|
Developed by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the Offshore Aquaculture Act (S.1195) sets up a process for leasing large areas of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) — the waters between 3 and 200 miles off the nation’s coasts. But the bill’s two sponsors, Senators Ted Stevens (R-AK) and Daniel Inouye (D-HI) proposed amendments upon introducing it, immediately highlighting questions about the legislation’s attention to major concerns. Sen. Stevens for instance wants to give states the right to decide whether or not they will have aquaculture in the federal waters off their coasts.
Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI) introduced two more amendments: The bill submitted by the Bush administration would have allowed foreign companies and governments to lease U.S. waters. Inouye’s amendments strike that language and call for establishing environmental standards, which many observers note, are conspicuously absent from the bill.
“I think it’s interesting that the Senators who introduced the bill slapped on amendments right away,” said Andrianna Natsoulas, of the government watchdog group “Public Citizen.” While Natsoulas applauded Inouye’s and the other Senator’s efforts, she said, “a lot more needs to be done to protect the environment, the consumer and wild stocks.” According to Natsoulas, the legislation should contain specifics concerning the use of chemicals and antibiotics, which, she suggests, could do particular harm to consumers. “It should be pointed out,” said Natsoulas, “that there are no antibiotics approved by the FDA for use in aquaculture.” Public Citizen also called for language that prohibits escapes of farmed fish, and protects habitat. “NMFS tells us these things will all be taken care of in the regulations,” said Natsoulas. “But by the time you get to that stage, the regulations could go anywhere.” She and many others accuse NMFS of doing a slipshod job in developing the bill. “This is a Band-Aid solution for a complete failure of fisheries management,” she said. NMFS Rationale In 2002 NMFS released its report “Rationale for a New Initiative in Marine Aquaculture,” which was used as a basis for the legislation. According to NMFS rationale: “The benefits of marine aquaculture are many. Some are obvious economic benefits, such as increased food production, more jobs, and earnings from goods and services. But others are subtler…the alternative of cultured products can alleviate pressure on some overfished stocks. And ecosystems can benefit from extensive poly-culture and enhancement systems.” Even Kite-Powell, who supports the move offshore, questions some of the NMFS rhetoric. “Whatever development takes place offshore is likely to be highly automated,” he said. “It’s not going to create many jobs. But it will create economic opportunities for fishermen.” Kite-Powell pointed out that investment in offshore fish farming would likely come from the large companie such as Stolt Sea Farms of Luxembourg, the world’s 3rd largest salmon grower. But Kite-Powell noted that groups of fishermen could possibly pool enough resources together to start offshore mussel farms. “We did an experiment to look at the economic viability of farming blue mussels on longlines,” said Kite-Powell. According to Kite-Powell’s numbers a mussel farm consisting of 120 longlines, each 120 meters long and seeded with mussels, would cost about $1.5 million to set up. He predicted the farm would be able to harvest 1,000 tons of mussels per year, generating anywhere from 2 to 4 million dollars in gross revenue. While a few fishermen from the Portsmouth Fishermen’s Co-op have expressed an interest in mussel farming, most members of the New England fleet are too busy trying to make a living on two months worth of fishing days to consider the effects offshore aquaculture may have on their industry. “With everything that’s on my plate right now, am I worried about aquaculture?” asked David Goethel, a Hampton, NH groundfish fisherman and member of the New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC). “Not really.” Among other things he questions the wisdom of investing in a high risk industry producing seafood that competes with rebounding wild stocks in a country with abundant food supplies. “It’s pie in the sky,” said Goethel. “Fish would have to be at over $4.00 a pound and that’s not going to happen in the near future. Not to mention that they’ve lost a lot of gear. Who would insure them?” “It flies in the face of mother nature,” council member John Williamson said of offshore aquaculture. “I can’t see any rationale for it.” But the bill fulfills the Bush administration’s oceans policy objectives. “The White House has been signaling a policy that encourages aquaculture,” said Williamson. “It’s consistent with increasing oil and gas exploration and other forms of development in the EEZ.” It’s About Growth Along those lines many see offshore aquaculture as a way to create a growth industry in the ocean. Perhaps the best assessment of what is driving offshore development comes from Cape May fishing fleet owner, Danny Cohen, as quoted in The New York Times, after noting that fishermen can now harvest all the available catch: “How do you get growth?” Mr. Cohen asked. “You use aquaculture.” But