DOCSLIB.ORG

79788SEC 2009 453 EN DOCUMENTDETRAVAIL F.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
79788SEC 2009 453 EN DOCUMENTDETRAVAIL F.Pdf EN EN EN COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, 8.4.2009 SEC(2009) 453 COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT accompanying the COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Building a sustainable future for aquaculture A new impetus for the Strategy for the Sustainable Development of European Aquaculture Impact Assessment {COM(2009) 162 final} {SEC(2009) 454} EN EN TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Procedural issues and consultation of Interested Parties ..............................................4 1.1. Introduction...................................................................................................................4 1.2. The consultation process...............................................................................................4 1.3. General overview on feedback and contributions received from the consultation exercise ......................................................................................................................................5 1.4. Interservice Steering Group..........................................................................................7 1.5. Impact assessment – board opinion ..............................................................................7 2. What issue/problem is the policy/proposal expected to tackle? ...................................8 2.1. What is aquaculture?.....................................................................................................8 2.2. Aquaculture as an answer to increasing demand for aquatic food ...............................9 2.3. Economic, social, and environmental dimensions of aquaculture..............................11 2.4. What is the problem and why is action required?.......................................................12 2.5. Main factors influencing the development of the aquaculture industry and underlying drivers of the problem.................................................................................................16 2.6. Who is affected? .........................................................................................................25 2.7. Does the EU have the right to act? .............................................................................26 3. What is the overall policy objective in terms of expected impacts?...........................28 3.1. General objective........................................................................................................28 3.2. Strategic and policy-orientated objectives..................................................................28 4. What main policy options are available to achieve the objective? .............................30 5. Analysis of impacts.....................................................................................................31 5.1. General considerations................................................................................................31 5.2. Possible action to contribute achieving the objectives and their incremental effect under Option 2 ......................................................................................................................36 5.3. Likely economic, social and environmental impacts..................................................42 5.4. Overall estimates of possible environmental and socio-economic impacts depending on aquaculture growth scenarios......................................................................................48 6. Comparing options......................................................................................................52 6.1. Comparing options......................................................................................................52 6.2. Preferred option..........................................................................................................58 7. Monitoring and evaluation..........................................................................................58 EN 2 EN ANNEX I ..................................................................................................................................60 ANNEX II.................................................................................................................................87 ANNEX III..............................................................................................................................106 ANNEX IV .............................................................................................................................122 EN 3 EN 1. PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES 1.1. Introduction This Impact Assessment accompanies the Commission’s communication for a “strategy for the sustainable development of European aquaculture”. It assesses and compares different possible options for the framework under which public authorities in the EU could take to provide the best conditions for sustainable growth of aquaculture in Europe, ensuring both adequate supplies of healthy seafood and compliance with high European standards (especially environmental and health protection). This document is without prejudice to the final content of the Strategy to be adopted by the Commission. It has to be highlighted that, given that the Commission Communication is a political initiative and envisages action for public authorities across a wide range of different policy areas, this document is mainly based on qualitative analyses. It cannot analyse the impacts of each individual action; nor can it foresee the evolution of the European aquaculture industry in the future, as this largely depends on the decisions and action economic operators. Any specific legislative proposals that may be presented subsequently to this Strategy for sustainable development of European aquaculture and that would normally require an impact assessment will be accompanied by separate specific impact assessments. This initiative is referred to under item 2008/MARE/012 in the Commission 2008 Work Programme. This impact assessment is based on the results of a broad stakeholder consultation exercise and internal and external data and reports. 