PAPER Sustainable Ecological Aquaculture Systems: The Need ... · a sustainability trajectory and...

P A P E R

Sustainable Ecological Aquaculture Systems:The Need for a New Social Contractfor Aquaculture Development
A U T H O RBarry A. Costa-PierceDepartment of Fisheries, Animal &Veterinary Science, Rhode IslandSea Grant College Program,University of Rhode Island
88 Marine Technology Society Journa

A B S T R A C T

l

Ecohistories of aquaculture suggest that aquaculture is a natural part ofhuman development throughout history and that modern, industrial aquaculturecould strengthen its social and ecological roots by articulating its evolution alonga sustainability trajectory and by adopting fully the Food and Agriculture Organi-zation (FAO) ecosystems approach to aquaculture (EAA; Soto et al., 2008). TheEAA creates a new code for global aquaculture development, combining into onecommon framework the two most important social–ecological trajectories forglobal aquaculture—aquaculture for the world’s rich and aquaculture for theworld’s poor. Knowledge of the rich archeology and anthropology of aquacultureconnects this FAO code to antiquity, creating a single development pathway foraquaculture throughout human history. Without widespread adoption of an EAA,FAO (2009) projections of aquaculture development over the next 30 years mayprovide a far too optimistic scenario for its global growth. In this regard, aqua-culture over the last 20 years has been criticized as lacking adequate attention andinvestment in developing grassroots, democratic, extension processes to engagea broader group of stakeholders to evolve the “blue revolution.” As an example,there has been a failure of fisheries and aquaculture to plan together to ensuresustainable supplies of seafood—the world’s most valuable proteins for humanhealth—for seafood-eating peoples. Nonfed aquaculture (seaweeds, shellfish) hasreceived worldwide attention for its rapid movement toward greater sustainability,which has led to more widespread social acceptance. For fed aquaculture, recenttrends analyses have suggested that aquaculture is turning from the ocean toland-based agriculture to provide its protein feeds and oils. As such, more sophis-ticated, ecologically planned and designed “aquaculture ecosystems” will becomemore widespread because they better fit the social–ecological context of bothrich and poor countries. Ecological aquaculture provides the basis for developinga new social contract for aquaculture that is inclusive of all stakeholders anddecision makers in fisheries, agriculture, and ecosystems conservation andrestoration.
for Seafood
he Food and Agriculture Organi-

The successful application of newknowledge and breakthroughtechnologies, which are likely tooccur with ever-increasing fre-quency, will require an entirelynew interdisciplinary approachto policy-making: one that oper-ates in an agile problem-solvingenvironment and works effec-tively at the interface where sci-ence and technology meet businessand public policy. It must berooted in a vastly improved un-derstanding of people, organiza-tions, cultures, and nations andbe implemented by innovativestrategies and new methods ofcommunication (Lane, 2006).

Aquaculture Is Nota Global Panacea

Tzation (FAO, 2009) “State of WorldFisheries and Aquaculture 2008 Re-port” received much press due to itsloud pronouncement that aquaculturenow contributes about half of theworld’s seafood. This release was cele-brated by global aquaculture advocatesand policy makers but also was met

with consternation among somecapture fisheries and environmentalNGO circles. At aquaculture con-ventions worldwide, this news wasgreeted with much boasting—thekind of which is routine among keynotespeakers at aquaculture gatherings—

which recant a tale that reads like, “be-cause the world capture fisheries aredead or all collapsing, that the worldmust turn rapidly away from hunt-ing the seas, to farming them, andthat aquaculture must (and will) growat a breathtaking pace everywhere.”

However, if we look more closely atthe FAO (2009) statistics, we do nothave the massive development of aqua-culture all over planet Earth every-where outside of China. Aquaculture’sgrowth is restricted to very few placesand countries.With potentially billionsof dollars of multilateral and bilateralaid at stake in global aquaculture de-velopment, it is important to reanalyzethe data which show the following:(1) The world is not eating half of

its seafood from aquaculture. Theworld has watched, and is watching,a blue revolution … in China. In2006, China accounted for 67%of all global aquaculture produc-tion, 34.4 million metric tons[MMT] of a total world aquacul-ture production of 51.7 MMT. Inaddition, Chinese aquaculture pro-duction is largely feeding China(FAO, 2009), not the world. Forthe rest of the world, aquacul-ture production in 2006 was just17.2 MMT (FAO, 2009). There-fore, outside of China, aquacultureprovided just 23% of world fish-eries production, not 47%. Inaddition, most global aquacultureproduction remains—for all thecontroversies over shrimp andsalmon—freshwater fish (54%)and mollusks (27%) (FAO, 2009).Especially for mariculture, thereare major concerns that it will notexperience the phenomenal growththat has occurred for freshwateraquaculture due to user conflicts,lack of suitable sites, water qualitydegradation, and the high costand availabilities of feedstuffs.

(2) Global capture fisheries are not“dead.” Albeit of great concerndue to mismanagement and alarm-ing global trends, especially so sinceglobal marine capture fisheries pro-duction peaked in the late 1980s

(Watson and Pauly, 2001; Paulyet al., 2003), capture fisheries stillprovide an estimated 81.9 MMT(FAO, 2009) and are the majoranimal protein source for the ma-jority of seafood-eating peoples ofthe planet, especially for the world’spoor (Hall et al., 2010).

(3) With a few notable exceptions,such as Norway, aquaculture devel-opment in the rich countries is verylimited in scope and has not oc-curred to any significant degree.All of Europe and North Americaprovide less than 5% of globalaquaculture production (FAO,2009). The share of world aqua-culture production for the 27 na-tions of the European Union hasdropped over the past 10 yearsfrom 4% to 2%. In the UnitedStates, production declines havebeen occurred over the past 5 yearsin farmed catfish, trout, and shrimp,with positive trends only for shell-fish aquaculture and salmon aqua-culture in Maine. New land-basedand coastal sites are limited as theglobal population has shifted from97% rural in 1800 to 50% ruralin 2007 (United Nations, 2008).In the rich countries, aquaculturedevelopment has been slowed byuser conflicts and access to sites,obtuse and ever-changing regula-tory regimes, lack of governmentinvestments at a meaningful com-mercial scale, consumer disinterest,and a lack of aquaculture educationby local, coastal, and other environ-mental decision makers.

(4) With a few notable exceptionssuch as Brazil, Bangladesh, India,Vietnam, and Egypt, aquaculturedevelopment in the world’s poorestnations has not occurred. In Africa,200 million people have between22% and 70% of their dietary

May/J

animal protein from fish, whereasin developed countries the average isjust 13% (Heck et al., 2007). Africaprovides only 1% of the world’saquaculture production ad less than5% of Africa’s fish production,with most development concen-trated in Egypt where aquacultureproduction has grown 10-foldsince the 1990’s (FAO, 2009).To meet seafood demands due to

projected population growth to 2030,FAO (2009) has estimated that at leastan additional 40MMT of aquatic foodwill be required to maintain the currentper capita consumption. This forecaststhat world aquaculture production willexceed 90 million tons and surpassglobal capture fisheries production. Iargue that such an expansion of aqua-culture globally in the rich and poorcountries outside of China might notoccur because of the following:(1) The current industrial aquaculture

development paradigm is inade-quate at all levels of governmentand that without major govern-ment subsidies, aquaculture willnot spread as rapidly in the nexttwo decades as it has in the pasttwo unless ecological aquaculture asan alternative development modelfor aquaculture becomes the domi-nant development model.

(2) Most national decision makers areunaware of and are not planningfor the magnitude of the world’scoastal urban, land, energy, andwater crises, and the implicationson food production of these vastsocietal challenges that need tooccur—Brown (2009) calls this“mobilizing to save civilization”—and are continuing to be dupedby “20th century thinking” intobelieving that there are vast areas ofa virgin ocean planet and adequatefeedstuffs just waiting for a large

une 2010 Volume 44 Number 3 89

expansion of “fed aquaculture” de-velopments, which there are not.

(3) Professional, regulatory “decision-maker communities” in aquacul-ture and fisheries are so separatestructurally and functionally inmany countries to the point thatthey have lost track of their com-mon goal of delivering environ-mentally friendly, safe, sustainableseafood to the people they serve.Professional fisheries managers areworking everywhere to recoverdamaged capture fisheries in bothdeveloped and developing nations.Recovered fisheries will add priceand volume competition to aqua-culture in many regions of theworld, in some cases making aqua-culture development not economi-cally feasible, a fact which may notbe captured in global statistics. Theworld will need all the fish it canproduce sustainably from capturefisheries as well as develop aqua-culture. Management conflictsand educational deficiencies be-tween fisheries and aquaculturemanagers will need to end as prod-ucts that sustain livelihoods willbe needed from both.There is an urgent need for insti-

tutions that train the next generationof professional stewards in a new “sus-tainable seafood” paradigm (Smithet al., 2010). This would result in thedevelopment of a cadre of decisionmakers who could conduct the inte-grated planning for aquaculture, fisher-ies, ecosystems, and their allied regionalsocial infrastructures. The target areasof the world where this is most neededare ones where aquatic food are themost important contributors to liveli-hoods and human well-being andwhere aquaculture development hasthe greatest potential to be developedwithout displacing capture fisheries.


Ecological Aquaculture asanAlternativeDevelopmentModel for Aquaculture

Ecological aquaculture, the culti-vation of essential aquatic pro-teins vital to human health,longevity, and community sus-tainability, is an integral part ofour common planetary wisdomand cultural heritage, an essentialpart of our past, and a vital partof our future evolution as a sophis-ticated species living in peace withthe Earth’s invaluable, complexaquatic ecosystems.

Ecological aquaculture is an al-ternative model of aquaculture de-velopment that not only brings thetechnical aspects of ecosystems de-sign and ecological principles to aqua-culture but also incorporates—at theoutset—social ecology, planning for

l

community development, and con-cerns for the wider social, economic,and environmental contexts of aqua-culture. Ecological aquaculture plansfor and evaluates both the economicand the social profit of aquaculture. Ituses the science and practices of natu-ral and social ecology to better plan foraquaculture as a means for sustainablecommunity development and work-ing waterfronts (Costa-Pierce, 2002a,2003, 2008a).

Ecological aquaculture plans, de-signs, develops, monitors, and evalu-ates aquatic farming ecosystems thatpreserve and enhance the form andfunctions of the natural and socialenvironments in which they are situ-ated. Ecological aquaculture farms are“aquaculture ecosystems” (Figure 1).Aquaculture depends on inputs con-nected to various food, processing,transportation, and other sectors of so-ciety. In turn, aquaculture ecosystems

FIGURE 1

Aquaculture ecosystems mimic the form and functions of natural ecosystems. These sophis-ticated, knowledge-based, designed, farming ecosystems are planned as combinations of landand water-based agronomic, algal, and animal subunits that are embedded into the larger contextof human social systems.

can produce valuable, uncontaminatedwaste waters and fish wastes, which canbe important inputs to ecologicallydesigned aquatic and terrestrial eco-logical farming systems. These inte-grated food production systems canbe planned and organized at all lev-els of society as socially responsiblebusinesses, schools, family farms, orcommunity-based operations. Eco-logical aquaculture also uses the “aqua-culture toolbox” to play vital roles innonfood, natural ecosystem rehabilita-tion, reclamation, and enhancement(Costa-Pierce and Bridger, 2002).

Ecological aquaculture takes a globalview, integrating ecological scienceand sharing technological informationin a sophisticated, knowledge-basedmanner, promoting innovation andefficiency in the global marketplaceby incorporating social and environ-mental costs, not externalizing them(Culver and Castle, 2008). Thus, eco-logical aquaculture plans not only forseafood production and economicprofit but also for social profit by devel-oping social capital and social networksthat promote business, education, andcommunity stewardship practices.

Ecological AquacultureThroughout the Historyof Human Development

Before it became the New World,the Western Hemisphere was vastlymore populous and sophisticatedthan has been thought—an alto-gether more salubrious place tolive at the time than, say, Europe(Mann, 2005).

Aquaculture has a long, fascinatingpre-history with well-documented“blue revolutions” occurring through-out human history (Table 1). Thus, incontrast to the popular press in the

West, “blue revolutions” are nothingnew and have occurred throughouthuman history. In this light, societiesworldwide are embroiled only in aqua-cultures’ latest and likely its mostimportant “industrial” iteration. How-ever, few, if any, of these seminal mo-ments in the history of aquatic peopleshave ever been studied by professionalanthropologists or archeologists.

May/J

Notable exceptions are the worksof Beveridge and Little (2002) andEdwards (2009) who studied indepth the roots of Asian and Europeanaquaculture as important parts of ourcommon, historical “food-producingwisdom.”

The field of “aquaculture anthro-pology” does not exist yet to formulatea unifying theory of how aquaculture

TABLE 1

Documented “blue revolutions” in aquaculture societies from antiquity to historical times. Therehave been many blue revolutions throughout human history.

