are not well suited for mariculture. As a
result, laws and regulations tend to favour existing activities
and may not be particularly bene®cial for the integration of
mariculture 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 water
uses (mainly shell®sh culture), the development of mariculture
has typically been tolerated only where there are no objections
from other activities that might be a€ected.
In areas in which mariculture has been promoted without
any consultation with other stakeholders, there has been a
gradual increase in resistance to its development. Con¯icts
over the control of natural resources inevitably arise when
market forces and public policies make new uses of these
resources, especially when customary uses were primarily for
self-provisioning and to supply local markets, whereas the new
uses tend to meet the demands of higher income consumers
elsewhere. Even those groups who retain their traditional
access to natural resources may ®nd them less productive than
previously, and their livelihoods are likely to deteriorate in the
long-run (Barraclough and Finger-Stich 1996). There is
therefore a need to establish clearer user (property) rights
regimes.
In cases where adequate property rights (preferably ownership) are not in place, there is little opportunity to raise capital
for investment; for example, for the expansion of conventional
culture techniques or implementation of new technologies. In
the absence of clear rights to property, banks and other
®nancial institutions will be reluctant to lend capital to
entrepreneurs, thereby hampering long-term planning within
the sector.
Property rights for mariculture are not clari®ed in all
countries and are often controversially discussed as private use
of public domain areas. Mariculture should be seen to have
both 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. This
means that di€erent parties may enjoy rights of use of
resources within socially acceptable norms where one party
does not impose harmful social, economic or environmental
impacts on other parties (see Davidse et al. 1997).
The incentive for conservation of natural habitats and
thereby conservation of the long-term productive capacity is
endangered under most common property regimes (de®ned as
common pool losses) (Libecap 1989). This is most frequently
expressed by the term `the tragedy of the commons' (implying
the loss to society following an open access management
regime 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 is
primarily restricted by conditions that limit permission for use
P. Burbridge et al.
of a suitable site. This in itself is not an economic problem, but
barriers to entry do have an in¯uence on the level of
production and costs, and therefore on prices of marketable
aquatic products to the consumer. The capital value of
mariculture 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¯uences), and more by procedures necessary to obtain a permit to
establish a mariculture venture.
An example can be provided in Scotland, where developers
wishing to establish mariculture farms are required to obtain a
number of permissions and licences from di€erent regulatory
authorities. These include leases for areas of the sea bed which
are 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 is
determined by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency
(SEPA), which grants a discharge consent that serves as a
management tool to maintain acceptable environmental stand3 ards around the farm (Gauld et al. 1998). Further permits for
on-shore development associated with farms requires planning
permits (e.g. permanent construction below the level of mean
high water springs) and a licence under the Food and
Environmental Protection Act (ICES 1997). Consent to install
®sh farm equipment has to be obtained from the Department
of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) to
ensure that navigation is not impeded. Finally, all ®sh farms
are required to register with the Scottish Executive Rural
A€airs Department (SERAD) (ICES 1997). These permits are
granted or refused following a consultation exercise involving
relevant interest groups and organizations.
There are signi®cant di€erences in procedures throughout
Europe, which distort competition among member states
(Rosenthal et al. 2000). These di€erences, coupled with
investment incentives that may not be linked to sustainable
environmental conditions, may favour regions which are less
suitable 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 impact
of mariculture and the minimization of its e€ects, and on
interactions of mariculture with other coastal resource users.
Most of the material is assembled in the Reports of the
Working Group on Environmental Interactions of Mariculture of ICES (e.g. ICES 1995, 1997, 1998, 1999; 2000); and of
the Report on the Workshop on Mariculture and the Coastal
Zone held in Kiel, in 1995 (ICES 1995). Unfortunately, the
economic and social interactions among di€erent coastal
development activities and between these activities and mariculture have not been comprehensively assessed or understood.
With unequal rights of access to and use of resources in
comparison with other activities, it is dicult to predict the
potential for fully integrating mariculture with other forms of
coastal development.
Conservation of resources and maintenance of the economic
and social welfare of communities is promoted through
integration of di€erent resource users. Integration may take
the form of polyculture systems in which di€erent species are
cultured together. Such systems are more ecient at utilizing
available food and water resources (i.e. surface and bottom
feeders) of the pond system, and consequently reduce costs and
Social and economic policy issues relevant to marine aquaculture
increase productivity relative to monoculture systems. Integrated 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 waste
water 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 from
salmon farming, when used to produce a seaweed crop, can
add revenue from the sale of the seaweed that can more than
pay for the extra infrastructure needed for the integration
system. Policies that require producers to internalize the
environmental 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 depletion
in areas such as Valentia Harbour, Ireland, where there has
been a historic traditional scallop ®shery but where stock
management is now essential (White and Costelloe 1999).
