UNU monitor

The political ecology of Chilean salmon aquaculture, 1982–2010:A trajectory from economic development to global sustainability

Jonathan R. Barton a,*, Arnt Fløysand b

a Instituto de Estudios Urbanos y Territoriales, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, El Comendador 1916, Providencia, Santiago de Chile, ChilebDepartment of Geography, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway

1. Towards more sustainable globalisation: glocalising effects

On 27 March 2008, The New York Times published an article

critical of practices that had led to the emergence of the ISA

(infectious salmon anaemia) virus which, in turn, had brought

about the closure of several production sites in Chile and

quarantine for others. The article generated a vociferous response

from the Chilean producers association SalmonChile, also heated

exchanges in national political channels and between NGOs,

producers and politicians. The detail of the exchanges related to

accusations of misuse of antibiotics in the industry, and a

correction relating to an information source was made by the

newspaper. However, the essence of the debate was something

quite different. Effectively, the Chilean industry was being

challenged by a well respected and widely read daily newspaper

in its largest market. Rather than a challenge by local NGOs against

producers in a national context through a local newspaper, the

debate had become globalised. A further point, that is also highly

relevant within this globalisation context, is that the principal

affected firm is Norwegian-owned: Marine Harvest.1 The New York

Times article symbolises a turning point in the sector’s develop-

ment—effectively globalising the issues relating to a local

Global Environmental Change 20 (2010) 739–752

A R T I C L E I N F O

Article history:

Received 14 November 2008

Received in revised form 4 March 2010

Accepted 1 April 2010

Keywords:

Salmon

Aquaculture

Chile

Political ecology

Globalisation

Sustainability

A B S T R A C T

Through the case of the salmon aquaculture sector in Chile, the risks involved in the development of a

non-traditional export sector are reviewed, in order to point to failings (lessons not learned) and

opportunities (lessons learned, new plans), and the changing scales of stakeholder interactions. In

particular the paper highlights the ways in which sustainability considerations have gained ground in

terms of evaluating sectoral development and what is expected from this development. These

considerations have emerged as a result of the increasing globalisation of the sector, through investment,

exports and international ‘attention’ from an increasingly diverse set of stakeholders. These

sustainability considerations have generated a range of conflicts linked to these diverse actors. The

actors are local, national and global, operating through alliances to bring pressure on others. The conflicts

relate to environmental quality, foreign direct investment (FDI), local socio-economic development,

regional development, national economic strategies, and new globalised issues relating to the

production and consumption of foodstuffs. The contemporary panorama in the sector is significantly

different from the early origins in the 1980s under the dictatorship – the period of ‘the socio-ecological

silence’ – also different from the 1990s period of economic expansion – ‘the economic imperative’. Over

the past twenty-five years, the Chilean aquaculture sector has evolved from experimental production to

a major global industry. Regulatory frameworks and civil society awareness and mobilisation have

struggled to ‘catch up’ with the dynamism of the sector, however the gap has reduced and the future of

the sector within the contemporary context of ‘glocal’ sustainability is now under the microscope: the

‘sustainable globalisation perspective’. The collapse of the sector during the period 2008–2010 as a

consequence of the ISA virus is a key moment with production severely diminished. The way out of the

crisis, via new legislation and inspection regimes, will create a new structure of aquaculture governance.

Nevertheless, the crisis marks a turning point in the industry, revealing the weaknesses built into the

former productive system.

ß 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +56 2 3545519.

E-mail addresses: jbarton@uc.cl (J.R. Barton), arnt.floysand@geog.uib.no

(A. Fløysand).

1 This paper is based on research supported by the Norwegian Research Council:

The Spatial Embeddedness of Foreign Direct Investment (http://fdi.uib.no/

index.htm).

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Global Environmental Change

journa l homepage: www.e lsev ier .com/ locate /g loenvcha

0959-3780/$ – see front matter ß 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.04.001

production crisis. It also characterises a longer-term trajectory of

globalisation relating to sustainable development issues that now

challenges a traditionally dominant productivist export develop-

ment paradigm. These new challenges are not specific to this sector

and this country; they are instead part of a broader globalised

phenomenon whereby diverse actors are involved in debates over

the sustainability of production and consumption regimes that link

multiple locations, local socio-economies and ecosystems.

The current phase of globalisation is closely linked to later

twentieth century liberalisation processes. These processes have

provided new spaces for capital accumulation for larger transna-

tional corporations, in particular through investment and trade

flows. However, whereas economic globalisation drove the agenda

from the early 1980s, emphasising an economic imperative to

world development, there is a parallel driver that has gained

ground over time and leads to a questioning of this economic

imperative and the impacts that it generates. While the former is

generated principally by states and firms, the latter is generated by

diverse stakeholder groups and international organisations (mul-

tilateral and bilateral). At different points, these evolving

trajectories overlap, and this where social, environmental and

economic concerns are engaged with in an integral way. This space

of engagement is the debate about more sustainable development

and the decision-making processes that need to accompany it:

governance for sustainability.What is particularly significant is the

role of glocalisation processes, or the continuous transformations

in scalar configurations due to competing governance regimes,

which Swyngedouw (2004) terms scales of regulation and scales of

networks. This scalar shift, across sub- and supra-national levels,

lies at the heart of globalisation and it is within these glocalised

spaces that different actors operate through market-based,

regulatory-based, and issue-based alliances. This scalar shift

provides the backdrop for this paper.

The essence of this article can be stated as follows. Contempo-

rary economic globalisation has driven the integration of diverse

local and regional spaces and places into the global economy in

recent decades, which in most cases has led to positive economic

outcomes for firms (capital accumulation) and states (public

revenues and employment creation). The role of foreign direct

investment and increased levels of goods and services trade have

been central to this process, although not without reservations

(Machinea and Vera, 2006). This is one, dominant form of

globalisation whose meaning is shared by most observers:

space–time compression driven by capital accumulation (see

Murray, 2006 for definitions around this conceptual core).

However, over the past decade in particular, there has been rising

concern for the social and environmental impacts generated by

these investments and export-oriented trade regimes where

production takes place, and along the first links of the value chain

(Chudnovsky and Lopez, 2002); many of these locations are to be

found inwhat has been regarded as the ‘resource periphery’ of semi-

peripheral and peripheral economies; Chile is one such resource

periphery (see Hayter et al., 2003; Barton et al., 2007, 2008). While

many of these social and environmental concerns were circulated

initially at local and regional, sometimes national, levels, they too

have become increasingly globalised through the incorporation of

diverse actors in different places (of production, exchange and

consumption). These new globalised alliances compete with the

economic globalisation alliances in particularly commodity and

product sectors and chains. The discourses and interventions that

follow are based around howmore sustainable development can be

generated and reveal fundamental differences between these broad

alliances, with multiple variations along this spectrum.

The trajectory of each sector or product in terms of globalisa-

tion, therefore, can be explained in terms of: a first phase of

economic globalisation driven by investment and trade (a local

production sector ‘goes global’); a second phase of rising

contestation by diverse local groups who generate alliances with

sympathetic international actors and seek changes in regulatory

regimes and firm practises (the globalisation of a critical

discourse); and finally a phase of more sustainable globalisation

whereby social and environmental concerns are reviewed and

understoodwithin the economic framework and not separate from

it. The final phase is a product of a changed governance regime in

terms of the sector, which can be termed governance for

sustainability. The shifts between phases are not path dependent.

They may be driven by the consequences of different political

constellations, or by specific events, e.g. a collapse in commodity

prices, the substitution of a product in specific chains, or a sanitary

or phytosanitary crisis.

2. Political ecology and the centrality of governance

The crisis in capture fisheries, that deepened during the last

quarter of the twentieth century (FAO, 2004), has given rise to a

significant increase in fish farming and the aquaculture of diverse

molluscs, fishes and algae for human consumption (Doumenge,

1986; Barton and Staniford, 1998). As a productive sector,

aquaculture has now claimed a significant role inmany developing

countries, such as Chile, Ecuador, the Philippines and Thailand. In

most cases, its recent growth has been linked to export-oriented

development strategies rather than domestic consumption.

Geographies of aquaculture have also risen alongside this

development trajectory, tracing new investment and production

opportunities for domestic capital and FDI, questioning land use

and coastal management arrangements for aquaculture and

related activities, and addressing the sustainability of this new

opportunity for local and regional development; the case of Chile is

emblematic in this sense (Barton, 1998). Among the many serious

concerns that have been raised is the capture fisheries input into

salmon aquaculture where conversion ratios are in the order of

2.6–3.3 kg of capture fish to 1 kg of salmon (Deutsch et al., 2007).

Other concerns relate to changes in local livelihoods and cultures,

the degradation of specific ecosystems, and the degree of spatial

embeddedness of domestic and international capital, technologies

and practices.

In the face of problems in traditional agriculture and capture

fisheries, aquaculture has provided a new focus of attention for

production research and planning in many areas. The high returns

for investors in shrimp farming and fin-fish aquaculture have

placed the sector above many competing activities in rural areas

during the 1990s and 2000s in different locations in developing

countries. The products are not the traditional low-value

commodities emerging from these economies, but high value

products that fetch higher per unit prices in specific sectors of

higher income economies; the falling international prices for

shrimp and salmon over the long term bear witness to this rise in

production in developing economies as more production sites

come ‘on-line’ and enter export markets.