Places, Regions, andApproximate Dates

Aquaculture SocialEcologies and Ecohistories

une 2010 Volume

References

Egypt (New Kingdom,4,000 years ago)

Tombs show tilapia being culturedin drainable fishponds integratedwith agriculture

Chimits (1957)

China (Zhou Dynastyat least 2,300 years ago)

Aquaculture monograph by Fan Lipublished; evidence of integrationof fish and rice 8,000 years ago;in Tang Dynasty, sophisticatedmultispecies carp polycultures aredeveloped resulting in significantincreases in food (fish and crops)per unit area

Beveridge and Little(2002); Edwards (2004,2006); Lu and Li (2006)

Europe (Etruscansand Romans2,100–2,200 years ago)

Start of “vallicoltura” coastalaquaculture by the Etruscans onAdriatic and Tyrrhenian coasts;Roman literature describes thatfish in ponds were commonplace

Beveridge and Little(2002)

Bolivia (Beni Province,2,000 years ago)

The Beni is ∼30,000 square milesof raised agricultural fieldsintegrated with fish/irrigationcanals

Mann (2005, 2008)

Cambodia (more than1,000 years ago)

Traditional integrated agriculture/aquaculture systems may havedeveloped first in Cambodia

Edwards et al. (1997)

Mexico (Valley of MexicoCity, 1000–1400 AD,but could stretch back6,000 years ago)

Chinampas floating garden islandsin lakes that were separated bychannels where fish were grown

Aghajanian (2007)

Indonesia (West Java,1200–1400 AD)

Milkfish in coastal ponds
Schuster (1952)
Hawai’i (from Polynesiansettlement to 1778)

The ahupua’a aquacultureecosystems sustained a highpopulation density of islandersuntil European contact

Costa-Pierce(1987, 2002b)

44 Number 3 91

develops and how it evolves into thehuman development equation ofseafood-eating peoples. The latepioneering anthropologist ClaudeLevi-Strauss (1958) brought the ideaof “structuralism” to anthropology,which is the concept that societiesthroughout history follow universalpatterns of behavior. In tribute tohim, I have formulated a simple an-thropological theory on the evolution-ary, “social ecology” of aquaculturethat

whenever the demands of seafood-eating peoples exceeded the abili-ties of their indigenous aquaticecosystems to adequately providefor them, these cultures, through-out the world, have developedaquaculture.

Modern aquaculture has few if anyconnections to its ancient past. Andall too often, there are no connectionsmade even to its recent past! As a con-sequence, many proposals for mod-ern aquaculture developments are alltoo frequently marketed as “new” or“pioneering” and, at worst, duplicativeof past efforts. When this neglect oc-curs, society loses, and the aquacultureprofession limps along, losing op-portunities to aggregate and deliver“teachable moments.” Another wayof saying it is that the world loses im-portant opportunities to “evolve theblue revolution” and develop the back-ground, baselines, and place-basedecological and social contexts of aqua-culture so that more informed de-cisions can be made by politicians,investors, and communities.

However, although the roots ofecological aquaculture are in Asia(Ruddle and Zhong, 1988; Edwards,2009), there is a new model that hasdeveloped in this cradle of aquaculture


history. Fast forwarding to the presenthas seen many Asia countries, espe-cially China in the 1990s to the pres-ent choose to pursue an industrialmodel of aquaculture development,intensifying and importing vast quan-tities of feedstuffs for formulated feeds(Tacon andMetian, 2008). As a result,freshwater aquaculture yields in Chinahave increased approximately 10× injust 20 years (FAO, 2009). Intensifica-tion has led to many benefits in incomeand employment for aquafarmers(Edwards, 2002) but has also led towidespread water pollution and a dis-mantling of much of its rich ecologicalaquaculture heritage.

An Ecological Approachto Aquaculture

In 2006 , the F i she r i e s andAquaculture Department of FAOrecognized the need to develop anecosystem-based management ap-proach to aquaculture similar to theCode of Conduct for ResponsibleFisheries. FAO suggested that anecological approach to aquaculturewould have three main objectives:human well-being, ecological well-being, and the ability to achieveboth via effective governance, withina hierarchical framework that wasscalable at the farm, regional, andglobal levels (Soto et al., 2008).

In 2008, FAO defined an EAA as“a strategy for the integration of aqua-culture within the wider ecosystemsuch that it promotes sustainable de-velopment, equity, and resilience ofinterlinked social–ecological systems.”An ecosystems approach to aquacul-ture (EAA), similar to other systemsapproaches to natural resources man-agement, accounts for a completerange of stakeholders, spheres of in-fluences, and other interlinked pro-cesses. Applying an ecosystem-based

l

approach requires planning for physi-cal, ecological, social, and economicsystems as a part of community devel-opment, taking into account stake-holders in the wider social, economic,and environmental spheres that affectaquaculture (Soto et al., 2008). FAOdeveloped three principles and keyissues for an EAA at different scalesof society:

Principle 1: Aquaculture shouldbe developed in the contextof ecosystem functions and ser-v i c e s ( in c lud ing b iod iv e r -sity) with no degradation ofthese beyond their resiliencecapacity.

The key issue is to estimate resil-ience capacity, or the limits to “accept-able environmental change.” A rangeof terms has been used to estimatethe limits to environmental change,including “environmental carryingcapacity,” “environmental capacity,”“limits to ecosystem functions,” “eco-system health,” “ecosystem integrity,”and “fully functioning ecosystems,” allof which are subject to a specific social/cultural/political context (Hambreyand Senior, 2007). Conventional envi-ronmental impact assessments touchon just some of these issues. Applica-tion of the precautionary approach isimportant but is inadequate and often-times misused by decision makers inaquaculture; rather, the use of aqua-culture risk assessments is becomingmore widespread (GESAMP, 2008).

Principle 2: Aquaculture shouldimprove human wel l-beingand equity for a l l re l evantstakeholders.

Aquaculture should provide equalopportunities for development, which

requires that its benefits be morewidely shared, especially locally sothat it does not bring detriment toany sector of society, especially thepoor. Aquaculture should promoteboth food security and safety as keycomponents of human well-being, es-pecially for the world’s poor in devel-oping countries.

Principle 3: Aquaculture shouldbe developed in the context ofother sectors, policies and goals.

Interactions between aquacultureand its influences on the surroundingnatural and social environment mustbe recognized. Aquaculture often hasa smaller impact than other humanactivities, for example, agricultureand industry, but it does not takeplace in isolation. There are many op-portunities to couple aquaculture ac-tivities with other primary producingsectors to promote materials and ener-gy recycling and the better use of re-sources in general.

Applying an EcologicalAquaculture Approach atDifferent Scales of Society

There are three physical scales im-portant in the planning for and assess-ment progress toward an ecosystemapproach to aquaculture: farm scale,watershed/aquaculture zone, andglobal. Each of these has importantplanning and assessment needs.

Farm ScalePlanning for aquaculture farms is

easily defined physically and could befew meters beyond the boundariesof farming structures; however, the in-creasing size and intensity of somefarms (e.g., large-scale shrimp farmingor salmon farming) could affect an

entire water body or watershed. As-sessment of an EAA at the farm scaleentails an evaluation of planning andimplementation of “triple bottomline” programs—ecological, economicand social programs—that in a com-prehensive manner account for im-pacts to the wider ecosystem andsocial impacts of farm-level aquacul-ture developments, including use ofbetter (“best”) management practices,and use of restoration, remediation,and mitigation methods. Proper siteselection, levels of production inten-sity, use of species (exotic vs. native),use of appropriate farming systemstechnologies, and knowledge of eco-nomic and social impacts at the farmlevel should be considered.

For fed aquaculture, there aremanyconcerns as to the current trajectoryand growth of the large-scale aquacul-ture industries. “Classic” concerns overthe current aquaculture developmentmodels are being modified rapidlyby advances that will affect the wide-spread adoption of ecological aqua-culture which, if projected to 2050,confirm that large-scale aquaculturemay move fully toward ecologicalaquaculture approaches (Table 2).There are numerous, well-documented,emerging success stories in ecologicalaquaculture (Table 3).

Watershed/Aquaculture Zone ScalePlanning for an EAA at watersheds/

aquaculture scale is relevant to com-mon ecosystem and social issuessuch as diseases, trade in seed andfeeds, climatic and landscape condi-tions, urban/rural development, etc.Assessment of an EAA at this scaleis a two phase process and will in-clude, at phase I, assessments of thefollowing:(1) inclusion of aquaculture as a part

of regional governance frameworks,

May/J

for example, the overall frameworkof integrated coastal zone man-agement or integrated watershed,land–water resource managementplanning and implementation.Assessments take into account ex-isting scenarios, user competitionand conflicts for land and wateruses, and comparisons of alterna-tives for human development;

(2) impacts of aquaculture on regionalissues such as escapees, diseasetransmission, and sources of con-tamination to/from aquaculture;and

(3) social considerations such as com-prehensive planning for all of thepossible beneficial multiplier ef-fects of aquaculture on jobs andthe regional economy, and consid-erations of aquaculture’s impactson indigenous communities.At phase II, progress toward a

full implementation of an EAA atwatersheds/aquaculture zone scalecan be assessed by measuring the(1) abilities of governments to imple-

ment new methods of coastal andwater governance to include eco-logical aquaculture;

(2) development of ecological aqua-culture approaches that allowagencies responsible for permittingaquaculture to consider and man-age activities impacting aquacul-ture and aquatic ecosystems (e.g.,capture fisheries, coastal zone de-velopment, watershed manage-ment organizations, agriculture,forestry, and industrial develop-ments) more holistically, such asnew mechanisms to communicate,cooperate, and collaborate acrosssectors; and

(3) design of ecological aquaculturemanagement zones and parks thatencourage aquaculture education,research, and the development


of innovations and partnerships andalso emphasize streamlined permit-ting of integrated aquaculture, poly-culture, or innovative, integratedaquaculture–fisheries businesses andinitiatives.

Global ScalePlanning for an EAA at a global

scale considers aspects of transna-tional and multinational issues forglobal commodities (e.g., salmonand shrimp). Assessment of progress


toward an EAA at the global level en-tails evaluation of issues such as: avail-abilities of fisheries and agriculturefeedstocks for formulating aquaculturefeeds and impacts on distant marineand social ecosystems, the economicand social impacts of aquaculture onfisheries and agriculture resources,impacts of aquaculture on markets,and impacts of globalization on socialsustainability (social capital, goods,and social opportunities). Applica-tions of tools such as lifecycle assess-

l

ments of aquaculture commoditiesand the use of innovative social enter-prise management guidelines andtools (Dees and Backman, 1994) areuseful to determine impacts at theglobal scale.

Systems Ecologyof Aquaculture

In the worldwide effort to increasefood production, aquaculture

TABLE 2

Major issues with fed aquaculture today (2010) and projections of these to 2050.

Issues
Concerns Modern Developments (2010) Trajectory of Issues to 2050
Feeds/no net gain
Schroeder (1980) documents pondcan be a net consumer rather than aproducer of animal protein. Fishingdown and farming up marine foodwebs (Naylor et al., 2000; Pauly et al.,1998a,b)
Food conversion rates improve to∼1:1; fish in/out (FIFO) ratios dropto ∼1.7; domestication of farmedspecies turns carnivores intodomesticated omnivores

FIFO ratios drop to 1 or less;aquaculture uses ∼50% of world’sfish meal and oil with balance metby agricultural meals/oils

Feeds/oceansustainability

Integrity of marine ecosystemsdamaged by high removal rates offeed species by fishing for terrestrialanimal, pet, and aquaculture feeds

Aquaculture use dropping due torapid cost increases in meals/oils;poverty/social concerns recognized

Ecosystem modeling parcels outscience-based removal rates/allocations for aquaculture andecosystems

Feeds/poverty
Massive poverty and hunger in fishmeal/oil producing countries
New recognition in Peru; newinternational attention to roleof meal/oil fisheries and fedaquaculture in poverty alleviation

Governments move to develop seafoodproducts to prioritize human needs/alleviate poverty

Habitat destruction
Mangrove destruction and waterdiversions disrupt nearshore andriverine ecosystems (Pullin, 1993)
Some nations (e.g., Thailand)develop policies to prevent damageby proper siting and to rehabilitatedamage of shrimp farms

Governments worldwide bandevelopments in sensitiveconservation areas; widespreaduse of carrying capacity models(McKinsey et al., 2006) and ecologicalvaluation for decision-making

Eutrophication
Intensive aquaculture operations arefeedlots producing nutrient pollutionloads comparable to human sewage(Folke et al., 1994)
Complete feeds, automated feeddelivery systems and nutritionresearch deliver less pollution; wastesare primarily in the form of solublenutrients and feces, not waste feeds;documentation that human sewagecontains human pathogens that arenot present in aquaculture wastes

Development of land-basedrecirculating systems; widespreaduse of land-based integratedaquaculture and water-basedIntegrated Multi-trophic Aquaculturesystems

Energy
Intensive aquaculture operationsare energy intensive comparable toindustrial agriculture and fisheries
Scattered R&D in energy use, mostlyLife Cycle Analyses in aquaculture;little/no movement toward use ofrenewables

Renewable energy systems used

merits more attention than rais-ing grain-fed cattle (Goodlandand Pimental, 2000).