Recreational freshwater ®sheries bene®t highly from restocking 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 alternative ®shing sites, namely private catch and release initiatives
also relies on cultured ®sh for stocking of `ponds'. The longterm genetic implications on natural stocks for many of the
ranching activities remain to be fully assessed.
Finally, integration of mariculture with tourism has also
proved successful for French oyster farmers. Farm personnel
were specially trained by the Ministry of Tourism. This
included the provision of information lea¯ets and video
demonstrations for farm visitors and the sta€ also provide
sample tastings of the oysters and other products at a modest
charge. In support of this form of integration, the development
of suitable o€shore and submerged shell®sh and ®n®sh culture
techniques is currently under investigation and if successful
and feasible would reduce any adverse visual impact on
popular tourist destinations (White and Costelloe 1999).
Although such technologies for sustainable integration exist,
their application varies widely across Europe. It is anticipated
that in some areas of the Mediterranean, mariculture will see
more integration with other resource users much along the
lines of the Valli-Coltura development in Italy. Con¯icts will
increase in most Mediterranean countries as soon as environmental awareness increases, as is the case in areas where
tourism has developed rapidly and often in poorly controlled
conditions as a result of increasing demand. In some Mediterranean countries, the environmental impact assessment
(EIA) and the subsequent management adjustment of the
production limits for mariculture have not yet reached
standards that are comparable with those in northern Europe.
In fact, although the regulations are in place, most authorities
do not have the skills and experience required to treat
mariculture in a manner that is equivalent to that applied to
other forms of development. Controlling benthic impact and
adjusting production to site-speci®c carrying capacity has not
really been undertaken in most Mediterranean countries. In
many 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 economic
development. To avoid this impediment to sustainable development, more emphasis needs to be placed on making ocials
199
more aware of the positive linkages between sound environmental 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 gain
acceptance and common agreement among the relevant stakeholders (Papayannis 1999); and (iv) to enhance and maintain
quality of life. Hence, the mariculture industry has to stimulate
public awareness of the relative bene®ts that can be derived
from it (based on objective scienti®c and socio-economic
information). E€ectively designed public sector awareness
campaigns should be considered to create a `climate' of fairness
between 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. risks
and bene®ts). Such a strategy would provide the pro-active
approach that is essential to the anticipation of potential
con¯icts prior to their development, while formulating equitable solutions early in the planning process rather than seeking
the resolution of con¯icts after the damage is done.
Methods that can be employed for raising awareness
include: (i) organization of an open forum to facilitate
stakeholder interaction and expression of opinions and positions which can help strengthen commitment to coastal
management in general, and the achievement of a consensus
regarding speci®c management actions; and (ii) arranging
national 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 in
order to create the climate for consensus building or for
reaching negotiated settlements, because prior to negotiations
many stakeholders and the public in general are often
misinformed.
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. Support
and co-operation is therefore needed from all segments of the
public and private sector involved, including individual stakeholders, and community and special interest groups. A brief
reference was made during the meetings in Faro and Crete to
the 1998 and 1999 Reports of the ICES Working Group on
Environmental Interactions of Mariculture in which these
issues are addressed (ICES 1998, 1999). Principal concepts
have been outlined in the ICES (1995, 1998) reports which
identify the need for a pro-active planning, monitoring and
regulatory process that encompass more than just the environmental issues and mitigate ill-informed reactions against any
new mariculture development initiatives. A more bottom-up
(participatory) approach embodying stakeholder involvement,
incorporation of ecological knowledge held by the community
and by ®shers into the decision process should be taken.
Responsibility and accountability for group action are mandatory and need to evolve into a consensus-based decision
process or negotiated settlement.
200
P. Burbridge et al.
Economic issues associated with mariculture development
One major problem faced by the mariculture industry is the
lack of a framework for its objective economic evaluation,
resulting into a distorted and inconsistent view of the
associated costs and bene®ts of expanding and diversifying
mariculture. Mariculture, as a new development, is a competitor for resources. Ideally, this competition should be judged
on the basis of the eciency of resource use as well as the
environmental compatibility. Furthermore, common criteria
should be employed in the evaluation of all users. A thorough
economic evaluation, including socio-economic and environmental costs and bene®ts, is a good way with which to achieve
this.
There is considerable knowledge on ®nancial management
of di€erent forms of mariculture. Examples include Tisdell and
4 Allan (1994) and Jolly and Clouts (1993). However, there is a
shortage of authoritative information on the relative bene®ts
and costs associated with mariculture development in comparison 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 of
freshwater 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 than
activities which have played a signi®cant role in local
economies for a long period of time.
Many environmental groups currently consider mariculture
to require extremely tight regulations in comparison with other
investments. However, such views are not necessarily based on
realistic estimates of the relative costs and bene®ts (including
environmental costs) associated with mariculture and other
forms of development.
