Shellfish gardening
Good and Services of Marine Bivalves IV. Cultural Services (Eds. A. Smaal & Ø. Strand) Shellfish gardening ‐ C. Saurel1 & K. Tetrault2 1
Technical University of Denmark, National Institute of Aquatic Resources, Danish Shellfish Centre, Øroddevej 80, 7900 Nykøbing M, Denmark 2 Cornell Cooperative Extension, Suffolk County, 423 Griffing Avenue, Suite 100, Riverhead, New York 11901‐3071, US.
1. Abstract With an imminent shortage in animal protein worldwide for both human and livestock production together with the promising blue revolution and the rising of human consciousness regarding sustainable production, citizens on local scale are empowering themselves to restore and sustainably exploit the damaged marine environment via seafood gardening. Shellfish and oyster gardening are relatively new terms, slowly spreading worldwide. Terrestrial and marine gardening share many aspects in terms of functioning and ecosystem good and services, however the growing medium, legislation regarding its use and access give it an appealing but challenging attraction. In the previous chapters on provisioning, supportive and regulative services, shellfish appears as an ideal organism to be locally grown mainly due to its organic extractive feeding mode and low maintenance. However, as described in this chapter, the cultural services provided by shellfish gardens/ing range from social organisation to sustainable engagement and require certain pillars in order to be successful. We use two case studies to illustrate two different approaches to shellfish gardening: 1) in the U.S. several shellfish gardening initiatives are taking place, it is often referred as oyster gardening and initially started as a shellfish habitat recovery initiative, 2) in Denmark in Europe, several projects have started directly as shellfish gardens and are managed by local associations.
2. Introduction Shellfish garden Shellfish gardening is a non‐commercial activity where people grow bivalves such as mussels and oysters for their own consumption. It is often seen as a new activity or concept as there is almost no tradition for private production of marine bivalves for personal or family consumption, but rather a more established tradition for hand picking and gathering in the wild. Shellfish production is seen as one of the most sustainable forms of seafood production, as shellfish extract organic matter from their surrounding environment for feeding, mainly by filtering phytoplankton, and thus do not require external food sources. So far, there are only a few examples of shellfish gardens, mainly based on community/association garden principles using licenced grounds and few individually operated in privately owned coastlines. The U.S. seems to be the precursor of community citizen gardening for food consumption from a movement that originally started for bivalve habitat restoration in damaged estuarine systems on the East coast In Puget Sound shoreline landowners are growing their own shellfish on their beaches and getting their seeds and material from commercial shellfish growers (http://shorestewards.cw.wsu.edu/faq/growing‐your‐own‐shellfish/). In France, an activity called “Aquaculture de loisir” (translated as Recreational aquaculture) could be transposed to shellfish garden. On Shellfish gardening
1
the Atlantic coast of France, marshes have been modified to pond and hump back to the 17 and 18th century for agriculture, salt ponds, pisciculture, oyster culture and recreational culture. There, recreational aquaculture represents a social and cultural heritage where traditionally oysters were cultivated in privately owned saltwater ponds (“claires”) for familial consumption; nowadays the oyster culture is shifting toward shrimp culture (Paticat, 2008). More recently in Denmark, shellfish gardening is a phenomenon targeting food consumption, and the government and private foundations have facilitated its implementation. In Japan, there are also a few examples of seafood gardening, mainly focusing on seaweed, and some shellfish gardens also started from restoration projects. There, the citizen personal seaweed growing is called “ownership system” (e.g in 2005 in Minamata city http://bp.eco‐capital.net/bps/read/id/88 or in Hiroshima http://www.haff.city.hiroshima.jp/info/2016/11/8982/ ). In other parts of the world where shellfish restoration programs exist, such as in Australia, shellfish gardens will soon also become reality (Simon Branigan, The Nature Conservancy Australia pers. comm.). Shellfish gardens share similarities with terrestrial gardens/allotment as it should be a hobby using little infrastructure. Gardens are multifunctional and provide many cultural services in addition to provisioning. They can mean different things to different people; for certain they provide a recreational framework, where communities, family and friends can meet and relax or perform outdoor exercises. For others, they have an educational aspect where citizens can learn about aquaculture processes, observe and understand the nature and seasons, and to become more aware of the surrounding marine ecosystems (Tidball and Krasny, 2010). Gardens are also supporting aesthetic aspirations with land art, eco‐design, and functionalities with the use of shells and row material. Shellfish gardens that derive from bivalve restoration programs can be compared to wildlife gardens, sustainable gardens and green gardening supporting both biodiversity and sustainable cultures. Terrestrial gardens are often associated with spirituality, a therapy, an active mean for peacefulness and a way to escape the daily routines. Shellfish gardens add a new dimension to this experience, an invitation for reflection, imagination and voyage, as described by many artists (e.g. J.M.W. Turner, C. Baudelaire, R.L. Stevenson), a way to escape a terrestrial routine. The marine medium has been a means for new discoveries and quests and still remains mysterious with so many unexplored areas while covering 70% of the planet and sustaining in marine protein more than 400 millions of people from fisheries only (FAO, 2016). History of shellfish garden ‐ from gathering to gardening Marine food production has shifted from gathering to farming at a much slower rate than terrestrial products. While terrestrial farming started with the Neolithic, ca. 10 000 years ago, through the domestication of terrestrial plants and animal, leading to a drastic change of human feeding habits and livelihood, domestication of aquatic food has mainly occurred only recently (Teletchea, 2015). More than 90% of the aquatic food domestication took place in the 20th century while 97% of the terrestrial domestication had already happened since more than 2000 years ago (Duarte et al., 2007). Also, hunting and gathering has almost vanished from a commercial perspective for terrestrial products, while almost half of marine products are still extracted rather than cultivated. There is also a huge pressure on marine ecosystems coming from licenced/regulated hand picking and illegal poaching, which in some countries immensely underestimates the official reported landings. Although aquaculture has existed for thousands of years, as in the case of China (Rabanal, 1988), it has mainly focused on fish and seaweed. However, there are early records of shellfish gardening during the late Holocene in British Columbia where a first nation tribe maintained a garden of butter and littleneck clams (Saxidomus gigantean, Leukoma staminea) (Lepofsky and Caldwell, 2013). In this example, gardeners were modifying and transforming the shore in order increase clam production (Groesbeck et al. 2014). More recently, since the 17‐18th centuries, oyster ponds on the Atlantic coast of France are used for family production of oyster. As it took a much longer time to develop a paradigm of secure sources of animal and vegetable protein for the production of marine
Shellfish gardening
2
protein similar to the terrestrial one, and with only very recently landings being overpassed by aquaculture production on fisheries landings (FAO, 2016), shellfish gardening is a new activity compared to terrestrial gardening. Food security vs sustainable production The sea has always seemed to have inexhaustible resources, either food or raw material and for centuries shellfish have been extracted for food, often ignoring the ecological consequences. An illustration of the extent of the extraction can be seen in shell middens, where all around the coast areas in the world some evidence of gathered shell were piled up over several generation or thousands of year and covering surfaces up to 600‐700 m long (Andersen 2000) and to several meter high (see Chapter 3.5 Butler et al.). Most coastal areas and estuaries worldwide where shellfish grow have been affected by direct and indirect anthropogenic impacts ranging from overexploitation of bivalves, nutrient and toxic substances pollution, invasive species, climate change, coastal erosion, often leading to devastating ecological consequences to the ecosystem such as eutrophication and habitat loss (Beck et al 2011; ). A large part of the damage to the marine environment is linked to the human needs for food and materials: pesticides, eutrophication from nutrient runoff, overfishing, aquaculture feed pollution, energy production pollution, genetic escapees, invasive species etc… Recently, efforts in dissemination of information and research communication on ecosystem functioning and sustainable production have raised ocean literacy and citizen consciousness regarding unbalances in coastal ecosystems from pollution and reduction of stocks via overfishing (Gelcich et al 2014). Citizens are facing a dilemma between food security and diversity, and sustainable production. This is one of the illogicality in the contemporary life of citizens as consumers, as described in the “omnivore dilemma” (Pollan 2006): the awareness of sustainability and interest in knowing the food origin (Grunert et al., 2014), and the loss of knowledge in composing a proper diet in the overabundant variety of available food. From the mid‐1900s the green revolution, through the use of modern technologies (e.g. genetics, fertilizers) and more recently the development of aquaculture improved food security and a more efficient use of available land (Ausubel 2000). At the same time, non‐governmental environmentalist organizations (e.g. Greenpeace, WWF, IUCN, The Nature Conservancy, etc.) were campaigning to raise awareness and act directly to protect the environment. From the concern regarding fast processed food and a loss of food culture, emerged new movements, such as the slow food movement (www.slowfood.com) in the 90s, based on “prevent the disappearance of local food cultures and traditions, counteract the rise of fast life and combat people’s dwindling interest in the food they eat” with three concepts of food: i) GOOD: quality and healthy food; ii) CLEAN: sustainable production; and iii) FAIR: price for consumers and producers. Slow food movements are also associated to a wide range of other terms such as conscious eater, citizen eater, omnivore consciousness, food consciousness, local food movement, locavores, and ethical eaters vs. the all‐consuming citizenship. Community organisation and shared gardens have been a way to immerse in the slow food movement, and this is also the case for shellfish gardens. These organisations are connecting food, people and community; they have a high level of consciousness and they illustrate the social engagement of citizens. Members of shellfish garden association interact, learn and know the origin of the marine food production and engage and empower themselves to act and participate to the restoration of the coastal ecosystems. Shellfish gardening challenges By definition a shellfish garden has to be localised along the coastline for easy access and this raises the issues of ownership and land use. It is assumed that the first nation clam gardeners owned the garden close to their settlement by controlling the access to it (Lepofsky and Caldwell, 2013). Nowadays, depending on
Shellfish gardening
3
the country’s legislation, the coastline might be state or individual owned. In Denmark, a licence for setting up a garden is delivered by the state, while in certain states in U.S., e.g. Washington State (Puget Sound), individual shoreline landowners dispose of their own plot and follow federal and state regulation regarding its use. There is almost no spatial limitation for citizens to start their own terrestrial vegetable gardens, which can exist on roof tops, as hanging gardens, floating gardens, on some pots in a kitchen, next to a house, etc. On the other hand, it is not surprising that shellfish gardening in state owned shorelines is more restricted and therefore a relatively recent activity; several practical reasons ranging from physical, social, and biological constraints must be taken into consideration in order to start a shellfish garden as described in Table 1. Services and social‐ecological systems Shellfish gardens are encompassing a wide range of ecosystem services, they are not only driven by the good will to provide supportive and regulative services to disturbed ecosystems, but are also driven by the aspiration to the sustainable production of healthy local food which belongs to provisioning and cultural services (Table 2). In previous chapters provisioning, regulating and supportive services provided by bivalves have been described, the same services stand for shellfish gardens, in addition to cultural services. There are many social factors attributed to the cultural ecosystem services provided by shellfish gardens. Shellfish gardens contribute to raise the public consciousness on environmental issues and sustainable farming, the involvement of the community to actively react on protecting disturbed environments from eutrophication or overexploitation. By cultivating own food, active citizens can trace healthy seafood from start to plate. Citizens engage socially for local support and community building by creating together local food production and space and it can be part of a political fulfilment. Thus, they can raise awareness, vitalize the coastal area, share and transmit knowledge, educate local communities and schools. Shellfish garden also permit the maintenance of local varieties to increase resilience of local food supply (Barthel et al., 2014), and tackle issues such as invasive species or diseases (see Puget Sound recommendations species) and to participate in the enhancement of biodiversity and maintenance of wildlife. Gardeners are entertained via the recreational aspect of the activity and benefit from i) physical exercise by manipulating the farm units, boat and live products, ii) spiritual experience via the contact with nature, relaxation, biophilia. Products coming from the farms can be used in different forms, from art craft, design via the shell to food quality and gourmet experience (Table 2). In the following two case studies, we focus on two different approaches for shellfish gardens. The U.S. SPAT (Suffolk Project in Aquaculture Training) case study where the provisioning service is a derivative of supportive and regulative initiative from citizens, while for the Danish case study, the provisioning service from shellfish garden is the main driving force of the project.
