Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 253
Appendix D Sociocultural Aspects of Domestic Marine Aquaculture SHIRLEY J. FISKE2 AND JEAN-PIERRE PLE3 INTRODUCTION The emergence of a new industry means social change as well as techno- logical change. There is no doubt, for instance, that the domestication of plants for agriculture and the development of animal husbandry vastly changed humans' way of living for millennia. On a smaller and more contemporary scale, the introduction of technologies such as containerization in the mari- time industry changed the labor requirements and social organization for servicing vessels; the introduction of purse seines in the tuna fishery initi- ated distant water fishing, changed labor requirements, and affected fishermen's community and family life. The development of marine aquaculture is no exception. The introduction of marine aquaculture is not simply the manipulation and culturing of fish and shellfish for human consumption it will reorga- nize the social organization for producing fish for consumption, and it in- volves changing or capitalizing on long-standing cultural attitudes and practices. In assessing the impact of new industries on social structures, the social sciences look not just at technical factors such as number of ponds, species cultured, or value of product, but at sociocultural aspects of the industry such as the types of units of production, requirements for capital and labor, and distribution of employment opportunities. Social scientists ask who benefits and how are the benefits distributed throughout society? What kind of effect will the technical change have on our social system? Will such a change affect the way of life in communities where marine aquacul- 253
OCR for page 254
254 APPENDIX D ture is adopted? How does the introduction of marine aquaculture affect concentrations of capital, and to whom (or where) do the profits flow? Who is employed and at what levels in the system? Is there social mobility between strata in the system? What are the social attitudes or constraints that affect the development of marine aquaculture, and how can these be overcome? Given the fact that marine aquaculture is the "domestication" of fish and shellfish and the introduction of technology and social structures to accom- plish this, the aim of the social sciences is to take a long-term perspective of the associated social costs and benefits of such changes. SCOPE AND METHODS The social aspects of the marine aquaculture industry refer to the socio- logical, demographic, and cultural elements of the marine aquaculture in- dustry. These include the social structure created by the industry itself and how it links with the larger society of which it is a part. Variables consid- ered in an analysis of the social structure include the following: · the units of production; · social stratification among owners and between owners and laborers; · ethnic, demographic, and socioeconomic characteristics of the afore- mentioned; · relationship of laborers to production and distribution of capital; · concentration of producers into vertically integrated firms with pro- cessing and marketing or distribution capabilities; · the capitalization of production (or lack of it); . and . the marginalization of coastal laborers or the social mobility of such; the way marine aquaculture relates to the cultural context of a commu- nity or region. Additional areas of interest encompass understanding how the enterprise complements or conflicts with the values that underpin local residents' lives, their work, or their decisions, and how it relates to the established social structure for production of commodities. Information on social aspects of marine aquaculture in the United States is not readily available, but does exist in agency reports, industry surveys, Sea Grant or U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) extension project files. Because of the dispersed and relatively thin nature of sociocultural information, this report is an attempt to develop a conceptual framework for understanding the social aspects of marine aquaculture. Given the paucity of data on the sociocultural aspects of marine aquaculture, the authors con-
OCR for page 255
SOCIOCULTURAL ASPECTS OF DOMESTIC MARINE AQUACULTURE 255 ducted an informal telephone survey with Sea Grant extension agents, area specialists, and industry entrepreneurs. A list of respondents is available at the end of the appendix. From these multiple sources, we present several illustrative examples of how marine aquaculture has evolved differently in various parts of the United States. MARINE AQUACULTURE PROMOTION AS AN EXAMPLE OF PLANNED CHANGE From a social science perspective, marine aquaculture can be considered as a type of planned change for economic development. Planned change involves the deliberate introduction of new methods of technology or social organization (including values) to change the mode of production of com- modities, or behaviors toward any number of economic development goals, including raising fish, shellfish, or mollusks. Currently, the U.S. govern- ment encourages the growth of the marine aquaculture industry through funding research and development of new species and new technologies, and through extension efforts to encourage the adoption of such activities, in collaboration with university researchers and private facilities. The im- plicit goal is to increase the number of producers of farm-reared fish and shellfish. Thus although the United States does not have an explicit marine aquaculture development plan, the effort nonetheless fits the general model of planned economic development. There are typically three elements in the successful introduction of planned change: (1) appropriate technology; (2) a perceived benefit-flow strategy; and (3) an identified institutional strategy. Appropriate technology is an integral part of planned change. The ma- jority of the U.S. effort has focused on developing technology (including biotechnology) that will produce a reliable, profitable crop. Appropriate technology also means technology aimed "appropriately" at the adopter, knowledge of the target audience, and awareness of the social and economic effects of adopting the new technology. Benefit-flow strategy means that there is a clear flow of benefits and that people can see themselves as part of the process of the flow of benefits. When this occurs, people are more likely to adopt a new way of doing things (like raising fish) or new technol- ogy. Institutional strategy refers to identifying the best method to imple- ment marine aquaculture through the institutions, nonprofit organizations, academic, and voluntary associations that exist in the target population. Within the framework of planned change, social sciences can provide information in the following areas: (1) understanding the adoption of ma- rine aquaculture as an enterprise, (2) identifying consumer attitudes and refining strategies for marketing specific products, and (3) identifying unin- tentional or long-range social impacts.
