|
Government Releases 10 Year Aquaculture Plan by Jon Keller
On November 1, 2006, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) released the interim final version of its 10-Year Plan for the NOAA Aquaculture Program, which outlines the administration’s framework for the oversight of the aquaculture industry’s growth. Aquaculture is the fastest growing sector in U.S. agriculture, with annual sales exceeding $1 billion. And with the U.S. facing an $8 billion seafood deficit, the Bush administration sees the answer in aquaculture. By the year 2025, the administration plans a five-fold increase in the amount of aquaculture in U.S. waters, thus making the U.S. a major player in the worldwide fish farming market, which includes nations such as China, Norway and Japan. Of the 6 million metric tons (mt) of seafood consumed in the U.S. each year (and that number is on the rise), only 1.5 million mt was provided by domestic commercial fishing fleets, and .5 million mt from domestic aquaculture. That means that 70% of America’s seafood was imported. That’s 4 million metric tons, half of which was the product of foreign farms. “I am convinced,” said U.S. Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez in February of 2006, “that the United States must explore the potential of offshore aquaculture to help meet the growing demand for seafood in this country, and to create jobs and economic opportunity for coastal communities.” NOAA has been involved in research and development of aquaculture since the 1960’s, when they helped kick-start programs in the United States, Chile, Norway, and the U.K. The administration’s preliminary analysis tells us that it’s possible to boost domestic aquaculture by 1 million mt per year by 2025. Over half a million mt would come from marine finfish aquaculture, such as Atlantic salmon, cod, yellowtail, halibut, flounder and others. They estimate that their aquaculture program–complete with everything from a new regulation/permitting system to education to research to the construction of up to 20 offshore farms in U.S. waters–could create 75,000 jobs for every 1million mt of production. With federal backing, the University of New Hampshire’s Open Ocean Aquaculture Program (OOA) put the first open ocean farm into service off the coast of New Hampshire in 1999, and is steadily making advances in high-tech ocean farming. In the not-so distant future, the OOA sees fully mechanized self-contained farms that drift in the sea’s currents; one continent to another, all the while controlled desk-side. The Controversy Contemporary aquaculture has been surrounded by controversy since it first reached the industrial level over 30 years ago. Several hundred species of fish are currently being farmed worldwide, from the farm-smothered shores of Asia, to the high-profile farms found off Hawaii; and from subsistence-level to the international market, and everything in between. Some aquaculturists are self-employed oyster growers with beat-up skiffs; some are multi-national multi-billion dollar corporations with state-of-the-art finfish farms from Chile to Canada. Food & Water Watch (FWW) is a nonprofit organization that watches over our food supply and ocean resources, with the self-proclaimed mission of both educating consumers and challenging corporate control. In a letter sent to Dr. Michael Rubino of NOAA on November 30, 2006, FWW stated that NOAA’s Plan “acts more as a promotional publication for Open Ocean Aquaculture, rather than an actual plan with specific time lines and mechanisms to address challenges associated with the industry.” In the spring of 2006, California passed the Sustainable Oceans Act, which set stringent guidelines for aquaculturists to follow–guidelines, FWW says, that are much more stringent than the ones stated by NOAA. Alaska, too, has set their own guidelines, including a ban on finfish farming in state waters. Alaska also recommended a five-year ban on finfish aquaculture in federal waters until more environmental and social questions can be answered. Escapees One of the major concerns of raising finfish in captivity is the fear of negatively affecting the wild populations of fish in the surrounding area through both pollution and escape. “Large numbers of fish can escape from ocean fish farms,” said FWW. “Escaped fish—particularly if they are non-native or genetically distinct from wild populations—could threaten wild fish populations by competing with them for food and habitat and interbreeding with them.” Cooke Aquaculture raises Atlantic salmon in both Canada and Maine, and sells over 80 million pounds per year, with net sales in excess of $100 million. It is the largest vertically integrated (meaning they control the product from top to bottom, from feed to sales) independent salmon company in North America, with five divisions handling everything from raising the fish to transporting them. In November 2005, tens of thousands of salmon