Any-Fin is Possible: A Look at the Current State of the Aquaculture Industry
As the world’s population grows, so does the demand for food. All systems of food production are under pressure to produce more and more food. This pressure, coupled with consumer demand, is reflected in the fishing industry. Wild populations have been unsustainably harvested for years- leaving wild fish populations heavily depleted. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, in 2016, about one third of assessed fish populations were over-fished, and more than half were fully-fished¹. Overfished is defined as catching fish at a rate above the maximum sustainable yield. Maximum sustainable yield is the highest rate that fish can be caught at that doesn’t cause population depletion in the future. Catching fish above the maximum sustainable yield can lead to a future decrease in catch size and in drastic cases, population collapse. Fully-fished means that fish are being caught at either the maximum sustainable yield, or just below it. Having more than half of fish population teetering around the maximum sustainable yield can be risky.
A modern solution to overfishing is aquaculture. Aquaculture is essentially the fancy name for fish farming. Fish are raised in large cages or nets, in natural bodies of water, until they are big enough to be harvested. In recent years, the industry has been an effective option for providing the world with fish.
On the world scale, Norway is a powerhouse in the aquaculture industry. Norwegian salmon can commonly be found in grocery stores in the United States, especially along the east coast. The aquaculture industry in Norway began to take off in the 1970s, and has been skyrocketing ever since. In 2016, the export value of Norwegian salmon from aquaculture was around 8.42 billion (USD)². The success of the Norwegian aquaculture industry has drawn attention of many countries. In 2016, the Prime Minister of Bangladesh, sought the help of Norway’s aquaculture sector to help Bangladesh develop its own industry. Norway is a model for sustainable development, which a developing country like Bangladesh hopes to mimic. This is not to say that Norway’s aquaculture industry is perfect. In recent years, interconnected environmental, political and economic issues have slowed development. Solving these issues, however, would improve sustainable development in Norway and in places like Bangladesh that look to Norway.
The Norwegian Aquaculture Debate:
Historically, Norwegian coastal communities welcomed the aquaculture industry because it stimulated economic growth. Local municipalities were able to tax the farms, creating a profit for the local government. Residents were provided with stable, reliable jobs. Over time, the industry has become more technologically advanced, so less workers are being hired out of these communities³. Additionally, the industry has become more centralized, meaning that local communities are involved less. Communities are beginning to feel that their interests are diverging from those of these larger companies. They claim that the industry is taking advantage of water resources that belong to the community. Loss of economic growth paired with less trust in the industry and potential environmental harms has generally made coastal municipalities hesitant about aquaculture. The environmental concerns will be discussed later in the article, because it turns out aquaculture isn’t as harmful as its theorized to be.
Currently, it is in the best interest of the communities to profit from the industry’s presence. There used to be many benefits of the industry’s presence, and coastal communities are upset that that benefit has begun to disappear. They will be less opposed to the industry’s presence if there is some sort of incentive. Their largest concern is how to be treated by the industry and how they are compensated.
The interests of coastal municipalities directly conflict with the aquaculture industry’s. The ‘aquaculture industry’ group refers to investors, companies, owners, and other individuals who are directly tied to the success of the industry. Workers are not included in this group because their interests can sometimes conflict with their own company’s, for example, interests related to wages or worker’s rights. The primary goal of the aquaculture industry is to continue to grow and make a large profit. It is in their best interest to be able to use Norwegian waters to raise the fish as they please. You can’t grow crops without land, and you certainly can’t raise fish without water.
The interests of the Norwegian national government are more varied. On one hand, the government wants to please local communities because after all, the government is supposed to represent the people. Before 1986, the Norwegian government was highly decentralized, and municipalities had almost complete autonomy. Since World War II, the government has become more centralized, but local communities still hold considerate power to govern themselves⁴. The national government doesn’t want to infringe on the rights of municipalities by forcing them to accept the presence of the aquaculture industry.
On the other hand, it is the national government’s responsibility to foster economic growth for the country. Aquaculture has been so economically profitable for the country that continuing that growth would help the country’s economic success. Limiting an industry with an $8.42 billion (USD) export value could hurt Norway’s stance in the global economy.
Coastal municipalities actually hold most of the power in this debate, but they are feeling pressure from the national government and the aquaculture industry to allow more farms in their waters. The national government and the aquaculture industry believe that this autonomy is bottlenecking the further development of the industry³. The Norwegian Planning and Building Act of 1989 gives local municipalities the “authority to allocate and designate areas for aquaculture production in their coastal zone.”³. Ultimately, the government holds the power because they control legislation, however, since some of the government’s interests align with the local communities’, the municipalities still hold a good amount of power.
