Stakeholder Positions Relative to the
Aquaculture Industry of the United
States
An Interactive Qualifying Project Report
Submitted to the Faculty of
WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the
Degree of Bachelor of Science
Project Center:
Washington, D.C.
Term: B03
Sponsoring Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Project Advisors: Professors Biederman and Weaver
On-Site Liaison: Dr. James McVey
By
__________________________________
Jeffrey Budis
__________________________________
Vanessa Doto
__________________________________
Janet Moonan
December 17, 2003
1.
aquaculture
2.
fish farming
3.
risks and benefits
We would like to thank the following people for their contribution to the
development and completion of our project:
Our Advisors:
Professor Ronald Biederman
Professor Elise Weaver
All of the Sea Grant Staff, particularly:
Dr. James McVey
Jonathan Eigen
Jamie Krauk
Mary Robinson
Dr. Ron Baird
WPI Professors (for their initial help and direction):
Jeffrey Tyler, Biology Department
Jeanine Plummer, CEE Department
Executive Summary: Vanessa Doto
1. Introduction: Janet Moonan
2. Background: The entire team
3. Environmental Hazards: Janet Moonan
4. The Potential of Aquaculture: Jeffrey Budis
5. The Current Aquaculture Debate: The entire team
6. Methods: The entire team
7. Results: Vanessa Doto
8. Analysis: The entire team
9. Conclusions: The entire team
10. Recommendations: The entire team
11. Appendices:
A. NOAA: Janet Moonan
E: BMPs: Vanessa Doto
F: Analysis Criteria: Jeffrey
Budis
Remaining appendices written by the entire team.
This project was developed to provide the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration with an independent assessment of the stakeholder positions
on U.S. aquaculture. It was found that most non-government
organizations are in favor of environmentally and economically sustainable
aquaculture. Stakeholders ideally want a third party to oversee all U.S.
aquaculture operations. Appropriate science, guidelines, and management
will allow aquaculture to alleviate pressures on wild fish stocks, create
a year-round seafood supply, and be economically beneficial to the U.S.
Executive Summary
The United States seafood industry has
reached a pivotal point in its history. The growing human population is demanding
a large supply of seafood, but the source of wild stocks is declining. Consumers
demand seafood; aquaculture may be the only way to meet demands.
Aquaculture production has been growing in the United
States over the past 50 years,
and has recently reached its highest levels of production. However, the
increasing aquaculture production and the decreasing natural supply still
can not provide a large enough source for consumers. The United
States imports over $10 billion
dollars of seafood annually, far more seafood that it exports. There is
an ever-growing seafood trade deficit, currently reaching about $7-8 billion
dollars
United States
aquaculture industry is growing so slowly due to controversy over certain
issues. Many stakeholders, specifically non-government organizations, government
agencies, and industry groups, are concerned with harmful environmental
impacts and the inadequacy of proper science, guidelines, and management.
Aquaculture production can only progress after a resolution of these conflicts.
The goal of this project was to provide the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) with an independent assessment
of the positions of the various stakeholders related to U.S.
aquaculture and then explain what these positions mean to the developing industry
in the United States.
In order to meet this objective, we conducted archival research and
interviews. We found that most of the groups we interviewed are in favor
of aquaculture in the United
States, as long as it is done
in an environmentally sustainable manner. All groups interviewed believe
that current policy and regulation (related to aquaculture) are not sufficient
to protect environmental quality. To become a more profitable industry,
environmental issues need to be addressed through laws and regulations that
are uniform throughout the United
States.
Along with laws and regulations, best management practices should
be more uniformly implemented within aquaculture practices. These best
management practices should be developed by a combination of industry spokespeople
(both from conventional fishing and aquaculture practices) and NGOs.
We also found that most groups agree that aquaculture is a possible
way to alleviate pressures on wild stocks, but until the science proves
this point, it should not be the main reason for aquaculture to occur.
Resolution of these issues requires some compromises
and changes on behalf of all stakeholders. This project recommends that NOAA
holds a series of focus groups, in order to better understand various industry
and NGO viewpoints. One government agency should take the lead in aquaculture
law proposal, and NOAA would be the obvious choice to do this. One unified
NGO should be formed to work with the government law-making agency. This
NGO would incorporate all views from the many NGOs involved with U.S.
aquaculture. Since the public drives supply and demand, they should
be better informed about the risks and benefits of aquaculture practices.
Aquaculture has a tremendous potential in the United
States. Proposal of appropriate
policies, along with correct science and proper management, will allow this
economically important industry to progress in a beneficial and an environmentally
sustainable manner.
2.2.1 The Seafood Industry............................................................................................................................
13
Appendix G: American Fisheries
Society .....(not
included online)...................................................................
