| dc.creator |
Crawford, Brian |
|
| dc.creator |
Celia, Maria |
|
| dc.creator |
Portella, Maria |
|
| dc.creator |
Ellis, Simon |
|
| dc.creator |
Jiddawi, Narriman |
|
| dc.creator |
Mmochi, Aviti J. |
|
| dc.creator |
Camacho, Eladio |
|
| dc.creator |
Dominguez, Guillermo Rodriguez |
|
| dc.creator |
Rodriguez, Gustavo |
|
| dc.creator |
Francis, Julius |
|
| dc.creator |
Leclair, Carlos |
|
| dc.creator |
Oze, Agnes |
|
| dc.creator |
Hernandez, Nelvia |
|
| dc.creator |
Sandoval, Erick |
|
| dc.creator |
Aarroszewska, Marta |
|
| dc.creator |
Dabrowski, Konrad |
|
| dc.date |
2016-04-14T12:08:43Z |
|
| dc.date |
2016-04-14T12:08:43Z |
|
| dc.date |
2010 |
|
| dc.identifier |
Haws, M., Crawford, B., Portella, M.C., Ellis, S., Jiddawi, N., Mmochi, A., Gaxiola-Camacho, E., Rodriguez-Dominguez, G., Rodriguez, G., Francis, J. and Leclair, C.R., 2010. Aquaculture research and development as an entry-point and contributor to natural resources and coastal management. Coastal Management, 38(3), pp.238-261. |
|
| dc.identifier |
http://hdl.handle.net/123456789/1533 |
|
| dc.description |
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. |
|
| dc.language |
en |
|
| dc.publisher |
Taylor & Francis |
|
| dc.subject |
Amazonian fishes |
|
| dc.subject |
Aquaculture |
|
| dc.subject |
Community-based management |
|
| dc.subject |
Mariculture |
|
| dc.subject |
Mexico |
|
| dc.subject |
Micronesia |
|
| dc.subject |
Nicaragua |
|
| dc.subject |
Stock enhancement |
|
| dc.title |
Aquaculture Research and Development as an Entry-Point and Contributor to Natural Resources and Coastal Management |
|
| dc.type |
Journal Article |
|