escaped from a Cooke site in New Brunswick. According to the Atlantic Salmon Federation, some of the fish that escaped were sexually mature, and the fish went on to enter rivers in both Canada and Maine. When the genetically inferior captive Atlantic salmon breeds with wild salmon, the offspring inherit those genes, and oftentimes don’t survive. ASF President Bill Taylor calls the escape ASF’s “worst recurring nightmare.” Other Atlantic salmon farms have experienced similar escapes with equally upsetting results: there now exist wild non-native populations of Atlantic salmon in the Pacific and several Chilean rivers, the consequence of which on local populations is yet to be seen. In his testimony to a congressional committee, Richard Langon, who is director of the University of New Hampshire’s Open Ocean Aquaculture Program, said, “The unintentional release of farmed fish is an economic risk for the farmer and–depending on the genetic makeup of the cultured species—a potential risk to wild fish.” Water Quality Finfish pens have been compared to an oceanic version of the cattle feed lot, which can breed disease, discharge effluent (in large-scale operations, the nitrogen content of the salmon feces can equal that of a small city–but with no treatment facilities), uneaten feed, and pesticide/antibiotics, all of which can “overload the local ecosystems with chemicals and nutrients.” In these conditions, pathogens and parasites such as sea lice and infectious salmon anemia—which occur at low levels in the wild—can thrive, thereby transferring to wild populations. In 2002, a Maine farm was forced to destroy 1.5 million salmon in an attempt to contain infectious salmon anemia. Ireland has recently shut down salmon farms as a result of disastrous spreading of sea lice–which harmed the sea trout fishery. Since the closures, the sea trout catches have risen at a staggering rate. Fishing Communities According to NOAA’s plan, the onset of major fish farming on U.S. coasts could breathe new life into coastal communities. Finfish farms require a large infrastructure, including labor, shipping, refrigeration and marketing. “These business opportunities,” the plan reads, “will create more resilient communities with a more diversified economic base.” No one will argue that this sounds good, but many fear that these business opportunities will be funneled down to a select few, thus benefiting only the large corporations, not the small fishing communities. FWW warns that NOAA’s plan does nothing to protect small communities from corporate monopolizing. Much of the concern is the change of life that is brought about when a corporate giant touches down in a coastal community. While jobs would be produced, fishermen realize that these jobs are not the same as fishing wild stocks; that punching a time clock is different than waking to check the weather for a day on the water. The entire community can be at stake when a place slips from independent fishing to corporate industry. In British Columbia, just five companies—Pan Fish, a $2.5 million company, among them—own 83% of the aquaculture leases. In Maine, Cooke Aquaculture has a monopoly on salmon farms. Lobstermen in Maine worry about the apathy of big industry. Finfish farms import feed and export product, rather than rely on local resources and local markets; and they concern themselves with profit margins more than habitat. As one fisherman put it, “They just don’t care.” Sebastian Belle is the spokesman for the Maine Aquaculture Association. He explained the shift to aquaculture as comparable to the shift experienced in the Neolithic Revolution, when man went from hunter/gatherer to agriculturist. Fishermen and environmental groups, however, are loath to believe that billion dollar corporations should dictate such evolutions. “Is it a good thing or a bad thing?” Belle asks. “It depends on your political leaning.” He adds, “People have to expect that aquaculture is going to grow significantly over time, and will eventually out-grow commercial fishing.” Some commercial fishermen recognize this, and fear that they will not be able to keep pace with the low-cost, mass-produced farmed fish that have flooded the markets. Salmon sells for as low as $2 per pound, far below what fishermen can sell their wild products for. In some instances, such as is the case with shrimp, there exists a healthy wild stock but no market, with nearly 90% of the shrimp consumed in the U.S. being farmed in places like Thailand for cheaper than it can be caught locally, Many traditional shrimpers are left unable to sell their wares. Feed Fish eat fish, even when living in pens, and with a feed conversion rate as low as 3 lbs wild fish to 1lb farmed salmon, that’s a lot of fish to support this burgeoning industry. Herring and krill are the typical feed, in and out of captivity. Everything from cod to tuna to seals to penguins, depend on these small fish; and, with the boom in