While the benefits generated from new investment opportu-

nities, new development projects in rural (most often the poorest)

areas, and growing exports of high value products signalled a new

dawn for many development economists and planners, the very

nature of this sector and its production–consumption dynamic has

generated its own brake. This brake is linked to older debates about

development strategies and their sustainability (carrying capacity,

the precautionary principle, limits to growth), in terms of socio-

economic relations and environmental impacts, tied to governance

regimes at different scales.

Political ecology, as a field of academic and activist engagement,

has followed these debates and the diverse ‘voices’ and discourses

that have emerged to pursue, and to criticise, different production

J.R. Barton, A. Fløysand / Global Environmental Change 20 (2010) 739–752740

strategies. The basis of political ecology approaches is the

recognition that environmental change is the outcome of socio-

institutional interactions and decision-making processes. As such,

rather than focusing on the object of change itself – ecosystems

and resources – the focus should be the subjects that drive these

changes and the ways in which – through discourse and use of

science, social relations and alliances, strategies and actions –

these social actors are able to shape their environments in specific

ways (see Blaikie, 1985, 1999; Forsyth, 2003). Inevitably, these

changes often lead to interest group conflicts. It is interest groups

that enter into alliances to pursue specific strategies, increasingly

through globalised networks rather then locals and regional ones.

Consequently, conflict avoidance, negotiation and resolution lie at

the heart of the political ecology approach (Rauschmayer and

Wittmer, 2006) and its relevance to economic globalisation as

sustainable development. The particular perspective that dom-

inates most political ecology writing is that of social and

environmental justice, as Ray Bryant (2004: 808) points out:

First of all, it is clear that despite their many intellectual and

ideological differences, the various strands of political ecology

share a basic radical ethical position. Crudely put, that position

may be defined as one that privileges the rights and concerns

(often livelihood-based) of the poor over those of powerful

political and economic elites even as it insists that peoples and

environments be seen in an integrated fashion.

Since political ecology as a conceptual framework focuses

strongly on the role of actors and how political decision-making

and actions influence environmental transformations, there are

strong overlaps with the sustainable development agenda

generated during the 1980s by the IUCN (1980) and the World

Commission for Environment and Development (1987) (see

Adams, 2001). Although much of the political ecology literature

is oriented towards discussions of natural resource uses and the

conflicts that may ensue (Peat andWatts, 1996; Bryant and Bailey,

1997; Robbins, 2004), it is clear that the issue of sustainable

development underpins most of these analyses, although it does

not always follow the same logic as the WCED report, the IUCN or

UN organisations.

Most work engages with socio-economic development and

environmental change in an integrated way, and views these

changes in terms of interests and strategies that are adopted to

engage with other actors. In this sense, the political ecology

framework and its emphasis on political action and interaction is a

suitable tool for understanding the sustainable development

implications of different local and regional experiences within

an increasingly glocalised world. The case of Chilean salmon

aquaculture is no exception and similar aquaculture experiences

can be seen in political ecology approaches to shrimp aquaculture

in Honduras, Mexico and Indonesia (Dewalt et al., 1996; Cruz

Torres, 2000; Armitage, 2002).

The role of diverse actors, their discursive narratives and their

strategies and actions in achieving their interest-related goals, is

therefore central to a political ecology analysis. There is also a

social and environmental justice dimension to the analysis, which

both fits with the equity aspects of the sustainable development

agenda, as well as with a more radical approach to contemporary

political economy (Martinez Alier, 1994). Although the extraction

of renewable or non-renewable resources is the objective or source

ofmost interest group conflicts, it is these conflicts themselves that

should be regarded as being at the centre of the analysis, rather

than the environment per se. As such, environmental and social

conflicts that lie within social and environmental justice issues are

the pivotal aspects that have to be approached critically. As

Sabatini (1997) correctly frames this situation, we are effectively

engaging with ‘socio-environmental conflicts’, rather than either

‘social’ or ‘environmental’ in a fragmented way. The ways in which

conflicts can be avoided, negotiated and resolved is central to any

understanding of political ecology within a specific setting. It is

from this starting point that the Chilean salmon aquaculture

experience can be explored.

As contemporary globalisation highlights food networks as an

increasingly important symbol of twenty-first century exchanges

(see Goodman and Watts, 1997), these production strategies, and

their indivisible counterpart – consumption strategies – have been

tracked and traced more clearly in order to open up ethical

questions about responsibilities and rights alignedwith the space–

time compression of global networks of information, goods,

finance and culture. Whereas economic geography could focus

on regional innovation systems and diverse production regimes

until the 1990s with little attention to the sustainability

dimensions of these systems – beyond productivity, innovation,

basic labour considerations and balance sheets – the globalisation

of production–consumption dynamics has given rise to new

challenges along the food chain, product chain, or value chain

(Gereffi and Korzeniewicz, 1994; Humphrey and Schmitz, 2001;

Dolan and Humphrey, 2000). These challenges relate to the rise of

what can be defined as sustainability conflicts, the very essence of

political ecology, in that these address the complex inter-relations

between capital, labour, nature and related governance regimes in

given, connected spaces, from the highly localised production sites

(ponds, cages) to more diffuse supermarket shelves, kitchens and

restaurants (Phyne and Mansilla, 2003). Although this is nothing

new, especially for the higher value goods of the turn of the

millennium (that can be compared to other highly valued food

stuffs of earlier generations, such as tea and bananas), what is new

is how conflicts associated with sustainability are generated and

pursued, and how outcomes are being influenced by new alliances

of actors which bring pressure to bear on firms and governments

through globalised networks.

The case of salmon aquaculture in Chile is one among many

similar aquaculture growth experiences over the past two decades.

It is similar to other cases in that simplified ‘win-win’ scenarios are

rarely realised, also that increasing attention from consumers,

competitors and ethical pressure groups (e.g. environmental NGOs,

consumer groups, development organisations) has changed what

were conventionally conceived of as ‘production activities

generating local and national development’ as focal points for

debates over broader development strategies, and how more

sustainable development can be generated over time.

Rather than an analysis purely of the diverse claims about the

impacts generated by salmon aquaculture in Chile, both for and

against, this paper seeks to reveal the trajectory of what was

conceived as a non-traditional export activity with significant

comparative advantages, into a sector that has become situated by

different actors within the global food network, uniting stake-

holders through interest groups across geographical spaces into

debates about development, played out through defences and

criticisms of a food chain that links Chile’s rural poor with salmon

consumers in the US, Japan and the EU. This siting of the sector

within a global production–consumption dynamic is what has

been sought by producers since the early 1980s, however it has

also revealed a critical engagement with diverse groups that has

increasingly empowered local organisations and politicised

environmental and labour conflicts – sustainability conflicts – to

a degree that changes the political make-up of the production

landscape.

The paper is organised in four sections. The first provides an

overview of the rise of salmon aquaculture from the early 1980s,

highlighting the economic imperative of export-oriented produc-

tion and new regional development opportunities. The second

J.R. Barton, A. Fløysand / Global Environmental Change 20 (2010) 739–752 741

critiques the claims and aspirations apparent in the discourses of

diverse actors associated with the sector in Chile since the early

1990s, and the power relation that emerged during the 1990s in

terms of impacts and consequences. The third focuses on the rising

globalisation of groups associated with the questioning of the

sustainability of aquaculture operations, through alliances and use

of the very economic globalisation apparatus that has benefited

producers. Finally, the need for a governance regime capable of

managing this new power relation generated by rising sustain-

ability is discussed, noting the changing relationship between

capital, labour and nature produced by the globalisation of

alliances and the sophistication of resources employed by actors

to shape markets and influence decision-makers. In many ways

this case engages with Jordan’s (2008) call for more empirical work

within the conceptual ‘messiness’ that is governance and sustain-

able development.

The political ecology argument that binds the article together

and that can be evaluated with similar aquaculture experiences in

different developing economies is as follows. The liberalisation

policies of the 1980s – or 1970s in the case of Chile under General

Pinochet – gave rise to a wave of investments to, and exports from

developing countries (highly concentrated for the most part in

what would later become known in financial circles as the

‘emerging markets’). The governance systems that oversaw the

development of old and new export-oriented sectors were, for the

most part, part of a neoliberal alliance of political class (or

authoritarian regime) and transnational and domestic economic

groups. Dominant governance regimes favoured production –

capital – over labour and nature, leading to high growth rates in

these sectors at the expense of labour (fewer safeguards, greater

flexibility) and nature (reduction in environmental quality and

services).

The globalisation of civil society networks that have brought

different production–consumption dynamics to global attention –

coffee, textiles and garments, among others – now present a

challenge to the existing governance regimes, questioning their

neoliberal economic development orientation, in particular their

sustainability, and using the same resources generated by the

initial process of economic globalisation:markets, information and

strategic alliances. It is in this way that new governance regimes

can have sustainable development as their raison d’etre, and are

capable of meshing the four criteria of governance for sustainabil-

ity (Adger et al., 2003): economic efficiency, environmental

effectiveness, equity, and political legitimacy.

