(see examples given in Barrett et al. 2002; Bunting 2004; Fröcklin et al. 2012;
Isaksen and Mikkelsen 2012; Jentoft and Chuenpagdee 2013; Sandberg 2003;
Sievanen et al. 2005; Varela 2001). In many cases the omission of relevant
stakeholders and social concerns in aquaculture development projects has contributed to inequity, social conflicts and violence (Martinez-Alier 2001; Nagarajan
and Thiyageasan 2006; Varela 2001). The unavoidability of feedbacks between
largely structural and technical interventions and the socio-economic systems
within which they are embedded, highlights the need for employing more systematic (or ecosystem) approaches to analyse cause and effect relationships and to
explore future sustainable, efficient and equitable development scenarios (Hopkins
et al. 2011; Belton and Bush 2014).
This raises the question, what processes are needed to include issues and concerns that are not currently promoted by active and resourceful stakeholders
(Buanes et al. 2004). This is especially important in offshore areas under multi-use
conditions, since this is a novel line of resource use which lacks yet experiences on
which stakeholder group’s work well together under which governance and management conditions and what type of socio-economic outcomes can be expected.
Indeed, more detailed and context-specific socio-economic dimensions of aquaculture operations include many important factors which need to be understood:
gender, employment and income, nutrition, food security, health, insurance, credit
availability, human rights, legal security, privatization, culture/identity, global trade
and inequalities, as well as policies, laws and regulations, macro-economic context,
political context, customary rules and systems, stakeholders, knowledge and attitudes, ethics, power, markets, capital and ownership (Hishamunda et al. 2009).
Certainly, the lack of consensus on the social dimension is striking when compared
with the universally accepted general definitions that exist for the biological and
economic dimensions for sustainable ecosystem management (Krause et al. 2015).
This is even more so the case of offshore marine management.
Based on the existing literature from coastal aquaculture (see references below)
we identify these major types of socio-economic dimensions of aquaculture which
are universally applicable:
(a) Attitudes to and perceptions of aquaculture and its effects
(b) Organization of and participation in planning for aquaculture
(c) Direct benefits of aquaculture and their distribution
(d) Negative effects of aquaculture production activities and conflicts with other
interests
(e) Effects on the wider economic and innovation system
(f) Effects on cultural fabric and other social aspects
As the list indicates, the social implications of aquaculture are multi-dimensional
and affect multiple levels. As a starting point of this analysis, we capture what we
account as social dimension by stating what aspects of aquaculture we have
excluded: The internal organization and efficiency of the aquaculture production
units, and the ecological effects of aquaculture production (including biological,
8 The Socio-economic Dimensions of Offshore …
167
Isaksen and Mikkelsen 2012; Jentoft and Chuenpagdee 2013; Sandberg 2003;
Sievanen et al. 2005; Varela 2001). In many cases the omission of relevant
stakeholders and social concerns in aquaculture development projects has contributed to inequity, social conflicts and violence (Martinez-Alier 2001; Nagarajan
and Thiyageasan 2006; Varela 2001). The unavoidability of feedbacks between
largely structural and technical interventions and the socio-economic systems
within which they are embedded, highlights the need for employing more systematic (or ecosystem) approaches to analyse cause and effect relationships and to
explore future sustainable, efficient and equitable development scenarios (Hopkins
et al. 2011; Belton and Bush 2014).
This raises the question, what processes are needed to include issues and concerns that are not currently promoted by active and resourceful stakeholders
(Buanes et al. 2004). This is especially important in offshore areas under multi-use
conditions, since this is a novel line of resource use which lacks yet experiences on
which stakeholder group’s work well together under which governance and management conditions and what type of socio-economic outcomes can be expected.
Indeed, more detailed and context-specific socio-economic dimensions of aquaculture operations include many important factors which need to be understood:
gender, employment and income, nutrition, food security, health, insurance, credit
availability, human rights, legal security, privatization, culture/identity, global trade
and inequalities, as well as policies, laws and regulations, macro-economic context,
political context, customary rules and systems, stakeholders, knowledge and attitudes, ethics, power, markets, capital and ownership (Hishamunda et al. 2009).
Certainly, the lack of consensus on the social dimension is striking when compared
with the universally accepted general definitions that exist for the biological and
economic dimensions for sustainable ecosystem management (Krause et al. 2015).
This is even more so the case of offshore marine management.
Based on the existing literature from coastal aquaculture (see references below)
we identify these major types of socio-economic dimensions of aquaculture which
are universally applicable:
(a) Attitudes to and perceptions of aquaculture and its effects
(b) Organization of and participation in planning for aquaculture
(c) Direct benefits of aquaculture and their distribution
(d) Negative effects of aquaculture production activities and conflicts with other
interests
(e) Effects on the wider economic and innovation system
(f) Effects on cultural fabric and other social aspects
As the list indicates, the social implications of aquaculture are multi-dimensional
and affect multiple levels. As a starting point of this analysis, we capture what we
account as social dimension by stating what aspects of aquaculture we have
excluded: The internal organization and efficiency of the aquaculture production
units, and the ecological effects of aquaculture production (including biological,
8 The Socio-economic Dimensions of Offshore …
167