9 Future Trends in Aquaculture Production
285
natural habitat and pollution from the production process that influences habitat
and wildlife around the site. For salmon farming the main issues have been pollution from organic waste and the interaction between wild and farmed salmon.
Farmed salmon may transmit diseases and parasites to wild salmon. Increased
number of the sea lice parasite on wild salmon has been associated with escaped
farmed salmon. Farmed salmon may also attempt to spawn in rivers and may
impact the genetic pool. These experiences are not unique for salmon farming.
Shrimp farming has received even more negative publicity than salmon farming
in relation to detrimental environmental effects, such as destruction of mangroves, salinization of agricultural areas, eutrophication, and disruptive socioeconomic impacts.
The environmental issues that arose in intensive salmon and shrimp farming
during the 1980s and through the 1990s, must be seen in relation to the introduction
of a new technology that uses the environment as an input. The larger the production at any site and the more intensive the process, the larger the potential for environmental damage. However, the greater degree of control with the production
process in intensive aquaculture also makes it easier to address these issues. With
all new technologies there will be unexpected side effects, and there will be a time
lag from an issue arises until it can be addressed. First the impact and the causes
must be properly identified. Second, the solution to the problems will require modifications of existing technology or maybe entirely new technology. In both cases pollution reduction implies some form of induced innovation. In this relation, Tveterås
(2002) argues that industry growth has a positive effect on pollution, in line with
the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC). The EKC hypothesis refers to an empirical
observation that pollution tends to increase with economic growth up to a certain
point, after which growth will reduce pollution. This gives the pollution profile over
time the shape of an inverted U. Use of antibiotics in Norwegian aquaculture is a
good example, as shown in Fig. 9.7.
There are two main causes for the industry to address environmental effects; (1)
the effects reduce productivity and therefore profits, and/or (2) government regulations
force the industry to do so. Industry size contributes in the sense that a large industry
allows larger investments and thereby more efficient innovation of abatement technologies. Detrimental environmental effects of aquaculture not accounted for in
market prices are by definition external effects, i.e., negative externalities. Asche
et al. (1999) argued that internalisation of the externalities explain why some of the
major environmental issues have been resolved in aquaculture. The arguments go
along the following lines: Productivity in aquaculture depends on an environment
where farmed fish thrive. Fish farms with environmental practices that deteriorate
the local environment will experience negative feedback effects, where poor water
quality reduces on-farm productivity. These negative environmental feedback
effects are well known, and can be amply exemplified by reference to salmon and
shrimp farming. The results are reduced biomass growth through deteriorating fish
health and, in the worst case, disease outbreaks that wipe out entire on-farm fish
stocks. Consequently, one is concerned with cultivating management practices that
avoid such negative repercussions on productivity.
285
natural habitat and pollution from the production process that influences habitat
and wildlife around the site. For salmon farming the main issues have been pollution from organic waste and the interaction between wild and farmed salmon.
Farmed salmon may transmit diseases and parasites to wild salmon. Increased
number of the sea lice parasite on wild salmon has been associated with escaped
farmed salmon. Farmed salmon may also attempt to spawn in rivers and may
impact the genetic pool. These experiences are not unique for salmon farming.
Shrimp farming has received even more negative publicity than salmon farming
in relation to detrimental environmental effects, such as destruction of mangroves, salinization of agricultural areas, eutrophication, and disruptive socioeconomic impacts.
The environmental issues that arose in intensive salmon and shrimp farming
during the 1980s and through the 1990s, must be seen in relation to the introduction
of a new technology that uses the environment as an input. The larger the production at any site and the more intensive the process, the larger the potential for environmental damage. However, the greater degree of control with the production
process in intensive aquaculture also makes it easier to address these issues. With
all new technologies there will be unexpected side effects, and there will be a time
lag from an issue arises until it can be addressed. First the impact and the causes
must be properly identified. Second, the solution to the problems will require modifications of existing technology or maybe entirely new technology. In both cases pollution reduction implies some form of induced innovation. In this relation, Tveterås
(2002) argues that industry growth has a positive effect on pollution, in line with
the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC). The EKC hypothesis refers to an empirical
observation that pollution tends to increase with economic growth up to a certain
point, after which growth will reduce pollution. This gives the pollution profile over
time the shape of an inverted U. Use of antibiotics in Norwegian aquaculture is a
good example, as shown in Fig. 9.7.
There are two main causes for the industry to address environmental effects; (1)
the effects reduce productivity and therefore profits, and/or (2) government regulations
force the industry to do so. Industry size contributes in the sense that a large industry
allows larger investments and thereby more efficient innovation of abatement technologies. Detrimental environmental effects of aquaculture not accounted for in
market prices are by definition external effects, i.e., negative externalities. Asche
et al. (1999) argued that internalisation of the externalities explain why some of the
major environmental issues have been resolved in aquaculture. The arguments go
along the following lines: Productivity in aquaculture depends on an environment
where farmed fish thrive. Fish farms with environmental practices that deteriorate
the local environment will experience negative feedback effects, where poor water
quality reduces on-farm productivity. These negative environmental feedback
effects are well known, and can be amply exemplified by reference to salmon and
shrimp farming. The results are reduced biomass growth through deteriorating fish
health and, in the worst case, disease outbreaks that wipe out entire on-farm fish
stocks. Consequently, one is concerned with cultivating management practices that
avoid such negative repercussions on productivity.