3. Salmon aquaculture in Chile, 1982–2010

Salmon aquaculture was one of several non-traditional export

sectors promoted from the late 1970s in order to diversify the

Chilean economy away from its traditional dependence on copper

exports, the typical commodity dependence characteristic of Latin

American economic history. The relative success of these new

sectors can be seen in terms of their contribution to the current

national export profile. Apart from salmon aquaculture, the other

relevant sectors are fruit, wine and wood products. These were all

encouraged through diverse public and private sector initiatives,

capitalising on existing investments or generating new ones. In the

case of salmon aquaculture, the initiative was led by international

development assistance by the Japanese development agency (JICA)

alongside the national innovation quango, Fundacion Chile (Men-

dez, 1994; Camus and Jaksic, 2009). These projects gave rise to the

creation of the first modern salmon aquaculture firm in the country

in the late 1970s. Having been successful in early trials, new

investments followed swiftly on its heels due to the conditions

offered by the Chilean fjord landscape to the south of the country.

These conditions included protected locations for seawater opera-

tions, freshwater locations for hatching and growing-on, and good

water quality and temperature ranges (Lindbergh, 1993).

Given the counter-seasonal advantages offered by Chilean

harvesting times compared to the principal producing nations of

Norway, Scotland, Canada and the USA in the northern hemi-

sphere, much of the early investment was international. Never-

theless, domestic investment followed in its path and became

increasingly significant in the sector through the 1990s. Although

multinational investment has been highly influential in the Chilean

sector, it is domestic investment that dominates given the larger

number of medium and smaller-size firms.

Following the severe economic downturn in Chile in the early

1980s,which led to a banking crisis and an eruption of social unrest

against the dictatorship and the economic recession, much store

was put by the new NTAX (non-traditional agricultural exports) to

support the export-oriented economy in emerging from its trough

(Montero, 1997;Meller and Saez, 1997). This economic imperative,

within a context ofmilitary dictatorship, was highly relevant to the

early beginnings of the sector, from the early 1980s until the

transition to democracy in 1990 (Martınez and Diaz, 1996).

The free-market model was founded upon high levels of private

sector manoeuvrability and low levels of government regulation.

Regulatory systems in diverse areas of the economy were

effectively oriented towards a flexibilisation of the workforce

within a political context of union prohibition. In terms of

environmental regulations, these would not be significant until

1994when a framework Environmental Law (19.300) was brought

onto the statute books. Since the downturn of the early 1980s was

so severe (surpassed only by the crisis of the 1929–1932 period),

the upturn that followed registered very encouraging growth rates.

This was the case for the economy as a whole and for the

aquaculture sector in particular given its negligible starting point.

The political power exercised by specific firms towards workers

and in the localities where they operated was considerable given

their state backing. New investment flowed in under these

favourable, low regulatory conditions, as production costs under-

cut competitors in the other principal producing nations, as well as

capitalising on counter-seasonability.

A consequence of the high growth rates in the sector, in terms of

investment, site expansion and export volumes and values, gave

rise to the aquaculture sector forming part of what became known

as the Chilean economic ‘miracle’ (see Fig. 1). This miracle was[(Fig._1)TD$FIG]

Fig. 1. Global and Chilean salmon production (Source: SalmonChile, 2007; Revista

Aqua, 2007).

J.R. Barton, A. Fløysand / Global Environmental Change 20 (2010) 739–752742

based on these NTAX sectors in particular, alongside traditional

minerals expansion. This economic ‘miracle’, with its roots in

authoritarian labour controls and weak environmental protection,

has been highly criticised by many authors (Quiroga, 1994; Collins

and Lear, 1995; Claude, 1997), yet it remains an important

component of the hegemonic discourse surrounding the transition

to democracy. This period was characterised by strong economic

growth and a ‘socio-ecological silence’ (see Fig. 2). As such, the

salmon aquaculture sector is part and parcel of the dynamism of

the Chilean economy post-recession and was, for some time,

relatively free from criticism, by the state’s regulatory authorities,

by the media, or by domestic or international civil society

organisations.

The economic imperative gave the sector its raison d’etre, and a

high degree of flexibility in its operations. Although the 1990s

witnessed the gradual (re)introduction of labour and environmental

protection measures under successive democratic administrations,

the political capital in sustaining the ‘miracle’ under democracy led

the economic imperative, and an argument relating to reducing

poverty and overcoming inequality, to dominate in the face of rising

counter-claims; economic growth at this time tended to be

characterised as a trade-off against social and environmental

protection. These counter-claims were in turn a product of the

success of the sector and its export performance, leading to rising

national and international oversight of its operations. This oversight

would prove to counter-balance the economic imperative argument

with different discourses. No longer would the sector have the

comfort and public institutional support that it had enjoyed during

the first decade of its existence. The sectoral response was the

creation of INTESAL (the Salmon Technology Institute) in 1995with

support from CORFO (the national development corporation);

INTESAL is a salmon producer’s association unit for collaborative

evaluation of impacts, also innovation, in the fields of health and

production, quality and environment.

A continuation of this public–private associativity in the field of

production and related concerns is the CORFO programme on

cleaner production, operated by the National Clean Development

Council from the early 2000s. This programme was designed to

stimulate sectoral responsibility on diverse environmental issues at

the firm and plant levels, through Clean Production Agreements

(APLs: Acuerdos de Produccion Limpia). The salmon aquaculture

sector, like the northern Chilean shellfish sector, was one of the

earliest participants. The programme established best practice in

environmental techniques and sought firm certification through

auditing following an implementation period. The sector signed the

Clean Production Agreement with the National Clean Production

Council in 2002 and this culminated in 2005with the application of

46actionpoints (inparticular relating tosolidwasteandwastewater

management) and relatively high levels of attainment among the 48

firms involved (Consejo Nacional de Produccion Limpia, 2002); 16

firms involving 129 production sites ultimately fulfilled the

established goals (Consejo Nacional de Produccion Limpia, 2008).

Many firms are now linking labour, environmental and sanitary

measures within an integrated management system known as

SIGES. The environmental management logic of voluntary changes

and certification has predominated in Chilean institutional circles

more generally, however the high level of certification would prove

insufficient in the face of the ISA virus that took hold in 2007.

The economic imperative argument would be questioned

principally by political ecology andwider radical political economy

arguments relating to local and regional development. These

would provide the basis for the conflicts relating to the sector that

have emerged over the past decade.

4. Regional and local impacts: claims and aspirations

There is no question that the ideal aquaculture conditions to be

found in the Region de los Lagos in southern Chile were vital to

regional development from the early 1980s. The region had been

experiencing outward migration, high levels of under- and

unemployment, and hadwitnessed the stagnation of its traditional

foodstuffs and capture fisheries sectors (Grenier, 1984). The

activities relating to the aquaculture sector, both directly and

indirectly in transport, feed, diving and equipment firms, led to an

economic revival of the region and new employment opportunities

on cage sites and in processing. Undoubtedly, the first decade of

growth marked a contrast with the previous decades of decline.

However, expectations relating to the sector have changed over

time and have led to rising criticism, social organisation (through

unions for example) and diverse collaborations between firms,

politicians, state agencies, NGOs, and community-based organisa-

tions. The honeymoon period driven by the economic imperative

came to an end, and a new political landscape has emerged in

recent years. This political landscape has given rise to claims and

[(Fig._2)TD$FIG]

Fig. 2. Rising globalised engagement in Chilean aquaculture.

J.R. Barton, A. Fløysand / Global Environmental Change 20 (2010) 739–752 743

aspirations that are different from those of the early 1980s under

dictatorship and impoverishment. It is a landscape in which the

principal actors of the 1980s – firms, state and workers – are now

accompanied by a broader range of interests and resources both in

support of the sector, and critical of it.

The Region de los Lagos has been the principal recipient region

of aquaculture investment and production in Chile. However, the

lack of suitable sites has given rise to growth in the Region de

Aysen and the Region de Magallanes further south, despite their

geographical disadvantages. These disadvantages relate to the

need to access production units from the sea due to poor terrestrial

infrastructure, and the consequent logistical problems in getting

fish to processing plants for freezing, or fresh fish to Puerto Montt

or Punta Arenas airports and then on to their destinations. The

Region de los Lagos has been the region most transformed by the

sector to date however. This can be seen in economic data and in

terms of the urbanisation of the city of Puerto Montt where much

of the activity is headquarted or supplied from; PuertoMontt is the

city that experienced the highest urbanisation rate during the

inter-censal period 1992–2002.

While the role of salmon aquaculture in this regional

regeneration is unquestionable, the debate of the sustainability

of this new economic dependence is what has given rise to the

claims and counter-claims associatedwith sectoral conflicts which

have also changed in substance over the years (see Fig. 3). The

region has experienced ‘boom and bust’ cycles previously relating

to capture fisheries and forestry during the 1970s. Promoted by the

dictatorship, these sectors were designed to regenerate the region

but both were unsuccessful, such as the Japanese Golden Spring

forestry project in Chiloe, and the expansion of artisanal fisheries

capacity in the area (Schurman, 1996). The ways in which these

lessons from the past have been learned and incorporated into

current management of the salmon aquaculture boom are unclear

however (see Buschmann, 2002).

