(Please note that a few of the Figures may not view well in older versions of Netscape. If you are unable to read a figure, please requst a print version of the specific chart from the Aquaculture Information Center via email: to Eileen.McVey @noaa.gov or via phone to 301-713-2607.) This report is the result of a leadership project with students from the Washington Project Center in cooperation with the Worcester Polytechnic Institute and the National Sea Grant Program. The following information has been gathered, compiled and analyzed by WPI students. Some charts are in Adobe PDF format and require Adobe Reader to view.
CURRENT AND FUTURE REGULATION OF MARINE AQUACULTURE
Report Submitted to:
Prof. Susan Vernon-Gerstenfeld, Prof. Ronald R. Biederman
By
Mark Arsenault Thomas Beigbeder Nathan Johnson Kevin Pearce
In Cooperation with
James P. McVey, Ph.D.
Program Director - Aquaculture
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
_______________
Advisor
_______________
Co-advisor
Abstract
Our project was sponsored by the Sea Grant College Program and was completed for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The problem addressed is the lack of federal legislation concerning the offshore aquaculture industry in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone. We investigated current legislation and interviewed individuals who affect policy decisions. The gathered information was used to explain clearly the aquaculture industry’s current status and organizational structure. Future public policy and organizational structure for the aquaculture industry is proposed.
Authorship page
4.1.
4.2.
4.3. European Union Kevin
4.4.
Appendices
A. Agency Background Kevin
B. IQP Information Tom
C. Interviews Mark
D. Aquaculture Production Statistics Mark
E. NOAA-Funded Project Summaries Mark
F. Types of Aquaculture Kevin
G. Global Development Mark
H. Impact on the Environment Tom & Nathan
I. Aquaculture Sites and Water Usage Nathan
J. Worldwide Economic Impact Mark
K. Public Perception and Social Implications Tom & Nathan
Acknowledgements
Our liaison - Dr. James P. McVey - The National Sea Grant College Program (NOAA)
Susan Bunsick - National Marine Fisheries Service
Eileen McVey -
-for their inspiration, wealth of knowledge, and guidance
Our advisors - Professors Susan Vernon-Gerstenfeld and Ronald R. Biederman-
for their seemingly endless amounts constructive criticism
Table of Contents
Page
Figures ____ v
Appendices 51
A. Agency Background 51
B. IQP Information 55
C. Interviews 56
D. Aquaculture Production Statistics 58
E. NOAA-Funded Project Summaries 60
F. Types of Aquaculture 74
G. Global Development 83
H. Impact on the Environment ______ 86
I. Aquaculture Sites and Water Usage 90
J. Worldwide Economic Impact 92
K. Public Perception and Social Implications ______ 95
Figures
Figure 1 – Responsibilities of Federal Agencies in
Figure 2 – Responsibilities of Provincial Agencies in
Figure 3 - Challenges Facing Aquaculture in the European Union 21-22
Figure 4 – Organizational Structure of Japanese Aquaculture
____24-25
Figure 5 – Model of Government Interaction 27
Figure 6 – Model of Current NMFS Action 33
Figure 7 – Proposed Model of Government Interaction
____43
Figure 8 – Development of an Aquaculture Site
____45
Figure A1 – Organizational Structure of NOAA 54
Figure F1 – Levee Farm Diagram 74
Figure F2 – Raceway 77
Figure F3 – Recirculating System 79
Figure F4 –
Figure F5 – Cage Culture Diagram 82
Figure G1 – Aquaculture quantity: major producer countries
in 1998 ____83
Figure G2 – Aquaculture value: major producer countries
in 1998 84
Figure G3 – Aquaculture production: contribution of
LIFDCs in 1998 ____85
Chapter 1. Executive Summary
The worldwide aquaculture industry has grown tremendously
in the past decade.
The advancement of aquaculture policy in the
In an effort to respond to those concerned with hard
scientific facts the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
has funded a number of research projects investigating different aspects of
the aquaculture industry in different regions of the
This project intends to provide the reader with a
clear depiction of what the current regulatory structure of the aquaculture
industry is. It also reports on the most recent findings by the researchers
funded by NOAA and interprets how their findings will apply to the development
of new policy. This information is synthesized into a graphical depiction of
how the interested groups and parties are interrelated. Finally, this project
uses the aforementioned information to predict where the aquaculture industry
is going and provide recommendations for changes to current policies in the
The goal of our project was to report on the current status of the aquaculture industry and to analyze policy frameworks and organizational models that have been proposed by various organizations and foreign nations. From that analysis we determined which of the proposed frameworks and organizational models addressed the different issues most appropriately and made recommendations based on our findings. These findings will aid in the revision of the National Offshore Aquaculture Act of 2000.
Our first step was to acquire and read the proposals of sixteen research projects concerning aquaculture regulation that were funded by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the last two years. We then contacted the principal investigators of each project and inquired about the current status of their research.
In addition, we studied the current aquaculture industry
organizational structures of the
After we clarified the current network of
Once we obtained this information, we began our analysis
by constructing a graphical flowchart clearly illustrating how each organization
and piece of policy affects the various aspects of the industry. We then used
our understanding of the relationships between the organizations to describe
where conflicts exist and to suggest what could be done to alleviate these conflicts.
Finally, we used the gathered information to predict to organizational structure
the
The
To solve the problems stated above, we recommend the
following changes to current
- Establish a Streamlined Permitting Process
- Implement Appropriate Environmental Regulations
- Develop Efficient Siting and Leasing Process
Aquaculture is defined as the propagation and rearing of aquatic organisms in controlled or selected aquatic environments for any commercial, recreational, or public purpose (National Aquaculture Act, 1980). The worldwide aquaculture industry has grown tremendously in the past decade. Meanwhile, with an ever-expanding world population and an ever-growing food deficit, the issue of world hunger will eventually demand attention. This issue is being addressed in developing nations by heavy investment in aquaculture industries and, as a result, is expanding six times faster than in developed countries (Browdy, 2002). Fish now accounts for 16 percent of the world’s supply of animal protein (Browdy, 2002). Even in the industry’s infancy, aquaculture now supplies the world with 30 percent of its total food fish (FAO, 2000).