Aquaculture needs to adopt anecosystems approach, use ecologicalprinciples and methods, incorporateecosystem-based management con-cepts and guidelines (see McLeodand Leslie, 2009), and use of systemsecology, ecological modeling, andecological economics methods in itsdesign, operations, and communica-tions. Using such guidance and tools,the possibilities for designing produc-

tive aquaculture ecosystems are manysince aquaculture can encompass thewide availability of species, environ-ments, and cultures.

There are well-developed examplesof aquaculture ecosystems, both landand water based, mostly in Asia(Costa-Pierce, 2008b; Hambreyet al., 2008; Edwards, 2009). In theWest, however, there are few commer-cial aquaculture ecosystems, with mostbeing small-scale research and develop-ment operations; however, there areadvanced freshwater aquacultureecosystems that combine aquaculture

May/J

units (ponds/tanks), aquaponics forfood and fodder with wetlands, andaquaculture ecosystems that incorpo-rate advances in waste treatment andsolar energy and others that are land-scape scale ecological models that havea tight integration between aquacul-ture and agriculture (Rakocy, 2002;Costa-Pierce and Desbonnet, 2005;Costa-Pierce, 2008b).

At the watershed/aquaculture zonescale (Soto et al., 2008), there are fewexamples of ecological approaches towell-planned, larger scale develop-ments. Most attention is paid to envi-ronmental impact assessments (Black,2001). The best examples globally ofan ecological approach to aquacultureat the watershed/aquaculture zonescale are from Israel and Australia.Both nations face severe land, water,and energy constraints. In Israel,highly efficient, landscape-sized inte-grations of reservoirs with aquacultureand agriculture have been developed(Hepher, 1985; Mires, 2009) as wellas highly productive, land-basedaquaculture ecosystems for marinespecies (Neori et al., 2000). Theseaquaculture ecosystems are produc-tive, semi-intensive enterprises thatare water and land efficient, and arenet energy and material gains to so-ciety which follow principles similarto the fields of agroecology and agro-ecosystems (Pimentel and Pimentel,2003).

In Australia (Fletcher et al., 2004a),an approach to aquaculture develop-ment was built as part of a larger, na-tional effort in fisheries to developan Ecologically Sustainable Develop-ment (ESD) framework (Fletcheret al., 2004b). The Australian ESDframework identified important issues,developed comprehensive reports foreach issue, and then prioritized eachusing risk assessments. The ESD

TABLE 3

Global success stories in ecological aquaculture.

Region/Countries
Aquaculture Ecosystems References
Asia (China, Vietnam,Indonesia)

Rice-fish culture benefits millionsof rural people; rice-fishaquaculture ecosystems have beendesignated as a “Globally ImportantAgricultural Heritage System”

World Fish Center (2008);FAO (2009); Lu and Li(2006); Dela Cruz et al.(1992)

Asia (China, Thailand,Cambodia, Vietnam,Indonesia)

Integrated aquaculture benefitsmillions of rural people

Edwards (2009)

Asia (China)
Integrated Multi-trophic Aquacultureof fish, shellfish, and seaweedsbioremediates and increases totalyields up to 50%
Zhou et al. (2006)

Egypt
Integrated aquaculture producedover 650,000 tons of tilapia in 2008,∼60% of total fish production;provision of cheap source of fishat approx. same cost as poultry
McGrath (2009)

Canada
Integrated Multi-trophicAquaculture has been adopted byCooke Aquaculture, the largestsalmon aquaculture company ineastern Canada
Chopin et al. (2001);Chopin (2006); Ridleret al. (2006, 2007)

Canada andUnited States

Shellfish aquaculture has becomewidely accepted as environmentallyfriendly and socially acceptable

National ResearchCouncil (2010)

Tanzania
Seaweed and shellfish aquaculture Seaweed grown by∼2,000 producers mostwomen; new half-pearlindustry growing (2009)

process employed extensive communityconsultation that considered social andenvironmental values, considered allother marine users and their man-agement plans for their operational,environmental, and administrativeattributes, then proposed developmentand monitoring plans. As a result ofthis well-articulated process, nine ma-rine aquaculture zones of 2,400 ha inPort Phillip Bay and Westernport,Victoria, Australia were permitted.The Australian ESD approach com-bined analytical and participatorymethods and developed plans thatconsidered both ecosystem and hu-man well-being, then developed im-plementation strategies by designingand enhancing an effective gover-nance systems for the expansion ofaquaculture.

Systems Ecology of ComparableFood Systems

All modern, large-scale food sys-tems have discernible environmentaland social impacts. Even the sustain-ability of modern, large-scale organicagriculture has been questioned (Allenet al., 1991; Shreck et al., 2006).Since fish products are the most widelytraded products globally, there havebeen concerns raised as to the globalbenefits of not only industrial aqua-culture but also the merits in gen-eral of all aquaculture development.Naylor et al. (2000) raised the issueof fed aquaculture being a net loss ofprotein to humanity; however, theywere not the first to do so—20 yearsearlier, Schroeder (1980) commentedthat the “pond can consume fish.”There are a number of concerns aboutthe trajectory of modern industrialaquaculture; however, it is importantto recognize the merits of aquaculturein comparison to other methods oflarge-scale food production. There has


been neglect to complete comparativeproduction and energy efficiencies ofaquaculture versus other large-scalecapture fisheries and terrestrial animalprotein production alternatives (Nayloret al., 2000). Fish have the highestprotein content in their flesh of allfood animals (Smil, 2002). Only bycomparing efficiencies of terrestrialand aquatic protein production systemscan scientists, policy makers, and thepublic address in a more rigorousmanner the available choices and theresearch, policy, and regulatory chal-lenges that need to be put into placeto make a more ecological approachto future aquaculture development.

Farmed (fed) fish are inherentlymore efficient than any terrestrialfarmed animals. They are cold-blooded(poikilotherms) and thus have to di-vert less of their ingested food energyto maintain body temperatures incomparison to farmed, land animals.In addition, fish are neutrally buoyantin their watery world and thus do notdevote as much food energy to main-tain bones/posture against gravity asdo land animals. Thus, they can devotemore ingested food energy to flesh andtherefore have a much higher meat/bone ratio (andmeat “dress out”percent-ages). There are inherent differencesprocessing stored energy between ter-restrial and aquatic ecosystems. Onland, primary producers (plants) con-vert sunlight into plant structures to alarger degree in comparison to aquaticplants, and land plants store more en-ergy as starches. Aquatic plants (algae)store oils (lipids) as their primary en-ergy sources. Fish convert these lipidsmuch more efficiently than do landanimals converting starch and othercarbohydrates (Cowey et al., 1985).No other food animal converts feedto body tissue as efficiently as fish(Smil, 2000).

l

Aquatic animals use nitrogen muchmore efficiently than terrestrial ani-mals. Nitrogen use efficiency for beefis 5%, pork is 15%, whereas shrimpare 20% and fish are 30% efficient(Smil, 2002). As a result, aquatic ani-mals release two to three times lessnitrogen to the environment in com-parison to terrestrial animal food pro-duction systems.

Mass and Energy BalancesComparisons of energy and pro-

duction efficiencies of aquaculture ver-sus an array of fisheries and terrestrialagriculture systems show that fedaquaculture is an efficient mass pro-ducer of animal protein (Table 4). Pro-duction efficiencies of edible mass for avariety of aquaculture systems are 2.5–4.5 kg dry feed/kg edible mass, com-pared with 3.0–17.4 for conventionalterrestrial animal production systems.Beef cattle require over 10 kg of feedto add 1 kg of edible weight, whereastilapia and catfish use less than 3 kgto add 1 kg of edible weight.

Energy use in low trophic levelaquaculture (seaweeds, carps, tilapias,and mussels) is comparable with en-ergy usages in vegetable, sheep, andrangeland beef agriculture (Table 5).Highest energy use is in cage andshrimp aquaculture comparable withintensive agriculture feedlots, with ex-treme energy use reported for someaquaculture operations in Thailand(Table 5). Capture fisheries are in-efficient in comparison with pondaquaculture. For example, to produce1 kcal of catfish protein, about 34 kcalof fossil fuel energy is required; lobsterand shrimp capture fisheries use morethan five times the amount of energy.Energy costs for intensive salmon cagesare less than lobster and shrimp fishingbut are comparable to beef produc-tion in feedlots (Table 5). Ayer and

Tyedmers (2009) completed a lifecycle assessment of alternative grow-out technologies for salmon systemsin Canada. They found that for netpens, feeds comprised 87% of total en-ergy use and fuel/electricity 13%. En-ergy use in land-based recirculatingsystems was completely opposite:10% used in feeds and 90% in fossilfuels and electricity.

Trophic EfficienciesCoastal and oceanic ecosystems

have energy transfer efficiencies of10–15% and mean trophic levels of3.0 to 5.0 (Ryther, 1969). Marine cap-ture fisheries have a mean trophic levelof 3.20 (Pauly et al., 1998b). Meantrophic levels in aquaculture systemsrange from 2.3 to 3.3, with highesttrophic levels in North America andEurope (Pullin et al., 2007). Duarteet al. (2009) recently estimated amean trophic level of 1.9 for maricul-ture and 1.0 for agriculture and live-

stock. Pullin et al. (2007) found mostocean fish consumed by humans havetrophic levels ranging from 3.0 to 4.5,which Pauly et al. (1998b) state are “0to 1.5 levels above that of lions.”How-ever, in the wild, salmon are not toplevel carnivores because salmon areconsumed by whales, sea lions, andother marine predators and thuscannot be compared to lions. In aqua-culture systems, salmon eat agricul-tural and fish meals and oils so itcannot be classified at same trophiclevel “lions,” rather they are feeding asfarmed omnivores.

Most recent debates over the effi-ciencies of fed aquaculture have fo-cused on “fish in/fish out” (FIFO)ratios. Naylor et al. (2000) began theFIFO discussion when they reportedthat for the 10 aquaculture speciesthey examined, approximately 1.9 kgof wild fish were required for each1 kg of farmed production. For floun-der, halibut, sole, cod, hake, haddock,

May/J

redfish, sea bass, congers, tuna, bonito,and billfish, Naylor et al. (2000)reported >5 kg of wild fish were re-quired and that “many salmon andshrimp operations use approximately3 kg of fish for each one produced.”Farmed catfish, milkfish, and carpwere deemed to be net producersusing less wild fish than produced. Atthe time, these data were widely criti-cized by aquaculture scientists andproducers as not accounting for thelatest advances in aquaculture, asauthors chose to calculate FIFO ratiosusing food conversion ratios forfarmed marine fish and farmed salmonof 5:1 and 3:1 (Naylor et al., 2000). Incontrast, rapid advances in aquaculturefeeds, feed management technologies,and nutrition science had decreasedfood conversion ratios to approxi-mately 1.5:1 for farmed marine fishand approximately 1.2:1 for farmedsalmon (Tacon, 2005).

Jackson (2009) presented more re-cent FIFO data for all global aquacul-ture and for farmed salmon. Thesecalculations showed that global aqua-culture, as currently practiced, is anet benefit to humanity, not a loss.Jackson (2009) calculated a FIFOratio for global aquaculture at 0.52,demonstrating that for each tonof wild fish caught, aquacultureproduced 1.92 tons of aquacultureproducts. However, Jackson (2009)calculated a FIFO for salmon of1.68, the highest for all farmed spe-cies, meaning that, for every ton ofwild fish used in salmon aquacul-ture, just 600 kg of farmed salmonwas produced, confirming the Nayloret al. (2000) concern that someaquaculture systems were a net loss ofprotein to society from the FIFO per-spective. Kaushik and Troell (2010)criticized calculations of Jackson(2009) recalculating a global FIFO

TABLE 4

Production efficiencies of edible proteins from some aquaculture systems compared with someanimal agriculture systems (modified from Costa-Pierce, 2002c).

Food Systems

Food ConversionRatios (kg dry feed/kg wet weight gain

±1 standard deviation)
% Edible
ProductionEfficiencies

(kg dry feed/kg ofedible wet mass)

Tilapia
1.5(0.2) 60 2.5
Catfish
1.5(0.2) 60 2.5
Freshwater prawns
2.0(0.2) 45 4.4
Marine shrimp
2.5(0.5) 56 4.5
Milk
3.0(0.0) 100 3.0
Eggs
2.8(0.2) 90 3.1
Broiler chickens(Verdegem et al., 2006)

2.0(0.2)
59 3.1
Swine
2.5(0.5) 45 5.6
Rabbits
3.0(0.5) 47 6.4
Beef
5.9(0.5) 49 10.2
Lamb
4.0(0.5) 23 17.4

98 Marine Technology Society Journal

of 0.7 for fed aquaculture; in addi-tion, they emphasized the need toconsider the environmental per-formances of aquaculture systems asmore comprehensively assessed fromlife cycle and equity approaches (Ayerand Tyedmers, 2009) were more ap-propriate measures of resource use andstewardship in aquaculture. Trends inFIFO since 1995, however, all indicatea massive increase in efficiencies of feeduse and incorporation of alternativeprotein meals and oils in fed aquacul-ture (Tacon and Metian, 2008).