The risk over the sector collapsing at some point was evident

from experiences in other locations, e.g. the Norwegian sector

collapse in the early 1990s (Holm and Jentoft, 1996), and the

disease outbreak in Scotland in the late 1990s that brought the

sector close to the brink. This uncertainty in home countries has

also been a trigger for increased foreign investment in Chile where

low disease rates, available sites and weak regulation initially

provided incentives for TNCs (Foreign Investment Committee,

2006, 2007; Fløysand et al., 2005; Phyne et al., 2006). To avoid a

‘bust’ scenario, particularly with regards to disease outbreaks and

high mortalities, a strict regulatory regime was required. This

regime was slow to be implemented although it was created in the

fisheries and aquaculture legislation which dates from 1991 and

was strengthened in environmental terms through the Environ-

mental Impact Assessment System operating from 1997, and the

later regulations on environmental controls (RAMA) and sanitary

controls (RESA) in aquaculture from 2001. Rather than the

legislation and regulations in and of themselves, it is specifically

the framework of regulatory monitoring and assessment that was

persistently weak. This is a hang-over from the decade of the

economic imperative when the regulatory apparatus was weak

and lacked power relative to the dynamism of this sector and its

role in national economic recovery; the risks involved have come

to the fore in the infectious salmon anaemia (ISA) virus outbreak

and the related crisis in the sector and in the areas where

production and processing is concentrated.

5. From local opposition to global alliances

What is clear during the 1982–2010 period is the way in which

the dynamism of the aquaculture sector has given rise to its

globalisation in terms of investment and exports, as well as a

subsequent globalisation of issues and activities relating to

political ecology and radical local political economy (see Fig. 4).

While the two phases, relating to the socio-ecological silence and

economic imperative, were conducted with little critical apprecia-

tion, the latest has become a new challenge for the sector. By

looking at the evolution of the sector as a set of key alliances or

social linkages, it is possible to track this evolution and see how the

issues relating to the sector have opened up to diverse domestic

and international actors (Fig. 5).

During the 1980s, the dictatorship meant that there was little

opposition of any political or civil nature. However, the protests

against the dictatorship from the early 1980s, coinciding with the

economic crisis, were the beginnings of the process that would lead

to a reconstitution of political groups within a coalition that would

pressurise for a plebiscite in 1988; this plebiscite gave rise to

elections in 1989 that returned the democratic president, Patricio

Aylwin, defeating the Pinochet-backed right-winger Hernan Buchi

(Barton, 1999, 2002). In terms of environmental activism, there was

little overt criticism of the different sectors driving the economy.

Despite this, the early 1990s would lead to swift changes in

environmental institutionality with the approval of the Environ-

ment Law in 1994, propelled by the Rio Conference on Environment

and Development in 1992. At the same time, new environmental

NGOs were being established and were finding a voice in political

and civil circles. Itwas at this time that salmon aquaculture began to

be put under the spotlight althoughmuch of the concern was being

generated from within the sector itself due to the challenges of

combating the salmon rickettsia (SRS) diseasewhichwas giving rise

to high mortality levels in Chilean production. Most of the

environmental NGOs were more concerned with the mining and

forestry sectors than with aquaculture, in which environmental

activists had less knowledge and less international support and

interest. This situation would gradually change into the late 1990s

with increased awareness of the impacts of the sector, generated

from academic and non-governmental sources.

At the same time, local communities were also coming to terms

with the profound changes that were taking place in their

surroundings and in their livelihoods; the interface between

large-scale TNC investment in an export-oriented industry and a

distinctive local island culture with a tradition of low human

development characteristics was complex, as was the engagement

between foreign investors and domestic producers and suppliers in

terms of localised business behaviour and new social fields (see

Fløysand and Jakobsen, 2002). The island of Chiloe was trans-

formed during the decade of the 1990s as its protected eastern

fjords were targeted as optimal marine production sites. By the

mid-1990s, the sector’s development was still managed through

close links between the aquaculture department of Sernapesca

(which authorised production permits and regulated them), the

Navy (which provided site permits), and the firms through their

association, which was established in 1986 and now represents

producers which generate over 90% of exports (SalmonChile,

2008a); at this time, salmonid export trade began to rise

dramatically: export values rose from $159 million in 1991 to

$964million in 2001 (SalmonChile, 2008b). These phases, from the

early beginnings of the sector in the 1980s, through rapid

expansion during the early and middle years of the 1990s, are

those of socio-ecological silence and the economic imperative.

While economic liberalisation facilitated market openings, there

was little questioning of Chilean production methods, labour

conditions or environmental impacts. This was due to the low

levels of civil society organisation in this field given the

authoritarian period, also to the fact that – as in Norway, Scotland

and Canada – production and processing was taking place some

distance from the main centres of civil society organisation and

mobilisation.

J.R. Barton, A. Fløysand / Global Environmental Change 20 (2010) 739–752744

Given that aquaculture was deemed to be vital to the economic

recovery from the early 1980s, there was also little research taking

place that was critical of the sector. Research was principally

organised around productive aspects of the sector, such as disease

control, feed development and management, genetic adaptation,

and diverse associated technologies. Training of new technicians

and professionals in the field was also an opportunity for different

academic institutions, in both Santiago and in the region through

the Universidad de los Lagos. Funding for research in fields relating

to production issues would also be forthcoming through Conicyt

(the national research council) and CORFO (the national develop-

ment corporation).

[(Fig._3)TD$FIG]

Fig. 3. Map of the Region de los Lagos (Source: Authors).

J.R. Barton, A. Fløysand / Global Environmental Change 20 (2010) 739–752 745

From the mid-1990s the panorama began to change slowly as

Chile became a leading competitor in international salmon

production and exports. The awareness of diverse stakeholders

outside Chile raised its profile and led to a questioning of practices in

the sector. The most high profile of these criticisms would be

generated by US producers in their accusation of dumping against

Chileanproducers, filed in1998by theUSDepartment ofCommerce.

If a date can be established that defines the globalisation of

production, it is probably when exports topped the 100 million

tonnes barrier in 1996—this was a landmark for the sector, having

surpassed Scotland as the second largest producer in 1992;

Norway continues to lead world production. In terms of critical

opposition to the sector, the date of the dumping accusation can be

fixed as a further landmark. The accusation both raised the profile

of Chilean production operations as well as placing the country in

the midst of an international discussion relating to the sustain-

ability of the sector, which had arisen in the othermajor producing

countries as a consequence of NGO pressure (see Fig. 6). It is a

[(Fig._4)TD$FIG]

Fig. 4. Issues and research agenda in aquaculture.

[(Fig._5)TD$FIG]

Fig. 5. Mapping of stakeholder engagement.

J.R. Barton, A. Fløysand / Global Environmental Change 20 (2010) 739–752746

defining moment that effectively ends the ‘economic imperative’

phase of low regulation and high economic returns that had

persisted since the return to democracy.

It was clear by the later 1990s that there was growing capacity

in international NGOs to tackle problems relating to the sector. In

terms of aquaculture, it was the shrimp farming sector that

received the greatest NGO mobilisation due to the destruction of

mangrove forests in Asia and the Americas, with consequent

problems of salination, loss of fish nurseries, loss of a range of

environmental services (such as storm protection) and loss of

biodiversity; the role of the Mangrove Action Project – operating

since 1992 – is important in this regard, raising the profile of these

issues. Since the location of salmon production in temperate

latitudes did not have such clear-cut environmental impacts (due

to a lack of scientific research into benthic layer impacts, diseases,

and farmed fish ‘escapees’ impacts on wild fish), the criticism was

generated in a different way and with different arguments.

Examples of early NGO pressures on production in Scotland and

Canada came from Friends of the Earth Scotland, also the Friends of

Clayoquot Sound respectively. More recently, these individual

NGO efforts at local levels have been consolidated within the

overarching structure of the Pure Salmon Campaign. The Pure

Salmon Campaign (an offshoot of the US National Environmental

Trust) was established in the mid-2000s as a coordinating body for

NGO activities in different countries. Through its goals of improved

management of production externalities, including genetic adap-

tation, impacts on wild species, use of antibiotics and labour

conditions, it brings together common concerns among different

NGOs.

It has used its campaigns to press for sustainable practices and

stakeholder involvement; for example, by bringing Chilean labour

unionists to the shareholder meeting of Marine Harvest in Norway

in 2009 where much of the activity was concerned with drawing

media attention to the plight of laid-off workers and the

unsustainability of dominant production practices. In the wake

of the crisis, civil society actors have also gained access to national-

level fora for discussing regulatory change.Worker representatives

were invited in March 2009 to speak to Congress about the effects

of the crisis. Local workers have also taken advantage of new

spaces, both by striking at industry headquarters in Puerto Montt,

and by forming a new organisation, FETRASAL, to articulate

workers’ demands. Jorge Barrıa, the chairman of the established

trade union FETRASAL, said in an interview:

Exactly, due to the problems that exist, this organisation is born.

