1. Introduction
Sea-based salmon aquaculture is arguably one of the most advanced and most efficient animal-based food supply chains [
1]. As an oily fish, salmon is a rich source of healthy fats and micronutrients necessary in the promotion of healthy diets [
2]. However, there are several negative environmental impacts associated with sea-based salmon aquaculture such as sea lice [
3], escapements, disease [
4], eutrophication and algal blooms [
5]. Salmon aquaculture also contributes to, and is impacted by, global environmental change and especially climate change through the provision of feed ingredients, production methods, distribution, and waste. Feed in particular is an important issue for the industry as it links fisheries, aquaculture, and terrestrial ecosystems [
6]. Feed production is by far the largest contributor to the industry’s environmental impact [
7,
8]. Transport is also responsible for a significant share of the carbon emissions of seafood supply chains, in particular transport of feed ingredients and air transport of products to distant markets [
9,
10].
The sustainability challenges of sea-based aquaculture are deeply rooted in the industry itself, the technology, the ways of working, interorganizational relationships and interdependencies, but also the wider societal structure, rules and regulations, institutions, and cultures. Therefore, their solution calls for extensive action, and a complete change from the current system to a transformed system might even be necessary. An understanding of the dynamics of such transitions, how they come about and evolve, drivers of change and structural inertia, may assist policy makers in their quest to bring about wide-ranging system transformations [
11]. In general, sustainability transitions have been most-commonly defined as large scale transformations “deemed necessary to solve grand societal challenges” [
12] (p. 600). Various transition theory frameworks have been developed and applied, but the multi-level perspective (MLP) is one of the more prominent ones [
13] and has been applied to various integral socio-technical systems such as energy [
14], mobility [
15], and food [
16].
The MLP is a particularly useful framework for aquaculture—a production system—since it emphasizes the embeddedness of technological innovations in social systems [
17]. Innovative technologies have played an important role in aquaculture’s expansion [
18] and are often considered as integral to addressing sustainability concerns [
19,
20]. Despite the suitability of the MLP framework for aquaculture, very few studies have explored sustainability transitions in aquaculture through the framework. A recent systematic review of the use of the MLP in agri-food systems [
13] identified only one study [
17] with a focus on aquaculture. Bush and Marschke (2014) explored the contribution of the MLP framework to analyzing social dimensions of change for aquaculture in terms of resilience [
17]. More recently, Mok and Gaziulusoy (2018) integrated theoretical insights from the MLP into strategic design considerations using Finnish aquaculture as a case study [
21]. Hansen (2019) applied the MLP framework to examine the development of feed as part of a sustainability transition in Norwegian salmon aquaculture and concluded that economic factors have dominated in this transition which has not reached its full sustainability potential [
22].
While the MLP framework includes policy as one dimension of the socio-technical regime, the role of power and politics in shaping transitions of socio-technical systems, mainly in the form of resistance to change has been under-theorized [
23]. Furthermore, while the focus of transition studies has been on niche innovations, less attention has been paid to the forces maintaining the status quo within socio-technical systems [
23]. The governance structure of a value chain provides information about interfirm relations and power dynamics within the chain [
24]. A governance structure characterized by few dominant players and power asymmetries can indicate that incumbent actors are able to use their power to resist landscape pressures and steer future development away from fundamental system change [
23]. A well-known framework for analyzing value chain governance is the global value chain (GVC) model [
24], which has been used to study interfirm relations in various industries including food value chains [
25,
26,
27]. In order to focus more on actors’ motivation or resistance to change in socio-technical systems, this study incorporated elements of governance analysis based on the GVC model, into the MLP framework.
