October 19, 2002
Colin Nash
NMFS/WASC
PO Box 130
Manchester, WA 98353
Dear Mr. Nash:
Thank you for allowing the East Penobscot Bay Environmental Alliance to comment on the Draft
Code.
Sincerely,
Jane McCloskey
Public Relations
East Penobscot Bay Environmental Alliance
COMMENT ON THE DRAFT CODE OF CONDUCT FOR RESPONSIBLE AQUACULTURE IN
THE EEZ.
The East Penobscot Bay Environmental Alliance endorses the comments of SeaWeb. In addition, we
wish to emphasize the following points
EPBEA believes that economically and environmentally sustainable aquaculture (that is responsible
aquaculture) tends to be 1) low tech 2) low capital 3) locally owned and operated 4) tends to promote
enhancement over pen aquaculture, 5) promotes small, decentralized operations over large scale
centralized operations 6) promotes high-end aquaculture over cheap aquaculture, 7) promotes species
that lend themselves to these practices, 8) promotes diversified aquaculture species, 9) promotes native
species 10) promotes species that do not need feed added to the water.
EPBEA is especially concerned about the impact of finfish aquaculture on the US public waters.
The BACKGROUND TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CODE… It is national policy to encourage
the development of aquaculture in the United States (National Aquaculture Act of 1980) (p.8).
6.51, Adaptive Management…should be the guiding principle of responsible aquaculture development
by all stakeholders (p.18)
EPBEA believes that the entire national policy to encourage development of aquaculture in the United
States should also be adaptive: that is, encouragement of aquaculture should continue or not
depending on changing environmental, economic, social and political issues.
1
The great problem with marine fish aquaculture is that ocean fish are mostly carnivores. The
aquaculture industry is already reaching its limit in how many fish it can catch to feed the farmed fish.
If it catches any more, it will begin to starve the wild fish, which is unconscionable. Until the industry
can figure out how to raise healthy fish on non wild fish diets, the NMFS is irresponsible in
encouraging any fish farm growth in the EEZ.
Another problem is that the market is now glutted with salmon. The NMFS would be irresponsible in
encouraging more salmon farms in the face of this oversupply. Existing farmers will be further
stressed.
In 1980, it became national policy to encourage aquaculture, but 1980 was a long time ago. The
aquaculture industry has changed entirely since then. The government should reconsider periodically
whether it wants to encourage aquaculture at all, and if so, what kinds.
3. THE NATURE AND SCOPE OF THE CODE …The Code accepts a precautionary approach
combined with adaptive management as the guiding principal for development (p.10).
EPBEA believes that this precautionary policy means that the Code cannot allow genetically altered
organisms in the EEZ. The FDA has just made a policy decision, along with the National Research
Council, that genetically altered animals are a hazard to the environment. They should not be cultured
in the EEZ. You can’t “adaptively manage” escaped GE organisms. They can’t be adapted back into
their cages. Sometimes precautionary behavior and adaptive management can’t be balanced. You
have to choose one or the other. If the NMFS wishes to have any claim to responsibility, it must
exclude GE organisms from the EEZ.
There is a national policy in place to encourage the development of a competitive aquaculture industry
(p.10).
EPBEA believes that, if we wish to maintain a healthy ecology, competitive aquaculture is an
impossible policy in fish aquaculture as it is currently practiced. In some industries, the US can remain
competitive because of its advanced technology, but in the aquaculture industry, the multinational
companies are mostly foreign, and they are on the cutting edge of aquaculture. If they develop a new
technology, they can apply it almost simultaneously in Norway, Scotland, Canada, the US, and Chile.
The US has no technological advantage. At the same time, we are at a disadvantage because our labor
costs are higher, and we have higher environmental standards. Therefore, we cannot compete with
other aquaculture countries under the current system without jeopardizing our wages and our
environment.
So, we need to approach aquaculture differently. EPBEA believes that the US must adopt an
aquaculture policy that takes the environmental high ground, and makes a leap into greater
environmental responsibility. Currently, the aquaculture industry and government give lip service to
sustainability and the environment, but in reality, they do little unless sued by environmental groups.
The salmon and shrimp farming industries are a global scandal. How about a new approach in the
EEZ?
First, researchers must find a substitute for wild fish to feed farmed salmon and other marine fish.
2
Then, instead of entering the race to the bottom in fish aquaculture in the EEZ, the US should declare
that it is no longer interested in cheap fish farming. We will promote aquaculture for the high end
markets in the US and Europe, with low chemical or organic methods, multiculture, lower stocking
densities, closed system cages, and zone management. We will continue to import cheap farmed fish,
and in the EEZ, we will farm high-end expensive fish. Instead of getting $3.00 a pound for salmon,
US farmers would get $6.00 a pound. (My neighbor gets $6.00 a pound for trout he raised in his back
yard.) Just as organic foods are growing at 20 percent a year because of consumer discontent with
conventionally farmed food, so the true, sustainably farmed fish market could also grow to keep up
with high end aquaculture growth.
5. THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE CODE WITH OTHER LEGAL INSTRUMENTS… The EEZ is a
common resource and therefore [licenses, etc.]…cannot constitute a right of property.
In keeping with this article, leases in the EEZ should not be able to be sold or subleased. If a company
does not use its lease, it will remain inactive until it reverts to the public waters.
6. Recognize that the prospective developers could be multinational companies or companies partially
owned by foreign companies (p.13).
Why should we be handing over our public waters to foreign companies? The economics of fish
farming by foreign multi nationals are a mystery. In Maine these companies now provide less than 100
jobs on the farms, and a few jobs on piers and trucks. The pens are made in Norway, many of the
farms serviced from Canada, and most of the fish are processed in Canada. In midcoast Maine even
many of the workers are from Canada, since in midcoast Maine, they can’t get enough local people to
work at the pens. The US taxpayer subsidizes the hatcheries, the disease outbreaks, and the biologists
doing research. This looks like a welfare program for government bureaucrats, biologists and foreign
multinationals, none of which seem in dire need of it. The people downeast who need the help seem to
get a pittance, and remain locked in poverty. Like Arab countries dependent on oil, fish farm
communities seem to have a lot of money passing through, but none of it stays there, or goes to create
a healthy, diversified economy. Or, to use another analogy, the advent of fish farms to an area may be
like the advent of Walmart. It seems to be bringing increased economic activity, but local businesses
suffer, key services are provided by Walmart’s national organization, not local businesses, and the net
effect is an economic loss to the community.
Official statistics on jobs provided by aquaculture are grossly inflated. EPBEA believes that finfish
aquaculture encouragement may be a bad idea, if its intention is to improve the economies of isolated
coastal communities. If NMFS is serious about adaptive management, it should do a study on the
economic effects of fish farms on coastal communities.
Near Cobscook Bay at a fish pen lease hearing in May 2002, clam diggers testified that the green slime
(enteromorpha) which has appeared in the Bay since the fish farms came, is smothering the clams.
Lobstermen testified that they lose on average, $2000 a year because of lost traps cut off by boats
servicing fish farms. Herring weir fishermen say that the herring have disappeared with the advent of
fish farms. Scallopers claim that there are many “clappers,” dead scallops in the vicinity of fish pens.
The question is not just how much money fish pens are bringing into the communities, but also how
much money they are preventing from coming into the communities.
3
Also, if there is an overall gain in the amount of money coming in, who gains, and who loses?
Tremont Harbor, on Mount Desert, is the unwilling host of a salmon farm. The selectmen have
complained of cut lobster traps from careless salmon barges, and a degraded ramp at the town landing.
Other towns with proposed aquaculture leases have complained of crowding at town landings, both on
town roads and parking lots, and in town harbors. Others complain of increased waste from fish farms
going into the town transfer station, which town taxpayers, not aquaculture companies, pay for.
If biologists, banks, universities and multinational companies are gaining at the expense of local
fishermen, businesses, and towns, the NMFS should reconsider whether it should actively encourage
aquaculture in the EEZ, unless these problems can be addressed.
The question is not, how much money does an operation make, but who makes it, and does it stay in
the community? Two conditions of all permits in the EEZ should be that all value added processing be
done in the US, and that towns be reimbursed by aquaculture companies for any additional expenses
incurred by the impact of the farms on the towns
6.3.2 Permitting…Openness is advisable in issuing and revoking permits…There should be a
framework for evaluation of aquaculture projects, with predetermined standards, or allowable impacts
(p.15).
We agree. EPBEA believes that there should be an immediate measure of the frequency and extent of
algal blooms in all US waters. This should be undertaken before any fish farm permits are issued in
the EEZ. This information probably already exists, from satellite photos. It should be unified and
made easily accessible to the public on websites. Any increases in algal blooms in EEZ zones after the
introduction of fish aquaculture would be measured against this baseline measurement.
According to the precautionary principal, scientists would not have to prove that algal bloom increases
are caused by fish aquaculture, but rather it would be assumed that fish pen nutrients contributed to the
blooms. If increased algal booms were found, fish pen stocking would be reduced in density. All
fish pen leases should have a back up site in another zone (in addition to the current fallowing sites) to
which the fish could be moved if algal blooms increased in a given zone. If algal blooms continued to
increase, then aquaculture in the zone would remain cut back, and NMFS would work with other
agencies to reduce nutrient pollution from other sources entering the zone. If nutrient pollution were
brought under control, aquaculture could then again increase its density within the zone.
Algal bloom monitoring must be central to any environmental impact assessment of fish aquaculture.
