Fish farmers and regulators coping with the wickedness of aquaculture

Abstract

Managing and regulating aquaculture is a complicated issue. From the perspective of fish farmers as well as regulators managing aquaculture can be regarded as what political scientists refer to as a "wicked problem." This is because there is a great extent of uncertainty and lack of firm knowledge with respect to the externalities of aquaculture production; e.g., diseases, environmental impacts, and conflicts with other user interests. Furthermore, the dynamic nature of the aquaculture sector contributes to the uncertainty as new solutions emerge, rendering established knowledge obsolete or irrelevant. Designing appropriate public regulations and policy measures is thus important, but difficult. Based on empirical data from Norway, we investigate what respondents from public agencies and the industry perceive to be challenges in governing aquaculture and what we may infer on the characteristics of a good governance approach. We propose that such an approach needs to focus on building competence, collaboration, and be adaptable. Furthermore, it needs to be flexible and cost efficient.

Factors Driving Aquaculture Technology Adoption

“…The regulatory environment can increase risk through uncertainties related to obtaining permits and licenses or the fear of unexpected changes in compliance requirements (Kam et al ). In the USA, the multitude of overlapping local, state, federal, and regulatory agencies have created a complex, uncertain, and risky environment (Jensen ; Engle and Stone ; Abate et al ; van Senten and Engle ) that has inhibited adoption of new aquaculture technologies (Kite‐Powell et al ; Osmundsen et al ). Increased risks arising from regulatory burdens were also cited as key reasons for stagnation of semi‐intensive shrimp farming in Honduras (Valderrama and Engle 2002) and mariculture in the EU (Bostock et al ).…”

U.S. seafood consumption

“…These trends are somewhat surprising given that aquaculture is controversial in the United States. There are several concerns with respect to environmental sustainability (Abate, Nielsen, & Nielsen, ; Abolofia, Asche, & Wilen, ; Fischer, Guttormsen, & Smith, ; Quezada & Dresdner, ), even though there is evidence that regulations, when properly implemented and enforced, can address these issues (Osmundsen, Almklov, & Tveterås, ; Tveterås, ) and that aquaculture is a sustainable food production technology compared to many alternatives (Froehlich, Runge, Gentry, Gaines, & Halpern, ). Several studies find a preference for wild seafood (Davidson, Pan, Hu, & Poerwanto, ; C. A. Roheim, Bush, Asche, Sanchirico, & Uchida, ; C. Roheim, Sudhakaran, & Durham, ), although there is some evidence this can be mitigated with ecolabels for some species and in some markets (Bronnmann & Asche, ; Bronnmann & Hoffman, ).…”

Stable and unstable equilibrium states in a fishery–aquaculture model

“…As reported in Osmundsen, Almklov, and Tveterås (), Read and Fernandes (), and Svåsand, Kvamme, Stien, Taranger, and Boxaspen (), and the references therein, aquaculture may have significant effects on the aquatic environment and other user interests or stakeholders. The environmental challenges connected to the aquaculture industry have led the governments in the salmon‐farming countries to practise a relatively strong capacity regulation (Hersoug, ; NFD, ).…”