1.2. The consultation process This initiative started in spring 2007 in the form of a broad consultation exercise conducted by the Commission (DG MARE, formerly DG FISH) on the opportunities for the development of Community aquaculture, with reference in particular to an earlier Communication of 2002 on an European aquaculture strategy (COM(2002)511 final). The Commission’s minimum standards for consultation have been met. The consultation phase lasted practically until the end of 2007 and was organised through three different types of consultation: • An internet-wide consultation exercise was initiated on 10 May 2007 (through “Your Voice in Europe” and the DG FISH – now DG MARE – website). In order to provide guidance and facilitate the contribution from any interested party, DG MARE prepared a consultation document, together with other Commission DGs (ENV, SANCO, RDT), highlighting the mains issues where opinions were sought. This consultation document was accompanied by background facts and figures on European aquaculture.1 This internet consultation exercise lasted until 16 July, but written contributions continued to be received later. • In parallel with the consultation published on the internet, specific consultation meetings were organised with representatives and members of each of the main stakeholders and civil society 1 The consultation documents can be found at the following address: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/governance/consultations/consultation_100507_en.htm. EN 4 EN groups, namely finfish producers, shellfish producers, the fish feed industry, NGOs, and social partners. A similar invitation for a specific consultation meeting was offered to the representatives of the aquatic food processing and marketing sector, but this invitation was declined. • As a third step, the Commission organised a large stakeholder conference in Brussels on 15-16 November 2007 in order to discuss the main challenges to the sustainable development of aquaculture in Europe and in particular the role of public authorities in this context.2 An overarching follow-up and information exchange on this initiative was conducted in the framework of the Advisory Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture (ACFA) and its Working Group 2, which is specifically dedicated to aquaculture. ACFA is the formal consultative body for the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). Both the ACFA plenary session and its Working group 2 meet several times a year.3 The initiative and consultation process were accompanied by a number of events on aquaculture organised by the European Parliament (Special hearings by the Intergroup on Sustainable Development in October 20074 and by the Committee on Fisheries in March 2008). The Council of Fisheries Ministers also held an informal lunchtime debate on aquaculture at their June 2008 meeting (under the Slovenian Presidency). Very recently, the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) also contributed to the organisation of an International Aquaculture Conference (Brussels, September 2008).5 1.3. General overview on feedback and contributions received from the consultation exercise Participants at each of the specific stakeholder meetings welcomed this initiative and all expressed their satisfaction at being consulted. Generally, these meetings were held in “listening mode” and provided participants with the chance to air their concerns and problems.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Offshore Aquaculture in the United States: Economic Considerations, Implications & Opportunities
    Offshore Aquaculture in the United States: Economic Considerations, Implications & Opportunities July 2008 U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration Silver Spring, Maryland NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS F/SPO-103 You may download an electronic version of this report from: http://aquaculture.noaa.gov This document should be cited as follows: Rubino, Michael (editor). 2008. Offshore Aquaculture in the United States: Economic Considerations, Implications & Opportunities. U.S. Department of Commerce; Silver Spring, MD; USA. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS F/SPO-103. 263 pages. For more information: NOAA Aquaculture Program 1315 East-West Hwy. SSMC #3 – Room 13117 Silver Spring MD 20910 (301) 713-9079 E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://aquaculture.noaa.gov Offshore Aquaculture in the United States: Economic Considerations, Implications & Opportunities Prepared by the NOAA Aquaculture Program From technical contributions by James L. Anderson, John Forster, Di Jin, James E. Kirkley, Gunnar Knapp, Colin E. Nash, Michael Rubino, Gina L. Shamshak, Diego Valderrama NOAA Aquaculture Program 1315 East-West Hwy. SSMC #3 – Room 13117 Silver Spring MD 20910 July 2008 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Carlos M. Gutierrez, Secretary NATIONAL OCEANIC & ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION Vice Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr. USN (Ret.), Administrator NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE James Balsiger, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries This page intentionally left blank. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1: Introduction …………………………………………………………….. 1 Michael Rubino Chapter 2: Economic Potential for U.S. Offshore Aquaculture: An Analytical Approach ………………………………………………. 15 Gunnar Knapp Chapter 3: Emerging Technologies in Marine Aquaculture ……………………….. 51 John Forster Chapter 4: Future Aquaculture Feeds and Feed Costs: The Role of Fish Meal and Fish Oil …………………………………… 73 Gina Shamshak & James Anderson Chapter 5: Lessons from the Development of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Gulf Council Aquaculture Faqs
    Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council Aquaculture Fishery Management Plan Frequently Asked Questions What is offshore aquaculture? Offshore aquaculture is the rearing of aquatic organisms in controlled environments (e.g., cages or net pens) in federally managed areas of the ocean. Federally managed areas of the Gulf of Mexico begin where state jurisdiction ends and extend 200 miles offshore, to the outer limit of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Why conduct aquaculture offshore? Offshore aquaculture is desirable for several reasons. First, there are fewer competing uses (e.g., fishing and recreation) farther from shore. Second, the deeper water makes it a desirable location with more stable water quality characteristics for rearing fish and shellfish. The stronger waterflows offshore also mitigate environmental effects such as nutrient and organic loading. Are there currently any offshore aquaculture operations in federal waters of the United States? Currently there are no commercial finfish offshore aquaculture operations in U.S. federal waters. There are currently 25 permit holders for live rock aquaculture in the EEZ. There are also several aquaculture operations conducting research and commercial production in state waters, off the coasts of California, New Hampshire, Hawaii, Washington, Maine, and Florida. Why did the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council develop a Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for regulating offshore marine aquaculture in the Gulf of Mexico? The current Federal permitting process for offshore aquaculture is of limited duration and is not intended for the large-scale production of fish, making commercial aquaculture in federal waters impracticable at this time. Offshore aquaculture could help meet consumers’ growing demand for seafood with high quality local supply, create jobs in coastal communities, help maintain working waterfronts, and reduce the nation’s dependence on seafood imports.
