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 64
Policy Issues
Marine aquaculture is subject to a number of policy systems and forces,
including direct regulatory regimes imposed by federal, state, and local
governments; indirect state and federal economic policies; and the broad
array of environmental issues that play an increasingly powerful role in
shaping the direction of any activities that affect natural resources and the
environment.
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND
MARINE AQUACULTURE
Several major strains in federal policy and programs affect the develop-
ment of marine aquaculture:
· the federal government's efforts to promote the husbandry of aquatic
plants and animals irrespective of whether these are fresh or saltwater
species;
· marine and coastal policies related to regulation and public trust re-
sponsibilities in the planning and management of coastal lands and waters;
· interstate and international trade policies that control the movement of
cultured species and products both within the United States and internation-
ally;
· economic policies such as taxes, subsidies, and other fiscal levers;
· consumer policies concerned with product quality, safety, and cost;
· environmental regulatory policies that regulate the conduct of marine
aquaculture operations, particularly the discharge of effluents and the use of
public resources; and
64
OCR for page 65
POLICY ISSUES
65
· a potential area for federal policy action the promotion of stock miti-
gation or enhancement to preserve and enhance species of importance for
food, recreation, or species preservation.
These various strains of federal policy frequently run counter to one
another and must eventually be reconciled if marine aquaculture is to de-
velop fully in the United States. Another layer of complexity is added by
states and, in some cases, by local governments, which reserve primary
jurisdictional authority over marine aquaculture activities in coastal areas
and in state waters.
The "Aquaculture" Side of Marine Aquaculture:
The Federal Government as Promoter
Government promotion of aquaculture began in the late nineteenth cen-
tury in response to pressures from sports fishermen. Initially, public in-
volvement took the form of federal support for the artificial propagation
of certain sports fish at publicly funded hatcheries run by the U.S. Fish
Commission, now the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). The FWS
continues to be responsible for technical research and development of fresh-
water finfish for recreational and commercial fisheries purposes; a network
of FWS laboratories is engaged in research on nutrition, disease, genetics,
drug restrictions, and environmental effects. Promotion of marine aquacul-
ture research came in the late 1960s and early 1970s, largely as part of
a major new federal push for support of ocean science and engineering
(Week, 1972; Knecht et al., 19881. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), through the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) and the Office of Sea Grant, undertook a major role in aquaculture
research on marine, estuarine, and anadromous fisheries, a role that continues.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) also is responsible for federal
R&D activities in aquaculture, through five regional centers, a competitive
grants program, and various extension and information services. USDA-
funded research addresses freshwater, saltwater, and anadromous species.
The total federal investment in marine aquaculture activities (about $64.8
million per year); is dwarfed in comparison to the level of support (cur-
rently about $36 billion per year) and the range of development incentives
that traditional agriculture has received for more than a century (Tiddens,
19901. In addition to the difference in scope between aquaculture and
traditional agriculture, the disparity is partly explained by the different time
frames during which the two enterprises developed.
In the mid-nineteenth century, there was a convergence in the growth of
agricultural science and industry at a time when the nation overwhelmingly
supported the agricultural enterprise. The United States was, in effect, a
OCR for page 66
66
MARINE AQUACULTURE
nation of farmers, and its political institutions largely reflected this fact.
The agricultural growth model of the nineteenth century stands in contrast
to the situation that existed when aquaculture development emerged in the
mid-twentieth century, "when numerous industries were already established
and competing for political clout as well as limited land, coastal sites, and
other resources" (Tiddens, 19901. Growth of the political influence of the
industry itself has been hindered by internal divisions between producers
of saltwater and freshwater species and by crop-specific orientation. These
differences have tended to fragment the industry's organizational base.
Federal policy explicitly aimed at the promotion of aquaculture, which
began to accelerate in the late 1970s, has in many ways been largely sym-
bolic in character, for the most part, consisting of studies assessing the
status of the industry and the dissemination of aquaculture information,
rather than the adoption and pursuit of tangible development goals and
incentives. Federal aquaculture promotion policy has involved low levels
of funding and generally has worked to maintain the diffusion of responsi-
bilities for aquaculture among various federal agencies, an arrangement that
tends to create neglect in a bureaucratic system (Tiddens, 1990~.
Federal Legislation to Promote Aquaculture
In the late 1970s, a number of reports focused attention on the con-
straints preventing the development of the aquaculture industry. The NOAA
Aquaculture Plan (1977) described the problems and potential of aquacul-
ture and aquaculture science, and called for an enhanced federal promo-
tional role in aquaculture akin to that for agriculture, emphasizing that in-
dustry could not do the job alone. A 1978 report of the National Research
Council (NRC) thoroughly examined the status of aquaculture and found
that "constraints on orderly development . . . tend to be political and admin-
istrative, rather than scientific and technological. Advances are needed in
all areas, but for overall progress, the essential requirements are policy
decisions and administrative actions." Recommendations to ameliorate this
situation included establishment of a uniform set of aquaculture policies
and naming of a lead agency to direct, guide, support, coordinate, and be
responsible and accountable for activities among the federal agencies.
Subsequent passage of the National Aquaculture Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-
362) provided an important policy statement regarding the national interest
in aquaculture. In the act, Congress "declares that aquaculture has the
potential for augmenting existing commercial and recreational fisheries and
for producing other renewable resources, thereby assisting the United States
in meeting its future food needs and contributing to the solution of world
resource problems. It is, therefore, in the national interest, and it is the
national policy, to encourage the development of aquaculture in the United
OCR for page 67
POLICY ISSUES
67
States." The act maintains that principal responsibility for the development
of aquaculture, however, must rest with the private sector. The secretaries
of agriculture, commerce, and the interior were required to prepare a
National Aquaculture Development Plan within 18 months of enactment.
The purpose of the plan was to identify potential species for commercial
development, and to discuss public and private actions and the research
necessary to carry out the objectives of the act.