aquaculture, comes more and more pressure on our seas, which the United Nations called 75% overfished already. “The global supply of fish meal is limited and will likely be unable to meet the needs of the growing aquaculture industry,” said FWW. According to the International Fish Meal and Fish Oil Manufacturers Association (IFOMA), 75% of the world’s fish oil and 40% of its fish meal currently goes to aquaculture. By 2010, those numbers will reach 90% and 56%, respectively. (Richard Langon, of UNH’s OOA Program, puts the fishmeal percentage as low as 30.) To meet those ever increasing demands are newer, bigger, faster, more efficient factory trawlers–some capable of processing up to 1,200 mt per day. There is rising concern for the fate of the herring and krill fisheries–and therefore, the fisheries and species dependent on those feed-fish–when faced with technology such as this. Salmon do eat things other than fish, however. With the demand for fishmeal and oil increasing at a rate of 30% a year, aquaculturists have delved into other feeds, such as poultry by-products, soybean meal, peas, and corn and wheat glutens. Scientists have been able to feed some farmed fish up to 50% alternative feeds. Belle and others are optimistic about the feed issue, and believe that if advances in feed science continue, a solution will be found. “Thirty years ago,” Belle said, “they were feeding 90-100% fish meal and fish oil. Now it’s down to 45%.” The rest comes from plant lipids and proteins, he said. Done correctly, Belle and other scientists claim that they can get the conversion rate for salmon feed down to one kilogram dry fish meal to one kilogram wet end product. Critics say that still leaves 50% to 60% of the weight for the seas to carry, and many believe that the oceans can’t handle the kind of increase in heavy-handed trawling that it will take to keep up with the Bush administration’s aquaculture growth goals. Doing it Right? With so much room for things to go wrong, the question that must be asked–and answered–is: Can finfish aquaculture be done in a sustainable manner that does not destroy small fishing communities? Belle said that more and more companies are taking environmental oaths, and Cooke Aquaculture has entered into a third party verification system, which they did in cooperation with Trout Unlimited, the Atlantic Salmon Federation, and the Conservation Law Foundation. The auditing system they worked out is called the Maine Aquaculture Association Containment Management System, or CMS, and enlists the work of an independent consulting firm to audit the farms. This auditing may help control water quality, but skeptics note that it will do nothing to face other issues, such as the fate of small fishing communities. On the other side of the world, one half mile off the coast of Hawaii, lies Kona Blue’s 3,000 cubic meter cages, part of an open ocean Hawaiian yellowtail fish farm which was founded by a pair of marine biologists in 2001. The company, an integrated hatchery and farm, prides itself in being “environmentally friendly” and “sustainable” in everything from feed to water quality. They use 50% vegetable proteins and 50% fishmeal, which comes from Peruvian anchovies–a fishery, Kona Blue says, that has been well managed over the years, and continues to be stable. Their mission statement reads: “Kona Blue’s mission is to expand the environmentally sound production of the ocean’s finest fish.” Furthermore, Kona Blue boasts, “No genetic engineering, hormones, or preventative antibiotics are used in the process.” And, they claim, there is no detectable mercury found in the fish. But, they are not perfect, and have been accused of allowing thousands of fish to escape. Of the escape, CEO Michael Wink told Fishfarmer Magazine, “The exact number of escaping fish is difficult to determine, however the causes have been addressed.” Kona Blue’s President and Co-founder, Neil Anthony Sims, said, “We believe that open ocean fish farming offers a sustainable, environmentally friendly answer to this crisis that confronts the world’s oceans. So by 2048, we hope that wild fish will be protected and managed, in the same way that most wildlife on land is protected and managed. And the looming seafood crisis will have been resolved by farming the ocean, as we now farm the land.” In the End Commercial fishermen as well as environmentalists now stand at a strange place in time. Having struggled through collapsing fisheries and difficult access to working waterfront, they are now faced with their way of life being challenged by an onslaught of new-age fishermen; men who feed fish corn and wheat, who harvest those fish with giant vacuums, and who control trans-oceanic farms from an office at a university. Traditional fishermen can only hope that there will remain a place for them in this new world, and perhaps even a place for their children to go to sea and fish in a manner that has been with us forever. |