    [Show full text]
  • Maribe in Numbersin Numbers
    UNLOCKING THE POTENTIAL OF MULTI-USE OF SPACE AND MULTI-USE PLATFORMS MARIBEMARIBE IN NUMBERSIN NUMBERS 11 PARTNERS from 7 EUROPEAN COUNTRIES 4 SEA BASINS MEDITERRANEAN, BALTIC, ALTANTIC & CARIBBEAN 24 BLUE GROWTH/BLUE ECONOMY COMBINATIONS 9 PROJECTS 2 ADVISORY SESSIONS MARINEMARINE INVESTMENT INVESTMENT FOR FORTHE BLUETHE BLUE ECONOMY ECONOMY MARIBE PROJECT BOOKLET: WORKPACKAGES, CASE STUDIES AND RESULTS Project coordinator This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 652629 UNLOCKING THE POTENTIAL OF MULTI-USE UNLOCKING THE POTENTIAL OF MULTI-USE OF SPACE AND MULTI-USE PLATFORMS OF SPACE AND MULTI-USE PLATFORMS Contents Partner Organisations and List of Abbreviations ................................................................................ .2 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 3 WP Summaries ................................................................................................................................... 6 Work Package -­‐ 4 Socio-­‐Economic Trends and EU Policy in the Offshore Economy ..................... 6 WP 5 -­‐ Te chnical and Non-­‐technical Challenges, Regional and Sectoral......................... ............... 9 WP 6 -­‐ In vestment community consultation and commitment....................................... ............. 10 WP 7 -­‐ Business Model Mapping and Assessment......................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Industrial Ocean Fish Farming
    Industrial Ocean Fish Farming quaculture is one of the fastest growing food production sectors. More A than half of seafood consumed globally is now farmed, and aquaculture recently surpassed global beef production.1 Unfortunately, one of the most prevalent forms of marine aquaculture is fraught with environmental and social havoc. What is Industrial Ocean Fish Farming? Industrial Ocean Fish Farming – sometimes referred to as open ocean or offshore aquaculture – is the mass breeding, rearing, and harvesting of seafood in areas of the ocean that are beyond coastal influence. Mainstream, industrial offshore aquaculture practices are essentially underwater factory farms with devastating environmental and socio-economic impacts. The most popular (and most risky) method of industrial ocean fish farming occurs in underwater net pens, pods, and Photo by NOAA National Ocean Service cages. The raising of finfish, such as salmon and yellowtail, in these difficult-to-manage atmospheres is most problematic because the nets and cages allow for free and unregulated exchange between the farmed fish and the surrounding ocean environment. As detailed below, this open exchange allows for fish escapes and spills, heightened threats to native wildlife, and the introduction of non-native pests and diseases, among numerous other harms. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration currently considers industrial ocean fish farming as a fishing activity under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq. Simply because fish are removed from the industrial farm’s nets at time of harvest does not mean the activity is the same as fishing. Indeed, these activities are farming – just as a chicken or pig is raised for human consumption on a land-based farm – and should be regulated as such.