3. Case studies The United States case study: from restoration to food provisioning The concept of oyster gardening in the United States fundamentally began with the decline of the eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica) in the Chesapeake Bay due to a combination of diseases, over fishing and diminished water quality. Programs exist and are active in many of the eastern coastal states and are all essentially growing oysters for restoration of the stocks, habitat and to improve water quality. The need to grow and experiment with oyster stocks that are bred for resistance to the protozoans associated with MSX (Haplosporidium nelsoni) and Dermo (Perkinsus marinus) and to generally increase standing stocks have
Shellfish gardening
4
been a management tool for principal agencies for a few decades and are viewed as being successful in their efforts. The consumption and harvest of “garden “oysters are typically not components of the activity but rather, oysters are returned to the supervising agency to be placed on selected sites. Education through oyster gardening is an important added value to the gardening experience and in many cases offer the most tangible and quantifiable benefits. Cornell Cooperative Extension (CCE) of Suffolk, New York began an oyster gardening program in 2000 at its Southold facility on the north fork of Long Island. Beginning in 1992, The Suffolk County Marine Environmental Learning Center (SCMELC) used a small shellfish hatchery to assist local townships with bivalve seed that would be free planted for stock enhancement purposes. The shellfish stocks in this area had been heavily compromised by a harmful algal bloom referred to by the “brown tide” (Aureococcus anophagefferens). The facilities aquaculture division was and continues to be somewhat unique in its ability to produce an average of 4‐6 million shellfish seed from 3 species and provide education to the community on a year round basis. Increased awareness within the community of shellfish and their potential for improving water quality spurred on the need for a more comprehensive approach to nurturing the seed in order to boost survivability as well as to foster a greater sense of environmental stewardship. With this in mind, the Suffolk Project in Aquaculture Training (SPAT) was developed and went into action following an introductory open house in December of 1999. The program has now completed 17 growing seasons and has remained true to its original plan with various modifications. The SPAT program follows a guideline that has proved to be successful in its path towards sustainability and viability. SPAT offers membership to the public on an annual basis and requires a yearly fee. All members receive 1000 oyster seed and are entitled to harvest 100% of their stock for their own use. This was modified from the original approach, which gave the members 2000 seed but had to return 50 % of the survivors to be free planted. For members that have their own private access to water, the ambassador designation is given and must adhere to 24 rules, including the inability to sell their stock and to be cultivating in waters that are certified as safe and to acquire a special license to possess undersize shellfish from the state regulatory agency. For members that do not have their own access, 3 community gardens are available, which are overseen by CCE staff (Figure 1). In 2016, active membership stands at 226 families, 68 of which are ambassadors. SPAT has reached over 1000 families during its tenure and remains in contact with a large number of them. While the oyster gardens and the ability for individuals to culture their own stock for personal use is an essential component of SPAT, the strength of the program has been in aquaculture training. There are a number of elements of the SPAT program that possibly unique to any other shellfish gardening effort in the US. The program is in operation year‐ round and offers an open door policy that invites all members to take part in weekly work sessions. Over the years, SPAT members have collectively logged in over 10,000 volunteer hours annually. During these work sessions, members become involved in all aspects of the program, which has included the construction of numerous systems including Floating and land‐based upwellers. There is a fully equipped shop, which has built boats as well as gear. Since 2002, SPAT has operated its own shellfish hatchery, which was built and funded by the members. The “SPAT Shack” has given members the autonomy to learn shellfish culture techniques without ulterior mandates. This allows members to culture shellfish seed in a relatively stress free and non‐competitive environment. In 2016, SPAT members added a second hatchery system and produced ~1 million oyster seed and 1 million clam seed. SPAT maintains a full nursery system to hold stocks until ready for deployment. A year‐round lecture series is given which includes 11 two‐hour lectures offered twice each month covering all aspects of shellfish aquaculture. The lectures have been well attended each year with an average of 35 members/month. The success of the SPAT program can be attributed to a number of key factors, some of which are attainable to all communities and some, which may not apply. The year‐round availability of the program to Shellfish gardening
5
all members is extremely valuable for achieving a high level of interest and motivation. Members have the ability to network with staff and have their issues and concerns addressed quickly. There is a continuous quest for knowledge that is fostered by the quirkiness of the endeavour. There is not that many individuals that embark in this type of activity on a community level. SPAT has maintained a core group of members, some of whom have been in the program from its inception and come to the center every week as part of their routine. There is a tremendous sense of ownership in the program, a feeling of pride that can only be earned through dedication and hard work. This is possible in part by the demographics of the community. The eastern tip of Long Island has a large number of affluent waterfront home owners who are not only able to donate their time but are also willing to give back to their community and the environment. There are a large number of meandering creeks with private docks that are fortunate to have clean water for safely growing shellfish, unlike large sections of western Long Island where many of the creeks are closed due to poor water quality. The most essential element of the SPAT program has to do with the organization under which it operates. CCE is a 501‐ C3 non‐ profit whose primary mandate is to educate members of the community and assist them in putting their knowledge to work. The marine division of CCE is driven by dedicated staff and has allowed SPAT to be led by a qualified staff on a full time basis. While SPAT is essentially run from the bottom up, leadership has been necessary to maintain the credibility and professionalism to the endeavour. Not all gardening groups in the United States have been able to afford themselves the luxury of this level of commitment to community‐based aquaculture and shellfish restoration. The EU case study: Danish food provisioning and environmental awareness Unlike in the U.S., the concept of shellfish gardening in Denmark emerged with the aspiration to empower citizen stewardship on local seafood production as a hobby for family consumption. This fits together with recent movements such as the “New Nordic Cuisine” where Danish chefs and citizens are promoting “slow food” by going back to locally grown, wild, healthy and sustainable Scandinavian food delicacies and with Danish lifestyle to pursue well‐being and healthy regime, i.e. hygge philosophy, where a majority of the Danes is a member of a club or association for socialising and balancing work/personal life. In less than 5 years, several shellfish gardens initiatives are now functional and expanding in Denmark, from small rural areas ranging from 4000 inhabitants to large cities such as the capital Copenhagen with more than 1.7 Million inhabitants in the metropolitan area (Figure 2). Several reasons could explain the success of shellfish garden in Denmark as most of the constraints to shellfish gardening described in Table 1 are solved: Physical: Denmark has a long and sheltered coastline. The ratio of coastline to land in Denmark is extremely high (172) in comparison to all other shellfish producing European countries (e.g. Norway = 82.6, UK = 51.4, or France = 7.58). There is no location in Denmark further away from the coast than 52km. This gives a special access and relationship with the marine environment. Moreover, most of the sheltered estuaries are quite shallow and protected from large fetch, thus shellfish production structures do not require too large investments and are easily accessible with a small boat or from structures directly connected to the shore. Biological/Ecological: Danish waters are highly eutrophied as a result of excess nutrient load. However, the enforced part on reducing excess loading of nutrients to comply with EU Water Framework Directive standards (WFD ‐ "Directive 2000/60/EC”) have been carried out in relation to waste water treatment plants (WWTP, Carstensen et al., 2006) and has resulted in high hygienic standard of coastal water i.e. most areas are Class A where bivalves can be harvested for direct consumption under Shellfish Water Directive (2006/113/EC). Combined with the presence of high
Shellfish gardening
6
organic matter and phytoplankton makes Danish waters very suitable to organic extractive aquaculture. Moreover, production and ecological carrying capacities on basin scales seem far from being reached (Nielsen et al., 2016). Species: a key aspect from shellfish gardening is the abundance of natural recruitment for local species and the relatively fast growth of mussels to commercial size in less than a year. No hatchery is necessary for mussels (Mytilus edulis) and spat of native flat oysters (Ostrea edulis) can be collected on deployed spat collectors in sheltered areas or small oysters can be harvested and kept in the gardens. However, a secure oyster seed supply should rely on hatchery supply, which is expensive and not yet reliable in Denmark. Regarding the invasive Pacific cupped oyster (Crassostrea gigas), aquaculture/shellfish gardening of this species is not allowed on culture plots. Mussel seeds are collected naturally on spat collectors placed in the garden around May, then seeds are sorted and socked around September and the crop is harvestable from April the following year. Regarding the native flat oyster, juveniles or young adults are fished and then kept in cages hanging in the garden, however, in some areas of the fjord, oyster spat collectors have been deployed to collect oyster seeds. Legal: The delivery time for a licence can be relatively short but depends on the competent authorities and whether there are objections from stakeholders. It takes normally less than 4‐5 months to get a licence and authorities are considering an easier procedure for sea gardens as long as the production is not commercial. The licensing consultation process from the government with stakeholders has proved that in some areas, stakeholders are not obstructing the process, while in others, sailors complained about sailing routes, or inhabitants complained about the view from their summer cottage, issues of getting buoys washed to the shore. Social and cultural: New Nordic Cuisine, slow food movement and connection to the sea are catalysts for the creation of shellfish gardens. Overall there is a good acceptance and enthusiasm for sea garden projects by citizens.