Since the power is held by the municipalities, the opportunity structure of the aquaculture industry is more limited. To make any change in legislation relating to aquaculture, the industry must go through the federal government. The government’s split interests make it harder to convince them to change laws and taxes. The interests of the municipalities actually expand the opportunity structure of the industry. The municipalities aren’t necessarily against aquaculture, but they are questioning the benefits it provides them. That gives the industry an opening: if a method can be found that satisfies the interests of the communities, then everyone will be happy. Seeing the growth of aquaculture on a global scale could also persuade the government to change legislation, in order to keep Norway at the top of the aquaculture industry.
Many suggestions have been made to remedy this debate. Area rent is a concept proposed by coastal municipalities, but it has faced technical issues. Area rent is the idea of basically ‘renting’ water space from local communities. The aquaculture farms would pay the municipalities, eliminating the government as a middle man. This solution has received pushback because of its feasibility. Implementing area rent would greatly complicate the already complex tax system as it relates to aquaculture. There are also concerns that area rent could fragment the system of aquaculture governance⁵.
Governmental compensation has also been suggested. The national government would be the ones the pay coastal municipalities to allow fish farming, but this could also complicate the tax system because it would require the government have significant funds to pay communities⁵. So far, there is no definite solution to this problem. The industry continues to grow, but perhaps not as fast as it could.
Environmental Concerns
As the aquaculture industry continues to grow, there are concerns over the impact and sustainability of these fish-producing practices. The scientific debate intersects with the Norwegian legislation debate in that some local communities are worried about the environmental effects. The scientific debate is very important to consider, especially because Norwegian aquaculture is looked at as a model of sustainable development by countries such as Bangladesh, which will be discussed further in the next section.
Just like any livestock animal, aquaculture fish require food, space, and produce waste. From a sustainability perspective, the life stage of the fish in which they live in natural bodies of water is the most concerning stage in aquaculture. Fish waste, which contains phosphorus and nitrogen, is of particular concern because it can accelerate eutrophication. In open water, nutrient pollution from fish waste is not a concern because it is so spread out. Since there are so many fish in a small area of space in the cages, the levels of nitrogen and phosphorus can become unnaturally high⁶.
Eutrophication is the process in which unusually high concentrations of natural nutrients cause changes in aquatic ecosystems. High levels of these nutrients can cause algal blooms. These blooms reduce dissolved oxygen content and sunlight levels in the body of water. Fish and other aquatic organisms need dissolved oxygen to survive, so those species might die off or migrate out of the area. Decreased sunlight can cause aquatic plants to suffer because they cannot perform photosynthesis at necessary rates. Ultimately, the ecosystem can become barren or significantly altered⁷.
In 2013, only 2% of Norwegian farms had unacceptable levels of the nutrient pollution that causes eutrophication. This conclusion comes from over 500 yearly investigations at aquaculture farms across Norway⁸. Eutrophication is of little risk, but that doesn’t stop locals from being concerned. They have used potential environmental harms as a reason for not wanting aquaculture in their waters, and they may not know that those harms are very minimal. The aquaculture industry can educate local communities, thus giving them less reasons to protest the industry, and potentially making them more okay with the presence of the aquaculture farms.
Sustainable Development and the Future of Aquaculture
Sustainable development rests on three moral imperatives: limits, needs, and equity. An industry, policy, or other action, is considered sustainable development if it does not conflict with any of the moral imperatives listed above⁹. Norwegian aquaculture clearly does not violate the limits or needs imperatives, but the equity imperative is slightly more complicated.
The limits imperative refers to environmental and planetary limits. Something that surpasses environmental limits, increases climate change, or harms ecosystems cannot be considered sustainable development⁹. The “Scientific Debate” section of this discusses the minimal effects aquaculture has on the environment. Many efforts are being made to reduce the already small impact it has on ecosystems. Aquaculture isn’t just ‘not conflicting’ with this imperative, it is helping mitigate other instances of violating environmental limits. Aquaculture provides a safe, efficient alternative to the to the traditional finishing methods that are hurting the environment. As described earlier, overfishing is decimating aquatic ecosystems, and aquaculture is helping to reduce those effects.
The second imperative, needs, looks at satisfying human needs through the capability approach. The capability approach analyzes what people are able to do and not do (their capabilities), and how a policy, action, or industry affects those capabilities. The capability approach has two interpretations: broad and narrow. The broad interpretation includes principles such as “freedom, equity and sustainability,” and the narrow interpretation focuses more on human development principles like “income, education and health.”⁹ The aquaculture industry does not violate any of the principles in both the narrow and broad interpretations. There is no interference with basic human freedoms and necessities, nor does in negatively affect human development.