OCR for page 256
256 Understanding Adoption of Marine Aquaculture as an Enterprise APPENDIX D Studies on adoption of innovations are a mainstay of rural sociology and development anthropology. The set of theories for understanding the prob- lems and opportunities in adoption of innovations has been addressed re- cently by the Farming Systems Research (FSR) approach to rural economic development. The FSR approach has been successful in increasing production of commodities such as genetically manipulated sorghum and millet, accord- ing to conditions specified by local farmers. The FSR approach starts with the assumption that farming (or aquaculture) is an integrated and systemic set of activities that includes the household, marketing channels, and production units. Through investigation of the cultural context of the production unit activity, FSR targets the concerns of the household or production unit, such as lack of credit, the lengthy and problematic permitting process, lack of labor to attend to fish ponds or to guard against poachers, or attitudes such as fear of losing freedom and time for other activities. We need to under- stand the integrated social aspects of farming (or aquaculture) production and perceived constraints in order to encourage adoption. Such a strategy could be fruitfully applied in the case of marine aquaculture development. Identifying Consumer Attitudes and Refining Marketing Strategies Social science information can improve acceptance and promotion of marine aquaculture products through understanding consumer attitudes and through marketing. Psychometrics and a branch of anthropology called cog- nitive anthropology have a long history in studying marketing behavior. A recent example is a southeast Atlantic campaign to promote underutilized species of recreational fish on the basis of studies of fishermen's percep- tions and the development of a targeted "marketing campaign" for selected species with a high preference factor. Techniques similar to this market development can be applied to the introduction of new, hybrid, or transgenic farm-raised animals. Consumer beliefs and attitudes about cultured products have not yet been systemati- cally examined for opportunities to market products. Social sciences are useful in gauging consumer attitudes toward products such as hybrid striped bass or triploid oysters, and in designing marketing campaigns for new products or underutilized products. Each species will have its own set of advantages and disadvantages and can be marketed for growth in niche or mass markets. For example, cultured oysters can capitalize on the health concerns of consumers by promoting the relative bacterial safety of cultured or depurated oysters. Hybrid striped bass has a bland, white meat that may be appropriate for mass rather than niche marketing techniques. It is useful to know the depth, breadth, and dimensions of consumer perceptions, re-
OCR for page 257
SOCIOCULTURAL ASPECTS OF DOMESTIC MARINE AQUACULTURE 257 gardless of whether they are judged rational by producers and scientists. Growing consumer concerns, such as the belief that antibiotics are overused in pen-reared fish or the desire by consumers to avoid wild-caught fish because of by-catch issues, are potential candidates for promotional cam- paigns, but it is necessary first to understand the dimensions of these consumer perceptions. Identifying Unintentional and Long-Range Social Impacts It is important to anticipate the challenges and opportunities marine aqua- culture is likely to face, and to know the direction in which the industry is headed. In terms of community acceptance, social sciences are useful in anticipating community resistance on issues of multiple use, wastewater concerns, siting, and aesthetics, or the value of marketing marine aquacul- ture as a solution to problems regarding endangered species by-catch or overfishing of wild stock. Observations from outside the United States on social aspects of marine aquaculture in developing countries can provide valuable insights into these issues (Meltzoff and LiPuma, 1985-1986; Bailey, 1988; Shang, 1990; Weeks, 1990~. While the context of marine aquaculture development is very differ- ent abroad, the underlying processes and issues are comparable to the situa- tion in the United States. The investigators have noted that the nutritional base of local populations suffers as the production shifts toward the lucra- tive export market; that the development of marine aquaculture affects land values, resulting in the displacement of certain groups; that the water body becomes privately controlled as opposed to open to multiple use and public access; that the local employment base is augmented; that there is not much mobility among labor, manager/technical, and ownership roles; and that changes in production techniques and processes of economic development affect the amount and distribution of community wealth (Smith, 1991~. The focus of marine aquaculture development has implications for the mix and provision of services such as extension, education, credit, and research and development. For example, if the objective is to encourage investment in marine aquaculture by small producers such as household units, the extension effort would be different than if the aim is to encourage individuals who have access to venture or foreign capital. To carry the example further, if the goal is to create a labor-intensive industry that contributes income across a broad population base, it seems logical to concentrate on those types of marine aquaculture that promote that goal (e.g., soft-shell crabs or small-scale pen rearing of salmon as in Maine). On the other hand, if the goal is to produce large amounts of biomass as efficiently as possible with intensive aquaculture methods (where potential aquaculturists are likely to be experienced businessmen and