Mariculture development initially focused on biological and
technical aspects of production. Although established and
proven technologies exist for some types of culture, for others
(e.g. new species, highly intensive systems) these bio-technologies are still in need of further basic studies before the
economic viability can be properly assessed. In contrast,
economic research has often been neglected by natural
scientists involved in mariculture development. Socio-economic considerations in particular are often omitted when
planning and managing mariculture development in coastal
rural areas in most of the EU countries. Fortunately, the
natural science community is gradually recognizing the value
of economic and market research into the cost-e€ectiveness of
di€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 alternative
developments to be assessed. This relates in particular to those
that 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 `economic' analyses
Financial analysis is commonly and incorrectly referred to as
`economic' but actually embodies a totally di€erent accounting
stance from more broadly based economic analysis. The
principle di€erences between ®nancial and economic analyses
are 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
Fig. 1. Schematic presentation comparing ®nancial and economic
feasibility of mariculture. In this context externalities are `uncompensated costs' and `bene®ts' to ®rms and individuals. Some of these net
costs are losses to society. Societal losses to the environment rest on a
moral judgement and may be valued through `willingness-to-pay' or
`willingness-to-accept' compensation by individuals
products associated with an individual enterprise, such as a
®sh farm. For the individual entrepreneur, the most critical
issue is maximizing pro®ts. In contrast, economic analysis
employs a more broad accounting framework that incorporates factors that may be ignored by the individual entrepreneur
but which can have a signi®cant impact on other activities and
may 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 industry
may 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 can
be accounted for as an economic cost that is external to the
®nancial accounting of the polluting industry. However, these
costs ± if real and demonstrable ± can place a ®nancial burden
on other activities and a€ect their pro®ts. If these costs are
considered to impose an unfair ®nancial burden on another
activity, public or private action can be taken to force the
polluting industry to stop the pollution and compensate those
activities that su€er from the costs imposed by the pollution
(`Polluter Pays Principle'). Economic analysis can also be used
by public agencies to assess the relative merits of di€erent
options 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 the
systems employed. The interpretation of eciency is closely
linked 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 possible
subsidies, 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) are
dependent on the market forces he/she is exposed to which can
limit management choices for both inputs and outputs.
Social and economic policy issues relevant to marine aquaculture
201
Optimizing pro®ts from a ®nancial viewpoint is in the short- Table 2
run related to input costs (restricted by ®xed capital costs) and Importance of the level of independence of variable production factors
for planning and management during perceived time scales
the market value of outputs. The timing of production also has
a major in¯uence on pro®ts. For example, choice of species
Options for system management
and manipulation of their life cycles can be used to counteract
Technological
annual cycles in the ¯uctuation in prices and rates of interest
Labour,
Capital
development
charged on borrowed capital (e.g. growth rates as compared to
Time
feed,
(new plant,
(inventions,
discount rates). Very little substitution is obviously possible in horizons
energy
investments)
innovations)
®n®sh culture between the major inputs: feed and labour;
++
)
)
however, the composition of feed and its nutritional value can Short-term
++
+
)
be changed. The skills of the workforce can also be improved. Intermediate
++
++
++
In shell®sh grow-out the only possible variable is labour (more Long-term
maintenance of racks and raft to maximize output in terms of + +, Option for change; ), not variable during given time frames.
volume and product quality).
Within an intermediate time frame where several forms of
investment are available that will improve productivity in bench via pilot units to full-scale operations, the industry will
existing production units, the scale of production may be have diculty in remaining competitive in a global market and
changed in order to optimize the economies of production. it will also be dicult to avoid or mitigate environmental
Furthermore, one may decide to close down small units in problems.
Apart from the possible direct adjustments of production
favour of new investments in larger farm units if there are
bene®ts to be gained by an economy of scale. Here, substitu- and adaptation of new technology, the ®nancial results are
tion between capital and labour is to some extent possible conditional upon the development of the market for both
(better equipment, improved labour productivity). However, inputs and production. Market research on ®shmeal and oil
within this intermediate time frame, few of the expected show that the markets for ®shmeal follow the price trends of
bene®ts from innovative processes may actually be realized. the much larger market for feed protein (Asche and TveteraÊs
For example, reduced prices may be negotiated on the basis of 2000). These market forces cannot be in¯uenced by the
an increased scale of operations where large quantities of mariculturists, but are subject to great variations due to both
inputs (e.g. feeds) become cheaper per unit while labour costs natural forces (El Nino) and management of ®sh stocks
per unit of production also become cheaper because of better utilized for reduction to ®shmeal and oil. The market
innovations faced by the mariculture industry are expected
overall planning.