severe problems now limit the growth of inshore finfish aquaculture, namely: competition for available space; farm escapees impacting wild stocks through competition and inbreeding; effluents from farms polluting surrounding waters; and subsequent disease outbreaks among the overstressed fish. Proponents at NMFS believe that moving fish farms offshore will provide solutions to most of those problems and allow continued growth of the U.S. aquaculture industry. Jurisdiction But fishermen may find they have a diminished role in the process by the time a site comes up for lease. Among other things the bill submitted by the White House exempts aquaculture from the Magnuson Stevens Act, and thus puts it beyond the control of the NEFMC and other regional councils. “The council is concerned,” said NEFMC spokeswoman Pat Fiorelli. “Certainly we would like a voice.” Fiorelli suggested that in the past the council has addressed issues such as the impacts of aquaculture on wild stocks and habitat prior to signing off on leases, and that it might seek a more direct role. “It’s too soon to tell,” she said. “We’ll be discussing it at the September meeting in Fairhaven [Massachusetts]. Senator Stevens’s amendment giving states jurisdiction over aquaculture in the federal waters off their coasts, addresses the issue to a certain extent. “This option allows states like Alaska and Hawaii to decide for themselves whether this law and offshore aquaculture are best for their citizens and economies,” he says in a press release. Access Another issue likely to get fishermen’s attention is access. Kite-Powell’s policy research includes looking at rights of access to the EEZ. While finding space for experimental systems has been relatively easy, simply a matter of “talking with local fishermen.” Siting the large-scale operations that will be necessary to farm fish profitably in the open ocean may be more difficult. When situations become contentious, Kite-Powell proposed making an “economically rational decision” after examining potential uses: recreational, commercial fishing, aquaculture, etc. “No single group has a god-given right to the resources,” he said. To a large extent Kite-Powell expects the market to regulate much of what occurs in the EEZ. A paper that he co-authored with Porter Hoagland and Di Jin, “The Optimal Allocation of Ocean Space: Aquaculture and Wild-Harvest Fisheries,” explains: “In general, if the net benefits from aquaculture exceed those from a commercial fishery, then it is economically optimal to replace the fishery with aquaculture (and vice versa).” The paper goes on to say though that even if fish farms produce less fish, than a fishery, they may be economically superior because they would reduce the economic inefficiencies of open access fisheries. Limiting Factors Offshore aquaculture has certain market advantages over capture fisheries, such as being able to maintain steady supplies of consistent products, but the industry has encountered difficulties. While the lack of private investment, ongoing technical glitches with grow-out and monitoring systems, and property rights issues, can all be remedied; other problems may be more difficult. The above-mentioned paper co-authored by Kite-Powell pointed out that if pollution, disease and escaped fish from farms negatively impacted wild stocks then “aquaculture operations could be confined to a relatively small area of the ocean.” It adds: “The release of nutrients, disease or genetically altered fish, however, might have effects that reach far beyond the actual culturing facility.” In addition to legal, economic, and environmental concerns, the industry is limited by the amount of wild forage fish available for fish feed. “We’re looking at where the wild catch components of fish feed come from,” Kite-Powell said. “And considering whether or not global aquaculture at the current level is leading to overfishing.” Diminishing resources and rising feed costs could slow the growth of carnivorous finfish aquaculture. Nonetheless, many observers believe that feed scarcity and other problems can be resolved with biotechnology. James McVey, head of Sea Grant, suggested that corn genetically modified to contain the proteins that fish need, could solve the feed problem. Other potential uses of biotechnology include creating fast growing disease resistant fish. According to a report by the Norwegian Research Council, work on the cod genome project is underway in the U.S., Canada, and Norway, with the aim of “overcoming bottlenecks in cod aquaculture,” among its objectives. “GMOs are obviously controversial,” said Kite-Powell, “and I don’t know enough to say if the existing control mechanisms are adequate.” But noting that the world needs food, he said that properly tested and regulated GMOs “are nothing to shy away from.” Public Citizen’s Natsoulas took a jaundiced view of the entire development policy. “If you look at the Offshore Aquaculture Act, you can see that its only purpose is for somebody to make money,” she said. Her organization is calling for a moratorium on offshore aquaculture development until the problems confronting it are solved. Otherwise, Natsoulas suggested, the bill before Congress is “setting the stage for putting genetically engineered fish in open ocean cages.” |