Because today the workers have to take initiatives, the

organisations have to make their propositions, and it is

demanded by chairmen that we should act and interact with

the government and with the firms, and should definitely

search for solutions to this crisis. First, there is the crisis of the

ISA, which will lead to the closure of several companies and the

firing of numerous workers, and in addition there is the

international financial crisis, and because of this, the workers

ought to have a voice that allows them to make claims to the

Government and to work with the employers. (Translated from

OLACH, 2009)

Together, these civil society initiatives reveal the new strategies

adopted by NGOs, which link presence in the communities,

networks across scale including NGOs with strong international

presence (e.g. Oxfam), and media campaigns nationally and

internationally. These strategies have provided new spaces for

questioning the sustainability of the aquaculture sector and have

opened spaces of engagement for local stakeholders and civil

society networks to influence new legislation and to draw

attention to unsustainable practices. The crisis has brought an

urgency and impetus to the organisational initiatives taken shortly

before the outbreak and has provided a discursive legitimacy for its

claims and, at least temporary, institutional channels through

which to articulate these claims.

In the Chilean case, the emergence of opposition to the salmon

sector has been relatively recent also. The principal environmental

organisations operating during themid-1990s and late 1990s were

focused on forestry and mining in particular, also new hydroelec-

tric dam projects and urban contamination. The book El Tigre sin

Selva published by the NGO Instituto de Ecologia Politica (Quiroga,

1994) makes only a half page reference to aquaculture in its 473

pages, while the publication by the NGO Chile Sustentable: Chile

Sustentable: propuesta ciudadana para el cambio, as late as 2003 still

only refers to the sector in passing, principally in its territorial

analysis of transformations in Chiloe. The Chilean NGOs begin to

tackle the sector more effectively from the early 2000s when the

NGOs Fundacion Terram (established 1997) and Ecoceanos

(established 1998) dedicate specific programmes to this activity.

For Oceana, as an international NGO committed tomaritime issues,

this is a logical progression and the organisation seeks a

moratorium on salmon production until impacts are better

evaluated and mitigated (Gutierrez, 2005). However, Terram

selects this sector alongside its other programmes (Environment,

Natural Resources, Economy and Globalisation) as a priority, being

the only sector specific programme (see Fundacion Terram, 2001,

2006a,b, 2007). This has culminated in two significant activities

since 2006.

The first was the creation of OLACH – the labour and

environment observatory of Chiloe – in July 2006, a joint venture

between Terram, Oxfam and other Chilean NGOs (CENDA and

Canelo de Nos) in association with the national trade union

confederation (CUT). The second, which dovetails with this

Observatory, is the media campaign launched in January 2008

by Oxfam and Terram: ‘Sin Miedo Contra la Corriente’ (Fearless

against the Current) (Images 1 and 2). This campaign was aimed at

[(Fig._6)TD$FIG]

Fig. 6. Globalised stakeholder engagement.

[(Image_1)TD$FIG]

Image 1. From the ‘Sin Miedo contra La Corriente’ campaign of Oxfam-Terram.

J.R. Barton, A. Fløysand / Global Environmental Change 20 (2010) 739–752 747

raising awareness of the industry and its impacts among the

Chilean public, and used powerful images to do so. Alongside a

campaign by the organisation ‘Patagonia Sin Represas’ (‘Patagonia

Without Dams’, campaigning against the construction of new

hydroelectric installations in the Aysen Region; Image 3), it reveals

the new high profile media strategies adopted by global alliances

against specific projects and sectors since 2007. A further media

impact was generated by the documentary ‘Ovas de Oro’ (Golden

Eggs, Kithano Films) directed by Anahı Johansen and Manuel

Gonzalez. Screened for the first time in October 2005, the filmwon

two film festivals in 2006 (Valparaiso, Chile and Goias, Brazil) and

would be shown in Norway in early 2007; the Norwegian firm

Mainstream was heavily criticised for its practices in the film.

What can be seen clearly in these examples is the way in which

organisations are increasingly ‘jumping scale’ to leverage support

for their critical narratives and empower themselves in the process

(Haarstad and Fløysand, 2007); this closely approximates to what

Bulkeley (2005) terms a configuration of the ‘new spatial grammar’

of environmental governance, as networks and different forms of

political scaling challenge conventional hierarchies of territorial

governance.

The rising globalisation of these critical NGO organisations and

changing campaign instruments, e.g. localisation of OLACH on

Chiloe, and the more effective use of mass communications media,

gave rise to a shift in scale and alliances at precisely the time that

salmon workers were striking at the firms Mainstream and

AquaChile in 2007. Labour and environmental conflicts were

clearly coming to a head at this time as conventional practices

within the sector came under more intense scrutiny. Although

anecdotal, the visit of Prince Haakon of Norway to Chile in January

2008 was intended to include a visit to aquaculture plants in

Puerto Montt (AKVA Group and Marine Harvest). However, this

visit south was curtailed at the last minute given the labour unrest

and concerns for the Prince’s security (Aftenposten, 25 January

2008).

6. Awareness and the need for conflict resolution: a crisis of

governance

The evolution of diverse conflicts relating to the sector, as

highlighted in the previous section, has given rise to broader

discussions relating to governance. This is the outcome of any

situation from a political ecology perspective. The ability to bring

diverse stakeholders together and to avoid conflict, as well as being

able to secure stronger sustainability outcomes acceptable to

different interests, is the test of effective governance. Governance,

as opposed to government, suggests that this is a multi-

stakeholder scenario whereby different actors have different

responsibilities. The ‘economic imperative’ has to be weighed

against social and environmental variables within this governance

regime, and not only for short-term solutions but rather for longer-

term, more sustainable development outcomes.

The globalisation of the sector in terms of investment, exports

and, more recently, environmental and social mobilisation of more

critical positions, has given rise to greater interest in, and attention

to the governance regime that is currently in place and that is

charged with oversight of the sector. For twenty years, until the

mid-2000s, two positions formed the basis of the governance

regime. The first position related to the role of the state. The state

has the exclusive authority to regulate economic sectors through

social, environmental and financial inspection agencies. The

second related to the firms in the private sector. This position

affirms that firms are rational actors and that it is in their interests

to protect the sector and maintain its growth, therefore they are

effective self-regulators.

This public–private governance regime has been severely

eroded during the 2000s by the evolving globalisation of the

product and criticisms of the sector. As a domestic regime driven

by the firms through their association SalmonChile, alongside the

relevant government agencies which in turn were charged with

promoting the sector, e.g. the National Fisheries Service—

Sernapesca (a service of the Ministry of Economics), a ‘pro-growth’

development strategy for the sector was established. Within this

strategy there was little or no space for self-criticism or reflection

on the weaker aspects of the sector. These would be identified and

highlighted not by the sector itself but by a range of other actors,

previously not included within the governance regime.

These other actors include buyers and consumers in export

markets, foreign governments, multilateral institutions, and

international NGOs. Effectively, they have generated direct and

indirect influences in the governance regime since they bring

different pressures to bear on the pre-existing actors: the firms and

production-oriented government departments. One important

example of this is the impact generated by the publication of

the OECD Chile environmental performance report in 2005 (a joint

publication of the OECD and CEPAL, the UN’s Economic Commis-

sion for Latin America and the Caribbean). The report has been

significant in shaping the drive towards a new environmental

institutional framework in the country (legislation was passed in

late 2009 that generated a Ministry of Environment, a Superinten-

dency for environmental regulation, and an Environmental

Evaluation Service), but it also pointed to concerns relating to

the salmon aquaculture sector; the environmental assessment

carried out by the Universidad de Chile (Instituto de Asuntos

Publicos) in its ‘State of the Environment’ report is less specific

about the sector, merely highlighting the afore-mentioned

voluntary instruments associated with cleaner production (Uni-

versidad de Chile, 2005). The recommendations of the OECD/CEPAL

were as follows (2005, 29):

– To improve environmental and sanitary protection in aquacul-

ture (in relation to eutrophication, salmon escapes, lake ecology

equilibrium, antibiotic use, epidemiological vigilance, eradica-

tion of infectious disease, among others), particularly the

strengthening of capacity to meet norms and regulations.

– To apply the ‘polluter pays’ principle in the aquaculture industry

in the context of the Environment Law.

[(Image_2)TD$FIG]

Image 2. From the ‘Sin Miedo contra La Corriente’ campaign of Oxfam-Terram.[(Image_3)TD$FIG]

Image 3. From the ‘Patagonia sin Represas’ campaign.

J.R. Barton, A. Fløysand / Global Environmental Change 20 (2010) 739–752748

– To generate a precise plan of coastal zoning of aquaculture; to

adopt integrated environmental management in coastal areas.

In many ways, the increased profile of the sector and the entry

of diverse actors have led to a crisis of governance in the sector.

This crisis is based on a questioning of the efficacy of the

established governance regime, particularly the close collaboration

of Sernapesca and the producers’ association, to the detriment of

other regulatory actors and interested parties. These other actors

include the labour oversight agency of the Ministry of Labour, the

environmental inspection of the national environment agency

(CONAMA), as well as unions, local community groups and

businesses not related directly to the sector (such as tourism).

The best way to highlight these weaknesses is in light of recent

impacts in the sector generated by the ISA virus.

