**9. Recommendation**

334 Aquaculture

fry and resulting low profit margins of genetic improvement for breeders and hatcheries. The latter has made genetic improvement an insecure investment objective, perhaps also due to the ease of illegally reproducing highly fertile fish and marketing 'pirate copied' material. The last two decades, R&D funds have tended to be prioritized for research in molecular genetics and genomics with less funding for further development and establishment of selective breeding that has proved to give long term genetic gains. However, also for applying genomic information efficiently a selective breeding program

With interesting similarities to the ABS debate in the CBD, there seems to be little immediate value in breeding and breeding programmes. Previous studies have shown that the incentives for capitalizing on salmon breeding materials have been virtually non-existent, due to low roe prices and low profit for improved breeding material; a trend that does not seem likely to change in the near future (Olesen et al., 2007; Rosendal et al., 2006). Similarly, there seems to be little profit to be reaped from increased knowledge about and improvements of genetic resources and their traits, as has also been claimed in the ABS debate (Grajal, 1999). At the same time, it is hard to refute the great profits from biotechnology – from traditional breeding to genetic engineering – and there is a growing business interest in access to valuable genetic material (Laird & Wynberg, 2005). This seems paradoxical also with a view to the valuable good of faster growing and hence cheaper salmon, which is resulting from the breeding programs. Here also we see that the willingness to pay is small but the interest in access is paradoxically high. The problem is that bringing forth fast growing, disease free fish is relatively expensive, whereas the result can be copied at very low costs. This has led to a pressure towards profitability and privatisation in the aquaculture sector, including the public breeding programmes. However, the cost of maintaining a good, disease free product is relatively high and the question is whether the market can be expected to deliver this service, when there is such a high degree of uncertainty regarding profits. Due to the high fertility of aquatic species, aquaculture breeding programs have shown to give high benefit/cost ratios and tremendous value creation for the society. This is also the case for family based programs aiming for a broad and sustainable breeding goal with many traits. The paradox illustrates the challenge of securing policy goals of affordable access to genetic improvements in breeding and to stimulate sustainability and innovation in aquaculture. The alternative to the continued funding of public breeding programmes may portend forfeiting the

normative ideal of providing improved breeding material on an affordable basis.

In general, aquaculture is experiencing pressure towards higher production efficiency and short term profits. Hence, actors face emerging difficulties pertaining to adequate funding for sustainable breeding programmes and affordable access to improved genetic material. Historically, aquaculture in India and Norway has mainly been based on public investments to increase production, develop and widely disseminate material to as many users as possible, rather than creating proprietary products. The same was true for the original objectives of the GIFT tilapia project. This illustrates the nature of breeding material as a public good. Greater involvement of private sector leads however to stronger need for legal protection of genetic material. As this keeps knowledge out of the public domain, it is perceived to have negative implications for aquaculture. In a study by Rosendal et al. (forthcoming) it was found similarities between Norway, India and the GIFT donors regarding their normative objective

is a prerequisite.

Aquaculture is a source for food all around the world (FAO, 2009). Can it with its biotechnological development be sustainable on both short and long-term? As we have presented in this chapter there are several challenges that actors within the aquaculture sector is facing and decisions has to be made.

In the EU communication (2002) 'A strategy for the sustainable development of European aquaculture' it is emphasised that 'The fundamental issue is therefore the maintenance of competiveness, productivity, durability of the aquaculture sector. Further developments of the industry must take an approach where farming technologies, socio-economics, natural resources use and governance are all integrated so that sustainability can be achieved.' This is a very ambitious vision for the future and implies an integrated assessment of environmental, social, economic and legal issues. To do so we recommend that:

