Reflecting on the Different Aquaculture Approaches of New Zealand and Canada
“New Zealand gets it - why doesn’t Canada?”
This question was posed to Linkedin alongside an article about the New Zealand government’s recent announcement to extend offshore aquaculture licenses for 20 years. A stark contrast from the Canadian government’s recent decision to ban open-net pen salmon farming over the course of the next five years.
Both Canada and New Zealand have significant aquaculture industries, each with unique characteristics shaped by their geography, regulations, and environmental priorities. And while the timeliness of both announcements might lead people to compare the two countries' approach to aquaculture, the reality is it's more like comparing apples to oranges. (But we’re gonna do that comparison in this article anyway - just for funsies!)
I am always mentally comparing fisheries and aquaculture around the world to that of my home country when I travel. So, this recent discourse around two strikingly different government decisions and approaches to aquaculture has me reflecting on my time in New Zealand last fall and everything I learned about their seafood industry.
Industry Overview
Let’s start with the obvious. There is a significant size difference between the two countries. Canada has a land mass of 9.98 million square kilometers and a population of 40 million people, while New Zealand only has a land mass of 268,000 square kilometers and 5.2 million people.
AKA, the Canadian aquaculture industry is significantly larger than New Zealand’s.
In fact, Canada is one of the largest producers of aquaculture products in the world. Most production occurs on the coasts in British Columbia and the Maritime provinces (Newfoundland, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia), and the dominant species being farmed in Canada is Atlantic salmon. Farmed salmon makes up 70% of Canada’s total seafood production.
The country also farms trout, mussels, and oysters and has smaller aquaculture economies spread throughout the country, including the Great Lakes region. Canada exports a significant portion of its aquaculture products, particularly to the U.S., Europe, and Asia. Generally speaking, the focus is on high-volume commodity products, especially when it comes to farmed salmon.
New Zealand’s aquaculture industry is rapidly growing, though dwarfs in size in comparison to Canada. And the country is known for its high-quality, niche aquaculture products, catering to premium markets worldwide.
The main focus is on Greenshell Mussels, King Salmon, and oysters. The country’s famous Greenshell Mussels account for more than half of the country’s seafood production. And the country's main export markets include the U.S., Australia, and increasingly, China and other Asian countries.
Environmental Impact, Sustainability, and Public Perception
When comparing aquaculture practices in Canada and New Zealand, the key differences lie not only in the size of their industries but in the public perception of their farming practices.
In Canada, particularly in British Columbia, open-net salmon farming has been met with significant criticism due to its environmental impacts. Concerns over the interaction between farmed and wild salmon populations and the spread of diseases like sea lice have sparked widespread opposition to aquaculture, especially salmon farming. This level of opposition is largely unique to Canada, as few other countries witness the same level of public outcry against farmed salmon. Despite this, Canada has been making strides in improving the sustainability of its aquaculture industry. Efforts include stricter regulations, advancements in technology, and the exploration of land-based and closed-containment systems to reduce environmental impacts.
New Zealand, in contrast, has embraced aquaculture, viewing it as an environmentally sustainable alternative to wild fisheries. Whereas Canadian narratives often position aquaculture as a threat to wild fisheries, New Zealand’s public perception is the reverse—wild fisheries are seen as the environmental concern. In a 2018 public perception study of New Zealand’s agriculture, aquaculture, and fishing industries, only 40 percent of rural respondents and 39 percent of urban respondents held positive views about the fishing industry.
Today, New Zealand is widely acknowledged for its successful management of commercial fisheries, with an emphasis on long-term sustainability of the resources. Most major fisheries are managed by quota management systems (QMS) with Maori ownership of quota being significant in some fisheries.
That being said, there is still a strong narrative in the country that aquaculture is a “better” way to meet demand for seafood in a more sustainable way. The industry has the support of both the government and the public, and New Zealand has developed a comprehensive Aquaculture Strategy aimed at growing the industry sustainably by 2035, with a focus on high-value, low-impact practices. New Zealand is globally recognized as a leader in sustainable aquaculture as a result. Even though their industry may be smaller than most, it’s considered the gold standard of sustainability.
Governance plays a pivotal role in shaping the direction and sustainability of aquaculture in both countries.
In Canada, aquaculture is regulated by both federal and provincial governments. Each individual province governs aquaculture within its waters, except in the case of Canada’s most controversial aquaculture province, British Columbia. In BC, aquaculture is managed federally, by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) - a problem which requires a whole other article to explain.
Generally speaking, the federal government’s of the last decade have largely taken an “anti-aquaculture” stance, making several decisions to shut down operations in the west coast and most recently announcing a decision to ban all open net pen aquaculture by 2029.
