ArticlePDF Available

Feeding Aquaculture Growth through Globalization: Exploitation of Marine Ecosystems for Fishmeal

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Like other animal production systems, aquaculture has developed into a highly globalized trade-dependent industry. A major part of aquaculture technology requires fishmeal to produce the feed for farmed species. By tracing and mapping patterns of trade flows globally for fishmeal we show the aquaculture industry's increasing use of marine ecosystems worldwide. We provide an in-depth analysis of the growth decades (1980–2000) of salmon farming in Norway and shrimp farming in Thailand. Both countries, initially net exporters of fishmeal, increased the number of import source nations of fishmeal, peaking in the mid-1990s. Thailand started locally and expanded into sources from all over the globe, including stocks from the North Sea through imports from Denmark, while Norway predominantly relied on northern region source nations to feed farmed salmon. In 2000, both have two geographically alternate sources of fishmeal supply: the combination of Chile and Peru in South America, and a regional complement. We find that fishmeal trade for aquaculture is not an issue of using ecosystems of the South for production in the North, but of trade between nations with industrialized fisheries linked to productive marine ecosystems. We discuss the expansion of marine ecosystem appropriation for the global aquaculture industry and observed shifts in the trade of fishmeal between marine areas over time. Globalization, through information technology and transport systems, has made it possible to rapidly switch between marine areas for fishmeal supply in economically connected food producing systems. But the stretching of the production chain from local to global and the ability to switch between marine areas worldwide seem to undermine the industry's incentives to respond to changes in the capacity of ecosystems to supply fish. For example, trade information does not reveal the species of fish that the fishmeal is made of much less its origins and there is lack of feedback between economic performance and impacts on marine ecosystem services. Responding to environmental feedback is essential to avoid the trap of mining the marine resources on which the aquaculture industry depends. There are grounds to suggest the need for some global rules and institutions that create incentives for seafood markets to account for ecosystem support and capacity.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Global Environmental Change 17 (2007) 238–249
Feeding aquaculture growth through globalization: Exploitation of
marine ecosystems for fishmeal
Lisa Deutsch
a,b,
, Sara Gra
¨slund
a
, Carl Folke
a,b,c
, Max Troell
c
, Miriam Huitric
b
,
Nils Kautsky
a
, Louis Lebel
d
a
Department of Systems Ecology, Natural Resource Management, Stockholm University, S-106 91 Stockholm, Sweden
b
Centre for Transdisciplinary Environmental Research, Stockholm University, S-106 91 Stockholm, Sweden
c
Beijer International Institute of Ecological Economics, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm, Sweden
d
Unit for Social and Environmental Research, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand
Received 10 May 2005; received in revised form 27 July 2006; accepted 16 August 2006
Abstract
Like other animal production systems, aquaculture has developed into a highly globalized trade-dependent industry. A major part of
aquaculture technology requires fishmeal to produce the feed for farmed species. By tracing and mapping patterns of trade flows globally
for fishmeal we show the aquaculture industry’s increasing use of marine ecosystems worldwide. We provide an in-depth analysis of the
growth decades (1980–2000) of salmon farming in Norway and shrimp farming in Thailand. Both countries, initially net exporters of
fishmeal, increased the number of import source nations of fishmeal, peaking in the mid-1990s. Thailand started locally and expanded
into sources from all over the globe, including stocks from the North Sea through imports from Denmark, while Norway predominantly
relied on northern region source nations to feed farmed salmon. In 2000, both have two geographically alternate sources of fishmeal
supply: the combination of Chile and Peru in South America, and a regional complement. We find that fishmeal trade for aquaculture is
not an issue of using ecosystems of the South for production in the North, but of trade between nations with industrialized fisheries
linked to productive marine ecosystems. We discuss the expansion of marine ecosystem appropriation for the global aquaculture industry
and observed shifts in the trade of fishmeal between marine areas over time. Globalization, through information technology and
transport systems, has made it possible to rapidly switch between marine areas for fishmeal supply in economically connected food
producing systems. But the stretching of the production chain from local to global and the ability to switch between marine areas
worldwide seem to undermine the industry’s incentives to respond to changes in the capacity of ecosystems to supply fish. For example,
trade information does not reveal the species of fish that the fishmeal is made of much less its origins and there is lack of feedback
between economic performance and impacts on marine ecosystem services. Responding to environmental feedback is essential to avoid
the trap of mining the marine resources on which the aquaculture industry depends. There are grounds to suggest the need for some
global rules and institutions that create incentives for seafood markets to account for ecosystem support and capacity.
r2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Globalization; Aquaculture; Fishmeal trade; Ecosystem support; Sustainable fisheries; Shrimp farming; Salmon farming; Seafood production
1. Introduction
We are concerned with feeding our growing world
population and argue that to insure food security we must
focus on maintaining ecosystem performance (Folke et al.,
2004) as the basis of efforts to increase yield and
production outputs. Today, there is heightened concern
about the state of the world’s oceans when three-quarters
of global fish stocks are fully or over-exploited (Botsford
et al., 1997;Garcia and de Leiva Moreno, 2000). Fish
provides almost 20% of global animal protein consumed
by humans (FAO, 2003). Aquaculture is often discussed,
optimistically, as a method to augment dwindling fish
ARTICLE IN PRESS
www.elsevier.com/locate/gloenvcha
0959-3780/$ - see front matter r2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.08.004
Corresponding author. Department of Systems Ecology, Natural
Resource Management, Stockholm University, S-106 91 Stockholm,
Sweden. Tel.: +468 16 17 77; fax: +468 15 84 17.
E-mail address: lisad@ctm.su.se (L. Deutsch).
catches. It is assumed that it will contribute heavily to the
global food supply as the human population continues to
grow. However, recent research has challenged whether
some marine aquaculture technologies can replace ecosys-
tem production and increase global food security or if it,
instead, not only increases demand on other fish species as
inputs to aquaculture feed, but also reduces overall protein
available for human consumption (Naylor et al., 2000). In
this paper, our discussion of intensive aquaculture refers to
such production, where high yields are generated through
the use of commercial fish-based feed inputs.
In the area of fisheries exploitation, we currently are
presented with two options: (1) depend on intensive
aquaculture for marine food supplies, and/or (2) restore
and practice ecosystem management of the world’s fish
stocks. We assert that industry actions and consumer
acceptance supported by government policies have led to a
steady increase in aquaculture production. Considering
that we are already fishing down the food web, and farming
and marketing up the food chain, we conjecture that
intensive aquaculture is the chosen alternative (Pauly et al.,
1998).
But this type of aquaculture is not our only option: there
are less resource intensive ways to produce fish and
shellfish protein. Examples include culturing herbivorous
fish species or bivalves, and creating integrated aquaculture
systems. Further, we should acknowledge that the focus of
aquaculture of shrimp and salmon is to generate revenues,
not to directly provide food. Intensive aquaculture of cash
crop species should be discussed in such a context.
In order to analyze whether a given type of aquaculture
is a sustainable contributor to global food security, we need
to understand the production system and the underlying
resources upon which the industry depends. Aquaculture
has been practiced for over 2000 years (Tacon and De
Silva, 1997), as an integrated system, recycling wastes and
using those nutrients that humans cannot. But modern
intensive aquaculture systems are in many respects
comparable to terrestrial, high-intensity animal production
systems (Folke and Kautsky, 1989). Like the latter, an
important development in the aquaculture industry is
globalization of the production–distribution–consumption
chain.
Aquaculture production and consumption take place on
regional and global scales. For example, about 30% of
global shrimp consumption is supplied by aquaculture
(FishStat Plus, 2004). Modern intensive aquaculture also
depends on the global market for supplying production
inputs including fertilizer, commercial feed, antibiotics and
pesticides. Today, 40% of aquaculture production is
dependent on industrial feeds with a major part of their
origins in marine and coastal ecosystems (New and
Wijkstro
¨m, 2002).
Aquaculture has grown with enormous strides in the last
20 years. Cultured seafood production (not including
aquatic plants) has increased more than seven-fold by
weight (from 5 to 36 million tonnes (Mt)) between 1980
and 2000 and the value generated has grown from USD 9
billion in 1984, the first year that statistics are available, to
USD 52 billion in 2000 (FIGIS, 2004). This economic
growth has lead to the adoption of aquaculture as a
preferred development path for many nations despite its
environmental and social shortcomings (Lebel et al., 2002;
Primavera, 2000).
Often, as this industry has grown, local supplies of
production inputs have proven inadequate with respect to
both quantities and qualities to support industry needs and
these inputs have then been imported (New and Wijk-
stro
¨m, 1990). The success of the salmon and shrimp
aquaculture industries, combined with the existing supply
market developed for terrestrial meat production, resulted
in an easy entrance into the global feed market (Naylor et
al., 2003). This development has driven the lengthening of
the production chain that Lebel et al. (2002) term
‘stretching’. Stretching of the food production–distribu-
tion–consumption system refers not only to the lengthening
of geographical distance between input suppliers, produ-
cers and consumers, but also to the increase in number of
agents, and thus the overall complexity of the produc-
tion–consumption system.
Globalization is certainly not the only driver of
aquaculture industry development. Policies and practices
of agencies and governmental organizations (i.e., liberal
investment policies, subsidies, development aid) encour-
aged development of the industry in the first place but
failed in many cases to develop and/or implement
environmental policies (Eagle et al., 2004;Huitric et al.,
2002). Moreover, corporate interests have been the
dominant driver of industry development (Lebel et al.,
2002).
