severe nature of rural poverty there, which is itself linked to more limited opportunities for well-remunerated diversification of economic activities beyond the farm
(Belton et al. 2011).
Assessing the benefits of aquaculture can be difficult, even focusing solely on
financial and economic aspects, as exemplified by Burbridge et al. (2001) and
Isaksen and Mikkelsen (2012). While aquaculture is seen as important for alleviating protein deficiency in diets in developing countries (FAO 2014), some have
questioned the total effect of fish protein supply if aquaculture does not manage to
reduce wild fish inputs in feed and adopt more ecologically sound management
practices (Naylor et al. 2000). Belton et al. (2011) point out that global fish supply
is undergoing a fundamental transition as capture fisheries is succeeded by aquaculture. This transition is however far from uniform. Even among major aquaculture
producing nations, capture fisheries is yet crucial to food and nutrition security. For
numerous countries outside this ‘elite’ group, wild capture fisheries remain the
dominant supplier (Hall et al. 2011). Thus, who will benefit from aquaculture in
what ways and on what level remains yet unresolved. These issues are even more
difficult to assess in offshore aquaculture conditions, by which the initial monetary
input is much higher and thus the benefits play out on much different levels and
dimension than small-scale subsistence farming.
8.2.4 Negative Effects of Aquaculture Production Activities
and Conflicts with Other Interests
The literature on attitudes and perceptions about aquaculture referred earlier can
well be used as documentation of actual external effects and conflicts. Indeed, the
conflicts between aquaculture and other interests are typically due to negative
environmental effects from aquaculture, or competition over marine areas
(Primavera 2006). Changes in environmental conditions due to aquaculture can be
measured technically (Grigorakis and Rigos 2011) and thus rather objectively.
Assessing the impact or severity of a change in the natural environment due to
aquaculture, and even more so in offshore environments, is however more difficult.
It will vary with the local environment, and the local use of the area by humans, as
shown by for example Primavera (2006) and Paul and Vogl (2011). Asking
stakeholders or the general public to give their input for this has its challenges.
However, instead of asking end-consumers to what degree aquaculture is or creates
problems, one should rather investigate their use of and valuation of ecosystem
services (Millenium Ecosystem Assessment 2005) affected by aquaculture, as well
as the impact of aquaculture on these services. Media analyses as a source of
information on negative effects of aquaculture and conflicts associated with it also
has its problems (Tiller et al. 2012). This difficulty in assessing negative effects was
reflected in a recent end-consumer study in Germany by Feucht and Zander (2014).
Their focus group outcomes revealed an obvious lack of knowledge among the
8 The Socio-economic Dimensions of Offshore …
171
(Belton et al. 2011).
Assessing the benefits of aquaculture can be difficult, even focusing solely on
financial and economic aspects, as exemplified by Burbridge et al. (2001) and
Isaksen and Mikkelsen (2012). While aquaculture is seen as important for alleviating protein deficiency in diets in developing countries (FAO 2014), some have
questioned the total effect of fish protein supply if aquaculture does not manage to
reduce wild fish inputs in feed and adopt more ecologically sound management
practices (Naylor et al. 2000). Belton et al. (2011) point out that global fish supply
is undergoing a fundamental transition as capture fisheries is succeeded by aquaculture. This transition is however far from uniform. Even among major aquaculture
producing nations, capture fisheries is yet crucial to food and nutrition security. For
numerous countries outside this ‘elite’ group, wild capture fisheries remain the
dominant supplier (Hall et al. 2011). Thus, who will benefit from aquaculture in
what ways and on what level remains yet unresolved. These issues are even more
difficult to assess in offshore aquaculture conditions, by which the initial monetary
input is much higher and thus the benefits play out on much different levels and
dimension than small-scale subsistence farming.
8.2.4 Negative Effects of Aquaculture Production Activities
and Conflicts with Other Interests
The literature on attitudes and perceptions about aquaculture referred earlier can
well be used as documentation of actual external effects and conflicts. Indeed, the
conflicts between aquaculture and other interests are typically due to negative
environmental effects from aquaculture, or competition over marine areas
(Primavera 2006). Changes in environmental conditions due to aquaculture can be
measured technically (Grigorakis and Rigos 2011) and thus rather objectively.
Assessing the impact or severity of a change in the natural environment due to
aquaculture, and even more so in offshore environments, is however more difficult.
It will vary with the local environment, and the local use of the area by humans, as
shown by for example Primavera (2006) and Paul and Vogl (2011). Asking
stakeholders or the general public to give their input for this has its challenges.
However, instead of asking end-consumers to what degree aquaculture is or creates
problems, one should rather investigate their use of and valuation of ecosystem
services (Millenium Ecosystem Assessment 2005) affected by aquaculture, as well
as the impact of aquaculture on these services. Media analyses as a source of
information on negative effects of aquaculture and conflicts associated with it also
has its problems (Tiller et al. 2012). This difficulty in assessing negative effects was
reflected in a recent end-consumer study in Germany by Feucht and Zander (2014).
Their focus group outcomes revealed an obvious lack of knowledge among the
8 The Socio-economic Dimensions of Offshore …
171