The advancement of aquaculture policy in the
Despite the urgent need for aquaculture legislation, proponents have been met with ardent opposition from environmentalists, recreational and commercial fishermen, and other special interest groups. This opposition has made the task of developing sustainable aquaculture a difficult one.
In an effort to respond to those concerned with hard scientific facts, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has funded a number of research projects investigating different aspects of the aquaculture industry in different regions of the United States. Also, several government agencies have developed pieces of policy that they believe would benefit the country’s aquaculture industry (NMFS, 2001).
This project intends to provide the reader with a
clear depiction of the current regulatory structure of the aquaculture industry.
It also reports on the most recent findings by the researchers funded by NOAA
and interprets how their findings will apply to the development of new public
policy. This information is synthesized into a graphical depiction of how the
interested groups and parties are interrelated. Finally, this project uses
the aforementioned information to predict in what direction the aquaculture
industry is going and provides recommendations for changes to current policies
in the
Chapter 3. Background
Aquaculture has become a necessary development for
a wide array of seafood industries to meet the increase in demand for aquatic-based
consumables. These industries have each experienced different problems resulting
from their unique implementation of fish farming. Becoming familiar with all
the possible effects of aquaculture on a nation requires first examining its
effects on areas of the world where it is implemented in larger scale In addition
to global development, the worldwide economic impact must be analyzed to identify
the current standing of the United States. The past actions of the
Stickney & McVey (2002) indicate that the issues surrounding aquaculture have already been addressed by various sources. They believe that the next step is to investigate each issue with the purpose of identifying the specific requirements and potential consequences. What is the underlying motivation of a group that expresses their views on an issue? How does an issue impact affected populations? What future research is necessary to forward the development of aquaculture? These questions need to be investigated and answered before any issues can be addressed in the form of public policy. Therefore, the current research may not be sufficient for settling unanswered questions still surrounding the implementation of aquaculture (Stickney & McVey, 2002). The purpose of this literature review is to identify the aspects of aquaculture that will affect public policy and discuss possible stances to be taken as a means to justify the development of a policy framework.
3.1 Rationale for Aquaculture
Worldwide, the aquaculture industry is rapidly expanding.
The Center for Study of Marine Policy (2002) states that aquaculture accounts
for roughly 25 percent of total seafood production. However, based on a recent
FAO aquaculture study, it can be seen that technological and regulatory development
of the aquaculture industry in the
Professor James Muir (2002), assistant director of
the
In the United States, between 1992 and 1997, seafood
production from aquaculture increased by 11 percent in terms of volume and 29
percent in terms of value. Even though domestic aquaculture in the
Fish consumption in industrialized nations has been
increasing in recent years. Aquaculture has driven down prices of seafood from
the high levels experienced during the mid-1990s. The low prices of farm raised
clams from
Despite the contention from traditional American fishermen that aquaculture will take their jobs, the aquaculture industry has the potential to employ many more people than traditional fisheries. Aquaculture can drive domestic seafood production much higher than traditional fisheries could ever support. The establishment of more aquaculture facilities would mean more job opportunities for those with knowledge of the seafood industry. If fishermen from traditional capture fisheries embraced the growing aquaculture industry, they could avoid the chance of unemployment resulting from the ever-diminishing wild stocks.
3.2 Obstacles to Industry Development
Obstacles to the development of the aquaculture industry
include the impact of aquaculture sites on the environment, misinformation held
by the public, and the social implications of a larger domestic aquaculture
industry. The issues concerning environmental ethics, first, may be approached
from several directions, causing them to become a focus of concern for the development
of aquaculture. Research into many of these issues is currently being done
or is planned by the parties who have taken an interest in the expansion of
the aquaculture industry in the
One of the major areas of environmental concern is
that of water quality. It is possible that water quality may degrade rapidly
and cause difficulties for the fish within a site, as well as for forms of life
living in the area below a site. This environmental damage is sometimes referred
to as the ecological ‘footprint’ (Phillips, Summerfelt, & Clayton, 1998).
Environmental groups are concerned with the impact of aquaculture environmental
footprints, because of the immense damage that the waste of thousands of fish
can cause to the ocean floor. Fish waste is another major concern that directly
affects water quality (Ramsay, Castell, Anderson, & Hebb, 2000). The resulting
spread of disease has the potential to ruin a site and the surrounding areas
by contaminating the water and preventing sustainable life (Rach & Ramsay,
2000). During 2001, amnesic poisoning affected stocks of oysters, scallops,
and mussels in
The interbreeding of escaped cultured fish with wild populations may limit the gene pool, thereby causing an inferior strain of the species or, in some cases, the strain may be intentionally altered to produce a better quality of product (Martinez, Gephard, Juanes, & Vazquez, 2000). Hershberger (2002) considers this to be a major issue because of the inevitable escape of fish and their subsequent breeding with the natural population. Introducing genetic material of captive fish into the gene pool will have unknown consequences for nature and may result in genetic degradation of the natural species. Also, problems may arise from the escape of non-native species into the areas surrounding a site (Stickney, 2002).
Chemicals may be used to treat disease and parasites to boost the output of fish farms. According to Rach and Ramsey (2000), the chemical additives used to improve the growth of the fish are damaging to areas surrounding a site. The addition of these chemicals may disrupt the natural balance of biological communities in the surrounding area, making it unsuitable for natural wildlife.
Marine predators are the source of another environmental concern facing aquaculture. Because of the ample supply of food, carnivorous mammals and birds are often drawn to the site. The site operators are hence forced to deal with the animals in order to prevent attacks on stocks of fish (Blackwell, Dolbeer, & Tyson, 2000). In many cases, preventative measures often fail, because the animals are able to learn and adapt. Therefore, many sites make the decision to protect their investment by simply killing the natural predators. This may cause adverse impacts to the ecological system and may also be viewed as an unethical approach.