In this study, industry and expert perspectives in Iceland and Norway were analyzed using an integrated framework based on the MLP and GVC frameworks and the results used to explore potential pathways and challenges on the road towards a more sustainable farmed salmon value chain. The Norwegian aquaculture industry is the global leader in salmon farming and the most cost-efficient producers [
28]. Other salmon producing countries are e.g., Chile, UK, Canada, Faroe Islands, and Iceland. The EU is the largest importer of salmon globally and absorbs around 60% of the total salmon export from Norway, mainly as fresh whole fish [
29]. Many of the world’s largest salmon producers are Norwegian enterprises and Iceland’s salmon aquaculture industry is largely owned by Norwegian companies [
30]. Fitting the farmed salmon value chain to the MLP framework provides information about the current workings of the system, the drivers of change in the socio-technical landscape and niche-innovations and their potential to challenge or enhance the current system and thus indicates possible system transitions. To emphasize the role of industry actors in shaping the future of the salmon value chain, the analysis is strengthened using the GVC model which adds information about power relations and hence indicates the ability of system actors to motivate or resist change. In addition, the sustainability contribution of niche innovations was estimated and thus their ability to challenge the status quo in the system. Based on the stakeholder perspectives, the governance analysis, and the sustainability contribution assessment, probable transition pathways towards sustainability for the farmed salmon value chain are suggested.
The study was part of a Horizon 2020 project called VALUMICS. The overarching aim of the VALUMICS project was to provide tools and approaches that inform decision-makers’ evaluation of the impact of various policies with the ultimate aim of enhancing fairness, integrity and resilience in sustainable food value chains (FVCs). This article is structured as follows:
Section 2 introduces the integrated framework by providing more detail on the MLP and the GVC approaches.
Section 3 outlines the research method and analysis conducted for this study. The findings are then presented (
Section 4), analyzed (
Section 5) and finally discussed (
Section 6).
Section 7 provides the conclusion.
4. Findings
This section presents main findings from the interviews and focus groups underpinning our analysis in
Section 5.
4.1. Socio-Technical Landscape
Supply and demand and global environmental change were the main factors driving change in the farmed salmon value chain according to participants. The most discussed driver of change in the socio-technical landscape, consumer preferences, was related to increased demand for salmon. Participants stated that consumers increasingly call for more sustainable food production and are more concerned with issues such as animal welfare. Changing diets ranging from increased focus on health in general to more transformative change such as veganism were also mentioned as drivers of change that are currently affecting the industry.
“I’m positive for the industry, I think we’ll be in a good place [by 2050], a sustainable place, because consumers—new generations—[…] are very aware of sustainability, environmental impact and so on” (P8/A2).
Global environmental challenges, including climate change, were also mentioned as drivers of change in the current landscape, although on a longer timescale than the other drivers. Environmental challenges influence aquaculture production both directly (e.g., rising sea temperature) and indirectly through mitigative action. Various regulatory changes were discussed in the context of climate mitigation related to countries’ NDCs (Nationally Determined Commitments) to the Paris agreement with some participants anticipating higher carbon taxes targeting for example transportation and other regulatory change in the near future.
“Of course, we see also the climate risk including future regulatory change. [This] is also a topic we discuss in every investment project. How are the regulations going to change, how do we have to invest today to adapt to future regulatory changes?” (P5)
Regional policies and strategies were also discussed as drivers of change at the national level, for example: the EU directive on non-financial disclosures, the EU Green Deal, the Sustainable Development Goals, and circular economy considerations (e.g., regulations on the use of by-products as feed). In the EU’s Farm-to-Fork strategy, which is part of the Green Deal, the guidelines for sustainable aquaculture were also recently revised with an emphasis on increasing aquaculture production in the member states. The EU imports a large proportion of seafood and farming could increase the region’s food security alongside other considerations such as health and nutrition, jobs, and livelihood objectives.
“Today, sustainability is still very important also in the context of the EU Green Deal and the Farm to Fork strategy: they recognize that farmed seafood is a good source of proteins and that it has a lower footprint and an important role to play in sustainable food systems.” (P4)
Much of the discussion involved the increasing role of civil society (e.g., international, and local non-governmental organizations—NGOs) in sustainability awareness-raising and decision-making in the value chain. NGOs were discussed in terms of local communities’ opposition to the industry, the effect on local-level decisions, and the difficulty of navigating the multiple and often differing objectives of different civil society organizations. However, the role of NGOs was also mentioned in the context of partnerships in certification schemes especially in relation to sustainable feed sources. Some participants also highlighted the importance of the private sector’s presence in countries such as Brazil in terms of applying pressure to national authorities for halting deforestation in close collaboration with local and international NGOs such as WWF.