OCR for page 258
258 APPENDIX D women diversifying from other industries such as liquor distilling or poul- try), the potential adopters likely have different research or extension needs than household production units. Finally, demographic information on the developing United States ma- rine aquaculture industry helps forecast labor, education, and training re- quirements. Social scientists can help identify the challenges that lie ahead and must be faced including contentious issues of conflicts with recre- ational boating, multiple use, and questions about who benefits (distribu- tional questions) and about who bears the costs (externalities). Anticipating these areas of potential conflict ahead of time helps avoid costly court battles, lawsuits, and social protest. It promotes effective advocacy for an emerging industry that is realistically based on facts and knowledge about the social milieu. Up to now, we have focused on the conceptual framework of marine aquaculture as a type of planned change and the value of addressing socio- cultural aspects of marine aquaculture. To make this more concrete, we turn now to selected illustrative examples in marine aquaculture develop- ment in order to highlight the differences and variability in social and cultural aspects. ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES The purpose of this section is to provide snapshots of various forms of marine aquaculture in the United States. These examples show that the forms that marine aquaculture takes depend on the historical and cultural background of specific regions in the United States, legislative require- ments in individual states, the capital requirements of particular species, land use and demographic constraints in particular areas, and many other factors. We have chosen a few marine aquaculture efforts that are already technically and economically feasible and are fairly well established. Given the paucity of systematic data, these cases serve as illustrative examples of the diversity in social structure and sociocultural dimensions involved in marine aquaculture in the United States. Oyster Growing in the State of Washington The state of Washington is one of the leading producers (by volume) of cultured oysters. The social organization is traditional and is characterized by multigenerational enterprises organized around kin-based lineages. Sev- eral (four to five) of these family operations operate vertically integrated enterprises from the hatchery to processing operations. The origins of the social organization of this industry trace back to the nineteenth century when Washington joined the Union and the new state
OCR for page 259
SOCIOCULTURAL ASPECTS OF DOMESTIC MARINE AQUACULTURE 259 legislature passed a law permitting public tidelands to be deeded to private individuals for the express purpose of oyster farming. The law stipulated that such deeded lands must remain in continuous oyster production or ownership would revert back to the state. As a result, many of the oyster farms currently in operation are well-established commercial enterprises in their second or third generation of continuous ownership. Deeded areas can be transferred between parties at market prices, with the condition that the new owner must continue to use the tidelands to farm oysters. Several of these deeded farms also operate their own hatcheries and process their oyster harvest. The state no longer sells deeds to submerged lands, and a moratorium on leasing public tidelands was enacted in the late 1980s. No public funds are expended to seed deeded farms, but the state does support a program to seed public oyster beds. The newer farms on leased tidelands tend to be smaller enterprises than the original family farms on deeded lands. The oyster farms in Washington generally tend to be labor intensive, not necessarily in terms of numbers of laborers required but in terms of func- tions performed. This is especially true of harvesting and shucking oysters. Seasonality of labor supply is not an issue. Oysters can be raised and harvested year-round. Labor requirements are a function of the size of particular firms and the management skills of individual operators. Although Caucasians are the dominant ethnic group for operators and laborers, many Asians are now entering the industry as laborers. Those entering the industry as owners/ operators typically have some background in oyster raising