Stickney (2002) has found that opposition has grown over the use of fish meal as food for aquaculture. Originally, fish meal manufacturing plants were installed to meet the high demand for fish meal from the agriculture industry. The recent demand for large volumes of fish meal for the aquaculture industry has resulted in the installment of more manufacturing plants along coastal regions, often releasing unpleasant odors to the surrounding area. The extremely large number of wild fish that are being caught for the production of fish meal is also contributing to the rapid depletion of natural stocks. For more information on the environmental impact of aquaculture sites, refer to Appendix H. Impact on the Environment.
Another conflict concerning aquaculture comes from the creation of offshore aquaculture sites and the consequential restriction of that site from other uses. Almost all areas that have been designated aquaculture sites have had a number of prior uses. However, to keep the fish secure, fish farming requires that site stay restricted from other uses. It is Stickney and McVey’s (2002) contention that many different groups, including fishermen and local residents, must deal with the fact that they can no longer use the area. In some cases, this restriction facilitates the viewpoint of ‘rogue aquaculturists’ taking control of the water. Barnaby and Adams (2002) believe that fishermen, therefore, often look upon aquaculture as a threat to their livelihood. Because of the propagation of these types of ideas, the process of locating and acquiring an appropriate site for aquacultural use has proven to be a difficult task. For more information on siting and water usage, refer to Appendix I. Aquaculture Sites and Water Usage.
Misinformation held by the public has been one of the most significant obstacles that aquaculture has to overcome. As the public is introduced to the idea of aquaculture, individuals may form their opinions without a complete understanding of both the positive and negative consequences of the industry. These individuals may have been introduced to the industry by a biased source, or the source may have contained incomplete information on the subject. One solution put forth in an effort to counteract this problem is the education of the public (Devoe & Hodges, 2002). For more information on the public perception and social implications of the aquaculture industry, refer to Appendix K. Public Perception and Social Implications.
In order to make valuable recommendations
for the revision of the present
In some instances, aspects of the studied
industries closely resemble the
4.1
In 1984, the Prime Minister designated the Department
of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) as the lead agency in control of aquaculture (DFO,
1995). Although the federal government is involved with the regulation of aquaculture,
the provincial governments are responsible for common tasks. Memoranda of Understanding
(MOUs) are designed to harmonize the relationship between the federal and provincial
governments to better suit each province’s specific needs. The provinces of
The federal government has limited involvement in the operational phase of an aquaculture site. During the initial leasing process, however, the federal government can require investigations concerning environmental impacts, interference with fish habitats, and interference with navigation. The federal government is also concerned with native rights and land claims, migratory birds, other water usage, and food safety (OCAD, 2001). Additionally, the federal government has the responsibility of governing research and development, regulation of fish products for inter-provincial and export trade, conservation and protection of wild fish stocks and fish habitat, importation and inter-provincial movement of salmonids, eggs, and dead fish, the Canadian Shellfish Sanitation Program (CSSP), and therapeutic drugs and vaccines (OCAD, 2000). There are currently seventeen federal agencies providing services to the Canadian aquaculture industry (OCAD, 2000). Illustrations of the federal and provincial governments’ roles are shown in Figure 1 (viewable as an Adobe PDF file please use your browser's back button to return to this page) and Figure 2 (viewable as an Adobe PDF file please use your browser's back button to return to this page) respectively.
4.2
Over the past thirty years,
The National Chamber of Aquaculture has since created laws that pertain to aquatic species farming. Some of these laws include restrictions on cutting mangroves and using antibiotics in farm ponds, among other environmental restrictions. The Cabinet has also started to fund research to investigate viruses, antibiotic usage within farm ponds, and technology to further productivity.
Passing the law regulating the destruction of mangrove forests was a significant step towards helping the shrimp farming industry, specifying that it is illegal to cut mangrove forests unless a permit is granted. Prior to this law’s creation, only 32 percent of mangrove forests were left after their deforestation for shrimp ponds. Without the creation of this restriction, the broodstock for shrimp ponds would be greatly depleted, ultimately causing diminished harvest sizes.
Two types of land exist in
In contrast to the current
4.3 European Union
The European Union, established in 1993, was created to abolish restrictive trading practices and to encourage the free movement of capital and labor within the union (European Union [EU], 2001). The EU conserves and manages the fisheries and aquaculture by the common fisheries policy (CFP), which states that fish are considered a common property and need a common policy to govern their harvesting.
The European Union accounts for 4.7 percent of the world’s aquaculture. The number of available fish in European waters has recently decreased, so the members of the European Union have turned to aquaculture as a way to fulfill their demand for seafood. In 1990, the stocks of fish had dropped to a total of 10 percent the amount available in 1970 as a result of over fishing (Martin, 2002). Along with the depletion of fish stocks, there is the associated depletion of jobs, income, and food.
The EU has a code of conduct for sustainable aquaculture
that was created by the Federation of European Aquaculture Producers. This
code was intended to promote the responsible development and management of aquaculture
within the EU in order to assure a high standard of quality food production,
whilst giving the necessary respect to the environment and consumers’ demands
(Federation of European Aquaculture Producers [FEAP], 2002). It serves to establish
and recommend guiding principles for those in
Funding, however, remains a major issue within the European aquaculture industry. The funding provided by the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG) has, until now, been a main source for support grants to companies to increase production (Commission of the European communities [EC], 2002). Recently, the commission has proposed that in place of increasing production capacity for species where the market is close to saturation, they would favor the modernization of the existing farms and diversifying the species selection (EC, 2002).
The issues surrounding the environmental implementation of aquaculture have become another major concern for the European Union. Because aquaculture sites have potentially damaging effects on the ecosystem, select legislation has been put in place to help ensure that no permanent damage will result. The EU upholds the ideals set within the FAO Code of Conduct for Sustainable Fisheries and also agrees that a set of norms or voluntary agreements are necessary to prevent environmental degradation (EC, 2002). Similarly, the positive contribution that aquacultural developments have on the environment must also be recognized and encouraged (EC, 2002).
