Report 33/2015 • Published July 2015  From controversy to dialog in aquaculture   Kine Mari Karlsen, Otto Andreassen and Bjørn Hersoug (UiT) Nofima is a business oriented research Company contact information: institute working in research and Tel: +47 77 62 90 00 development for aquaculture, fisheries and E-mail: [email protected] food industry in Norway. Internet: www.nofima.no Nofima has about 350 employees. Business reg.no.: NO 989 278 835 VAT The main office is located in Tromsø, and the research divisions are located in Bergen, Stavanger, Sunndalsøra, Tromsø and Ås. Main office in Tromsø: Muninbakken 9–13 P.O.box 6122 Langnes NO-9291 Tromsø Ås: Osloveien 1 P.O.box 210 NO-1431 ÅS Stavanger: Måltidets hus, Richard Johnsensgate 4 P.O.box 8034 NO-4068 Stavanger Bergen: Kjerreidviken 16 P.O.box 1425 Oasen NO-5828 Bergen Sunndalsøra: Sjølseng NO-6600 Sunndalsøra Report ISBN: 978-82-8296-317-6 (printed) ISBN: 978-82-8296-318-3 (pdf) ISSN 1890-579X Title: Report No.: From controversy to dialog in aquaculture 33/2015 Accessibility: Open Author(s)/Project manager: Date: Kine Mari Karlsen, Otto Andreassen and Bjørn Hersoug (UiT) 30 July 2015 Department: Number of pages and appendixes: Industrial economics and strategic management 124 Client: Client's ref.: Nordic Centre for Spatial development (NORDREGIO), Nordic Council of Ministers Rasmus Ole Rasmussen Keywords: Project No.: Aquaculture, controversy, dialog, Arctic 11110 Summary/recommendation: See chapter 1. Summary/recommendation in Norwegian: Det er store ambisjoner for vekst og utvikling av akvakulturnæringen, men samtidig møter den betydelig motstand og er utvilsomt kontroversiell. Nofima har etablert et internasjonalt nettverk for å få mer kunnskap om kontroversen om akvakultur; hva skaper konflikt, hvordan kommer den til uttrykk og kan det være skjulte årsaker til konfliktene? Dette er kunnskap som er viktig for å forstå konfliktene, og vil være nyttig for å kunne dreie prosessen fra kontrovers til dialog. Nofima har nylig arrangert en workshop om kontroversen med deltagere fra universiteter og forskningsinstitusjoner i Norge, Canada, Færøyene, Island og Sverige. Funnene er presentert i denne rapporten. Table of Contents 1 Summary ................................................................................................................... 1 2 Background ................................................................................................................ 2 2.1 Objective ................................................................................................................................. 2 2.2 Sustainable development ....................................................................................................... 3 3 AquaLog workshop ..................................................................................................... 4 3.1 Programme ............................................................................................................................. 4 3.2 Participants ............................................................................................................................. 5 4 Presentations ............................................................................................................. 6 4.1 Sustainable aquaculture development in the Arctic – what to include? ............................... 6 4.2 Aquaculture and the Canadian Arctic: an as-yet undiscovered country .............................. 17 4.3 Factors and forces in Swedish aquaculture research activities ............................................ 27 4.4 Social acceptens pre and post Aquabest project ................................................................. 37 4.5 Aquaculture in the Faroe Islands: Regulations and controversies ....................................... 51 4.6 Controversies between salmon farmers and anglers in Iceland .......................................... 68 4.7 Aquaculture governance and controversy in Norway .......................................................... 82 4.8 Sustainable coexistence between salmon culture and coastal fisheries ............................. 99 4.9 Against a new regulation regime - will it affect the controversy? ..................................... 111 1 Summary The Norwegian government has great ambitions for growth and development in the Norwegian aquaculture industry. At the same time, the aquaculture industry also encounters significant opposition by different stakeholders and is undoubtedly controversial. The aquaculture industry contributes to regional and social development in the Arctic, and supplies highly demanded seafood. On the other hand, the industry is criticized for having a negative impact on both the environment and local communities, including indigenous people. The Nofima Food Research Institute has taken the initiative to establish an international network in order to acquire more knowledge on the aquaculture controversy, focusing on: what are the conflicts, how are they framed and expressed; how do the conflicts arise, and which similarities and differences are there in Arctic countries? This knowledge is important to understand the controversy around aquaculture, and thus to turn the process from controversy to dialogue. The AquaLog project `Intensive aquaculture and sustainable regional development in the Arctic – From controversy to dialog` is a network project funded by the Nordic Centre for Spatial development (NORDREGIO), Nordic Council