78
Appendix H: Blue Oceans Institute.........(not
included online).........................................................................
80
Appendix I: Conservation International....(not
included online)........................................................................
82
Appendix J: Environmental Defense.........(not
included online)........................................................................
84
Appendix K: Environmental Protection
Agency.........(not
included online)......................................................
87
Appendix L: International Association
of Fish and Wildlife Agencies....(not
included online).............................89
Appendix M: Louisiana State
University....(not
included online)......................................................................
91
Appendix N: Monterey Bay Aquarium
Seafood Watch Program......(not
included online)............................... 93
Appendix O: National Fisheries
Institute.....(not
included online)..............................................................
...... 96
Appendix P: National Marine
Fisheries Service.....(not
included online)..........................................................
98
Appendix Q: National Ocean Service.....(not
included online)........................................................................100
Appendix R: Pacific Coast Shellfish
Growers Association....(not
included online)...........................................102
Appendix S: Sea Grant......(not
included online)............................................................................................104
Appendix T: SeaWeb.......(not
included online).............................................................................................106
Appendix U: United States Department
of Agriculture......(not
included online)..............................................108
Appendix V: World Wide Fund
for Nature.....(not
included online)...............................................................110
The global seafood industry is at a pivotal point in history. As the human
population grows, the demand for seafood increases. However, the supply
of wild fish from the ocean is constantly decreasing, leaving the world
in search of new seafood provisions. In the year 2000, the Food and Agricultural
Organization of the United Nations (FAO) reported that 75% of the world's
major marine fisheries are either overexploited or fully exploited and cannot
be expected to yield any higher productions. In the three years since this
FAO report, wild fish numbers have further decreased. Aquaculture is one
means to alleviate this problem.
The 1980 National Aquaculture Act defines aquaculture as
“the propagation and rearing of aquatic species in controlled or selected
environments, including, but not limited to, ocean ranching.” Aquaculture
is subdivided by its location (i.e., onshore or offshore), the type of water
(i.e., saltwater, brackish water, or freshwater), and the seafood products
produced (i.e., finfish, crustacean, aquatic plants, etc.). There are many
combinations of these categories, and each presents various risks and different
benefits. Please see Appendix B for more information on aquaculture systems.
Many countries have experimented with aquaculture and some
have successfully produced the food necessary for a growing world population.
For instance, China currently
produces about 60% of the aquaculture products sold globally. But foreign
countries do not necessarily have environmental regulations that are as safe
as those in the United States
The United States began
aquaculture practices very recently in history compared to other countries.
The U.S. began farming
catfish in the 1950s (Murky Waters, 1997) and has only recently begun to
take a substantial role in this important industry. The U.S. is currently the world’s sixth largest producer of seafood
from aquaculture methods, but Americans consume very little of the amount
of aquaculture they produce.
The reasons why the aquaculture industry in the U.S.
is growing so slowly are complex. Controversy over certain environmental
issues as well as the inadequacy of laws and regulations to control this industry
have caused part of the delay. The federal and state governments in the have
placed strict codes and regulations on all industries that may be hazardous
to the environment, like aquaculture, thus making it difficult for new aquaculture
operations to be developed. Currently some government agencies, like NOAA,
are attempting to pass new laws or policies that will promote future aquaculture
practices that are environmentally sound, but as of December, 2003, there
are no new rules in place. Non-government organizations (NGOs), government
agencies, and industry spokespeople are engaged in a vigorous debate over
these upcoming policies.
The United States is very concerned about the environmental impacts that the aquaculture industry
creates. There are a wide range of impacts such as habitat destruction
and pollution. Aquaculture operations face heavy scrutiny from environmental
agencies because some types produce large amounts of waste and discharge
effluents into surrounding waters. The chemicals, hormones, and antibiotics
that many aquaculture facilities use can be harmful to humans and wild stocks
and therefore close regulation by the Department of Agriculture (USDA),
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) are important to future growth.
At this time the future of aquaculture in the U.S.
is unclear. The potential for successful growth depends on whether a number
of problems and constraints can be addressed. Advances in science and technology
alone cannot ensure a brighter future for this evolving industry. It is dependent
upon politics and regulations at the state and federal level that realistically
address environmental issues.
Aquaculture is one of the fastest growing food production
areas in the world, but is plagued by controversy over its environmental and
sociological effects. The history of the aquaculture industry and its current
status in the United States
and abroad in economic, environmental, and political terms is vital to understanding
the future of this important global industry.
The United States
is currently the fifth-largest fishing nation in the world (LeBlanc, 2003).