    [Show full text]
  • European Aquaculture Competitiveness: Limitations and Possible Strategies
    DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR INTERNAL POLICIES POLICY DEPARTMENT DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR INTERNAL POLICIES STRUCTURAL AND COHESION POLICIESB POLICY DEPARTMENT AgricultureAgriculture and Rural and Development Rural Development STRUCTURAL AND COHESION POLICIES B CultureCulture and Education and Education Role The Policy Departments are research units that provide specialised advice Fisheries to committees, inter-parliamentary delegations and other parliamentary bodies. Fisheries RegionalRegional Development Development Policy Areas TransportTransport and andTourism Tourism Agriculture and Rural Development Culture and Education Fisheries Regional Development Transport and Tourism Documents Visit the European Parliament website: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/studies PHOTO CREDIT: iStock International Inc., Photodisk, Phovoir DIRECTORATE GENERAL FOR INTERNAL POLICIES POLICY DEPARTMENT B: STRUCTURAL AND COHESION POLICIES FISHERIES EUROPEAN AQUACULTURE COMPETITIVENESS: LIMITATIONS AND POSSIBLE STRATEGIES STUDY This document was requested by the European Parliament's Committee on Fisheries. AUTHOR(S) John Bostock, University of Stirling Institute of Aquaculture (UoS). Francis Murray, University of Stirling Institute of Aquaculture (UoS) James Muir, University of Stirling Institute of Aquaculture (UoS) Trevor Telfer, University of Stirling, Institute of Aquaculture (UoS) Alistair Lane, European Aquaculture Society (EAS) Nikos Papanikos, APC Advanced Planning – Consulting SA (APC S.A) Philippos Papegeorgiou, APC Advanced Planning – Consulting SA (APC S.A) Victoria Alday-Sanz RESPONSIBLE ADMINISTRATOR Jesús Iborra Martín Policy Department Structural and Cohesion Policies European Parliament B-1047 Brussels E-mail: [email protected] LINGUISTIC VERSIONS Original: EN Translation: DE, ES, FR, IT. ABOUT THE EDITOR To contact the Policy Department or to subscribe to its monthly newsletter please write to: [email protected] Manuscript completed in September 2009. Brussels, © European Parliament, 2009.
    [Show full text]
  • Offshore Aquaculture in the Southern California Bight
    OFFSHORE AQUACULTURE in the Southern California Bight April 28-29, 2015 Offshore Aquaculture in the Southern California Bight This summarizes the major findings and recommendations of an aquaculture workshop held on April 28-29, 2015 at the Aquarium of the Pacific. A list of participants and observers is located in Appendix 1. The meeting agenda, com- prehensive minutes of the meeting, and copies of the slides used in the presen- tations and the report can be found at: www.aquariumofpacific.org/mcri/info/ offshore_aquaculture_in_the_southern_california_bight Image courtesy of Blue Ocean Mariculture AQUACULTURE WORKSHOP REPORT 3 4 AQUACULTURE WORKSHOP REPORT Acknowledgements The workshop and proceedings are a result making their Event Space available for the of work sponsored by the California Sea meeting at no cost. Thanks to our rappor- Grant College Program, Project R/Q-136, teurs, Annalisa Batanides, Rachel Fuhrman under Award NA140AR4170075 from and Jonathan MacKay. We also thank Chris National Sea Grant, NOAA, U.S. Department Hernandez, Derek Balsillie, and Victor of Commerce, with funds from the State Vallejo for AV support and Lisa Wagner for of California. her advice on the development and distri- bution of the on-line workshop survey. We The workshop organizers would like to thank acknowledge with gratitude Rich Wilson, the many people who have contributed Seatone Consulting for his superb facilitation time, expertise, and advice to this project. of the workshop. We would also like to thank The workshop would not have been pos- Randy Lovell, state aquaculture coordinator sible without the dedicated efforts of all the with the California Department of Fish and participants.
    [Show full text]
  • Open Ocean Aquaculture
    Open Ocean Aquaculture Harold F. Upton Analyst in Natural Resources Policy Eugene H. Buck Specialist in Natural Resources Policy August 9, 2010 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RL32694 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Open Ocean Aquaculture Summary Open ocean aquaculture is broadly defined as the rearing of marine organisms in exposed areas beyond significant coastal influence. Open ocean aquaculture employs less control over organisms and the surrounding environment than do inshore and land-based aquaculture, which are often undertaken in enclosures, such as ponds. When aquaculture operations are located beyond coastal state jurisdiction, within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ; generally 3 to 200 nautical miles from shore), they are regulated primarily by federal agencies. Thus far, only a few aquaculture research facilities have operated in the U.S. EEZ. To date, all commercial aquaculture facilities have been sited in nearshore waters under state or territorial jurisdiction. Development of commercial aquaculture facilities in federal waters is hampered by an unclear regulatory process for the EEZ, and technical uncertainties related to working in offshore areas. Regulatory uncertainty has been identified by the Administration as the major barrier to developing open ocean aquaculture. Uncertainties often translate into barriers to commercial investment. Potential environmental and economic impacts and associated controversy have also likely contributed to slowing expansion. Proponents of open ocean aquaculture believe it is the beginning of the “blue revolution”—a period of broad advances in culture methods and associated increases in production. Critics raise concerns about environmental protection and potential impacts on existing commercial fisheries.