While the 1990s were dominated by concerns relating to the

SRS disease and the mortality rates generated by it, the recent ISA

virus threatened the viability of the sector. The virus has had

impacts in the Norwegian, Canadian and Scottish aquaculture

sectors since the 1980s, yet Chile had been relatively free of the

virus until July 2007 (there was a case in Coho salmon in 2002, but

without further repercussions among the principal species,

Atlantic salmon, see Kibenge et al., 2001). By July 2008, 74

production sites had been quarantined (Sernapesca, 2008). The

disease is related to contaminated discharges from production

processes, also from transmission of the virus on the hulls of well

boats used in the sector; it is also related to the commercialisation

of infected salmonid eggs. Sea lice, another problem in the Chilean

aquaculture sector, can also act as a vector for transmission and

wild fishmay also be contaminated in the process (Vagsholm et al.,

1994).

In view of experiences in other countries over the past decade,

the weak regulatory response to the threat reveals the generalised

subjugation of the regulatory authorities to the sector, through a

discourse of self-interest and self-assurance on the part of firms.

The former director of Sernapesca Ines Montalva (now manager of

Intesal since September 2008) put it in the following terms in an

interview in the El Mercurio newspaper (5 November 2007): ‘‘There

is a clear campaign that has always chased after the salmon

producers. That they don’t meet standards, that they don’t look

after the environment, that they are invasive. But it is an industry

that has to look after the environment for its own benefit. It is self-

limiting.’’ This view contrastswith a need for a strengthening of the

regulatory regime that was evident by the late 1990s (Barton,

1997, 324):

If the state does not make itself directly responsible for the

maintenance of environmental quality, it can be argued that the

long-term sustainability of the industrymay be threatened [. . .]

In the same way that the Scottish and Norwegian industries

received greater state attention and regulation following their

periods of industrial difficulty, Chilean authorities should take

this lesson and adopt a proactive stance with regard to the

health of the industry and its threatened environments.

Without effective direct and indirect regulatory action in the

face of increased disease incidence, chemical treatments and

mortalities, the state may well have to bear the long-term costs

of grave socio-economic repercussions and contaminated

ecosystems in Region X.

The response to the current crisis – which has resulted in

production site quarantine, fish slaughter and divestment by firms,

including lay-offs – gave rise to the formation of a roundtable of

key decision-makers on the issue, which emitted its first

conclusions in September 2008. These conclusions pointed to

the need for improved inspection capacity in Sernapesca, also

better knowledge of carrying capacities of local environments in

order to determine proximity of cages within specific fjords. This

roundtable was chaired by the Minister for Economy, Hugo

Lavados, which reflects the importance of the sector to national

economic development. The outcome of these discussions,

principally through exchanges between the public sector and

the firms led to the design of new legislation to regulate the sector,

which was presented to Congress in 2009.

Based on the findings of the first report of this roundtable group

in August 2008, Lavados declared that: ‘‘the government, through

these efforts, recognises that the salmon sector is a growth motor

in our country and a vital source of employment, principally in the

X, XI and XII Regions, as such it should be developed sustainably,

responsibly in terms of the environment, and coherently in terms

of international standards.’’ (Press release, Ministry of the

Economy, 9 September 2008). There was a clear need to review

sanitary and environmental regulations, also to improve inspec-

tion capacity and finally, to improve wastewater and solid waste

management. In terms of this last point, these were precisely the

highlighted fields of the APL finalised in 2005; it would appear that

this voluntary agreement was inadequate in terms of achieving the

desired risk reduction in this area.

In view of the findings of the Kibenge et al. study, also the Code

of Practice installed following the Scottish crisis relating to ISA in

1998–1999, it is clear that Chilean regulatory authorities were

ineffectual in reducing risk in the sector prior to 2007, despite the

APLs, REMA and RESA. It is evident also that the firms themselves

failed to implement adequate measures in response to similar

impacts experienced previously in different national settings (e.g.

Marine Harvest in Scotland). The impacts have resulted in lost

earnings, lost jobs and virus transmission through marine

ecosystems, affecting farmed and (most likely) wild species also.

The creation of a roundtable on the issue mimics a similar

response to the labour disputes in 2006. These multi-stakeholder

roundtables are not specific to the sector since they have been used

extensively since the Ricardo Lagos Presidency (2000–2006) to

manage issues in the public realm, from human rights violations to

agriculture. In August 2006, a tripartite roundtable including

regional authorities, sectoral authorities, workers and firm

representatives sought to increase dialogue between the stake-

holders following the strikes in the Mainstream and AquaChile

firms (Ministry of Labour, 2006). Two of the conclusions of the

roundtable, which operated in September and October of 2006 are

worth stressing (pp. 8–9):

(b) The productive dynamism and the conquest of newmarkets

gives rise to sanitary, environmental and labour demands from

importing countries, and it is tremendously important for the

sector and the country that these are met. Effectively, the

growing demands for rising standards by different national and

international social actors provide important and urgent

challenges for the sector. The salmon industry should have

andmust guarantee its sustainability over time and increase its

development potential, improving among others, labour

standards, in such a way as to successfully confront the

objective and unfounded criticisms that are made.

(l) We value this roundtable as a real instance for generating a

virtuous circle where participants and stakeholders of the

industry can move towards the future in a constructive and

realistic way in all the relevant areas.

It is evident that these safeguards were not put in place through

appropriate labour, environmental and sanitary controls and

practices. In a now familiar pattern, the crisis has hit hardest in

J.R. Barton, A. Fløysand / Global Environmental Change 20 (2010) 739–752 749

the worker communities, as some 10,000 workers had lost their

jobs by April 2009.2 It is evident that a new governance regime is

required in order to establish a pattern of stronger sustainability

within the sector; it is also evident that this is occurring in

response to labour unrest and the disease crisis. The model of

stronger sustainability that is emerging out of these criseswill lead

to a shift beyond the conventional indicators of sectoral perfor-

mance based on the economic imperative (such as productivity,

disease control), into a broader-based appreciation of the sector

and its impacts, both positive and negative. This can be

summarised as a reduction in the sustainability deficit (see

Fig. 7). This will include improved knowledge of the environmental

impacts of the sector, labour conditions and remunerations, and

local development spillovers.

In the face of rising conflicts, between environmental NGOs and

firms, and between workers organisations and firms, the need for

conflict avoidance and resolution also intensifies. This will have to

be constructed within a framework of governance that is both

modern and flexible, with spaces for multiple stakeholder

involvement. The debates are not over whether the sector should

or should not exist, but rather how value is created in the sector,

how it is distributed, and how local impacts are compensated for,

how they are mitigated, and how longer-term development

strategies can be established in order to avoid the ‘boom–bust’

cycles of the past. In other words, more can aquaculture contribute

to how sustainable development at different geographical scales.

For example, Marine Harvest published its first sustainability

report in 2008, a full year after the outbreak of the virus. The report

discloses, reportedly for the first time, detailed statistics on the

company’s antibiotics and energy use (Marine Harvest, 2009).

Through the report we learn that, primarily as a result of lax

Chilean regulations, Marine Harvest (the world’s largest aquacul-

ture company), could use 732 grams of antibiotics per ton of

salmon produced in Chile in 2007 while using only 0.2 g per ton in

Norway (Marine Harvest, 2009). The data for Chile are revealing,

and demonstrate that the production practices of Marine Harvest

are unlikely to become more sustainable overnight. However, the

new reporting procedure of Marine Harvest illustrates how

discourses of sustainability are means through which civil society

organisations can make demands on regulation and production

practices, and against which actual production practices can be

measured and critiqued.

7. Beyond economic development: towards sustainability-

oriented global networks

It is evident that the transition from dictatorship to democracy

has been a long process and that the economic model of the

dictatorship has persisted in different ways. The strong economic

growth from the recovery from the early 1980s downturn led to

the democratic administrations taking over a healthy (in financial

capital terms) export-oriented economy. The NTAX that were

central to this recovery received careful protection by the state

during the dictatorship, in terms of low regulatory environments

and support in promotion. During the 1990s, this way of operating

the economy, with close links between public institutions and

export sectors in particular, remained in place. As a consequence,

labour protection and environmental controls were slow to find

their feet within a new regulatory context of democratic

government. The neoliberal model was maintained and deepened

under democracy, as the ‘economic imperative’ of growth through

exports persisted within the logic of the economic ‘miracle’. This

‘miracle’ had a reverse side however.

The salmon aquaculture sector was carefully groomed by the

state during the 1980s and 1990s, and little criticism emerged from

within the country, bar the activities of a handful of environmental

NGOs. Nevertheless, these criticisms had little impact on the sector

or on the regulatory regime. The principal changes that did take

place were in response to safeguarding the health of the sector in

the face of disease outbreaks, such as the initiatives under the 1991

Fisheries and Aquaculture Law.