Nonfed AquacultureConcerns and constraints regard-

ing the expansion of global aqua-culture are much different for fedand nonfed aquaculture. Indeed, fornonfed shellfish aquaculture, therehas been a convergence over the past10 years or so around the notion thatuser conflicts in shellfish aquaculturehave been resolved due to not onlytechnological advances but also to agrowing global science/NGO consen-sus that shellfish aquaculture can “fitin” in an environmentally and sociallyresponsible manner, and into manycoastal environments, many of whichare already crowded with existing users(Costa-Pierce, 2008a). Included in this“evolution” of shellfish aquacultureare the following:(1) development of submerged tech-

nologies for shellfish aquaculturesuch as longlines (Langan andHorton, 2003), modified rackand bag shellfish gear (Rheaultand Rice, 1995), and upwellers fornursery stages of shellfish, some ofwhich are placed unobtrusivelyunder floating docks at marinas(Flimlin, 2002),

(2) scientific findings and reviewsdemonstrating the environmentalbenefits of shellfish aquaculture

TABLE 5

Ranking of fossil fuel protein production efficiencies for various aquatic and terrestrial foodproduction systems (summarized from Costa-Pierce, 2002c; Troell et al., 2004; where multiplestudies exist they are both listed).

Food Production Systems
Fossil Fuel EnergyInput/ Protein Output (kcal)
Low energy use
1–20
North Atlantic herring fisheries
2–3
Seaweed aquaculture, West Indies, and elsewhere
1 (range 5–7)
Carp aquaculture, Asian ponds
1–9
Vegetable row crops
2–4
North Pacific salmon fisheries
7–14
Atlantic salmon ranching
7–33
Tilapia aquaculture, Indonesian ponds
8
Trout cage aquaculture, Finland and Ireland
8–24
Rangeland beef
10
Sheep agriculture
10
North Atlantic cod fisheries
10–12
Mussel aquaculture, European longlines
10–12
U.S. dairy
14
Tilapia aquaculture, Africa semi-intensive
18
High energy use
20–50
Cod capture fisheries
20
Rainbow trout raised in cages
24
U.S. eggs
26
Atlantic salmon capture fisheries
29
Pacific salmon fisheries
up to 30 (range 18–30)
Broiler chickens
American catfish raised in ponds
Swine
35
Shrimp aquaculture, Ecuador ponds
40
Atlantic Salmon cage aquaculture, Canada and Sweden
Extreme use
>50
North Atlantic flatfish fisheries
53
Sea bass cage aquaculture, Thailand
67
Shrimp aquaculture, Thailand ponds
70
Feedlot beef
Oyster aquaculture, intensive tanks, United States
136
North Atlantic lobster capture fisheries
up to 192 (range 38–59)
Shrimp capture fisheries
up to 198 (range 17–53)

providing vital ecosystem and so-cial services (National ResearchCouncil, 2010) such as nutrientremoval (Haamer, 1996; Lindahlet al., 2005) and habitat enhance-ment (DeAlteris et al., 2004;National Research Council, 2010),

(3) research on natural and socialcarrying capacities for shellfishaquaculture, and sophisticated,collaborative work group processes(McKinsey et al., 2006; Byronet al., 2008),

(4) development and wide use by in-dustry of best (and better) manage-ment practices (National ResearchCouncil, 2010),

(5) diversification of traditional wildharvest fishing/shellfishing familiesinto shellfish aquaculture as part-time enterprises, breaking downbarriers between fishing and aqua-culture user communities,

(6) publication of global comparisonswith fed aquaculture indicating astrong movement in shellfish aqua-culture globally toward an adop-tion of ecological approaches toaquaculture at all scales of society(Costa-Pierce, 2008a).

Social Ecology ofAquaculture: Need forNew Institutions witha New Social Contract

Institutions that can translateknowledge into action, such asnongovernmental organizations,extension arms of universities,and community user groups, arevery few and have a weak capac-ity to meet contemporary needs.Universities in the developingworld, generating knowledge forknowledge’s sake or, more often,duplicating knowledge, are not

moving fast enough to developprograms to meet new challenges.The reallocation of resources bybilateral donor agencies andfoundations from short-termprojects to new institutions thatgenuinely address long-termcapacity-building could also re-verse the present economic andenvironmental trends (Bawaet al., 2008).

Many analysts are calling for new,more integrated, multidisciplinaryways of developing more ecologicallyand socially responsible food, energy,water, and waste systems to meet so-ciety’s needs (Brown, 2009). Amongthe first was Lubchenco (1998), whocalled for a new social contract for sci-ence and society. Industrial aquacul-ture in its current development phasedoes not have a social contract or sociallicense to expand in many areas of theworld, especially at the watershed/aquaculture zone and global scales.

The only way aquaculture willacquire a new social contractand grow production into the fu-ture is by embracing the “sustain-ability transition” (Figure 2) andmove quickly toward an ecologi-cal approach to aquaculture thatpromotes ecological intensifica-tion on existing sites, not by mas-sively developing new areas.

Emerging fields such as ecologicalaquaculture and agroecology before it(Gliessman, 1998; Altieri, 2002) areexamples of “sustainability science,”fields that address a broad and deeprange of cross cutting issues that inte-grate many different types of infor-mation and tightly couple researchwith practice (Kates et al., 2001). Anecological aquaculture approach

May/J

is fundamentally a sophisticated,knowledge-based enterprise thatdevelops baseline information onnatural and human ecosystems, thendevelops, evaluates, encourages, andcommunicates imagination, inge-nuity, and innovation at both the indi-vidual and institutional levels (Culverand Castle, 2008). Although there ismuch information on the natural ecol-ogy of food-producing ecosystems,there are few comprehensive frame-works for capturing the necessary so-cial ecology of aquaculture. Cadenassoet al. (2006) have developed a “hu-man ecosystem framework” that couldbe a model for aquaculture whichcould assist in organizing multi-disciplinary, social–ecological ap-proaches to development.

Just as important are social invest-ments in aquaculture at the individuallevel. Aquaculture has an urgent needfor developing and engaging leaderswho are well trained and experienceddecision makers who are “honest bro-kers of policy alternatives” (Pilke,2007). Keen et al. (2005) believe thattransformation toward more sustain-able practices will be much more likelyif the individuals who make up societycan accept change and modify theirpersonal behaviors (Huckle and Sterling,1996). Changes in the behavior of indi-viduals can “scope up” and result inlarger changes at the community andsocietal scales by employing a combi-nation of trust building, favorable per-formance, accountability, flexibility andinnovation, and the inclusion of stake-holders in strategic planning (Brehm andRahn, 1997; Knack, 2002; UNESCO,2005; UNICEF, 2006).

Folke et al. (2005) challenge oureducation system to continuallyadapt to the emergence of such newquestions and changing social com-pacts as aquaculture. Any rapid


progress toward an ecological approachto aquaculturewill require developmentof education programs that promotebroad awareness, recognition, andimplications of new approaches toaquaculture and the creation of newinstitutions (Huckle and Sterling,1996; Bawa et al., 2008). Bransfordet al. (2000) suggest that for suchsubfields of sustainability science asaquaculture, more attention needsto be given to educating the nextgeneration of leaders by teachingmetacognitive skills such as practic-ing different ways of thinking in avariety of contexts, with less em-phasis being placed on trying to fillstudents with a large volume of factsand knowledge.

A Strategy for the “TripleBottom Line”

Aquaculture development planswill be incomplete unless both eco-

100 Marine Technology Society Journ

nomic and social goals are articulatedand agreed upon, at the outset, intransparent, participatory processes.Only then can aquaculture “evolve”as an integral part of—not separatefrom—farmers, fishermen, sustainablecommunity development, and the fu-ture of “working waterfronts.” Aqua-culture’s success cannot simply bedefined as having successfully de-veloped the hatchery, feed, and mar-keting components of a businessplan—the old alignment of the “seed,feed, and the need.” Rather, sustain-able, ecological aquaculture nurtures“society’s success” for the “triple bot-tom line” of economic, environmen-tal, and social profit (Savitz, 2006)(Figure 3).

Adversarial social processes occurin jurisdictions where aquaculture isnot being developed using a social–ecological “ecosystem approach.” Inthese places, the blue revolution is

al

being televised, tweeted, and blogged.Adversarial processes (conflicts) occurwhen stakeholders do not recognizeeach others interests as legitimate.These processes increase conflict,thrive on uncertainty, have poor com-munication, are exclusive, divisive,opaque, and closed, and lack trust.Collaborative processes must be cre-ated that create trust through sharedlearning and ownership, creative prob-lem solving, joint fact finding, and em-ploy adaptive management. Robertsonand Hull (2003) call this a “publicecology” that has both process andcontent that emphasizes the participa-tion of extended peer communitiesof research specialists, policy makers,and concerned citizens. Dasgupta andMaler (2004) are others also have toolsdeveloped by economists and ecolo-gists to valuate choices in the midstof this complexity. In general, sinceaquaculture is such a dynamic, evolu-tionary field, managers, policy makers,and community leaders need to partic-ipate to allow understanding of newand emerging problems and to stimu-late multidisciplinary research. Analystsreport that such work is the highestimpact science being published today(Jones et al., 2008).

Clear, unambiguous linkages be-tween aquaculture and the environ-ment must be created and fostered,and the complementary roles ofaquaculture in contributing to envi-ronmental sustainability, rehabil-itation, and enhancement must bedeveloped and clearly articulated to ahighly concerned, increasingly edu-cated and involved public. New aqua-culture operations must plan at theoutset(1) to become an integral part of a

community and a region,(2) to plan for community develop-

ment by working with leaders to

FIGURE 2

Three eras of historical aquaculture development. Humanity entered, for all food-producing industries,the sustainability transition at the turn of the 21st century as population growth, urbanization, re-source constraints, and climate change have affected all industrial inputs and outputs (Brown, 2009).

provide needed inputs and recyclewastes,

(3) to create a diversity of unprocessedand value-added products and pro-vide local market access, since inrich societies aquaculture productsare high-value discretionary pur-chases that can easily be rejectedby the public, and

(4) to plan for job creation and envi-ronmental enhancement on bothlocal and regional scales.It is well documented that most

aquaculture jobs are not directly inproduction rather in the affiliated ser-vice industries. In the United States,

Dicks et al. (1996) found that aquacul-ture production accounted for just 8%of the income and approximately16,500 jobs. Aquaculture goods andservices accounted for 92% of theincome and approximately 165,500jobs (most jobs were in equipment,supplies, feeds, fertilizers, transport,storage, processing). However, mostaquaculture development plans focusalmost exclusively on production con-cerns and have little/no comprehensiveplans for localization of seed, feed,markets, or other aquaculture serviceindustries that produce the mostbenefits to local economies. Many in-

May/Ju

dustrial aquaculture operations im-port high paying professionals fromthe outside, and in many cases, feedsand services are imported to sites,and local people cannot even buy theproduce!

An ecological aquaculture de-velopment model will create newopportunities for a wider group of pro-fessionals to get involved in aqua-culture since new advances will beneeded not only in technology butalso in information, community devel-opment, and facilitation. Ecologicalaquaculture as a “new” field, one im-portant for the future food securityand environment of the planet, re-quires more comprehensive planningto evolve a new social contract withsociety.

Integrating Aquaculture,Fisheries, and Agricultureto Provide SustainableSeafood and to RestoreAquatic Ecosystems

The “end of the wild” or the realand perceived mismanagement of theworld’s capture fisheries cannot beaccepted as a future, inevitable con-clusion of current trends in seafoodproduction. Nor can the difficultiesof sustaining the world’s invaluablecapture fisheries be used as a justifica-tion for encouraging unsustainableaquaculture development at the ex-pense of investments to restore capturefisheries. A protein-hungry planet ur-gently needs to restore capture fisheriesto full health everywhere.

In addition, the survival and sus-tainability of the world’s seafoodresources and all of the world’s fedaquaculture developments depend onthe sustainability of capture fisheries(and, increasingly, agriculture).