There are many issues to consider in an evaluation of
globalized aquaculture, including: scale of growth, i.e. local
activities are now global and increasing; rapidity of growth,
e.g. technology for fishing, distributing, and selling;
implications for other food sectors, e.g. effects on produc-
tion, food availability and food security.
In this study, we focus solely on the scale of growth of
the intensive aquaculture industry. We discuss the globa-
lized production chain of the industry and analyze the
structure and trade flows of the feed input necessary for
current production systems. We concentrate on one key
protein source as input to feed, fishmeal.
1
We have not
attempted to analyze remaining portions of the chain, e.g.,
distribution and consumption, in detail. Through our
analysis, we illuminate some of the challenges facing
aquaculture production.
We begin by describing the connection between aqua-
culture production and use of fishmeal through the
ARTICLE IN PRESS
1
Fish oil is a key input into feed that is often grouped together with
fishmeal. Presently, it cannot be excluded or replaced, and, in fact, fish oil
supply appears to be even more limited than fishmeal. However, since fish
oil is a co-product of fishmeal production, i.e. it is derived from the same
resource as meal, we have chosen not address it separately in this paper.
L. Deutsch et al. / Global Environmental Change 17 (2007) 238–249 239
dependence of the industry on commercial feed and the
fishmeal in this feed. We then identify a pattern of
increasing import dependence as a national industry grows
and quantify the level of imported ecosystem support
(dependency on fishmeal imports) highlighting the indus-
try’s embeddedness in the global food production market.
Next, we discern the sources of the fishmeal usage
(production, imports, exports and consumption) for the
two case studies of Thailand and Norway by mapping out
the trade flows between 1980 and 2000. This is the period of
major expansion of the commercial aquaculture sector,
mainly shrimp and salmon, in the two countries, respec-
tively. We discuss the expansion of the size, number and
location of marine support areas, and whether shifts occur
over time. We were unable to obtain statistics for fishmeal
usage by the aquaculture sector alone, i.e. data also include
fishmeal usage by other industries. However, the evidence
we present herein in combination with other sources lead
us to believe that it is the aquaculture industry that
controls fishmeal supplies, even at the expense of other
industries (Hardy and Tacon, 2002;Seafeeds, 2003)
because other sectors can substitute for fishmeal.
Data on production of fishmeal, as well as fisheries and
aquaculture production were derived from the FishStat
Plus database of the FAO Fisheries Department (FishStat
Plus, 2004). The UN database FIGIS/FIDI was also
accessed for some trade values (FIGIS, 2004). Trade
statistics were derived from the Comtrade database
(COMTRADE, 2004). The Comtrade data are imports of
fishmeal classified as unfit for human consumption (SITC
rev. 2 code 08.142).
The global scope of the findings is then discussed in the
context of sustainable seafood production. We suggest,
given the worldwide overexploitation of fish resources, that
seafood production is already following the path of an
expanding aquaculture sector aiming at substituting farm-
ing for fishing. This development may be a form of a social
trap (Costanza, 1994) that unwittingly results in more,
rather than less, exploitation of marine ecosystems, with
unintended effects. We conclude that a global commitment
to revive ocean productivity and diversity requires institu-
tional mechanisms that take into account the aggregate
impacts of production–consumption systems and, through
negotiations, distributes clear responsibilities for improv-
ing practices of all actors involved including consumers.
2. Dependence of aquaculture on fishmeal
Aquaculture (not including aquatic plants) has grown
from providing 6% of global fish supplies by weight in
1980 (FishStat Plus, 2004) to over 27% in 2000 (Tacon,
2003a). Projections indicate continued increases for all
types of aquaculture. Currently, carp dominates with 44%
of all aquaculture production by volume and 24% by value
(Tacon, 2003a). Shrimp aquaculture has grown from
supplying 4% of total shrimp production to 27% in
2000. Salmon aquaculture now provides almost 60% of
total salmon production, up from 1% in 1980. Total
salmon production has tripled since 1980, but salmon
aquaculture has increased 127 times.
Although all aquaculture sectors are growing, the shrimp
and salmon industries have undergone especially rapid
expansion because of economic incentives (Lebel et al.,
2002). During the 1980s, shrimp production grew at an
average of 25% annually; presently growth is around 5%
(Tacon, 2003a). Total shrimp aquaculture production
represents 3% of total aquaculture volumes, but 15% of
total value. In 2000, a single dominant species Peneaus
monodon was ranked as number 20 of all cultured species
by weight, but as number one by value, generating 8% of
total fish production value worldwide (Tacon, 2003a).
Meanwhile, the value of farmed salmon increased 16 times
since 1984 from USD 195 million to USD 3.3 billion
(FIGIS, 2004), and between 1980 and 2000, global annual
output growth averaged 27% (Guttormsen, 2002).
2.1. Commercial feeds in aquaculture
Almost 40% of all aquaculture production is now firmly
dependent on commercial feed. This is especially true of
high value carnivorous species, like shrimp, salmon and
trout whose feed contains large portions of marine inputs
in the form of fishmeal (Tacon, 2002). The percentage of
farms using commercial feeds varies from 100% for salmon
and trout to 83% in marine shrimp to 38% in carp farms
(Table 1). The trend towards ever-increasing usage of
commercial feeds took place more rapidly than anticipated
by the industry. In 1990, it was estimated that the
percentage of shrimp farms using commercial feed in
2000 would be 52% (New and Wijkstro
¨m, 1990). Presently,
75–80% of all farmed shrimp are grown on commercial
feed and it is proposed that commercial feeds will soon
replace farm-made feeds in most shrimp farming (Tacon,
2002). Moreover, major volume producers, particularly
carp, are also increasing their usage of commercial feed.
This is not because these largely herbivorous fish need it,
but because the improved growth rate raises farmers’
profits. That this is possible is a good indication that
fishmeal may be too cheap and/or that some regulation of
its use may be needed. With the exception for the El Nin
˜o
year of 1998, prices for fishmeal have been stable around
USD 400/tonne between 1994 and 2005 (FAO, 2006). Until
recently, Asian carp farmers used only natural foods in
ponds (Hardy and Tacon, 2002), whereas in 2000 they used
almost 7 Mt of feed (Hardy and Tacon, 2002;Tacon, 2002).
Since carp feed accounted for almost 60% of all fish feed
production, this change could have the greatest overall
impact on fishmeal quantities demanded due to the sheer
volume of production.
2.2. Fishmeal in commercial feeds
Presently, capture fisheries yield 110–130 Mt of seafood
annually (FishStat Plus, 2004). Of this total, 70 Mt goes
ARTICLE IN PRESS
L. Deutsch et al. / Global Environmental Change 17 (2007) 238–249240
directly to human consumption, 30 Mt is discarded and
30 Mt becomes fishmeal (Naylor et al., 2000). In 1988,
commercial aquaculture feeds used approximately 8% of
global fishmeal supplies, in 2000 consumption was over
one-third (35%), and use is estimated to approach 70% by
2010 (New and Wijkstro
¨m, 2002;Tacon, 2003c). The
remainder is used in livestock feed, particularly for
chickens and pigs (Barlow, 2002). The proportion of
fishmeal used for feed for different aquaculture species
varies highly (see Table 1). Thailand is the single largest
producer of cultured shrimp, with over 20% of world
shrimp aquaculture production (FishStat Plus, 2004).
Approximately, 90% of the country’s farmed shrimp
production is P. monodon and it is estimated that
30–50% of their feed is fishmeal (Hardy and Tacon,
2002;Tacon, 2002). Presently, salmon, shrimp and trout
aquaculture alone account for almost 50% of all fishmeal
use in aquaculture (Hardy and Tacon, 2002), but provide
less than 10% of fish production volumes.
While significant research is underway to reduce the
percentage of fishmeal in feed, the success of these efforts is
unclear (Hardy, 1999;Tacon, 2004). In general, fishmeal
protein has not proven highly substitutable (Sugiura et al.,
2000 cited in Hardy and Tacon, 2002;Webster et al., 1999).
Various alternatives to fish protein in feeds are being
evaluated, including waste from seafood processing plants;
terrestrial animal by-product meals (Tacon, 2002); syn-
thetic amino acids (as used in livestock feed (Deutsch and
Bjo
¨rklund, unpublished manuscript); agricultural by-pro-
ducts, such as palm kernal expellents (Tacon, 2002); or
unicellular bacteria, fungi and algae (Tacon, 2002).
However, it remains to be seen whether these alternatives
are economical and can actually be used in commercial
aquaculture; some present potential human health risks,
for example fish wastes often contain toxic contaminants
(Hites et al., 2004). While industry acknowledges the
problem and the portion of fishmeal in feed is in fact
decreasing in several species—increases in production
volumes, especially for such dominant species as carp,
has meant that efficiency increases have been more than
counterbalanced by growth in production (Goldburg et al.,
2001).
The aquaculture industry does not perceive increased
demands for fishmeal as a potentially insurmountable
problem. It is predicted instead that aquaculture will
increase its use of fishmeal at the expense of pig and
poultry production because these animals can substitute
vegetable proteins, such as soybeans, in their diets
(Seafeeds, 2003) and use synthetic amino acids. This has
indeed been the pattern of development historically, since
the amount of fishmeal used in the animal feed industries
has remained relatively constant between 25 and 34 Mt
(Tacon, 2003c), while the aquaculture sector has continu-
ously increased its use of fishmeal (see Box 1).