“We have to source soy from somewhere and we choose to source from Brazil because we are pushing them to become more sustainable by doing that, because we are in collaboration with NGOs to produce more sustainable feed. And if you leave the country completely then it’s up to the local organizations there, and they don’t have a lot of power” (P6).
Finally, the trade landscape was discussed in terms of macro-level trends that can affect the value chain, e.g., with regards to trade agreements and political tensions affecting trade.
“We have seen that political tensions between Russia, EU, NATO aren’t becoming less common and there have been a few rounds where we have been excluded from China and also Russia—we are still excluded from Russia. And it doesn’t seem like this trend is easing off.” (P5)
The topics which emerged relating to the drivers in the socio-technical landscape are listed in
Table 3.
4.2. Socio-Technical Regime
Market conditions were described by participants as very favorable with demand consistently exceeding supply resulting in generally favorable prices. The most discussed challenges were regulatory challenges, environmental challenges related to traditional production methods, and the negative public perception of the industry.
In Norway the regulatory challenges mostly mentioned related to the licensing system which hinders growth of traditional sea-based farming. Indeed, several participants mentioned that the policy environment, and specifically growth restrictions, are driving the industry to change their production methodologies because of economic concerns. In order to sustain growth, industry players need to find new ways of producing salmon. Policy initiatives such as the Norwegian developmental licenses further support these efforts by steering industry players towards other production methods.
“Obviously the most urgent driver is Norwegian policy and how the authorities are steering the development of our industry. One concrete example is of course developmental licenses. […] That’s a clear driver for change. In order for us to be able to produce more salmon to grow as a company we needed to come up with [new] technologies” (P5).
When describing the current conditions in Iceland, where the regulatory system and the industry are still in development, most of the interviewees agreed that the system is overly complex, inefficient, time consuming and lacking predictability, resulting in detained growth.
“Licensing [in Iceland] is very time consuming, there is a lot of paperwork involved, often you have to do the same thing just a slightly different version for governmental institutions. So, it’s not very effective and they don’t have the people to work on everything they have to deliver” (P11/B2).
Many respondents mentioned the various environmental challenges of traditional sea-based farming, including mortality, diseases, problems related to lice, lice treatment and escapes. Repeatedly discussed in relation to environmental challenges were the carbon footprint of feed and transport which are responsible for a large share of the total carbon footprint of the industry.
“Salmon farming is like 80% transportation: we are moving smolt, we are moving people, we are moving feed…it’s all on movement” (P9/A3).
Icelandic participants specifically mentioned the challenges of operating traditional farming systems in their harsh environment, increasing the magnitude of problems related, to e.g., mortality and escapes. When discussing challenges of the industry today all participants in the study agreed that the negative public perception of salmon farming is a serious issue that needs to be addressed.
“Sometimes the critics of the industry are unfair, some are fair, and some do not base their criticism on facts. Discussion is healthy but it should be built on facts” (P12/B3).
All the topics which emerged relating to the current socio-technical regime are listed in
Table 4.
4.3. Niches
In terms of technological developments, participants both mentioned advances related to the traditional methods of producing and distributing salmon (e.g., digitalization and improved biology) and more disruptive developments that could potentially have a more transformative effect on the current socio-technical regime (e.g., land-based, and offshore salmon farming). Participants mentioned several developments aimed at improving traditional salmon production and distribution methods. Very prominent were solutions aimed at reducing the carbon footprint of feed and transport, particularly the development of new raw materials for feed, bringing feed production closer to production, and the combination of improved freezing/thawing technologies and more sustainable modes of transport.
“Feed is by far the largest GHG contributor to our product […] 80% of the climate emissions related to salmon aquaculture is feed and transport of feed. We need to make sure that the production and transport of these ingredients are [improved] going forward” (P5).