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) reported that the U.S. is both
the third-largest importer and exporter of seafood, with imports reaching
about $9.9 billion and exports reaching about $3.2 billion in 2001 (LeBlanc,
2003). Foreign imports currently supply seventy percent of the
U.S.
seafood industry (Watkins, 2002). The U.S.
seafood trade deficit has grown from a level of $3.6 billion in 1996 to the
current deficit level of $7-8 billion – practically double in eight years
(
www.noaanews.noaa.gov, 2003).
At this rate, if no action is taken, the seafood trade deficit will jump to
the range of $20 billion dollars by the year 2025.
This large seafood trade deficit accumulated over many years
due to the slow rate at which U.S.
aquaculture production grew. Aquaculture practices began in the United
States around the 1880s when oyster farming
was successfully accomplished, but it was not until the 1950s that aquaculture
became a major U.S.
ndustry with the advent of catfish farming.
According to Dr. Rebecca Goldburg, “U.S. aquaculture production has increased
by roughly 5 to 10 percent each year over the past decade and is projected
to keep growing rapidly in the coming years” (Something Fishy, 2000). While
aquaculture is currently the fastest growing segment of
U.S.
agriculture (Murky Waters, 1997), the United
States finds itself far behind other countries
in terms of production. Aquaculture is growing at a rate of ten percent annually
in other countries, while growth of this industry in the U.S.
is only about one percent per year.
The U.S.
lag is not due to the lack of technology or funding, but rather a fragmented
system of policies adopted by several state and federal agencies, with no
single federal agency having primary control. The National Aquaculture
Act of 1980 established the Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture (JSA) to set
aquaculture policy. However, because the JSA is comprised of a dozen federal
agencies, no single group has lead control over aquaculture in the U.S.
The numerous regulatory conflicts between the agencies serving on the JSA
have created a disjointed regulatory framework that has not encouraged growth
in this industry. NOAA, one of the agencies involved with the JSA, is working
with Congress to draft a new aquaculture law that will enable the expansion
of offshore aquaculture, specifically in the Exclusive Economic Zone
(EEZ), the ocean area that is generally three to 200 miles offshore the
United States.
In addition to the regulatory conflicts created by the JSA model, the
aquaculture industry has been slow in its U.S.
development because of environmental issues. Many environmental
action groups would like to see some regulations put forward to ensure that
if aquaculture expands in theU.S.,
it would prove to be a sustainable and environmentally friendly industry.
These organizations target big issues such as fishmeal and fish oil, nutrient
pollution, and genetic modification. They realize that “aquaculture need
not be a polluting industry” (Murky Waters, 1997), but cannot reach an agreeable
solution.
There are a variety of risks associated with aquaculture.
“The main environmental effects of aquaculture can be divided into five categories:
biological pollution, fish for fish feeds, organic pollution and eutrophication,
chemical pollution, and habitat modification” (Goldburg, Elliot, Naylor, 2001).
Risks tend to be specific to particular types of aquaculture operations, but
some generalizations can be made.
A serious environmental effect of aquaculture is biological
pollution and the introduction of non-indigenous species. The farmed stock
itself can be considered a form of pollution, because aquaculture facilities
accidentally or deliberately release farmed fish into the wild. The non-indigenous
species may carry diseases or parasites that are foreign to the native population.
They also may compete with native organisms for existing resources or alter
the food chain in that current system. Some farmed species have altered genes
in their DNA; these species can introduce potentially damaging new genes into
the wild. For example, interbreeding of farmed and wild fish can create transgenic
fish, i.e. fish that can adversely affect the genetic makeup and decrease
the fitness and survival rate of the wild populations. One way to prohibit
reproduction of transgenic fish may be to farm only sterile female fish, but
this technique has not yet been approved.
Certain types of aquaculture, such as shrimp and salmon farming, use very large
quantities of wild-caught fish as feed in the form of fishmeal or fish oil.
Fishmeal is a large component of feed given to carnivorous fish. A big concern
is that using fishmeal to feed farmed fish takes food away from natural stocks.
One common solution is to replace fishmeal with vegetable oil substitutes or
soy. However, this substitution can decrease fish growth rates, change fish
flavors and colors, and reduce beneficial concentrations of healthy material.
Disease and parasite transmission is also a problem
of major concern. Due to the high concentration of fish in an aquaculture
cage or pen, diseases and parasites can be transferred between one another
easily, and then be transmitted to native stocks. To reduce the transmission
of disease, farms may stock certified pathogen-free fish, reduce fish stress,
and filter effluents when possible. In some states, strict regulations are
in place, which involve the quarantine and testing of species for diseases
and parasites. Many states have also implemented disease testing and certification
programs for animals that are being imported.