    [Show full text]
  • Aquaculture and Marine Ecosystems: Friend Or Foe?
    Published on OpenChannels (https://www.openchannels.org) Aquaculture and marine ecosystems: Friend or foe? Aquaculture production is an increasingly important component of global seafood production. Seafood production from aquaculture has expanded nearly six-folds ince 1990, while capture fisheries production has remained relatively stagnant. According to the UN Food and Agricultural Organization’s most recent analysis of global fisheries and aquaculture, seafood production from aquaculture [i] (excluding seaweeds) exceeded production from marine capture fisheries for the first time in 2016. Aquaculture’s reputation is mixed, however. It obviously has the potential to feed many people, but it has is associated with an umber of observed and potential negative environmental impacts, including: Altering and destroying habitat, such as mangrove forests, for aquaculture facilities Escapes of farmed species into the wild, enabling species invasions and altering the genetics of wild populations Spreading diseases and parasites to wild populations Releasing fecal waste, uneaten food, and pesticides into the local environment, decreasing water quality Contributing to the overfishing of wild fish populations because of the use of wild fish to feed farmed fish. This negative view obscures the incredible diversity of aquaculture types and their diverse interactions with marine environments. Aquaculture enterprises vary in: What species are cultivated (e.g., seaweeds, mollusks, crustaceans, finfish) and what they feed on (e.g., whether they are photosynthesizers, filter feeders, deposit feeders, herbivores, carnivores) How intense production is (e.g., total biomass per cage, the degree to which fertilizer and supplementary feeds are used) The type of environment production takes place in (e.g., freshwater streams or lakes, fully enclosed tanks, ponds, intertidal, sheltered bays, open ocean, sea pens, ponds, tanks).
    [Show full text]
  • Marine Fish Farming in Spain
    Marine fish farming in Spain Basurco B., Larrazabal G. in Muir J. (ed.), Basurco B. (ed.). Mediterranean offshore mariculture Zaragoza : CIHEAM Options Méditerranéennes : Série B. Etudes et Recherches; n. 30 2000 pages 45-56 Article available on line / Article disponible en ligne à l’adresse : -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://om.ciheam.org/article.php?IDPDF=600647 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To cite this article / Pour citer cet article -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Basurco B., Larrazabal G. Marine fish farming in Spain. In : Muir J. (ed.), Basurco B. (ed.). Mediterranean offshore mariculture. Zaragoza : CIHEAM, 2000. p. 45-56 (Options Méditerranéennes : Série B. Etudes et Recherches; n. 30) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.ciheam.org/ http://om.ciheam.org/ CIHEAM - Options Mediterraneennes 0DULQHILVKIDUPLQJLQ6SDLQ %%DVXUFR DQG*/DUUD]DEDO *Centro Internacional de Altos Estudios Agronómicos Mediterráneos, Instituto Agronómico Mediterráneo de Zaragoza, Apdo. 202, 50080
    [Show full text]
  • Evolution of Integrated Open Aquaculture Systemsin
    sustainability Article Evolution of Integrated Open Aquaculture Systems in Hungary: Results from a Case Study József Popp 1,László Váradi 2, Emese Békefi 3, András Péteri 3, Gerg˝oGyalog 3, Zoltán Lakner 4 and Judit Oláh 5,* ID 1 Faculty of Economics and Business, Institute of Sectoral Economics and Methodology, University of Debrecen, 4032 Debrecen, Hungary; [email protected] 2 Hungarian Aquaculture and Fisheries Inter-Branch Organisation (MA-HAL), Ballagi Mór u. 8, 1118 Budapest, Hungary; [email protected] 3 Research Institute for Fisheries and Aquaculture (NARIC HAKI), National Agricultural Research and Innovation Centre, 8 Anna-liget, 5540 Szarvas, Hungary; bekefi[email protected] (E.B.); [email protected] (A.P.); [email protected] (G.G.) 4 Szent István University, Faculty of Food Science, 1118 Budapest, Hungary; [email protected] 5 Faculty of Economics and Business, Institute of Applied Informatics and Logistics, University of Debrecen, 4032 Debrecen, Hungary * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +36-202-869-085 Received: 20 December 2017; Accepted: 9 January 2018; Published: 12 January 2018 Abstract: This article presents the history of integrated farming in aquaculture through a Hungarian case study. The development of Hungarian integrated aquaculture is aligned with global trends. In the previous millennium, the utilization of the nutrients introduced into the system was the main aspect of the integration. In Hungary, technologies that integrated fish production with growing crops and animal husbandry appeared, including for example: large-scale fish-cum-rice production; fish-cum-duck production; and integrated pig-fish farming which were introduced in the second half of the 20th century.