The act also established the Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture (JSA) in
the Federal Coordinating Council on Science, Engineering, and Technol-
ogy, which was assigned responsibility for increasing the overall effective-
ness and productivity of federal aquaculture research, technology transfer,
and economic assistance programs. The JSA was composed of representa-
tives from 12 federal agencies, with the chairmanship originally rotating
among the secretaries of agriculture, commerce, and the interior. JSA's
role was limited to study and assessment, coordination, planning, collection
and dissemination of information, and provision of advice to the federal
council.
The act also called for the development of a study on capital require-
ments for aquaculture to document any capital restrictions to aquaculture
development, and a study of regulatory constraints to identify and list rel-
evant federal or state constraints on aquaculture development. The results
of the latter study were to be used in the development of a Regulatory
Constraints Plan to identify steps the federal government could take to
remove unnecessary burdensome regulatory barriers. Although the study
was completed in 1980 (Aspen, 1981a,b), no follow-up action has been
taken to date, and the report itself is difficult to obtain.
In sum, although providing an important statement of policy, the Na-
tional Aquaculture Act contained few tangible actions to promote develop-
ment of the industry and focused instead on study, planning, and coordina-
tion efforts. Additionally, the act must be viewed in the context of the
advent of a fiscally conservative administration intent on privatization
and reducing the federal role (Knecht et al., 19881. The act authorized a
total funding level of $17 million in fiscal year 1981 (projected to grow to
$29 million in 1983), but given growing fiscal constraints characteristic
of the early 1980s, no funds were ever appropriated. With no money, un-
derstandably, little action took place.
The National Aquaculture Development Plan of 1984 was prepared by
the JSA in response to the National Aquaculture Act. In the plan, it is noted
that crippling impediments still persist despite the growth in aquaculture
production. The report further states that although certain opportunities
exist at the federal level, local and state constraints must also be dealt
with. The plan, however, again underscored the administration's policy that
primary responsibility for the development of commercial aquaculture in
OCR for page 68
68
MARINE AQUACULTURE
the United States rests with the private sector and essentially called for
retention of the status quo in federal funding levels. To further the JSA's
broad coordination and monitoring of federal aquaculture programs, the plan
established three panels: on science, technology, and engineering; economics;
and education and technical assistance.
When the report was released, hearings on reauthorization of the Na-
tional Aquaculture Act were under way. Congressional testimony revealed
a split of opinion. On the one hand, representatives of the administration's
policy testified in opposition to the act, arguing that existing programs met
the needs of industry and that recent successes in aquaculture had shown
that further government action was not needed. In contrast to this view-
point, scientists and others from the aquaculture community testified in
favor of reauthorization, pointing out that the act provided an important and
necessary policy statement on the national interest in aquaculture, if nothing
else. The aquaculture community was strongly in favor of designation of
the USDA as lead agency for aquaculture (Tiddens, 1990.)
The 1985 National Aquaculture Improvement Act (P.L. 99-198) reau-
thorized the 1980 act and enacted two major amendments: (1) USDA was
designated as the lead federal agency with respect to the coordination and
dissemination of national aquaculture information, and (2) two new studies
were commissioned- one on whether existing capture fisheries could be
affected adversely by competition from commercial aquacultural enterprises,
and a second on the extent and impact of the introduction of exotic species
into U.S. waters as a result of aquaculture activities. Funding was autho-
rized at levels lower than under the 1980 act $1 million dollars for fiscal
years 1986, 1987, and 1988 for each of the three main agencies involved in
aquaculture: the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, and the Interior.
Again, these funds were never appropriated.
Current Federal Activities to Promote Marine Aquaculture
Notwithstanding the fiscal problems mentioned above, the federal agen-
cies most involved with marine aquaculture USDA, NOAA, FWS, and the
National Science Foundation (NSF) have continued to play active roles in
marine aquaculture research and development efforts (see Appendix C for
detailed description). USDA carries out its aquaculture-related programs
through five regional centers that fund cooperative research and educational
extension programs in aquaculture, the Cooperative Research Service, and
the National Agricultural Library. NOAA is involved in aquaculture through
the NMFS and the National Sea Grant Program. NMFS involvement in-
cludes the operation of salmon hatcheries; research studies on the culture
of such species as oysters, salmon, and shrimp; dissemination of aquaculture-
related information; and promotion of international markets for U.S.
aquaculture products. The National Sea Grant College Program, through its
OCR for page 69
POLICY ISSUES
69
system of research grants to universities and the Marine Advisory Service,
has been responsible for the generation of extensive research on biological
and technological aspects of marine aquaculture production for marine, es-
tuarine, and Great Lakes species. FWS activities in marine aquaculture are
related primarily to the agency's operation of fish hatcheries, fish health
centers, fish technology centers, and fishery research centers. Research
studies generated at these facilities (e.g., nutrition, disease control, and
rearing strategies for Pacific salmon, Atlantic salmon, and striped bass) are
directly relevant to marine aquaculture development. The NSF Small Busi-
ness Innovation Research (SBIR) Program provides funding to small busi-
ness firms on scientific or engineering issues that could lead to significant
public benefit, including research on marine/estuarine and freshwater
aquaculture.
The Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture provides a forum for interagency
communication about federal aquaculture activities. It develops and pro-
motes aquaculture through periodic meetings and workshops aimed at
fostering coordination of the actions of the federal agencies involved in
aquaculture and maintaining communication among affected user groups.
In 1987, for example, the JSA sponsored a National Aquaculture Forum
in Davis, California, to establish national goals, identify constraints, and
describe opportunities for growth of the industry. Participants in the forum
included research and extension scientists, aquaculture industry representa-
tives, and federal government administrators. A number of action strategies
were identified to enhance the growth of the aquaculture industry in the
following areas: marketing, production efficiency, processing and product
development, industry representation at regional and national levels, aware-
ness of global aquaculture technology, integration of aquaculture with tradi-
tional agriculture, expanding the role of the private sector in fish enhance-
ment programs, promoting state and federal research and development,
streamlining permitting processes, obtaining approval for therapeutic com-
pounds, and information systems (JSA, 1990~.