FIGURE 3

Success of aquaculture developments is not only the alignment of the “seed, feed, and need.”Each of these vital aquaculture resources has important interactions with natural ecosystemsand the larger society in which they are located and therefore must be planned for in a com-prehensive manner, not downgraded, misplaced, or as an afterthought in the planning for moresustainable food systems. Comprehensive planning for aquaculture’s economic, employment,ecological, and social interactions with opportunity costs in fisheries and agriculture and goodsand services provided by natural ecosystems can ensure not only aquaculture’s success but alsosociety ’s success.

ne 2010 Volume 44 Number 3 101

The Need to IntegrateAquaculture and Fisheries

Planning for aquaculture develop-ments is poorly incorporated into theoveral l planning framework forsustainable seafood supplies, fisheries,and coastal zone management, whereasthere are vital connections betweencapture fisheries and aquaculture notonly in the ecological realm but alsowith fisheries management and eco-nomics, in seafood markets, and inmany social dimensions. Althoughcapture fisheries and aquaculture op-erations are researched, planned, andmanaged as if they were independententities, they both share many com-mon concerns about water quality,genetic diversity in hatchery-raised or-ganisms, feeds, and the sustainabilityof fish meal/oil fisheries.

Aquaculture and capture fisheriesare inextricably entwined, a fact mostnoticeable in the seafood marketplace,where, for example, “white fish” as cod,haddock, and tilapia are equally traded.There are substantial interactions be-tween capture and cultured markets,and price and volume competitionbetween fisheries and aquacultureproducts occur routinely in themodernmarketplace. Competition from im-ports and from restored or season-ally abundant capture fisheries plus anunpredictable regulatory structure areimportant reasons why marine fishaquaculture has not received any signif-icant attention by aquaculture investorsin the United States.

Planning for sustainable seafoodsupplies for society must involve theclose interactions of both aquacultureand fisheries planners. Little interac-tion occurs at present, but togetherthey can affect policy decisions thatcould contribute to more sustain-able local food production and jobscreation.


Ensuring sustainable seafood sup-plies includes planning not only foraquaculture because aquaculture isjust one of at least five other means ofdelivering seafood supplies to societies:(1) by sustaining capture fisheries,(2) by expanding the consumption of

underused fish,(3) by using bycatch,(4) by increasing processing efficien-

cies, or(5) by increasing imports.

Increasing imports is a viable op-tion for the rich countries such as theUnited States and the EuropeanUnion, but it is questionable if thislevel of globalization is sustainableand will continue, especially as theera of “peak oil” arrives and fuel pricescontinue to rise. The UK EnergyResearch Centre (2009) reports thatpeak oil may be reached by 2030and that humanity may have alreadyconsumed 1,228 of the estimated2,000 billion barrels of the “ultimaterecoverable resource.”

Global capture fisheries have beendeclining since the mid-1980, andmany important food fisheries areoverfished (Pauly et al., 2003; Myersand Worm, 2003). However, for allthe negative press and hype that the“collapse” of global capture fisherieshas received, the facts are that capturefisheries are not “dead” everywhere,either globally or regionally, and thatthe world’s fisheries managers areworking with industry and govern-ments everywhere, in many cases, bet-ter than ever before, to restore capturefisheries. Capture fisheries provide themajor source of aquatic protein food tohumanity and will so into the future.As a result, they will continue to pro-vide substantial price and volumecompetition to aquaculture for gener-ations to come, especially in the “whitefish” seafood markets.

al

Globally, the FAO (2009) reportedthat global capture fisheries produc-tion has been stable over the past de-cade at approximately 92 milliontons, with 82million tons frommarinewaters and 10 million tons from in-land waters. The proportion of fullyexploited stocks monitored by theFAO has remained steady at approxi-mately 50% from the mid-1970s to2007. The proportion of overexploitedand depleted stocks has stabilizedat 25–30% since the mid-1990s to2007. Of the stocks monitored byFAO, 2% were underexploited, 18%were moderately exploited, 52% werefully exploited, and 28% were over-exploited. Capture fisheries are alsonot “dead” in the United States. TheNational Marine Fisheries Service(2009) determined that of the 251fish stocks or stock complexes it as-sesses, 210 (84%) are not overfished.Everymajor fishery in theUnited Statesthat is overfished is subject to a rigorousand often painful stock recovery plan.

Although capture fisheries produc-tion is unlikely to grow but be sus-tained into the future at current levels,there are three other options that needto be explored by planners for sustain-able seafood supplies: (1) expandingthe consumption of underused fish,(2) using bycatch as food, and (3) in-creasing processing efficiencies.

There are many examples of howsocieties worldwide are working toexpand consumption of underusedfish such as the Arrowtooth flounder(Atheresthes stomias), which has hadthe highest abundance of any ground-fish species in the Gulf of Alaska sincethe 1970s (Turnock et al., 2005), andare rarely used because of both bycatchand processing issues. Advances ingear conservation engineering for thisunderused species (halibut excludergrate, Gauvin and Rose, 2008) and

advances in gear conservation engi-neering for other important fisheriesunharvestable due to high bycatchlevels (such as the cod eliminator fora restored haddock fishery, see Beutelet al., 2008) could bring importantnew, regional sources of capture fisher-ies products to some areas over thenext 40 years. For example, flatfishfisheries in the North Pacific are nowclosed before target quotas are reachedbecause of halibut bycatch. Advancesin bycatch reduction could be impor-tant for this fishery.

Rapid advances in fish processingand utilization can increase suppliesof sustainable seafood to societies:surimi, minces, and rendering technol-ogies are just a few of these advances(Blanco et al., 2006). Lastly, althoughapproximately 70% of world fishproduction is used for human con-sumption and the remaining 30% isused to produce fish meal and oil,there are important trends in the fu-ture uses for the total utilization offish such as bioactive compounds,pigments, antifreeze proteins, lectins,and leather.

Fisheries and aquaculture today needto be combined into one professionaland management field like neverbefore in the history of the planet(Costa-Pierce, 2003). Fisheries scienceneeds to incorporate aquaculture intothe longer-term outlook for manag-ing the fisheries of the future. Analysesof the trends in species having aqua-culture and capture fisheries com-ponents are required along within-depth examinations of the manyfunctional interdependencies.

A more comprehensive planningframework with guidelines for in-corporating aquaculture into theplanning for sustainable fisheriesand coastal zone management is

needed to recognize the vital con-tribution of culture fisheries (aqua-culture) and enhanced fisheries(ranching ) to capture fisheriesproduction and to enhance aqua-culture’s efficiencies to protectecosystems and ecosystem ser-vices. There are intimate but littlerecognized and large ly un-planned functional connectionsbetween capture fisheries, en-hanced fisheries (“ranching”),and culture fisheries (“aquacul-ture”) (Figure 4).

These connections are importantto the future of global fisheries pro-duction but are little recognized. Forexample, Alaska and many of thenorthern Pacific Rim nations dependon aquaculture to sustain salmon fish-

May/Ju

eries. Aquaculture hatchery and nurs-ery net pens in Prince William Soundhave added millions of salmon tothe Pacific Ocean each year since the1990s. Wertheimer et al. (2004)found that these hatchery salmon didnot displace the region’s wild pinksalmon in Prince William Sound andthat hatchery salmon have added tothe size of Alaska’s “wild” salmonharvest. Beamish and Riddell (2009) re-port that each year billions of hatch-ery salmon are added to a “commonfeeding area” of the northern PacificOcean by the United States, Canada,Russia, Japan, and Korea and that thesuccess of hatcheries in adding to theregion’s fisheries are driven mainly bythe interactions of the marine ecosys-tems responding to climate which, inturn, creates the conditions for good

FIGURE 4

There are fundamental but oftentimes unplanned connections between capture fisheries, en-hanced fisheries, and aquaculture (“culture fisheries”). A closed aquaculture production networkhas little/no connection to the “wild” except for occasional replenishment of broodstock, whereasin an open aquaculture production network, production remains dependent on the wild. Until re-cently, the largest aquaculture industries in the world, such as carp farming in China, still relied onextraction of stocking materials from rivers. The “aquaculture toolbox” (hatcheries, nursery pens)is also used for the massive annual supplementation of the North Pacific salmon fisheries.


salmon growth or not. The concepts ofpristine, “wild” fisheries, and un-touched habitats are at odds with themodern fisheries/aquaculture scienceand management reality. There areimportant contributions of the useof aquaculture hatcheries to sustain“wild” fisheries. There are manyother examples; modern lobster fisher-ies in the Atlantic are more akin toextensive aquaculture operations. It istime to focus fisheries/aquacultureplanning not on fisheries and aqua-culture but on food.

The Need to IntegrateAquaculture andConservation Ecology

Although aquaculture has greatpotential to expand the production ofcommercially valuable species, it de-pends on intact natural ecosystemsand ecosystem services. In turn, aqua-culture is just a “tool box” with greatpotential for restoring aquatic ecosys-tems. There is an unbalanced focuson marine animal husbandry (e.g.,“fed” aquaculture) causing a conco-mitant lack of appreciation for thepositive environmental attributes ofnonfood aquaculture such as ma-rine agronomy, endangered speciesaquaculture, and aquaculture for en-vironmental enhancement and reha-bilitation, all of which use modernmarine hatchery and nursery aqua-culture practices.

Aquaculture in its current develop-ment is so beset with concerns overthe future of fed aquaculture andcapture fisheries, that it is oftentimessimplified into kind of a blood sportwhere battles are fought, and “all fish-eries become cod, and all aquaculture,salmon.” Missed in the controversiesis one of the most important parts ofthe toolbox-the use of “aquacultureagronomy, restoration, and aquacul-


ture conservation ecology” (Costa-Pierce and Bridger, 2002).

Siting of intensive industrial aqua-culture facilities, especially siting ofcages in enclosed seas such as theMediterranean Sea, is a very controver-sial topic, especially so when it is nowestimated that cage aquaculture facili-ties contribute approximately 7% oftotal nitrogen and approximately10% of total phosphorous discharges(Pitta et al., 1999). Classically, in-appropriate siting of cages has beenblamed for the destruction of near-shore and benthic aquatic ecosystems(Gowen and Bradbury, 1987). How-ever, Mirto et al. (2009) found that ifsea bass/bream cages were sited abovesea grass (Posidonia oceanica) meadowsthat sea grasses responded positively toaquaculture discharges and that therewere no impacts on benthic biodiver-sity. These findings raise the possibilitythat sea grass meadows can be createdand enhanced by an ecological engineer-ing systems approach and that evolvinga nontoxic, cage ecological aquaculturemodel for fish production and environ-mental improvement could evolve inthis region.

In this regard, there is little dif-ference between aquaculture and theemerging fields of ecological engineer-ing and industrial ecology. Indeed,tidal wetland, mangrove forest, coral,and sea grass restoration aquaculture—in addition to establishment andmain-tenance of oyster reefs—are importantexamples of aquaculture creating, en-hancing, and maintaining productivemarine ecosystems, habitats, and waterquality.

The Need to IntegrateAquaculture and Agriculture

There have been questions as towhether aquaculture contributes tothe depletion of world fisheries. This

al

“aquaculture paradox” recognizes thedependence of both wild and farmedfish stocks onmany of the samemarineand agricultural resources—from foodto habitats. Although there is muchon-going policy, research, and man-agement concerns on the interactionsof marine food fish fisheries (“biomassfisheries”) with aquaculture and hu-man welfare, there is little to no plan-ning regarding the future impacts offed aquaculture on agriculture. Cur-rent projections forecast that fed aqua-culture may in the future use 50% orless of the world’s fishmeal (Tacon andMetian, 2008) but expand use of agri-cultural and other terrestrial sources offeed proteins and oils. Feed alternativesare developing rapidly (Table 6).

Terrestrial proteins and oils fromsoybeans, sunflowers, and lupins areavailable at volumes larger than thequantity of global fish meal. Soybeanshave high protein content of approxi-mately 28%, peas have approximately22%, and these have good aminoacid profiles. Other abundant cerealshave protein contents of only 12–15%.However, processing can create pro-tein concentrates with protein levelsof >50% (Bell and Waagbo, 2002).Vegetable oils have very low EPAand DHA levels. However, substitu-tion of plant oils upward of 50% ofadded dietary oil has not resulted ingrowth reductions or increased mortal-ities in fish such as salmon and trout.

If agricultural sources of meals andoils are the future of fed aquaculture,there will be a need for a new global di-alog on the impacts of fed aquacultureas a driver of agriculture production,especially so for soybeans. Increasedaquaculture consumption of the world’sgrains and oils raises the concern overthe spread of unsustainable agriculturepractices. Brazil has been targeted as oneof the world’s major soybean suppliers.

Costa et al. (2007) has demonstratedthat soybean farms are causing reducedrainfall in the Amazonian rainforest.About one-seventh of the Brazilianrainforest has been cut for agriculture,about 15% of which is soybeans. Soy-beans, which are light in color, reflectmore solar radiation, heating the sur-face of the land less and reducing theamount of warm air convected fromthe ground. Fewer clouds form as a re-sult, and less precipitation falls. In soy-bean areas, there was 16% less rainfallcompared with a 4% decrease in rain-fall in land areas cleared for pasture.

Sustainable Seafoodfor the Poor

In comparison to other sectors ofthe world food economy fisheries

and aquaculture sectors frequentlyare poorly planned, inadequatelyfunded, and neglected by all levelsof government. This neglect occursin a paradoxical situation: fishingis the largest extractive use of wild-life in the world and aquacultureis the most rapidly growing sectorof the global agricultural economy(Costa-Pierce et al., 2003).