3. Sources of fishmeal for aquaculture
Annual global fishmeal production was below 5 Mt in
1980. Since 1985, production has remained between 6 and
7 Mt/year, with the notable exceptions during El Nin
˜o
years, which in 1987 and 1998 caused significant produc-
tion decreases (FishStat Plus, 2004).
In the 1980s, Japan, Chile, Peru and the USSR
dominated production. High Chinese production figures
in the 1980s may reflect incomplete statistics rather than
actual high production levels (Watson and Pauly, 2001).
During the 1990s, Peru, Chile and China were the largest
producers. In 2000, Peru was the dominant fishmeal
producer, providing as much as one-third of global
production; other large producers are Thailand, Denmark,
USA, Norway and Iceland.
About 50–60% of fishmeal production was exported
during 1980–2000. Chile was the largest exporter through-
out the 1980s, after which Peru became dominant.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 1
Estimated fishmeal and commercial fish feed usage for selected aquaculture species in 2000
Total aquaculture
production 1000 t
Total feed
consumption 1000 t
Feed use
(%)
Fishmeal content in
feed (%)
Feed conversion
ratio
Fishmeal used
1000 t
Marine shrimp 1143 1670 83 23 1.7–2.1 372
Freshwater
crustaceans
413 388 42 23 1–1.3
Marine fish 603 902 62 42 2.9–3.7 415
Salmon 1009 1636 100 40 2.6–3.3 454
Trout 603 551 100 30 1.5 176
Milkfish 462 313 42 9 0.33–0.42
Carp, using feed 15,525 6991 38 5 0.15–0.19 350
Tilapia 1257 776 42 6 0.24–0.29
Catfish 415 505 86 3 0.28–0.35 15
Eels 233 348 80 50 3.4–4.2 173
Total incl minor
species
35,487 12,527 2115
Sources: Hardy and Tacon (2002), Pike and Barlow (2002), Tacon (2002, 2003a, c), FishStat Plus (2004) and Tacon, Aquatic Farms, pers. comm.
Predicted fishmeal usage for 2010 estimated at 2.831 Mt (Barlow cited in Hardy and Tacon, 2002) if use at current FCR and content levels fishmeal usage
would be at 4.081 Mt by 2010.
L. Deutsch et al. / Global Environmental Change 17 (2007) 238–249 241
Denmark, Germany, Japan and Norway were also among
the largest exporters during the 1980s, and Iceland joined
their ranks as Japan ceased export production in the 1990s
(FishStat Plus, 2004).
Despite high levels of fishmeal production, some
countries have relatively low export levels, notably the
large aquaculture nations of Japan, Thailand and Norway.
These countries drastically reduced the percentage ex-
ported during 1980–2000. If we examine the largest
producers of shrimp and salmon, Thailand and Norway,
respectively, we see that demand for fishmeal has increased
substantially over the period (Figs. 1 and 2). These
increases in fishmeal consumption closely follow increases
in aquaculture production (excluding plants and bivalves).
Furthermore, since the 1990s, Thailand has shifted from
exporting to importing fishmeal to supply its growing
aquaculture production (Fig. 1). As aquaculture produc-
tion increased in Thailand, levels of domestic fishmeal
production did not rise initially. Instead, meal exports
gradually declined to nearly zero while imports began to
rise. For example, Thailand exported 60% of their fishmeal
in 1980, thereafter steadily decreasing the export quantities
to less than 1% by 1992 and thereafter. Thailand became a
net importer of meal in 1992. The major decreases in
imports during 1997 may have been due to the baht
devaluation, followed in 1998 by El Nin
˜o related reduc-
tions in fishmeal production on a global scale and raised
fishmeal prices (FAO, 1999). In 1998, Thailand actually
exported 6% of its fishmeal production (FishStat Plus,
2004).
Norway’s trade patterns are similar in that we see a
decrease in export levels and a definite increase in imports
as aquaculture production grew (Fig. 2). This shift
occurred after 1985. However, Norway maintained export
trade during the rest of the period and was only a net
importer during the years 1995–1997 and 2000. We also see
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Box 1
Fishmeal use in shrimp farming.
The aquaculture sectors growing the fastest are those requiring the highest input of fish resources. We
examine the consumption of fishmeal by the shrimp farming sector. Of total commercial aquaculture feed
production in 2000 (12.5 Mt), 13% (1.6 Mt) was used for shrimp farming (Hardy and Tacon, 2002). On
average approximately one-quarter of shrimp feed is fishmeal (Tacon, 2003b). The three main cultivated
species account for over 86% of total shrimp aquaculture in 2000 (Tacon, 2003a), with Penaeus monodon
over 50% of this. There is a higher protein content in Asian shrimp feed than in American, corresponding to
the differing protein needs of the species farmed (Tacon, 2002).
Some predict that fishmeal consumption will decrease during 2001–2010 due to a lowered feed
conversion ratio (FCR) as well as a decrease in the portion of fishmeal in shrimp feed (Pike and Barlow,
2002;Tacon, 2003b). We have grounds to question whether these predictions are realistic. A more realistic
estimate of feed use acknowledges the difficulties in improving FCR and substituting away fishmeal. In
fact, we would argue that the fishmeal content is likely to be greater than one-quarter because: (1) the
percentage of fishmeal in the feed produced by the largest feed producer, Charoen Pokphand, in the
largest shrimp producing nation, Thailand, is 35–40% (Po Garden, pers. comm.) and (2) 50% of global
farmed shrimp production is Penaeus monodon, which still uses 35–50% fishmeal in feed (Tacon, 2002). To
this should be added increasing shrimp production levels and the rising portion of farmers using feeds
(Hardy and Tacon, 2002).
0
100 000
200 000
300 000
400 000
500 000
600 000
700 000
1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
tonnes
FM production FM import FM export FM consumption Aquaculture production
Fig. 1. Fishmeal consumption and trade compared to aquaculture production (not including plants and bivalves) in Thailand 1980–2000.
L. Deutsch et al. / Global Environmental Change 17 (2007) 238–249242
a doubling of exports from the previous year during the El
Nin
˜o year of 1998. Chile also decreased the exported
portion of its fishmeal production at the same time as its
salmon aquaculture production grew (FishStat Plus, 2004).
Hence, as intensive aquaculture production within these
nations expanded, the demands for fishmeal grew as well.
The prediction of reducing fishmeal consumption in
aquaculture does not yet fit reality.
4. Expansion of ecosystem support through trade
Similar to other animal production systems, such as
pork, poultry, and eggs, aquaculture has grown into a
highly globalized industry. Intensified aquaculture has
increased the need for feed inputs. There is already an
existing market for livestock feed that is based on imported
inputs (Deutsch and Folke, 2005). Thus, as demands for
fishmeal exceed national production capacity, nations can
enter the feed commodities market and start to import.
Today, major fishmeal importers include China (with 27%
of total imports), Japan (8%), Germany (7%), Taiwan
(7%), UK (5%), Norway (4%) and Thailand (2%)
(FishStat Plus, 2004).
We examine five questions with respect to the growth of
the fishmeal trade and entrance into the global fishmeal
market by aquaculture producers:
1. How is increased fishmeal consumption achieved?—Are
nations able to increase their own production, do they
have to reduce exports, do they have to import?
2. Do nations increase the number of import sources?
3. Do importers switch between input sources over time?
4. Is there a dependency on the fishing grounds of low-
income countries for input supplies?
5. How is the industry affected by the supply of fishmeal?
As illustrated in the previous section, even nations that
have established fisheries sectors and have historically been
net exporters of fishmeal, such as Thailand and Norway,
eventually need to import if demand is great enough. This
has clearly been the case for fishmeal trade as intensified
aquaculture developed in these countries (Figs. 1 and 2).
Thailand increased domestic production, and Norway
maintained similar production levels over the period.
However, in both nations, increased fishmeal demand
was satisfied by both decreasing exports and increasing
imports.
We then examine the sources of these imports to see how
they have changed in number and origin over the period
(Figs. 3 and 4). We chose 4 years to represent different
periods in the development of the industry: a pre-import
period (1988 for Thailand and 1985 for Norway); 1990;
1995, and 2000.
We begin by examining Thailand’s import trade. In the
first period, there is little trade with basically one partner,
Japan (Fig. 3, 1988). In the second period (Fig. 3, 1990),
import sources have grown to 9 in total, with 95% of
imports from Denmark, Chile, Japan and Republic of
Korea and Thailand becomes a net importer. In 1995 (Fig.
3, 1995), imports peak at 32% of fishmeal consumption.
Further, the total number of import sources has doubled to
18 and the number of key importers is only five (key
importers provide over 90% of imports). Chile dominates
with almost 60% of volumes, Denmark drops to 14% (less
than half of its contribution in the previous period), and
Peru enters the market at 10%, equal to the combined
contributions of Japan and Republic of Korea. The last
period (Fig. 3, 2000) is after both the baht devaluation in
1997 and the El Nin
˜o event in 1998. We see import and
consumption levels recovering, but the number of sources
has decreased from the previous period. The level of import
dependency has declined slightly to 19% and we see a
switch in sources. Denmark now provides only 2% of
imports, Peru replaces Chile with 72% of volumes and
Republic of Korea’s share has grown to 14%.