In the past two years the JSA has addressed topics such as reports from
the USDA Regional Aquaculture Centers; the formation of the National
Aquaculture Association; a memorandum of understanding between the
USDA and the FWS on fish health management; protective statutes (such
as the Lacey Act); issues of research and technology transfer; formation of
an interagency working group on effluents from aquaculture operations;
and activities of the National Aquaculture Information Center (NAIC) of
the National Agricultural Library (JSA, 19911.
Summary: Status of Federal Promotional Policy
Despite legislative efforts to rationalize and coordinate the federal gov-
ernment's promotion of aquaculture, the various federal agencies that deal
OCR for page 70
70
MARINE AQUACULTURE
directly with marine aquaculture by and large continue to pursue their tradi-
tional roles vis-a-vis marine aquaculture on separate tracks. Although the
JSA provides a forum for discussion and recommendation of strategies for
improving the outlook for aquaculture, several institutional problems hinder
its effectiveness: (1) the lack of authority over the programs of its many
federal agencies, (2) the predominance of freshwater aquaculture concerns
on the JSA agenda; and (3) location of the JSA under the umbrella of the
President's Office of Science and Technology Policy, which subjects it to
inevitable executive branch policy swings.
In summary, although individuals in federal agencies have made per-
sonal efforts to fulfill the mandate of the stated national policy to encourage
and stimulate the expansion of aquaculture, the federal government's
"promotional" role regarding marine aquaculture has been confined largely
to general policy statements of support, the conduct of repeated studies on
the obstacles facing aquaculture, and the formation of interagency mecha-
nisms that, while promoting the important goal of coordination, lack any
substantial power and authority. This is in sharp contrast to the agricultural
model and to the experience in other nations (see Appendix A for an analy-
sis and review of other countries' aquaculture policies). For marine aqua-
culture to succeed in the United States, a more active and forceful federal
role will be needed one that employs a wider range of incentives for aqua-
culture development akin to those used in the development of agriculture
and that centralizes authority (and corresponding resources) to support the
promotional role in the lead federal agency, the USDA.
In order to implement the intent of the legislation that has been enacted
over the past decade to encourage the development of aquaculture, active
congressional oversight is necessary. A mechanism for exercising such over-
sight is a congressional committee or subcommittee. Such a committee
would be responsible for ensuring that executive agencies coordinate their
aquaculture-related activities to achieve the maximum efficiency in the use
of limited resources and that sufficient funds are appropriated to carry out
the legislative mandate of the National Aquaculture Act and National Aqua-
culture Improvement Act.
The "Marine" Side of Marine Aquaculture:
The Federal Role in Planning and Regulating Coastal Commons
Marine development operations take place in or near coastal lands and
waters, a special realm over which the federal government has important
public trust responsibilities. The coastal ocean has been traditionally a pub-
lic space—open to all to use and enjoy where resources have been viewed
as common property. Moreover, a high degree of interconnection exists
OCR for page 71
POLICY ISSUES
71
between ocean resources and marine processes; users of ocean resources are
ultimately interconnected and are inevitably affected by changes in the
overall health of the ocean. The coastal ocean is also an area in which all
levels of government federal, state, and local play a role, which compli-
cates the management picture. The land side of the coastal zone is also a
special area a highly limited but unusually valuable place where land and
sea meet. It is a focus for recreation and enjoyment, commerce, and indus-
try, and it is valued also as an area of unique ecological significance. The
use of shore lands affects coastal waters, and conversely, the forces of the
sea shape shore lands and their uses.
Because of the special and largely public character of the coastal zone
(both land and sea), the federal government performs a variety of functions
in this area. First, there is a public trust and regulatory function to ensure
that ocean and coastal resources are protected for both current and future
generations. A conflict resolution function exists to mediate competing
claims of the many users of ocean and coastal resources and space. Further,
there is a proprietary function to obtain a fair return to the public for the
rent of submerged lands to private interests for exploitation and profit-
making purposes (Knecht, 1986~. The last responsibility means that marine
aquaculture operates under conditions in contrast to the practice of fresh-
water aquaculture, which takes place largely on private property where the
rights to the aquaculture products are clear and the governmental regulatory
role is limited. Marine aquaculture operations must compete with many
other users for access to limited, valuable, and generally public coastal
lands and waters, where the rights to the product are undefined and an
assortment of government agencies wields extensive regulatory power.
Ocean and Coastal Zone Legislation
The U.S. Congress has enacted about a dozen laws aimed at protecting
and managing the ocean and coastal zone in response to the widespread
concern over the health of the oceans and coastal areas that emerged on the
public agenda in the 1970s. Among the most important laws promulgated
during this period are the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-
583~; the Clean Water Act of 1972 (P.L. 95-2171; the Marine Protection,
Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-532~; the Marine Mammal
Protection Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-5321; the Endangered Species Act of 1973
(P.L. 93-2051; the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of
1976 (P.L. 94-265~; and the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act Amend-
ments of 1978 (P.L. 95-372~.
Perhaps the major characteristic of this body of law is that, with the
exception of the Coastal Zone Management Act, most federal laws dealing
with the ocean and coastal zone tend to be single purpose in nature, each
OCR for page 72
72
MARINE AQUACULTURE
statute promoting a particular aspect of the marine and coastal environment
(e.g., environmental protection, fishing, oil and gas development). Incon-
sistencies among federal laws and programs thus are difficult to resolve
(e.g., the conflict between environmental protection and promotion of leas-
ing for oil and gas resource development). Conflicts among multiple uses
of the coastal zone and ocean have escalated as this body of law has been
implemented in the 1980s and l990s. Under the current federal regulatory
framework, it is difficult to solve such conflicts or to plan the development
of various ocean and coastal uses in specific areas (Cicin-Sain, 1982; Cicin-
Sain and Knecht, 1985~. The problems that arise from the lack of a clear
policy are evidenced by a recent suit by a number of New England environ-
mental organizations against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for issuance
of a permit to American Norwegian Fish Farm, Inc., to establish a 47-
square-mile offshore salmon farm 37 miles east of Cape Ann, Massachu-
setts. Questions that have arisen from the suit include whether or not such
an enterprise is the best use of public waters, whether the fish farm should
be charged a lease fee, and whether an environmental impact statement
should be required. At present, none of these questions are addressed in a
management policy for federal waters (National Fisherman, 1991~.