An interesting aspect of the shellfish gardens organisations developed in Denmark is their different approach: i) One person or a small group of citizens has the idea to create an association of shellfish garden, ii) An outside group or local agency has the idea and creates associations together with partners and then recruits citizens and board members, iii) entrepreneurial. Most of the shellfish gardens in Denmark have their own informative website often associated to social media such as Facebook. The associations are also composed of various groups with key interests such as gourmet, aquaculture techniques, art, demonstration, events, seaweed, mussels and oysters. The pioneer came up with the idea in 2010 from a group of citizens interested by non‐commercial seafood production for personal consumption and by 2013 the “Havhaven Ebeltoft Vig” (Sea Garden Ebeltoft Vig) association had created the first hobby‐based shellfish garden in Denmark (Figure 2). The board of directors is now composed of 11 members. A few longlines of mussels and seaweed are deployed with both common and individual crops for around 100 members contributing to an annual fee of 500DKK (~67euros). Based on the same principle another association “Kerteminde Maritime haver” (Kerteminde Maritime gardens) started to provide a structure for inhabitants to grow their own seafood (Figure 2). The entry fee is 500DKK + 500DKK annual fee (total ~135 euros) and by 2016, the structure and the first lines and socks of seaweed and mussels were deployed. In Copenhagen, an entrepreneur structure called “Maritime Nyttehaver” (translated: Maritime allotments) started in 2012. The garden is localized right in the middle of the capital harbour, which is now cleaned from all past polluting industries (Figure 2). The main objective is to establish urban aquaculture and promote ocean literacy with around 200 members and an annual fee of 100DKK (~13.5 euros). Products and mussel single drop kits are sold to citizens, raising some legislation and management concern on their use and deployment.
Shellfish gardening
7
Finally, a large privately funded project (Nordea Fund ‐ 750 000 euros) in partnership with 4 municipalities and called “Fjordhaver i Limfjordens havne” (translated: Estuarine gardens in the Limfjord harbour) was launched in 2015. This project enabled the development of 4 sea gardens in 4 different harbour cities of the largest Danish esturay (Limfjorden): Aalborg, Løgstør, Nykøbing M. and Lemvig (Figure 2) with the assistance of professional groups to set up the gardens. The development of the sea gardens varied with different constraints at different locations, but with the same basic principle: create a local association with a maximum 150 to 200 members with a yearly fee of 300 DKK (40 euros). The project started in January 2015 and by November some mussel lines were already hanging in Nykøbing M. new fjord garden farm area The overall purpose of the Fjordhaven project is to create opportunities for a “good life” in cities around the Limfjorden and to make use of depopulated and de‐industrialized harbour facilities now often empty during out‐of‐office hours. The project has five core beliefs: 1) create life in depopulated or unused port areas and provide space for social activities to interested and committed citizens; 2) bring "blue" into the city; 3) empower non‐professionals in relation to seafood production to understand the production process and create a relationship between the product and the educated consumer; 4) promote healthy meals and lifestyle with roots in the local maritime history; and 5) increase ocean literacy to get closer to the sea that sustain human‐beings and raise local citizen awareness on good and services provided by inorganic and organic extractive aquaculture. Each sea garden involved in the project has its own association with a board of directors composed of 7 members (e.g. Figure 3A). Several workshops gathering all the members of the 4 associations and including professionals have been conducted during the project in order to train members and transfer knowledge from the professionals for the sustainability and legacy of the shellfish gardens once the funded project stops at the end of 2017. Workshop tackle training on mussel, oyster and seaweed production, ecology of the fjord, biology and growth cycle for year‐round production steps, setup of gardens and material necessary (e.g. knots, buoys, socks, longline setup, boat and platform operation), and finally how to handle the harvested product and cook it (Figures 3B&C). Members have learnt and participated in the setup of the garden (Figure 4) on two different types of production structures: long‐lines accessible by boat only and rafts connected to land (Figure 5). In some of the associations, subgroups have emerged to specialise in the cultivated species or boat and structure maintenance. A general assembly is organised every year gathering all members, while each association meet on a weekly basis and punctually gets support and training from the professional groups. The association and gardens are relatively recent, but have already gathered more than 200 motivated members sharing a common interest. So far, the success of the bivalve sea gardens has been counting on a good local dissemination from the press, promotional leaflets, professional and financial support and more importantly motivated and committed members; yet, challenges might rise once the project ends regarding the professional and financial support for the legacy in training of new members and maintenance of facilities and equipment. However, one product from the project will be a sea garden guide with key information gathered during the project. There are several future challenges for the development of shellfish gardens in Denmark. In certain areas, predators such as Eider ducks (Somateria mollissima) can feed and remove the entire production of hanging mussels. In term of food safety, analyses for water quality are extremely expensive and not carried out by the authorities, but rather by the users. Gardeners should control the water quality themselves, which is unrealistic. As it happens, responsible consumption as compared with hand‐picked shellfish, a common practice in Europe, and gardeners benefit from the analyses conducted by commercial mussel fishermen and farmers when their gardens are localised within the same analysed area. Although the issue of competition between gardeners and professional fishermen and farmers has been mentioned, it seems marginal due to: i) the small volume produced by the sea gardens, ii) the non‐commercial definition of sea gardens, iii) the low national market for shellfish and iv) shellfish gardens could potentially be beneficial on the long term to professionals from the instigated keen interest towards shellfish consumption; so far the
Shellfish gardening
8
cohabitation is peaceful and generally not problematic, not least because, sea gardens for obvious reasons rarely are situated in areas where shellfish farming or fisheries take place (Figure 6). In terms of maritime spatial planning and social acceptance, overall shellfish gardens as well as shellfish aquaculture are relatively well accepted. The visual pollution from buoys is quite discrete, but complaints on nuisance caused by buoys being washed away on shore or use of the space can happen, e.g. licencing has been delayed in one of Fjordhaver municipality due to stakeholder protests, consequently a new licence demand at a different location was submitted and later approved. Finally, the keen enthusiasm and interest of Danish citizens regarding shellfish gardens has resulted in a boom of applications for shellfish garden licences around the country, at a rate that the government might have problems to handle. This could create in the long run the occurrence of unregulated individual gardens with a loss of community and social acceptance and a potential danger for other nautical activities, if single lines or cages are placed in coastal areas illegally. Although the authorities are currently working on shellfish garden licencing rules to adapt and facilitate the procedure, other issues and potential risks exist for future gardeners as invasive species, translocation of disease contaminated seeds, pollution, climate change and low spatfall.
4. Successful shellfish gardens and future challenges Shellfish gardening on a community level concept is habitually seen as an innovative and fantastic idea. Several successful shellfish gardens are paving the way to expand the activity. In described case studies, SPAT (U.S.) and Fjord gardens (Denmark), the community sea garden project has been initiated by an outside group or local agency rather than citizens themselves (although see Ebeltoft and Kerteminde in Denmark). Both case studies share similar basic components in their functioning (Table 3) while they both started with a distinct initial goal aspiration to restoration and volunteers’ engagement vs. original purpose of citizens’ empowerment of shellfish production and well‐being. Still, country specific regulations for licencing and culture practice could impediment shellfish gardens development. The U.S. case study as described by the SPAT program deals with regulation issues in a somewhat simple and efficient process. If potential gardeners have waterfront with established structure such as a dock or bulkhead, the jurisdictional regulatory agency can issue a special limited use permit for culturing undersized shellfish stock that is acquired from a shellfish hatchery (no wild seed collection). Non‐waterfront members of the community can become part of a group growing in “community gardens”, which are designated by the towns governing body (Trustees in NY) and is permitted through that agency. In the Danish case study, regulation is evolving to facilitate a licencing process for non‐commercial shellfish production. It seems that both systems have worked well so far, SPAT has currently over 200 families gardening and maintains over 100 permits on file, while the overall number of members in Denmark is more than 500 members spread on 7 shellfish community gardens (Figure 2) and a growing interest resulting in new gardens in progress. Rules can be refined as deemed necessary. Some basic rules, such as a limit to the amount of stocks allowed to be grown by gardeners, being non‐commercial, no allowance for culture of non‐indigenous species should avoid potential spread of disease and competition. So far shellfish plots are relatively small and localised in eutrophied area rich in phytoplankton thus with limited food competition impact on the wild communities, however as for site selections for commercial aquaculture, carrying capacity issues should be considered. Shellfish community gardens could learn from well‐established terrestrial community gardens and the various toolkits already in place, supporting one of the most important core belief is the grassroots approach where citizens are engaged from the instigation to the operation of the community garden and empower stewardship on the food production (Abi‐Nader et al., 2001). We summarize in Table 4, some thoughts on how to start, manage, train, develop and keep a successful shellfish garden based on the SPAT experience.
Shellfish gardening
9
Gardeners should stick to health standards set by the regulatory agencies which should be responsible for monitoring (e.g. In U.S. at the time of this writing, the NYDEC has closed portions of areas on Great Peconic Bay where shellfish culture is currently active due to a harmful biotoxin. Warning and advisories were sent to all members of the program). However, the responsibility varies with country and when the responsibility lies with the user, responsible harvest comparable to hand picking could be a solution. No translocation of seed should be conducted without approval subject to pathology testing, if necessary. If the program is non‐commercial, there should be no conflicts or competition and it would potentially eliminate wild catch by non‐commercial entities, leaving more stock for commercial harvesters. The purpose of community gardening is to put order in wild/unregulated seafood harvesting, education, community spirit and environmental stewardship to further improve our society and planet. The concept of community gardening is relatively new and needs to be expanded on all levels, locally and globally. Once the principles and procedures are fine‐tuned, community projects could be a reality healthy waterfront. Conflicts, negative reaction by other user groups, health and environmental concerns can all be held in check by proceeding in a well‐orchestrated manner. Once established, there is no limit to the potentials of shellfish gardening and the benefits projects will bring to the communities that embrace them.
Shellfish gardening
10
5. Acknowledgements The authors would like to particularly thank Jens Kjerulf Petersen for its constructive comments on the manuscript and various discussions on shellfish gardening. Thanks to Carsten Fomsgaard, Pascal Barreau, Boze Hancock and Masaki Moro for their assistance regarding shellfish gardens in Denmark, France, U.S. and sea gardens in Japan.
