Back to PCFFA Fishermen's News Archive
David Arnold, a historian, wrote in his recent book The Fishermen's Frontier: People and Salmon in Southeast Alaska that despite the recent record catches in the Alaska salmon industry, the industry remains in a state of crisis due to the rise of the global salmon farming industry. Although Arnold writes that his book is not a "postmortem" of the salmon fishing industry in southeast Alaska and elsewhere, it is clear that he believes "some kind of structural reorganization of the salmon fishery will combine permit buybacks, co-ops..., and the implementation of individual fishing quotas and community fishing quotas" as a result of the continued competition from the global salmon farming industry.
Other observers are not as measured as David Arnold in their assessment of how aquaculture will affect the fishing industry. While David Arnold predicts management changes and changes in marketing (things that are already occurring), it is common to hear at aquaculture conferences (not surprisingly) and seafood sustainability conferences, about the imminent demise of capture fisheries. An air of inevitability always pervades these assessments based on the simple calculus of: 9 billion people by 2050 plus declining stocks of fish worldwide equals expanded aquaculture production and the end of wild fisheries.
Never mind that aquaculture still relies heavily on wild fish for fish meal despite the best efforts of fish nutritionists, or that the aquaculture industry is far more interested in developing high value fish such as blue fin tuna (Clean Seas Tuna Ltd. in Australia will begin production soon), halibut, and blackcod than fish that will feed the world. Aquaculturists tend to roll their eyes when you suggest they should raise tilapia and other low trophic (and low value) plant-eating fish. These things don't enter into their economic equation.
Aquaculture is driving many of the changes in the fishing industry because of declining ex-vessel prices on aggregate for wild fish (there are many exceptions of course). The spread of disease and the threat of escapes from fish farms, in addition to their reliance on forage fish, could affect the fishing industry as profoundly as competition already has. However, as any seafood or fishing industry observer can tell you, the future of the fishing industry is inextricably linked to the continued development of the aquaculture industry.
Fisheries managers have begun to respond to the new realities of the seafood market by redesigning management structures that will enable fisheries to remain profitable in the new marketplace. The renewed push for "catch shares," community fishing associations, co-ops, and co-management cannot be properly understood without taking into account the effect that aquaculture has had on the fishing industry. Likewise, the competition from aquaculture has also driven the efforts by fishermen to market their products directly, locally, and as niche products.
In 2008, Oregon State University and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) sponsored a conference in Newport, Oregon to explore the idea of developing offshore aquaculture in the Pacific Northwest. For many of the environmental and fishing groups engaged in the aquaculture policy debate, the conference was little more than a "NOAA dog and pony show" to promote offshore aquaculture by promising jobs to coastal communities while downplaying the environmental impacts of the industry.
The conference, which was moderated by aquaculture advocates, quickly descended into conflict and recriminations between environmental groups and aquaculture industry representatives that threatened to disrupt the orderly proceedings of the conference. Environmentalists and aquaculture industry representatives both accused each other of distorting evidence regarding the environmental impact of aquaculture. Fishermen and fishing groups joined the fracas following unfair and distorted portrayals of their industry.
Seeking to assuage the fears of fishermen in the audience and to restore a measure of decorum to the proceedings, Randy Cates, a former commercial fisherman who now runs a fish farm in Hawaii, told the audience during a panel discussion that "there will always be a fishing industry as long as there are fish." Cates' comment was a bid for rapprochement between the aquaculture and fishing industries under the banner of a unified seafood industry. It was also a good point.
The commercial fishing industry will continue to operate alongside aquaculture, despite what the alarmists may say at NGO conferences. For instance, wild salmon fisheries continue to coexist with farmed salmon -- but the markets are quite different from what they were 20 years ago. As Gunnar Knapp, an economist for the University of Alaska, has shown, farmed salmon took over the middle of the market for salmon and pushed some species of salmon, such as king and in some cases sockeye and silvers, to the top and the rest to the bottom of the market. This market differentiation did not happen on its own, but was the result of the salmon fishing industry in Alaska and on the West Coast marketing their fish differently.
Cates' comment did not address, however, what the future commercial fishing industry will look like. True it will still exist, but in what form? Will "catch share" management be the only viable way for fishermen to make a living, as NOAA and some NGOs believe? Or will there be a more diverse range of options for fishing communities to choose from in order to adapt to the new realities of the market as David Arnold suggested?
Indeed the twin policy and regulatory goals of NOAA to implement both "catch share" programs and offshore aquaculture are two sides of the same coin. The real question is not whether or not the fishing industry can survive aquaculture, but how will it change in order to adapt to the continued development of the aquaculture industry?