since there is long tradition of the industry in the state. The primary difficulty in expanding oyster production in Washington does not appear to be a lack of capital because large amounts of money are not needed to start raising oysters. Instead, the constraints are physical— lack of suitable locations. The best sites are already producing oysters, and water quality problems and multiple-use conflicts render other sites less desirable for raising oysters (even if the leasing moratorium were to be lifted). Salmon Ranching in Alaska Alaska's cold and clean waters, large expanses of uninhabited areas, and protected waterways are all desirable attributes for siting fish farms. Amidst the opportunity for lucrative private enterprise, the state of Alaska has tried to balance public good and private interests through a unique institutional arrangement for salmon aquaculture. There is a prohibition on private, for- profit salmon farming (pen rearing and sale of fish without release into the common property fishery), but salmon ranching (the release of hatchery-
OCR for page 260
260 APPENDIX D raised fish to supplement wild stocks) is permitted and is carried out by a mix of state-owned hatcheries and licensed, private, nonprofit (PNP) hatcheries. Currently, there are 19 hatcheries operated by the state and 21 operational PNP hatcheries. Salmon ranching was authorized by the state legislature in the early 1970s in response to an ailing salmon fishing industry. Catches were at all- time lows, and the development of an enhancement program to serve the state in years of both lean and bountiful salmon harvests was envisioned by Alaskans. The state hatchery program was initiated in 1971 with the cre- ation of the Division of Fisheries Rehabilitation, Enhancement, and Devel- opment (FRED) in the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. In 1974, the state-owned and managed program was expanded to permit private non- profit salmon ranching. The intent was to authorize the private ownership of salmon hatcheries by qualified nonprofit corporations. Permits for PNP salmon ranching are granted by the state to qualified private individuals or associations. The permits are nontransferable and re- main valid until rescinded by the state. Since 1974, only three PNP salmon ranching facilities have failed, which suggests that private nonprofit salmon aquaculture can be highly successful. The incentive to become involved in nonprofit salmon ranching is twofold. First, operators are permitted to use revenues to pay for annual operating loans, capital loans, and staff salaries. Second, the large PNP corporations have a Board of Directors whose mem- bers may include representatives from environmental, scientific, recreational, and subsistence harvest interests, but it consists primarily of commercial fishermen representing trollers, seiners, and gill-netters. These fishermen stand to profit from the release of millions of additional juvenile salmon (925.2 million in 1990) that can be harvested later during commercial open- . . ~ . I. . sings In the various Its nerves. The PNP hatcheries include both large operators (about one-fourth showed revenues of more than $1 million) and smaller operators, common- ly described as the "mom-and-pop" variety. The larger salmon hatcheries tend to be operated by regional aquaculture associations composed of limited entry license holders (the commercial fishermen noted above), and they usually employ up to 30 individuals on a full-time basis, with additional em- ployees on a seasonal basis. The smaller operators consist largely of individu- als with backgrounds in the fishing industry, and employ approximately five individuals on a full-time basis and hire additional employees for seasonal work. The concept of private for-profit salmon ranching is not likely to be considered in the state of Alaska, particularly as long as wild-harvest fisher- men dominate the politics of state fisheries. Over the last three years, however, operational responsibilities for some of the state-operated hatch-
OCR for page 261
SOCIOCULTURAL ASPECTS OF DOMESTIC MARINE AQUACULTURE 261 cries have been transferred to PNP regional aquaculture associations; some state policymakers, including some members of the Alaska Legisla- ture, believe that the state should no longer be in the business of operating those public hatcheries that benefit primarily commercial fishermen. Baitfish, Trout, and Yellow Perch in the Great Lakes Even though they represent freshwater systems, it is important to address aquaculture in the Great Lakes region for several reasons. Despite the fact that these states are not "ocean" states, they are "marine" states in that they are eligible to participate in many federal marine programs such as coastal zone management, marine sanctuaries, Sea Grant, and national seashores. Additionally, the Great Lakes states are coastal states, and aquaculture de- velopment in this region may experience the same conflicts and challenges as the conventional coastal states have experienced, particularly with re- spect to sociocultural aspects. Developments in Minnesota and Michigan are addressed