6. References Abi‐Nader, J., Dunnigan, K., Markley, K. & D. Buckley. 2001. Growing Communities Curriculum. Philadelphia, PA: The American Community Gardening Association. Andersen, S.H. 2000. ‘Køkkenmøddinger’(Shell Middens) in Denmark: a Survey. In Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society (Vol. 66, pp. 361‐384). Cambridge University Press Ausubel, J.H. 2000. Great Reversal: Nature's Chance to Restore Land and Sea: Technology in Society. Vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 289‐301. Barthel, S., Folke, C., & J. Colding. 2011. Urban gardens: Pockets of social‐ecological memory. In Greening in the red zone disaster, resilience and community greening. Dordrecht: Springer. Beck, M.W., R.D. Brumbaugh, L. Airoldi, A. Carranza, L.D. Coen, C. Crawford, O. Defeo, G.J. Edgar, B. Hancock, M. Kay, H.S., Lenihan, M.W. Luckenbach, C.L. Toropova, G. Zhang, and X. Guo. 2011. Oyster reefs at risk and recommendations for conservation, restoration and management. BioScience 61: 107–116. Carstensen, J., Conley, D.J., Andersen, J.H. and G. Ærtebjerg. 2006. Coastal eutrophication and trend reversal: A Danish case study. Limnology and Oceanography 51: 398–408. Duarte, C.M., Marbà N., & M. Holmer. 2007. Rapid domestication of marine species. Science. 316 : 382 FAO. 2016. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2016. Contributing to food security and nutrition for all. Rome. 200 pp. Gelcich, S., Buckley, P., Pinnegar, J.K., Chilvers, J., Lorenzoni, I., Terry, G., Guerrero, M., Castilla, J.C., Valdebenito, A. & Duarte, C.M. 2014. Public awareness, concerns, and priorities about anthropogenic impacts on marine environments. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(42), pp.15042‐ 15047. Groesbeck A.S., Rowell K., Lepofsky D., & A.K. Salomon. 2014. Ancient Clam Gardens Increased Shellfish Production: Adaptive Strategies from the Past Can Inform Food Security Today. PLoS ONE 9(3): e91235. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0091235 Grunert, K.G., Hieke, S. & J. Wills. 2014. Sustainability labels on food products: Consumer motivation, understanding and use. Food Policy, 44, pp.177‐189. Lepofsky, D and M. Caldwell. 2013. Indigenous Marine Resource Management on the Northwest Coast of North America. Ecological Processes. 2:1–12. Nielsen, P., Cranford, P.J., Maar, M. & J.K. Petersen. 2016. Magnitude, spatial scale and optimization of ecosystem services from a nutrient extraction mussel farm in the eutrophic Skive Fjord, Denmark. Aquaculture Environment Interactions, 8: 311‐329. Paticat F. 2007. Flux et usages de l’eau de mer dans les marais salés endigués Charentais : Cas du marais salé endigué de l’île de Ré. Géographie. Université de Nantes. (in French) Pollan, M. 2006. The omnivore's dilemma: a natural history of four meals. New York: Penguin Press Rabanal H.R. 1988.History of Aquaculture. ASEAN/SF/88/Tech.7. ASEAN/UNDP/FAO Regional Small‐Scale Coastal Fisheries Development Project, Manila, Philippines. Teletchea, F. 2015. Domestication of marine fish species: update and perspectives. J. Mar. Sci. Eng., 3 (2015), pp. 1227–1243 Tidball, K.G. & M.E. Krasny. 2010. Urban environmental education from a social‐ecological perspective: conceptual framework for civic ecology education. Cities and the Environment. 3(1):article 11. http://escholarship.bc.edu/cate/vol3/iss1/11. 20 pp.
Shellfish gardening
11
Table 1. Constraints to setup a shellfish garden Constraints Description Physical
Adapted growing structures, water depth, storms, waves, physical carrying capacity and access to the coastline.
Biological
Food availability and quality for the shellfish, local presence of the shellfish, production carrying capacity, food safety: water quality absence of faecal, toxin and heavy metal contaminations, e.g. EU Shellfish directive.
Ecological
Ecological carrying capacity, potential competition with other species
Legal
Delivery time for a licence, regulations might not yet exist for licencing this type of activity.
Social
Management issues from a marine spatial planning point of view, potential user conflicts with other coastal activities, biological, physical and economical. Social beliefs: toxin, virus, bacterial contaminations are often in people minds when it comes to shellfish, and some people would not take the risk to grow their own shellfish. No socio‐ecological memory yet in shellfish gardens: unlike terrestrial gardening where a vast range of information, tools and guides are available to grow a salad or a chicken, citizens might feel alienated from the shellfish growing.
Shellfish gardening
12
Table 2. Social and Ecological factors for ecosystem good and services provided by shellfish garden
Social factors
Ecological factors
Provisioning services Food supply
Production of healthy local food, increase resilience of local food supply
Addition of food for predators in the system
Shell material
Use of shell material for various purposes
Increase of substratum for other species settlement
Improvement of water for bathing
Improvement of habitat for macroalgae and water status
Source of seed
Restoring breeding stocks
Export of larvae to the surrounding environment
Nutrient extraction
Potential nutrient credit
Improvement of habitat and water status
Supportive services Biodiversity
Improving biodiversity, increase resilience of ecosystem
Increase of substratum and habitat for local species
Cultural services Learning & education
Experimentation with gardening practice. Teaching local communities and school regarding aquaculture, sustainable growth, blue growth.
Natural shellfish growth
Recreational & entertainment
Experimentation of boat activities at sea
Biophysical change of the medium
Physical exercise
Physical activities from shellfish spat manipulation from spat to harvestable product. Maintenance of the crop.
Removal and addition of mussel and wildlife biomass via harvesting and maintenance of the structure and crop
Biophilia
Connection with nature
Spiritual & nature experience
Experimentation and contact with nature, relaxation. Invitation to dream and reflexion at sea
Decreased degradation of environment due to heightened awareness
Social engagement/political empowerment
Engagement toward sustainable food and local support, and a cause that is meaningful to the community at large
More investment and service for sustainable production with increased potential for natural recruitment into fishery
Community building
Experiment social bind with local community and create together
Incremental improved water quality through stewardship activities
Localivore
Contribute to low carbon footprint and consume locally
Reduction in pollution from food transportation
Food traceability & health
Follow healthy omega3 rich seafood from start to plate
Increased brood population
Food quality & gourmet
Experimentation with new recipes, try new food, open horizons, increase in demand for shellfish and other seafood
Art craft, design, creativity
Use of shell for creations, design shellfish garden landscape
Removal of nutrients from the system from harvested material
Regulating services Water clarification
Shellfish gardening
13
Table 3: Basic components of the two case studies U.S. SPAT model
EU Denmark Fjordhaver model
Intensive and extensive training opportunities Year‐round, weekly activities and availability Membership with direct incentives Compartmentalized elements with individual leadership (Committee concept) Goal oriented; working towards a cause that is meaningful to the community at large. Availability of activities for all user groups
Workshops with training opportunities with professionals Year‐round, weekly activities and availability Membership with direct incentives Committee concept emerging but not yet fully implemented Hobby, social aspect and mainly food oriented with ocean literacy goals Availability of activities for all user groups, embraced depending on capability e.g. sick at sea but happy to cook
Shellfish gardening
14
Table 4: Thoughts on how to start and keep a successful shellfish garden
Thoughts on how to get started
Thoughts on the Committee Concept
Have a clear goal in mind, however small or large. Rectify immediate obstacles (permits, regulations, and acceptance). Solicit some level of funding, however small. Draft a plan of action about the project goals. Advertise an informal community open house (make sure you invite press and politicians). Follow up with all interested parties. Calendarize some worthy events/activities. Delegate important functions to core group. Network and develop partnerships. Get moving and never stop.
Division of labour allows for multiple components of the project to be addressed simultaneously and aggressively. Utilizing a dedicated core group of volunteers with specific expertise and commitment to a specific component of the project leads to a higher level of quality results. Monthly meetings of the committee chairpersons (advisory board) lends itself to a high level of coordination through solid communication. Committee chairs network well with the volunteers at large. A higher level of commitment is necessary from the program coordinator or project group leader in order to keep everyone on the same page. Involvement of all members Priorities must be kept in order for the group to function as a whole.
Thoughts on training sessions
Thoughts on Facilities and Equipment
Volunteers will stay in the loop. Volunteers will be learning about techniques that will be used during various phases of a project. Questions will be answered on topics of interest or importance to the individual and the group as a whole. Confidence and understanding will be gained by the volunteers on the subject matter. Confidence and understanding will be gained by the trainer on how to convey concepts to the group. The trainer will get to know the individual volunteers. Expertise will be needed by the trainer in the subject matter. Commitment will be needed by the program organizers.
Being a turn‐key operation takes many years and depends on the various possible site specific constraints. Seed availability is key for starting a sea garden and an operational bottleneck. Hatcheries are expensive and complex to run. Operators say “I wouldn’t wish a shellfish hatchery on my worst enemy...”. Another saying is “be careful what you wish for.” Programs and projects can fall apart by wanting too much too soon. Partnerships with successful operations are always a plus. Developing a program is like climbing a ladder, taking it one rung at a time (and not looking down)! Be logical, economical and efficient with budgets.
Shellfish gardening
15
Figure 1. Community garden with 50 growers (SPAT – U.S.)
Shellfish gardening
16
Figure 2. Map of main shellfish gardens in Denmark
Shellfish gardening
17
Figure 3. A) The seven members of Fjordhaven Nykøbing Mors committee show the location of the licenced shellfish garden (Denmark). B) Members meeting with seafood during workshop. Photo courtesy of Carsten Fomsgaard A&B and Aalborg Fjordhaver C. A
B
C
Shellfish gardening
18
Figure 4. Shellfish garden members participate in the line preparation (A), sorting (B), socking (C) and hanging of mussel socks on both longline (D) and raft (E) (Denmark). Photo courtesy Carsten Fomsgaard A‐D, Aalborg Fjordhaver E. A
B
C
Shellfish gardening
D
19
E
Figure 5. Two different type of production structure: (A & B) longlines area delimited with yellow corner buoys with access by boat and raft for maintenance, and (C) raft connected to land (Denmark). Photo courtesy of Carsten Fomsgaard A, Nykøbing Fjordhaver B and Aalborg Fjordhaver C. B
A
C
Shellfish gardening
20
Figure 6. Socking factory facilities shared by commercial mussel longline producer and shellfish gardeners (Denmark)
Shellfish gardening
21
Technical University of Denmark, National Institute of Aquatic Resources, Danish Shellfish Centre, Øroddevej 80, 7900 Nykøbing M, Denmark 2 Cornell Cooperative Extension, Suffolk County, 423 Griffing Avenue, Suite 100, Riverhead, New York 11901‐3071, US.