The release of large quantities of nutrients poses a major pollution
problem to the oceans’ ecosystems. High nutrient concentrations result
from the release of certain compounds in fish wastes from aquaculture facilities,
which may adversely affect wild stocks. If these excessive nutrients spread
into nearby water, they may damage the water quality and create unwanted
algae or deadly organisms.
Antibiotics are often added to fish feed to help reduce
the mortality rate of the stock from bacterial diseases. Unfortunately, these
antibiotics pose several environmental threats, such as accumulation of antibiotics
in sediments and in fish and shellfish. These antibiotics can adversely affect
human consumers. The biggest threat is the possibility that bacteria can
develop a drug-resistant strain that could be passed on to humans or animals.
The FDA must approve any drugs used for aquaculture. This process is expensive,
time consuming, and current funding for new antibiotics is scarce.
Chemical pollution results from the leakage or dumping of biologically
disruptive chemicals into the environment. Herbicides and pesticides contribute
to chemical pollution. Eventually these chemicals can work their way through
the food chain, damaging many seafood populations.
Habitat modification caused by aquaculture sites also
negatively impacts the environment. Over time, eutrophication (the gradual
increase in the concentration of phosphorus, nitrogen, and other plant nutrients
in an aging aquatic ecosystem) greatly disrupts the ecosystem and can destroy
the wild stock population. Aquaculture developments sometimes change seabeds
or landscapes, and result in habitat destruction. Often the newly created
environment cannot sustain the natural balance, causing marine life to die
out or move to new areas.
For years, the aquaculture industry has been overshadowed by the negative
effects it can have on the environment when proper precautions and procedures
are not taken. Modern aquaculture also has been criticized by environmentalists
because it is still in its relative infancy. It lacks the same level of
support that its sister agriculture industries currently receive.
However, there is a great deal of good that can come from a safe, regulated,
and sustainable aquaculture industry. Because aquaculture is the fastest
growing segment of U.S.
agriculture, and its growth is expected to continue, it is important that
its benefits be maximized, but not at the expense of the environment.
The most prominent benefit of aquaculture is the ability
to mass-produce large quantities of seafood. In many ways, aquaculture is
similar to the current practice of raising terrestrial animals and agricultural
crops. Seafood produced through aquaculture can be bought and sold in the
United States’ domestic markets and can be exported to other countries around
the world.
Through aquaculture production, markets will no longer be dependent upon
a seasonal seafood supply. Many, if not all, species of farm-raised seafood
will be made readily available throughout the year, providing fresher seafood
and cheaper prices for the consumer.
The expansion of the U.S.
aquaculture industry could create jobs for many people, at aquaculture sites
and beyond. A demand for labor would be expected in all the associated industries,
such as packaging and processing, which would result in
a diversification of the seafood industry.
Seafood importation is the second largest contributor to our nation’s trade
deficit, after oil. If the United States
were to possess the capacity to produce large quantities of seafood through
aquaculture, its seafood trade deficit could be reduced significantly.
The U.S.
would no longer need to rely so heavily on foreign imports.
The industry itself is very cost effective. Though a good
deal of investment capital is required to get an aquaculture site operational,
the industry as a whole makes very good use of its resources. In recent years,
the public and scientific communities alike, have become increasingly conscious
of food conversion ratios, or the amount of protein consumed versus the protein
produced. However, ratios are often better for fish than for terrestrial
animals such as cattle, poultry, or swine. According to Gifford, aquaculture
has the lowest ratio at less than 2 lbs of fishmeal for every 1 lb of fish.
Poultry is second, with a ratio of more than 2:1. The ratio for pigs is greater
than 4:1. And beef sits last with a ratio that is roughly 7:1. When compared
to all types of agriculture, it is obvious that the aquaculture industry is
not as ineffective as formerly believed.
Seafood grown through aquaculture not only provides excellent sources of
protein, but also enables fish species to be available for reintroduction
into the wild, in lakes, rivers and streams, and into the ocean. Fish hatcheries
are already using stocks raised through aquaculture to supply lakes and
rivers, and occasionally for recreation.
Aquaculture complements traditional commercial fishing by reducing the
market dependence on wild-caught fish. However, enhancement through aquaculture must be paired with good fishery management. It is
critical to relieve pressure on wild stocks, and stabilizing or lowering
the amounts of fish that can be caught creates the opportunity to naturally
replenish their numbers. If commercial fishing is allowed to continue unrestricted,
fishermen will continue to deplete the ocean resources causing further problems.
The risks and benefits of aquaculture operations in the
United States have led to a heated debate between stakeholders. Because they
will gain or lose from development of this industry, every stakeholder brings
an opinion to the debate. These views often lead stakeholders to misrepresent
the facts to support their positions, especially on particularly heated issues
such as salmon and shrimp farming. Stakeholders who favor this industry often
do not understand the risks of the current aquaculture enterprise, while stakeholders
who oppose this industry fail to comprehend the benefits.