next. Minnesota Aquaculture in Minnesota can be traced back to nineteenth century Euro- pean immigrants who practiced trout farming in Scandinavia. Today, there are about 150 licensed aquaculture producers in Minnesota, of which 75 are involved in baitfish species, 50 in trout farming, and the reminder in other species (walleye, sunfish, paddlefish, and carp) used for private stocking purposes. Baitfish aquaculture is supported by an additional 475 licenses for the wild harvest of baitfish. Holders of wild-harvest baitfish licenses supply baitfish aquaculture operators with wild stock for grow-out. Baitfish aquaculture has come to dominate fish farming activities in Minnesota through an elaborate intra- and interstate distribution network, resulting in an indus- try now worth $50 million annually. In contrast to baitfish, nearly all of the farm-raised trout is consumed locally and the industry value is considerably smaller. It appears that three main social groups have engaged in aquaculture in Minnesota. The first group includes individuals traditionally associated with harvesting wild resources through trapping, hunting, and fishing. This group specializes largely in the baitfish sector, both as wild harvest collectors and as aquaculture operators. The second group includes farmers and other land- owners who have a water resource (i.e., a pond or a lake) on their land and see aquaculture as a supplemental source of income. The third group involved in aquaculture is entrepreneurs with engineering or science back- grounds.
OCR for page 262
262 Michigan APPENDIX D As in Minnesota, aquaculture in Michigan began in the nineteenth cen- tury, and some of the fish farms in operation today began during the 1920s. In contrast to the situation in Minnesota, Michigan aquaculture is domi- nated by trout farming—rainbow and brook. Other farmed species include large- and smallmouth bass, sunfish, yellow perch, walleye, and baitfish. Of the 110 aquaculture license holders in the state, only about 20 percent could be considered profit-motivated business operations, with the remain- der involved in aquaculture for various other reasons. Of these operators, five to six farms produce 80 percent of the trout. These farms employ seven to eight individuals year-round, with another one to two individuals hired during harvest periods. The majority of operators involved in aquac- ulture are mom-and-pop types of operations or small producers primarily interested in earning supplemental income. Some of these smaller operators are also involved in related businesses such as trout brokering and programs promoting aquaculture at county fairs and other events. The state of Michigan has begun leasing older state hatchery facilities, which have been retired from state service to local governments. The hatcheries are then leased to private aquaculture operators who operate the hatcheries as profit-making fish farms and in some cases as local tourist attractions. The leasing of the state's hatchery facilities to local governments is an example of an institutional strategy designed to promote and maintain a public role in Michigan's aquaculture development. Aquaculture can serve to support and maintain regional cultural tradi- tions. For instance, in many parts of the Upper Midwest (particularly Wis- consin and Michigan), the "Friday night fish fry" is a local cultural tradi- tion. The preferred fish for fish fries is yellow perch, but Great Lakes yellow perch harvests have declined significantly. The preference for yel- low perch is so strong that area restaurants are willing to pay much higher prices (sometimes in the neighborhood of four to five times) for yellow perch when it is available, in lieu of the other kinds of fish. Currently, technology constraints prevent the development of a yellow perch aquaculture industry. If such constraints could be overcome, yellow perch aquaculture could reduce stress on wild stocks, reduce the region's dependence on outside sources for fish, and help promote and continue a local cultural tradition. Texas Shrimp Farming With imports contributing nearly 75 percent of the shrimp consumed in the United States, there would seem to be a strong incentive to develop a viable domestic shrimp marine aquaculture industry in this country. How- ever, along the Gulf Coast from Texas to Florida, the part of the country
OCR for page 263