1. Abstract With an imminent shortage in animal protein worldwide for both human and livestock production together with the promising blue revolution and the rising of human consciousness regarding sustainable production, citizens on local scale are empowering themselves to restore and sustainably exploit the damaged marine environment via seafood gardening. Shellfish and oyster gardening are relatively new terms, slowly spreading worldwide. Terrestrial and marine gardening share many aspects in terms of functioning and ecosystem good and services, however the growing medium, legislation regarding its use and access give it an appealing but challenging attraction. In the previous chapters on provisioning, supportive and regulative services, shellfish appears as an ideal organism to be locally grown mainly due to its organic extractive feeding mode and low maintenance. However, as described in this chapter, the cultural services provided by shellfish gardens/ing range from social organisation to sustainable engagement and require certain pillars in order to be successful. We use two case studies to illustrate two different approaches to shellfish gardening: 1) in the U.S. several shellfish gardening initiatives are taking place, it is often referred as oyster gardening and initially started as a shellfish habitat recovery initiative, 2) in Denmark in Europe, several projects have started directly as shellfish gardens and are managed by local associations.
2. Introduction Shellfish garden Shellfish gardening is a non‐commercial activity where people grow bivalves such as mussels and oysters for their own consumption. It is often seen as a new activity or concept as there is almost no tradition for private production of marine bivalves for personal or family consumption, but rather a more established tradition for hand picking and gathering in the wild. Shellfish production is seen as one of the most sustainable forms of seafood production, as shellfish extract organic matter from their surrounding environment for feeding, mainly by filtering phytoplankton, and thus do not require external food sources. So far, there are only a few examples of shellfish gardens, mainly based on community/association garden principles using licenced grounds and few individually operated in privately owned coastlines. The U.S. seems to be the precursor of community citizen gardening for food consumption from a movement that originally started for bivalve habitat restoration in damaged estuarine systems on the East coast In Puget Sound shoreline landowners are growing their own shellfish on their beaches and getting their seeds and material from commercial shellfish growers (http://shorestewards.cw.wsu.edu/faq/growing‐your‐own‐shellfish/). In France, an activity called “Aquaculture de loisir” (translated as Recreational aquaculture) could be transposed to shellfish garden. On Shellfish gardening
1
the Atlantic coast of France, marshes have been modified to pond and hump back to the 17 and 18th century for agriculture, salt ponds, pisciculture, oyster culture and recreational culture. There, recreational aquaculture represents a social and cultural heritage where traditionally oysters were cultivated in privately owned saltwater ponds (“claires”) for familial consumption; nowadays the oyster culture is shifting toward shrimp culture (Paticat, 2008). More recently in Denmark, shellfish gardening is a phenomenon targeting food consumption, and the government and private foundations have facilitated its implementation. In Japan, there are also a few examples of seafood gardening, mainly focusing on seaweed, and some shellfish gardens also started from restoration projects. There, the citizen personal seaweed growing is called “ownership system” (e.g in 2005 in Minamata city http://bp.eco‐capital.net/bps/read/id/88 or in Hiroshima http://www.haff.city.hiroshima.jp/info/2016/11/8982/ ). In other parts of the world where shellfish restoration programs exist, such as in Australia, shellfish gardens will soon also become reality (Simon Branigan, The Nature Conservancy Australia pers. comm.). Shellfish gardens share similarities with terrestrial gardens/allotment as it should be a hobby using little infrastructure. Gardens are multifunctional and provide many cultural services in addition to provisioning. They can mean different things to different people; for certain they provide a recreational framework, where communities, family and friends can meet and relax or perform outdoor exercises. For others, they have an educational aspect where citizens can learn about aquaculture processes, observe and understand the nature and seasons, and to become more aware of the surrounding marine ecosystems (Tidball and Krasny, 2010). Gardens are also supporting aesthetic aspirations with land art, eco‐design, and functionalities with the use of shells and row material. Shellfish gardens that derive from bivalve restoration programs can be compared to wildlife gardens, sustainable gardens and green gardening supporting both biodiversity and sustainable cultures. Terrestrial gardens are often associated with spirituality, a therapy, an active mean for peacefulness and a way to escape the daily routines. Shellfish gardens add a new dimension to this experience, an invitation for reflection, imagination and voyage, as described by many artists (e.g. J.M.W. Turner, C. Baudelaire, R.L. Stevenson), a way to escape a terrestrial routine. The marine medium has been a means for new discoveries and quests and still remains mysterious with so many unexplored areas while covering 70% of the planet and sustaining in marine protein more than 400 millions of people from fisheries only (FAO, 2016). History of shellfish garden ‐ from gathering to gardening Marine food production has shifted from gathering to farming at a much slower rate than terrestrial products. While terrestrial farming started with the Neolithic, ca. 10 000 years ago, through the domestication of terrestrial plants and animal, leading to a drastic change of human feeding habits and livelihood, domestication of aquatic food has mainly occurred only recently (Teletchea, 2015). More than 90% of the aquatic food domestication took place in the 20th century while 97% of the terrestrial domestication had already happened since more than 2000 years ago (Duarte et al., 2007). Also, hunting and gathering has almost vanished from a commercial perspective for terrestrial products, while almost half of marine products are still extracted rather than cultivated. There is also a huge pressure on marine ecosystems coming from licenced/regulated hand picking and illegal poaching, which in some countries immensely underestimates the official reported landings. Although aquaculture has existed for thousands of years, as in the case of China (Rabanal, 1988), it has mainly focused on fish and seaweed. However, there are early records of shellfish gardening during the late Holocene in British Columbia where a first nation tribe maintained a garden of butter and littleneck clams (Saxidomus gigantean, Leukoma staminea) (Lepofsky and Caldwell, 2013). In this example, gardeners were modifying and transforming the shore in order increase clam production (Groesbeck et al. 2014). More recently, since the 17‐18th centuries, oyster ponds on the Atlantic coast of France are used for family production of oyster. As it took a much longer time to develop a paradigm of secure sources of animal and vegetable protein for the production of marine
Shellfish gardening
2
protein similar to the terrestrial one, and with only very recently landings being overpassed by aquaculture production on fisheries landings (FAO, 2016), shellfish gardening is a new activity compared to terrestrial gardening. Food security vs sustainable production The sea has always seemed to have inexhaustible resources, either food or raw material and for centuries shellfish have been extracted for food, often ignoring the ecological consequences. An illustration of the extent of the extraction can be seen in shell middens, where all around the coast areas in the world some evidence of gathered shell were piled up over several generation or thousands of year and covering surfaces up to 600‐700 m long (Andersen 2000) and to several meter high (see Chapter 3.5 Butler et al.). Most coastal areas and estuaries worldwide where shellfish grow have been affected by direct and indirect anthropogenic impacts ranging from overexploitation of bivalves, nutrient and toxic substances pollution, invasive species, climate change, coastal erosion, often leading to devastating ecological consequences to the ecosystem such as eutrophication and habitat loss (Beck et al 2011; ). A large part of the damage to the marine environment is linked to the human needs for food and materials: pesticides, eutrophication from nutrient runoff, overfishing, aquaculture feed pollution, energy production pollution, genetic escapees, invasive species etc… Recently, efforts in dissemination of information and research communication on ecosystem functioning and sustainable production have raised ocean literacy and citizen consciousness regarding unbalances in coastal ecosystems from pollution and reduction of stocks via overfishing (Gelcich et al 2014). Citizens are facing a dilemma between food security and diversity, and sustainable production. This is one of the illogicality in the contemporary life of citizens as consumers, as described in the “omnivore dilemma” (Pollan 2006): the awareness of sustainability and interest in knowing the food origin (Grunert et al., 2014), and the loss of knowledge in composing a proper diet in the overabundant variety of available food. From the mid‐1900s the green revolution, through the use of modern technologies (e.g. genetics, fertilizers) and more recently the development of aquaculture improved food security and a more efficient use of available land (Ausubel 2000). At the same time, non‐governmental environmentalist organizations (e.g. Greenpeace, WWF, IUCN, The Nature Conservancy, etc.) were campaigning to raise awareness and act directly to protect the environment. From the concern regarding fast processed food and a loss of food culture, emerged new movements, such as the slow food movement (www.slowfood.com) in the 90s, based on “prevent the disappearance of local food cultures and traditions, counteract the rise of fast life and combat people’s dwindling interest in the food they eat” with three concepts of food: i) GOOD: quality and healthy food; ii) CLEAN: sustainable production; and iii) FAIR: price for consumers and producers. Slow food movements are also associated to a wide range of other terms such as conscious eater, citizen eater, omnivore consciousness, food consciousness, local food movement, locavores, and ethical eaters vs. the all‐consuming citizenship. Community organisation and shared gardens have been a way to immerse in the slow food movement, and this is also the case for shellfish gardens. These organisations are connecting food, people and community; they have a high level of consciousness and they illustrate the social engagement of citizens. Members of shellfish garden association interact, learn and know the origin of the marine food production and engage and empower themselves to act and participate to the restoration of the coastal ecosystems. Shellfish gardening challenges By definition a shellfish garden has to be localised along the coastline for easy access and this raises the issues of ownership and land use. It is assumed that the first nation clam gardeners owned the garden close to their settlement by controlling the access to it (Lepofsky and Caldwell, 2013). Nowadays, depending on
Shellfish gardening
3
the country’s legislation, the coastline might be state or individual owned. In Denmark, a licence for setting up a garden is delivered by the state, while in certain states in U.S., e.g. Washington State (Puget Sound), individual shoreline landowners dispose of their own plot and follow federal and state regulation regarding its use. There is almost no spatial limitation for citizens to start their own terrestrial vegetable gardens, which can exist on roof tops, as hanging gardens, floating gardens, on some pots in a kitchen, next to a house, etc. On the other hand, it is not surprising that shellfish gardening in state owned shorelines is more restricted and therefore a relatively recent activity; several practical reasons ranging from physical, social, and biological constraints must be taken into consideration in order to start a shellfish garden as described in Table 1. Services and social‐ecological systems Shellfish gardens are encompassing a wide range of ecosystem services, they are not only driven by the good will to provide supportive and regulative services to disturbed ecosystems, but are also driven by the aspiration to the sustainable production of healthy local food which belongs to provisioning and cultural services (Table 2). In previous chapters provisioning, regulating and supportive services provided by bivalves have been described, the same services stand for shellfish gardens, in addition to cultural services. There are many social factors attributed to the cultural ecosystem services provided by shellfish gardens. Shellfish gardens contribute to raise the public consciousness on environmental issues and sustainable farming, the involvement of the community to actively react on protecting disturbed environments from eutrophication or overexploitation. By cultivating own food, active citizens can trace healthy seafood from start to plate. Citizens engage socially for local support and community building by creating together local food production and space and it can be part of a political fulfilment. Thus, they can raise awareness, vitalize the coastal area, share and transmit knowledge, educate local communities and schools. Shellfish garden also permit the maintenance of local varieties to increase resilience of local food supply (Barthel et al., 2014), and tackle issues such as invasive species or diseases (see Puget Sound recommendations species) and to participate in the enhancement of biodiversity and maintenance of wildlife. Gardeners are entertained via the recreational aspect of the activity and benefit from i) physical exercise by manipulating the farm units, boat and live products, ii) spiritual experience via the contact with nature, relaxation, biophilia. Products coming from the farms can be used in different forms, from art craft, design via the shell to food quality and gourmet experience (Table 2). In the following two case studies, we focus on two different approaches for shellfish gardens. The U.S. SPAT (Suffolk Project in Aquaculture Training) case study where the provisioning service is a derivative of supportive and regulative initiative from citizens, while for the Danish case study, the provisioning service from shellfish garden is the main driving force of the project.