In long-term planning all production factors are variables to change in the near future. Firstly, to cater for the demand
and new ventures may enter the sector thereby changing the from the well-informed consumer; secondly, because the
critical mass of products in the market place (either individu- industry has an economic incentive to segment the market to
ally or co-operatively) while increasing cost-e€ectiveness capture a higher share of consumers surplus as producers
through implementing innovations. Least-cost methods of surplus, and thirdly, the public preference for using market
production and economies of scale, as well as the size of the forces as economic incentives for nature conservation may
sector with interacting producers, may theoretically lead to drive this development (certi®cation and labelling schemes,
both productive and allocative eciency under ideal assump- eco-labelling and labelling for seafood safety, which have
tions. In reality, development is most often achieved through direct implications for consumers perception of the broader
marginal changes in inputs, management and production. 5 term quality). (Wessels and Anderson 1995; Wessels 1998;
Examples include improved husbandry, better feed conversion 6 Wessells et al. 1999). The private initiative by the Marine
ratios due to the development of better ®sh feed, improvements Stewardship Council to have Thames Herring and Western
in broodstock attained through breeding programmes Australian rock lobster covered by ®sheries certi®cation is one
designed to achieve higher rates of growth and/or better feed of the foremost practical manifestation of these new market
conversion, more reliable surveillance of culture and immun- and management trends. In the Nordic countries, certi®cation
ization programmes leading to lower mortality of the cultured and labelling will be developed as part of a public programme
species, and better hygiene to reduce risks of contamination that is seen as safeguarding the democratic control of
and disease outbreaks.
mariculture. In Denmark the process was started in 1997
Looking at these scenarios it is clear that there is scope for under the Act of Parliament No. 233, of 16 April 1997. The
more e€ective use of ®nancial analyses in improving present Danish Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries published
management practices. Such analyses will also help managers a report on the practical development of a label for `organic'
to deal with the long-term need to foster a pro-active approach mariculture products in March 1999 (Ministry of Food,
towards innovation and diversi®cation, and to adapt in a Agriculture and Fisheries 1999). The scheme is not yet
timely way to changing markets and societal preferences. implemented.
Many management systems do not provide reliable information on intermediate and long-term stability options and focus
instead on short-term pro®ts while not even being aware of the Economic analysis (accounting for societal options)
long-term options which they forgo (see Table 2). As a result Economic theory makes it possible to treat environmental
the managers as well as society forfeit potential economic externalities as economic externalities and to validate costs and
development. For example, if educated labour is not available, bene®ts in money terms to di€erent groups as part of an
innovative developments cannot be translated into practical economic analysis. As ideal economic conditions are never
operation, as the skills they depend on are not available. present, there has to be aggressive competition to ascertain the
Another example is related to research and development funds. most appropriate form of activity to have access to renewable
If new inventions are not being supported from the laboratory and other resources. Environmental externalities may include
202
P. Burbridge et al.
obtaining fry for stocking from wild stocks (where hatchery tion are also in¯uential in the balance of costs and bene®ts,
production is not possible or not feasible, because of availab- economics will dictate which practice is more sustainable in
ility in nature), for feed (again obtained from various sources any given situation. Consequently the types of culture methods
of wild stocks, directly or indirectly) and high quality of water practised and the species cultured in coastal mariculture
sources (inputs) whereas outputs (wastes) may be treated as systems evolve in response to market incentives. However,
`free releases' (`sink of wastes') to natural receiving water policies intended to generally encourage development of the
bodies. Increasingly ± because of tight environmental regula- mariculture sector have also in¯uenced the location of sites
tions ± considerations are given to multiple uses where wastes signi®cantly, choice of species and adoption of various culture
(organic substance or nutrients) are no longer considered as techniques. For example, concessions on public land can
wastes per se but also as new resources that serve the next signi®cantly in¯uence the siting of facilities. Similarly, tari€
coastal resource users downstream.
exemption on materials and equipment and energy subsidies
In economic terminology, these external in¯uences on other will tend to favour capital-intensive culture. This was the case
stakeholders may not only be negative but also positive. in India, where the Government introduced a deliberate policy
Environmental externalities may be transformed into an input to promote modern shrimp culture in view of its potential to
to another production system through integrated management earn foreign exchange. This has led however, to the imposition
of di€erent resource users, thereby changing external costs to of negative externalities on the environment and local popuexternal bene®ts. This can only be achieved if planning takes lation in the southern zone of Andhra Pradesh, and to
such options into account (e.g. the integrated farming system economic distress for the farmers of the central zone as a result
of the Italian Valli-Coltura where the wastes of the intensive of improper technology and sub-optimal investment (Vivekafarm provide the basis for the food chain in the extensively 7 nanda and Kurien 1999). Environmental problems related to
stocked lagoon from which bird sanctuaries and eco-tourists pollution tend to be addressed when they a€ect commercial
(bird watchers) receive further bene®ts). Table 3 tries, in a mariculture production, particularly if this is related to water
simple form, to delineate the elements for comparison of quality on which mariculture is highly dependent (Barraclough
®nancial and economic issues. Negative `externalities' or `spill- and Finger-Stich 1996). However, the impacts on aquatic
over' e€ects ± negative impacts imposed on others than those biodiversity, natural resource loss and conversion a€ecting
undertaking the o€ending activity ± are pervasive in coastal other land and water uses and users, and also numerous other
areas and have origins both from inside the ®sheries and from consequences are frequently ignored both by the industry and
other sectors.
public agencies. Mariculturists and supporting agencies are
primarily concerned with mitigating those impacts that constrain further expansion of the mariculture industry.