The country does not currently have a National Aquaculture Strategy, despite numerous calls from industry to create one.
New Zealand, on the other hand, has taken a much more supportive approach to aquaculture governance. The government has laid out the Aquaculture Strategy to grow the industry sustainably by 2035. There is a focus on high-value, low-impact aquaculture, which is what the country excels in.
With a roadmap in place and very public endorsement from the government, New Zealand’s aquaculture industry appeals more to private investors looking to invest in aquaculture. The country provides investors with stability and in turn, investors can provide capital for new technology and innovation to help fish farms operate more sustainably.
So, while Canada grapples with public skepticism and regulatory challenges, New Zealand has fully embraced aquaculture as a sustainable alternative to wild fisheries, with a governance model that supports long-term environmental and industry health. The difference in public perception between the two countries plays a significant role in shaping the future of aquaculture within their borders.
Indigenous Involvement
Both Canada and New Zealand have an incredibly troubled history with their Indigenous communities, but these communities play crucial roles in both countries' aquaculture industries.
Many First Nations are involved in aquaculture operations, either through partnerships or ownership, particularly in British Columbia. These communities, such as the Kitasoo Xai’Xais, are heavily dependent on aquaculture and take pride in their governance of salmon farming in their territory.
That being said, there is also opposition from other First Nations communities, who want the practice of salmon farming banned in the province, citing threats to their access to wild salmon. The ongoing debates among the different communities, and even within communities, have made Canada’s aquaculture conflicts that much more complicated.
Canada has also struggled to truly reconcile with its First Nations communities, whereas in New Zealand, governments have made much more of an effort to reconcile with the Māori.
For example, the New Zealand government allocated aquaculture settlement assets to Māori as part of treaty settlements, ensuring indigenous participation in the sector. As a result, the Māori play a significant role in New Zealand’s aquaculture industry, with iwi (tribal) groups holding substantial shares in aquaculture ventures and having a critical voice at the table when it comes to regulatory decisions.
Conclusion
Comparing Canadian and New Zealand aquaculture is like comparing apples to oranges—they're vastly different. Canada boasts a larger, industrial-scale industry, particularly focused on salmon farming, with ongoing efforts to enhance sustainability and minimize environmental impacts. Meanwhile, New Zealand’s smaller, but rapidly growing sector, emphasizes premium, sustainable products, with a strong focus on mussels and oysters, and significant Māori involvement.
But contrasting aquaculture policies of Canada and New Zealand highlight the impact of public opinion on shaping the future trajectory of the aquaculture industry. In both countries, public perception affects regulatory decisions, investments, and ultimately, the industry’s ability to grow, thrive, and even exist.
In Canada, public skepticism towards open-net pen salmon farming has driven a regulatory shift towards banning these practices by 2029. This reaction underscores how vocal opposition can lead governments to adopt more restrictive measures in order to remain in power. This regulatory approach of course, poses challenges for the industry, including the need to transition to alternative farming methods, which may require significant investment and innovation -investment which is unlikely to come with such an uncertain and volatile regulatory environment.
Conversely, New Zealand’s positive public perception of aquaculture as a sustainable alternative to wild fisheries has facilitated a supportive regulatory environment. The government’s proactive stance, supported by public endorsement, has led to the extension of offshore aquaculture licenses and the development of a comprehensive Aquaculture Strategy. This favorable perception has attracted private investment, enabling the industry to pursue new technology and innovative methods of farming. The result is a robust and growing sector that not only meets domestic seafood demands but also sets a global benchmark for sustainability.
The differences in regulatory approaches between Canada and New Zealand illustrate how public opinion can either constrain or support industry growth. In Canada, the challenge lies in reconciling public concerns with the need for a sustainable and economically viable aquaculture sector. This balancing act requires addressing environmental issues while fostering innovation.
In New Zealand, the alignment of public and governmental support has created a conducive environment for aquaculture development. The strong endorsement of sustainable practices and the integration of Māori interests have helped build a resilient industry model. This synergy between public perception, regulatory support, and indigenous involvement highlights a pathway for other countries to follow in balancing industry growth with environmental stewardship.
As we look to the future of aquaculture globally, the experiences of Canada and New Zealand serve as valuable lessons. Public opinion will continue to play a critical role in shaping regulatory decisions and industry practices. For aquaculture to thrive sustainably, it is essential for stakeholders to engage with public concerns, foster transparent dialogue, and support innovative solutions that address both environmental and economic challenges. The evolution of aquaculture will ultimately depend on our collective ability to navigate these complex dynamics and bring the seafood consumer into our world.