That question cannot be answered without first looking at how the aquaculture industry is likely to be regulated here in the United States, where changes in the way aquaculture is regulated are likely to occur. In short, what is the future of the aquaculture industry in the United States, and how is it likely to affect the commercial fishing industry?
Before we take a look at the possible regulatory changes in the United States, it will be worthwhile to take a quick survey of the how the aquaculture policy debate is shaping up around the world. In response to the outbreak of disease in Chile and the growing awareness of the sea lice problem in British Columbia, the global salmon farming industry itself may be on the verge of some reforms.
Much was made last summer over a comment that John Fredriksen, Marine Harvest's controlling shareholder, made about the placement of salmon farms. He said that salmon farms should not be located on salmon rivers. To advocates of salmon aquaculture reform it was an astonishing statement. The largest shareholder of the largest salmon farming company in the world made a comment that seemed to indicate that the company would be open to reforms.
Marine Harvest does have salmon farms located on rivers where wild salmon runs exist both in British Columbia and Norway. Salmon aquaculture reform advocates seized on the comment but in the end not much came of it.
But salmon aquaculture reform advocates have kept up the pressure. In May 2009, the "Pure Salmon Campaign" (the Institute for Fisheries Resources is a partner of that campaign) sponsored a trip of salmon aquaculture reform advocates to Norway to attend the shareholder meetings of Marine Harvest and Cermaq and to meet with Norwegian government officials on these issues.
Alexandra Morton, a biologist and a prominent salmon aquaculture reform advocate from British Columbia, was one of the participants. In addition to attending the shareholder meetings, she met with the boards of Marine Harvest and Cermaq, toured fjords with fishermen, met with Norwegian salmon aquaculture reform advocates and Norwegian scientists. On her tour she was surprised to learn that Norwegian salmon farms are having increasing problems with sea lice infestations. She reported that sea lice in Norway are becoming increasingly resistant to the drugs used to get rid of them. Yet even with growing evidence of the impact that their operations are having on wild salmon populations, the Boards of the salmon farming companies that she met with did not indicate that there would be any major changes in their operations.
Despite this resistance the NGO pressure on Norwegian fish farming companies appears to be making some headway. While in Norway the Pure Salmon Campaign called on Norwegian salmon farming companies to reform their environmental performance by separating farmed fish from wild fish and finding new sources of feed.
Perhaps the most successful part of the Pure Salmon Campaign's visit to Norway was a trip to a closed containment salmon farm. Preline Fish Farming company has developed a pilot project for a self contained farm system that is in the ocean. It takes in water for the operation of the unit from a depth of 75 feet, an area too deep for sea lice to survive. The waste water is then pumped onshore and treated before it is returned to the ocean. By highlighting new technologies that avoid many of the pitfalls of open net pen salmon farming, the Pure Salmon Campaign could have a large impact on the way salmon farming is conducted in the future.
Meanwhile in British Columbia, the debate rages on over the regulation of salmon aquaculture. On 9 February 2009, after almost two decades of Provincial control, the British Columbia Supreme Court has placed the responsibility for salmon farm regulation on Canada's Federal Crown Government. Twelve months ago the British Columbia Supreme Court ruled the B.C. regulation of fish farms to be unlawful, unconstitutional and void.
That key ruling redefined B.C. fish farming as an extension of Canada's fisheries, rather than a division of agriculture. The B.C. Supreme Court's ruling is the product of Alexandra Morton's case brought against the provincial government of B.C. and Marine Harvest.
The anti-salmon farming activist's case successfully asked that the statutory provisions of B.C.'s Aquaculture Regulatory Regime -- sections 13(5) and 26(2)(a) of the Fisheries Act (B.C.) -- be ruled unconstitutional and no longer be applied based on section 52 of the Canadian Constitution. Section 52 of Canada's Constitution deems that the countries' fisheries are under the Federal Crown's jurisdiction and cannot be delegated to the Provinces. The B.C. Court suspended the ruling for 12 months to provide Ottawa with the time necessary to introduce any necessary legislation. Now that the B.C. Supreme Court's ruling is in effect, however, there are strong concerns as to whether the Canadian federal government in Ottawa is actually ready to manage B.C. fish farms.
Hundreds of B.C. fisherman submitted a petition to the British Columbia Fisheries Minister and the Pacific Director General of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans regarding the regulatory status of aquaculture farms. The petition demands that the federal government should hold fish farms to the same standards as the commercial fishing sector. This petition comes after the B.C. Supreme Court's February 2009 ruling.