In summary, Thailand’s level of import dependency rises
as well as the number of import sources as the aquaculture
industry develops between 1980 and 2000. We see that
Thailand utilizes sources all over the globe, importing from
the established major exporters Denmark and Chile.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
0
100 000
200 000
300 000
400 000
500 000
600 000
700 000
1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
tonnes
FM production FM import FM export FM consumption Aquaculture production
Fig. 2. Fishmeal consumption and trade compared to aquaculture production (not including plants and bivalves) in Norway 1980–2000.
L. Deutsch et al. / Global Environmental Change 17 (2007) 238–249 243
However, ties are maintained to regional sources through-
out the period in both number of sources (7 of 14) and in
volumes (22% of total imports). In 2000, Thailand is highly
dependent on one major supplier, Peru, for 72% of
imports.
The development of Norwegian imports of fishmeal is
similar in several respects. There is little import and only
three sources until after 1985 (Fig. 4, 1985). However, we
can see that consumption levels are already increasing and
export levels are decreasing. In the second period (Fig. 4,
1990), we note an increase to nine import sources. All new
sources are European except for a negligible amount from
USA and Chile. Chile enters the market with 4% of
imports. In the next period (Fig. 4, 1995), Norway has
become dependent on imports for 20% of fishmeal
consumption. There is a large increase in the amounts of
imports and the number of sources increases to 13. There is
a partial shift towards the southeast Pacific, specifically
Chile and Peru that provide one-quarter of imports,
combined. However, Denmark and Iceland still dominate
with 75% of Norwegian imports. Although there are many
remaining sources, together these do not even equal 1% of
imported volumes. In the last period (Fig. 4, 2000), the
number of import sources declines to 9, but import
dependence continues to climb to 27%. Iceland and
Denmark still dominate trade providing 67%, while Peru
alone now provides 29% of imports.
Finally, although import dependency increases over the
entire period, Norway maintains exports throughout the
period. Northern neighbors dominate trade flows during
the entire period, particularly Denmark and Iceland who
still provide 67% even at their lowest level in 2000.
Basically, there are no significant amounts of fishmeal
imports other than those from the major suppliers of
Iceland, Denmark, Chile and Peru, although there is an
increase in the number of sources.
In summary, we see that both nations expand their level
of imports and dependence on marine ecosystem support
of other nations over the period from an initial level of
domestic self-sufficiency. Initially, both increase the num-
ber of import sources of fishmeal, peaking in the mid-
1990s, but reduce this number somewhat by 2000. Once
these nations begin to trade fishmeal in earnest, we see that
Thailand utilizes a larger amount of sources than Norway.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Fig. 3. Imported fishmeal to Thailand 1988, 1990, 1995 and 2000 and import sources. Fishmeal amounts are metric tonnes and the numbers in parentheses
are the percentage of total imports.
L. Deutsch et al. / Global Environmental Change 17 (2007) 238–249244
Thai trade with other nations than their main fishmeal
suppliers is between 5% and 8%, when Norwegian levels
are 1% at most. Yet, in 2000, both nations have only 3–4
key source nations that provide at least 90% of all imports.
Further, both nations expand fishmeal provision with the
same 3 sources (Denmark, Chile and Peru) complemented
by a regional supplier each (Thailand uses the Republic of
Korea and Norway uses Iceland). Thus, very broadly, in
2000 both have two geographically alternate sources of
supply: (1) the combination of Chile and Peru in South
America, and (2) a regional complement, Thailand imports
from Japan and Republic of Korea and Norway imports
from Iceland and Denmark.
Over the time period under study, Thailand shifted its
support from local areas to sources all over the globe.
However, over time, imports from Denmark gradually
became negligible. In the late 1990s, Thailand returned to
its own region, Asia, for a portion of its meal and has
retained these import sources, but in 2000, it was over-
whelmingly dependent on Peru for meal. However, we note
that Japan and Republic of Korea are not considered to be
local sources to Thailand as they are quite distant and
probably different fishing areas entirely. In contrast,
Norway retained its dominant ties to its local northern
region throughout the period, choosing to supply only one-
third of its market from Chile and then Peru. In both
Thailand and Norway, import support from Chile came
first and then was almost completely replaced by Peruvian
imports.
Over the time period observed, the effects of El Nin
˜oon
fishmeal consumption were only really obvious in 1998. El
Nin
˜o had an apparent negative effect on fishmeal
consumption in Thailand, but this was probably a result
of the combination of the currency devaluation the year
before as well. Imports to Norway also decreased, but not
to the same extent, indicating that the Thai response was
connected to the devaluation of the baht and the resulting
price sensitivity of its fishmeal consumption. In fact, in
1998, Thailand increased its own production and even
exported, perhaps due to 4 factors: lowered availability of
meal, increased prices made meal expensive, while at the
same time higher prices encouraged exports as potential
revenues increased and foreign currency was relatively
more valuable due to the recent baht devaluation. During
this crisis, Thailand depended heavily on its regional
sources, since Asian neighbors supplied 80% of imports
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Fig. 4. Imported fishmeal to Norway 1985, 1990, 1995 and 2000 and import sources. Fishmeal amounts are metric tonnes and the numbers in parentheses
are the percentage of total imports.
L. Deutsch et al. / Global Environmental Change 17 (2007) 238–249 245
that year. Apparently, there exists some capacity for
increased production and exports if prices increase.
However, this may not be a buffer supply of fishmeal
stocks that are normally not utilized, but rather that the
decreased supply on the world market made it possible to
sell lower quality products. For example, it could be
tempting to resume use of fishmeal derived from the Baltic
Sea, which is now not allowed for use within the EU due to
contamination from dioxins and PCBs (EU regulation in
2001: EG nr. 2375/2001). Recent reports of high levels of
dioxin and PCBs in European farmed salmon (Hites et al.,
2004) may well be due to the fact that Baltic fish are used
for fishmeal despite these regulations, but there may also be
fishmeal from other fishing areas that should not be used.
Such new findings of contaminated areas could drastically
reduce available fishmeal sources.
5. Discussion and implications
A characteristic of fisheries products in contrast to other
agricultural commodities is the high percentage of inter-
national trade. Over 75% of global fisheries catch is traded
(Watson and Pauly, 2001) and in 2000, over 60% of
fishmeal was traded (Seafeeds, 2003;FishStat Plus, 2004).
As a comparison, only 7% of meat and meat products,
17% of wheat and 5% of rice are exported (World Trade
Organization, 2003).
We assert that the rapid growth in production, as well as
consumption, of many aquaculture products, especially
shrimp and salmon, would not have been possible without
the pre-existing global trade system. Without the ability to
trade neither Thailand nor Norway would have been able
to expand aquaculture production to the extent they have
and become the world’s largest producers of shrimp and
salmon. As aquaculture production grew, exports of
fishmeal decreased, and an increasing portion of demand
was supplied by imports. While production levels were
already high in Norway, in Thailand domestic production
levels increased markedly initially, but neither country has
increased its domestic production since the early 1990s
(with the notable exception of the El Nin
˜o year 1998). Both
nations experienced a point at which local production was
insufficient and were able to increase fishmeal consumption
by expanding their supply network into the ecosystems of
other regions and increasing the amount of ecosystem
support supplied from abroad.
We do not propose that trade is a bad thing. On the
contrary, the international market is a highly efficient
mechanism for supplying goods and services unavailable to
a large portion of the world’s population and is potentially
beneficial even from an ecological point of view. In this
sense, trade flows can build social and economic resilience.
Globalization can mean lesser dependence on local
ecosystems as supply can be increased as needed, if trade
is feasible. However, the ecological economic interdepen-
dency should be recognized (Anderson et al., 1995),
including the implications of fishmeal exploitation on
foodwebs and fish stocks for human consumption.
Recognition that the aquaculture industry has become
highly globalized also in its ecological dimension has not
been sufficiently explored. It is no longer enough to discuss
the local effects of aquaculture production in an analysis of
the sustainability of the industry, as trade decoupled from
its origin effectively masks environmental feedbacks
(Berkes and Folke, 1998).
In our analysis, we see an increasing dependence of both
Thailand and Norway on one marine ecosystem, the
southeastern portion of the Pacific Ocean, represented by
trade with Chile and then Peru. For the aquaculture
industry, fishmeal trade does not seem to be an issue of
North–South, but of trade between nations with indus-
trialized production systems. Both Thailand and Norway
began importing from Denmark, then as its industries
develop Thailand switches its major supplier to Chile and
subsequently Peru. Norway maintained trade imports from
Denmark, but increased trade with Iceland, Chile and
Peru. These four supply nations all have well-developed
industrial fisheries. Thus, it is not a matter of exploiting the
oceans of South, as Chile and Peru do not represent the
Southern Hemisphere, nor developing countries, but rather
the world’s most productive marine ecosystem. We see that
the development of a level of dependency on a single region
decreases supply options instead of increasing them.
The observed shift in fishmeal export from Chile to Peru
is largely due to Chile’s own developing aquaculture
industry, which is now the most rapidly growing salmon
producer in the world. Based upon our case studies of
Norway and Thailand, one might project that Chile’s
fishmeal exports will decline further as the majority of its
fishmeal is used for its own expanding regional/local
aquaculture industry. This could have large impacts on
global fishmeal availability.