SOCIOCULTURAL ASPECTS OF DOMESTIC MARINE AQUACULTURE 263 that is most suitable for shrimp aquaculture, shrimp farms operate only in the state of Texas. The social structure of shrimp farming in Texas is characterized by two opposite types: large and heavily capitalized intensive shrimp production with foreign financing or venture capital, and small producer firms, primar- ily family operations in which shrimping is one of a number of income- generating strategies, fitting the model of "occupational multiplicity." Large-scale intensive shrimp aquaculture in Texas is currently performed by two large commercial operators, both owned by Taiwanese interests. The smaller-scale operations are comprised of about six to eight smaller producers, generally family-operated enterprises. In this latter category, only one operator is considered a commercial enterprise (i.e., a for-profit business). The remaining small operators engage in marine aquaculture to supplement their income as one of a number of income-generating strate- gies. Such occupational multiplicity is an important strategy for ensuring family income during lean times. People entering shrimp marine aquaculture at the small producer level include shrimpers who have left the fishery and individuals with back- grounds in poultry, among others. They tend to be of Caucasian origin, while individuals of other ethnic backgrounds are employed as staff. Labor requirements per acre are small, with a slight increase necessary during harvest time or if operating a hatchery. Workers usually acquire their skills from on-thejob training, and individuals with advanced degrees are increasingly available. Many of the marine aquaculture specialists com- ing out of Texas universities are finding jobs in Latin America where there are more employment opportunities than in Texas. Difficulties in increasing production include regulatory and financial con- straints. The state~recently banned the importation of exotic species of fish, including juvenile shrimp from out-of-state hatcheries. The only in-state hatchery, operated by one of the large Taiwanese farms, is not able to supply all the needs of the other Texas farms. As a result, many of the small producers are not able to stock their ponds and consequently are not able to produce a harvest. The financial constraint is attributable to the recent condition of the Texas banking sectors in which many banks and savings and loan companies have been forced into bankruptcy. A potential investor in marine shrimp aquaculture in Texas would have to depend al- most exclusively on private investment capital. The political and sociocultural milieu for marine aquaculture in Texas is improving. There has been a recent shift in state responsibility for marine aquaculture development from the Department of Natural Resources to the Department of Agriculture, and appointment is expected of a state marine aquaculture liaison officer to coordinate development between the state agencies and the legislature. Traditional Texan cultural values also favor
OCR for page 264
264 APPENDIX D marine aquaculture development. Texans place high esteem on indepen- dent farming activities. Small-scale shrimp farms have typically been wel- comed, and there does not seem to be strong adverse reaction to the owner- ship and development of the two largest shrimp farms in Texas by Taiwanese interests. Commercial shrimpers apparently accept shrimp marine aquacul- ture operations. The lack of opposition may be attributable to the small total output of marine shrimp aquaculture, the fact that shrimp aquaculture does not interfere with marine navigation, or the view that shrimp aquacul- ture is a means to reduce the importation of shrimp. Soft-Shell Crabs in Mid- and South Atlantic The expansion of the soft-shelled crab industry is a success story that is intimately tied with the social fabric and culture of commercial watermen in the mid- and south Atlantic. The 1988 gross value of the crop has been estimated to be approximately $4.5 million. The development of soft-shell crab marine aquaculture has benefited small producers, in this case families, in particular, families who have been traditionally engaged in seafood har- vesting as crabbers or watermen. Most soft-shell crabs are collected by watermen and monitored by their families using simple, often homemade methods such as holding pens. Some use more sophisticated recirculating flow-through systems. There is usually little value-added work to the prod- uct bY the producers and most crabbers are not involved in distributing or ~ ~ ---- rip marketing the crabs. Sea Grant marine extension specialists and agents have worked with crabbers to improve the holding and handling techniques, and the effort has paid off. Total labor involved in harvesting and supervising the crabs throughout the Southeast and mid-Atlantic probably exceeds that of other types of producers, and a decentralized approach to supply and production has evolved to date. Small-scale fisheries tend to provide greater employ- ment opportunities than large-scale enterprises. Additionally, small-scale fisheries often allow opportunities for laborers to become owners of the production unit, whereas large heavily capitalized farms often preclude that possibility (Pollnac and Poggie, 19911. In the United States, there is an unspoken judgment that capital intensive is better because it is likely to use capital more efficiently. The social impact, however, is the trade-off between greater employment opportunities for people and the potential for social mobility in small-scale marine aquaculture versus the efficiency of more highly intensive and capitalized marine aquaculture operations. In soft-shell crab production there is usually a division of labor within the household, with wives in charge of monitoring the progress of the peel- ers. This takes close supervision and requires checking the pens every few hours. Although biologists typically see the constraints on this industry as