The stakeholders essential to the aquaculture debate can be categorized
into three main groups, each affecting the development of U.S.
aquaculture in a distinct way. First there are the government agencies
that are the policy and regulation makers. Second there are non-government
organizations, especially environmental action groups, that most directly
reach and influence the general public. There are also industry organizations
representing fishermen and fish farmers.
People involved in the seafood industry possess a wide range of outlooks
about aquaculture, depending upon their particular business sector. Due
to personal economic concerns, most fishermen tend to oppose aquaculture
operations, while fish farmers are in favor, because of their personal economic
gains.
Overall, the general public knows very little about aquaculture; most people
do not even distinguish whether the fish they eat are farmed or wild-caught.
But it is the public that most directly affects the demand for seafood,
and therefore affects the economic standing of fishermen and fish farmers.
Before any major expansion of the U.S. aquaculture industry
occurs, the undesirable effects must be resolved. Aquaculture is going to
take place in the U.S., no matter what; what is important is that it continues
in a sustainable and environmentally friendly manner.
The goal of this project was to provide NOAA with an independent
assessment of the positions of various stakeholders relative to U.S.
aquaculture and explain the impacts of these positions on the developing aquaculture
industry of the U.S.
To explore the environmental issues surrounding aquaculture, the project team
used two methods: archival research and interviews, the latter providing the
most effective way to gain insight into the aquaculture debate.
Archival research was conducted prior to any interviews. It included searching
websites, journals, books, and other printed materials for information about
aquaculture and the organizations involved in the industry. By doing archival
research first, the project team gained an initial familiarity with the
agencies and organizations to be interviewed, thus enabling the interviews
to be more efficient and effective.
The interviews were most helpful in identifying
key players’ viewpoints on aquaculture. Three categories of principle stakeholders
interviewed were: government organizations, NGOs, and industry spokespeople
(such as fishermen). To obtain interviews, the project team first sent emails
or made phone calls. Personal interviews were sought, but in cases where
they were unobtainable, questions were asked via email or phone.
Two sets of interview questions were used - one for NGOs and one for government
agencies. The questions, which appear and Appendices C and D, were tailored
slightly to better suite particular organizations or agencies, and in some
cases, to meet time constraints.
The process of drafting and editing, the interview questions
was an important step to ensure success during the interviews. Subtleties
in wording were critical; each person we interviewed must completely understand
the questions. The project team felt that, by expressing no opinions during
the interviews, it would elicit the true attitudes of those being interviewed.
To accomplish this goal, during face to face interviews team members took
turns asking questions and all members took notes. One team member asked
the questions and the other two took notes during telephone interviews. Emails
required no note taking, only analysis. Following all personal and telephone
interviews, all notes were compared and then typed up into interview transcripts.
The comparison of team members’ notes ensured the accurate recording of all
key words and phrases from interviews. Overall, the more objective the project
team was, the better its information will be for NOAA’s use.
Twenty-five groups were contacted throughout the project. Sixteen
groups were interviewed: five government agencies, nine NGOs, and two (PCSGA
and LSU) that did not fit into either of these categories. Two groups (Oldways
and PEW Oceans Commission) declined interviews but still provided some useful
information. A detailed account of the information ascertained from the
interviewing process is presented in this section. (For interview transcripts,
please see Appendices G through V.)
One thing discovered after doing a number of interviews was that
each person had a difficult time giving his or her agency’s opinion; often
times they could only provide their personal views. Each person interviewed
had a substantial input into publications, policies, and activities that
occur at their respective agency or organization; so to some degree what
we received was a part of the organization’s opinion.
Table 1
: List of Groups Interviewed
The American Fisheries Society (AFS) is the oldest
non-profit organization in the United
States. It is currently composed of roughly 9000 members from all around the
world. These members come from government fish and wildlife agencies, academia,
and the fishing industry. Its primary mission is directed at helping to establish
sustainable fisheries as well as healthy environments.
The AFS supports aquaculture and its continued development. It realizes
that demands for seafood are rising and views aquaculture as a solution
to meeting this demand. However, AFS wants best science practice and better
techniques to be researched and implemented within the industry. It wants
the focus on scientific research, which will lead to better aquaculture
practices, and believes that federal and state regulations must be taken
further. AFS also suggests health monitoring systems and higher standards
emphasizing food safety. One interesting concept mentioned in the interview,
which was not heard from other organizations, was that of teaching good
aquaculture curricula in the schools in order to promote better science.
The AFS views the aquaculture industry as very beneficial
and one that will continue expanding. It believes that the United
States is headed in the right
direction to make the industry sustainable and viable, but that much work
still needs to be done. To that end, it urges the government
to promote consistent guidelines that incorporate input from individual states.
