Download FAO

NATO SCIENCE FOR PEACE project “Societal security and environmental impacts
concerning mariculture in the Red Sea”
Literature review
Community Perceptions of Aquaculture: Final Report
Nicki Mazur, Heather Aslin and Ian Byron
Australian Government, Bureau of Rural Sciences, 2005
Purpose
This article gives an overview about the public being asked for their knowledge and
their opinions about aquaculture in Australia whereas two specific regions have been
chosen. The survey had the aim to investigate
 peoples’ opinions concerning aquaculture in general
 the knowledge and assumptions towards the economic and social value of fish
farming
 their awareness about potential environmental impacts
 their estimation of aquacultures’ sustainability
Mindset
The paper gives some interesting points to appreciate when dealing with social
surveys. Some citations:
 It will be increasingly important to understand and value the different ways
societal groups perceive risk, particularly the risk that aquaculture might have
negative impacts on the environment and human health. Differences between
‘expert’ and ‘lay public’ risk perceptions can often result in an over-reliance on
older communications models. In these cases, ‘experts’ use increasing
amounts of technical information to convince the public the risk is negligible
and/or under control and rely on one-way information delivery. This approach
is known to invite public suspicion
 Easy access to credible information is another key component to building
public trust in aquaculture. It will be valuable for governments and the
aquaculture industry to further investigate ways to increase the use of
information sources seen as more credible, selectively use important but less
credible sources, improve the use and credibility of governments’ aquaculture
information
 Comprehensive and timely information on aquaculture’s social dimensions is
needed to avoid costly delays and conflicts and build public support. There is a
need for continued and expanded use of social research and assessments
Methodology 1 - Stakeholder identification
 The term ‘stakeholder’ can be understood as those with a (often financial)
stake or interest in an issue, such as government agencies, industry, Non
Government Organisations (NGOs). The term can also be interpreted quite
broadly, to include people who may or may not belong to organised groups,
who may or may not have declared their ‘stake’, but who have a ‘right to know’
if their interests may be affected.
The Community Perceptions of Aquaculture Project has identified that there
will be a variety of individuals and groups who have a specific interest in
aquaculture (communities of interest), as well as those who are interested in
aquaculture because they live in close proximity to it (place-based
communities).
 The sample reflected the diverse range of interests in aquaculture:
aquaculture industry, coastal management, industry development, commercial
and recreational fishing, fish processors, tourism, recreational groups,
conservation groups, and other community groups. Interviewees were
selected on the basis of these interests, as well as for the scale at which their
interest was focused (e.g. local, regional, State-wide). For both samples, a
greater emphasis was placed on interviewing people at the regional/local
scale.
This chart taken from the article shows potential stakeholders in regard to their
interests:
Methodology 2 – Surveys
First of all the following chart shows different ways of approaching community
The article gives a few hints about the methodology of opinion requirements as there
are:
 Different levels of social assessment
Social profiling: Using secondary data (i.e. existing data, such as the Census,
other social data) to produce socio-demographic profile of the community
associated with a particular industry or region
Social assessment: Explores issues in more depth, by collecting primary data
from surveys, interviews, focus groups etc. Involves the community by using
their knowledge to build a picture of the social effects of a particular activity
Social impact assessment (SIA): When a change is proposed, SIA is used to
evaluate the likely impacts of a planned activity, develop strategies to mitigate
adverse impacts, and monitor outcomes of change. Before doing this, a
complete profile and assessment are required
 Mail surveys (500 – 700 households) were undertaken in each region (with
response rates of 57 - 68%)
 The two mail survey samples had similar age profiles (majority over 50 years
of age), but were different in terms of gender, education levels, preferred
activities and their level of direct contact with the aquaculture industry
The following chart pinpoints examples of survey questions:
Results
Some of the results in the specific case of investigated sites:
 Most mail survey respondents agreed that aquaculture had a role in
supplementing (wild-caught) seafood supplies, but they were more unsure
about its specific environmental benefits and impacts. Marine and coastal
environments were valued highly by all interviewees and mail survey
respondents. Both sets of mail survey respondents rated environmental
impacts as the most important aquaculture issue
 Mail survey respondents were generally more unsure about or mistrusting of
governments’ aquaculture decisions and actions than they were trusting
 Interviewees in both regions were interested to see improved relations among
governments, the aquaculture industry and communities through greater
governmental transparency and coordination, firm regulations, clear and
accessible information, and more inclusive dialogues with communities
The next two charts summarise surveys’ findings:
Sustainable Marine Aquaculture: Fulfilling The Promise;
Managing The Risks
REPORT OF THE MARINE AQUACULTURE TASK FORCE, USA, 2007
Content
This article is quite critical about the ecological consequences and the handling of
aquaculture. It mainly deals with the environmental side of aquaculture, issues of
health and sustainability. Marginally it touches welfare / financial aspects while it
does not touch attitudes towards aquaculture or even methodological hints to
investigate stakeholders’ opinions.