OCR for page 265
SOCIOCULTURAL ASPECTS OF DOMESTIC MARINE AQUACULTURE 265 the availability of a supply of peelers, other constraints include the avail- ability of family labor to monitor the molting crabs because the "window of opportunity" to harvest them is narrow. Soft-shell aquaculture development in Georgia is typical of the situation throughout the mid-Atlantic states, although the numbers of families or individuals involved is much greater in Maryland, Virginia, and North Caro- lina than in Georgia. There are around 14 to 15 soft-shelled crab producers in the state of Georgia, employing about 30 individuals. All but one are mom-and-pop operations run by active crabbers. The men usually harvest and/or purchase peeler crabs from other crabbers, and the women help col- lect the shed crabs from facilities adjacent to the home. All the operators are Caucasian, although one wife is Asian. Most soft-shell crabs are shipped frozen or live to northern markets with little further processing. This fits the model of the household as the production unit, division of labor by age and sex, and product or occupational multiplicity within the family-based production unit. The growth in popularity and production of soft-shell crabs has fueled the development of specialized processors. At least one soft-shelled crab entrepreneur on Maryland's Eastern Shore has taken advantage of interna- tional demand for soft-shelled crabs. The businessman, who was an execu- tive in the poultry industry, has a sophisticated processing and packaging plant that relies on local watermen to collect and deliver crabs to his pro- cessing plant. From the processing plant the soft-shelled crabs are exported directly to Japan. Salmon and Mussels in Maine To the people of Maine, particularly those living in remote coastal communities, the ocean is traditionally viewed as a working resource that provides economic opportunity. With these values as background, marine aquaculture has been largely accepted on its merits, namely, as another useful way to obtain products from the sea. Early in the development of aquaculture, there was opposition because of fears that the ocean bottom would be "rented" exclusively by a few individuals. Today marine aquacul- ture is viewed less as a competitor and more as a natural expansion of the state's fishery resources and as an opportunity to diversify sources of in- come. State law upholds the importance of protecting traditional fishing rights and giving priority consideration to the needs of lobstermen and shrimpmen by prohibiting marine aquaculture development in areas that interfere with traditional lobster grounds or with established nearshore navigation routes. In the process, marine aquaculture in Maine has been transformed from a white-collar occupation pursued by wealthy outsiders, investors, scientists,
OCR for page 266
266 APPENDIX D and the curious, into a blue-collar occupation in the same tradition as fish- ing for herring, scallops, or lobsters. This transformation occurred as the potential for profits from marine aquaculture became evident. Pen rearing of salmon is the most successful type of marine aquaculture practiced in Maine, with a projected 1992 value of $88 million (by compari- son, lobster was valued at $46 million in 1989~. There are four or five large salmon producers, but the majority of salmon farms (about one-half to two- thirds) are small producers family operations employing three to seven workers. Individuals generally come from fishing backgrounds, such as lobster, herring, or scallops, or else from other marine industries. The indi- viduals are most often Caucasian and could be characterized as "Down Easters" families that have lived for generations in eastern Maine. Marine aquaculture developed in Maine under the politically expedient premise that it could not interfere with the operations of traditional fisher- ies. As a result, salmon pens have had to be located in remote bays and coves away from traditional fisheries, particularly away from inshore areas used by lobstermen. This requirement not only satisfied the needs of wild- harvest fishermen, but in turn provided a new economic resource to those isolated communities in which the pens were located. Recent research suggests that aquaculture operations have enhanced lobster harvest in areas under the fish pens. Recognizing these mutual benefits, a lobster coopera- tive on Swans Island has entered into a formal agreement with salmon farm operators permitting the salmon farmers to tap into lobster market and dis- tribution channels. The culture of mussels has also become a recognized addition to Maine's working ocean concept. The state currently has one large mussel producer employing 35 full-time and 30 part-time workers, but many more mussel operations are small, family-type producers with two to three workers each. All mussel farms are located on sites leased by the state. For these small producers, mussel culture is usually an on--the-side enterprise in addition to their regular occupations as lobstermen, oystermen, or shrimpmen. As in the case with salmon, mussel culture is viewed not as a competitor but rather as a legitimate partner among all ocean-related industries. CONCLUSION In addition to a change in technology from capturing wild fish to raising them in captivity, the introduction of marine aquaculture entails social changes. Domestic marine aquaculture development is likely to cluster around two general social structural types. The first type is small-scale aquaculture where the household or extended family is the production unit (such as soft-shell crabs, small-scale salmon pen rearing, some shrimp aquaculture). Aquacultural production will probably be one of a number
