Aquaculture International

, Volume 10, Issue 6, pp 469–490 | Cite as

Uncertainties and values in European aquaculture: communication, management and policy issues in times of “changing public perceptions”

  • M. Kaiser
  • S.M. SteadEmail author


The hypothesis that forms the basis of debatefor this paper is that in order for theEuropean aquaculture industry to achieve itsgrowth potential in terms of consumer andpublic acceptance then it must establishparticipatory fora that adopt open andtransparent discussions on the current andfuture issues surrounding sustainabledevelopment. Fundamental to this goal iseffective communication of easy-to-digestinformation. Also, interested parties should begiven the option to be involved in thedevelopment of recommendations.

This paper recommends among others the followingmeasures:

Full adoption of the Integrated Coastal Zone Management Strategy, based on a multidisciplinary framework and extended peer-reviews;

More openness and debate, including the broadening of perspectives, regarding the issues of sustainability and food safety;

The wider use of various participatory mechanisms on different levels, e.g. through national consensus conferences.

Aquaculture Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) Management Participatory fora Policy Sustainable development and uncertainty 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Åsgård, T., Austreng, E., Holmefjord, I., Hillestad, M. and Shearer, K. 1999. Resource efficiency in the production of various species. In: N. Svennevig, H. Reinertsen and M. New (eds), Sustainable Aquaculture – Food for the Future? A.A. Balkema Publishers, Rotterdam.Google Scholar
  2. Barnabé, G. and Barnabé-Quet, R. 2000. Ecology and Management of Coastal Waters: The Qquatic Environment. Springer – Praxis Books in Aquaculture and Fisheries, UK, 396 pp.Google Scholar
  3. De Silva, S.S. 1999. Feed resources, usage and sustainability. In: N. Svennevig, H. Reinertsen and M. New (eds), Sustainable Aquaculture – Food for the Future? A.A. Balkema Publishers, Rotterdam.Google Scholar
  4. European Commission 1999. Towards a European Integrated Coastal Zone (ICZM) Strategy: General Principles and Policy Options – A Reflection Paper. European Commission. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg. Available from Scholar
  5. European Commission 2000. Communication to the Council and the European Parliament on ICZM: A Strategy for Europe (COM (2000) 547). Available from Scholar
  6. FAO 2000. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture, Scholar
  7. Fiorino, D. 1990. Citizen participation and environmental risk: A survey of institutional mechanisms. Science, Technology and Human Values 15: 226–243.Google Scholar
  8. Fixdal J. 1998. Public Participation in Technology – An Analysis with Focus on Three European Models for Public Participation and Their Contribution to a Well Informed and Democratic Governance of Technology, TMV Skriftserie nr.37. Centre for Technology and Culture, University of Oslo, Oslo.Google Scholar
  9. Forsberg, E.-M. and Kaiser, M. 2000. Norske fiskerier mot 2020 – strategier og verdier, De nasjonale forskningsetiske komiteer: Oslo; Scholar
  10. Forster, I. 1999. Aquaculture, chickens, salmon: a case study. World Aquaculture Magazine 30: 33–70.Google Scholar
  11. Funtowicz, S. and Ravetz, J. 1993. Science for the Post-Normal Age, Futures 25/7.Google Scholar
  12. Funtowicz, S. and Ravetz, J. 1999. Post-Normal Science – An Insight Now Maturing, Futures, 31/7.Google Scholar
  13. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P. and Trow, M. 1994. The New Production of Knowledge – The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. SAGE, London.Google Scholar
  14. Howarth, W. 1995. The Essentials of Aquaculture Regulation, in: FAO/NACA, Report on a Regional Study and Workshop on the Environmental Assessment and Management of Aquaculture Development (TCP/RAS/2253): 459–465. NACA. Environment and Aquaculture Development Series. No1. NACA, Bangkok.Google Scholar
  15. Jacobs, M. 2000. Investigation of PCDD's, PCDF's and selected Coplaner PCB's in Scottish Farmed Atlantic Salmon. Organohalogen Compounds 47: 338–346.Google Scholar
  16. Joss, S. and Durant, J. (eds) 1995. Public Participation in Science: The Role of Consensus Conferences in Europe, Science Museum, London.Google Scholar
  17. Kaiser, M. 2000. Diskurs oder Konfrontation in Fragen der Gentechnik? In: A. Spök und K. Hartmann (eds), GENug gestritten ?!, Leykam, Graz.Google Scholar
  18. Kaiser, M. and Forsberg, E.-M. 2001. Assessing fisheries – using an ethical matrix in a participatory process. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 14(2): 191–200.Google Scholar
  19. Kjørsvik, E. and Stead, S.M. (eds) 2001. Proceedings from New Species. New Technologies, International Conference Organised by the European Aquaculture Society and Nor-Fishing Foundation, Trondheim, Norway, 4–7 August 2001.Google Scholar
  20. Kluver, L., Nentwich, M., Peissl, W., Torgersen, H., Gloede, F., Hennen, L., van Eijndhoven, J., van Est, R., Joss, S., Bellucci, S. and Bütschi, D. 2000. EUROPTA: European Participatory Technology Assessment – Participatory Methods in Technology Assessment and Technology Decision-Making, The Danish Board of Technology: Scholar
  21. MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd. 1999. Forward Study of Community Aquaculture: Summary Report. European Commission Fisheries Directorate General, Brussels, Brussels, Belgium, 60 pp.Google Scholar
  22. Naylor, R.L., Goldburg, R.J., Primavera, J.H., Kautsky, N., Beveridge, M.C., Clay, J., Folke, C., Lubchenco, J., Mooney, H. and Troell, M. 2000. Effect of aquaculture on world fish supplies. Nature 405: 1017–1024.Google Scholar
  23. Renn, O., Webler, T. and Wiedemann, P. (eds) 1995. Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation. Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse. Kluwer: Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  24. Wurmann, C.F. 2001. Opportunities and challenges of diversification in Aquaculture production: a global perspective for the coming decades. In: E. Kjørsvik and S. Stead (eds), New Species, New Technologies, Trondheim, Norway, 4–7 August 2001. International Conference Organised by the European Aquaculture Society and Nor-Fishing Foundation.Google Scholar
  25. Wynne, B. 1992. Uncertainty and environmental learning. Global Environmental Change June: 111–127.Google Scholar
  26. Ziman, J. 1996. Is science losing its objectivity? Nature 382: 751–754.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The National Committee for Research Ethics in Science and Technology in NorwayOsloNorway
  2. 2.Marine Resource Management Research Group, School of Resources, Environment and Society, St Mary's, King's CollegeUniversity of AberdeenAberdeenScotland, U.K.

Personalised recommendations