Approximately 1.3 billion peoplelive on less than a dollar a day, andhalf of the world’s population liveson less than 2 dollars a day. FAO hasstated that the world will need to pro-duce 70% more food for an additional2.3 billion people by 2050. Scarce nat-ural resources will need to be usedmore efficiently, and there will be aneed for proper socioeconomic frame-works to address imbalances and in-

May/Ju

equities to ensure that everyone inthe world has access to the food theyneed. Food production will have tobe carried out in a way that reducespoverty and takes account of naturalresource limitations.

The world’s population will risefrom 6.8 billion to 9.1 billion in2050, with nearly all populationgrowth occurring in the economicallydeveloping countries. Without addi-tional global food strategies, an esti-mated 370 million people will behungry in 2050. The magnitude ofthe problem is most acute in Africa.In 10 African countries of an estimated316 million persons where aquaticproteins are an important dietary com-ponent (Table 7), 216 million liveon US$2/day, 88 million are under-nourished, and 16 million childrenyounger than 5 years are malnour-ished (UNICEF 2006; Allison et al.,2009).

Small-scale coastal and inlandfreshwater fisheries provide morethan 90% of the fish consumed inAfrica. Over 2.5 million people areinvolved in fishing and 7.5 million intrading, marketing, and processing. Themost important fisheries/aquacultureecosystems are located on the coastsof west and southern Africa and theriver basins of Senegal, Niger, Volta,Congo, Lake Chad, Nile, and ZambeziRivers. But today, aquaculture pro-vides less than 5% of Africa’s fish, withmost concentrated in Egypt and Nigeria(Allison et al., 2009).

Aquaculture is a global enterprisewith local roots. There are strong con-cerns that aquaculture is evolvingaway from its global responsibility toprovide net benefits (additional food)for a protein-hungry planet (Goldburgand Naylor, 2005; Alder et al., 2008;Naylor et al., 2009). Greater than75% of global fisheries are traded.

TABLE 6

Protein and energy (oil) alternatives for aquaculture and terrestrial animal feeds are developingrapidly.

AlternativeMeals/Oils

Notable Researchand Developments
References
Soybean meals
Shrimp in semi-intensive culture inponds could be grown on defattenedsoybean meal as their sole proteinsource
Piedad-Pascual et al.(1990); Bell and Waagbo(2002)

Insect meals
Meals made from mass-producinginsects in culture; Indonesia constructing4,000 maggot farms for fish feeds usingpalm oil by-products in Sumatra andKalimantan
Ratliff (2008), InfofishInternational February2010 (www.infofish.com)

Bacterial proteinmeals

Bacterial protein meals investigated asprotein sources in salmon, rainbowtrout, and halibut feeds with comparableresults for growth, feed intake, andutilization up to 36% incorporation forsalmon and trout

Aas (2006)

Vegetable oilsand animal fats

∼75% of dietary fish oil can besubstituted with alternative lipid sourceswithout significantly affecting growthperformance, feed efficiency, and intakefor almost all finfish species studied

Turchini et al. (2009)


In 2000, more than 60% of fish mealwas traded. Only 7% of meat is trad-ed, 17% of wheat, and 5% of rice(FAO, 2009). To tackle this huge chal-lenge, the FAO EAA (Soto et al.,2008) has not only created a newcode for responsible global aquacul-ture development but also combinedinto one common development frame-work a global implementation strat-egy for aquaculture that can be usedto measure the trajectory of social re-sponsibility for global aquaculture.

If aquaculture is designed, imple-mented, and evaluated as aquacultureecosystems, a new social contractwould have a close relationship be-tween aquaculture professionals whonot only create an alternative modelof aquaculture development but alsointeract closely with capture fisheriesand agriculture to help deliver to theworld’s poor its needs for nutrient-dense, protein-rich seafood. Compo-nents of a global strategy could beas follows:(1) To allocate more food fish and oils

for poverty alleviation and human


needs worldwide and allocate lessmarine resources for feed fish forfed aquaculture so as (a) to increasethe ecosystem resilience of theHumboldt ecosystem and (b) to re-lieve the increasing overdependenceof aquaculture countries such asThailand (shrimp) and Norway(salmon) on this southeasternPacific Ocean marine ecosystem.Alder et al. (2008) estimated that

about 36% of the world’s fisheriescatch (30 million tons) are processedinto fish meal and oil, mostly to feedfarmed fish, chickens, and pigs. DanielPauly of the University of BritishColumbia has stated that “Globally,pigs and chickens alone consume sixtimes the amount of seafood as USconsumers and twice that of Japan.”Jacquet et al. (2009) reported thatPeru exports about half of the world’sfishmeal from its catch of 5–10MMT/year of anchovies, whereas half of itspopulation of 15 million live in pov-erty and 25% of its infants are mal-nourished. A campaign launched in2006 combining scientists, chefs, and

al

politicians to demonstrate that ancho-vies are more valuable to the Peruvianpeople and its economy as direct foodhas resulted in a 46% increase in de-mand for fresh and 85% increase incanned anchovies. One ton of filletshas sold for five times the price of1 ton of meal and requires half thefish (3 tons for 1 ton fillets vs. 6 tonsfor 1 ton meal). Peru has decided todedicate 30% of its annual food secu-rity budget (approximately US$80million) for programs to supply ancho-vies to its people. Higher prices for fishused as direct human food for food se-curity will limit processing of fish tomeals for terrestrial animal and aqua-culture feeds, thereby decreasing thesupply of fish meals and oils for globalaquaculture trade and developmentbut meeting the MillenniumDevelop-ment Goals of eliminating everywhereextreme hunger and starvation.(2) To accelerate research into the elu-

cidating functional feed ingredientsin fish diets that are showing the po-tential to eliminate the needs forfish meal and oils in aquaculture.Skretting Aquaculture Research

Centre (2009) reported on researchon “functional ingredients” that arecontained in fish meals and oilswhich contribute to efficient feed con-versions and high growth rates, fishhealth, and welfare. Initial researchfocused on beta-glucans that stimulatethe immune system of fish and protectagainst the effects of bacterial furuncu-losis but also allow reductions in fishmeal contents in diets to 25%. Addi-tional research with phospholipids inmeals, triglycerides in fish oil, and anti-oxidants in 2008 have resulted in ex-cellent fish performances from feedswith almost no marine fish meal andoil. Current research is exploring theextraction of functional ingredientsfrom other nonmarine by-products.

TABLE 7

There is an urgent need to develop ecologically and socially appropriate and economically viablefood and income-generating aquaculture models in these nations in Africa (modified from Allisonet al., 2009).

Country
% Total Population Livingon Less Than US$ 2/day
Fish Protein/ Total AnimalProtein in Diets (%)

Ghana
78 66
Senegal
63 43
DR Congo
N/A 43
Nigeria
90 34
Uganda
79 33
Cameroon
50 32
Malawi
76 31
Zambia
87 23
Mozambique
78 22
Mali
90 15

(3) To develop alternative ecologicalaquaculture models that acceleratethe movement toward use of agri-cultural, algal, bacterial, yeastsmeals, and oils.Aquaculture uses most of the

world’s fish meal (68%) and fish oil(88%); however, Tacon and Metian(2008) predict that fish meal and oiluse in aquaculture will decrease tobecome high priced, specialty feed in-gredients. Currently, about 40% ofaquaculture depends on formulatedfeeds: 100% of salmon, 83% ofshrimp, 38% of carp. Research onthe use of agricultural meals and oilsto replace use of ocean resources espe-cially on the functional components offish meals/oils needed for fish nutri-tion are a major subject of aquacultureresearch and development (Watanabe,2002; Opstvedt et al., 2003). Turchiniet al. (2009) reported that for all of themajor aquaculture fish species that60–75% of dietary fish oil can be sub-stituted with alternative lipid sourceswithout significantly affecting growthperformance, feed efficiency, and feedintake. Naing et al. (2007) found thatpalm oil could replace fish oil in rain-bow trout diets, and reduce the dioxincontents in fish.(4) To develop new governance sys-

tems that integrate aquaculture,agriculture, and fisheries usingecosystem-based management ap-proaches that combine production,distribution, and consumption net-works that do not institutionalizepoverty and hunger but providenew alternative tools and educa-tion in multisectoral ecosystemapproaches.The massive environmental change

being brought about by the acceleratedgrowth of the world’s population hascaused profound change to the world’secosystems. Crutzen and Stoermer

(2000) have called this new era the“Anthropocene.” In this era, massivequantities of additional foodstuffswill be needed to sustain humanity;nutrient-dense, high-quality aquaticproteins will be especially important.The tools and training of the next gener-ation of transdisciplinary, sustainabilityscientists will have to be further devel-oped and well used, or serious conse-quences for the Earth’s living systemswill result.

SummaryThe main points of this paper are

that the blue revolution is nothingnew, that aquaculture is one of theplanet’s best choices for expandingnew protein production, but that thewildly optimistic scenarios for aqua-culture’s expansion will not occur un-less alternative ecological approachesand ecological intensification of aqua-culture are widely adopted. Aqua-culture needs to be better integratedinto overall fishery societal plans for se-curing sustainable seafood suppliesand restoring damaged, supportingfisheries ecosystems. An ecologicalaquaculture approach can insure aqua-culture is a net gain to humanity, and itcould be the key organizing paradigmto form a new social contract for aqua-culture worldwide. The overuse anddegraded state of nearly all of theworld’s aquatic ecosystems combinedwith public concerns about addingany “new” uses or sources of aquaticpollution to already overburdenednatural and human systems requiresaquaculture to develop ecosystems ap-proaches and sustainable operatingprocedures and to articulate a sustain-able, ecological pedagogy.

For aquaculture development toproceed to the point where it will pro-vide 50% of human protein food in

May/Ju

nations outside of China, clear, unam-biguous linkages between aquaculture,society, and the environment mustbe created and fostered, and the com-plementary roles of aquaculture incontributing to social and environ-mental sustainability, rehabilitation,and enhancement must be developedand clearly articulated to a highlyconcerned, increasingly educated, andinvolved public. The most sustainablegrowth trajectories for aquaculture areto change dramatically the prevailingaquaculture development model andmove rapidly toward more sustainable,social–ecological approaches to devel-opment; to shift patterns of produc-tion and consumption patterns fromglobal to bioregional food produc-tion and job creation; and to developthe indigenous human and institu-tional capacities that clearly demon-strate to society that “aquaculture isculture.”

The massive globalization of sea-food trade has meant less dependenceon local natural and social ecosys-tems and has resulted in some well-organized and funded opposition toaquaculture development, albeit smalland localized, but opposed especiallyto large-scale aquaculture. This oppo-sition has grown as local sources offood production, markets, and jobshave been exported and externalized.One major consequence of this global-ization has been the increased depen-dence of industrial, “fed” aquacultureon the southeastern Pacific Oceanmarine ecosystem for fish meals andoils. The global implications for theHumboldt ecosystem, for local pov-erty, and the scoping of this unsus-tainable situation to the entire globalprotein food infrastructure are pro-found and are still largely unrealized.

Aquaculture sites are not only eco-nomic engines of primary production


that meet the regulations of a societybut can be sites of innovation andpride if they can be well designed ascommunity-based, aquaculture farmingecosystems. A review of the progresstoward such an EAA is necessary to in-spire planners and environmental deci-sion makers at many societal scales(national, regional, local) to make useof such innovative approaches. Sophis-ticated site planning of aquaculturecan occur so that farms “fit withnature” and do not displace or disruptinvaluable natural, aquatic ecosystemsor conservation areas but contribute tothe local economy and society.

Lead Author:Barry A. Costa-PierceProfessor of Fisheries andAquaculture and DirectorRhode Island Sea Grant CollegeProgramGraduate School of OceanographyUniversity of Rhode Island,Narragansett, Rhode Island02882-1197 USAEmail: [email protected]

ReferencesAas, T. 2006. Evaluation of a bacterial protein

meal in diets for Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar),

rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and

Atlantic halibut (Hippoglossus hippoglossus).

Ph.D. thesis, Norwegian University of Science

and Technology.

Aghajanian, A. 2007. Chinampas: Their

Role in Azetc Empire-Building and Expansion.

Los Angeles: Indo-European Publishing.

Alder, J., Campbell, B., Karpouzi, V.,

Kaschner, K., Pauly, D. 2008. Forage fish:

From ecosystems to markets. Ann Rev Envir

Res. 33:71-714.

Allen, P., Van Dusen, D., Lundy, J.,

Gliessman, S. 1991. Integrating social, envi-


ronmental, and economic issues in sustainable

agriculture. Am J Altern Agric. 6(1):34-39.

Allison, E., Beveridge, M., van Brakel, M.

2009. Climate change, small-scale fisheries and

smallholder aquaculture. In: Fish, Trade and

Development, ed. Culberg, M., pp. 73-87.

