This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Aquaculture is a major contributor to global food production, but has attracted considerable controversy. Disagreements over the social and ecological impacts of aquaculture (positive and negative) have hindered further expansion of aquaculture production, particularly in wealthy democratic countries. This article presents findings from a series of workshops bringing international aquaculture scholars together from the natural and social sciences to examine and compare social-ecological challenges facing aquaculture development in five nations: Canada, the Faroe Islands, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden. This multinational comparison provides unique insights into common and particular challenges in aquaculture governancea dimension that is missing in current literature about the industry. A political ecology framework from the environmental social sciences is used to examine how natural and human phenomena interact to shape these challenges and frame the conflicts that often result. The analysis reveals a wide range of social-ecological factors limiting aquaculture expansion in the five countries, including access to suitable environments, interactions with other sectors, and policy and regulatory gapsnot only with respect to aquaculture, but also on related issues such as marine spatial planning and the involvement of indigenous peoples in decision-making. The findings provide preliminary guidance for future policy development and comparative aquaculture research. IntroductionAquaculture, the farming of aquatic animals and plants for private harvest, has grown substantially in recent decades and now plays a major role in the global food system. Like landbased agriculture, aquaculture takes multiple forms, from the small-scale stocking of ponds with herbivorous fish for local consumption, to the industrial-scale production of high-value species such as salmon, shrimp, and shellfish for international markets (FAO 2016). Global aquaculture production has grown at rapid rate, from 32 million tonnes in 2000 to 77 million tonnes in 2015 (Zhou 2017). With this growth have come new social and ecological challenges. In developing regions where small-scale freshwater aquaculture is common, issues such as landscape change, water quality, deforestation, and loss of wetlands have been identified as key problems (Bush and Marschke 2014). In wealthier countries, controversy has emerged over impacts on wild stocks and species, degradation of habitat, rural futures and economic restructuring, and legal and moral rights to aquatic spaces and resources (Young and Matthews 2010). These challenges

The article compares different models for knowledge production, all of which include traditional knowledge, as part of Norwegian and Finnish Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) research and management projects. Our hope is to contribute constructively to more socially robust knowledge production in Arctic environmental governance. Through investigating how traditional knowledge comes to matter at local, regional (national), and international levels in different Atlantic salmon research and governance projects in Norway and Finland, we examine the social robustness of different approaches to knowledge co-production. In general, the projects that seem to fulfill Arctic expectations of traditional knowledge co-production with science (projects with high legitimacy) seem to have the least impact on policy, and vice versa. We argue that expectations at the international policy level towards traditional knowledge integration with science are at times unrealistically high and hard to meet at local levels and in national policy contexts. We therefore argue for rethinking how a legitimate and policy-relevant knowledge co-production process should be conducted. Arctic policy levels, Norwegian and Finnish environmental authorities, and salmon conservation science could fruitfully draw lessons from the Näätämö co-management project, which is already referred to as an example of best practice in Arctic environmental governance. To achieve social robustness, projects need to balance scientific credibility with legitimacy among local and Indigenous rights holders. This balance might entail giving up on expectations of integrating traditional ecological knowledge with science and embracing the undefined spaces within Arctic and Indigenous knowledge production.

Through the construction of a socio-ecological timeline for the Porsanger fjord ecosystem, this article illustrates the different ways in which environmental and social–ecological changes have influenced the adaptations of rural households in coastal Sami communities in Finnmark, north Norway. The main finding is that, although environmental change in the form of seal invasions and dwindling fish stocks directly impacted the fisheries, the introduction of a new vessel quota system decisively changed adaptive capacity and coastal Sami household adaptation strategies. These changes represented a tipping point for the social–ecological system in the period between 1986 and 1990. It is thus important to discuss the ways in which governance systems may facilitate actions to adapt to climate and biodiversity change and foster sustainable rural livelihood systems in coastal Norway. Based on traditional and local ecological knowledge on the state of the ecosystem prior to the tipping point, two relevant actions to increase the resilience of the system were identified: ensuring the possibility of re-entry into fisheries as part of rural livelihood combinations, and ecological restoration of kelp beds. Flexible diversification of livelihoods allows exploitation of a range of adjacent species without large investments in a fossile fuel-driven fisheries economy. Investing in regrowth of macroalgae to foster cod nursery areas and increase carbon sequestration can be a relevant alternative for communities that are interested in contributing to climate change mitigation on a larger scale.

No abstract