Assessment of Ocean and Coastal Policies
Marine aquaculture has a relatively weak base in the conflict over the
use of coastal ocean resources and space, both in the regulatory framework
and in the political arena, compared to more established groups promoting
other uses of the ocean and coastal environment (e.g., fisheries, oil and gas).
Politically, marine aquaculture is less well organized and has fewer re-
sources than more established groups promoting other uses of the ocean and
coastal environment (such as fishing and oil development). As a result,
marine aquaculture is often ignored and, consequently, loses out to more
influential interests in public deliberations over the use of specific ocean
and coastal areas. Contributing to the political ineffectiveness is the lack of
public support or even recognition of marine aquaculture as a beneficial,
food-generating enterprise. In some cases, such as controversies over salmon
pens in the state of Washington, the limited public knowledge that does
exist about aquaculture tends to be associated with the pollution aspects of
aquaculture operations and is more negative than positive (Chasan, 1990~.
The lack of a positive regulatory and political basis for aquaculture has
been exacerbated in recent years by the resurgence of the environmental
movement (after a decline in the late 1970s). This resurgence has been
accompanied by a focus of attention on environmental issues of coastal
water quality and wetlands protection, two areas that significantly affect
marine aquaculture operations. In response to public pressures, new federal
OCR for page 73
POLICY ISSUES
73
initiatives by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and by NOAA
have been undertaken to improve coastal water quality and to prevent the
further loss and degradation of wetlands (the "no-net-loss" policy). This
trend is likely to lead to more stringent scrutiny of aquaculture operations.
(See Chapter 4 for further discussion of environmental issues and marine
aquaculture.)
International and Interstate Trade Policies
International and interstate trade policies and incentives directly impact
the profitability and competitiveness of the U.S. aquaculture industry.
International Trade Issues
The United States imposes minimal restrictions on the importation of
seafood. Most imports that compete with aquaculture products enter with
no or minimal duties. In contrast, substantial tariffs or nontariff barriers are
often imposed for U.S. seafood exported to Canada and the European Com-
munity even though many of the U.S. agriculture industries are protected to
some degree through import quotas and tariff barriers. Partially protected
industries include dairy products, sugar, and many fruits and vegetables.
The free trade position in the United States with regard to most seafood
gives foreign competition access to valuable markets and a potentially un-
fair advantage in the market through subsidies or other incentives.
A suit has recently been brought against the Norwegian fresh and chilled
farmed Atlantic salmon industry. The U.S. producers of Atlantic salmon
have alleged that the Norwegians are able to sell salmon at less than fair
value because the Norwegian producers have received considerable subsi-
dies from their government. The U.S. International Trade Commission
found that the Norwegian government subsidized its salmon industry
through a variety of regional development loans and grants, regional capital
tax incentives, federal payroll taxes, and advanced depreciation on assets.
In addition, the commission ruled that the Norwegians have dumped
Atlantic salmon by selling at less than the cost of production. The result of
the investigation led to the first significant tariffs to protect the marine
aquaculture industry from "unfair" competition (Helm, 1989~.
However, such protection may have come too late for many U.S.-owned
companies. Ocean Products, Inc., in Eastport, Maine, which spearheaded
the case, recently met with severe financial difficulty and is now 100 per-
cent Canadian owned. In addition, most salmon farming in the United
States is currently under some degree of foreign ownership.
The aquaculture industry also may qualify for assistance through the
Export Enhancement Program authorized under the 1985 Food Securities Act
OCR for page 74
74
MARINE AQUACULTURE
and other export-oriented programs. These programs assist food-producing
groups in developing and maintaining market shares abroad. To date, the
marine aquaculture industry has not taken advantage of these possible
opportunities.
The aquaculture industry in the United States needs to become more
informed about trade laws and programs that may be used to its benefit. In
addition, U.S. trade policies need to address issues of foreign practices that
are illegal in the United States, such as the use of certain drugs and chemi-
cals. Use of these substances may lower production costs for foreign
competitors and may also pose a health risk to U.S. consumers.
Interstate Trade Issues
Several barriers hamper interstate trade within the United States. One
example is the Lacey Act and the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 (Title 16,
U.S.C. 3371), which regulate, among other activities, the movement of live
fish between states. The Lacey Act has two principal purposes: (1) prohibi-
tion of commerce in unlawfully taken wildlife, and (2) prevention of the
introduction of injurious species of wildlife in the United States. The act
makes an important contribution to environmental preservation and protec-
tion of indigenous species; however, its linkage with state laws which are
not uniform and are perceived to be outdated and unreasonable in some
cases has created a mechanism that often discourages commercial aquacul-
ture. In particular, the designation of state borders as geographic control
points can result in an arbitrary restraint of trade; for example, the transport
of live fish a few miles from Rhode Island to Connecticut within the same
ecological zone may violate the Lacey Act. This situation imposes additional
costs on aquaculturists, especially in New England, and frequently interferes
with normal marketing practices (USDA/USDI, 19901.
A related area of regulation within the states is associated with fisheries
management. When fish size or harvest constraints are imposed on the wild
fishery without regard for aquaculture, aquaculture activity may be elimi-
nated or constrained without reason. For example, in an effort to protect
the wild population of striped bass on the East Coast, some states imposed
regulations that make possession or sale of striped bass illegal. This restric-
tion, although aimed at protecting the genetic diversity of wild populations,
has prevented the development of striped bass aquaculture enterprises. A1-
ternative approaches might have protected the wild fisheries without nega-
tive effects on aquaculture. The restriction also limited interstate trade
because it was illegal, in some cases, to transport striped bass from states
where the product was legally grown to states where it was legal to sell. A
more reasonable set of restrictions would reflect valid ecological and bio-
logical considerations, rather than political jurisdictions.