It was precisely the globalisation of the sector through

investment and exports, and its relative success, that led to a

globalisation of the criticism of it in terms of its wider

sustainability performance (beyond its economic bottom-line),

and specifically the local and regional impacts that have been

generated. A political ecology assessment of these impacts and the

actors involved point to an ‘opening-up’ of the sector in terms of an

international public profile that takes the sector beyond an earlier

productivist and limited development logic. Whereas market

liberalisation created the opportunity to establish a dynamic

export sector that has revitalised the regional economy and

generated profits for domestic and international firms, also income

for the local government (from business rates principally), a

parallel process of socio-ecological globalisation has also ‘opened

up’. This has brought different actors to the table. Not only is the

regulatory regime fixed by the Chilean state and the aquaculture

firms. It is now increasingly influenced by a wider network of

interests that include international buyers, retailers, consumers,

researcher institutions, politicians, non-Chilean media and inter-

national NGOs. Many of these concerns and responses are now

apparent in themodification of the aquaculture legislation that has

been under discussion in Congress since January 2009. These

modifications are organised around the following four themes:

modification of the provision and operation of production sites;

changes in guarantees relating to site concessions and authorisa-

tions; improvements in regulation and inspection; a gradual

increase in the cost of a cage site permit (Presidential message

1346–356, January 2009).

The opening-up of the sector to these diverse stakeholder

groups has led to increased conflicts relating to the socio-

ecological impacts of the sector and local and regional develop-

ment patterns. Consequently, the time horizon of the sector’s

contributions has been changed. In their search for more

sustainable development, the more critical stakeholders are

seeking increased responsibility by firms in order to embed the

beneficial aspects of production – employment, wages, and

multiplier effects – in the areas where production and activity

takes place. This implies a shift away from a more short-termist

[(Fig._7)TD$FIG]

Fig. 7. The ‘sustainability deficit’ in Chilean aquaculture.

2 Ministry of Agricultural and Farm Development, cited in VietFish http://

www.vietfish.com/index.php/news/detail/1476/isa_virus_in_chilian_salmo-

n_and_vietnamese_salmon_import.

J.R. Barton, A. Fløysand / Global Environmental Change 20 (2010) 739–752750

view of the sector. This is increasingly of interest to the state

authorities – both sectoral and territorial – that are charged with

safeguarding the sector and its development outcomes.

Against this, the firms and their association have defended their

position as responsible actors in the region’s development process,

as the motor of regional development, and as rational actors in

their wish to preserve the sector in the longer-term. However, it is

precisely the contribution of the sector and how it benefits

production and processing locations and the region that is

questioned. Against these direct positive contributions from

production have to be weighed the negative impacts of environ-

mental degradation and site ‘souring’, also labour insecurity

(flexibility) and working conditions: the sources of the ongoing

crisis.

Salmon aquaculture is now a consolidated sector in southern

Chile. Chile is also a leading player in global salmon production and

sales. However, much of the growth phase of the sector took place

within aweak regulatory environment andwithin a spatial context

of low levels of economic and human development. The

globalisation of the sector was driven by the economic imperative

and for much of this, a ‘socio-ecological silence’. However, this

globalisation process has now brought with it a different agenda.

This agenda, and its advocates, promote the responsibilities of

economic agents in the development process, also the responsi-

bilities of the state to ensure that minimum operating conditions

are met. These conditions must be designed to ensure positive,

longer-term socio-ecological outcomes from new economic

opportunities and to avoid trade-offs that mitigate against these

outcomes. Clearly, the firms will fight their corner since they are

currently experiencing pressures for greater transparency, also

potential economic losses from labour unrest, environmental and

sanitary risks, and increased operating costs. Nevertheless, this is

evidence of the emergence of what can be defined as sustainabili-

ty-oriented global networks, that unite diverse stakeholders with

common interests, and that empower them against more

consolidated alliances between economic actors and neoliberal

administrations with shorter-term agendas.

In view of the drive towards sustainable development on a

global level, and the implications of this at national and sub-

national levels, these sustainability-oriented global networks are

effectively driving the emergence of new governance regimes that

can be defined as neo-structural rather than neoliberal. The state is

no longer merely a facilitator, but also increasingly sanctions in

favour of broad-based territorial and social interests. It is a sure

sign that Chilean democracy is finally taking shape and that the

economic imperative of the authoritarian and early democratic

period is being overtaken by the potentialities of more sustainable

development within a context of deepening globalisation.

Despite the spat generated by the first New York Times article

about antibiotic misuse and other practises in the Chilean

aquaculture sector in March 2008, a further article emerged in 3

September 2008 by the same journalist. This time the focus was on

the government measures to control the virus, announced by

Minister Lavados. The repercussions of the disease and the

reporting of it have been significant. From April, the supermarket

firm Safeway stopped buying Chilean salmon produced in Regions

X and XI, concerned with issues of quality. It is further evidence of

the ways in which multiple stakeholders are now influencing the

sector’s development, and in turn heightening sustainability

considerations within this new globalised context. Although these

changes can be constructed in terms of political ecology, the

incorporation of labour, food safety and local development

considerations among stakeholders creates a new conceptual

framework of analysis, that of governance for sustainability.

While it is premature to draw conclusions regarding the longer-

term effects of the crisis, developments indicate that it has brought

certain urgency to demands for sustainability and has opened

spaces of engagement for civil society actors to bring these

demands into new fora. It remains to be seen in the longer-term

whether these will materialise into significantly different indus-

trial practices, although the new regulatory structure that is being

created suggest that this is likely. However, it is clear that

‘‘sustainability’’ has become a trope that government and industry

cannot avoid and that they are forced to take seriously and

incorporate in the rebuilding of the sector in the wake of the crisis.

References

Adams, W.M., 2001. Green Development: Environment and Sustainability in theThird World. Routledge, New York.

Adger, W., Brown, K., Fairbrass, J., Jordan, A., Paavola, J., Rosendo, S., Seyfang, G.,2003. Governance for sustainability: towards a ‘thick’ analysis of environmentaldecision-making. Environment and Planning A 35, 1095–1110.

Armitage, D., 2002. Socio-institutional dynamics and the political ecology ofmangrove forest conservation in Central Sulawesi, Indonesia. Global Environ-mental Change 12, 203–217.

Barton, J.R., 1997. Environment, sustainability and regulation in commercialaquaculture: the case of Chilean salmonid production. Geoforum 28 (3–4),313–328.

Barton, J.R., 1998. Salmon aquaculture and Chile’s ‘export-led’ economy. NorwegianJournal of Geography 52 (1), 37–47.

Barton, J.R., 1999. Chile. In: Buxton, J., Phillips, N. (Eds.), Latin American PoliticalEconomy. Manchester University Press, Manchester, pp. 62–81.

Barton, J.R., 2002. State Continuismo and Pinochetismo: the keys to the Chileantransition. Bulletin of Latin American Research 21 (3), 358–374.

Barton, J.R., Staniford, D., 1998. Net deficits and the case for aquacultural geography.Area 30 (2), 145–155.

Barton, J.R., Gwynne, R.N., Murray, W.E., 2007. Competition and co-operation in thesemi-periphery: closer economic partnership and sectoral transformations inChile and New Zealand. The Geographical Journal 173 (3), 224–241.

Barton, J.R., Gwynne, R.N., Murray, W.E., 2008. Transformations in resource periph-eries: an analysis of the Chilean experience. Area 40 (1), 24–33.

Blaikie, P., 1985. The Political Economy of Social Erosion in Developing Countries.Longman, London.

Blaikie, P., 1999. A review of political ecology: issues, epistemology and analyticalnarratives. Zeitschrift fur Wirtschaftsgeographie 43 (3–4), 131–147.

Bryant, R., 2004. Ethics in political ecology: a special issue of political geography.Introduction: thinking about ethics in political ecology. Political Geography 23,807–812.

Bryant, R., Bailey, S., 1997. Third World political ecology. Routledge, London.Bulkeley, H., 2005. Reconfiguring environmental governance: towards a politics of

scales and networks. Political Geography 24, 875–902.Buschmann, A., 2002. Impacto ambiental de la salmonicultura en Chile: la situacion

en la decima region de Los Lagos. Analisis de Polıticas Publicas 16. FundacionTerram.

Camus, P., Jaksic, F., 2009. Piscicultura en Chile: entre la productividad y el deterioroambiental, 1856–2008. Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, Santiago.

Chudnovsky, D., Lopez, A., 2002. Globalization, foreign direct investment andsustainable human development. In: Gallagher, K., Werksman, J. (Eds.), Inter-national Trade and Sustainable Development. Earthscan, London, pp. 45–76.

Claude, M., 1997. Una vez mas la miseria

?

Es Chile un paıs sustentable? LOM,Santiago.

Collins, J., Lear, J., 1995. Chile’s Free-Market Miracle: A Second Look. Institute forFood and Development Policy, Oakland.

Consejo Nacional de Produccion Limpia, 2002. Acuerdo de Produccion Limpia.Sector Productores de y Trucha, Gobierno de Chile, Santiago.

Consejo Nacional de Produccion Limpia, 2008. APL Sectores de Produccion deSalmon y Trucha. http://www.produccionlimpia.cl/link.cgi/Acuerdos(APL)/116 (accessed 6 September 2008).

Cruz Torres, M., 2000. Pink Gold Rush’: shrimp aquaculture, sustainable develop-ment and the environment in NorthwesternMexico. Journal of Political Ecology7, 63–87.