3. Case studies The United States case study: from restoration to food provisioning The concept of oyster gardening in the United States fundamentally began with the decline of the eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica) in the Chesapeake Bay due to a combination of diseases, over fishing and diminished water quality. Programs exist and are active in many of the eastern coastal states and are all essentially growing oysters for restoration of the stocks, habitat and to improve water quality. The need to grow and experiment with oyster stocks that are bred for resistance to the protozoans associated with MSX (Haplosporidium nelsoni) and Dermo (Perkinsus marinus) and to generally increase standing stocks have
Shellfish gardening
4
been a management tool for principal agencies for a few decades and are viewed as being successful in their efforts. The consumption and harvest of “garden “oysters are typically not components of the activity but rather, oysters are returned to the supervising agency to be placed on selected sites. Education through oyster gardening is an important added value to the gardening experience and in many cases offer the most tangible and quantifiable benefits. Cornell Cooperative Extension (CCE) of Suffolk, New York began an oyster gardening program in 2000 at its Southold facility on the north fork of Long Island. Beginning in 1992, The Suffolk County Marine Environmental Learning Center (SCMELC) used a small shellfish hatchery to assist local townships with bivalve seed that would be free planted for stock enhancement purposes. The shellfish stocks in this area had been heavily compromised by a harmful algal bloom referred to by the “brown tide” (Aureococcus anophagefferens). The facilities aquaculture division was and continues to be somewhat unique in its ability to produce an average of 4‐6 million shellfish seed from 3 species and provide education to the community on a year round basis. Increased awareness within the community of shellfish and their potential for improving water quality spurred on the need for a more comprehensive approach to nurturing the seed in order to boost survivability as well as to foster a greater sense of environmental stewardship. With this in mind, the Suffolk Project in Aquaculture Training (SPAT) was developed and went into action following an introductory open house in December of 1999. The program has now completed 17 growing seasons and has remained true to its original plan with various modifications. The SPAT program follows a guideline that has proved to be successful in its path towards sustainability and viability. SPAT offers membership to the public on an annual basis and requires a yearly fee. All members receive 1000 oyster seed and are entitled to harvest 100% of their stock for their own use. This was modified from the original approach, which gave the members 2000 seed but had to return 50 % of the survivors to be free planted. For members that have their own private access to water, the ambassador designation is given and must adhere to 24 rules, including the inability to sell their stock and to be cultivating in waters that are certified as safe and to acquire a special license to possess undersize shellfish from the state regulatory agency. For members that do not have their own access, 3 community gardens are available, which are overseen by CCE staff (Figure 1). In 2016, active membership stands at 226 families, 68 of which are ambassadors. SPAT has reached over 1000 families during its tenure and remains in contact with a large number of them. While the oyster gardens and the ability for individuals to culture their own stock for personal use is an essential component of SPAT, the strength of the program has been in aquaculture training. There are a number of elements of the SPAT program that possibly unique to any other shellfish gardening effort in the US. The program is in operation year‐ round and offers an open door policy that invites all members to take part in weekly work sessions. Over the years, SPAT members have collectively logged in over 10,000 volunteer hours annually. During these work sessions, members become involved in all aspects of the program, which has included the construction of numerous systems including Floating and land‐based upwellers. There is a fully equipped shop, which has built boats as well as gear. Since 2002, SPAT has operated its own shellfish hatchery, which was built and funded by the members. The “SPAT Shack” has given members the autonomy to learn shellfish culture techniques without ulterior mandates. This allows members to culture shellfish seed in a relatively stress free and non‐competitive environment. In 2016, SPAT members added a second hatchery system and produced ~1 million oyster seed and 1 million clam seed. SPAT maintains a full nursery system to hold stocks until ready for deployment. A year‐round lecture series is given which includes 11 two‐hour lectures offered twice each month covering all aspects of shellfish aquaculture. The lectures have been well attended each year with an average of 35 members/month. The success of the SPAT program can be attributed to a number of key factors, some of which are attainable to all communities and some, which may not apply. The year‐round availability of the program to Shellfish gardening
5
all members is extremely valuable for achieving a high level of interest and motivation. Members have the ability to network with staff and have their issues and concerns addressed quickly. There is a continuous quest for knowledge that is fostered by the quirkiness of the endeavour. There is not that many individuals that embark in this type of activity on a community level. SPAT has maintained a core group of members, some of whom have been in the program from its inception and come to the center every week as part of their routine. There is a tremendous sense of ownership in the program, a feeling of pride that can only be earned through dedication and hard work. This is possible in part by the demographics of the community. The eastern tip of Long Island has a large number of affluent waterfront home owners who are not only able to donate their time but are also willing to give back to their community and the environment. There are a large number of meandering creeks with private docks that are fortunate to have clean water for safely growing shellfish, unlike large sections of western Long Island where many of the creeks are closed due to poor water quality. The most essential element of the SPAT program has to do with the organization under which it operates. CCE is a 501‐ C3 non‐ profit whose primary mandate is to educate members of the community and assist them in putting their knowledge to work. The marine division of CCE is driven by dedicated staff and has allowed SPAT to be led by a qualified staff on a full time basis. While SPAT is essentially run from the bottom up, leadership has been necessary to maintain the credibility and professionalism to the endeavour. Not all gardening groups in the United States have been able to afford themselves the luxury of this level of commitment to community‐based aquaculture and shellfish restoration. The EU case study: Danish food provisioning and environmental awareness Unlike in the U.S., the concept of shellfish gardening in Denmark emerged with the aspiration to empower citizen stewardship on local seafood production as a hobby for family consumption. This fits together with recent movements such as the “New Nordic Cuisine” where Danish chefs and citizens are promoting “slow food” by going back to locally grown, wild, healthy and sustainable Scandinavian food delicacies and with Danish lifestyle to pursue well‐being and healthy regime, i.e. hygge philosophy, where a majority of the Danes is a member of a club or association for socialising and balancing work/personal life. In less than 5 years, several shellfish gardens initiatives are now functional and expanding in Denmark, from small rural areas ranging from 4000 inhabitants to large cities such as the capital Copenhagen with more than 1.7 Million inhabitants in the metropolitan area (Figure 2). Several reasons could explain the success of shellfish garden in Denmark as most of the constraints to shellfish gardening described in Table 1 are solved: Physical: Denmark has a long and sheltered coastline. The ratio of coastline to land in Denmark is extremely high (172) in comparison to all other shellfish producing European countries (e.g. Norway = 82.6, UK = 51.4, or France = 7.58). There is no location in Denmark further away from the coast than 52km. This gives a special access and relationship with the marine environment. Moreover, most of the sheltered estuaries are quite shallow and protected from large fetch, thus shellfish production structures do not require too large investments and are easily accessible with a small boat or from structures directly connected to the shore. Biological/Ecological: Danish waters are highly eutrophied as a result of excess nutrient load. However, the enforced part on reducing excess loading of nutrients to comply with EU Water Framework Directive standards (WFD ‐ "Directive 2000/60/EC”) have been carried out in relation to waste water treatment plants (WWTP, Carstensen et al., 2006) and has resulted in high hygienic standard of coastal water i.e. most areas are Class A where bivalves can be harvested for direct consumption under Shellfish Water Directive (2006/113/EC). Combined with the presence of high
Shellfish gardening
6
organic matter and phytoplankton makes Danish waters very suitable to organic extractive aquaculture. Moreover, production and ecological carrying capacities on basin scales seem far from being reached (Nielsen et al., 2016). Species: a key aspect from shellfish gardening is the abundance of natural recruitment for local species and the relatively fast growth of mussels to commercial size in less than a year. No hatchery is necessary for mussels (Mytilus edulis) and spat of native flat oysters (Ostrea edulis) can be collected on deployed spat collectors in sheltered areas or small oysters can be harvested and kept in the gardens. However, a secure oyster seed supply should rely on hatchery supply, which is expensive and not yet reliable in Denmark. Regarding the invasive Pacific cupped oyster (Crassostrea gigas), aquaculture/shellfish gardening of this species is not allowed on culture plots. Mussel seeds are collected naturally on spat collectors placed in the garden around May, then seeds are sorted and socked around September and the crop is harvestable from April the following year. Regarding the native flat oyster, juveniles or young adults are fished and then kept in cages hanging in the garden, however, in some areas of the fjord, oyster spat collectors have been deployed to collect oyster seeds. Legal: The delivery time for a licence can be relatively short but depends on the competent authorities and whether there are objections from stakeholders. It takes normally less than 4‐5 months to get a licence and authorities are considering an easier procedure for sea gardens as long as the production is not commercial. The licensing consultation process from the government with stakeholders has proved that in some areas, stakeholders are not obstructing the process, while in others, sailors complained about sailing routes, or inhabitants complained about the view from their summer cottage, issues of getting buoys washed to the shore. Social and cultural: New Nordic Cuisine, slow food movement and connection to the sea are catalysts for the creation of shellfish gardens. Overall there is a good acceptance and enthusiasm for sea garden projects by citizens.
