Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 spaceopen to all to use and enjoy where resources have been viewed as common property. Moreover, a high degree of interconnection exists
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
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
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
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.
POLICY ISSUES 75 A joint USDA/USDI work group examining protective statutes relating to aquaculture reached the following conclusions regarding the Lacey Act (USDA/USDI, 19901: (1) policy is needed to define and elaborate the dual role of fish as livestock and as a public resource, and (2) uniform and consistent state and federal laws and regulations regarding aquaculture and aquaculture species are necessary. Economic Policies Federal programs that relate to financing of marine aquaculturists are very limited, although some direct economic assistance to businesses does occur through public programs at both federal and state levels. The USDA's Farmers Home Administration is the government's largest pro- vider of investment and operating capital to aquaculture. The majority of this support is to the catfish and oyster industries. Other agencies that could provide assistance to aquaculture include the Small Business Admin- istration, the Economic Development Agency, and the Farm Credit System. At present, a federal policy specifically directed to provide aquaculture credit does not exist. Nor are there any specifically formulated tax or agency incentives for marine aquaculture at this time, although the prospect does exist for significant incentives at the state and local govern- ment levels. Shellfish culturists generally are linked closely to the shore-sea inter- face Zoning and water quality regulations are important factors affecting their operations. Because of the evolving nature of marine aquaculture technology, state and local governments may control more of the regulatory variables than the federal government. Cumbersome, time-consuming re- quirements of a multilayered permitting process, complex regulations, and a general indifference on the part of most local government agencies have resulted in substantial costs to the industry, especially to those attempting to begin operations. In contrast, the U.S. agriculture sector has a vast array of programs for farms, including deficiency payments, nonrecourse loans, emergency compensation, paid diversion, export enhancement programs, disaster payments, marketing loans, and many others. Consumer Policies Development of policies and regulations that protect consumer interests and welfare must not be overlooked as the aquaculture industry grows. Ensuring seafood quality, safety, and wholesomeness is important not only for the consumer but also for the long-run stability of the industry. Any case of illness or death resulting from consumption of seafood, whether wild or farmed, can have disastrous economic repercussions, not only for
76 MARINE AQUACULTURE the producers and handlers of the species involved but also for the seafood, marine, and agriculture industries in general. Two important areas of public policy that impact the seafood consumer are informative labeling and product safety. Buyers need objective infor- mation regarding a product's supplier, its ingredients, and the nutritional value if they are to make informed decisions that in turn lead to selection of high-quality products, consumer satisfaction, and repeat purchases. Brand names, advertising, and product labels have been used by food sellers since the nineteenth century to ensure repeated sales to satisfied customers. Yet, more than 100 years later, virtually none of these practices have found their way into the fresh seafood industry, with the exception of the catfish mar- ket. Instead, consumers tend to rely on the retailer for quality cues when purchasing fresh seafood. Accurate identification of seafood species is also important consumer information. Approved trade names for fish species exist; however, enforcement is limited and seafood (especially high-value seafood) is sometimes mislabeled fraudulently to obtain a better market price. In addition, there is currently no policy having to do with whether seafood should be labeled as farmed or wild, and whether labels should include other informative items such as country of origin, areas of harvest, date of harvest, and related documentation. Many consumers desire more detailed information regarding quality and safety characteristics. A recent report (IOM, 1991) identifies the major risk from seafood to be the consumption of raw bivalves. Other risks include consumption of seafood taken from polluted waters. The major sources of pollution cited are human waste and chemical runoff. Chemical and micro- bial contamination in culture water and the use of therapeutic drugs are growing concerns with aquaculture products (IOM, 1991~. These issues are discussed in detail in Chapter 4. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is currently the primary au- thority in setting and enforcing regulatory limits having to do with seafood safety. NMFS operates a voluntary fee-for-service seafood inspection pro- gram, and EPA sets limits on pesticides in seafood. State agencies also play an active role in the control of seafood safety. Federal programs actu- ally inspect only a small percentage of domestic and imported seafood. In l99O, legislation to mandate seafood inspection received significant attention from the Congress. The Senate passed the Fish Safety Act of 1990, which gave primary authority to the USDA. Three bills were pro- posed in the House of Representatives, but no consensus was reached. Al- though mandatory inspection legislation has not yet been passed, momen- tum still exists for its enactment in the near future. In late 1990, Congress passed the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990, which requires major changes in nutritional and ingredient label- ing, and places restrictions on health messages in advertising. As part of
