260
D. Whitmarsh and M.G. Palmieri
per kg N and hence of a similar order of magnitude to that found by Folke et al.
(1994). This finding might appear to support the claim that salmon farming is unsustainable, but it should be acknowledged that the external costs of nutrient release in
a water body such as the Baltic are likely to be higher than in less eutrophic areas
with greater assimilative capacity. Indeed, evidence showing that nutrients released
by fish farms situated in oligotrophic waters may increase productivity in local capture fisheries (Machias et al. 2004) strongly implies that in such circumstances there
will be positive externalities of cage aquaculture that will need to be set against any
possible negative externalities associated with reduced amenity value.
8.4 Institutional Responses and Policy Implications
The DPSIR framework illustrated in Fig. 8.1 suggests that the response to the externalities of aquaculture will come from a variety of institutions, most obviously from government departments or agencies in the form of controls on fish farms intended to
mitigate or prevent potential environmental damage. The external costs of shrimp farming are now widely recognised, and in several countries governments and NGOs are
taking steps to redress the problem. In Thailand, shrimp farming in the non-coastal rice
and fruit growing areas has been banned since 1998 (Barbier and Cox 2004), and a
mangrove restoration program has recently been initiated. Environmental damage arising from the cultivation of species such as salmon is arguably of a lower order of magnitude compared to shrimp farming, but it is clear that here also governments are not
indifferent to the possible risks. Marine aquaculture throughout Europe is subject to a
wide range of regulatory controls and monitoring (Fernandes et al. 2000; Read and
Fernandes 2003), which in some countries such as Denmark have imposed quite severe
restraints on fish farm development. The institutional response may also derive from
commercial firms linked with the supply side of aquaculture, for example by the provision of pollution-abatement technologies and inputs that are environmentally less damaging (e.g., altering the nutritional composition of pelleted feed to include less fishmeal).
In the case of Norwegian salmon farming there is evidence that the adoption of such
innovations has improved environmental performance (Asche et al. 1999), the rapid
growth of the industry acting as an additional incentive for fish farmers to reduce pollution (Tveteras 2002). A further type of response may come from stakeholder groups not
directly connected with aquaculture, and it is worth noting that consumers are increasingly being called upon to make ‘informed choices’ when they purchase seafood
according to a set of environmental criteria. As well as established ecolabelling and
certification schemes such as that operated by the Marine Stewardship Council, information is now available to consumers to enable them to evaluate fisheries products
using an environmental ranking system. This approach has lately been pioneered by the
Blue Ocean Institute and applied to farmed fish sold in the US, with species awarded a
score based on their supposed environmental impact. An explanation of their scoring
methodology can be found at the website http://www2.blueocean.org/.
D. Whitmarsh and M.G. Palmieri
per kg N and hence of a similar order of magnitude to that found by Folke et al.
(1994). This finding might appear to support the claim that salmon farming is unsustainable, but it should be acknowledged that the external costs of nutrient release in
a water body such as the Baltic are likely to be higher than in less eutrophic areas
with greater assimilative capacity. Indeed, evidence showing that nutrients released
by fish farms situated in oligotrophic waters may increase productivity in local capture fisheries (Machias et al. 2004) strongly implies that in such circumstances there
will be positive externalities of cage aquaculture that will need to be set against any
possible negative externalities associated with reduced amenity value.
8.4 Institutional Responses and Policy Implications
The DPSIR framework illustrated in Fig. 8.1 suggests that the response to the externalities of aquaculture will come from a variety of institutions, most obviously from government departments or agencies in the form of controls on fish farms intended to
mitigate or prevent potential environmental damage. The external costs of shrimp farming are now widely recognised, and in several countries governments and NGOs are
taking steps to redress the problem. In Thailand, shrimp farming in the non-coastal rice
and fruit growing areas has been banned since 1998 (Barbier and Cox 2004), and a
mangrove restoration program has recently been initiated. Environmental damage arising from the cultivation of species such as salmon is arguably of a lower order of magnitude compared to shrimp farming, but it is clear that here also governments are not
indifferent to the possible risks. Marine aquaculture throughout Europe is subject to a
wide range of regulatory controls and monitoring (Fernandes et al. 2000; Read and
Fernandes 2003), which in some countries such as Denmark have imposed quite severe
restraints on fish farm development. The institutional response may also derive from
commercial firms linked with the supply side of aquaculture, for example by the provision of pollution-abatement technologies and inputs that are environmentally less damaging (e.g., altering the nutritional composition of pelleted feed to include less fishmeal).
In the case of Norwegian salmon farming there is evidence that the adoption of such
innovations has improved environmental performance (Asche et al. 1999), the rapid
growth of the industry acting as an additional incentive for fish farmers to reduce pollution (Tveteras 2002). A further type of response may come from stakeholder groups not
directly connected with aquaculture, and it is worth noting that consumers are increasingly being called upon to make ‘informed choices’ when they purchase seafood
according to a set of environmental criteria. As well as established ecolabelling and
certification schemes such as that operated by the Marine Stewardship Council, information is now available to consumers to enable them to evaluate fisheries products
using an environmental ranking system. This approach has lately been pioneered by the
Blue Ocean Institute and applied to farmed fish sold in the US, with species awarded a
score based on their supposed environmental impact. An explanation of their scoring
methodology can be found at the website http://www2.blueocean.org/.