An alternative is to have closed cages, with all nutrients barged ashore.
Fixed cages also need to be monitored for their possible disruption of species drifting in the water
column and the resulting disruption of wild fisheries and stock enhancement endeavors.
Federal authorities should consider the establishment of long-term leases for aquaculture (p. 15).
EPBEA believes that ten years is long enough for a lease. Also, as stated above, leases should not be
subleased or sold. In addition, after ten years, the leaser must apply for a lease elsewhere. The idea is
that our public waters will not become in effect private fiefdoms of aquaculture companies. A leased
area must revert to the public periodically, and must be allowed to lie fallow and heal. If the
4
permitting process is reasonably simple as the government claims, this should not be a problem for a
reputable company.
6.3.3 Siting…Local communities should be made aware of any proposed offshore development and
their participation sought in any decision-making processes (pp.16-17).
The NMFS says that it publicized the Draft Code in 2000 and held 6 different meetings around the
country to get input from the stakeholders. The NMFS says that 181 people attended these meetings
and that an additional 23 gave written testimony. The current Code is the result of those meetings.
EPBEA has been able to call out 100 people to meetings on salmon aquaculture from one county in
Maine with a couple of weeks notice. Yet the federal government with all its power, could only raise
181 people from the entire United States to come to its meetings on the Draft Code.
Then in 2002, the NMFS gave one month for the public to comment on the Code. EPBEA did not hear
of the opportunity until two weeks of the month had passed. This was also the month when wild
salmon fishermen on the west coast were in the middle of their short season.
Was this timing of the comment period simple ignorance or a deliberate attempt to exclude fishermen
and environmentalists from commenting? If the NMFS is trying to avoid conflicts, this is a bad way to
begin. The NMFS should improve its networking with environmentalists and fishermen so that this
kind of mistake does not happen again. The NMFS should improve publicity for its meetings.
The publicity of offshore aquaculture development needs to be effective and timely. Communities
need lots of time, and need to be informed in more than public notices at the back of the newspaper, or
through the SeaGrant network. Several press releases to all local papers and radio and TV stations,
together with posting on a website should be minimal.
Communities must have real input to the permitting process. If they don’t want aquaculture facilities
in the EEZ near them, they should have real power to veto an aquaculture project entirely. Feel-good
“educational” and “outreach” programs to a public without power will not sooth animosity, conflicts
and lawsuits. Participation without power is a hoax.
6.3.4 Zoning (p.16).
Zoning is an excellent idea. Zoning implies the ability to think ecologically, and to look at an
environmental area as a whole rather than one aquaculture facility at a time. Monitoring algal blooms
as a zonal approach to aquaculture.
6.3.5 Enabling participation and minimizing conflict….Because the EEZ is in the public domain, all
information on aquaculture in the EEZ, except confidential business information, should be a matter of
public record (p.16).
EBPEA believes that all substances introduced into the public waters should be a matter of public
record. This includes feed, which is currently considered confidential business information. The high
levels of PCB’s and dioxins and pesticides recently found in farmed salmon in various recent studies
can be traced back to the fishfeed going into the salmon and into our public waters.
5
Until this feed content and all substances used at aquaculture facilities are made public on a website as
they occur, suspicion and conflicts will continue.
6.4 The Fiscal Environment. The federal governments should [encourage] investment in responsible
development (p.17).
What does this mean? The government will provide low cost loans? Grants? Do taxpayers have to
pay for this?
There is also a need for structural grants…to stimulate aquaculture development in remote rural coastal
areas faced with declining fisheries (p.17).
Fifteen years ago, communities in Cobscook Bay and Swan’s Island in Maine welcomed salmon farms
as a way to provide jobs to these remote areas. Now, most people on Swan’s Island, and many in
Cobscook Bay wish they had never heard of salmon pens. If the federal government is serious about
adaptive management, it needs to use its influence (the USDA, EPA, whatever) to straighten out the
aquaculture practices of the existing salmon industry in Maine before it promotes aquaculture in the
EEZ as a way of sustaining remote communities.
The federal governments should…encourage industry-government partnerships…The federal
government might also consider bearing the main burden of monitoring as a financial incentive.”
(p.17)
This smacks of corporate welfare. EPBEA, other environmental groups, local business people,
fishermen, and local Native Americans and local Maine people have seen enough bail outs in the
salmon aquaculture industry. We are fed up with these aquaculture subsidies.
The US touts ourselves around the world as a capitalist country, but we systematically subsidize the
aquaculture industry. Yet the US complains that other countries are dumping when they undersell our
fish. This is hypocrisy. The US should not participate in industry-government partnerships.
If the price of fish rises sufficiently, aquaculture industries will be glad to pay for research in the EEZ.