POLICY ISSUES 77 this legislation, retailers are mandated to provide nutritional information on the top 20 varieties of raw fish consumed most frequently. This require- ment may afford sellers of aquaculture products an opportunity to provide information directly to consumers about the many positive nutritional as- pects of seafood and possibly to initiate branding programs. Seafood inspection programs may be of greater benefit to sellers of farmed products than to sellers of fisheries products because aquaculture firms are likely to have greater control over factors such as water quality, drug residues, harvest, and storage conditions than handlers of wild seafood products. Shellfish growers, in particular, may benefit from better controls on wa- ter for growing shellfish and on shellfish inspection. Aquaculturists, how- ever, may use a variety of therapeutics, chemicals, antifoulants, pesticides, hormones, and related substances to control problems such as disease and parasites and, therefore, may have greater difficulty than the wild fisheries in complying with certain aspects of seafood safety regulations. FDA is responsible for monitoring and regulating the use of drugs in aquaculture. Nutritional labeling will increase the consumers' knowledge of the nutri- tional benefits of seafood relative to other protein sources and could en- hance the market and opportunities for aquacultural products. FISHERIES ENHANCEMENT CONCERNS AND POLICY ISSUES Aquaculture is an important part of fisheries enhancement. The unique- ness of this role necessitates special consideration and policy appropriate to stock enhancement. The role of the private sector in all forms of stock enhancement, including ocean ranching, in public waters is poorly defined. The question of who should produce fish for enhancement or mitigation purposes is an important policy issue. A considerable amount of freshwater enhancement activity is based on the contracting or purchasing of hatchery- reared stock from private growers. There is no obvious reason why private growers should not be used as primary suppliers for public stock enhance- ment efforts in marine waters as well, under appropriate contract condi- tions. A policy of increased use of private hatcheries for enhancement of marine species would stimulate private aquaculture. Approaches to con- sider include (1) species that are not used currently for enhancement and (2) public/private joint ventures to evaluate, improve, and perhaps expand marine fishery mitigation or enhancement efforts. In the late 1960s and early 1970s a number of enthusiasts began to visualize the possibilities of private ocean ranching as a commercial under- taking. The availability of salmon propagation technology developed by state and federal agencies and a common perception that private industry
78 MARINE AQUACULTURE could "do it better" encouraged investors in nearly every temperate country to consider salmon culture. In response to increased activity in this area, the four Pacific Coast states each examined the issue: Should private salmon ranching be permitted and if so, under what conditions? Each state adopted a different course: · Alaska put Msherman-owned, private nonprofit cooperatives in control. A number of facilities have been built from harvest taxes. Their program appears to be successful and expanding. However, for-profit operations are prohibited. · California passed a law allowing private ocean ranching and then is- sued only one permit. The returns are minimal and private ocean ranching is not considered a success. · Washington refused the concept, except for several small, nonprofit efforts. Attempts to change the legislative mind have failed, and salmon pens and tank farms appear to be the form of the future, siting issues not- withstanding. · Oregon, in the early 1970s, passed laws to make private ocean ranching possible and became America's testing grounds for the concept. In four years (1974-1977) 12 permits were issued and significant construction was undertaken. In 1977, Crown Zellerbach applied for a permit and the same issues that defined the legislative debates were reargued. At that time, however, the courts made the decision and the Crown Zellerbach applica- tion was rejected. It is generally considered that the reversal resulted in the current moratorium on new or expanded permits. Pressures for increased marine fishery enhancement are likely to grow substantially as fishing pressures continue to increase and wild catches de- cline. At the same time, controversies over the practices and procedures for stock enhancement will grow. In light of the likely expansion of marine stock enhancement efforts, the nation needs a comprehensive policy to guide its actions. Such a policy should provide for the following: · A careful, unbiased evaluation of past and present stock enhancement programs and practices should be undertaken with regard to their efficacy, cost-effectiveness, environmental problems, and potential payoffs. This evaluation should provide the basis for development of guidelines for sounder, more effective, and less potentially damaging stock enhancement programs in the future. · Public agencies should ensure that common-property fish stocks are maintained in a healthy condition, that genetic resources are conserved and biodiversity is maintained, and that threatened or endangered species are protected and, where possible, rescued. · Public agencies should promote the participation and increase the role
