158 H. N. Sandvold et al.
Co- location of vegetable production and fish farms is not likely, as the
most suitable place for aquaculture is near the coast (particularly with cagebased grow- out) and the most suitable place for agriculture is more inland.
Hydroponic systems for aquaculture are costlier and would require a large
capital expense for producing a low- value food source far away from existing
distribution networks. The spatial embeddedness of the firms contributes to
the lack of shared context.
Institutions
New business models for the re- use of organic fish waste are slow to develop.
The salmon- producing companies themselves are not driving innovation in
this part of the value chain. Furthermore, little research has been conducted
to determine the most effective use for the sludge, either from a lifecycle
assessment, or simply from an economic cost- benefit perspective. Thus, there
is little to drive the industry to invent new usages for the waste.
Much of this can be explained by territorial embeddedness (PallaresBarbera, Tulla & Vera, 2004) of the various institutions and their respective
established networks. Therefore, there is little shared context for waste valorisation, and, as such, little incentive for research or entrepreneurship to link
these disparate institutions.
8.6 Conclusion
8.6.1 Overcoming the barriers: key actors
There are still open questions concerning which actors and what type of institutional development will eventually emerge to handle this. Our findings
show a general “wait- and-see” strategy for the business case for waste valorisation within the aquaculture industry. Disparate industries with diverse competencies, industrial expertise and institutional territorial embeddedness define
the current landscape, and thus no viable market has yet emerged for sludge
from juvenile salmon production. As such, there are currently no plans for
large investments or any push for innovation in the near future.
Innovations at this nascent stage are accompanied with large risks and high
costs, and the salmon- production firms choose to wait for innovative, new
solutions before investing. Since there are no economic incentives for the firms
to invest in new waste- handling technologies, it is not strategically prioritised
by the fish producers. The fish- producing firms fulfil the government’s restrictions, but have little incentive, currently, to explore options beyond that.
National governments therefore have the potential to be key actors, especially
as awareness grows of the environmental impact of this growing industry.
Other external actors also have the potential to play a key role. While the
role of fish farm waste as fertiliser in agricultural systems can still be
developed, further processing of the sludge through microbial conversion into
Co- location of vegetable production and fish farms is not likely, as the
most suitable place for aquaculture is near the coast (particularly with cagebased grow- out) and the most suitable place for agriculture is more inland.
Hydroponic systems for aquaculture are costlier and would require a large
capital expense for producing a low- value food source far away from existing
distribution networks. The spatial embeddedness of the firms contributes to
the lack of shared context.
Institutions
New business models for the re- use of organic fish waste are slow to develop.
The salmon- producing companies themselves are not driving innovation in
this part of the value chain. Furthermore, little research has been conducted
to determine the most effective use for the sludge, either from a lifecycle
assessment, or simply from an economic cost- benefit perspective. Thus, there
is little to drive the industry to invent new usages for the waste.
Much of this can be explained by territorial embeddedness (PallaresBarbera, Tulla & Vera, 2004) of the various institutions and their respective
established networks. Therefore, there is little shared context for waste valorisation, and, as such, little incentive for research or entrepreneurship to link
these disparate institutions.
8.6 Conclusion
8.6.1 Overcoming the barriers: key actors
There are still open questions concerning which actors and what type of institutional development will eventually emerge to handle this. Our findings
show a general “wait- and-see” strategy for the business case for waste valorisation within the aquaculture industry. Disparate industries with diverse competencies, industrial expertise and institutional territorial embeddedness define
the current landscape, and thus no viable market has yet emerged for sludge
from juvenile salmon production. As such, there are currently no plans for
large investments or any push for innovation in the near future.
Innovations at this nascent stage are accompanied with large risks and high
costs, and the salmon- production firms choose to wait for innovative, new
solutions before investing. Since there are no economic incentives for the firms
to invest in new waste- handling technologies, it is not strategically prioritised
by the fish producers. The fish- producing firms fulfil the government’s restrictions, but have little incentive, currently, to explore options beyond that.
National governments therefore have the potential to be key actors, especially
as awareness grows of the environmental impact of this growing industry.
Other external actors also have the potential to play a key role. While the
role of fish farm waste as fertiliser in agricultural systems can still be
developed, further processing of the sludge through microbial conversion into