Technological improvements of open net pen farming were frequently mentioned, including the digital transformation of fish monitoring, and feeding technologies. Many interviewees also mentioned innovations aimed at battling the biggest biological challenges in open net pen farming, namely diseases, lice, and mortality. These include the development of better vaccines and genetic innovation. Furthermore, the progression towards larger smolts aimed at better utilizing licenses and diminishing the likelihood of diseases was also a recurrent theme in the interviews.
“For sea cage aquaculture: it will develop but I foresee that the size of smolts will be larger so the time in the sea will be shorter and that solves problems with escapes and sea lice. So, this will be one of the system transformations and [will] make it more sustainable” (P10/B1).
In addition, also mentioned as potential updates to the current regime were different advancements related to marketing and product development such as more focus on value added products, branding, and convenience food resulting in more product diversification.
“So going from whole fillets of smoked salmon to 200 gr packs to 100 gr packs to 50 g I think is a development […] Salmon is running 12 years behind chicken and cod is running 5 years behind salmon in terms of product development. Innovation on the product side is a key driver” (P3).
As a potential improvement of the current farming system, elements of circular economy such as whole fish utilization and the production of biogas from sludge were mentioned by several participants.
“If we are serious about increasing [circularity] then we need to make these discussions happen and we need to start asking the consumer these questions: what are [you] willing to compromise in order to have more sustainable food choices?” (P6).
Land based salmon farming using recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS) was the most frequently mentioned topic by participants. Other frequently mentioned new technologies were offshore farming, closed or semi-closed farming systems, aquaponics, and organic aquaculture.
“In 2050 we will have land-based salmon farming as a big segment living side by side with the traditional farms in the fjords… I think there is plenty of room for many technologies and they will live side by side” (P3).
All the topics which emerged relating to niche developments are listed in
Table 5.
6. Discussion
As this study has shown, numerous often interrelated factors can influence the direction of an industry. This ranges from drivers at the landscape level to various regime developments, and not least the maturity and potential breakthroughs of niche-innovations. Crucially, when viewed in the context of the integrated MLP and GVC framework, the governance structure of the farmed salmon value chain indicates that incumbent actors in the chain are in a strong position to resist change to a new regime, using power to withstand landscape pressures and flexibility to adapt when needed. Most participants agreed that sea-based aquaculture would predominate in the future although diversity in terms of farming systems would increase. This transition pathway of gradual change is mainly the result of the interplay of the different factors summarized in
Figure 2 and the preliminary analysis of niches’ state of development in
Table 6. In what follows, we briefly discuss some of the governance implications of these findings and how a food system approach can be useful in this context.
Political decisions can heavily influence salmon aquaculture by regulating the location of farm sites and slaughter plants and their social impacts on communities. Limited availability of new licenses for salmon farming in Norway motivates Norwegian companies to operate and expand salmon production in other salmon producing countries (e.g., Chile, Scotland, US, Canada, and Iceland) to ensure continued growth and stable supplies of Atlantic salmon to markets. However, many salmon producing wealthy nations (including Iceland and Norway) are facing similar socio-ecological challenges which have placed limits to salmon aquaculture expansion [
57].
The fact that aquaculture is a biological process carried out in an open environment and that there are still uncertainties regarding its environmental impact, poses challenges for both industry actors and governmental agencies. These challenges have been described as a wicked problem [
90]. Fish farmers continually deal with environmental uncertainties in their operations and they, as well as policy makers, face steady pressure from society and media to quickly adapt to rapid improvements in knowledge regarding environmental externalities and the associated technological advancements. These challenges make the salmon value chain both hard to manage and govern and call for a flexible and adaptive approach to governance [
90,
91]. Therefore, hybrid forms of governance characterized by the active involvement of non-state and state actors [
92] will likely continue to play an important role in the industry’s ongoing pursuit of social legitimacy and for solving grand sustainability challenges where collaboration and coordination of different actors is necessary.
Collaboration and coordination point to the need of providing formal procedures for genuine engagement of stakeholders in deliberation, decision-making, and management of conflicts in connection to aquaculture sites and impacts are of crucial importance to the industry’s social license to operate [
58]. Iceland, as an example, could benefit from the implementation of comprehensive marine spatial planning processes [
57] which would ensure that legitimate concerns of local communities and civil society groups are addressed through formal avenues. It is also important to have a robust governance system which seeks to prevent conflict of interest in the regulatory and administrative system strengthening accountability and thus public trust and acceptance [
93].