    [Show full text]
  • Mapping the Global Potential for Marine Aquaculture
    ARTICLES DOI: 10.1038/s41559-017-0257-9 Mapping the global potential for marine aquaculture Rebecca R. Gentry1*, Halley E. Froehlich2, Dietmar Grimm3, Peter Kareiva4, Michael Parke5, Michael Rust6, Steven D. Gaines1 and Benjamin S. Halpern1,2,7 Marine aquaculture presents an opportunity for increasing seafood production in the face of growing demand for marine pro- tein and limited scope for expanding wild fishery harvests. However, the global capacity for increased aquaculture production from the ocean and the relative productivity potential across countries are unknown. Here, we map the biological production potential for marine aquaculture across the globe using an innovative approach that draws from physiology, allometry and growth theory. Even after applying substantial constraints based on existing ocean uses and limitations, we find vast areas in nearly every coastal country that are suitable for aquaculture. The development potential far exceeds the space required to meet foreseeable seafood demand; indeed, the current total landings of all wild-capture fisheries could be produced using less than 0.015% of the global ocean area. This analysis demonstrates that suitable space is unlikely to limit marine aquaculture development and highlights the role that other factors, such as economics and governance, play in shaping growth trajectories. We suggest that the vast amount of space suitable for marine aquaculture presents an opportunity for countries to develop aquaculture in a way that aligns with their economic, environmental and social objectives. s the human population looks set to reach 10 billion people To rectify this shortfall, we drew on physiology and growth theory by 20501, our food systems will be under intense pressure coupled with environmental data to quantify and map the global to produce animal protein for an increasing population2.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Issues of Fish Farming in Offshore Waters: Perspectives, Concerns and Research Needs
    Vol. 1: 57–70, 2010 AQUACULTURE ENVIRONMENT INTERACTIONS Published online August 4 doi: 10.3354/aei00007 Aquacult Environ Interact OPENPEN ACCESSCCESS REVIEW Environmental issues of fish farming in offshore waters: perspectives, concerns and research needs Marianne Holmer* Institute of Biology, University of Southern Denmark, Campusvej 55, DK-5230 Odense M, Denmark ABSTRACT: Offshore fish farming is predicted to increase in the near future driven by the lack of coastal space. In this review I discuss the environmental issues of offshore farming from experience in coastal farms. Even more so than in coastal farms, a rapid and wide dispersal of dissolved waste prod- ucts is predicted for offshore farms. Despite wider dispersal of particulate waste products, fast sinking rates of feed pellets and faeces suggest organic enrichment of the bottom sediments in farm vicinities (hundreds of meters), although at lower loading rates than coastal farms. The benthic response to organic enrichment is unpredictable due to lack of knowledge from shelf areas. Most shelf sediments are considered carbon limited and fish farm waste products may stimulate the benthic communities, but due to the sparse abundance and absence of pollutant-tolerant benthic fauna, the capacity of ben- thic communities to assimilate organic matter may be limited. Instead, microbial decomposition of waste products could become important, leading to increased oxygen demand and accumulation of sulfides in the sediments. This may negatively affect benthic biodiversity. Interactions with wild fish (aggregation, genetic impacts, spreading of disease and parasites) are expected, but difficult to pre- dict, as the composition of species attracted to offshore farms will be different from that of species attracted to coastal farms.
    [Show full text]