Deutsch, L., Graslund, S., Folke, C., Troell, M., Huitric, M., Kautsky, N., Lebel, L., 2007.Feeding aquaculture growth through globalization: exploitation of marineecosystems for fishmeal. Global Environmental Change 17 (2), 238–249.

Dewalt, B., Vergne, P., Hardin, M., 1996. Shrimp aquaculture development and theenvironment: people, mangroves and fisheries on the Gulf of Fonseca, Hon-duras. World Development 24 (7), 1193–1208.

Dolan, C., Humphrey, J., 2000. Governance and trade in fresh vegetables: the impactof UK supermarkets on the African horticulture industry. Journal of Develop-ment Studies 37, 147–176.

Doumenge, F., 1986. La revolution aquacole. Annales de Geografie 530, 445–582.FAO (Food and Agriculture Organisation), 2004. The State of World Fisheries and

Aquaculture. Rome.Fløysand, A., Haarstad, H., Jakobsen, S.-E., Tønnesen, A., 2005. Foreign direct

investment, regional change and poverty: identifying Norwegian controlledFDI in developing countries. Rapport 4/05. Samfunns og næringlivsforskning AS,Bergen.

J.R. Barton, A. Fløysand / Global Environmental Change 20 (2010) 739–752 751

Fløysand, A., Jakobsen, S.-E., 2002. Clusters, social fields and capabilities: rules andrestructuring in Norwegian fish processing clusters. International Studies ofManagement and Organisation 31 (4), 36–57.

Foreign Investment Committee (FIC) Chilean Government, 2006, 2007. FDI statis-tics, http://www.foreigninvestment.cl/index/fdi_statistics.asp?id_seccion=2(accessed 3 November 2007).

Forsyth, T., 2003. Critical Political Ecology: The Politics of Environmental Science.Routledge, London.

Fundacion Terram, 2001. Salmonicultura en Chile: desarrollo, proyecciones eimpacto. Terram, Santiago.

Fundacion Terram, 2006a. Condiciones laborales de la industria salmonera. http://www.terram.cl/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=3386&Itemid=2(accessed 5 September 2006).

Fundacion Terram, May 2006. Analisis de coyuntura salmonicultura 9. .Fundacion Terram, 2007. Salmonicultura chilena: entre el exito comercial y la

insustentabilidad. Terram, Santiago.Gereffi, G., Korzeniewicz,M. (Eds.), 1994. Commodity Chains andGlobal Capitalism.

Praeger, Westport, CT.Goodman, D., Watts, M.J. (Eds.), 1997. Globalising Food: Agrarian Questions and

Global Restructuring. Routledge, London.Grenier, P., 1984. Chiloe et los chilotes, marginalite et dependence en Patagonie

Chilienne. La Calade, Edisud.Gutierrez, C., 2005. Moratoria a la Salmonicultura. Oceana, Santiago.Haarstad, H., Fløysand, A., 2007. Globalisation and the power of rescaled narratives:

a case of opposition to mining in Tambogrande, Peru. Political Geography 26,289–308.

Hayter, R., Barnes, T.J., Bradshaw, M.J., 2003. Relocating resource peripheries tothe core of economic geography’s theorizing: rationale and agenda. Area 35(1), 15–23.

Holm, P., Jentoft, S., 1996. The sky is the limit? The rise and fall of Norwegian salmonaquaculture. In: Bailey, C., Jentoft, S., Sinclair, P. (Eds.), Aquacultural Develop-ment: Social Dimensions of an Emerging Industry.Westview Press, Boulder, CO,pp. 23–42.

Humphrey, J., Schmitz, H., 2001. Governance in global value chains. IDS Bulletin 32,19–29.

IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources), 1980.World Conservation Strategy. IUCN/UNEP/WWF, Gland.

Jordan, A., 2008. The Governance of Sustainable Development: taking stock andlooking forwards. Environment and Planning C 26, 17–33.

Kibenge, F., Garate, O., Johnson, G., Arriagada, R., Kibenge, M.J., Wadowska, D., 2001.Isolation and identification of infectious salmon anaemia virus (ISAV) fromCoho salmon in Chile. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 45 (1), 9–18.

Lindbergh, J., 1993. The distribution of salmon aquaculture: Chile. In: Heen, K.,Monahan, R.L., Utter, R. (Eds.), Salmon Aquaculture. Fishing News Books,Oxford, pp. 48–57.

Machinea, J.L., Vera, C., 2006. Trade, Direct Investment and Production Policies.CEPAL, Santiago.

Marine Harvest, 2009. Sustainability Report 2008. Marine Harvest ASA, Oslo.Martınez, J., Diaz, A., 1996. Chile: The Great Transformation. UNRISD and The

Brookings Institution, Geneva.Martinez Alier, J., 1994. De la economıa ecologica al ecologismo popular. Icaria,

Barcelona.Meller, P., Saez, R., 1997. Lecciones y desafıos futuros del auge exportador chileno.

In: Meller, P., Saez, R. (Eds.), Auge exportador chileno: lecciones y desafıosfutures. CIEPLAN-Dolmen, Santiago, pp. 11–42.

Mendez, R. (Ed.), 1994. Compendio de Acuicultura de Chile. Editec, Santiago.Ministry of Labour, 2006. Informe Comision Laboral. Mesa de Trabajo Industria

Salmonera Region de Los Lagos. Ministerio de Trabajo, Santiago.Ministry of the Economy, 2008. Avances de la Mesa de Trabajo del Salmon:

‘‘Medidas provocaran los mayores cambios en la historia de la industriadel salmon’’. http://www.economia.cl/aws00/servlet/aawsconver?1,noticias,503819 (accessed 9 September 2008).

Montero, C., 1997. La Revolucion Empresarial Chilena. Cieplan-Dolmen, Santiago.Murray, W., 2006. Geographies of Globalization. Routledge, London.OLACH, 2009. Se formo Federacıon de Trabajadores de Industria Salmonera y Ramos

Afines, Observatorio Laboral y Ambiental de Chiloe. http://www.olach.cl(accessed 22 April 2009).

OECD/CEPAL, 2005. Evaluacion de Desempeno Ambiental 2005. CEPAL, Santiago.Peat, R., Watts, M. (Eds.), 1996. Liberation ecologies: environment, development

and social movements.. Routledge, London.Phyne, J., Mansilla, J., 2003. Forging linkages in the commodity chain: the case of

the Chilean salmon farming industry 1987–2001. Sociologia Ruralis 43 (2),108–127.

Phyne, J., Hovgaard, G., Hansen, G., 2006. Norwegian Salmon goes to market:the case of the Austevoll seafood cluster. Journal of Rural Studies 22, 190–2004.

Presidential message 1346–356, 2009. Mensaje de S.E. la Presidenta de la Republicacon el que inicia un proyecto de ley que modifica la Ley General de Pesca yAcuicultura en materia de acuicultura. Valparaiso. http://www.camara,cl/pley(accessed 10 January 2010).

Quiroga, R., 1994. El Tigre sin Selva: consecuencias ambientales de la transforma-cion economica de Chile, 1974–1993. IEP, Santiago.

Rauschmayer, F., Wittmer, H., 2006. Evaluating deliberative and analyticalmethods for the resolution of environmental conflicts. Land Use Policy 23,108–122.

Revista Aqua, 2007. Exportaciones de salmonidos, enero a febrero 2006–07. http://www.aqua.cl/estadisticas/ESTADISTICAS114.pdf (accessed 1 June 2007).

Robbins, P., 2004. Political Ecology: A Critical Introduction. Blackwell, Oxford.Sabatini, F., 1997. Conflictos ambientales y desarrollo sustentable en las regiones

urbanas. Revista EURE 32 (68), 72–92.SalmonChile, 2007. Produccion mundial de salmon y trucha cultivado. http://

estadisticas.intesal.cl/ (accessed 1 June 2007).SalmonChile, 2008a. SalmonChile AG. http://www.salmonchile.cl/frontend/seccion.

asp?contid=358&secid=2&secoldid=2&subsecid=7&pag=1 (accessed 12 August2008).

SalmonChile, 2008b. Exportaciones chilenas pesqueras. http://www.salmonchi-le.cl/files/T2-Sector%20pesquero%201991-2007.pdf (accessed 12 August 2008).

Schurman, R.A., 1996. Snails, southern lake and sustainability—neoliberalism andnatural resource exports in Chile. World Development 24, 1695–1709.

Sernapesca, 2008. Balance de la situacion sanitaria de la anemia infecciosa delsalmon (ISA) en Chile, desde Julio del 2007 a Julio del 2008. Sernapesca,Valparaıso.

Swyngedouw, E., 2004. Globalisation or ‘glocalisation’? Networks, territories andrescaling. Cambridge Review of International Affairs 17 (1), 25–48.

Universidad de Chile-IAP, 2005. Informe Paıs: Estado del Medio Ambiente en Chile2005. Universidad de Chile, Santiago.

Vagsholm, I., Djupvik, H.O., Tveit, F.W., Tangen, K., 1994. Infectious salmon anaemia(ISA) epidemiology in Norway. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 19, 277–290.

WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development), 1987. Our CommonFuture. Oxford University Press, New York.

J.R. Barton, A. Fløysand / Global Environmental Change 20 (2010) 739–752752