One of the most promising achievements of the EU framework
is their establishment of workshops and classes for fishing communities to help
with the progression from fishing to aquaculture. Within these workshops, citizens
are given the chance to learn the aquaculture trade and gain additional skills.
The
Diversification of aquaculture farm species is a necessary development in order for aquaculture farms to survive the event of a flooded market. When production begins to exceed demand for a species, the value per capita will fall dramatically and cause decreased income for each related aquaculture site. Diversification is being aided by the fishing and aquaculture grant program, FIFG. Through this program, the EU is attempting to discourage development in markets that are already flooded. EU is also working to gain advancements in technology for different aquaculture candidate species Figure 3 (Figure 3 opens as an Adobe PDF file, use your browser's back button to return to this page) illustrates the major issues affecting aquaculture, which were identified by the European Union.
4.4
As with many Eastern Asian countries, seafood makes up a large portion of the Japanese diet. Traditionally, the Japanese get six times more protein from seafood than do Americans (Cecin-Sain, 2001). The yields from wild fisheries began to decline in the 1970s, and the catches were further reduced in 1975 with the worldwide adoption of the two hundred mile exclusive economic zones, which restricted Japanese fishermen from grounds near the coasts of other countries (Gyogyo, 2000). For these reasons, the Japanese people needed to find alternate sources of seafood.
In response to the loss of capture fisheries, the
Japanese government is actively promoting and subsidizing aquaculture development,
including the expansion of marine programs (Bartley, 2002). This research is
accomplished through the National Research Institute of Aquaculture, which is
part of the
The regulation of aquaculture in
The application for an aquaculture right includes all the details of the proposed facility. After being advised by the Prefecture Fisheries Coordination Committee, the governor determines the area that will be assigned and the conditions and limitations that will be in place. Once granted, the right is valid for five years and can be renewed following the submission of another application (Cecin-Sain, 2001).
The fisheries cooperative associations are required
to create aquaculture right management committees, which develop rules on how
to use the right for the benefit of participating fishermen. These rules are
meant to ensure fair allocation of lots, determine what types of structures
should be built, specify the number of facilities that each member is allowed,
and set the limits on maximum density of stocks. This method of self-regulation
is known as a Community-based Fisheries Management System (CBFMS) (Yamamoto,
2001). According to the FAO Fisheries Global Information System (2002), CBFMSs
have helped ensure oceanic resources in
The
While the system of cooperatives has worked well for
the Japanese aquaculture industry, it would not be feasible to implement in
the
The
The National Aquaculture Act of 1980 (NAA) was the
first national policy to distinguish aquaculture as a unique industry. It defined
aquaculture as the “propagation and rearing of aquatic species in controlled
or selected environments, including, but not limited to, ocean ranching” (National
Aquaculture Act, 1980). This act further established that aquaculture in the
Though the need for regulation and modes of resolution are established, there are no specific organizations charged with the authority over creation or enforcement of such policies. Therefore, many different organizations have assumed the role of authority over aquaculture through the extension of their authority in a related industry. The result of this has, in itself, become an obstacle to the effective regulation of aquaculture.
The NAA does form clear objectives for the development of the aquaculture industry and creates the means by which to perpetuate and adapt these objectives. Through the NAA, the Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture (JSA) is cast as the group that will examine any future concerns that come to surface. The JSA has a minimum of twelve members from many aquaculture related government offices and is headed by a representative of the Department of Agriculture (National Aquaculture Act, 1985).
The JSA was organized to evaluate the current status
of all federal programs in connection with aquaculture. It works to increase
the effectiveness and productivity of these programs. The JSA also monitors
current national research projects, advancements in technology, and other federal
programs (JSA Report, 2002). Because of this, the JSA is a key influence in
the direction that the
The current role of the JSA and the
progression of the U.S. aquaculture policy is shown in more detail by the diagram
in Figure 5 which follows:
Figure 5: Model of Government Interaction
Each of the government organizations listed in the
NAA contains representatives that convene to form the JSA. The five organizations
that appear in this model represent a partial but significant portion of the
influence within the JSA. These organizations are the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) under the Department of Commerce, the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) under the Department of Interior,
the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under the Department of Health and Human
Services, and the Department of Agriculture (USDA).
The JSA exists at the middle of the diagram because it acts as a centralized
forum, in which each of the organizations may present their views on the advancement
of the aquaculture industry. The issues facing aquaculture development are discussed
within this forum and, in some cases, further examination is designated through
the creation of a task force. The aquaculture policy of the United States is
primarily adapted through the conclusions produced by the JSA. This policy,
however, can also be influenced through the application of laws that do not
specifically address the aquaculture industry. The example illustrated by this
diagram is that of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, used by a division of the Department
of Commerce to assume partial regulatory control. The details of this application
of the Magnuson-Stevens Act are discussed later in this section. These two methods
of improving the United States aquaculture policy have been the only ones used
since the policy's establishment in 1980. However, a third method, which is
the goal of some organizations at this time, is the passage of new legislation
that would grant control of marine aquaculture in the EEZ to a specific department
of the government.
The United Nations (UN) and its subdivision, the Food and Agriculture Organization
(FAO), are shown in this diagram as an external influence to the government
organizations of the United States. This influence has had a number of impacts
on the progression of aquaculture in the U.S. First, the FAO has become a basis
of information regarding continual change of aquaculture production worldwide.
Their publications on the state of world aquaculture help to identify global
trends in aquaculture production and provide evaluations of the current progress
of world regions (FAO, 1997). Their more technical publications additionally
provide research that is invaluable to the advancement of an environmentally
sound aquaculture industry. Second, the FAO has presented guidelines for member
nations of the UN. These guidelines are followed on a voluntary basis, but the
United States has agreed to strive toward achieving each of these goals. They
are defined within the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (1995), and
attempt to shape a responsible approach to aquaculture, accounting for economic,
social, environmental, technological, biological, and commercial impacts.