The equity imperative rests on John Rawl’s theory of justice. There are two principles within Rawls theory: the ‘equal liberty principle’ and the ‘fair equality of opportunity principle’. The ‘equal liberty principle’ refers to political liberty⁹. In the Norwegian aquaculture debate, there is no loss of political liberty. The political rights of the coastal municipalities are wholly respected by the government and the aquaculture industry, and the voices of each group are being respected and listened to. This principle is not violated because the political liberty of each group remains intact throughout this debate. The second principle, the ‘fair equality of opportunity’ principle, is somewhat confusing. This principle does not say that all income and wealth should be equal, for Rawls actually believes that some inequality is acceptable. Inequality is acceptable when the people who are worse-off, would be even worse off under any other organizational system. Simply put: a system fulfills this principle when inequality can’t be improved anymore. I argue that the Norwegian aquaculture system is the best-case scenario for inequality. The major case of inequality in this system, which is coastal communities not being compensated, is being worked on by all involved groups.
Because Norwegian aquaculture does not violate any of the moral imperatives, this system should be considered sustainable development, and I’m not the only one who thinks so. Sheikh Hasina, Prime Minister of Bangladesh, recognizes the success and sustainability of Norway’s aquaculture, stating that “we [the country of Bangladesh] want Norway’s cooperation in developing out fisheries sector with its technologies, projects and ventures…and taking up joint ventures in marine aquaculture projects in Bangladesh’s coastal regions.”¹⁰
Developing countries such as Bangladesh are beginning to use aquaculture because of its social and economic benefits. It creates more stability than the traditional fishing industry, which can often be unreliable. The nature of aquaculture allows employees to establish permanent homes, unlike traditional fishing, where employees are moving around and spending time at sea. It also provides job security and reliable income source¹¹. Aquaculture obviously does not solve all income inequality and poverty issues in developing countries, but it has shown potential to help remedy some of these problems. Additionally, aquaculture would provide more food to people of developing countries, reducing the hunger and the struggle to find reliable food sources. The Norwegian ambassador to Bangladesh, Merete Lundemo, expressed interest in investing more in the Bangladesh’s industries, and also noted the large improvement in poverty alleviation in the country. By bringing the expertise of the sustainable Norwegian aquaculture industry, the aquaculture of Bangladesh could be greatly improved, benefitting the country and its people.
References:
1. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2016: Contributing to food security and nutrition for all. Rome, Italy: FAO, 2016. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5555e.pdf
2. EY. The Norwegian Aquaculture Analysis 2016. United Kingdom: Ernst & Young Global Limited, 2016. http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/EY_The_Norwegian_Aquaculture_Analysis/$File/EY-The-Norwegian-Aquaculture-Analysis-web.pdf
3. Sandersen, Haakan, and Ingrid Kvalvik. “Access to aquaculture sites: A wicked problem in Norwegian aquaculture development.” Maritime Studies 14, no.10 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40152-015-0027-8
4. Borge, Lars-Erik. “Local government in Norway.” In Local public sector in transition: A Nordic Perspective, edited by Antti Moisio, 2010, 95–121. Helsinki, Finland: Government Institute Economic Research. https://munifin.fi/sites/default/files/content_block/field_file/nordic_model_mediumres.pdf
5. Sandersen, Haakan, and Kvalvik. “Sustainable Governance of Norwegian Aquaculture and the Administrative Reform: Dilemmas and Challenges.” Coastal Management 42, no. 5 (2014): 447–463. https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2014.942028
6. Black, Kenneth D. 2001. Environmental Impacts of Aquaculture. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001.https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Pae6bxGq3GgC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=environmental+effects+of+aquaculture&ots=y0qh9Cuw6z&sig=4CKtmmQ2q6f3uACHd0PMtqdSFPI#v=onepage&q=environmental%20effects%20of%20aquaculture&f=false
7. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2017. “Nutrient Pollution: The Problem.” https://www.epa.gov/nutrientpollution/problem
8. Taranger, Geir Lasse, et al. “Risk assessment of the environmental impact of Norwegian Atlantic salmon farming,” ICES Journal of Marine Science, 72, no. 3 (2015): 997–1021, https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsu132
9. Holden, Erling, Kristin Linnerud, & David Banister. “The Imperatives of Sustainable Development,” Sustainable Development 25,no. 3 (2017): 213–226. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1647
10. “PM Wants Norway’s Support for Aquaculture, Shipbuilding.” The Daily Sun. August 31, 2016. Retrived from http://www.daily-sun.com/post/163606/PM-wants-Norways-support-for-aquaculture-shipbuilding
11. Agence Française de Development, European Commission, and Deutche Gesellschaft für Internationale. “Opportunities and challenges for aquaculture in developing countries.” April 2017. https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/file/65255/download?token=ZDky6Mfb