OCR for page 81
POLICY ISSUES
81
disease prevention, methods of preventing predation, and escape of nonnative
species into state waters (Aspen, 1981a,b).
Assessment of State Policies
A recent informal survey of industry and public officials in the East and
Gulf Coast regions conducted by Richard DeVoe (South Carolina Sea Grant
Consortium) identified the following major problems and use conflicts con-
straining marine aquaculture: recreation (fishing, boating); commercial fishing;
limited space (low number of adequate site locations); development (indus-
trial, residential, land use issues); environmental/resource concerns (water
availability, pollution, wetland impacts, nonindigenous species); aesthetics;
lack of a lead agency; and theft and vandalism (of organisms and facilities)
(DeVoe, 1990~.
In a number of cases, conflicts between marine aquaculture and other
users of the ocean and coastal zone, in fact, have worsened in the past
decade. In Washington State, for example, the further development of salmon
aquaculture has been hindered significantly by the concerted opposition of
property owners, fishermen, and environmental groups who cite such
concerns as water pollution from fish excrement, nutrient loading from
feed, introduction of disease and antibiotics, as well as loss of fishing
grounds and obstruction of view (D.E. Ortman, Friends of the Earth, per-
sonal communication, 1990~.
Marine aquaculture has also been controversial in Alaska where the state
has, in effect, imposed a ban on private for-profit salmon aquaculture
largely because of competition with the commercial salmon industry
(Hetrick, 19911. In Oregon initially hailed as the U.S. testing ground for
the development of private ocean ranching—the development of this aspect
of the marine aquaculture industry has been hampered severely by opposi-
tion from commercial fishing and other groups that express fears about the
potential genetic effects of ocean ranching operations on the genetic make-
up of the natural population (Mayo Assoc., 1988a).
To cite another example, a recent hotly debated issue in South Carolina
concerned the importation of nonindigenous marine species for aquaculture
purposes. Importation of nonnative penaeid shrimp has raised concerns
over the possibility of transfer of the infectious hypodermal and hematopoi-
etic necrosis (IHHN) virus to native populations if animals escape from
their culture environments (Manci, 1990~.
A proposal for a large marine aquaculture project offshore in Massachu-
setts recently was halted through a legal suit brought by the Conservation
Law Foundation on behalf of several fishing and environmental groups.
The suit cited, among other reasons, concerns about possible impacts on
navigational rights and the fact that a large area of the public ocean would
OCR for page 82
82
MARINE AQUACULTURE
be privatized without sufficient safeguards or compensation for the public
(Conservation Law Foundation, 1990~.
On the other hand, the past decade also has seen significant efforts by
states to promote marine development. A number of states have prepared
and adopted some type of marine aquaculture development plans, named
lead aquaculture agencies, or taken other promotional actions, as the fol-
lowing examples indicate.
Hawaii was the first state to carry out comprehensive aquaculture re-
source planning and development through an Aquaculture Development Plan
(presented to the state legislature in 1979) and subsequent creation of the
Aquaculture Development Program as part of the state's Department of
Land and Natural Resources (Corbin and Young, 1988~. The initial plan-
ning effort assessed opportunities for and constraints on the development
of the industry and identified prime sites for potential marine aquaculture
development on the basis of such factors as elevation, slope, soils, surface
and groundwater resources, and existing zoning regulations. Characteristics
such as ownership, attendant infrastructure, and permit requirements also
were included in the site assessment process.
The Hawaii Aquaculture Development Program operates on the concept
of the "aquaculture development niche," an approach based on the view that
"successful projects require a mixture of both technical and non-technical
inputs, that are not all species-related, but include consideration of suitable
and available resources and the broad needs of recipient communities" (Corbin
and Young, 1988, p. 632~. Factors such as markets, support services, soci-
ology, culture, politics, and public policy are included in the assessment of
site development potential. Strategic development plans are prepared for
each niche opportunity. As part of its strategic planning, Hawaii is experi-
menting with the establishment of commercial aquaculture parks areas that
have received all the necessary permits to start up and conduct aquaculture
operations and that co-locate production enterprises and support services.
This comprehensive approach to resource planning has been instrumental in
the development of the aquaculture industry in the state and has contributed
to the fact that aquaculture is one of Hawaii's fastest-growing ocean indus-
tries (McDonald and Deese, 19881.
The need for more effective policy for marine aquaculture development
n Maine was documented in a 1987 report (Maine, 19871. In 1989, the
Maine State Planning Office and the Department of Marine Resources is-
sued a follow-up report that addressed development requirements for aqua-
culture' education, state agency regulations, water quality, and consider-
ation of the needs of aquaculture and traditional fisheries (Maine, 19891.
Following the recommendations of the Delaware Aquaculture Task Force,
in 1990, the Delaware legislature enacted the Delaware Aquaculture Act.
This act recognized aquaculture as a part of agriculture, designated the
i]
OCR for page 83
POLICY ISSUES
83
Department of Agriculture as coordinating agency for aquaculture, and es-
tablished a Delaware Aquaculture Advisory Council to enhance and pro-
mote aquaculture, identify methods for simplifying the regulatory process,
and examine research and educational needs. In support of these efforts, in
1991 the University of Delaware's Graduate College of Marine Studies
established an Aquaculture Resource Center to carry out a range of scien-
tific studies and extension services to facilitate the development of aquacul-
ture in the state.
In North Carolina, the Aquaculture Development Act of 1989 designated
aquaculture as agriculture, named the North Carolina Department of Agri-
culture as lead agency, and created the Aquaculture Advisory Board to
review and recommend policies, laws, and regulations and to coordinate
the activities of state agencies. Two companion pieces of legislation were
also enacted the Water Column Leases for Aquaculture (specifying con-
ditions under which shellfish aquaculture leases could be approved) and a
law providing for fines and penalties for damage to aquaculture oper-
ations.