The two directional arrows between NOAA and foreign nations represents the communication
of knowledge and concepts among countries. This communication is vital to understanding
alternative methods of aquaculture regulation that are in use and their potential
problems. Examinations of select foreign approaches to government regulation
of aquaculture are detailed in the preceding section.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) has become involved in the development
of aquaculture due largely to the economic impact that seafood imports have
on this country. The extent of this impact is detailed within the National Aquaculture
Act. The actions taken by the DOC and its subdivisions are guided in more detail
by the DOC Aquaculture Policy (1982), which states the need for aquaculture
to become an integrated part of the economy at local, state, and national levels.
This integration is meant to be completed through government research and assistance
programs that aid in overcoming the issues that oppose aquaculture development.
Additionally, education and training are identified as a necessary part of attaining
the full potential of the conducted research. This policy, however, also holds
true to the NAA conclusion that protective regulation must be maintained to
create an environment for sustainable development (DOC Aquaculture Policy, 1982).
The policies defined by the Department of Commerce and in the National Aquaculture
Act have been used to guide the aquaculture industry for the past twenty years.
However, these advancements have not moved the nation forward in terms of developing
a refined policy for the aquaculture industry. As in most nations, the actual
policy governing aquaculture exists as a complex combination of laws that are
already in place for other industries (Cullinan & Van Houtte, 1997). In
the case of aquaculture, such laws are created by administration over the areas
of environment, natural resources, animal and public health, food quality, drug
control, and land use and planning. In countries where there is no effort toward
the creation of a national policy, there has been little success in terms of
growth of aquaculture (Wijkstrom, 2001). Therefore, a solid foundation of regulation
and encouragement is the required government role to achieve the objectives
set in the NAA.
In the case of aquaculture, such laws are created by administration over the areas of environment, natural resources, animal and public health, food quality, drug control, and land use and planning. In countries where there is no effort toward the creation of a national policy, there has been little success in terms of growth of aquaculture (Wijkstrom, 2001). Therefore, a solid foundation of regulation and encouragement is the required government role to achieve the objectives set in the NAA. The facilitation of the objectives set for the DOC became the almost exclusive responsibility of its subdivision, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The aquaculture policy created for NOAA influenced the aquaculture policy adopted by the DOC (NOAA Aquaculture Policy, 1999). However, the actions and responsibilities defined within this policy have been allocated among several subdivisions of NOAA that currently have differing agendas regarding the necessary steps to ensure the future of the industry.
The first of these subdivisions is the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), which has assumed the role of regulation over aquaculture in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). The NMFS has also become the overseer of aquaculture in state waters through regulatory agreements with states and, in some cases, with mandates over their fish production. Because there is no legislation that issues direct control over the aquaculture industry, the power granted to the NMFS to regulate fishing must be extended over an industry for which it was never intended. Regulation of fishing is defined within the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (1976, amended 1996) but can be interpreted to cover aquaculture because of the use of the word “harvest.” Because aquaculture production involves the final step of harvesting fish from the ocean, the limitations set by this law can be construed to exist over the entire process of fish rearing. Therefore, the juvenile fish initially placed into a cage culture have the same size restrictions as those captured by fishermen. As a result of this law, all aquaculture within the EEZ is rendered illegal unless the site has received an exemption from the NMFS. The associated exemption process adds another phase of complexity for those attempting to begin an aquaculture site and has therefore come to be in opposition of the NOAA policy to facilitate the development of the aquaculture industry (Louisiana Sea Grant, 2001).
Recently, however, the NMFS has taken a position more in accordance with the NOAA aquaculture policy while still maintaining its original direction of regulation. While the restrictions set by the Magnuson-Stevens Act still remain in place over aquaculture, new regulations have been proposed that would address the aquaculture industry exclusively. Creation and enforcement of a standard set of regulations would aid aquaculture by helping to ensure the protection of the environment, the safety of food product, and the rights of the aquaculture site. The releases of The Rationale For a New Initiative in Marine Aquaculture in September, 2002, and A Code of Conduct for Responsible Aquaculture Development in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone in October, 2002, were the initial steps taken by the NMFS toward new regulation. The first of these documents proposes a regulatory framework under which one organization would retain control because the current arrangement of multiple organizations creates too many conflicts for any real progress. The second of these documents is a list of proposed regulations specific to aquaculture in the EEZ. Currently, each of these papers is undergoing a period of public review and comment. The Rationale for a new Initiative in Marine Aquaculture, in particular, has been met with significant opposition from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) as a result of its proposition that the NMFS have exclusive regulatory rights over aquaculture.
The current situation of NOAA and the NMFS is shown by the diagram: in Figure 6 which follows:
Figure 6: Model of Current National Marine Fisheries Service Action
The second subdivision of NOAA is the National Sea Grant Program, which has primarily been focused on the research aspect of aquaculture development. The purpose of the Sea Grant program is to allocate funds to organizations that are outside the government so that studies and experiments are made toward the advancement of aquaculture. In most cases, these organizations are universities that provide a scientific/ regulatory analysis of a particular region in regards to aquaculture. Studies that deal specifically with legislation may provide analysis of the regulatory framework, but they are in no way representative of the viewpoints held by the National Sea Grant Program.
The National Ocean Service (NOS) and its subdivisions form the third branch of NOAA that has been a primary influence in the aquaculture industry. Under the NOS, the Coastal Zone Management program works in conjunction with state governments to evaluate coastal areas for potential aquaculture siting. These areas are evaluated to ensure the smallest impact on the surrounding environment and the fewest number of possible sources of conflict. Because the NOS division of NOAA deals predominantly with aquaculture in state waters, it is less committed to the development of policy at the national level.
The current policies regulating the industry are fragmented, with varied regulations and multiple sources (NOAA Policy, 1999). Devoe & Hodges (2002) hold that organizing a clear solution would allow newly established companies to begin operation with speed and simplicity. Because no policy has been set, there remains a lack of support and rights for the companies and investors involved. There is no clear system for resolving conflicts over water use, which has made the industry seem confusing to the public (NOAA Policy, 1999). The government will have to play a critical role in the balance between restriction of the damaging effects of aquaculture and the encouragement of its growth.