Bambi Semroc, who works in the Center for Leadership division of the Conservation
International (CI), said CI works to protect biodiversity hot spots around
the world. These hot spots dictate where they operate and conduct their research.
Currently there are 30 field offices that work closely with fish farmers.
CI’s involvement with aspects of the aquaculture industry only occurs if a
CI team is called to a hot spot that may have an aquaculture site, or be adjacent
to one.
The threats that trigger CI action include environmental
risks that CI associates with aquaculture. These include mangrove destruction,
fishmeal and fish oil, biodiversity pollution and antibiotics. One of CI’s
current projects involves assisting the shrimp industry in
Mexico,
where it is working to buy out trawlers and to keep the industry clean and
environment friendly.
CI is also conducting research at its headquarters to develop standards
regarding aquaculture’s “good” and “bad” aspects. CI views the risk of
aquaculture to be the environmental hazards, and the benefits to be the
industry’s ability to provide an economical source of seafood for U.S.
consumers. Cultured fish can be farmed all year long for a plentiful source
of protein. Ms. Semroc added that CI is also researching the
potential for aquaculture to provide relief for wild stocks, but has yet
to be form an opinion on that issue. She noted that, although aquaculture
has not yet helped replenish the wild fish numbers, it plays a major role
in certain areas of the industry, for example catfish raised in Mississippi’s
fresh ponds farming industry. This CI representative gave
the aquaculture industry a “mostly neutral” rating, but added that, with
further research and more scientific investigation, aquaculture could be
extremely helpful in taking the pressure off of wild, caught fish. She also
felt that imports of seafood produced through aquaculture were very important
to the U.S.
economy since they could supplement production from the U.S.
domestic seafood industry.
Environmental Defense (EDF) is one of the nation’s leading environmental
advocacy groups. It seeks to protect the nation’s resources through fair
and economic means. Primarily a science-driven organization, EDF examines
various environmental problems and works to develop solutions that will
gain support from interested groups. Its goal is to remain as neutral as
possible in order to be as fair as possible.
Tim Fitzgerald of EDF’s Oceans Department told the project team that
most of that department’s work relates to the most prevalent items in the
current seafood market, many of which come from the aquaculture industry.
It examines different types of seafood produced through aquaculture processes,
and measures them against EDF’s criteria. EDF does not view aquaculture
as entirely bad and has devoted fulltime staff to this area.
According to Fitzgerald, technological advances in the aquaculture
industry are developing rapidly, but while they may be more efficient, such
advances may not be better. EDF supports establishing broad, all-encompassing
policies governing aquaculture, but recognizes the challenge given the many
different types of aquaculture, which exist. EDF wants standards developed
from input of industry and environmental groups, and then implemented by
the government. Mr. Fitzgerald noted that guidelines are not always followed
by industry because they did not have a hand in their development. EDF
is encouraged to see that the aquaculture industry is starting to come forward
and to seek help to demonstrate that they are trying to conduct their operations
in a sound environmental manner. EDF also believes that best management
practices must be adopted by the industry.
EDF realizes that people are going to eat seafood, and to suggest,
“don’t eat these things,” is a near-impossible task. Instead, EDF recommends
better options and that the U.S. government focuses
on its domestic seafood production and support the promotion of better practices.
7.3.4 The International Association
of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
The International Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies (IAFWA) is a member-based organization consisting of public fish
and wildlife agencies throughout the United
States and Canada.
It represents its members, coordinates policy, and helps to promote and
establish positive multi-state conservation initiatives. Most IAFWA members
are in charge of hatcheries and fisheries. The organization also sits on
the JSA as an adjunct member and seeks to ensure that aquaculture is conducted
in an environmentally friendly manner. Though not a federal agency, its
members work closely with state and local government to help establish guidelines.
As an organization directly involved with the primary managers of
the nation’s fish and wildlife, the IAFWA is very interested in the potential
effects that aquaculture may have on natural habitats. In turn, it sees
aquaculture as a possible solution to the current problem of depleted natural
fish stocks, acknowledging that restoration benefits are tremendous. However,
the IAFWA also recognizes that eutrophication is a top industry concern.
The IAFWA believes the current aquaculture industry
has concerns that need to be addressed, and that new policies and enforcement
systems need to be considered as technology advances in this industry. It
also supports establishing a partnership of state and federal agencies to
bring available expertise to ensure that the industry operates in a responsible
manner.