An interesting aspect of the shellfish gardens organisations developed in Denmark is their different approach: i) One person or a small group of citizens has the idea to create an association of shellfish garden, ii) An outside group or local agency has the idea and creates associations together with partners and then recruits citizens and board members, iii) entrepreneurial. Most of the shellfish gardens in Denmark have their own informative website often associated to social media such as Facebook. The associations are also composed of various groups with key interests such as gourmet, aquaculture techniques, art, demonstration, events, seaweed, mussels and oysters. The pioneer came up with the idea in 2010 from a group of citizens interested by non‐commercial seafood production for personal consumption and by 2013 the “Havhaven Ebeltoft Vig” (Sea Garden Ebeltoft Vig) association had created the first hobby‐based shellfish garden in Denmark (Figure 2). The board of directors is now composed of 11 members. A few longlines of mussels and seaweed are deployed with both common and individual crops for around 100 members contributing to an annual fee of 500DKK (~67euros). Based on the same principle another association “Kerteminde Maritime haver” (Kerteminde Maritime gardens) started to provide a structure for inhabitants to grow their own seafood (Figure 2). The entry fee is 500DKK + 500DKK annual fee (total ~135 euros) and by 2016, the structure and the first lines and socks of seaweed and mussels were deployed. In Copenhagen, an entrepreneur structure called “Maritime Nyttehaver” (translated: Maritime allotments) started in 2012. The garden is localized right in the middle of the capital harbour, which is now cleaned from all past polluting industries (Figure 2). The main objective is to establish urban aquaculture and promote ocean literacy with around 200 members and an annual fee of 100DKK (~13.5 euros). Products and mussel single drop kits are sold to citizens, raising some legislation and management concern on their use and deployment.
Shellfish gardening
7
Finally, a large privately funded project (Nordea Fund ‐ 750 000 euros) in partnership with 4 municipalities and called “Fjordhaver i Limfjordens havne” (translated: Estuarine gardens in the Limfjord harbour) was launched in 2015. This project enabled the development of 4 sea gardens in 4 different harbour cities of the largest Danish esturay (Limfjorden): Aalborg, Løgstør, Nykøbing M. and Lemvig (Figure 2) with the assistance of professional groups to set up the gardens. The development of the sea gardens varied with different constraints at different locations, but with the same basic principle: create a local association with a maximum 150 to 200 members with a yearly fee of 300 DKK (40 euros). The project started in January 2015 and by November some mussel lines were already hanging in Nykøbing M. new fjord garden farm area The overall purpose of the Fjordhaven project is to create opportunities for a “good life” in cities around the Limfjorden and to make use of depopulated and de‐industrialized harbour facilities now often empty during out‐of‐office hours. The project has five core beliefs: 1) create life in depopulated or unused port areas and provide space for social activities to interested and committed citizens; 2) bring "blue" into the city; 3) empower non‐professionals in relation to seafood production to understand the production process and create a relationship between the product and the educated consumer; 4) promote healthy meals and lifestyle with roots in the local maritime history; and 5) increase ocean literacy to get closer to the sea that sustain human‐beings and raise local citizen awareness on good and services provided by inorganic and organic extractive aquaculture. Each sea garden involved in the project has its own association with a board of directors composed of 7 members (e.g. Figure 3A). Several workshops gathering all the members of the 4 associations and including professionals have been conducted during the project in order to train members and transfer knowledge from the professionals for the sustainability and legacy of the shellfish gardens once the funded project stops at the end of 2017. Workshop tackle training on mussel, oyster and seaweed production, ecology of the fjord, biology and growth cycle for year‐round production steps, setup of gardens and material necessary (e.g. knots, buoys, socks, longline setup, boat and platform operation), and finally how to handle the harvested product and cook it (Figures 3B&C). Members have learnt and participated in the setup of the garden (Figure 4) on two different types of production structures: long‐lines accessible by boat only and rafts connected to land (Figure 5). In some of the associations, subgroups have emerged to specialise in the cultivated species or boat and structure maintenance. A general assembly is organised every year gathering all members, while each association meet on a weekly basis and punctually gets support and training from the professional groups. The association and gardens are relatively recent, but have already gathered more than 200 motivated members sharing a common interest. So far, the success of the bivalve sea gardens has been counting on a good local dissemination from the press, promotional leaflets, professional and financial support and more importantly motivated and committed members; yet, challenges might rise once the project ends regarding the professional and financial support for the legacy in training of new members and maintenance of facilities and equipment. However, one product from the project will be a sea garden guide with key information gathered during the project. There are several future challenges for the development of shellfish gardens in Denmark. In certain areas, predators such as Eider ducks (Somateria mollissima) can feed and remove the entire production of hanging mussels. In term of food safety, analyses for water quality are extremely expensive and not carried out by the authorities, but rather by the users. Gardeners should control the water quality themselves, which is unrealistic. As it happens, responsible consumption as compared with hand‐picked shellfish, a common practice in Europe, and gardeners benefit from the analyses conducted by commercial mussel fishermen and farmers when their gardens are localised within the same analysed area. Although the issue of competition between gardeners and professional fishermen and farmers has been mentioned, it seems marginal due to: i) the small volume produced by the sea gardens, ii) the non‐commercial definition of sea gardens, iii) the low national market for shellfish and iv) shellfish gardens could potentially be beneficial on the long term to professionals from the instigated keen interest towards shellfish consumption; so far the
Shellfish gardening
8
cohabitation is peaceful and generally not problematic, not least because, sea gardens for obvious reasons rarely are situated in areas where shellfish farming or fisheries take place (Figure 6). In terms of maritime spatial planning and social acceptance, overall shellfish gardens as well as shellfish aquaculture are relatively well accepted. The visual pollution from buoys is quite discrete, but complaints on nuisance caused by buoys being washed away on shore or use of the space can happen, e.g. licencing has been delayed in one of Fjordhaver municipality due to stakeholder protests, consequently a new licence demand at a different location was submitted and later approved. Finally, the keen enthusiasm and interest of Danish citizens regarding shellfish gardens has resulted in a boom of applications for shellfish garden licences around the country, at a rate that the government might have problems to handle. This could create in the long run the occurrence of unregulated individual gardens with a loss of community and social acceptance and a potential danger for other nautical activities, if single lines or cages are placed in coastal areas illegally. Although the authorities are currently working on shellfish garden licencing rules to adapt and facilitate the procedure, other issues and potential risks exist for future gardeners as invasive species, translocation of disease contaminated seeds, pollution, climate change and low spatfall.
4. Successful shellfish gardens and future challenges Shellfish gardening on a community level concept is habitually seen as an innovative and fantastic idea. Several successful shellfish gardens are paving the way to expand the activity. In described case studies, SPAT (U.S.) and Fjord gardens (Denmark), the community sea garden project has been initiated by an outside group or local agency rather than citizens themselves (although see Ebeltoft and Kerteminde in Denmark). Both case studies share similar basic components in their functioning (Table 3) while they both started with a distinct initial goal aspiration to restoration and volunteers’ engagement vs. original purpose of citizens’ empowerment of shellfish production and well‐being. Still, country specific regulations for licencing and culture practice could impediment shellfish gardens development. The U.S. case study as described by the SPAT program deals with regulation issues in a somewhat simple and efficient process. If potential gardeners have waterfront with established structure such as a dock or bulkhead, the jurisdictional regulatory agency can issue a special limited use permit for culturing undersized shellfish stock that is acquired from a shellfish hatchery (no wild seed collection). Non‐waterfront members of the community can become part of a group growing in “community gardens”, which are designated by the towns governing body (Trustees in NY) and is permitted through that agency. In the Danish case study, regulation is evolving to facilitate a licencing process for non‐commercial shellfish production. It seems that both systems have worked well so far, SPAT has currently over 200 families gardening and maintains over 100 permits on file, while the overall number of members in Denmark is more than 500 members spread on 7 shellfish community gardens (Figure 2) and a growing interest resulting in new gardens in progress. Rules can be refined as deemed necessary. Some basic rules, such as a limit to the amount of stocks allowed to be grown by gardeners, being non‐commercial, no allowance for culture of non‐indigenous species should avoid potential spread of disease and competition. So far shellfish plots are relatively small and localised in eutrophied area rich in phytoplankton thus with limited food competition impact on the wild communities, however as for site selections for commercial aquaculture, carrying capacity issues should be considered. Shellfish community gardens could learn from well‐established terrestrial community gardens and the various toolkits already in place, supporting one of the most important core belief is the grassroots approach where citizens are engaged from the instigation to the operation of the community garden and empower stewardship on the food production (Abi‐Nader et al., 2001). We summarize in Table 4, some thoughts on how to start, manage, train, develop and keep a successful shellfish garden based on the SPAT experience.
Shellfish gardening
9
Gardeners should stick to health standards set by the regulatory agencies which should be responsible for monitoring (e.g. In U.S. at the time of this writing, the NYDEC has closed portions of areas on Great Peconic Bay where shellfish culture is currently active due to a harmful biotoxin. Warning and advisories were sent to all members of the program). However, the responsibility varies with country and when the responsibility lies with the user, responsible harvest comparable to hand picking could be a solution. No translocation of seed should be conducted without approval subject to pathology testing, if necessary. If the program is non‐commercial, there should be no conflicts or competition and it would potentially eliminate wild catch by non‐commercial entities, leaving more stock for commercial harvesters. The purpose of community gardening is to put order in wild/unregulated seafood harvesting, education, community spirit and environmental stewardship to further improve our society and planet. The concept of community gardening is relatively new and needs to be expanded on all levels, locally and globally. Once the principles and procedures are fine‐tuned, community projects could be a reality healthy waterfront. Conflicts, negative reaction by other user groups, health and environmental concerns can all be held in check by proceeding in a well‐orchestrated manner. Once established, there is no limit to the potentials of shellfish gardening and the benefits projects will bring to the communities that embrace them.
Shellfish gardening
10
5. Acknowledgements The authors would like to particularly thank Jens Kjerulf Petersen for its constructive comments on the manuscript and various discussions on shellfish gardening. Thanks to Carsten Fomsgaard, Pascal Barreau, Boze Hancock and Masaki Moro for their assistance regarding shellfish gardens in Denmark, France, U.S. and sea gardens in Japan.
