Details
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 429-446 |
| Number of pages | 18 |
| Journal | Reviews in Fisheries Science and Aquaculture |
| Volume | 30 |
| Issue number | 4 |
| Early online date | 14 Dec 2021 |
| Publication status | Published - 2022 |
Abstract
A recent publication by Belton et al. raises points for policy-makers and scientists to consider with respect to the future of aquaculture making recommendations on policies and investments in systems and areas of the world where aquaculture can contribute most. Belton et al. take an ‘us versus them’ approach separating aquaculture by economics, livelihood choices, and water salinity. They conclude “that marine finfish aquaculture in offshore environments will confront economic, biophysical, and technological limitations that hinder its growth and prevent it from contributing significantly to global food and nutrition security.” They argue that land-based freshwater aquaculture is a more favorable production strategy than ocean/marine aquaculture; they disagree with government and non-governmental organizations spatial planning efforts that add new aquaculture to existing ocean uses; they advocate for open commons for wild fisheries as opposed to aquaculture; and they oppose ‘open ocean’ aquaculture and other types of industrial, capital-intensive, ‘carnivorous’ fish aquaculture. They discredit marine aquaculture rather than explain how all aquaculture sectors are significantly more efficient and sustainable for the future of food than nearly all land-based animal protein alternatives. As an interdisciplinary group of scientists who work in marine aquaculture, we disagree with both the biased analyses and the advocacy presented by Belton et al. Marine aquaculture is growing and is already making a significant contribution to economies and peoples worldwide. None of the concerns Belton et al. raise are new, but their stark statement that farming fish in the sea cannot ‘nourish the world’ misses the mark, and policy-makers would be wrong to follow their misinformed recommendations.
Keywords
- investments, Marine and freshwater aquaculture, policy, production, science
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Agricultural and Biological Sciences(all)
- Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
- Agricultural and Biological Sciences(all)
- Aquatic Science
- Environmental Science(all)
- Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law
Sustainable Development Goals
Cite this
- Standard
- Harvard
- Apa
- Vancouver
- BibTeX
- RIS
In: Reviews in Fisheries Science and Aquaculture, Vol. 30, No. 4, 2022, p. 429-446.
Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Research › peer review
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - A Fishy Story Promoting a False Dichotomy to Policy-Makers
T2 - It Is Not Freshwater vs. Marine Aquaculture
AU - Costa-Pierce, Barry Antonio
AU - Bockus, Abigail B.
AU - Buck, Bela H.
AU - van den Burg, Sander W.K.
AU - Chopin, Thierry
AU - Ferreira, Joao G.
AU - Goseberg, Nils
AU - Heasman, Kevin G.
AU - Johansen, Johan
AU - Shumway, Sandra E.
AU - Sims, Neil A.
AU - Tacon, Albert G.J.
N1 - Funding Information: This work was initiated by a group of concerned scientists who are members of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) Working Group on Open Ocean Aquaculture. The Belton et al. (2020) article was then the subject of a seminar and discussions in 2021 by graduate students as part of the Graduate Program in Ocean Food Systems at the University of New England, who gave valuable input to this paper. We want to thank Eric Heupel for his kind professional work on graphics for this paper.
PY - 2022
Y1 - 2022
N2 - A recent publication by Belton et al. raises points for policy-makers and scientists to consider with respect to the future of aquaculture making recommendations on policies and investments in systems and areas of the world where aquaculture can contribute most. Belton et al. take an ‘us versus them’ approach separating aquaculture by economics, livelihood choices, and water salinity. They conclude “that marine finfish aquaculture in offshore environments will confront economic, biophysical, and technological limitations that hinder its growth and prevent it from contributing significantly to global food and nutrition security.” They argue that land-based freshwater aquaculture is a more favorable production strategy than ocean/marine aquaculture; they disagree with government and non-governmental organizations spatial planning efforts that add new aquaculture to existing ocean uses; they advocate for open commons for wild fisheries as opposed to aquaculture; and they oppose ‘open ocean’ aquaculture and other types of industrial, capital-intensive, ‘carnivorous’ fish aquaculture. They discredit marine aquaculture rather than explain how all aquaculture sectors are significantly more efficient and sustainable for the future of food than nearly all land-based animal protein alternatives. As an interdisciplinary group of scientists who work in marine aquaculture, we disagree with both the biased analyses and the advocacy presented by Belton et al. Marine aquaculture is growing and is already making a significant contribution to economies and peoples worldwide. None of the concerns Belton et al. raise are new, but their stark statement that farming fish in the sea cannot ‘nourish the world’ misses the mark, and policy-makers would be wrong to follow their misinformed recommendations.
AB - A recent publication by Belton et al. raises points for policy-makers and scientists to consider with respect to the future of aquaculture making recommendations on policies and investments in systems and areas of the world where aquaculture can contribute most. Belton et al. take an ‘us versus them’ approach separating aquaculture by economics, livelihood choices, and water salinity. They conclude “that marine finfish aquaculture in offshore environments will confront economic, biophysical, and technological limitations that hinder its growth and prevent it from contributing significantly to global food and nutrition security.” They argue that land-based freshwater aquaculture is a more favorable production strategy than ocean/marine aquaculture; they disagree with government and non-governmental organizations spatial planning efforts that add new aquaculture to existing ocean uses; they advocate for open commons for wild fisheries as opposed to aquaculture; and they oppose ‘open ocean’ aquaculture and other types of industrial, capital-intensive, ‘carnivorous’ fish aquaculture. They discredit marine aquaculture rather than explain how all aquaculture sectors are significantly more efficient and sustainable for the future of food than nearly all land-based animal protein alternatives. As an interdisciplinary group of scientists who work in marine aquaculture, we disagree with both the biased analyses and the advocacy presented by Belton et al. Marine aquaculture is growing and is already making a significant contribution to economies and peoples worldwide. None of the concerns Belton et al. raise are new, but their stark statement that farming fish in the sea cannot ‘nourish the world’ misses the mark, and policy-makers would be wrong to follow their misinformed recommendations.
KW - investments
KW - Marine and freshwater aquaculture
KW - policy
KW - production
KW - science
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85121484559&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/23308249.2021.2014175
DO - 10.1080/23308249.2021.2014175
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85121484559
VL - 30
SP - 429
EP - 446
JO - Reviews in Fisheries Science and Aquaculture
JF - Reviews in Fisheries Science and Aquaculture
SN - 2330-8249
IS - 4
ER -