Some detailed declarations:
 Coastal areas are affected heavily by fish farming and other activities. Many
marine areas formerly open to shellfish farming have been closed to protect
public health. In remaining clean areas, fish farmers are finding it increasingly
difficult to compete for ocean space and resources with other users
 the call for governmental regulation is loud. As a result, greater authority
requires greater responsibility on the part of the lead agency. This is best
facilitated by a strong signal from the US Congress that marine aquaculture
will not be promoted at the expense of the health of the marine environment
 government processes for siting, permitting and managing marine aquaculture
should be transparent, accountable and accessible to the public
 While marine aquaculture can contribute to the supply of seafood and plays a
role in stocking and restoration efforts, careful management is required to
ensure that it is done in a way that does not harm marine life or the
ecosystems on which it depends
 One recommendation concerning the problem of genetic impacts: limit marine
aquaculture to native species of the local wild genotype unless it can be
demonstrated that the risk of harm to the marine environment from culturing
other species is negligible
 Existing effluent limitations for aquaculture should be reviewed and revised if
necessary to ensure that concerns particular to the proposed expansion of
aquaculture into federal marine waters are addressed.
 The government should ensure that all coastal states have water quality
standards for marine waters, and that those standards protect the health of
marine ecosystems.
 Furthermore government should establish water quality standards for federal
marine waters or revise guidelines for determining degradation of ocean
waters
Creating Environmental Stakeholder Profiles: A Tool for
Dispute Management
Deborah F. Shmueli, Michal Ben Gal, 2004
Purpose
The focus of this article is the development of a methodology to identify values
frames and create stakeholder profiles, in order to assist negotiators and disputants
alike in finding common ground or trade-offs when negotiating a dispute.
Frames
The frames, the article is talking about, are determined by different factors which can
be personal (i.e. beliefs, principles, personality), societal (culture or cultural structures
such as laws and decision-making processes), or socio-personal (i.e. political
orientation, organizational affiliation, needs, desires, or experience).
Disputants in conflicts are separated not only by differences in interests, beliefs, and
values, but also in how they perceive and understand the world, both at a conscious
and preconscious level.
Methodology - Stakeholder identification
Stakeholders with similar interests were grouped together. This allowed not only for
identification of common interests (regardless of differences in positions) but also for
analytical clarity. The six groups identified were:
 entrepreneurs (developers or industries, depending on the type of dispute)
 national government ministries/authorities
 regional government agencies
 local government authorities
 environmental nongovernmental organizations (NGOs)
 local residents/users.
The following chart lists the stakeholder groups in regard to their interests:
Public Attitudes Towards the Environmental Impact of
Salmon Aquaculture in Scotland
David Whitmarsh and Premachandra Wattage
European Environment 16, 108–121 (2006)
Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com)
Purpose
The aims of the survey were to identify the priority that people attach to the
environmental performance of the salmon aquaculture industry, relative to other
objectives, and to measure the economic benefits to society from salmon farmed
using methods that cause less organic pollution.
Methodology
Data were collected by means of a postal questionnaire sent to Scottish households
in the Autumn of 2003. The broad topics / objections are shown in the following chart:
For valuing, people were confronted to pairs ob objectives like shown below:
In the survey, respondents were presented with a total of five such objectives,
arranged into ten pairwise comparisons.