It is critical to be aware of import dependency if supply
sources are vulnerable. The southeastern Pacific Ocean is
frequently perturbed by the natural occurrence of the El
Nin
˜o Southern Oscillation (ENSO). This needs to be
considered in the context of increasing fishing pressure in
the area as aquaculture production increases and with it a
predicted rise in the demand for fishmeal (Barlow, 2002;
Hardy and Tacon, 2002).
We hope that aquaculture nations recognize the ob-
served and potential alternate states of marine waters of
their fishmeal suppliers (Beamish et al., 2004;Knowlton,
2004) and have incorporated these variations into their
production strategies. From our analysis, it appears that
Thailand was much more susceptible to fluctuations in
fishmeal availability due to trading with countries affected
by ENSO events. However, both nations are increasing
their dependence on a relatively few number of marine
areas.
Owing to information gaps, we cannot analyze the
effects of fishmeal production on fish stocks. Specifically,
trade information does not reveal the species of fish that
the fishmeal is made of much less its origins so that we
ARTICLE IN PRESS
L. Deutsch et al. / Global Environmental Change 17 (2007) 238–249246
could determine the particular stock and then examine the
status of this stock over time. The present international
market system has few receptors to capture changes in the
capacity of ecosystems to supply fish and fishmeal.
Technological developments, like information technology
and transport systems, that characterize the global market,
have made it possible to connect the economic part of food
producing systems worldwide, but have not included
ecosystem signals (e.g., fish stock declines due to over-
harvesting) in this system. This hampers the ability to
respond to environmental feedbacks and implement the
ecosystem approach to fisheries management. We use the
term ‘‘masking’’ to refer to the delinking of social
feedbacks from change in ecosystem dynamics (Berkes
and Folke, 1998).
Global trade can mask the constraints of local ecosys-
tems and thus allow producers and consumers to ignore
them by enabling substitution of input sources, or even
sequential exploitation (Grima and Berkes, 1989;Berkes
et al., 2006). The stretched commodity chain, particularly
because of the scale and speed at which it operates when
modern technology is used, can mask a seemingly obvious
ecosystem signal, such as the collapse of a local fish
population. For many natural resources, including fish-
meal, supply and demand is mediated through long-
distance commodities traded based on market prices.
Demand for fishmeal from one market (and its associated
set of producing ecosystems) can change to another with a
fax, a phone call, or the glance at a computer screen and
the flick of a finger. This global high-tech trade moves us
mentally and physically further from our life-support base.
A lack of ecological understanding, coupled with the
masking of environmental feedback, reinforces the decou-
pling of people from their supporting environments.
Ecosystem resilience is being lost in the very ecosystems
upon which we depend (Holling and Meffe, 1996).
We do not advocate halting resource extraction from
ecosystems (it is an inescapable livelihood source), but
point out that the effects of incorrect usage of ecosystem
goods and services spill out over other regional or even
global areas (Holling, 1994). In the case where imports
come from distant sources, ecosystem services and support
are not only taken for granted, but consumers are far
removed from the immediate consequences and impacts of
their purchases (Ekins et al., 1994). Ecosystem support is
not apparent, and therefore ignored by the consumers
whose individual purchasing choices affect the price and
production levels of farmed salmon and shrimp (Folke,
2003). Hence, stretching of the production system seems to
have decreased the social capacity to respond to environ-
mental feedback (Berkes and Folke, 1998).
This is happening at a time when there is increasing
evidence, including historical reconstructions, of the
ecological effects of human fishing pressures and practices
(Jackson et al., 2001;Worm et al., 2003). That the world’s
fisheries are presently in a state of crisis is nothing new.
Although some may argue that the effects are natural
fluctuations (Chavez et al., 2003) or that the effects of
overfishing may be reversible (Myers et al., 1995) or even
that they are ‘‘ecologically acceptable’’ (Steele and Hoa-
glund, 2003) we do not yet know the long-term ecological
impacts of our choices today.
Many of the main species of fish used in fishmeal have
experienced collapse, some are not yet recovered or have an
unknown status, while others seem to have recovered
(Folke and Kautsky, 1989;Burke et al., 2000;Hjermann
et al., 2004;ICES, 2004;Matishov et al., 2004). The most
well-known example is the Peruvian anchoveta population,
which has collapsed repeatedly (1972, 1977, 1987, 1992,
1998, and 2002). These severe declines have been explained
by the El Nin
˜o phenomena, but considering the extremely
high fishing pressure, overfishing is likely to have deepened
the crashes and delayed the recoveries (Pauly et al., 2002;
Tuominen and Esmark, 2003). Furthermore, we can see
that species used for fishmeal production in the 1970s: the
Japanese pilchard, South American pilchard and Chilean
Jack mackerel, were replaced by the chub mackerel and the
Atlantic mackerel by the 1990s (NRC, 1999). It has been
proposed that all of the stocks used for fishmeal are fully
exploited (Hardy and Tacon, 2002). Heavily exploited
populations tend to be more vulnerable to stress and
sustained environmental variability (Sharp, 1995) than are
lightly exploited stocks. Maintaining heavy fishing pressure
at the lower levels of the food web, spurred in part by ever
increasing demand for fishmeal in the growing aquaculture
sector, may make it difficult for marine fish species at
higher trophic levels to recover even if fishing pressure on
these stocks was significantly decreased.
Moreover, the aquaculture industry has a poor record of
success in replacing fishmeal with other ingredients for
shrimp and salmon feeds (Hardy and Tacon, 2002).
Furthermore, we see that decreases in overall national
fishmeal consumption do not result in corresponding
declines in aquaculture production levels (Figs. 1 and 2).
We suggest that the aquaculture industry may not be as
sensitive to market fluctuations as other animal production
sources that may then be forced to find alternatives to
fishmeal use (Hardy and Tacon, 2002). Currently, it is
difficult to see how the global aquaculture industry will
provide space for a reduction of fishing pressure.
6. Conclusions
We need to expand the discussion and management of
aquaculture production from the local farm site to include
its use and dependence on the global marine production
system supporting the farm. As shown in the examples
presented in this paper, a stretching of the supply system of
intensive aquaculture production systems has already
taken place through the global market, made possible by
information technology and transport. Aquaculture pro-
ducers are seldom constrained by local resource inputs but
operate on a global scale with exploitation of rapidly
varying locations across the globe. Scientists and policy
ARTICLE IN PRESS
L. Deutsch et al. / Global Environmental Change 17 (2007) 238–249 247
makers have not kept up with these market developments
and changed their conceptual frameworks accordingly, but
have instead to a large extent remained in a pre-
globalization worldview of environmental resource man-
agement.
Given the increasing scale and speed of this human
activity, we conclude that the industry has truly global
effects today. In the future, the industry should (1)
acknowledge that intensive aquaculture uses a global
marine resource base in a stretched production system,
(2) increase the capacity to trace the marine resource base
of aquaculture products, and (3) develop measures to
detect feedback from the marine ecosystems that provide
consumers with these resources, even when they are distant
and used only for a short period of time. There is a need for
global guidelines that reconnect users to input sources.
Responding to environmental feedback is essential to avoid
further mining of marine resources. There are even grounds
to suggest the need for some global rules and institutions
that create incentives for markets to account for ecosystem
support and capacity (Costanza et al., 1995;Naylor et al.,
1998). Governance of this capacity could be included as the
fourth link in the traditional chain, so that we analyze an
ecosystem management–production–distribution–con-
sumption chain.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank: Robert Kautsky at azote images
for his masterful figures; Albert Tacon for his open sharing
of data and expertise; two anonymous reviewers for their
constructive comments; and Po Garden for his input
during development of the manuscript.
References
Anderson, T., Folke, C., Nystro
¨m, S., 1995. Trading with the Environ-
ment. Earthscan, London.
Barlow, D.S.M., 2002. The world market overview of fish meal and fish
oil. Second Seafood By-Products Conference, International Fishmeal
& Fish Oil Organisation, Alaska, USA. Available at: /http://
www.iffo.org.uk/tech/alaska.htmS.
Beamish, R.J., Benson, A.J., Sweeting, R.M., Neville, C.M., 2004.
Regimes and the history of the major fisheries off Canada’s west
coast. Progress in Oceanography 60, 355–385.
Berkes, F., Folke, C. (Eds.), 1998. Linking Social and Ecological Systems:
Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Berkes, F., Hughes, T.P., Steneck, R.S., Wilson, J.A., Bellwood, D.R.,
Crona, B., Folke, C., Gunderson, L.H., Leslie, H.M., Norberg, J.,
Nystro
¨m, M., Olsson, P., O
¨sterblom, H., Scheffer, M., Worm, B.,
2006. Globalization, roving bandits, and marine resources. Science
311, 1557–1558.
Botsford, L.W., Castilla, J.C., Peterson, C.H., 1997. The management of
fisheries and marine ecosystems. Science 277, 509–515.
Burke, L., Kura, Y., Kassem, K., Revenga, C., Spalding, M., Mcallister,
D., 2000. Pilot Analysis of Global Ecosystems (PAGE): Coastal
ecosystems, World Resources Institute, Washington, DC. Available at:
/http://pubs.wri.org/pubs_pdf.cfm?PubID=3054S.