In 1985 the legislature in South Carolina created a Joint Legislative
Committee on Aquaculture, with a commitment to develop state policy and
initiate state programs for aquaculture development. A strategic plan for
aquaculture development in South Carolina issued in 1989, identified op-
portunities and constraints and offered forty-one recommendations that, if
implemented, are expected to accelerate the growth of the industry. A 1988
legislative action established an Aquaculture Permit Assistance Office and
proclaimed aquaculture as "an important form of both fisheries and agri-
culture," whereby the Department of Agriculture is responsible for the coor-
dination of promotion and marketing programs and permit assistance, and
the South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department is to handle
aquaculture law enforcement and coordination of R&D.
The Georgia legislature designated aquaculture as a form of agriculture
in 1987 and, in 1989, created an aquaculture commission and called for
the development of a state aquaculture plan.
In 1984, through the Aquaculture Policy Act, the Florida legislature des-
ignated the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Affairs as the lead
agency for the preparation of a state aquaculture plan (which was completed
in 1985), created an Aquaculture Review Council in the Florida Department
of Agriculture and Consumer Affairs, and set up an interagency coordinat-
ing board to make recommendations to the council.
Although California has no specific aquaculture plan, an aquaculture
development section was created in the Department of Fish and Game through
legislation passed in 1982. Also created at that time were the Aquaculture
Industry Advisory Committee and an interagency committee for aquaculture
development. The latter prepared a guide to California's aquaculture indus-
OCR for page 84
84
MARINE AQUACULTURE
try in 1988 (California, 1988~. The California Aquaculture Association, a
producer-based organization, has played an active role in the development
of the industry and, in 1990, issued a strategic plan for enhancement of the
industry in that state (California Aquaculture Association, 1990~.
As evidenced in the preceding summary of state aquaculture-related ac-
tions, a number of states have taken important steps to enhance the develop-
ment of aquaculture. However, it is not at all clear whether such actions are
making a tangible difference to the economic success of the industry. There
are few data available on such important questions as, To what extent are
statewide aquaculture plans being implemented, and with what effects? Are
the "lead" agencies "leading," with tangible actions to promote the welfare
of the industry? What is the level of effectiveness of the variety of inter-
agency committees on aquaculture that have been established? It is clear
that a state role is crucial for marine aquaculture and that a better under-
standing is needed of the states' collective experience in promoting and
regulating marine aquaculture, the range of methods used, and the extent of
success of various policy approaches.
MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK FOR MARINE AQUACULTURE
Coastal Zone Management Act
It is apparent that the states have substantial authority to plan for and
manage various uses in the coastal zone, both on the land side and on the
water side, up to current limits of state authority (3 miles offshore, in most
cases). Hence, the integration of marine aquaculture planning and manage-
ment into the broader framework of coastal planning and management de-
pends to a large degree on state coastal management entities.
States receive assistance for coastal planning and management from the
federal government in the form of grants-in-aid given to states under the
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA), as amended. Under the
provisions of CZMA and subsequent amendments, states may initially re-
ceive federal grants (on a matching basis) for the preparation of coastal
management plans or program development grants [section 3051. Once the
states prepare coastal plans that meet national standards set forth in the act
and obtain federal approval, they become eligible for other federal grants
[section 306] to carry out the provisions of the state's coastal plan. More-
over, through the "consistency" provision of the CZMA [section 307], "each
federal agency activity within or outside the coastal zone that affects any
land or water use or natural resource of the coastal zone shall be carried out
in a manner which is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the
enforceable policies of approved State management programs." Thus, the
federal government is in a position to influence the nature and conduct of
OCR for page 85
POLICY ISSUES
85
coastal zone management in the 33 coastal states and territories, through
the twin incentives of providing funds for program planning and imple-
mentation, and of granting the power of "consistency" review to states with
federally approved coastal plans. NOAA's Office of Coastal Resources
Management is charged with implementation of the Coastal Zone Manage-
ment Act.
Several approaches can be suggested for better integrating marine aqua-
culture into the existing coastal zone management process through amend-
ments to CZMA. The first option would be to include a stronger reference
to the importance of marine aquaculture in the initial part of the act than
now exists. Currently only one reference is made to marine aquaculture in
these sections. Section 303~21(I) states that the Congress finds and declares
that it is the national policy "to encourage and assist the states to exercise
effectively their responsibilities in the coastal zone through the develop-
ment and implementation of management programs . . . which programs
should at least provide for . . . assistance to support comprehensive plan-
ning, conservation, and management of living marine resources, including
planning for the siting of pollution control and aquaculture facilities within
the coastal zone ...."
To add strength to this provision, a separate provision could be included
detailing the potential importance of marine aquaculture to the nation in
terms of both food production and reduction of the negative balance of
payments. Alternatively, one could add marine aquaculture to the list of
"coastal-dependent uses" that are identified for priority consideration in
coastal planning and management [section 303~1~21(C)~.
Another option to better integrate marine aquaculture into the coastal
management framework would be to explicitly include it as an activity
eligible for "Coastal Zone Enhancement Grants" [section 62101. Enacted as
part of the 1990 amendments to the CZMA, this section establishes a pro-
gram, beginning in fiscal year 1991, to encourage continual improvements
in state management programs in one or more of eight identified areas that
presently include coastal wetlands management and protection; natural
hazards management (including potential sea level and Great Lakes level
rise); public access improvements; reduction of marine debris; assessment
of cumulative and secondary impacts of coastal growth and development;
special area management planning; ocean resource planning; and siting of
coastal energy and government facilities. A new provision on marine aqua-
culture could be added to encourage the preparation, in conjunction with the
relevant state fisheries and aquaculture agencies, of state marine aquacul-
ture plans that would assess the desirability and feasibility of expansion
of the state's aquaculture industry, and establish procedures and guidelines
for the siting and conduct of marine aquaculture operations in the coastal
zone.
OCR for page 86
86
MARINE AQUACULTURE
The above are only some of the possible options for better incorporating
marine aquaculture operations as a coastal-dependent use under the Coastal
Zone Management Act. Amendments to legislation come about, however,
only when those most responsible for and interested in a particular area of
law and policy become convinced that some change is appropriate and nec-
essary. To achieve this goal with regard to marine aquaculture and coastal
planning, it will be imperative for the interest groups and agencies most
concerned with aquaculture to establish good communication channels to
federal and state coastal planning agencies, and to the interest groups that
support and monitor the activities of coastal agencies, especially environ-
mental organizations.
