Integrated coastal management (ICM) is often defined as some variant of the definition provided by Cicin-Sain and Knecht (1998, 11) as “a continuous and dynamic process by which decisions are taken for the sustainable use, development, and protection of coastal and marine areas and resources. ICM acknowledges the interrelationships that exist among coastal and ocean uses and the environments they potentially affect, and is designed to overcome the fragmentation inherent in the sectoral management approach. ICM is multipurpose oriented, it analyzes and addresses implications of development, conflicting uses, and interrelationships between physical processes and human activities, and it promotes linkages and harmonization among sectoral coastal and ocean activities.” Aquaculture is a wide-ranging economic development activity involving culture of marine or brackish water plants, animals, or microorganisms at some point in their life cycle. As such, aquaculture has traditionally occupied a primary place among development activities in coastal areas, and is rapidly expanding to supply protein-rich foods and other products, filling the gaps left by the decline of capture fisheries as the world population continues to grow. Growth is also expected as culture technologies and species development increasingly make new forms of aquaculture, such as off-shore systems, feasible. Aquaculture supplies approximately 47% of the world’s seafood supply and is the fastest growing form of animal husbandry at 6.9% per annum. Per capita production rose from 0.7 kg in 1970 to 7.8 kg in 2006 producing 66.7 million tons of plant and animal material with a value of $85.9 billion (Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO], 2008). Consideration of aquaculture within the context of ICM is critical as both become more important. Changes brought on by climate change will also affect the role of aquaculture along the world’s coasts, major rivers and watersheds. Aquaculture is often regarded primarily in a negative light when considered by coastal management programs, often ignored completely. Aquaculture is also often viewed as an “industry” responsible for habitat destruction, competing with other economic activities, displacing local peoples and their traditional occupations, and as an inefficient use of inputs and resources. Use of the term “industry” is misleading as very few forms of aquaculture are sufficiently large and consolidate, and geographically or structurally coherent enough to merit this term. Shrimp or salmon culture may merit this designation. Most aquaculture is conducted on a small to medium scale. FAO estimates that 80% of world aquaculture production is produced by smallholders (Subasinghe & Phillips, 2005). In fact, the lack of cohesiveness and sectoral organization is a major challenge for inclusion in natural resources management programs. Social and economic impacts are also commonly alleged to occur. This is a more problematic topic than the issue of environmental impacts since social or economic inequities or injustices are rarely well documented and are difficult to distinguish from similar issues occurring throughout a particular nation’s socioeconomic milieu. The environmental, social, and economic costs and benefits of aquaculture are highly nuanced and variable depending on which region, species, and form of aquaculture is practiced. The authors’ intention is not to debate whether or not impacts occur, to what extent or which sectors within aquaculture Downloaded By: [University of Rhode Island] At: 17:59 1 June 2010 240 M.