Negative external economic impacts
The environmental impacts of mariculture have been widely
Mariculture production practices, their requirements for discussed in the literature and hence do not warrant a full
resources and their impacts on the environment vary widely. review here. However, as with social issues, environmental
The impacts are determined, to a large extent, by facility siting, impacts should be taken into consideration in a thorough
intensity of culture methods and cropping patterns. Although economic appraisal of any mariculture undertakings in order
factors such as food supply, water system (on the sea bed, to achieve a valid assessment of sustainability. Relevant issues
suspended structures, ponds, tanks, cages), and waste produc- include the impacts of habitat modi®cation, collection of wild
seed stock, food web interactions, introduction of exotic
species and pathogens that harm wild ®sh populations, and
sediment/nutrient loading, as well as recreational values
Table 3
Checklist on items to be considered in a comparative analysis when foregone.
dealing with ®nancial (farm level) and economics (societal costs),
The logic of environmental-economic thinking is to optimize
confronting bene®ts and costs (after Neiland (1993))
the use of the available natural services to stakeholders, ®rst on
an individual basis. These may be for inputs into the
Financial
Economic
considerations considerations
production process, but may also be as wastes for which the
(farm level)
(societal level)
environment acts as a sink. Environmental services may also
serve non-materialistic functions valued by society (e.g. mainBene®ts
tenance of biological diversity), but in general, moral judgeSales (market prices)
XX
ments are usually tied to sustainability conditions and
Sales (market/shadow prices)
XX
Subsidies
XX
therefore represent a factor in both the private and public
Loans
XX
preference domain.
Indirect bene®ts
XX
The most logical approach to achieving sustainable levels of
Intangible bene®ts
XX
utilization of environmental and economic goods and services
Secondary bene®ts
XX
would be to accurately assess the rate at which they can be
Costs
replenished by each subsystem. This would help to de®ne a
Capital and operating costs at
limit of utilization that can be sustained and would enhance
Market value
XX
Market/shadow value
XX
perceptions of the value of the subsystems as producers of
Duties
XX
resources that are essential to the sustainability of human
Taxes
XX
activities. This also implies that the global system must be
Principle and interest payments
XX
maintained within similar criteria of sustainability limits of
Licence and permit fees
XX
Social security payments
XX
human use. This is a very strong sustainability criterion and in
Indirect costs
XX
reality this is not necessarily very realistic, as it would prevent
Intangible costs
XX
any kind of development which utilizes compensation measSecondary costs
XX
ures for intended loss of and gain from natural resources
Social and economic policy issues relevant to marine aquaculture
203
within subsystems. For example, urban development
(or harbour development along the coast) would be an
irreversible process `destroying' natural areas. If it is possible
to substitute for these losses somewhere else, the societal
decision can still be in favour of the development and will still
achieve sustainability because substitution between di€erent
renewable resources balances the bene®ts to society (Pearce
and Atkinson 1993).
Mariculture can serve as a good example in estimating
environmental sustainability by evaluating each of the various
subsectors 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 if
the waste that is released can be assimilated by the surrounding
environment, then the entire mariculture operation is environmentally sustainable. If one of the local subsystems (e.g. seed
collection) is used in a non-sustainable manner, substitution
may be possible only for small-scale systems as the overall
recruitment 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 the
operation and the growth of the production in an area that
determines the level of impact relative to the level of
acceptability or substitutability between human and natural
capital that might be incorporated into an assessment of
sustainability.
The ®nancial decisions taken by entrepreneurs are largely
in¯uenced by the political management framework in general
and by the costs and bene®ts accompanying the management
practice in particular. It must be assumed that economic
motives govern decisions taken by private businesses, as in the
case of mariculture where di€erent management options and
associated 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 the
most cost-e€ective way to reach the stated policy objectives,
has simply failed an obligation to sustain human welfare and
utilize 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 physical
limitations (which also have ®nancial implications on the
overall operation and will change the pro®tability of the
business). The impact of di€erent management practices on
social conditions can vary considerably: these can include loss
of 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 economic
rationality. For example, management priorities could be set
that meet societal objectives, as in the case of Sweden where
mariculture development has been restricted in order to meet
socially de®ned environmental objectives. The knowledge
about trade-o€s between con¯icting objectives when agreeing
to compromises may be best achieved by looking at the
®nancial bene®ts and costs and economic impacts to substantiate the social choices to be taken.