6. References Abi‐Nader, J., Dunnigan, K., Markley, K. & D. Buckley. 2001. Growing Communities Curriculum. Philadelphia, PA: The American Community Gardening Association. Andersen, S.H. 2000. ‘Køkkenmøddinger’(Shell Middens) in Denmark: a Survey. In Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society (Vol. 66, pp. 361‐384). Cambridge University Press Ausubel, J.H. 2000. Great Reversal: Nature's Chance to Restore Land and Sea: Technology in Society. Vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 289‐301. Barthel, S., Folke, C., & J. Colding. 2011. Urban gardens: Pockets of social‐ecological memory. In Greening in the red zone disaster, resilience and community greening. Dordrecht: Springer. Beck, M.W., R.D. Brumbaugh, L. Airoldi, A. Carranza, L.D. Coen, C. Crawford, O. Defeo, G.J. Edgar, B. Hancock, M. Kay, H.S., Lenihan, M.W. Luckenbach, C.L. Toropova, G. Zhang, and X. Guo. 2011. Oyster reefs at risk and recommendations for conservation, restoration and management. BioScience 61: 107–116. Carstensen, J., Conley, D.J., Andersen, J.H. and G. Ærtebjerg. 2006. Coastal eutrophication and trend reversal: A Danish case study. Limnology and Oceanography 51: 398–408. Duarte, C.M., Marbà N., & M. Holmer. 2007. Rapid domestication of marine species. Science. 316 : 382 FAO. 2016. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2016. Contributing to food security and nutrition for all. Rome. 200 pp. Gelcich, S., Buckley, P., Pinnegar, J.K., Chilvers, J., Lorenzoni, I., Terry, G., Guerrero, M., Castilla, J.C., Valdebenito, A. & Duarte, C.M. 2014. Public awareness, concerns, and priorities about anthropogenic impacts on marine environments. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(42), pp.15042‐ 15047. Groesbeck A.S., Rowell K., Lepofsky D., & A.K. Salomon. 2014. Ancient Clam Gardens Increased Shellfish Production: Adaptive Strategies from the Past Can Inform Food Security Today. PLoS ONE 9(3): e91235. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0091235 Grunert, K.G., Hieke, S. & J. Wills. 2014. Sustainability labels on food products: Consumer motivation, understanding and use. Food Policy, 44, pp.177‐189. Lepofsky, D and M. Caldwell. 2013. Indigenous Marine Resource Management on the Northwest Coast of North America. Ecological Processes. 2:1–12. Nielsen, P., Cranford, P.J., Maar, M. & J.K. Petersen. 2016. Magnitude, spatial scale and optimization of ecosystem services from a nutrient extraction mussel farm in the eutrophic Skive Fjord, Denmark. Aquaculture Environment Interactions, 8: 311‐329. Paticat F. 2007. Flux et usages de l’eau de mer dans les marais salés endigués Charentais : Cas du marais salé endigué de l’île de Ré. Géographie. Université de Nantes. (in French) Pollan, M. 2006. The omnivore's dilemma: a natural history of four meals. New York: Penguin Press Rabanal H.R. 1988.History of Aquaculture. ASEAN/SF/88/Tech.7. ASEAN/UNDP/FAO Regional Small‐Scale Coastal Fisheries Development Project, Manila, Philippines. Teletchea, F. 2015. Domestication of marine fish species: update and perspectives. J. Mar. Sci. Eng., 3 (2015), pp. 1227–1243 Tidball, K.G. & M.E. Krasny. 2010. Urban environmental education from a social‐ecological perspective: conceptual framework for civic ecology education. Cities and the Environment. 3(1):article 11. http://escholarship.bc.edu/cate/vol3/iss1/11. 20 pp.
Shellfish gardening
11
Table 1. Constraints to setup a shellfish garden Constraints Description Physical
Adapted growing structures, water depth, storms, waves, physical carrying capacity and access to the coastline.
Biological
Food availability and quality for the shellfish, local presence of the shellfish, production carrying capacity, food safety: water quality absence of faecal, toxin and heavy metal contaminations, e.g. EU Shellfish directive.
Ecological
Ecological carrying capacity, potential competition with other species
Legal
Delivery time for a licence, regulations might not yet exist for licencing this type of activity.
Social
Management issues from a marine spatial planning point of view, potential user conflicts with other coastal activities, biological, physical and economical. Social beliefs: toxin, virus, bacterial contaminations are often in people minds when it comes to shellfish, and some people would not take the risk to grow their own shellfish. No socio‐ecological memory yet in shellfish gardens: unlike terrestrial gardening where a vast range of information, tools and guides are available to grow a salad or a chicken, citizens might feel alienated from the shellfish growing.
Shellfish gardening
12
Table 2. Social and Ecological factors for ecosystem good and services provided by shellfish garden
Social factors
Ecological factors
Provisioning services Food supply
Production of healthy local food, increase resilience of local food supply
Addition of food for predators in the system
Shell material
Use of shell material for various purposes
Increase of substratum for other species settlement
Improvement of water for bathing
Improvement of habitat for macroalgae and water status
Source of seed
Restoring breeding stocks
Export of larvae to the surrounding environment
Nutrient extraction
Potential nutrient credit
Improvement of habitat and water status
Supportive services Biodiversity
Improving biodiversity, increase resilience of ecosystem
Increase of substratum and habitat for local species
Cultural services Learning & education
Experimentation with gardening practice. Teaching local communities and school regarding aquaculture, sustainable growth, blue growth.
Natural shellfish growth
Recreational & entertainment
Experimentation of boat activities at sea
Biophysical change of the medium
Physical exercise
Physical activities from shellfish spat manipulation from spat to harvestable product. Maintenance of the crop.
Removal and addition of mussel and wildlife biomass via harvesting and maintenance of the structure and crop
Biophilia
Connection with nature
Spiritual & nature experience
Experimentation and contact with nature, relaxation. Invitation to dream and reflexion at sea
Decreased degradation of environment due to heightened awareness
Social engagement/political empowerment
Engagement toward sustainable food and local support, and a cause that is meaningful to the community at large
More investment and service for sustainable production with increased potential for natural recruitment into fishery
Community building
Experiment social bind with local community and create together
Incremental improved water quality through stewardship activities
Localivore
Contribute to low carbon footprint and consume locally
Reduction in pollution from food transportation
Food traceability & health
Follow healthy omega3 rich seafood from start to plate
Increased brood population
Food quality & gourmet
Experimentation with new recipes, try new food, open horizons, increase in demand for shellfish and other seafood
Art craft, design, creativity
Use of shell for creations, design shellfish garden landscape
Removal of nutrients from the system from harvested material
Regulating services Water clarification
Shellfish gardening
13
Table 3: Basic components of the two case studies U.S. SPAT model
EU Denmark Fjordhaver model
Intensive and extensive training opportunities Year‐round, weekly activities and availability Membership with direct incentives Compartmentalized elements with individual leadership (Committee concept) Goal oriented; working towards a cause that is meaningful to the community at large. Availability of activities for all user groups
Workshops with training opportunities with professionals Year‐round, weekly activities and availability Membership with direct incentives Committee concept emerging but not yet fully implemented Hobby, social aspect and mainly food oriented with ocean literacy goals Availability of activities for all user groups, embraced depending on capability e.g. sick at sea but happy to cook
Shellfish gardening
14
Table 4: Thoughts on how to start and keep a successful shellfish garden
Thoughts on how to get started
Thoughts on the Committee Concept
Have a clear goal in mind, however small or large. Rectify immediate obstacles (permits, regulations, and acceptance). Solicit some level of funding, however small. Draft a plan of action about the project goals. Advertise an informal community open house (make sure you invite press and politicians). Follow up with all interested parties. Calendarize some worthy events/activities. Delegate important functions to core group. Network and develop partnerships. Get moving and never stop.
Division of labour allows for multiple components of the project to be addressed simultaneously and aggressively. Utilizing a dedicated core group of volunteers with specific expertise and commitment to a specific component of the project leads to a higher level of quality results. Monthly meetings of the committee chairpersons (advisory board) lends itself to a high level of coordination through solid communication. Committee chairs network well with the volunteers at large. A higher level of commitment is necessary from the program coordinator or project group leader in order to keep everyone on the same page. Involvement of all members Priorities must be kept in order for the group to function as a whole.
Thoughts on training sessions
Thoughts on Facilities and Equipment
Volunteers will stay in the loop. Volunteers will be learning about techniques that will be used during various phases of a project. Questions will be answered on topics of interest or importance to the individual and the group as a whole. Confidence and understanding will be gained by the volunteers on the subject matter. Confidence and understanding will be gained by the trainer on how to convey concepts to the group. The trainer will get to know the individual volunteers. Expertise will be needed by the trainer in the subject matter. Commitment will be needed by the program organizers.
Being a turn‐key operation takes many years and depends on the various possible site specific constraints. Seed availability is key for starting a sea garden and an operational bottleneck. Hatcheries are expensive and complex to run. Operators say “I wouldn’t wish a shellfish hatchery on my worst enemy...”. Another saying is “be careful what you wish for.” Programs and projects can fall apart by wanting too much too soon. Partnerships with successful operations are always a plus. Developing a program is like climbing a ladder, taking it one rung at a time (and not looking down)! Be logical, economical and efficient with budgets.
Shellfish gardening
15
Figure 1. Community garden with 50 growers (SPAT – U.S.)
Shellfish gardening
16
Figure 2. Map of main shellfish gardens in Denmark
Shellfish gardening
17
Figure 3. A) The seven members of Fjordhaven Nykøbing Mors committee show the location of the licenced shellfish garden (Denmark). B) Members meeting with seafood during workshop. Photo courtesy of Carsten Fomsgaard A&B and Aalborg Fjordhaver C. A
B
C
Shellfish gardening
18
Figure 4. Shellfish garden members participate in the line preparation (A), sorting (B), socking (C) and hanging of mussel socks on both longline (D) and raft (E) (Denmark). Photo courtesy Carsten Fomsgaard A‐D, Aalborg Fjordhaver E. A
B
C
Shellfish gardening
D
19
E
Figure 5. Two different type of production structure: (A & B) longlines area delimited with yellow corner buoys with access by boat and raft for maintenance, and (C) raft connected to land (Denmark). Photo courtesy of Carsten Fomsgaard A, Nykøbing Fjordhaver B and Aalborg Fjordhaver C. B
A
C
Shellfish gardening
20
Figure 6. Socking factory facilities shared by commercial mussel longline producer and shellfish gardeners (Denmark)
Shellfish gardening
21