Management of Offshore Activities
Currently no federal framework is in place to manage the leasing of
offshore submerged lands and waters for marine aquaculture purposes. The
need for such a framework will become very apparent in the future when
advances in technology allow marine aquaculture operations to go further
offshore. At such a time, marine aquaculture operations may come into
conflict with other users of the marine environment such as commercial
fishermen, recreational fishermen, oil operators, marine transportation,
military operations, and scientific research. The conflicts will be pro-
nounced because aquaculture will represent an exclusive use of the water
column and, in some cases, of the submerged lands—in ocean areas that
traditionally have been thought of as part of the public domain.
This scenario is not far in the future; as a matter of fact, these kinds of
conflicts are already taking place in parts of the U.S. coastal ocean. Off
Massachusetts, for example, environmental groups have initiated a lawsuit
to block the development of a 47-square-mile offshore salmon farm located
37 miles off Cape Ann by American Norwegian Fish Farm (National
Fisherman, 1991~.
A framework is needed to provide an orderly process for the leasing and
conduct of marine aquaculture operations to reduce the uncertainty that
industry now faces in planning future activities. A management framework
should have an environmental impact assessment requirement whereby po-
tential environmental impacts can be identified and addressed; it should be
aimed at identifying potential impacts on other users and evaluating appro-
priate strategies; it should provide a fair return to the public from the use of
public waters, in the form of lease payments, royalties, and rents.
Because an orderly leasing framework for marine aquaculture in U.S.
waters may attract predominantly foreign rather than domestic investment,
the question arises of how to ensure maximum benefits to the U.S. marine
aquaculture industry. In the case of commercial fisheries, priority was
OCR for page 87
POLICY ISSUES
87
given to U.S. fishing vessels through the Magnuson Fishery Conservation
and Management Act of 1976. Foreign fishing was allowed, in effect, only
for the "surplus" that the U.S. industry could not harvest. In the case of the
marine aquaculture industry, this goal could be accomplished through a
variety of means, for example, by requiring that marine aquaculture firms
operating offshore be at least 51 percent domestically owned.
SUMMARY OF POLICY ISSUES AND OPTIONS
Lack of National Leadership/
Insufficient Promotion Efforts
The federal government's policies to promote marine aquaculture have
been confined to relatively easy and low-cost items (e.g., general policy
statements of support, conduct of studies). Few tangible incentives have
been provided to develop the industry, in contrast to the wide range of
incentives and supports that agricultural businesses traditionally have re-
ceived. In addition, no clear statement of the national interest in marine
aquaculture has been articulated, particularly with reference to issues of
international competitiveness and balance of payments.
Moreover, the level of R&D support for marine aquaculture has been
low compared to agriculture and fisheries. This effort is carried out by the
main federal agencies involved in marine aquaculture in a generally uncoor-
dinated manner, notwithstanding the coordination mandate and mechanism
called for in the 1980 and 1985 aquaculture acts. The JSA, as currently
configured, has limited authority for effective interagency coordination
other than on a voluntary basis.
A more proactive and forceful federal role will be needed for marine
aquaculture to succeed in the United States. Changes are necessary in three
major areas: (1) more extensive incentives and supports to industry; (2) an
enhanced R&D effort; and (3) further centralization of authority and re-
sources in the lead coordinating agency, the USDA.
Lack of a Solid Place in Coastal and
Ocean Management Framework
Given the largely public nature of coastal waters and the public interest
and management framework related to coastal lands (both public and pri-
vate), a number of difficult issues arise regarding the privatization of public
resources and spaces. On the one hand, the aquaculture entrepreneur needs
to establish ownership over the product both to realize profits and to satisfy
the institutions that provide essential financing. On the other hand, there
are important public interest implications of leasing public waters for exclu-
OCR for page 88
88
MARINE AQUACULTURE
sive private use. Public waters traditionally have been common and open to
all to use; privatization of any part of this public realm means that other direct
uses (e.g., fishing, navigation) are affected, but it also raises concerns for the
public as a whole. These public/private issues are complex and vary, to some
extent, with the location and nature of the marine aquaculture enterprise.
Another problem is that no framework is in place for the management of
marine aquaculture operations in federal waters (3-200 miles offshore). In
the coastal zone, marine aquaculture is not included as a recognized use
under the federal Coastal Zone Management Act.
The major opportunities for federal intervention to enhance marine aquacul-
ture in the coastal ocean are thus threefold: (1) to create an orderly frame-
work for the development of aquaculture operations in federal waters; (2) to
influence the management of land and ocean resources under state regula-
tory control through available federal policy levers; and (3) to encourage
the states, through a variety of technical assistance methods, to adopt and
implement state aquaculture development plans.
Position of U.S.-Owned Operations Internationally and Foreign
Ownership of Enterprises in the United States
The development of the fledgling U.S. marine aquaculture industry is in-
hibited directly and indirectly by several factors: (1) the presence of subsi-
dized foreign competition through such programs as guaranteed loans,
grants, and subsidies; (2) the presence of barriers to trade by other nations
for exported U.S. fishery products; (3) the fact that aquaculture products im-
ported into the United States can be grown and produced using practices
and chemicals that would not be legal in the United States; and (4) the dump-
ing of foreign products at "less than fair value." All of these factors may
artificially depress prices to U.S. growers, causing significant economic losses.
Policies to mitigate these problems should be considered. Policies could
include the use of countervailing and antidumping tariffs, restriction of trade
of aquaculture products that are not produced in accordance with U.S. stan-
dards, export assistance through market intelligence and aid to U.S. growers,
and preservation of the principle that the use of common-property U.S. marine
resources should be for the benefit of U.S. citizens. The latter could be
accomplished, for example, through a requirement that marine aquaculture
operations in the United States be at least 51 percent U.S. owned.
