Mariculture Society was established, renamed in 1986 the World Aquaculture
Society or WAS (Avault and Guthrie 1986). Today the WAS has more than 3000
members in about 100 countries. Although the match of science and industry
seemed straightforward, the differing aims and measures of success of business and
academia have caused friction at times. Perhaps the most staggering example of the
success and problems of the marriage is that of Norwegian salmon farming. Local
fishermen and craftsmen began experimenting with salmon farming in Norwegian
fjords in the late 1960s. When an entrepreneur developed a cheap open net cage in
1970, the industry took off on a staggering growth trajectory. By 1990 the processes
of globalisation and capitalisation had created a Norwegian multi-billion dollar
industry. The ripple effects of foreign emulation and Norwegian investments created
similar large-scale operations in Chile and smaller-size industries in Canada,
Scotland and elsewhere. Almost from the beginning, the Norwegian state and
industry joined forces to ensure that science matched industry needs. The state
provided lucrative land and water licenses for industry and invested heavily in
research. Population genetics in particular perfected the cultured salmon species,
while epidemiological research was crucial in combating diseases. Scientists
became divided, however, in their belief in the sustainability of the industry. The
concern became obvious in 2010 when one director of research predicted a tenfold
increase of production while the Director of the Department of the Environment
advocated a halving of the industry out of concern for wild salmon and the natural
environment (Hovland et al. 2014). Such disagreement, based on differing scientific
measures and methods, indicates the degree to which aquaculture had rapidly
moved from being a productive force to also being a risk.
The rise of aquaculture depended on the willingness of buyers to substitute
cultured products for wild fish. While environmental concerns have been voiced by
some consumer organisations, the overall picture is one of market acceptance
(Natale et al. 2013). The rise in Western per capita demand for fish was associated
with the recognition of fish as a health food, including farmed fish, and has enabled
a doubling of fish consumption in developed countries since 1950. Local communities have also largely embraced aquaculture as a source of income despite
environmental and land issues. A comparative study of the introduction of forestry
and aquaculture industries in South East Asia showed that public perception of
aquaculture entrepreneurs—including big companies—was positive while forestry
companies were resented as intrusions by big capital (Hall 2003). Similarly, the
public perception of aquaculture in Chile was a warm welcome because of job
creation. The demands on land and water access are now being identified in Norway
as a major challenge to the public perception of the industry (Hovland et al. 2014).
While most of the world’s aquaculture is still conducted in semi-intensive
operations there is no doubt that the direction is towards increased control of
production (Asche et al. 2008). Fish farmers have leap-frogged the technological
innovation that took millennia on land and use advanced technologies in a marine
environment—of which, paradoxically, we have not yet developed a scientific
understanding. The expansion of aquaculture has brought about lower fish prices
and introduced jobs and income to developing countries as well as to regions in the
6
P. Holm et al.
Society or WAS (Avault and Guthrie 1986). Today the WAS has more than 3000
members in about 100 countries. Although the match of science and industry
seemed straightforward, the differing aims and measures of success of business and
academia have caused friction at times. Perhaps the most staggering example of the
success and problems of the marriage is that of Norwegian salmon farming. Local
fishermen and craftsmen began experimenting with salmon farming in Norwegian
fjords in the late 1960s. When an entrepreneur developed a cheap open net cage in
1970, the industry took off on a staggering growth trajectory. By 1990 the processes
of globalisation and capitalisation had created a Norwegian multi-billion dollar
industry. The ripple effects of foreign emulation and Norwegian investments created
similar large-scale operations in Chile and smaller-size industries in Canada,
Scotland and elsewhere. Almost from the beginning, the Norwegian state and
industry joined forces to ensure that science matched industry needs. The state
provided lucrative land and water licenses for industry and invested heavily in
research. Population genetics in particular perfected the cultured salmon species,
while epidemiological research was crucial in combating diseases. Scientists
became divided, however, in their belief in the sustainability of the industry. The
concern became obvious in 2010 when one director of research predicted a tenfold
increase of production while the Director of the Department of the Environment
advocated a halving of the industry out of concern for wild salmon and the natural
environment (Hovland et al. 2014). Such disagreement, based on differing scientific
measures and methods, indicates the degree to which aquaculture had rapidly
moved from being a productive force to also being a risk.
The rise of aquaculture depended on the willingness of buyers to substitute
cultured products for wild fish. While environmental concerns have been voiced by
some consumer organisations, the overall picture is one of market acceptance
(Natale et al. 2013). The rise in Western per capita demand for fish was associated
with the recognition of fish as a health food, including farmed fish, and has enabled
a doubling of fish consumption in developed countries since 1950. Local communities have also largely embraced aquaculture as a source of income despite
environmental and land issues. A comparative study of the introduction of forestry
and aquaculture industries in South East Asia showed that public perception of
aquaculture entrepreneurs—including big companies—was positive while forestry
companies were resented as intrusions by big capital (Hall 2003). Similarly, the
public perception of aquaculture in Chile was a warm welcome because of job
creation. The demands on land and water access are now being identified in Norway
as a major challenge to the public perception of the industry (Hovland et al. 2014).
While most of the world’s aquaculture is still conducted in semi-intensive
operations there is no doubt that the direction is towards increased control of
production (Asche et al. 2008). Fish farmers have leap-frogged the technological
innovation that took millennia on land and use advanced technologies in a marine
environment—of which, paradoxically, we have not yet developed a scientific
understanding. The expansion of aquaculture has brought about lower fish prices
and introduced jobs and income to developing countries as well as to regions in the
6
P. Holm et al.