POLICY ISSUES 79 of the private sector and the free market system in meeting the nation's needs for fish and shellfish for stock enhancement efforts. · The private sector needs to meet the specifications required by the public sector for fish and shellfish to be released into public marine waters so that potentially negative environmental effects are minimized or elimi- nated. Studies conducted in at least two states (California and Colorado) con- cluded that savings would occur if some part of their enhancement pro- grams were based on direct purchases of fish from private growers (Mayo Associates, 1988b). Such governmental purchases would also encourage the development of private aquaculture, thus stimulating economic growth. From the technical standpoint, greater involvement of the private sector in the production of fish and shellfish for enhancement would increase communication and technology exchange opportunities between public and private hatcheries. This "cross-fertilization" likely would lead to improve- ments in technology in both public and private sectors. THE STATES AND MARINE AQUACULTURE The federal role in the promotion and regulation of marine aquaculture is circumscribed; in fact, the majority of laws and regulations that specifically authorize, permit, or control aquaculture operations are found at the state level. Significant differences exist among the states regarding marine aqua- culture. Marine aquaculture is practiced in the coastal states with varying degrees of acceptance, hostility, regulation, and indifference, depending on available resources, social and cultural traditions, local politics, and the state's economic condition (Davies, 19901. Although some states have des- ignated agencies and formulated plans to promote and assist aquaculture, others do not recognize the industry through any formal structure. In some states, the management of marine aquaculture is vested in the agriculture department; in others, management authority is lodged in the marine re- sources agencies. Some states, such as Hawaii, have made significant in- vestments in the development of aquaculture through such methods as the designation of a lead agency, the development and adoption of a statewide aquaculture plan, and the creation of marine aquaculture parks that promote development on prepermitted sites (DeVoe and Mount, 1989~. The available literature synthesizing and comparing state experiences with marine aquaculture is scant. Some case studies of the experience of individual states are available (e.g., Tiddens, 1990) as are some studies comparing specific aspects of marine aquaculture regulation (DeVoe and Mount, 1989~. A comprehensive report contracted by the USDA in 1980 (Aspen, 1981 a,b) examined in detail the aquaculture laws and regulations
80 MARINE AQUACULTURE of 8 states and canvassed the regulatory scene in less detail in 24 other states. Problems with this study, however, include the facts that the report is essentially inaccessible (one noncirculating copy is available in the Na- tional Agricultural Library); the study is more than 10 years old, and much has changed at the state level in the last decade; and the focus is not explicitly on marine aquaculture. The findings of the Aspen report, although dated, remain instructive and have been echoed, in part, in expert testimony received during the course of this investigation. The Aspen study found that regulation of marine aqua- culture operations is more stringent than freshwater aquaculture operations and that the most difficult, time-consuming, and costly hurdles were pre- sented by land and water use regulations, such as water appropriation, stream alteration, coastal zone land use, wetlands permits, and special management area permits. No clear regional patterns explaining variations in the sever- ity of compliance burdens were found. Some variations seemed to be re- lated to the level of public awareness of the commercial use of natural resources. The study underscored the point that the local process in permit- ting of aquaculture can sometimes be more difficult and more time consum- ing than the state and federal permitting processes. Other problem areas also were identified in the Aspen report. Property rights in intertidal areas under state jurisdiction, including submerged land and vertical column leases, need clarification, particularly where tradi- tional fishing interests and aquaculturists are competing for use of the same resources (for a detailed examination of this issue, see Davies, 19901. The effects of federal and state coastal wetlands laws on the development of aquaculture were identified as a major emerging issue. Potential impacts of pollutants (including pesticides, radioactive wastes, toxic substances, and acid rain) on environments suitable for aquaculture were highlighted as needing further examination to improve understanding of long-term effects. The Aspen report found great variations among the states with regard to promotion of aquaculture. Hawaii was found to be the most aggressive and successful state in its support of aquaculture. In contrast, the report noted that Florida had a rigid regulatory stance that tended to discourage aquacul- ture development. Efforts to streamline the permit process and to create one-stop licensing of aquaculture operations, the report noted, had proved particularly effective in Hawaii, Oregon, and Maine. The variety of options available for permit streamlining highlighted in the report include the fol- lowing: joint applications for state and federal permits, one-stop permitting procedures, identification of a lead agency to guide applications through interagency comment and review procedures, preapplication consultation with applicants to weed out unacceptable proposals, and aquaculture plan- ning office investigations to provide technical assistance on pond design,
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 ranchingthe 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
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]
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-
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
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.
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 landsin 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
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-
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-
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.
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
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.