Management tools may also include the provision of market
incentives through, for example, individual transferable quotas. Both production (output-regulations) and environmental
e€ects (e‚uent loads within assimilative capacity) must be
considered. These may be set by physical limits determining
the capacity of a habitat as a `sink' for wastes, which may then
be managed through an independent monitoring system. In
mariculture these may be de®ned in similar ways as has been
done for other land-based industries through allocation of
rights 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 the
issues of environmental responsibility. Where dependence is
high, people may be reluctant to reduce adverse environmental
impacts out of fear of losing their jobs. At the same time, it is
important to ensure that the industry and local communities
do not su€er from unsustainable management practices. The
onus is on operators in the industry and researchers to develop
and run the industry with a long-term environmental consciousness for maximum sustainable bene®t to local communities and all resource users. This can be referred to as
`environmental accountability' and can be reinforced through
setting environmental performance standards, monitoring
parameters that describe those standards and adapting management procedures to meet speci®ed standards. Co-operative
involvement of all marine users in the area where mariculture
is being developed is very important in meeting environmental
standards, as is demonstrated in the Single Bay Management
Plans for a whole area established under the Co-ordinated
Local Mariculture Management Systems Scheme in Kilkieran
Bay, Ireland by the Department of the Marine and Natural
Resources.
Mariculture development has been heavily promoted and
subsidized by international and national lending agencies that
often 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 4
Management considerations associated with physical, legal and economic variables in¯uencing production and sustainability
Established, institutional
and legal framework
Input regulations
to production
Physical
Barriers to entry and
property rights
Economic
Capital requirement
credit facilities,
licences fees, etc.
ITQs, individual transferable quotas.
Production process
Output
Market
Input regulation on:
water, capital,
equipment feed
Fish density, chemical
usage, water usage
(intensive, extensive,
recycle)
Production limits,
water quality,
product quality
Import/export quotas,
labelling schemes
Subsidies, taxes and
excise, ®nes, etc,
Subsidies, taxes and
excise, ®nes, fees
Subsidies, taxes and
excise, ®nes, fees,
ITQs
Import/export duties,
price-subsidies, taxes
204
demand from developed nations while putting at risk the
livelihoods and food security of many coastal populations
(Barraclough and Finger-Stich 1996). These issues of accountability and equity have been addressed in the recent EC
Communication 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 formulation of mariculture development plans, management arrangements designed to enhance the environmental and economic
performance of mariculture systems, and environmental controls, there have been signi®cant improvements in both the
environmental 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 use
of antimicrobials). In essence, environmental and economic
improvements of the industry have gone hand-in-hand,
although some of the interactions with the environment still
remain 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). The
potential adverse impacts on mariculture from other activities
such as the introductions of pests and diseases through
uncontrolled discharge of ballast water have received less
attention (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 and
economic bene®ts and possible negative implications of
mariculture development on both a local and national scale.
Introduction of mariculture into rural areas of Europe has
helped 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 mariculture
to adverse environmental and economic impacts posed by
issues such as the introduction of diseases from ballast water
discharge or from less well-regulated human activities within
the terrestrial environment. Given equal opportunities to those
that are enjoyed by other forms of development such as
tourism, the development of mariculture may be characterized
by (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 mariculture but not applied as rigorously to other forms of human
activity.
It is anticipated that potential con¯icts of interest between
mariculture and tourism could arise. In a recent Finnish study
it was noted that the development of ®sh farming in the Gulf
of Finland `¼ has not until now had any signi®cant
detrimental e€ects on the tourist industry or any other branch
of the economy' (Salo et al. 2000). Reducing mariculture
would not necessarily create more opportunities for the
development of other activities. On the contrary, ®sh farming
and its associated support activities could o€er opportunities
P. Burbridge et al.
for bene®cial collaboration with other economic endeavours
such as tourism and ®sheries (Salo et al. 2000).
The question that needs to be better addressed is `what
would happen if mariculture development was stopped or
refused permission to develop further?' There is a real danger
that the imposition of unnecessary regulation could impose
costs that could discourage investment in expanding and
diversifying mariculture operations. This would mean the
e€ective foreclosure of opportunities for sustainable development using available renewable resources and a consequent
reduction in human welfare. In a recent Finnish study it was
shown that, apart from increasing employment opportunities,
a signi®cant proportion of the impact on incomes goes to the
public 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 cause
major problems. A reduction in mariculture would naturally
a€ect production, income and employment in the surrounding
region 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 important
component of the ®shery sector. Growth in mariculture
production and employment can play a major role in helping
to improve food security and increase and diversify economic
opportunities at both national and more local scales. Increasing dependency on mariculture can be interpreted as a sign of
increasing employment opportunities in remote areas where
there are few alternative forms of employment. Enhanced
employment in mariculture can help to reduce outward
migration from rural regions and help to maintain essential
services 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 as
well as the welfare gains and losses to society are analysed.