of Ministers. The project`s objective is to understand factors and forces that influence the aquaculture controversy in the Arctic. The first AquaLog workshop was arranged in April 2015 in Tromsø, Norway. This report presents the results of this workshop. The participants of the workshop were from the University of Ottawa, Canada, the University in Holar on Iceland, Sweden's University of Agriculture, The University of Tromsø, the Fiskaaling research institute on the Faeroe Islands, company Torsta AB from Sweden and Nofima from Norway. The findings can be summarized as follows: o The workshop revealed that the controversies in five Arctic countries concern several of the same issues. This despite the countries being very different in terms of the size of the countries and populations, and production volumes, etc. o The controversies in the involved Arctic countries vary in range. They all have in common that the aquaculture industry is accused of having negative impacts on the environment. In the sea this is linked to e.g. escapes, sea lice, diseases and emissions, while in fresh water farming over-fertilization is central. o Spatial and user-group conflicts have risen to the surface, often between aquaculture and other groups such as tourism, fisheries, outdoor activities, and local or indigenous people. o The workshop also revealed that the conflicts seem to be caused by other issues than those that seem most apparent. For example, a narrow focus on environmental sustainability can confine the conflict to an environment issue. This can conceal other fundamental undecided issues such as the distribution of the industry's advantages and disadvantages, rural development, rights, and social and cultural consequences. 1 2 Background The Arctic is rich in resources, which presents both challenges and opportunities for the Arctic communities. Intensive aquaculture is a new industry, and has become important for regional development in rural areas. If the intensive aquaculture industry in the Arctic is to be in a position to supply the population with healthy food, it is dependent on its capability to balance economic growth and sustainable development. This industry has the ambition to expand; however, aquaculture is facing major challenges related to environment, climate changes (e.g. higher water temperature) and the local/global political and economic tensions (e.g. global corporate control over local area and resources). In addition, the aquaculture industry meets increased negative publicity from various corners of the society, which can result in a poor image. Nature conservationists, nearby residents and sports anglers (wild salmon, trout, char and other wild fish species) argue that intensive fish farming is not sustainable due to negative environmental impacts. The use of wild fish as input to intensive fish farming (as feed) is another source of concern for some critics, claiming that in a world with hunger and lack of food security, wild fish (mainly pelagic species) should be used directly for human consumption. Area conflicts are becoming more visible, often with other interests (recreational, tourist, etc.) and local/indigenous peoples, in addition to disagreements in relation to the most basic issues of power and control. An increasing number of municipalities consider what they receive as benefit for offering their most valuable areas to the intensive aquaculture industry to be too little. The aquaculture industry itself claims not only to be sustainable, but also to be the most efficient livestock farming, giving the least ecological footprint. The politicians are caught in the middle, meeting competing claims and often also conflicting advice. In this respect, it is of particular interest to understand the aquaculture controversy in the Arctic communities. 2.1 Objective The overall objective of the project is to establish a network to understand factors and forces that influence the aquaculture controversy in the Arctic. The aquaculture controversy in the Arctic will be highlighted by exchanging knowledge from already completed and on-going research projects in Sweden, Iceland, Faeroe Islands, Norway, and Canada. The specific objectives are to: o Identify similarities and differences regarding the aquaculture controversy in the various Arctic communities, o Identify challenges and opportunities in relation to sustainable regional development of aquaculture in the Arctic, and its interaction with the Arctic communities, o Better understand and manage the effects of aquaculture on indigenous peoples and Arctic communities, o Transfer knowledge to politicians and bureaucrats, o Influence upcoming sustainability strategies and initiatives, and o Establish research projects related to aquaculture development management in the area. 2 2.2 Sustainable development FAO, EU and different Nordic countries have developed guidelines for sustainable development of aquaculture. Sustainable development is complicated, includes different facets (different criteria, indicators, and levels), and different criteria may come into conflict with each other, e.g. energy consumption and employment. In general, there is a need to develop knowledge on implementation of sustainable regimes in intensive aquaculture to identify the optimal balance between producing more food where the renewable resources are optimally utilized and the resources are managed in a sustainable manner. The comparison of sustainable development within