The petition also asks for a number of immediate measures to protect wild salmon populations and increase transparency within the B.C. aquaculture industry. Since the B.C. aquaculture operations are now to be federally regulated, the fishermen want the federal department to enforce the Fisheries Act. Under that Act, observers and cameras will be required during deliveries of aquaculture salmon to watch for by-catch of wild fish species. To further increase transparency, the group has called for fish cleaning stations to be monitored for the presence of wild fish in each farmed fish's digestive tract. They also say that vessels transporting farmed fish should be licensed like commercial fishing boats and submerged lights on underwater pens should be removed to prevent wild species from being drawn to the nets.
In Chile the outbreak of disease has ravaged the salmon farming industry. The spread of Infectious Salmon Anemia (ISA) has led to a 50% reduction in production of salmon in 2009 and has cost the jobs of nearly 20,000 workers. The Chilean government has approved new regulations to its fisheries laws aimed at preventing the outbreak and spread of ISA. The new regulations will reorganize the way salmon farms are located and also will require salmon farms to be stocked at lower densities.
The salmon farming industry is undergoing regulatory changes to meet more stringent environmental guidelines. The changes in the way the salmon farming is regulated around the world is likely to have a large impact on the aquaculture policy debate in the United States. Salmon farming remains the quintessential example of aquaculture around the world. Changes in regulations regarding placement, stocking densities and feed requirements are likely to get the attention of American policy makers, especially as the United States weighs developing uniform standards governing offshore aquaculture.
On 28 January 2009, the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council voted for a Fishery Management Plan (FMP) to regulate offshore marine aquaculture in the Gulf of Mexico, despite widespread outcries from the public and private sector organizations including PCFFA. The Council voted 15-11 in favor of allowing offshore aquaculture within the federally regulated Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), which extends from 3 to 200 miles offshore. According to Rick Leard, who is the Council's Deputy Director, the plan represents the culmination of six years of comprehensive studies.
The new proposed Aquaculture FMP would make the Gulf of Mexico EEZ the first coastal waters in the U.S. to develop a permitting system for open ocean fish farming. Proponents of the plan assert that this open ocean aquaculture would reduce America's dependence on seafood imports by producing 64 million pounds of marine finfish a year, relieve pressure on overfished local fish populations, and help the nation gain a greater foothold in the growing global aquaculture business. Amberjack, red snapper, and other native Gulf finfish would be raised in these offshore aquacultures.
Despite the arguments from aquaculture supporters for a green light on aquaculture in the Gulf of Mexico, there is still strong concern that the Council's decision was made prematurely. In a letter signed by over 112 conservation organizations, consumer organizations, fishing groups, seafood businesses, independent scientists, and other concerned parties, opponents to the plan argued that the "Aquaculture FMP would establish a harmful precedent for regulating offshore aquaculture when future plans for national legislation under a new Administration, a new Congress, and a new leadership at NOAA are unresolved."
The letter also addressed concerns that the Aquaculture FMP is not in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Endangered Species Act guidelines, that theGulf Council and NOAA don't have the legal authority under the Magnuson Stevens Act to develop a permitting system for aquaculture in the EEZ, and that the standards of the Aquaculture FMP are not strong enough to adequately protect surrounding environments and the communities that depend on them.
Congressmen Nick Rahall, Chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, agreed with many of the concerns of the conservation and fishing groups. In particular, Rahall questioned whether the fisheries Councils and NOAA have sufficient authority under the Magnuson Stevens Act to regulate aquaculture adequately. On 3 February 2009, Congressman Rahall sent a strongly worded letter to the Secretary of Commerce that stated that "Congress did not intend for the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to grant authority to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Regional Fishery Management Councils to regulate offshore aquaculture as fishing under the Act." Rahall also noted his opposition to the "haphazard approach to the development of an offshore aquaculture permitting system on a Council by Council basis."
On 4 June 2009, the Federal Register published the Gulf Council's proposed rule to regulate offshore aquaculture in the Gulf of Mexico as a Fishery Management Plan. The proposed rule can be found at http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-13090.pdf. Public comment is due by 5 August 2009.
At this point it is unclear whether or not the Gulf Council's action will pass legal muster. Some conservation groups are reportedly gearing up for a legal challenge should the FMP pass. As Congressman Rahall's comments attest, there is substantial opposition to the Gulf Council's Aquaculture FMP at to both legality and implementation.
It is unclear where the Obama Administration stands on the issue, but on 23 April 2009 the new Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke announced before a Senate Committee that the Obama Administration plans to develop federal fish farming regulations under the auspices of NOAA. Presumably the Obama Administration supports developing uniform federal legislation rather than developing aquaculture standards on a piecemeal basis through the regional fisheries Councils.