Meanwhile, the taxpayers should not have to bear the burden. Again, encouragement of aquaculture
should be responsive to the market, and the market is bottoming out at the moment, and should
continue low for several years. The truth is that inshore aquaculture around the world will produce
plenty of fish in years to come. Unless the UN or other international body raises environmental
standards world wide for aquaculture, there is no incentive not to crowd the pens inshore.
6.5 Managing Risk and Uncertainty (p.17).
6.5.3 Introductions and genetically altered species…federal agencies should regulate the introduction
of non-indigenous aquatic organisms and genetically-altered indigenous species into EEZ waters to
prevent threats to the diversity and abundance of native species (p.19).
As was stated above, there should be no genetically modified organisms in the EEZ. The NMFS
should also remember that most of the invasive plant species were introduced deliberately by
government policy. More humility is needed.
6
Public input should central to this section. If the public does not want genetically altered organisms or
new species in its nearby public waters, the government should bow to its wishes. Who says what is
risky and who decrees how risk shall be managed should be up to the public, not private industry and
unelected federal employees. Public participation should not be just window dressing, but an integral
part of the permitting process. Otherwise, conflicts will continue.
6.6.1 Best Management Practices…Best management practices (BMPs) are recognized as valuable
tools for industries to set responsible performance and production standards which can be used in lieu
of government regulation, and serve as a ‘seal of quality’ for products. (p.20).
Every industry gives prizes and seals for what the industry considers excellence. The Scottish salmon
industry gives the tartan seal to its best farms, even though environmentalists and others are
simultaneously vilifying the Scottish salmon farm industry for its poor environmental record. For seals
to have real meaning, they must be conferred by groups outside the industry. Community,
environmental, fisheries, chef and consumer groups are networking now to create seals of quality on
truly sustainable aquaculture.
6.8 Public Education, Outreach and Information Dissemination. Aquaculture development in the EEZ
will make a special effort to increase public awareness about the rationale for offshore aquaculture, and
in particular to provide information addressing issues of concern to the public.
(p.23).
Education is a two way street. The NMFS is in as much need of education by the public, as the public
is in need of education by the NMFS. Adaptive management means that the NMFS needs to modify
its behavior in response to what it learns from the public, as much as the public needs to change its
beliefs in response to NMFS explanations for the rationale for offshore aquaculture.
TO SUMMARIZE:
The NMFS should:
2. Adaptively reconsider periodically whether it should encourage aquaculture at all, and if so, what
kinds.
Cease all encouragement of carnivorous fish aquaculture until the industry or government figure out
how to grow fish without depleting the world’s supplies of wild fish. Depleting the world’s wild fish
to feed farmed fish is totally irresponsible.
3. Realize that a precautionary approach and adaptive management approach are sometimes mutually
exclusive, especially in the case of GE organisms.
4. Consider whether the US can farm fish competitively at all within the current parameters of
aquaculture practice. The NMFS should make a leap to high environmental ground and require that
industry develop a truly sustainable fish aquaculture. New markets are emerging for sustainable wood
products, organic food, and sustainable fish. The NMFS should encourage and take advantage of this
trend.
7
5 Require that leases in the public waters of the EEZ should not be sold or subleased.
Two conditions of all leases in the EEZ should be that all processing of organisms take place on US
soil, and that towns be reimbursed by aquaculture companies for any expenses the towns may incur in
servicing the aquaculture facilities.
In addition:
6.3.2 An essential part of the framework for monitoring the effect of fish pens should be the baseline
measure of algal blooms in the EEZ, and future monitoring to see if the blooms increase with the
introduction of fish pens. As part of the precautionary principle, the connection between increases in
algal blooms and fish pens need not be proven before remedial action is initiated.
Leased areas should revert to the public periodically to prevent the emergence of private fiefdoms.
6.3.3 NMFS needs to improve its publicity.
Public participation needs to be more than a feel good opportunity to talk. True public participation
means power to affect the course of aquaculture in the EEZ, including vetoing its development at all
within a given zone.
6.3.4 Zoning is an excellent idea.
6.3.5 The content for feed and all substances going into the public waters needs to be made public.
6.4 Taxpayers should not have to subsidize aquaculture. Fish farms may be inimical to local ways of
life and local businesses, fisheries and the environment. Before development in the EEZ, the NMFS
should do an economic study of fish aquaculture, showing who wins and who loses in aquaculture
development. The changes in salmon farming in the past couple of years, from over production,
increased cost of fish feed because of limits on wild fisheries, increased salmon farm diseases,
government bailouts, and increasing opposition from the public and cost of lawsuits, need to be part of
the new understanding of salmon farm economics.
6.5 The public voters and taxpayers, not unelected government officials and private industry, should
have a say in what risks are acceptable.
6.8 The NMFS speaks of educating the public. EPBEA believes that education is a two way street, and
that the NMFS also needs to be educated by the public.
8