7.3.5 Monterey
Bay
Aquarium
The Monterey Bay Aquarium’s (MBA) Seafood Watch Program mission is
to “shift the buying habits of seafood consumers and purveyors to support
sustainable fisheries and aquaculture options” (Jennifer Dianto. Internet
Interview. 1 Dec 2003.). MBA creates awareness about the sustainability
of seafood sources while developing regional and national seafood recommendations.
The group also hopes to “strengthen their research base and make it more
accessible to the public” (Jennifer Dianto. Internet Interview. 1 Dec 2003.).
The MBA’s Seafood Watch Program wants to produce safe, sustainable, well- regulated
aquaculture products. While they believe that aquaculture does have a “tremendous
opportunity to maintain a supply of seafood while relieving pressure on wild
fish” in an environmentally friendly way, they feel that one of the biggest
problems with the U.S.
aquaculture industry is its lack of “consistent standards” in regulations.
They call for “smart growth” (Jennifer Dianto. Internet Interview. 1 Dec 2003 ). Dianto said “any standards
should be set with a window to adjust those standards to best respond to new
information.”
MBA’s Seafood Watch Program targets the public with its informational packets
on “Best Choice” seafood. These recommendations are based on the MBA’s Seafood
Watch Program’s criteria for sustainable aquaculture.
The National Fisheries Institute (NFI) is a trade association for
the fish and seafood industry. It works in conjunction with a wide variety
of businesses, from as small as single-family business to as large as multinational
corporations. NFI promotes an ample and sustainable industry. It helps
its partners succeed in the seafood market by providing technical expertise
and running seminars as well as disseminating information and literature
on technological advances, industry developments and other useful reports.
NFI works primarily as a science and technology group.
Its pro-aquaculture stance comes from a recognition that aquaculture has become
a more prominent part of the seafood industry and will grow in importance
in the years to come. NFI sees tremendous potential for the industry in the
United States,
but feels it is being thwarted by regulations. It believes that current policy
is sufficient, but also recognizes that more needs to be done in areas like
the EEZ. In NFI’s opinion, aquaculture is an important way to compliment
traditional commercial fishing practices, and the industry must take a leading
role in the development of guidelines for it.
7.3.7 Pacific
Coast
Shellfish Growers Association
Shellfish aquaculture is different from other aquaculture, because
shellfish are filter feeders and, therefore, are not “fed.” These aquatic
animals clean water by their filtering, and fertilize sea grasses with their
feces. The Pacific Coast Shellfish Growers Association (PCSGA) oversees
all shellfish production on the Pacific coast. The project team spoke with
Robin Downey to ascertain her organization’s positions and viewpoints on
aquaculture.
The Pacific coast shellfish industry is comprised
mostly of oysters growers, with some clam and mussel production. This industry
began about 130 years ago, with the farming of the Olympia Oyster, a native
species that had been critically depleted due to over-harvesting and pollution.
In the 1920s, the Japanese Schick Oyster was brought over from Japan
and became the new major crop. One of the pitfalls of shellfish
farming is the introduction of non-native species. Downey
said that, in the past, invasive species have been a problem. The Spartina,
an invasive weed from the East coast, has taken over many estuaries. At this
point, regulations are quite strict and no new invasive species have been
known to enter the ecosystem.
The PCSGA believes that the huge seafood trade deficit can
be partially alleviated by shellfish farming. Shellfish have a high protein
concentration and very low fat, and do not cause as many controversial environmental
problems as other forms of aquaculture, so they are a good option for future
seafood demand.
The PCSGA considers itself extremely in favor of
aquaculture in the United States. Downey
says, “the fact of the matter is that we need to feed people and fish are
a healthy food source.” She believes that there is room for improvement in
the aquaculture industry, but overall that it is pretty safe. We need to
further develop safe and sustainable ways to produce seafood, which is very
important to the economy of the United
States. People need to realize
that a broader look needs to be seen. The aquaculture industry needs to be
compared to land-based farming. There is less harm to the natural environment
with seafood farming, she said.
The mission of SeaWeb is to raise awareness of environmental
impacts, good and bad, and encourage a sustainable aquaculture industry.
According to Brendan O’Neill of SeaWeb’s clearinghouse, SeaWeb believes that
there is a need for aquaculture, but the industry must be operated in an environmentally
sound and sustainable manner. In order to gain this sustainable industry,
SeaWeb believes that a third party needs to be brought in to help sort out
the conflicting viewpoints and propose policies that will drive the industry
to sustainability. SeaWeb currently feels that
U.S.
regulations and policies are inadequate to preserve environmental quality.
All policies point toward development of the aquaculture industry, but none
take into consideration any of the environmental hazards of pollution, invasive
species disease, nutrient wastes, habitat destruction, risk to the commercial
industry, and a decline in coastal property.