Duff (2001) has stated that the legal barriers to marine aquaculture development are directly related to social and cultural concerns of coastal and traditional fishing community members, in addition to the physical, chemical and biological capacity of prospective development sites. Communities may be reluctant to embrace government programs that are seen as reallocating property rights or ocean areas. Duff (2001) also states that the development of aquaculture interests depend on an organization’s ability to obtain financing, which is directly related to the ability of the prospective developer to demonstrate that he has the potential make enough money to repay a loan being granted to start an aquaculture site.
Chapter 6. NOAA-Funded Projects
We have investigated sixteen of the NOAA-funded projects proposed in the years 2000 and 2001, and each can be divided into the following categories: streamlining the permitting process, environmental considerations, and siting and leasing issues. Best Management Practices, Codes of Conduct, and improved methods of siting are among the outcomes of the NOAA-funded projects that will aid in streamlining the permitting process. Similarly, the Best Management Practices and Codes of Conduct, along with studies that specifically address animal health and food safety, deal with issues concerning the environment. Issues surrounding siting and leasing were addressed by several projects concerned with GIS databases. Encompassing all three of these categories are those projects that deal with the formation of a regulatory framework for the aquaculture industry.
Currently, the permitting process is confusing and inefficient. While profits are typically expected after the five-year point, the permitting process can alone span a period of two years, or longer. These numbers are not tolerable to the potential investors in aquaculture, and, consequentially, there exists a reduction in the interest and exposure received by the industry. Were a regulatory framework to establish an efficient and fair permitting process, the aquaculture industry might achieve the momentum required for sufficient growth.
Environmental issues such as effluent discharge, escapees, fish genetics, and habitat interference get the most attention by groups opposing aquaculture. In order for the aquaculture industry to move forward, these environmental issues need to be addressed and any problems need to be resolved. Only with the assurance of environmental safety can the aquaculture industry contest opposing environmental groups’ arguments.
Siting and
leasing processes are equally as important as the permitting process. After
obtaining a permit, a specific lot of ocean space must be designated as assigned
territory, with full rights of ownership. The idea of privatizing
These projects were analyzed in order to determine their future contribution in the organizational structure of the aquaculture industry and their potential benefit.
Chapter 7. Methodology
Our project goal was to report on the current status of the aquaculture industry and to analyze policy frameworks and organizational models that have been proposed by various organizations and foreign nations. From this analysis, we have determined which of the proposed frameworks and organizational models addresses the different issues most appropriately and have made recommendations based on our findings. These findings will aid in the revision of the National Offshore Aquaculture Act of 2000.
The initial step was to acquire and read the proposals of sixteen research projects concerning aquaculture regulation that were funded by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the last two years. The principal investigators of each project were then contacted and given inquiry about the current status of their research. Also requested was any new information that could be provided beyond that which was covered by their annual progress reports.
In addition, we studied the current aquaculture industry
organizational structures of the
After clarifying the current network of
Once this information was obtained, we proceeded with
our analysis by constructing a graphical flowchart that clearly illustrates
how each organization and piece of policy affects the whole of the aquaculture
industry. We then used our understanding of the relationships between the organizations
to describe where conflicts exist and to suggest what could be done to alleviate
these conflicts. Finally, we used the gathered information to predict how the
Chapter 8. Conclusions and Recommendations
The
· Standards concerning the amount of feed fed to fish must be determined in order to minimize waste. The production of feeds with sources of protein other than fishmeal should be researched. Fishmeal is commonly used in land-based agriculture but is not relied upon as much as in the aquaculture industry.
· Systems that prevent interference from other species of fish and marine mammals should be engineered in order to eliminate the need to harm or interact with these creatures.
· Studies must be performed to determine what impact non-indigenous species’ introductions would have on a natural ecosystem.
· Preventing of disease through vaccinations, rather than curing disease with antibiotics, would lower the amount of harmful chemicals being introduced into the environment.
· Escapees should be minimized. Using only fish without the ability to reproduce as broodstock is a possible safeguard against escapees having negative genetic effects on wild populations.
Figure 7 illustrates our recommendation of the structure of government organizations needed to advance aquaculture development in the United States EEZ.
`
Figure 7: Proposed Model of Government Interaction
This diagram first specifies that a single, primary organization has full responsibility over the national policy of aquaculture in the EEZ. The limitations on aquaculture set by the Magnuson-Stevens Act in the EEZ would therefore be nullified. We recommend that NOAA, and primarily their line office the NMFS, hold this position as a result of their recent commitments to furthering aquaculture in the Exclusive Economic Zone. The primary organization would construct and administer the processes associated with leasing, permitting, and siting, and each process would be designed to accomplish its objectives with relative ease and speed. Leasing would provide aquaculturists with exclusive water rights to their site for a designated period. The permitting evaluation would assess the potential environmental impacts before a site’s creation and would also set a statute of environmental damage allowed after the site is in production. The siting process would actually begin as a stage prior to any aquaculture site requests. This stage would involve pre-assessing areas of the ocean that have potential to be aquaculture sites and zoning these areas for future siting. The most important characteristic assessed in this stage is the carrying capacity of nutrients of a given aquaculture site. Upon submission of an aquaculture site request, the lengthy process of environmental assessment would therefore be reduced.
The primary organization delegates power to and holds strong communication with each of the secondary organizations. In following with their traditional roles in aquaculture, we propose that the FDA has responsibility for food safety in aquaculture raised fish, the EPA imposes regulation of environmental damage by aquaculture sites, and the office of Sea Grant within NOAA provides funding to research technological developments. Additionally we propose that the USDA take the responsibility of providing financial assistance as it has already done with agriculture industries. The final decision regarding the funding of a site, however, would be made by the primary organization that could provide any additional funding deemed necessary. Though strong communication is encouraged, the FDA and the EPA would have the ability to preempt the primary organization in their respective areas of food safety and environmental protection. Thus the powers granted by the Public Health Service Act, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act, and the Clean Water Act are not in conflict with this proposed model.
The Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture would continue to exist, but would adopt an advisory role to the primary organization. The actions of this subcommittee would continue to bring issues to surface for discussion and, hopefully, bring a resolution agreed to by each of the delegates, including those from the primary organization. Foreign nations would also communicate with the primary organization, as is currently done with NOAA, to facilitate the learning of nations’ regulatory structures and industry techniques. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization would continue to serve as an outside influence by providing recommendations for environmentally sound aquaculture and consolidation of the worldwide aquaculture research.
Figure 8 aids in explaining the necessary process for siting and beginning an aquaculture site.
Figure 8: Development of an Aquaculture Site
The aquaculturist first submits his or her intent to build an aquaculture site to the primary organization, after having performed any preliminary required research. The primary organization delivers this proposal to each of the organizations listed within the diagram. The EPA considers the environmental impact of the site and passes its conclusions to the primary organization. The USDA assesses the financial assistance necessary to this specific site and allocates funds accordingly. The primary organization has the ability to additionally subsidize a site through funding from its own budget. The Navy is informed of the location of the site to ensure no conflicts will result. Similarly, the adjacent states are informed of the operation as a courtesy. An application is, at the same time, submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to gain a permit for building the aquaculture site. The outcomes from each of these processes are evaluated in the primary organization’s decision to permit and lease the proposed site. The aquaculturist, therefore, needs only to communicate with the primary organization when beginning an aquaculture site or renewing a lease. This simple and quick process will make aquaculture in the EEZ feasible and an ideal choice for future aquaculturists.
Chapter 9. References
Bartley, D. (1997). Production and Production Trends. In Review of the State
of
Bavington, Dean. (Fall 2001) From Jigging to Farming. Alternatives Journal 27(4), 16.
Briscoe, Ivan. (Sept 2000). The fishermen's firebrand takes on the fleet. UNESCO Courier, 30
Brown, Lester B. (Nov 2000) Fish farming may soon take role as leading food source. Feedstuffs, 72(47). 8.
Corey,
Center for Study of Marine Policy. (2002).
Cullinan, C. and Van Houtte, A. (1997). Development of Regulatory Frameworks.
In Review of the State of
Duff. (2001). Clarifying marine aquaculture legal rights: Improving the legal
interest framework. Retrieved
The Ecologist, 31(5). (June 2001) Fish Pharming. 11.
Editorial Group, FAO Information Division (2000). The State of
Aquaculture. Retrieved
Flaherty, M., Szuster, B., & Miller, P. (2000) Low Salinity Inland Shrimp
Farming in
Franklin, Jonathan & Woods, Casey. (Dec 2001) Deep Water:
Fisheries: Commission Hearing Airs Fisherman Frustrations. (2001, June 6)
European Report, 482.
Gempesaw, Conrado M.II.& Bacon, J. Richard. & Wessells, Cathy R. & Manalo, Alberto. (Dec 1995) Consumer perceptions of aquaculture products. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 77(5). 1306(7).
Gyogyo, h. (2000). Japanese Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries.
White Paper on Fisheries.
Hsu, Berry F.C. & Liu, Anita M.M. (Winter 2002) Trade, sustainability, and the WTO: environmental protection in the Hong Kong SAR. UCLA Journal of Environmental Law & Policy, 20(2), 187(35)
Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection
(GESAMP). (2001). Planning and Management for Sustainable Coastal Aquaculture
Development.
Kane, Hal. (Sept-Oct 1993) Growing fish in fields. World Watch, 6(5). 20(8)
Karakassis,
Martin, James D. (July 2001) Regulatory environment called major hurdle for offshore aquaculture. Feedstuffs, 73(32). 17.
Martin, James D. Seafood demand likely greater than forecasted. Feedstuffs, 74(31). 9(1)
Martin, James D. (Dec 2001) Farm-raised fish free of pesticides, toxic substances. Feedstuffs, 73(54) 8(1).
Martin, James D. (Jan 2001) Outlook for aquaculture sectors mixed. Feedstuffs, 73(5). 11.
Masser, M. (1998) What is Cage Culture. SRAC, 160, 1-2.
Masser, M. (1988) Cage Culture: Cage Culture Problems. SRAC, 165 1-2.
Masser, M., & Lazur, A. (1997) In Pond Raceways SRAC, 170, 1-8.
Milliman, John D. (April 1996) Integrating research and education with public outreach at coastal laboratories The Biological Bulletin 190(2), 278(8)
Misser, Francois. (April 1996) Fisheries agreement under fire. African Business, 209, 16(2)
National Aquaculture Act of 1980. Retrieved
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (1999). National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration Aquaculture Policy.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Central Library. (2001) 1970s.
Retrieved
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Central Library. (2001) 1990s.
Retrieved
Phillips, T., Summerfelt, R., & Clayton, R. (1998). Feeding Frequency Effects on Water Quality and Growth of Walleye Fingerlings in Intensive Culture. The Progressive Fish Culturist, 60(1). 1-8.
Rach, J., & Ramsay, R. (2000). Analytical Verification of Waterborne Chemical Treatment Regimens in Hatchery Raceways. North American Journal of Aquaculture, 62(1). 60-66.
Rains, B. (2001, April 27). Plan to raise fish in cages rattles some scientists:
Golf coast consortium looks to technique tested in
Ramsay, J., Castell, J., Anderson, D., & Hebb, C. (2000). Effects of Fecal Collection Methods on Estimation of Digestibility of Protein Feedstuffs by Winter Flounder. North American Journal of Aquaculture, 62(3). 168-173.
Scialabba, N. (Ed.) (1998). Integrated coastal area management and agriculture,
forestry and fisheries. FAO Guidelines.
Shea, E. (2001) A History of NOAA. Retrieved
Stickney, R. R., & McVey, J. P. (Ed.) (2002). Responsible Marine
Aquaculture.