The need for accountability and transparency has been partly addressed through the creation of multistakeholder certification schemes which are a form of self-regulation by the private sector serving a value and trust enhancing purpose in the market [
94,
95]. Multistakeholder certification schemes, such as the Aquaculture Stewardship Council, have emerged as a way of meeting normative demands of various stakeholders regarding the sustainability performance of companies. The hierarchical form of governance in salmon aquaculture [
43] makes it easier for firms to adopt certifications as vertical integration facilitates the implementation of standards [
96]. This, however, also means that smallholders and companies in the global south with fewer capabilities to implement standards may be excluded from markets [
93] leading ultimately also to slow uptake of the standards globally. A relatively narrow focus on sustainability especially in terms of long—term biophysical impacts [
97] is also a major limitation.
National regulations constitute an influential driver of change as can be seen by the impact of the licensing system in Norway on the industry [
98]. As Hersoug (2015) has shown by emphasizing lice as the single most important performance indicator, the Norwegian licensing system effectively restricted environmental sustainability considerations to the narrow focus of biological sustainability [
98]. Although protection of local ecosystems and wild species is important, the question arises whether stakeholders’ sustainability considerations should be broadened to include the entire value chain and its impact from a food system perspective with a view towards balancing local and global concerns [
99]. Broadening actors’ perspectives and reframing challenges in a food system perspective which considers the whole value chain and its role in the wider system is important for transitioning the industry towards more sustainability [
100]. As the European Environment Agency stated in a recent report: “sustainability in food requires a policy framework that embraces a food system approach, and that allows a shared understanding of the food system to be built” [
6] (p. 5). Achieving this shared understanding among the different stakeholders of the farmed aquaculture value chain may be a viable way forward in ameliorating conflicts as well as an important consideration for a sustainability transition.
From a food system perspective, salmon constitutes a healthy source of animal protein with relatively lower environmental impact compared to other animal protein sources [
8]. However, for salmon aquaculture to grow sustainably, livestock pressures on the environment would have to be achieved concurrently. As previous research has shown [
22] and participants confirmed, one of the major sustainability challenges for the farmed salmon value chain is the provision of sustainable feed. No niche so far can resolve the reliance of farmed salmon on plant and, to a lesser extent, marine-based proteins and alternative feed sources come with their own drawbacks and possible unintended consequences [
101]. In fact, our analysis showed that no single niche innovation adequately addresses the various sustainability challenges of the farmed salmon value chain. In addition, most of the policy-making focus has been on the production-side, thus allowing opportunities to address large sustainability challenges along the entire value chain to remain unexploited.
Recent scientific assessments underscore the importance of reducing meat consumption from a health and sustainability perspective [
63,
102] and both regional and national policies have begun to incorporate this goal in their dietary recommendations and policy frameworks [
103,
104]. Although seafood has been afforded less consideration in the transition to more sustainable food systems, it has an important role to play due to its nutritional profile and its relatively lower environmental impact compared to livestock [
2]. Seafood’s nutritional significance is due to the provision of protein, healthy fats, and essential nutrients [
105]. Aquaculture, in particular, has been singled out as a sector that will need to expand production to meet future food demand in part due to the stagnating state of capture fisheries [
106]. The production efficiency, nutritional contribution and comparatively lower environmental impact of farmed salmon are reasons to consider it in debates about the role of seafood in sustainable food systems.
The lack of integration of fish in food policies in general [
105] and the relative dearth of studies assessing the role of seafood—both wild and farmed—in sustainable food systems constitute important future research directions [
99]. Negative public perceptions of the industry at both the local (community) and international level emerged as one of the major challenges for conventional sea-based aquaculture underpinning previous research [
107]. Emphasizing the industry’s role in providing healthy and nutritious products with a relatively lower environmental footprint compared to other animal protein production may represent a useful strategy for improving the industry’s public image.