The Bush Administration inserted language into the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that would have allowed for "alternate uses" on existing and future conventional and alternative offshore energy facilities (i.e., offshore oil platforms). In a proposed 2008 rule, the Minerals Management Service (MMS) interpreted aquaculture operations as an "alternate use." The publication of the proposed rule drew widespread criticism from environmental, consumer, and fishing groups including both PCFFA and the Institute for Fisheries Resources. These groups saw the proposed rule as a back door way to allow for unregulated aquaculture in federal waters without proper oversight as well as a way for the oil industry to defer (or simply escape) its current legal obligations to remove abandoned offshore oil platforms and clean up the environmental messes they made.
Conservation and fishing groups and some in Congress argued that aquaculture operations should not be allowed in the EEZ until proper national regulations are developed. These groups also argued that MMS was not the proper agency to regulate aquaculture given its complete lack of expertise in the field.
In early 2009 the Obama Administration Department of the Interior announced that it would not allow aquaculture on abandoned energy platforms absent federal regulation on aquaculture. This was an important victory for conservation, consumer, and fishing groups since MMS rule would have created a loophole for unregulated aquaculture in federal waters. Secretary Gary Locke also signaled that the Obama Administration plans on tapping NOAA as the agency in charge of regulating aquaculture.
There have been two federal bills regarding the regulation of aquaculture in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (3-200 miles offshore) to date. Both bills failed to pass out of subcommittee, in part over environmental and socioeconomic concerns raised by environmental, consumer, and fishing groups.
However, it is likely that the Obama Administration will put forward national legislation of its own, in part to address the Gulf Council's FMP and in order to assure that there are uniform national standards rather than a patchwork of regulatory structures.
The development of national standards and national legislation presents an important opportunity and challenge for fishing groups and environmental groups to assure that federal standards and regulations for open ocean aquaculture meet proper environmental standards and take into account the socioeconomic concerns of coastal communities.
Environmental and fishing groups will no doubt continue to insist on adequate environmental safeguards in order to avoid many of the mistakes other countries have made. Furthermore, environmental and fishing groups will continue to insist that aquaculture develop new alternatives to forage fish-based feed and develop an industry that can produce fish with no net protein loss.
Fishing groups and environmental groups are also calling on NOAA to act as the lead agency in any new national aquaculture legislation. NOAA is the only organization capable of coordinating the activities of different agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration that will likely be involved in the industry. It is imperative that one agency with the proper expertise have jurisdiction over aquaculture.
Fishing and environmental groups had asked for these things to be a part of both prior national bills. It is time, however, to add another feature to any national legislation and that is a policy to develop shore-based closed containment aquaculture.
The technology for closed containment aquaculture systems that re-circulate water have been developing rapidly and are already in commercial use. When there is a viable alternative to open ocean aquaculture already available, fishing groups and environmental groups should insist on a policy that explores this option further.
There can be a different way forward with aquaculture. The United States does not have to repeat the environmental mistakes that other countries made when they developed aquaculture. A national policy that considers shore-based systems as a first priority could go a long way towards developing truly sustainable aquaculture.
Dr. Jane Lubchenco, the new NOAA Administrator, has stated that she is not ready to rule out offshore aquaculture while at the same time noting that she will push for stronger environmental safeguards. It is important for fishing groups and environmental groups to hold NOAA to their rhetoric that they employ in the promotion of aquaculture. If NOAA is serious about developing sustainable aquaculture that can really address the supposed "seafood deficit" and make up for loss of wild catches, then NOAA needs to seriously consider developing a shore-based aquaculture industry over which it has jurisdiction.
It is imperative that fishing groups and environmental groups continue to weigh in on the aquaculture policy debate. Much will be decided in the next few years that will likely set in place a regulatory framework that will govern the industry for decades.
Fishermen and the fishing industry stand to lose a lot if regulating aquaculture is not done right. The fishing industry will be able to adapt to the aquaculture industry, but only if that aquaculture is regulated with proper environmental safeguards, takes into account the socioeconomics of coastal communities, and continues to explore the possibility of moving to closed containment systems on shore.
The United States shouldn't be in the position of Chile or British Columbia of having to revisit rules and regulations governing the industry twenty years down the road. The fishing industry will continue to exist alongside aquaculture, but the way the fishing industry will look in the future depends an awful lot on how the aquaculture industry is regulated in the next few years.
Nate Grader is Director of the Aquaculture Reform Program for the Institute for Fisheries Resources, PCFFA's sister organization, working out of IFR's San Francisco Office. He can be reached at Institute for Fisheries Resources at PO Box 29196, San Francisco, CA 94129-0196, USA, or by phone to (415)561-3474, Ext. 227, or by email to ngrader@ifrfish.org.