This would allow a more balanced approach to decisionmaking and the adaptation of management plans. Such
analyses also make it possible to identify a broad range of
management tools that can be e€ective in meeting societal
welfare objectives while minimizing the cost imposed on
mariculture operations. This will help to optimize the use of
available natural, human and ®nancial resources in the longer
term and sustainable development of mariculture.
Sustainable mariculture development depends on a number
of critical factors, including:
· con®dence on the part of the consumer and the retailer
based on the establishment and maintenance of a reputation
for high quality mariculture products;
· that mariculture systems are designed to have minimal
adverse impacts on the environment and can help to
promote improved management of coastal ecosystems and
resources;
· the availability of suitable natural resources;
· freedom from adverse environmental and economic impacts
from 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 participation of stakeholders that encourage appropriate forms and
levels of mariculture development;
Social and economic policy issues relevant to marine aquaculture
· equal status with other natural resource users competing for
access and rights;
· improved use of economic incentives as well as economic
regulation mechanisms that encourage economic eciency,
social equity and protection of the environment.
To facilitate sustainable and equitable development of
mariculture there also needs to be major improvements in
the dissemination of scienti®c information and advice in forms
that can be e€ectively utilized by policy makers, spatial
planners and resource managers with responsibilities for
coastal areas. It is also important to make people more aware
that `uncertainties' associated with ®ndings and available
information from the natural sciences need not impede good
decision-making and need to be balanced with similar `uncertainties' concerning the social sciences as well as moral and
legal considerations. This requires an holistic perspective on
environmental, social and economic factors that in¯uence
sustainable development of mariculture and other forms of
human endeavour.
These diverse factors need to be e€ectively integrated into
economic, environmental and social development planning if
mariculture 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 the
predominance of sector-based planning and management.
More needs to be done to establish adequate property rights
for mariculture development to improve access to credit and
facilitate planning for long-term investment. Improvement in
property rights would also improve the legal rights of
mariculture 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 is
being developed by the EC may well provide a series of
incentives that will help to improve the conditions under which
mariculture can be integrated into regional and more local
development 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 national
initiatives as tools that could be used to improve the policy
context, 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 of
plans and management strategies to achieve major progress in
the integrated evaluation of economic, social and environmental factors that in¯uence the sustainable development of
mariculture.
References
Asche, F.; TveteraÊs, S., 2000: On the relationship between aquaculture
and reduction ®sheries. In: Proceedings IIFET 2000 (International
Institute of Fisheries Economics and Trade), Oregon State
8
University, 10±14 July 2000. Corvallis, OR, USA: Oregon State
University. 28 pp.
Barraclough, S.; Finger-Stich, A., 1996: Some Ecological and Social
Implications of Commercial Shrimp Farming in Asia. Discussion
paper 74. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations Research Institute
for Social Development (UNRISD). 62 pp.
205
Black, E. A.; Gowen, R.; Rosenthal, H.; Roth, E.; Stechy, D.;
Taylor, F. J. R., 1997: The cost of eutrophication from salmon
farming ± 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 the
Industry and E€ectiveness for Fishery Management Policy.
Onderzoekverslag No. 159. The Hague, The Netherlands: Agricultural 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 Article
9 of the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries in the
Mediterranean Region. FAO Report No. 606. Rome, Italy: FAO.
208 pp.
Gauld, J.; Munro, A. L. S.; Davies, I. M., 1998: Country Production
Report Scotland ± Fish ± 1996. Report to the International
Council for the Exploration of the Seas (ICES) Working Group
on Environmental Interactions of Mariculture. (M98/F:
9
Mariculture Committee).
Goulding, I.; Hallam, D.; Harrison-May®eld, L.; Mackenzie-Hill, V.;
da Silca, H., 2000: Regional Socio-economic Studies on
Employment and the Level of Dependency on Fishing. Fisheries
Report Lot No. 23. Brussels, Belgium: Commission of
the European Communities, Directorate-General for Fisheries.
15 pp.
Hardin, G., 1968: The tragedy of the commons. Science 162, 1243±1248.
10 Huisman, E. A., 1990: Mariculture research as a tool in 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 in
Coastal Area Planning and Management. CM 1995/F:56. Copenhagen Denmark: International Council for the Exploration of the
Seas (ICES) (Mariculture Committee). pp. 1±31.
ICES, 1997: Report of the Working Group on Environmental
Interactions of Mariculture. Report 1995/F:5. Copenhagen Denmark: International Council for the Exploration of the Seas
(ICES) (Mariculture Committee).