Chavez, F.P., Ryan, J., Lluch-Cota, S.E., Niquen C, M., 2003. From
anchovies to sardines and back: multidecadal change in the Pacific
Ocean. Science 299, 217–221.
COMTRADE, 2004. UN Commodity Trade Statistics Database. Avail-
able at: /http://unstats.un.org/unsd/comtrade/dqBasicQueryResult-
s.aspx?cc=08142&px=S2&r=764&y=All&rg=1&so=13S, United
Nations Statistics Division.
Costanza, R., 1994. Three general policies to achieve sustainability. In:
Jansson, A., Hammer, M., Folke, C., Costanza, R. (Eds.), Investing in
Natural Capital—The Ecological Economics Approach to Sustain-
ability. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp. 392–407.
Costanza, R., Audley, J., Borden, R., Ekins, P., Folke, C., Funtowicz,
S.O., Harris, J., 1995. Sustainable trade: a new paradigm for world
trade. Environment 37, 16–44.
Deutsch, L., Bjo
¨rklund, J., unpublished manuscript. Made in Sweden? Re-
defining the Swedish animal production system.
Deutsch, L., Folke, C., 2005. Ecosystem subsidies to Swedish food
consumption from 1962–1994. Ecosystems 8, 512–528.
Eagle, J., Naylor, R., Smith, W., 2004. Why farm salmon outcompete
fishery salmon. Marine Policy 28, 259–270.
Ekins, P., Folke, C., Costanza, R., 1994. Trade, environment &
development: the issues in perspective. Ecological Economics 9, 1–12.
FAO, 1999. Commodity market review 1998–1999. Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations—Commodities and Trade
Division, Rome.
FAO, 2003. Aquaculture production trends analysis. In: Tacon, A.J. (Ed.),
Review of the State of World Aquaculture. FAO Fisheries Circular.
No. 886, Rev. 2. FAO Inland Water Resources and Aquaculture
Service, Rome, pp. 5–30. Available at: /http://www.fao.org/DOC-
REP/005/Y4490E/Y4490E00.HTMS.
FAO, 2006. GLOBEFISH. Fishmeal Market Report—June 2006. Avail-
able at: /http://www.globefish.org/index.php?id=3015S.
FIGIS, 2004. FAO Fisheries Global Information System. FIDI Dataset.
FAO. Available at: /http://www.fao.org/figis/servlet/static?dom=-
root&xml=index.xmlS.
FishStat Plus, 2004. Universal Software for Fishery Statistical Time Series,
version 2.3.2000. FAO Fisheries Department, Fisheries Informations,
Data and Statistics Unit.
Folke, C., 2003. Freshwater for resilience: a shift in thinking. Philosophi-
cal Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B—Biological
Sciences 358, 2027–2036.
Folke, C., Kautsky, N., 1989. The role of ecosystems for a sustainable
development of aquaculture. Ambio 18, 234–243.
Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Elmqvist, T.,
Gunderson, L., Holling, C., 2004. Regime shifts, resilience and
biodiversity in ecosystem management. Annual Review of Ecology,
Evolution and Systematics 35, 557–581.
Garcia, S., de Leiva Moreno, I., 2000. Trends in World Fisheries and their
Resources. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture. FAO,
Rome.
Goldburg, R., Matthew, M., Elliott, S., Naylor, R., 2001. Marine
aquaculture in the United States: environmental impacts and policy
options. Available at: /http://www.pewoceans.org/reports/137PE-
WAquacultureF.pdfS, Pew Oceans Commission, Arlington, Virginia.
Grima, A., Berkes, F., 1989. Natural resources: access, rights to use and
management. In: Berkes, F. (Ed.), Common Property Resources.
Ecology and Community-Based Sustainable Development. Belhaven
Press, London, pp. 33–54.
Guttormsen, A., 2002. Input factor substitutability in salmon aquaculture.
Marine Resource Economics 17, 91–102.
Hardy, R.W., 1999. Collaborative opportunities between fish nutrition
and other disciplines in aquaculture: an overview. Aquaculture 177,
217–230.
Hardy, R.W., Tacon, A.G.J., 2002. Fish meal: historical uses, production
trends and future outlook for sustainable supplies. In: Stickney, R.R.,
McVey, J.P. (Eds.), Responsible Marine Aquaculture. CAB Interna-
tional, Wallingford, pp. 311–325.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
L. Deutsch et al. / Global Environmental Change 17 (2007) 238–249248
Hites, R.A., Foran, J.A., Carpenter, D.O., Hamilton, M.C., Knuth, B.A.,
Schwager, S.J., 2004. Global assessment of organic contaminants in
farmed salmon. Science 303, 226–229.
Hjermann, D.O., Ottersen, G., Stenseth, N.C., 2004. Competition among
fishermen and fish causes the collapse of Barents Sea capelin. PNAS
101, 11679–11684.
Holling, C., 1994. An ecologist’s view of the Malthusian conflict. In:
Lindahl-Kiessling, K., Landberg, H. (Eds.), Population, Economic
Development and the Environment. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Holling, C., Meffe, G., 1996. Command and control and the pathology of
natural resource management. Conservation Biology 10, 2.
Huitric, M., Folke, C., Kautsky, N., 2002. Development and government
policies of the shrimp farming industry in Thailand in relation to
mangrove ecosystems. Ecological Economics 40, 441–455.
ICES, 2004. Report of the Baltic Fisheries Assessment Working Group.
ICES CM2004/ACFM:22.
Jackson, J.B.C., Kirby, M.X., Berger, W.H., Bjorndal, K.A., Botsford,
L.W., Bourque, B.J., Bradbury, R.H., Cooke, R., Erlandson, J., Estes,
J.A., Hughes, T.P., Kidwell, S., Lange, C.B., Lenihan, H.S., Pandolfi,
J.M., Peterson, C.H., Steneck, R.S., Tegner, M.J., Warner, R.R., 2001.
Historical overfishing and the recent collapse of coastal ecosystems.
Science 293, 629–638.
Knowlton, N., 2004. Multiple ‘‘stable’’ states and the conservation of
marine ecosystems. Progress in Oceanography 60, 387–396.
Lebel, L., Tri, N.H., Saengnoree, A., Pasong, S., Buatama, U., Thoa,
L.K., 2002. Industrial transformation and shrimp aquaculture in
Thailand and Vietnam: pathways to ecological, social, and economic
sustainability? Ambio 31, 311–323.
Matishov, G.G., Denisov, V.V., Dzhenyuk, S.L., Karamushko, O.V.,
Daler, D., 2004. The impact of fisheries on the dynamics of commercial
fish species in Barents Sea and the Sea of Azov, Russia: a historical
perspective. Ambio 33, 63–67.
Myers, R.A., Barrowman, N.J., Hutchings, J.A., Rosenberg, A.A., 1995.
Population dynamics of exploited fish stocks at low population levels.
Science 269, 1106–1108.
Naylor, R.L., Goldburg, R.J., Mooney, H., Beveridge, M., Clay, J., Folke,
C., Kautsky, N., Lubchenco, J., Primavera, J., Williams, M., 1998.
Ecology—nature’s subsidies to shrimp and salmon farming. Science
282, 883–884.
Naylor, R.L., Goldburg, R.J., Primavera, J.H., Kautsky, N., Beveridge,
M.C.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.L., Eagle, J., Smith, W.L., 2003. A global industry with local
impacts. Environment 45, 18–39.
New, M.B., Wijkstro
¨m, U.N., 1990. Feed for thought: some observations
on aquaculture feed production in Asia. World Aquaculture 21
pp. 17–19, 22–23.
New, M.B., Wijkstro
¨m, U.N., 2002. Use of fishmeal and fish oil in
aquafeeds: further thoughts on the fishmeal trap. FAO Fisheries
Circular No. 975 FIPP/C975, Rome, 61pp.
NRC, 1999. Sustaining Marine Fisheries. National Academy Press,
National Research Council, Washington, DC.
Pauly, D., Christensen, V., Dalsgaard, J., Froese, R., Torres Jr., F., 1998.
Fishing down marine food webs. Science 279, 860–863.
Pauly, D., Christensen, V., Gue
´nette, S., Pitcher, T.J., Sumaila, U.R.,
Walters, C.J., Watson, R., Zeller, D., 2002. Towards sustainability in
world fisheries. Nature 418, 689–695.
Pike, I.H., Barlow, S.M., 2002. Impact of fish farming on fish stocks.
Bordeaux Aquaculture and Environment Symposium. International
Fishmeal & Fish Oil Organisation. Available at: /http://www.iffo.or-
g.uk/tech/bordeaux.htmS.
Primavera, J.H., 2000. Development and conservation of Philippine
mangroves: institutional issues. Ecological Economics 35, 91–106.
Seafeeds, 2003. SEAfeeds 2003 Final Workshop Report. Available at:
/http://www.seafeeds.net/Files/Final%20Report.pdfS.
Sharp, G., 1995. It’s about time: new beginnings and old good ideas in
fisheries science. Fisheries Oceanography 4, 324–341.
Steele, J., Hoaglund, P., 2003. Are fisheries ‘‘sustainable’’. Fisheries
Research 64, 1–3.
Tacon, A.G.J., De Silva, S.S., 1997. Feed preparation and feed manage-
ment strategies within semi-intensive fish farming systems in the
tropics. Aquaculture 151, 379–404.