OCR for page 267
SOCIOCULTURAL ASPECTS OF DOMESTIC MARINE AQUACULTURE 267 of occupations being exploited at any one time (occupational multiplicity. This type of social arrangement for aquaculture preserves the relationship of producer to the product and generates income across large numbers of households. It helps ensure economic stability in rural coastal areas that often are economically depressed. The social value of marine aquaculture to a broadly distributed population of family-based units of production, in which aquaculture is predominately a part-time occupation, should not be overlooked or underestimated. Income distribution is an important aspect of economic and family stability in rural and economically depressed areas. A second type of marine aquaculture seems to be heavily capitalized enterprises, backed by industry, venture, or foreign capital. These busi- nesses are likely to be intensive shrimp farms or large-scale salmon pen rearing operations. In terms of producing greater amounts of fish for con- sumption by the American public and offsetting U.S. balance of payments deficits, this type of aquaculture development is valuable. In short, there are important roles for each type of aquaculture. Undoubtedly, many questions remain including what role marketing can play in improving marine aquaculture acceptance by the public; who the potential beneficiaries are among social groups to further marine aquacul- ture development; and what sociopolitical conflicts will have to be resolved to maximize marine aquaculture growth. Answers to these questions and further regulatory and technological advancements can help the United States maximize its marine aquaculture potential. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors wish to acknowledge the cooperation of the following indi- viduals for providing background information or assistance in preparing the vignettes included in this report.4 Dallas E. Alston, Department of Marine Sciences, University of Puerto Rico; Bob Brick, Aquaculture Management Associates, College Station, Texas; Fred S. Conte, Aquaculture Specialists, Cooperative Extension, University of California, Davis; Rick DeVoe, South Carolina Sea Grant Consortium; David Dow, Executive Director, Lobster Institute and Sea Grant Extension Specialists, Maine Sea Grant Program; Kevin Duffy, Salmon Rehabilitation and Enhancement Coordinator, Alaska Department of Fish and Game; Mike Ednoff, Aquaculture Development Representative, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services; John Ewart, Delaware Sea Grant Marine Advisory Service; Don Garling, Professor, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University and Extension Fisheries Specialists; David Landkamer, Assistant Aquacul- ture Extension Specialists, Minnesota Department of Fish and Wildlife; Carter Newell, Great Eastern Mussel Farm; Terry Nosho, Aquaculture Extension
OCR for page 268
268 APPENDIX D Specialist, University of Washington Sea Grant; Mac V. Rawson, Director, University of Georgia Sea Grant College Program. NOTES 1. The views expressed herein represent the authors' and do not neces- sarily represent the views of the federal government, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or the National Sea Grant College Program. 2. Program director for Social Science and Marine Policy, National Sea Grant College Program. 3. Doctoral student, College of Marine Studies, the University of Dela- ware. 4. The views expressed by these individuals do not represent the official position of any organization with whom they may be affiliated. REFERENCES Bailey, C. 1988. The social consequences of tropical shrimp mariculture develop- ment. Ocean and Shoreline Management 11: 31-44. Meltzoff, S., and E. LiPuma. 1985-1986. The social economy of Coastal resources: Shrimp Mariculture in Ecuador. Culture and Agriculture No. 28 (Winter). Pollnac, R.B., and J.J. Poggie. 1991. Introduction. Pp. 1-18 in Small-Scale Fishery Development: Sociocultural Perspectives, J. Poggie and R. Pollnac, eds. Kingston, R.I.: International Center for Marine Research Development, University of Rhode Island. Shang, Y.C. 1990. Socioeconomic constraints of marine aquaculture in Asia. World Marine Aquaculture 21~1~:34-43. Smith, C.L. 1991. Patterns of wealth concentration. Human Organization 50~11:50- 60. Weeks, P. 1990. Marine aquaculture development: An anthropological perspec- tive. World Marine Aquaculture 21~3~:69-74.
Representative terms from entire chapter: