**7.3 Actor perceptions of needs and interests in access to aquatic genetic material**

Studies of the fish breeding sector for several species and in several countries indicate that they are all prone to rapid structural changes in response to calls for profitability and commercialization (Olesen et al., 2007; Rosendal et al forthcoming). This correspond with a recent survey among fish farmers in Norway where it was found that the most important source of risk for the industry was future salmon prices, institutional risks and diseases (Bergfjord, 2009). In the same study the respondents (farmers) was also asked to identify the most important risk management strategies to the risk issues identified, which was to keep cost low and ensure profitability.

The public breeding programme on cod is currently seen as a public good for Norwegian breeders (interview NN2). The authorities are concerned that the public and private cod breeding programmes can compete on a level playing field, so that the one with public funding is not given unfair competitiveness. At this early stage, it is acknowledged that it is very hard to fund a breeding program, as the economic returns from increased growth may still be a long way off. For salmon, the real growth and economic returns from the breeding program was not apparent until about the fourth generation – and cod is still only in the second or third. There are two major reasons why public funding may be the preferred solution, at least in the early phases: First, during the early phases of breeding, basic mass selection using individual phenotypic information can provide a similar and much cheaper response in growth. This is why more advanced breeding programmes are often less profitable, particularly on a short term, as they are equally costly to start and run the first generations. However, phenotype or mass selection is usually much more limited with respect to selection towards a broader breeding goal with several traits, such as disease resistance. Also, it may be more vulnerable to less control of and rapid increase of inbreeding with resulting genetic erosion. Hence, in the long run, the more advanced family based breeding programmes will become more economically and biologically viable – or sustainable (interview, NN3).

Second, compared to a private breeding programme, aiming at short term profit, a public or cooperative programme usually have a broader range of breeding goals including animal welfare and environmental concerns. Hence, it is expected to obtain apparent gains in growth rate and economic returns later than a private programme – but to give more long term viable fish material and become more sustainable. This gives a competitive edge to the private cod programme in the short run and a competitive edge to the public one in the long run (interview NN1). In combination, they may be in line with the objectives stated in the White Paper for rural/coastal settlements, increased value, sustainable management and innovation (2005). Similar trends have been found for shrimp in India and tilapia in Asia (Ramanna Pathak, forthcoming, Ponzoni et al., 2010).

Considering the problems following Norwegian aquaculture investments and operations in Chile (where the entire salmon farming sector has recently been suffering from widespread outbreaks of infectious salmon anaemia), the enterprises expect to see stricter regulations regarding biological and environmental risks (Marine Harvest, 2011). New regulations will, however, require investment in new technology.

### **7.4 Researchers opinions and attitudes to new biotechnologies**

Very few studies have been carried out with the intention to investigate researchers opinions and attitudes to new biotechnologies. In one study carried out by Kvakkestad et al. (2007) it was found that that different scientists, depending on scientific discipline (ecology, molecular biology, plant breeding), source of funding (public or industry) or whether they worked within industry, government or academia, interpreted data differently in situations characterised with uncertainty, and thus expressed a diversity of opinions about the risks arising from GM crops. In a recent study by Gillund and Myhr (2010) perspectives on alternative feed resources for salmon were identified among stakeholders in Norwegian aquaculture. In this study the sustainability of plant production in industrial agriculture, and particularly the cultivation of GM plants, was contested among the participants. The participants defined a broad range of appraisal criteria concerning health and welfare issues, economical issues, environmental issues, and knowledge and social issues, which illustrates that finding sustainable alternative feed resources is difficult.