Tacon, A.J., 2002. Thematic Review of Feeds and Feed Management
Practices in Shrimp Aquaculture. Report prepared under the World
Bank, NACA, WWF and FAO Consortium Program on Shrimp
Farming and the Environment, Rome, 69pp.
Tacon, A.J., 2003a. Aquaculture production trends analysis. Review of the
State of World Aquaculture. FAO Fisheries Circular. No. 886, Rev. 2.
FAO Inland Water Resources and Aquaculture Service, Rome,
pp. 5–30. Available at: /http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/005/Y4490E/
Y4490E00.HTMS.
Tacon, A.J., 2003b. Presentation: Sustainable aquaculture feeds: an
overview and global perspective in Seafeeds. SEAfeeds 2003 Work-
shop. Available at: /http://www.seafeeds.net/Files/Albert%20Ta-
con%20Talk.pdfS.
Tacon, A.J., 2003c. Sustainable aquaculture feeds: an overview and global
perspective in Seafeeds. SEAfeeds 2003 Final Workshop Report.
Available at: /http://www.seafeeds.net/Files/Final%20Report.pdfS.
Tacon, A.J., 2004. Fish meal and fish oil use in aquaculture: a global
perspective. Aquatic Resources, Culture and Development 1, 3–14.
Tuominen, T.-R., Esmark, M., 2003. Food for Thought: the Use of
Marine Resources in Fish Feed. WWF-Norway, Norway, 52pp.
Watson, R., Pauly, D., 2001. Systematic distortions in world fisheries
catch trends. Nature 414, 534–536.
Webster, C.D., Tiu, L.G., Morgan, A.M., Gannam, A., 1999. Effect of
partial and total replacement of fish meal on growth and body
composition of sunshine bass Morone chrysops x M. saxatilis fed
practical diets. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society 30, 443–453.
World_Trade_Organization, 2003. International Trade Statistics 2001.
WTO Publications, Geneva, Switzerland. Available at: /http://
www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/its2001_e/stats2001_e.pdfS.
Worm, B., Lotze, H.K., Myers, R.A., 2003. Predator diversity hotspots in
the blue ocean. PNAS 100, 9884–9888.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
L. Deutsch et al. / Global Environmental Change 17 (2007) 238–249 249
... The intensive use of capture fisheries to provide fish meal for aquaculture feed, where Peru is the largest producer, is a nexus that requires joint governance and sustainability reflections. 73,139,203,204 Other feeds are produced in agriculture, where aquaculture expansion begins to compete with other sectors in securing land and yields. 205 Land-water-sea connectivity is an important governance issue for many coastal earthen pond systems due to the material fluidity of aquaculture. ...
... These can be private goods or CPRs depending on their origin. If sourced from the wild, they are CPRs, clearly linking aquaculture sustainability to capture fisheries.73 However, if produced by an individual, company or state agency, they exist directly as private goods. ...
Article
Full-text available
Knowledge of the shared resources—or commons—that aquaculture systems rely on, and the appropriate rule and norm systems to govern them—or institutions—is far behind other natural resource use sectors. In this article, we provide a conceptual framework for identifying the social and environmental commons creating collective action problems for aquaculture governance. Collective action problems, or social dilemmas, create problems for governing shared resources because the typical strategies for individual use (maximisation; free riding) are often divergent from broader group interests (e.g. fair contributions; sustainable use). This framework helps identify two types of collective action problems in aquaculture: first-order (direct use and provision of commons) and second-order (provision, maintenance and adaptation of institutions to govern commons). First-order aquaculture commons with governance challenges include water quality, water quantity, physical space, inputs, genetic diversity, mitigating infectious disease, earth and climate stability, infrastructure, knowledge and money. Second-order institutions govern the use of first-order commons. These include rule and norm systems that structure property rights and markets, aiming to better align individual behaviour and collective interests (e.g. sustainability goals) through governance. However, which combination of institutions will fit best is likely to be unique to context, where aquaculture has important differences from capture fisheries and agriculture. We provide four case examples applying our conceptual framework to identify existing aquaculture commons, institutions and governance challenges in Peru (mariculture), the Philippines (earthen ponds), Nepal (raceways) and Denmark (recirculation).
... The intensive use of capture fisheries to provide fish meal for aquaculture feed, where Peru is the largest producer, is a nexus that requires joint governance and sustainability reflections. 73,139,203,204 Other feeds are produced in agriculture, where aquaculture expansion begins to compete with other sectors in securing land and yields. 205 Land-water-sea connectivity is an important governance issue for many coastal earthen pond systems due to the material fluidity of aquaculture. ...
... These can be private goods or CPRs depending on their origin. If sourced from the wild, they are CPRs, clearly linking aquaculture sustainability to capture fisheries.73 However, if produced by an individual, company or state agency, they exist directly as private goods. ...
Article
Full-text available
Knowledge of the shared resources— or commons— that aquaculture systems rely on, and the appropriate rule and norm systems to govern them— or institutions— is far behind other natural resource use sectors. In this article, we provide a conceptual framework for identifying the social and environmental commons creating collective action problems for aquaculture governance. Collective action problems, or social di- lemmas, create problems for governing shared resources because the typical strate- gies for individual use (maximisation; free riding) are often divergent from broader group interests (e.g. fair contributions; sustainable use). This framework helps identify two types of collective action problems in aquaculture: first- order (direct use and provision of commons) and second- order (provision, maintenance and adaptation of institutions to govern commons). First- order aquaculture commons with governance challenges include water quality, water quantity, physical space, inputs, genetic diver- sity, mitigating infectious disease, earth and climate stability, infrastructure, knowl- edge and money. Second- order institutions govern the use of first- order commons. These include rule and norm systems that structure property rights and markets, aiming to better align individual behaviour and collective interests (e.g. sustainability goals) through governance. However, which combination of institutions will fit best is likely to be unique to context, where aquaculture has important differences from capture fisheries and agriculture. We provide four case examples applying our conceptual framework to identify existing aquaculture commons, institutions and governance challenges in Peru (mariculture), the Philippines (earthen ponds), Nepal (raceways) and Denmark (recirculation).
... Some scholars tend to use the term "ecosystem service flow" to explore the spatial relations between service-providing areas and demand areas, which refers to the service transmission path or space-time connectivity between service-providing and -benefiting areas [6,7]. A conceptualized service delivery approach based on the concept of "ecosystem service flow" was proposed by Silvestri and Kershaw et al. and has been used to assess the actual provision of ecosystem services [8][9][10], for example, the correlation between providing and benefiting zones of commodity trade such as timber, fish and agricultural products [11][12][13]. Such studies assess the service benefits of provision-oriented types by analyzing the conceptual characteristics of ecosystem service flows. ...
Article
Full-text available
The spatial location relations between service-providing areas and service-demand areas determine the effective provision level of ecosystem services. Some scholars use the term ecological service flow to conceptualize the transmission path, transmission characteristics, and service benefits of the provision-oriented service type between service-providing areas and service-demand areas. A few scholars have characterized the transmission range and spatial unit characteristics of single or several ecosystem service types, such as production services and regulation services between the providing area and demand area based on landscape, region and global scale. The current literature lacks quantitative studies on the spatial location relations between providing areas and demand areas of ecosystem services and the actual level of ecosystem service provision at the municipal scale based on the demand for ecosystem services faced by cities. This study takes Jinan, China, as the research area, quantifies the providing areas, connecting areas and demand areas of seven services—namely, the air purification service, climate regulation service, flood prevention service, water pollution prevention service, water supply service, soil erosion prevention service, and habitat supply service—and analyzes the spatial relation characteristics of each element. On this basis, the Hellwig model is used to quantitatively analyze the impact of service-providing area and service-connecting area on regional overall ecosystem service assessment. The results prove that service-providing areas and service-connecting areas are the key units that affect the level of regional ecosystem service provision. The evaluation of regional ecosystem service provision level is inseparable from the identification of service-providing areas and service-connecting areas and the study of their attributes, characteristics, and spatial relations. Service-providing areas and service-connecting areas should be differentiated when developing strategies to optimize and improve the level of regional ecosystem service provision. Different optimization measures should be formulated according to the differences in unit attributes and service barriers in different areas. The results provide guidance for the optimization of ecosystem services to ensure the efficient and sustainable provision of regional ecosystem services and improve the actual benefits of service-demand groups or service-demand areas.
... Aquaculture's rapid growth has attracted widespread criticism for its environmental and social impacts (Bacher, 2015;Barrett et al., 2002;Krause et al., 2020;Osmundsen and Olsen, 2017;Regueiro et al., 2021;Whitmarsh and Wattage, 2006). Much of this criticism has arisen around the provision of feed, mainly marine ingredients (proteins and oils, mostly from fisheries), and the release of nutrients from farm sites (Deutsch et al., 2007;Martinez-Porchas and Martinez-Cordova, 2012;Naylor et al., 2000;Naylor et al., 2021;Regueiro et al., 2021). Our second chapter focuses on this latter part. ...
... It is necessary to investigate the capability of tools to measure the monetary valuation through the biophysical production and cumulative benefits of MPAs. For instance, we need to investigate whether valuation measurement is possible for fisheries spillover, reestablishing habitats, nutrient cycling, and other ecosystem processes (Deutsch et al., 2007;Pauly 2007;Rioja-Nieto et al., 2017). This criterion also includes whether each tool can evaluate cultural, educational, and recreational values of MPAs from the perspectives of stakeholders (such as SolVES tool) (Davis and Darling 2017). ...