SeaWeb also views the benefits of aquaculture to be economic ones,
including an expanded and healthier seafood supply and more jobs for the
public. This organization distributes material both through its website
(www.seaweb.org)
and through the mail to inform the public, government, other organizations,
and the commercial fishing industry about SeaWeb’s positions on aquaculture
in the United States.
Katherine Bostick, an aquaculture and agriculture researcher at the
World Wildlife, explained that the WWF’s mission is to preserve the environment’s
biodiversity and to promote conservation nationwide. WWF works with industry
ecologists, producers of farmed aquatic animals, and consumers. Concentrating
on such seafood industries as shrimp, tilapia, trout, catfish, aboline mussels,
scallops, and seaweed, WWF is trying to encourage these industries in adopting
certifications, such as ecolabeling, to help promote environmentally friendly
seafood.
WWF believes that the risks of aquaculture vary with each of the different
species. For example, from its work with the tilapia industry, WWF learned
that this fish often escapes into the wild, and can become an invasive species
because they can thrive in almost any quality of water. WWF has concerns
about the fish feed used in the aquaculture industry, specifically shrimp
and salmon production.
WWF’s Bostick also said that, aside from the risks, aquaculture is a great
source of food production, is the only way to meet the growing U.S.
demand for seafood, and can combat the diminishing sources of wild harvest
fish. WWF believes that; if aquaculture methods are followed in both an environmentally-
and socially-friendly manner, the industry can help bring jobs and economic
prosperity to poor U.S. communities. She cited
the catfish industry in Louisiana
and Mississippi,
which has significantly improved the lives of underprivileged individuals
by providing local jobs and a low-cost source of food. She said
WWF is aware of the controversies surrounding the aquaculture industry, but
believes they all can be corrected and feels that with proper controls, aquaculture
has more potential then commercial fishing to produce an environmentally friendly
ecosystem.
While Ms. Bostick works abroad for WWF, and is not familiar with the specifics
of legislation under development to change the aquaculture regulatory structure,
she said her organization feels loopholes in the current regulatory framework
should be closed. WWF supports best management practices for the aquaculture
industry; and recommends that an independent entity or consultant work with
other NGOs and federal agencies to update certain aquaculture policies and
guidelines and to operate an improved certification process. WWF believes
that the certification process should not be controlled by the aquaculture
industry, as is the current situation. Ms. Bostick provided some handouts
and directed the project team to the website: www.enaca.org/shrimp
for some more information.
The Blue Ocean Institute (BOI), formerly part of Audubon Society,
is dedicated to developing practical solutions to our world’s conservation
challenges. BOI wants sustainability in the aquaculture industry.
Carrie Brownstein said BOI rates some aquaculture methods as better than
others, and supports methods that are sustainable. Using criteria for sustainability
developed in cooperation with Environmental Defense, BOI evaluates aquaculture
systems and then decides whether or not to support each type. While BOI
believes that aquaculture is a growing industry “there is no sense in not
acknowledging that,” says Ms. Brownstein. (Carrie Brownstein. Phone Interview.
5 Dec 2003.) It also strives to influence the aquaculture methods
used. BOI runs a seafood consumer education program that publishes a seafood
mini guide. The guide advises consumers about the types of seafood that
BOI feels should be purchased. Thus, BOI feels it can shift market sales
for certain seafood by targeting public information to businesses and consumers,
and use the changed public attitudes to force change in the aquaculture
industry. Industry will not thrive on specific types of aquaculture that
are not profitable, Ms. Brownstein explained.
BOI’s concerns match those of other environmental groups: fish feed,
impacts on wild fish stocks, chemicals, water quality, and invasive species.
But it also sees aquaculture’s great potential, including such benefits
as relieving pressure on wild stocks, improved water quality, and economic
payoffs. BOI also believes that the U.S.,
although ahead of the rest of the world, is still lacking a coherent federal
industry regulation. Best management practices need to be applied to industry,
where they will have the most impact.
7.3.11 Louisiana
State
University
Research Station
For many years, John Hargreaves has taught aquaculture
methods and conducted research studies on aquaculture in Louisiana
and Mississippi.
He noted that Mississippi
“has the largest aquaculture industry in the U.S.,
which is catfish.” (John Hargreaves. Phone Interview. 21 Nov 2003) He
believes that the aquaculture industry in the U.S.
has a “good sense of morality and people are trying to do the right
thing.” He also believes that the perceptions of risk are far out of balance
with reality, and need to be weighed against scientific fact.
Professor Hargreaves also said that fish tend to be more efficient
than terrestrial animals at converting protein and fishmeal, which is beneficial
to fish farmers and consumers. Other benefits are economically based; local
communities in his area rely heavily on this industry for jobs and food.
He is unsure whether farmed fish will help replenish the wild stocks.