Diversity of State Regulations
The federal government can play a technical assistance role and provide
incentives for the states to streamline their bureaucratic processes with re-
OCR for page 89
POLICY ISSUES
89
yard to marine aquaculture, and to develop and implement marine aquacul-
ture promotion plans. Specifically, the federal government can undertake
the following, through the JSA:
· assess the successes and failures of state and international experiences
in the promotion and regulation of marine aquaculture;
· promote the development and implementation of statewide plans for
marine aquaculture by drafting model regulation and guidelines;
· encourage the inclusion of marine aquaculture in the states' coastal
zone planning processes;
· promote joint (local, state, and federal) intergovernmental review of
marine aquaculture projects to ease the permitting burden on industry;
· promote naming of a lead state agency; and
e bring states together to share common problems and approaches, and
to exchange technical information.
Fisheries Enhancement
Fisheries enhancement by marine aquaculture can be important for en-
dangered, threatened, and overfished species. The private sector can con-
tribute to this effort, providing cost-effective technical expertise and pro-
duction capacity. The efficacy of expansion of enhancement activities to all
endangered or otherwise threatened species needs to be examined. The
nation is in need of a comprehensive policy to guide the expansion of
fisheries enhancement activities that takes into account the advantages of
allowing the private sector to play a major role. Existing policies often
prohibit direct commercial competition or competition with public hatcher-
ies, a case in which the competitor is also the regulator.
CONCLUSION
The key to finding the combination of measures that will improve the
ability of marine aquaculture to function on an equal footing with other
activities in the coastal zone is for the state and federal agencies involved
in promoting and/or regulating these activities to work cooperatively. The
USDA, which was designated as lead agency for aquaculture through
the National Aquaculture Improvement Act of 1985 and which serves as
chair of the Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture, is the obvious and appro-
priate focus of leadership for such cooperative actions. However, it may
take a more dynamic exercise of congressional oversight, through a con-
gressional committee or subcommittee, to ensure that this mandate is im-
plemented.
OCR for page 90
9o
MARINE AQUACULTURE
REFERENCES
Aspen Research and Information Center. 1981a. Aquaculture in the United States:
Regulatory Constraints. Aspen Systems Corporation, Rockville, Md.
Aspen Research and Information Center. 1981b. A Directory of Federal Regulations
Affecting Development and Operation of Commercial Aquaculture. Aspen
Systems Corporation, Rockville, Md.
California. 1988. A Guide to California State Permits, Licenses, Laws and Regulations
Affecting California s Aquaculture Industry. Interagency Committee for Aquaculture
Development.
California Aquaculture Association. 1990. Strategic Plan.
Chasan, D.J. 1990. License to Pollute. The Weekly, Seattle, Wash. (November 8~.
Cicin-Sain, B. 1982. Managing the ocean commons: U.S. marine programs in the
seventies and eighties. Marine Technology Society Journal 16~41:6-18.
Cicin-Sain, B., and R.W. Knecht. 1985. The problem of governance of U.S. ocean
resources and the new Exclusive Economic Zone. Ocean Development and Interna-
tional Law 15:289.
Conservation Law Foundation. 1990. Letter to Marine Board, October 16.
Corbin, J.S., and L.G.L. Young. 1988. Hawaii Aquaculture Resource Planning and
Development: Past and Future. Proceedings, British Columbia Conference.
Davies, D.S. 1990. Allocating common property marine resources for coastal
aquaculture: A comparative analysis. Ph.D. thesis, Science Research Center,
State University of New York, Stony Brook.
DeVoe, M.R. 1990. Presentation to the committee. Hilton Head, S.C., August 6-8.
DeVoe, M.R., and A.S. Mount. 1989. An analysis of ten state aquaculture leasing
systems: Issues and strategies. Journal of Shellfish Research 8~1J:233-239.
Helm, L. 1989. Trouble down on the fish farm. Seattle Post-Intelligencer. (Dec.
18), p. B1, B4.
Hetrick, J. 1991. Alaskan aquaculture. Water Farming Journal 66~4~: 10- 13 (April).
Institute of Medicine (IOM). 1991. Seafood Safety. Washington, D.C.: National
Academy Press.
Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture (JSA). 1990. National Aquaculture Forum
Output, November 1987 (draft of September 7, 19901.
Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture (JSA). 1991. Meeting minutes for Sep-
tember 12, 1990, December 18, 1991, and April 12, 1991, provided by R.O.
Smitherman.
Knecht, R.W. 1986. In Ocean Resources and U.S. Intergovernmental Relations,
M. Silva, ed. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.
Knecht, R.W., B. Cicin-Sain, and J.H. Archer. 1988. National ocean policy: A
window of opportunity. Ocean Development and International Law 19:113-142.
Maine, State Planning Office. 1987. Establishing the Maine advantage: An eco-
nomic development strategy for the State of Maine.
Maine, State Planning Office and Department of Marine Resources. 1989. An
Aquaculture Production Strategy for the State of Maine.
Mayo Associates. 1988. The California hatchery evaluation study. Prepared for
the California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento.
McDonald, C.D., and H.E. Deese. 1988. Hawaii s ocean industries: Relative
OCR for page 91
POLICY ISSUES
91
economic status. Proc. PACON 88, Pacific Cong. Mar. Sci. Technol. Honolulu.
Pp. 16-20.
National Fisherman. 1991. Suit over offshore salmon farm plan. 72~21:8.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1977. NOAA Aqua-
culture Plan. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
National Research Council (NRC). 1978. Aquaculture in the United States: Con-
straints and Opportunities. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Tiddens, A.A. 1990. Aquaculture in America: The Role of Science, Government,
and the Entrepreneur. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.
U.S. Department of Agriculture/U.S. Department of the Interior (USDA/USDI). 1990.
Final report of the USDA-USDI protective statutes workgroup. December (un-
published reports.
Wenk, E., Jr. 1972. The Politics of the Ocean. Seattle: University of Washington
Press.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
coastal zone
