Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Environment

Offshoring the Aquaculture Industry

By Peter N. Spotts, Christian Science Monitor. Posted June 9, 2005.


Proposed federal legislation aims to move enormous fish farms up to 200 miles from the coast -- and, some fear, far away from public oversight.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Fish farming has long been viewed as a way to help fill dinner bowls worldwide while easing the pressure on declining populations of wild ocean fish. Now the U.S. aquaculture industry is poised to shed its coastal cloak to farm deeper waters. Tuesday, the Bush administration sent a bill to Capitol Hill that would open 3.4 million square miles of ocean -- roughly the land area of the lower 48 states -- to fish farms.

The bill would allow the U.S. secretary of Commerce to issue permits for fish farms in federal waters, up to 200 miles offshore.

The proposed legislation represents the latest effort to implement recommendations from the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, which last fall sent the White House its blueprint for overhauling the approach the country takes to managing its vast offshore resources. It also represents the start of a process that will give various "stakeholders" -- including the aquaculture industry, environmental groups, state and local officials -- an opportunity to help shape the rules, federal officials say.

"Our goal is to develop a sustainable aquaculture program that balances the needs of fishermen, coastal residents and visitors, seafood consumers, the environment, and the aquaculture industry," said Conrad Lautenbacher Jr., administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), in a prepared statement.

The measure comes at a time of rising global demand for fish as a source of dietary protein, declining fisheries, and rising aquaculture efforts overseas. By 2030, less than half of the fish humans consume will come from wild stocks, according to United Nations estimates. Aquaculture will dominate. Global consumption is expected to reach 110 million metric tons of fish within the next five years.

In the US, "nutritionists are asking us to eat twice as much seafood as we do," says Michael Rubino, manager of NOAA's aquaculture program. "At the moment we import 70 percent of our seafood, and wild fisheries won't be able to meet future market demand. So any increase in supplies is coming from aquaculture. The question is, do we keep importing it, or do we produce some domestically?"

Currently, the U.S. consumes 6 million metric tons of fish a year. By 2025, US consumption is expected to grow by another 2 million metric tons.

"If we could produce that here, that would create 500,000 direct jobs, and 100,000 or more indirect jobs, and contribute about $5 billion in revenue," Dr. Rubino says.

The bill would allow NOAA to issue two permits -- a site permit and an operating permit -- for 10 years. Operators could renew their permits in five-year increments. To receive the permits, fish farmers would have to meet a number of requirements that deal with issues such as environmental monitoring and quality, and business practices. "Those details would be worked out in the regulatory-design process," Rubino says.

And it's designed to push the state of the art in technologies that allow for more environmentally sustainable aquaculture in the open ocean. Indeed, he says, it contains strong language regarding environmental stewardship and public input.

The move to open oceans to fish farming is attractive for several reasons, some analysts say. It moves fish farms away from the coast, where plumes of pollution from urban runoff can endanger the "herd." And it can make siting a farm somewhat easier, since it would draw less opposition from local residents uneasy about the potential for aquaculture pollution -- in the form of waste from the fish -- to foul beaches.

Some environmentalists and marine researchers view open-ocean fish farming with a wary eye. They are concerned that because open-ocean farming is out of sight, it may slowly fall out of mind. Many of the species to be kept down on the aquafarm are top-of-the-food-chain meat eaters, which have the highest market value. But they also are voracious, requiring anywhere from three to 25 pounds of feed -- read smaller fish or fish meal -- for every pound of meat in the farmed species. Concerns also have been growing over the spread of parasites, such as sea lice, from farmed fish to wild schools that pass by, as well as over the results of genetic mixing between wild fish and their escaped farmed cousins.

Sustainable aquaculture is possible if the right species and techniques are used, says William Mott, outgoing president of SeaWeb, a nongovernmental organization that supports sustainable aquaculture. If the motive truly is to meet demand for food, he says, more can be done with fresh-water species grown in urban areas close to their markets, rather than developing large marine feedlots offshore.

Citing unease at what he sees as a bill crafted with input dominated by the aquaculture industry, Mr. Mott adds that it's important to get the measure right. "This legislation will set precedents for generations."

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

Peter N. Spotts is a staff writer for the Christian Science Monitor.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Open Oceans
Posted by: churchofone on Jun 9, 2005 4:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article raises far more questions than answers. What of international waters - how can the US issue permits and regulations? What about cross-breeding between wild and farm fish? Why not develop sustainable aquaculture closer to the marketplace? Something IS fishy with this whole premise!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the future
Posted by: LStokes on Jun 9, 2005 10:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wish we could see into the future to understand the repercussions these actions will have on our grandchildren and their kids. We live in a world which is so oriented to today, but we need to take a step back and think about tomorrow.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Look deeper
Posted by: akdave on Jun 9, 2005 11:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Like most proposals coming out of the Federal government these days, the appealing gloss doesn't tell the whole truth. As mentioned, the species most likely slated for the industrial-scale aquaculture being proposed are top predators like salmon, halibut, and sablefish (black cod). These animals will only eat fishmeal, which comes from wild fish, which are not all from sustainable stocks. The market for these products will likely be middle and upper class consumers who can afford to buy wild fish, not the lower income families that really need the protein.

Globally, aquaculture is a great way of providing protein to poor rural communities. However, the species grown are mostly freshwater plant-eating species like tilapia. Farming species that require protein for food is very inefficient. We currently have a sustainable fishery in Alaskan waters that produces a high quality product much prized by many, namely the pollock fishery. If you eat fish sticks or fake crab, you are probably eating pollock. There are millions of pounds of sustainable pink salmon that go unharvested every year because of a lack of markets for that product in the US.

For every new aquaculture job created, somewhere at least one small-boat fisherman loses his livelihood. If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Big fish and little fish
Posted by: daniel wimberley on Jun 16, 2005 1:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
re fish farming and the statement in the article that the favoured species will be "top of the chain" predators as these have higher value. i.e. lots and lots of small fish are needed to grow one big fish. This reminds me of the vegetarian argument against too much meat-eating. Growing meat is inefficient, taking x kilos of vegetable protein (I think it is 7 or 8 kg) to make one kilo of meat. It is therefore too land-intensive to ever be sustainable in the long-term

In the same way, the poor will lose their fish which will be fed to the fish of the rich. We have to be careful when we say we "want" this or "want" that

Don't believe me?

Here in Jersey I talked with a chap who has just set up a turbot farm (not 200 miles offshore, but in an old german bunker actually on shore!)

Very enterprising,I thought, and he assured me the process was 100% organic.

And where did the pellets come form which he was throwing to his turbot?

Namibia, he replied.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]