Article
Coastal marine resource over-exploitation has led to the loss of marine biodiversity and environmental degradation. This has serious consequences to Coastal and Marine Ecosystems (CME) and ecosystem services. Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) can have positive influences on adjacent fisheries and habitat recovery, which can help resolve these issues. However, quantifying the monetary value of an MPA's potential ecosystem service delivery is notoriously difficult. In this study, we review available tools for evaluating the monetary value of CME services for MPAs. We show that only four out of the 12 most frequently used CME tools incorporate monetary value assessments for MPAs, the rest of the tools can help build monetary awareness but only indirectly. We argue that the monetary value measurement of CME services for MPAs should be based on the biophysical production of services in MPAs rather than from subjective human perspectives (e.g., Willingness to Pay surveys). This requires transdisciplinary knowledge connecting ecology and economy, to produce an ecology-based monetary value measurement. We suggest that developing this novel method could help to better understand the valuation of CME services for MPAs and make a positive influence on marine conservation.
Article
Full-text available
A two-factor (2 × 3) orthogonal test was conducted to investigate the effects of dietary myo-inositol (MI) on the osmoregulation and carbohydrate metabolism of euryhaline fish tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) under sustained hypertonic stress (20 practical salinity units [psu]). 6 diets containing either normal carbohydrate (NC, 30%) or high carbohydrate (HC, 45%) levels, with 3 levels (0, 400 and 1,200 mg/kg diet) of MI, respectively, were fed to 540 fish under 20 psu for 8 weeks. Dietary MI supplementation significantly improved growth performance and crude protein content of whole fish, and decreased the content of crude lipid of whole fish (P < 0.05). Curled, disordered gill lamella and cracked gill filament cartilage were observed in the gill of fish fed diets without MI supplementation. The ion transport capacity in gill was significantly improved in the 1,200 mg/kg MI supplementation groups compared with the 0 mg/kg MI groups (P < 0.05). Moreover, the contents of Na⁺, K⁺, Cl⁻ in serum were markedly reduced with the dietary MI supplementation (P < 0.05). The fish fed 1,200 mg/kg MI supplementation had the highest MI content in the gills and the lowest MI content in the serum (P < 0.05). Additionally, the fish fed with 1,200 mg/kg MI supplementation had the highest MI synthesis capacity in gills and brain (P < 0.05). Dietary MI markedly promoted the ability of carbohydrate metabolism in liver (P < 0.05). Moreover, fish in the 1,200 mg/kg MI groups had the highest antioxidant capacity (P < 0.05). This study indicated that high dietary carbohydrate would intensify stress, and impair the ability of osmoregulation in tilapia under a long-term hypersaline exposure. The supplementation of MI at 1,200 mg/kg in the high carbohydrate diet could promote carbohydrate utilization and improve the osmoregulation capacity of tilapia under long-term hypertonic stress.
Article
The field of geography has long contributed crucial insights to our understanding of food systems; however, this scholarship has focused predominantly on terrestrial food production, even though over a third of the global population relies on seafood to meet their dietary needs. While geographers have identified aquaculture (the farming of aquatic species) as a fruitful field of study, there has been little consideration for how the varied environments in which aquaculture is produced, from freshwater ponds to open ocean net pens, can and should shape specific research questions and disciplinary pursuits within the broader aquacultural geography discourse. As such, we present the case for a ‘maricultural geography’ that engages with the distinct dynamics and tensions of farming in the sea. We evaluate geographers’ existing contributions to the mariculture literature and identify emerging discourses within political economy, political ecology, and science and technology studies. We then outline three pathways for further disciplinary engagement focused on food geographies, feminist geographies, and social studies of science. Geographers can offer valuable analyses of mariculture’s position within existing sociocultural food structures, present alternative pathways for postcapitalist production, and explore the mechanization of a fluid world through technoscientific systems. In return, the ocean context provides novel opportunities for thinking geographically about our food systems and reimagining terrestrial ontologies of governance and regulation, development and urbanization, and sustainability and innovation.
Chapter
Global fisheries have shown impressive growth during the past three decades, contributing to the huge opportunities in freshwater, brackish water, inland saline, and coastal aquaculture, as well as culture-based /reservoir and capture fisheries. However, approximately 35% of fish and seafood produced gets lost or wasted at some point along the supply chain, in addition to the considerable wastes generated by society. Sustainable use of bioresources and efficient natural resource management is of utmost importance for human welfare and livelihood improvement of resource-poor. The best way of sustaining bioresources is to utilize them in such a manner and at a rate that it does not cause a long-term decline of biological diversity aligned with their multiplication, thereafter maintaining its potential to fulfill the needs and aspirations of present and future generations. Circular bioresource efficiency, involving smart and efficient use of resources, minimizes and repurposes waste and can lead to stress-resilient fisheries and aquaculture. This can be beneficial in terms of not only through local resource-use efficiency, healthier aquatic ecosystems and more resilient economies but also through opportunities to create more value at the local level, livelihood improvement, and employment generation. This book chapter highlights all stages of fisheries and aquaculture encompassing eco-design of energy-efficient and environmental protective production systems and products and circular economy–based utilization of generated wastes and byproducts in an integrated manner for making fisheries and aquaculture stress-resilient and sustainable for livelihood improvement and future generations.
Article
Whilst the aquaculture sector continues to grow and make an ever increasing contribution to world food supplies, there is a need to ensure that the sector continues to develop in a socially, economically and environmentally sustainable manner, in line with the UN sustainable development goals. The present paper focusses on the major perceived sustainability issues related to feed inputs for finfish and crustacean aquaculture species, including sustainability issues related to feed formulation and ingredient selection, feed manufacture and feed quality, on-farm feed use and impacts, and fish quality and food safety.
Article
Full-text available
Aquatic foods are increasingly being recognized as having an important role to play in an environmentally sustainable and nutritionally sufficient food system. Proposals for increasing aquatic food production often center around species, environments, and ambitious hi-tech solutions that mainly will benefit the 16% of the global population living in high-income countries. Meanwhile, most aquaculture species and systems suffer from large performance gaps, meaning that targeted interventions and investments could significantly boost aquatic food supply and access to nutritious foods without a concomitant increase in environmental footprints. Here we contend that the dialogue around aquatic foods should pay greater attention to identifying and implementing interventions to improve the productivity and environmental performance of low-value commodity species that have been relatively overlooked in this regard to date. We detail a range of available technical and institutional intervention options and evaluate their potential for increasing the output and environmental performance of global aquaculture.
Article
Full-text available
The decline of Philippine mangroves from half a million hectares in 1918 to only 120 000 ha in 1994 may be traced to local exploitation for fuelwood and conversion to agriculture, salt beds, industry and settlements. But brackishwater pond culture, whose history is intertwined with that of mangroves, remains the major cause of loss. The paper discusses the institutional issues — aquaculture as development strategy, low economic rent of mangroves, overlapping bureaucracy and conflicting policies, corruption, weak law enforcement and lack of political will — relevant to this decline. Recommended policies are based on these institutional factors and the experiences in mangrove rehabilitation including community-based efforts and government programs such as the 1984 Central Visayas Regional Project. These recommendations include conservation of remaining mangroves, rehabilitation of degraded sites including abandoned ponds, mangrove-friendly aquaculture, community-based and integrated coastal area management, and provision of tenurial instruments.
Article
The conventional wisdom on trade may not serve the best interests of either developing countries or the environment.
Article
This chapter addresses several interrelated themes starting with a discussion of the shortsighted and narrow definition of resources, as opposed to the ecosystem view; and complications with the notion of "property' as it applies to resources. Resource-use rights can be characterized in terms of property and access relations and their allocation can be characterized in terms of the exclusivity and transferability of these rights. In the absence of workable common-property regimes, allocation ideals are more appropriately labelled "open-access ideals' leading to resource-use patterns which are not sustainable in the long run. Resource scarcity, including problems with sustainability, has led to the development of "resource management', basically a field of applied ecology and economics. Community-based resource management is offered as an alternative to resource management by central government agencies, with or without the use of market mechanisms. -from Authors
Article
This book contains 17 chapters. Topics covered are: management of marine aquaculture: the sustainability challenge; marine mammals and aquaculture: conflicts and potential resolutions; recreational fishing and aquaculture: throwing a line into the pond; aquaculture: opportunity of threat to traditional capture fishermen; advances in marine stock enhancement: shifting emphasis to theory and accountability; aquatic polyculture and balanced ecosystem management: new paradigms for seafood production; the role of marine aquaculture facilities as habitats and ecosystems; mangroves and coastal aquaculture; environmental effects associated with marine netpen waste with emphasis on salmon farming in the Pacific Northwest; issues associated with non-indigenous species in marine aquaculture; genetic changes in marine aquaculture species and the potential for impacts on natural populations; what role does genetics play in responsible aquaculture; understanding the interaction of extractive and fed aquaculture using ecosystem modelling; shrimp farm effluents; fish meal: historical uses, production trends and future outlook for sustainable supplies; the use of wild-caught juveniles in coastal aquaculture and its application to coral reef fishes; contending with criticism: sensible responses in an age of advocacy.
Article
Marine resource exploitation can deplete stocks faster than regulatory agencies can respond. Institutions with broad authority and a global perspective are needed to create a system with incentives for conservation.