World Aquaculture Magazine - September 2021

WWW.WA S .ORG • WORLD AQUACULTURE • SEP TEMBER 2021 43 Aquaculture’s NewOrthodoxies Costa-Pierce and Chopin (2021) covered much of the hype in some proposals for aquaculture development today. Many aquaculture veterans chimed in to us after the article was published and said “so what else is new”? There are more important additional orthodoxies that affect aquaculture policies and development options that are uncomfortable truths: 1) Does the world need more food? 2) Does aquaculture contribute in an outsized way to nutritional wellness? and 3) Do the new geographies for aquaculture, such as the USA and the EU, import 90 percent or more of their seafoods? First, world food production has outpaced population growth by a large margin, including for animal proteins (Hazell andWood 2008, Pingale 2012, FAO 2017). Seafood supply has also outpaced population growth (FAO 2018). The real reason for human suffering is not supply but the dysfunctions in access, distribution networks, income distribution (the yawning gap between rich and poor) and its consequences for increasing poverty, protracted wars and violence and climate-related disasters (FAO et al. 2018). Second, there is evidence from aquaculture scientists that the enhanced protein and micronutrient contributions from seafood to consumers and households in comparisons to intake from lower-cost plants and terrestrial animals has been overstated (Kawarazuka and Bene 2011, Bene et al. 2016). Third, large countries with great potential for aquaculture development advocate the need for it in comparison to other alternatives. The US does not import 90 percent of its seafood. It has long been said that “America exports everything it produces and imports everything it eats.” I once ate cod at a restaurant in Gloucester, Massachusetts, next to the fish auction. The fisherman I was out to dinner with pointed to my plate and said, “that fish was caught here, exported to be processed in Thailand, now is on your plate.” The US and the EU are among the world’s largest seafood exporters. Gephart et al. (2019) estimate that China imports about one-third of US seafood, processes them, then about 57 percent of that is shipped back to the US where it is counted as imports. As a result, they estimate domestic production accounts for 35-38 percent of America’s seafood and that 62-65 percent of seafood is imported. Seafood data are poor everywhere for decision-making and are used to make political points to advocate for aquaculture. Aquaculture is political, of course, but doesn’t need poor data to justify its solid merits. Introduction Aquaculture is nothing new. It is part of our collective humanity throughout human history (and her- story, as gender issues are vital in all future planning for sustainability). I have hypothesized from anthropological and archeological research and reviews that “When the populations of seafood-eating peoples exceeded the carrying capacity of their natal fisheries ecosystems to support them, they developed aquaculture.” We have to break this theory down to test its parts: a) “seafood-eating” peoples, b) exceeded natural limits and c) indigenous abilities. Seafood is an important but minor source of animal proteins throughout the world in most inland nations. There are important regional exceptions: the Great Lakes nations of Africa and the ricefield areas of south and southeast Asia are examples that come to mind. Highest seafood consumption rates exist for coastal and island peoples and actual consumption rates can be underestimated. For example, fish consumption in 613 village meals by Fijians from all ethnic groups in 150 coastal villages on Viti Levu averaged 68.2 kg/ capita/year (Rawlinson 1994). This per capita fish consumption rate is similar to that of the Japanese, who are reported to consume 68-70 kg/capita/year, the highest in the world (New 1997). The first Chinese regulations on capture fisheries were published in antiquity and aquaculture pioneers such as Fan Li taught his people how to grow fish like any other farm animal. Aquaculture revolutions happened in coastal and island, indigenous seafood-eating peoples in antiquity (Costa-Pierce 2010). These were not “Blue Revolutions,” however. They were knowledge-based, trial and error farming operations. They were also scientific “Blue Evolutions.” Aquaculture in these situations arose within a complex social-ecological milieu. Aquaculture is culture, not just technology and tanks, not just meeting the regulations and obtaining the permits. As such, plans for its future at a larger scale must be comprehensive and consider well not only innovative technologies and economic sustainability but also their ecological and social sustainabilities. In aquaculture’s new geographies, will society accept a Blue Revolution in their communities? In many places, the answer is no. If so, how do we step back, plan better, invest smarter and learn from our failures, especially where aquaculture has enormous potential to contribute to human health and environmental sustainability. But first, there are new orthodoxies arising that as scientists we need to address directly to move forward. The Social Ecology of Aquaculture in Its New Geographies Barry Antonio Costa-Pierce ( C O N T I N U E D O N P A G E 4 4 ) There are important orthodoxies that are uncomfortable truths: First, world food production has outpaced population growth by a large margin, including for animal proteins. Second, there is evidence from aquaculture scientists that the enhanced protein and micronutrient contributions from seafood to consumers and households in comparisons to intake from lower-cost plants and terrestrial animals has been overstated. Third, large countries with great potential for aquaculture development advocate the need for it in comparison to other alternatives.