ICES, 1998: Report of the Working Group on Environmental
Interactions 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 Environmental
Interactions 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 Environmental
Interactions 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 on
socio-economic issues in coastal ®sheries management. In: Socio11
Economic Issues in Coastal Fisheries Management. Bangkok,
Thailand: Regional Oce for Asia and the Paci®c (RAPA) Food
and 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 the
Highlands and Islands of Scotland. In: Eciency in Aquaculture
Production: Production Trends, Markets, Products and
13
Regulations. (Conference Proceedings) Eds: H. Rosenthal and
E. Grimaldi. Verona Italy: Fierre Di Verona. pp. 61±70.
Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, 1999: Strukturdirektoratet, Rapport vedrùrende udvikling af en mñrkningsmodel for
ùkologisk 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 in
Aquaculture. Report No. 25. Portsmouth, UK: Centre for the
Economics and Management of Aquatic Resources, University of
Portsmouth. 34 pp.
Ostrom, E., 1990: Governing the Commons. The Evolution of
Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press. 280 pp.
206
Papayannis, T., 1999: European Foundation for the Improvement of
Living and Working Conditions (EFILWC). Athens, Greece:
Thymio Papayannis and Associates Inc. 90 pp.
Pearce, D. W.; Atkinson, G., 1993: Capital theory and the measurement of sustainable development: an indicator of weak sustainability. Ecol. Econ. 8, 103±108.
Public and Corporate Economic Consultants (PACEC) and Stirling
Aquaculture, 1998: The Economic Impact of Scottish Salmon
Farming. Cambridge, UK: Public and Corporate Economic
Consultants. 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 aquaculture in Europe. Proceedings of the First MARAQUA Workshop held at the University of the Algarve, Faro, Portugal, 6±8
September 1999. J. Appl. Ichthyol. 16 (4±5), 138±229.
Roth, E.; Rosenthal, H.; Burbridge, P. R., 2000: A discussion of the
use of the sustainability index: `Ecological Footprint' in aquaculture production. J. Aquat. Res. 13, 461±469.
14 Salo, H.; Storhammar, G.; Kustula, V., 2000: Kalankasvatuksen
merkitys Saaristomeren alueella ± alueelliset ja paikalliset vaikutkset (in Finnish) (The Signi®cance of Fish Farming in the
Archipelago Sea ± Regional and Local Impacts). Institute of
Environmental Research Bulletin 153. JyaÈskylaÈ, Finland: University of JyaÈskylaÈ.
Soto, D.; Mena, G., 1999: Filter feeding by the freshwater mussel,
Diplodon chilensis, as a biocontrol of salmon farming eutrophication. Aquaculture 171, 63±81.
Sutherland, R., 2000: Fish farming in the Scottish Highlands and
Islands: a case study on the socio-economics of aquaculture.
Paper presented at the Third MARAQUA Workshop held at
Napier University, Edinburgh Scotland, 28±31 August 2000
15
(unpublished report).
16 Tisdell, C.; Allan, J., 1994: Economics of Giant Clams. Canberra,
Australia: Australian Centre for International Agricultural
Research.
P. Burbridge et al.
Troell, M.; Kautsky, N.; Folke, C., 1999: Applicability of integrated
coastal aquaculture systems. Commentary. Ocean Coastal Manage. 42, 63±69.
Vivekananda, V.; Kurien, J., 1999: Socio-economic and political
dimensions of shrimp culture development in India: the case of
Andhra 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 as
a 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.
18 Wessels, C. R.; Anderson, J. L., 1992: Innovations and progress
in seafood demand and market analysis. Mar. Res. Econ. 7,
209±228.
19 Wessells, C. R; Anderson, J. L., 1995: Consumer willingness to pay for
seafood safety assurances. J. Consumer A€airs 29, 85±107.
Wessells, C. R.; Johnston, R. J.; Donath, H., 1999: Assessing
consumer preferences for eco-labeled seafood: the in¯uence of
species, certi®er, and household attributes. Paper presented at
American Agricultural Economics Association, Nashville, USA,
20
August 8±11, 1999.
White, F.; Costelloe, J., 1999: Socio-economic Evaluation of the
Impact of the Aquaculture Industry in Counties Donegal,
Galway, Kerry and Cork. Marine Resources Series 7. Dublin,
Ireland: Marine Institute. 95 pp.
21 Authors' addresses: P. Burbridge (for correspondence), V. Hendrick,
Department of Marine Sciences and Coastal
Management, University of Newcastle, Newcastle
upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, England. E-mail:
[email protected]; E. Roth, Department of
Environmental and Business Economics,
University of Southern Denmark, Denmark;
H. Rosenthal, Institute for Marine Science,
University of Kiel, Germany