The benefit of this procedure: if someone places a high priority on ensuring that
salmon farming has a low pollution impact, what is he / she willing to sacrifice in order
to achieve it? The answer can be found by comparing the priority weights for
environmental performance with the weights for other objectives, since a high score
for the former will imply a low score for one or more of the latter. In this way, the
nature of the trade-off between the different objectives becomes transparent.
Results
The results indicate that the public attach a relatively high importance to minimizing
environmental damage from aquaculture, and this has its parallel in the finding that
people are willing to pay a price premium for salmon produced in a more
environmentally benign way.
The minimization of environmental damage ranks highest, with a priority weight of
39.1%. Improving product quality and maintaining employment have roughly equal
weights of 18.5% and 18.0% respectively, while avoiding conflicts (13.6%) and
ensuring fair (i.e. competitive) prices are given the lowest priorities (10.7%).
EFFECT OF BALANCED INFORMATION ON ATTITUDES TOWARDS
OPEN OCEAN AQUACULTURE DEVELOPMENT IN NEW ENGLAND
Robert A. Robertson, Erika L. Carlsen
Purpose
This survey targeted to first find out attitudes about mariculture and secondly to
investigate how people are influenced by existing or given information about the topic
they are surveyed.
The main questions of the survey:
 How familiar are the participants with aquaculture?
 What are their attitudes towards open ocean aquaculture development?
 Does the inclusion of balanced information in a survey effect participant
response to attitude questions?
 Does the level of prior familiarity with the issue interact with the effect of
information on attitudes?
 If balanced information does have an effect on attitudes, what is the nature of
that effect?
Methodology
An experimental design was used to determine the effect of balanced information on
attitudes. Balanced information was provided to half of the participants prior to the
attitudinal measurements in the form of several statements on the potential
advantages and disadvantages of aquaculture (Table 1). The statements were
developed with experts in aquaculture management and were intended to provide
equal weight by providing an equal number of statements on the advantages and
disadvantages. The order of the statements was alternated so that half of the
participants were presented with the advantages first and half were presented with
the disadvantages first.
Results
 A majority of participants (53.6%) were unfamiliar with aquaculture, while
29.4% were familiar with aquaculture. Seventeen percent, indicated that they
were unsure of how familiar they were.
 over 70% of participants had positive attitudes towards aquaculture
development
 The results indicate that familiarity does have an effect on attitudes, with
participants who were familiar with aquaculture having more positive attitudes
towards it than those who are unfamiliar or unsure of their familiarity.
EXERPT FROM DRAFT OF RIDELER ET. AL. 2007
(Annotation: no further details yet, because it is very new; the following is a selected
copy from a small part of the text)
Two attitudinal studies towards salmon farming in general, and IMTA in particular,
were conducted in New Brunswick. The first was in 2003 when a random survey of
1,220 people was conducted from two groups (the general public and industry) in
Charlotte County (total 2001 population of 27,366) (Robinson, et. al., 2004). The
response rate for the general public group (N=110) was 11.4 percent, and 53
respondents were from the 15 professional organizations and companies. Two
respondents from environmental organizations were also invited to participate.
To determine whether support would be maintained if details were provided, a
second attitudinal study towards IMTA was conducted in 2005 (Barrington et al.,
2005). Three populations were targeted. The first consisted of restaurant owners,
managers and chefs who all serve seafood and aquaculture products at their
establishments. All the businesses were located in New Brunswick. The second
population was made of individuals who live in Charlotte County, New Brunswick, an
area where the salmon aquaculture industry has a strong presence. The third group
were individuals of the general population who regularly consumed seafood. All came
from those who had been contacted in the 2003 survey.
All groups emphasized that making a profit, raising quality products and not harming
the environment were key to making the aquaculture industry successful.
In general, participants in the survey, except for the environmental NGOs, indicated a
positive attitude towards current salmon monoculture. The principal reason was its
beneficial economic and employment impact.
Cage aquaculture
Regional reviews and global overview
Matthias Halwart, Doris Soto, J. Richard Arthur
FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS
Rome, 2007
This is a very broad report about Cage fish farming in all regions of earth. Both
freshwater and saltwater aquaculture are mentioned. The focus is mainly on
biological and ecological aspects and impacts.
Socio-economic issues are performed marginally. Mostly they are very general and
do not say anything about social surveys or attitudes towards aquaculture.