the involved countries in this project can contribute with new knowledge to the authorities, society, aquaculture industry, and researchers, and thereby strengthen the Nordic influence on this field, both regionally and internationally. Sustainable development is a complex concept, and several perspectives and approaches exist. It is assumed that the aquaculture controversy is linked to the disagreement of what is to be sustained and for how long, in addition, how to weight the different sustainable perspectives of sustainable development: environmental, economic, social, and institutional. Some stakeholders state that the environmental dimension has to be the basis fundament in sustainable development, while others think that all sustainability dimensions are of equal importance. It is clear that this controversy affects sustainable development of aquaculture. A Nordic co-ordination where the aim is to identify the similarities and differences regarding the aquaculture controversy in Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Faroe Islands and Canada can be positive for the Nordic countries due to exchanging knowledge, identification of synergies and constructive arguments. This can be important input to develop an improved governmental framework for further growth of a sustainable aquaculture industry in the respective Nordic countries. 3 3 AquaLog workshop  The AquaLog workshop was held 14th–15th April 2015, Nofima, Tromsø, Norway. The title of the  workshop was `Intensive aquaculture and sustainable regional development in the Arctic – From  controversy to dialog.  3.1 Programme  Day one:  o Welcome and introduction, Bjørn Hersoug, Co‐ordinator  o Presentation of the AquaLog partners  o Visit a salmon farm, Lerøy Aurora, Sessøy, Norway     Day two:  o Sustainable aquaculture development in the Arctic – what to include? Kine Mari Karlsen and  Otto Andreassen, Nofima, Norway  o Aquaculture  and  the  Canadian  Arctic:  an  as‐yet  undiscovered  country,  Nathan  Young,  University of Ottawa, Canada  o Factors and forces in Swedish aquaculture research activities, Eva Brännäs, Swedish University  of Agricultural Sciences, Sweden  o Social acceptens pre and post Aquabest project, Erik Olofsson, Torsta AB, Sweden  o Aquaculture in the Faroe Islands: Regulations and controversies, Knud Simonsen, Aquaculture  Research Station of the Faroes, Faroe Islands  o Controversies between salmon farmers and anglers in Iceland, Helgi Thorarensen, Holar  University College, Iceland  o Aquaculture governance and controversy in Norway: Jahn Petter Johnsen, Otto Andreassen,  Bjørn Hersoug and Ann‐Magnhild Solås, Nofima/The Arctic University of Norway, Norway  o Sustainable coexistence between salmon culture and coastal fisheries, Bjørn‐Steinar Sæther,  Nofima, Norway  o Against a new regulation regime ‐ will it affect the controversy? Bjørn Hersoug, Nofima/The  Arctic University of Norway, Norway  o Discussion ‐ From controversy to dialog  o Summary of the workshop and further plans, Bjørn Hersoug        4 First day – visit a salmon farm At the first day, we visited a salmon farm, Lerøy Aurora located at Sessøya, Norway. 3.2 Participants The following institutions and companies participated at the AquaLog workshop: o Nofima, Norway o The Arctic University of Norway, Norway o Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Sweden o University of Ottawa, Canada o Fiskaaling, Faroe Island o Holar University College, Iceland o Torsta AB, Sweden 5 4 Presentations 4.1 Sustainable aquaculture development in the Arctic – what to include? Kine Mari Karlsen and Otto Andreassen Nofima AS, Norway Abstract: Both the Norwegian politicians and Norwegian aquaculture industry have big ambitions for further development and growth of the Norwegian salmon farming. Studies conclude that it may be possible to achieve a Norwegian aquaculture production of a value of 240 billion NOK (30 billion USD) in 2050. However, the Norwegian government requires that the aquaculture production should be sustainable until further growth is allowed. Sustainable development is a vague, general and dynamic concept, and several approaches and concepts to assess sustainable development are available. The Brundtlands definition in the report `Our Common Future` from World Commission on Environmental and Development (WCED) was one of the first definitions with a global perspective of sustainable development (WCED 1997); `development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs`. The Commission concluded that sustainable development should include three dimensions of sustainability; economic, social and environmental sustainability. To achieve a sustainable development of the society, a satisfactory development of these dimensions is necessary.This is illustrated in Figure 1, where sustainable development is the roof of the building with the three dimensions environmental, economic, social as the load-carrying pillars. The foundation of the construction includes administration and management, so-called institutional sustainability. Figure 1 Framework for sustainability development. Modified from Heijungs et al. (2010) Each level of sustainable development follows its own path by defining specific criteria (also called objectives) and indicators of sustainable development (Keeble et al., 2003). Indicators are tools used to monitor sustainable development within a sector linked to specific criteria, while criteria define what to achieve with such development. 6