Stockholm: Royal Swedish Academy of

Agriculture and Forestry.

Altieri, M. 2002. Agroecology: The science

of natural resource management for poor

farmers in marginal environments. Agric

Ecosyst Environ. 93:1-24.

Ayer, N., Tyedmers, P. 2009. Assessing

alternative aquaculture technologies: life cycle

assessment of salmonid culture systems in

Canada. J Clean Prod. 17:362-373.

Bawa, K., Bachlander, N., Raven, P. 2008. A

case for new institutions. Science. 319:136.

Beamish, R.J., Riddell, B. 2009. The future

of fisheries science on Canada’s west coast

is keeping up with the changes. In: The

Future of Fisheries Science in North America,

eds. Beamish, R.J., Rothschild, B.J.,

pp. 567-596. New York: Springer Science.

Bell, J., Waagbo, R. 2002. Safe and nutritious

aquaculture produce: Benefits and risks of

alternative sustainable aquafeeds. In: Aqua-

culture in the Ecosystem, eds. Holmer, M.,

Black, K., Duarte, C., Marba, N., Karqakasis,

I., pp. 185-226. New York: Springer.

Beutel, D., Skrobe, L., Castro, K., Ruhle, Sr,

P., O’Grady, J., Knight, J. 2008. Bycatch

reduction in the Northeast USA directed

haddock bottom trawl fishery. References and

further reading may be available for this article.

To view references and further reading you

must this article. Fish Res. 94(2): 190-198.

Beveridge, M., Little, D. 2002. The history

of aquaculture in traditional societies. In:

Ecological Aquaculture: The Evolution of

the Blue Revolution, ed. Costa-Pierce, B.A.,

pp. 3-29. Oxford: Blackwell Science.

Black, K. 2001. Sustainability of aquaculture.

In: Environmental impacts of aquaculture,

ed. Black, K., pp 199-212. Sheffield: Sheffield

Academic Press.

al

Blanco, M., Sotelo, C.G., Chapela, M.J.,

Pérez-Martín, R.I. 2006. Towards sustainable

and efficient use of fishery resources: present

and future trends. Trends Food Sci Technol.

18(1):29-36.

Bransford, J., Brown, A., Cocking, R. 2000.

Hoe People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience,

and School. Washington: National Academy

Press.

Brehm, J., Rahn, W. 1997. Individual level

evidence for the causes and consequences of

social capital. Am J Polit Sci. 41:999-1023.

Brown, L. 2009. Plan B 4.0:Mobilizing to Save

Civilization. New York: W. Norton and Co.

Byron, C., Alves, D., Bengtson, D., Rheault,

R., Costa-Pierce, B. 2008. Working towards

consensus: application of shellfish carrying

capacity in management of Rhode Island

aquaculture. Wakefield, RI: Rhode Island

Coastal Resources Management Council.

Cadenasso, M., Pickett, S., Grove, M. 2006.

Integrative approaches to investigating human-

natural systems: The Baltimore ecosystem

study. Nat Sci Soc. 14:4-14.

Chimits, P. 1957. Tilapia in ancient Egypt.

FAO Fish Bull. 10:211-215.

Chopin, T. 2006. Integrated multi-trophic

aquaculture. What it is, and why you should

care … and don’t confuse it with polyculture.

North Aquac. 12(4):4.

Chopin, T., Buschmann, A., Halling, C.,

Troell, M., Kautsky, N., Neori, A., Kraemer,

G., Zertuche-Gonzalez, J., Yarish, C., Neefus,

C. 2001. Integrating seaweeds into marine

aquaculture systems: a key toward sustain-

ability. J Phycol. 37:975-986.

Costa, M., Yanagi, S., Souza, P., Ribeiro, A.,

Rocha, E. 2007. Climate change in Amazonia

caused by soybean cropland expansion,

as compared to caused by pastureland

expansion. Geophys Res Lett. 34(L07706),

doi:10.1029/2007GL029271.

Costa-Pierce, B. 1987. Aquaculture in

ancient Hawaii. BioScience. 37:320-331.

Costa-Pierce, B. 2002a. Ecological Aqua-

culture. Oxford: Blackwell Science.

Costa-Pierce, B. 2002b. The ahupua’a aqua-

culture ecosystems in Hawaii. In: Ecological

Aquaculture: The Evolution of the Blue

Revolution, ed. Costa-Pierce, B.A., pp. 30-43.

Oxford: Blackwell Science.

Costa-Pierce, B. 2002c. Ecology as the

paradigm for the future of aquaculture, In:

Ecological Aquaculture: The Evolution of

the Blue Revolution, ed. Costa-Pierce, B.A.,


Costa-Pierce, B.A. 2003. Use of ecosystems

science in ecological aquaculture. Bull

Aquacul Assoc Canada. 103(2):32-40.

Costa-Pierce, B., Hardy, R., Kapetsky, J.

2003. Review of the Status, Trends and Issues

in Global Fisheries and Aquaculture, with

Recommendations for USAID Investments.

Strategic Partnerships for Agricultural Research

and Education (SPARE). Washington: U.S.

Agency for International Development.

Costa-Pierce, B., Desbonnet, A. 2005. A

future urban ecosystem incorporating urban

aquaculture for wastewater treatment and

food production. In: Urban Aquaculture,

eds. Costa-Pierce, B.A., Desbonnet, A.,

Edwards, P., Baker, D., pp. 1-14.

Wallingford: CABI Publishing.

Costa-Pierce, B. 2008a. Epilogue. In:

Aquaculture, Innovation and Social Trans-

formation, eds. Culver, K., Castle, D.,

pp. 315-325. New York: Springer Science.

Costa-Pierce, B. 2008b. An ecosystem

approach to marine aquaculture: A global

review. In: Building An Ecosystem Approach

to Aquaculture, ed. Soto, D., pp. 81-116.

Rome: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture

Proceedings 14. FAO.

Costa-Pierce, B., Bridger, C. 2002. The

role of marine aquaculture facilities as habitats

and ecosystems. In: Responsible Marine

Aquaculture, eds. Stickney, R., McVey, J.,

pp. 105-144. Wallingford: CABI Publishing.

Cowey, C., Mackie, A., Bell, J. 1985.

Nutrition and Feeding in Fish. London:

Academic Press.

Crutzen, P., Stoermer, E. 2000. The “Anthro-

pocene.” Glob Change Newsl. 41:17-18.

Culver, K., Castle, D. 2008. Aquaculture,

Innovation and Social Transformation.

New York: Springer.

Dasgupta, P., Maler, K. 2004. The Economics

of Non-Convex Ecosystems. New York:

Springer.

DeAlteris, J., Kilpatrick, B., Rheault, R. 2004.

A comparative evaluation of the habitat value of

shellfish aquaculture gear, submerged aquatic

vegetation and a non-vegetated seabed.

J Shellfish Res. 23:867-874.

Dela Cruz, C., Lightfoot, C., Costa-Pierce,

B., Carangal, V., Bimbao, M. 1992. Rice–Fish

Research and Development in Asia. Manila:

ICLARM.

Dees, J., Backman, E. 1994. Social Enterprise:

Private Initiatives for the Common Good.

Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing,

Harvard University.

Dicks, M., McHugh, R., Webb, B. 1996.

Economy-Wide Impacts of U.S. Aquaculture.

Norman: Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment

Station. 946 pp.

Duarte, C., Holmer, M., Olsen, Y., Stot, D.,

Maba, N., Guiu, J., Blac, K., Karakassis, I.

2009. Will the oceans help feed humanity?

BioScience. 59(11):967-976.

Edwards, P. 2002. Aquaculture for poverty

alleviation and food security. Aquac Asia.

7(2):53-56.

Edwards, P. 2004. Traditional Chinese

aquaculture and its impact outside China.

World Aquac. 35(1):24-27.

Edwards, P. 2006. Recent developments

in Chinese inland aquaculture. Aquac Asia.

II(4):3-6.

Edwards, P. 2009. Traditional Asian aqua-

culture. In: New Technologies in Aquaculture,

ed. Burnell, G., chap. 34. Cambridge:

Woodhead Publishing.

Edwards, P., Little, D., Yakupitiyage, A.

1997. A comparison of traditional and modi-

fied artisanal aquaculture systems. Aquac Res.

28:777-788.

Fletcher, W., Chesson, J., Sainsbury, K., Fisher,

M., Hundloe, T. 2004a. A flexible and practical

May/Ju

framework for reporting on sustainable devel-

opment for wild capture fisheries. Fish Res.

71:175-183.

Fletcher, W., Chesson, J., Fisher, M.,

Sainsbury, K., Hundloe, T. 2004b. National

ESD Reporting Framework: The ‘How To’

Guide for Aquaculture. Canberra: FRDC

Project 2000/145.1. 88 pp.

Flimlin, G. 2002. Nursery and growout

methods for aquacultured shellfish. Northeast

Regional Aquaculture Center Publication

No. 00-002. College Park, MD: Northeast

Regional Aquaculture Center, University of

Maryland.

Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., Norberg, J.

2005. Adaptive governance of social–ecological

systems. Ann Rev Environ Res. 30:441-473.

Folke, C., Kautsky, N., Troell, M. 1994. The

cost of eutrophication from salmon farming:

Implications for policy. J Environ Manage.

40:173-182.

Food and Agriculture Organization. 2009.

The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture

2008. Rome: Fisheries Department, Food and

AgricultureOrganization of theUnitedNations.

Gauvin, J., Rose, C. 2008. Groundfish

Forum Experimental Fishing Permit to Test

the Effectiveness of a Halibut Excluder.

Seattle: Resource Assessment and Engineering

Division, National Marine Fisheries Service

Alaska Fishery Science Center. Available at:

http://www.groundfishforum.org/Project/

EFP/HED/HED.html.

GESAMP (IMO/FAO/UNESCO-IOC/

UNIDO/WMO/IAEA/UN/UNEP Joint

Group of Experts on Scientific Aspects of

Marine Environmental Protection). 2008.

Assessment and Communication of Environ-

mental Risks in Coastal Aquaculture. Rome,

FAO Reports and Studies GESAMP No. 76.

198 pp.

Gliessman, S. 1998. Agroecology: Ecological

Processes in Sustainable Agriculture. Ann

Arbor: Ann Arbor Press.

Goldburg, R., Naylor, R. 2005. Future

seascapes, fishing, and fish farming. Front Ecol

Environ. 3(1):21-28.


Goodland, R., Pimental, D. 2000. Environ-

mental sustainability and integrity in the

agriculture sector. In: Ecological Integrity,

eds. Pimental, D., Westra, L., Noss, R.,

pp. 121-38. Washington: Island Press.

Gowen, R., Bradbury, N. 1987. The ecological

impact of salmonid farming in coastal waters:

A review. Oceanogr Mar Biol Ann Rev.

25:563-575.

Haamer, J. 1996. Improving water quality

in a eutrophied fjord system with mussel

farming. Ambio. 25:356-362.

Hall, S., Dugan, P., Allison, E., Andrew, N.

2010. The end of the line: who is most at risk

from the crisis in global fisheries? Ambio

39:78080, doi:10.1007/s13280-0008-5.

Hambrey, J., Senior, B. 2007. Taking forward

environmental carrying capacity and ecosystem

services. Recommendations for CCW. CCW

Policy Research Report No. 07/22.

Hambrey, J., Edwards, P., Belton, D. 2008.

An ecosystems approach to freshwater aqua-

culture: a global review. In: Building An

Ecosystem Approach to Aquaculture, ed. Soto,

D., pp. 117-221. Rome: FAO Fisheries and

Aquaculture Proceedings 14. FAO.

Heck, S., Bene, C., Reyes-Gaskin, R. 2007.

Investing in African fisheries: Building links to

the millennium development goals. Fish Fish.

8:211-226.

Hepher, B. 1985. Aquaculture intensification

under land and water limitations. GeoJournal.

10:253-259.

Huckle, J., Sterling, S. 1996. Education for

sustainability. London: Earthscan.

Jackson, A. 2009. Fish in–fish out (FIFO)

ratios explained. Aquac Eur. 34(3):5-10.

Jacquet, J., Hocevar, J., Lai, S., Majluf, P.,

Pelletier, N., Pitcher, T., Sala, S., Sumaila, R.,

Pauly, D. 2009. Conserving wild fish in a sea

of market-based efforts. Oryx. 44:45-56.

doi:10.1017/S0030605309990470.

Jones, B.F., Wuchty, S., Uzzi, B. 2008.

Multi-university research teams: Shifting

impact, geography, and stratification in

science. Science. 322:1259-1262.


Kates, R., Clark, W., Corell, R. 2001.

Sustainability science. Science. 292:641-642.

Kaushik, S., Troell, M. 2010. Taking the

fish-in fish-out ration a step further. Aquac

Eur. 35(1):15-17.

Keen, M., Brown, V., Dyball, B. 2005. Social

Learning in Environmental Management.

London: Earthscan.

Knack, S. 2002. Social capital and the quality

of government: evidence for the states. Am J

Polit Sci. 46:772-785.