Trino, A., & Rodriguez, E. (2001) Pen culture of mud crabs Scylla serrata in tidal flats reforested with mangrove trees. Aquaculture, 211, 125-134.
United States Department of Agriculture Aquaculture. (1998). United States
Department of Agriculture Aquaculture Policy.
United States Department of Commerce. (1982). United States Department
of Commerce Aquaculture Policy.
Urban Aquaculture For The 21st Century (1997)
Van Houtte, A. (2001). Establishing legal, institutional and regulatory framework
for aquaculture development and management. In R.P. Subasinghe, P. Bueno, M.J.
Phillips, C. Hough, S.E. McGladdery & J.R. Arthur (Eds.), Aquaculture
in the Third Millennium. Technical Proceedings of the Conference on Aquaculture
in the Third Millennium,
Wellborn, T., & Brunson, M. (1997) Construction of Levee-type Ponds for Fish Production. SRAC, 101, 1-4.
Wijkstrom, U. (2001). Policy making and planning in aquaculture development
and management. In R.P. Subasinghe, P. Bueno, M.J. Phillips, C. Hough, S.E.
McGladdery & J.R. Arthur (Eds.), Aquaculture in the Third Millennium.
Technical Proceedings of the Conference on Aquaculture in the Third Millennium,
Yamamoto, T. (2001, April) Fundamental Difference in Fisheries Management
between the Western Countries and
The Offices of the National Sea Grant Program have organized this project to be completed for use by its parent organization, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The National Sea Grant Program originated as a division of the National Science Foundation, but, under the 1969 conclusions of the Stratton Commission, was proposed to become part of a more oceanic focused organization. After only a small revision to the plan made by the Stratton Commission, the organization NOAA was born and put under direction of the Department of Commerce.
NOAA hence became the new parent organization of the following programs:
· The Environmental Science Services Administration (ESSA) originally under the Department of Commerce
· The Bureau of Commercial Fisheries and parts of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, both originally under the Department of Interior
· The offices of the National Sea Grant Program originally a part of the National Science Foundation
· The mapping, charting, and research functions of the Army’s U. S. Lake Survey
·
The Navy’s
· The Marine Minerals Technology Center originally under the Department of Interior’s Bureau of Mines
·
The Navy’s
· The National Data Buoy Project originally under the Department of Transportation
The original programs, for which NOAA was instituted, became the core of the new organization. However, the decade following 1970 became a period of growth and redefinition, during which NOAA gained much of its authority and purpose. During this time period, a series of acts were passed by the government to protect and govern over the natural resources of the ocean and coastal areas. These acts helped to both expand and solidify the role of NOAA.
One of the most significant of these acts was the
Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MFCMA) passed in 1976. Due
to the large numbers of foreign fish captures off the
The Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 and the Endangered Species Act of 1973 redefined NOAA in yet another way. The combined result of these acts gave NOAA the responsibility of protection over almost all marine species. In support of this new responsibility, the necessary control measures were granted to regulate endangered species and support was provided through related research programs.
Through the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, the government appointed NOAA, in partnership with the coastal states, to form management and preservation plans for coastal zones. Each zone would establish a plan in accordance with the guidelines to be set by NOAA. Through financial assistance and additional incentives, these coastal zones have become almost entirely protected from abuse.
NOAA has also become the overseer of ocean pollution monitoring and research through the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 and the Ocean Pollution Research and Development and Monitoring Planning Act of 1978. The organization has since been the source of many investigations into the effects of oceanic dumping and pollution. NOAA has also become a financial source for outside programs for pollution research.
Though each of these acts provided dramatic steps in the development of NOAA, many small advancements have also helped to shape the organization. In many cases, emerging technologies and problems have become a new focus for research and a new branch for the organization. This has been the dominant mode of change since the legislation of the 1970’s. However, NOAA remains dedicated to its principles to predict environmental change, protect life and property, provide decision makers with reliable scientific information, and foster global environmental stewardship.
The National Sea Grant Program is a division of the
Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), which is a line office of
NOAA and serves as its research division. State Directors of the Sea Grant
Program review research project proposals through scientific review panels,
from universities and institutions across the country, and then fund the projects
they believe have the most potential to benefit the scientific community. Since
1995, Sea Grant projects have involved investigators from over 300 institutions.
In addition to gaining valuable scientific information, the National Sea Grant
Program provides a powerful educational experience to those students involved
with projects. Sea Grant provides funds for graduate and undergraduate education,
teacher training, K-12 curriculum development, marine policy fellowships in
Like many government agencies, the structure of NOAA is fairly complex. The hierarchy of offices is illustrated in figure A1.
Figure A1: Organizational Structure of NOAA
Appendix A References
Shea, E. L. (1987). Theberge, S. (1999). A History of NOAA: Compilation
of Facts and Figures Regarding the Life and Times of the Original Whole Earth
Society. Retrieved
Appendix B. IQP Information
The Interactive Qualifying Project (IQP) is a group project and a requirement for graduation from Worcester Polytechnic Institute. The IQP is intended to allow WPI students to understand how their careers will affect society. The IQP itself is a detailed report written using social science research techniques.
Our project for SeaGrant and NOAA qualifies as an IQP because the report requires extensive research into all aspects of society affected by the aquaculture industry. We must use social science research methods such as conducting interviews and doing archival research in order to become educated in the subject enough to fully explain what is affected by aquaculture industry and the reasons why they are affected by it.
Interview #1 – Angela Sanfilippo, Chairman of the Gloucester Fishermen’s Wives Association (GFWA)
The organization is thirty-two years old and was formed
by fishermen’s wives in response to the abundance of unused fish in the ocean.
Among its many functions, the GFWA fights for the protection of the environment
and the utilization of all available resources. Their cookbook, which was newly
revised in 1995, was one of their first projects and features recipes and uses
for lesser-known species of fish. In the 1980’s, they fought fisheries in
Interview #2 – Chris Basile – owner/operator
of Quarterdeck Fish Market and Restaurant,
Mr. Basile supplied a list of seafood distributors
in