Lane, N. 2006. Alarm bells should help us

refocus. Science. 312(5782):1847.

Langan, R., Horton, C. 2003. Design,

operation and economics of submerged long-

line mussel culture in the open ocean. Bull

Aquacul Assoc Canada. 103(3):11-20.

Levi-Strauss, C. 1958. Anthropologie

Structurale [Structural Anthropology].

New York: Penguin Press.

Lindahl, O., Hernroth, B., Kollberg, S.,

Loo, O., Rehnstam-Holm, A., Svensson, J.,

Svensson, S., Syversen, U. 2005. Improving

marine water quality by mussel farming:

A profitable solution for Swedish society.

Ambio. 34:131-138.

Lu, J., Li, X. 2006. Review of rice–fish–

farm systems in China. One of the

Globally Important Ingenious Agricultural

Heritage Systems (GIAHS). Aquaculture.

260:106-113.

Lubchenco, J. 1998. Entering the century

of the environment: A new social contract for

science. Science. 279:491-497.

Mann, C. 2005. 1491. New Revelations of

the Americas Before Columbus. New York:

Alfred A. Knopf.

Mann, C.C. 2008. Ancient earthmovers of

the Amazon. Science. 321:1148-1152.

McGrath, C. 2009. Egypt. A big catch feeds

millions. Global Geopolitics Net Sites/IPS.

Available at: http://globalgeopolitics.net/

wordpress/2009/11/01/egypt-a-big-catch-feeds-

millions (accessed 10 April 2010).

al

McLeod, K., Leslie, H. 2009. Ecosystem-

Based Management for the Oceans.

Washington: Island Press. 391 pp.

McKinsey, C., Thetmeyer, H., Landry, T.,

Silvert, W. 2006. Review of recent carrying

capacity models for bivalve culture and recom-

mendations for research and management.

Aquaculture. 261(2):451-462.

Mires, D. 2009. Development of inland

aquaculture in arid climates: water utilization

strategies applied in Israel. Fisheries Manag

Ecol. 7:189-195.

Mirto, S., Bianchelli, S., Gambi, C., Krzelj,

Pusceddu, A., Scopa, M., Holmer, M.,

Danovaro, R. 2009. Fish-farm impact on

metazoan meiofauna in the Mediterranean

Sea: Analysis of regional vs. habitat effects.

Mar Environ Res. 69:38-47.

Myers, R., Worm, B. 2003. Rapid worldwide

depletion of predatory fish communities.

Nature. 423:280-283.

Naing, A., Satoh, S., Tsuchida, N. 2007.

Effect of replacements of fishmeal and fish oil

on growth and dioxin contents of rainbow

trout. Fish Sci. 73:750-759.

National Research Council. 2010. Eco-

system Concepts for Sustainable Bivalve

Mariculture. Washington: National Acade-

mies Press.

Naylor, R., Goldburg, R., Primavera, J.,

Kautsky, N., Beveridge, M., Clay, J., Folke,

C., Lubchenco, J., Mooney, H., Troell, M.

2000. Effect of aquaculture on world fish

supplies. Nature. 405:1017-1024.

Naylor, R., Hardy, R., Bureau, D., Chiu, A.,

Elliott, M., Farrell, A., Forster, I., Gatlin, D.,

Goldburg, R., Hua, K., Nichols, P. 2009.

Feeding aquaculture in an era of finite

resources. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA.

106(36):15103-15110.

Neori, A., Shpigel, M., Ben-Ezra, D. 2000.

A sustainable integrated system for culture

of fish, seaweed and abalone. Aquaculture.

186:279-291.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2009.

2008 Report to Congress on the Status of

U.S. Fisheries. Silver Spring: Office of Sus-

tainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries

Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration.

Opstvedt, J., Aksnes, A., Hope, B., Pike, I.

2003. Efficiency of feed utilization in Atlantic

salmon (Salmo salar L.) fed diets with increas-

ing substitution of fish meal with vegetable

proteins. Aquaculture. 221:365-379.

Pauly, D., Christensen, V., Dalsgaard, J.,

Froese, R., Torres, F., Jr. 1998a. Fishing down

marine food webs. Science. 279:860-869.

Pauly, D., Tyedmers, P., Froese, R., Torres, F., Jr.

1998b. Fishing down and farming up the

food web. Conservation Biology in Practice.

2:25.

Pauly, D., Alder, J., Bemmet, E., Christensen,

V., Tyedmers, P.,Watson, R. 2003. The future

of fisheries. Science. 203:1359-1361.

Piedad-Pascual, F., Cruz, E., Sumalangcay,

A., Jr. 1990. Supplemental feeding on Penaeus

monodon juveniles with diets containing

various levels of defatted soybean meal.

Aquaculture. 89:183-191.

Pilke, R. 2007. The Honest Broker: Making

Sense of Science in Policy and Politics.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pimentel, D., Pimentel, M. 2003. Sustain-

ability of meat-based and plant-based diets

and the environment. Am J Clin Nutr.

78(3):660-663.

Pitta, P., Karakassis, I., Tsapakis, M.,

Zivanovic, S. 1999. Natural vs. mariculture

induced variability in nutrients and plankton

in Eastern Mediterranean. Hydrobiologia.

391:181-194.

Pullin, R. 1993. Environment and Aqua-

culture in Developing Countries. Manila:

International Center for Living Aquatic

Resources Management.

Pullin, R., Froese, R., Pauly, D. 2007.

Indicators for the sustainability of aquaculture.

In: Ecological and Genetic Implications

of Aquaculture Activities, ed. Bert, T.

New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Rakocy, J. 2002. An integrated fish and

field crop system for arid areas. In: Ecological

Aquaculture: The Evolution of the Blue

Revolution, ed. Costa-Pierce, B.A.,


Ratliff, B. 2008. Producers might put fish

on diet of mass-produced insects. Arlington,

VA: Delta Farm Press. Available at:

http://deltafarmpress.com/mag/

farming_producers_put_fish/.

Rheault, R., Rice, M. 1995. Transient gear

shellfish aquaculture. World Aquac.

26(1):26-31.

Ridler, N, Robinson, B., Chopin, T.,

Robinson, S., Page, F. 2006. Development of

integrated multi-trophic aquaculture in the

Bay of Fundy, Canada: A socio-economic case

study. World Aquac. 37(3):43-48.

Ridler, N., Wowchuk, M., Robinson, B.,

Barrington, K., Chopin, T., Robinson, S.,

Page, F., Reid, G., Haya, K. 2007. Integrated

Multi-trophic Aquaculture (IMTA): A poten-

tial strategic choice for farmers. Aquac Econ

Manag. 11:99-110.

Robertson, D.P., Hull, R. 2003. Public

ecology: An environmental science and

policy for global society. Environ Sci Policy.

6:399-410.

Ruddle, K., Zhong, G. 1988. Integrated

Agriculture–Aquaculture in South China:

The Dike–Pond System in Zhujiang Delta.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ryther, J. 1969. Photosynthesis and fish

production in the sea. Science. 166:72-76.

Savitz, A.W. 2006. The Triple Bottom

Line: How Today’s Best-Run Companies

Are Achieving Economic, Social and Envi-

ronmental Success—And How You Can too.

New York: Jossey-Bass/Wiley.

Schroeder, G. 1980. Fish farming in manure

loaded ponds. In: Integrated Agriculture–

Aquaculture Farming Systems ICLARM,

Manila, eds. Pullin, R., Shehadeh, Z. Manila,

Philippines: International Center for Living

Resources Management (ICLARM). pp. 73-86.

May/Ju

Schuster, W. 1952. Fish Culture in Brackish-

Water Ponds of Java. Rome: FAO Indo-Pacific

Fisheries Council Special Publication No.1.

Shreck, A., Getz, C., Feenstra, G. 2006.

Social sustainability, farm labor, and organic

agriculture: Findings from an exploratory

analysis. Agric Human Values. 24(4):439-449.

Skretting Aquaculture Research Centre.

2009. Revealing the essential functions of

vital feed ingredients. Available at:

http://www.skretting.com/Internet/

SkrettingGlobal/webInternet.nsf/wPrId/

D30B62DD93F65CFEC1257663004DA962!

OpenDocument (accessed 10 April 2010).

Smil, V. 2000. Feeding the World: A

Challenge for the Twenty-First Century.

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Smil, V. 2002. Nitrogen and food production:

Proteins for human diets. Ambio. 31:125-131.

Smith, M., Roheim, C., Crowder, L.,

Halpern, B., Turnipseed, M., Anderson, J.,

Asche, F., Bourillón, L., Guttormsen, G.,

Khan, A., Liguori, L., McNevin, A.,

O’Connor, M., Squires, D., Tyedmers, P.,

Brownstein, C., Carden, K., Klinger, D.,

Sagarin, R., Selkoe, K. 2010. Sustainability

and global seafood. Science 327:784-786.

Soto, D., Aguilar-Manjarrez, J., Brugère, C.,

Angel, D., Bailey, C., Black, K., Edwards, P.,

Costa-Pierce, B., Chopin, T., Deudero, S.,

Freeman, S., Hambrey, J., Hishamunda, N.,

Knowler, D., Silvert, W., Marba, N., Mathe,

S., Norambuena, R., Simard, F., Tett, P.,

Troell, M., Wainberg, A. 2008. Applying an

ecosystem-based approach to aquaculture:

principles, scales and some management

measures. In: Building an ecosystem approach

to aquaculture, eds. Soto, D., Aguilar-

Manjarrez, J., Hishamunda, N. FAO/

Universitat de les illes Balears Expert Work-

shop. 7-11 May 2007, Palma de Mallorca,

Spain. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Pro-

ceedings No. 14. Rome: FAO. pp. 15-35.

Tacon, A. 2005. State of Information on

Salmon Aquaculture Feed and the Environ-

ment. Washington: World Wildlife Fund

Salmon Aquaculture Dialogue.


Tacon, A., Metian, M. 2008. Global over-

view on the use of fish meal and fish oil

in industrially compounded aquafeeds:

Trends and future prospects. Aquaculture.

285:146-158.

Troell, M., Tyedmers, P., Kautsky, N.,

Ronnback, P. 2004. Aquaculture and energy

use. In: Encyclopedia of Energy, vol. 1,

pp. 97-108. Netherlands: Elsevier, Inc.

Turchini, G., Bente, E., Torstensen, E.,

Ng, W. 2009. Fish oil replacement in finfish

nutrition. Rev Aquac. 1(1):10-57.

Turnock, B., Wilderbuer, T., Brown, E. 2005.

Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation: Gulf

of Alaska Arrowtooth Flounder. Anchorage,

AK: North Pacific Fishery Management

Council. 38 pp.

UK Energy Research Centre. 2009. Global

Oil Depletion Report 2009. www.ukerc.ac.

uk/support/Global%20Oil/%20Depletion.

UNESCO (United Nations Educational,

Scientific and Cultural Organization).

2005. United Nations Decade of Education

for Sustainable Development 2005–2014.

Paris: UNESCO.

UNICEF (United Nations Children’s

Fund). 2006. China: Education and Child

Development. New York: United Nations.

United Nations. 2008. World urbanization

prospects: The 2007 revision-Highlights.

New York: United Nations Tech Report E.04.

XIII.6.

Verdegem, M., Bosma, R., Verreth, H. 2006.

Reducing water use for animal production

through aquaculture. Water Resources De-

velopment. 22(1):101-113.

Watanabe, T. 2002. Strategies for further

development of aquatic feeds. Fish Sci.

68:242-252.

Watson, R., Pauly, D. 2001. Systematic

distortions in world fisheries catch trends.

Nature. 424:534-536.

Wertheimer, A.C., Heard, W.R., Smoker,

W.W. 2004. Effects of hatchery releases

and environmental variation on wild-stock

productivity: consequences for sea ranching


of pink salmon in Prince William Sound,

Alaska. In: Stock Enhancement and Sea

Ranching 2, eds. Leber, K.M., Kitada, S.,

Svasand, T., Blankenship, H.L., pp. 307-326.

Oxford: Blackwell Science.

World Fish Center. 2008. Rice–Fish Culture:

A Recipe for Higher Production. Raising Fish

in Rice Fields in South and Southeast Asia

Using Low-Cost Technology. Available at:

http://www.worldfishcenter.org/wfcms/HQ/

article.aspx?ID=158 (accessed 10 April 2010).

Zhou, Y., Yang, H., Hu, H., Liu, Y., Mao,

Y., Zhou, H., Xu, X., Zhang, F. 2006.

Bioredimation potential of the macroalga

Gracilaria lemaneiformis (Rhodophyta) inte-

grated into fed fish culture in coastal waters

of north China. Aquaculture. 252:264-276.

al

PAPER Sustainable Ecological Aquaculture Systems: The Need ... · a sustainability trajectory and...

Documents

Transcript of PAPER Sustainable Ecological Aquaculture Systems: The Need ... · a sustainability trajectory and...