SUMMARY OF IMPORTANT POINTS FROM A ‘CONFERENCE ON MARINE
AQUACULTURE: EFFECTS ON THE WEST COAST AND ALASKA FISHING
INDUSTRY’ NOVEMBER 17-19 2004
For the first 2 days of the conference various speakers spent time trying to dispel
criticism of the problems inherent in salmon aquaculture, and reiterated information
about the growing seafood market in the US. Offshore aquaculture’s role in reducing the
seafood trade deficit was frequently touted. Most of the useful information regarding
offshore aquaculture came in a speech by Conrad Mahnken, director of NOAA’s
aquaculture program, and related to the fourth coming aquaculture bill which will be
presented to congress in 2004.
The bill was first identified in 1997, drafted in ’98, reviewed by the Joint Sub-committee
on Aquaculture in ’99, rewritten in ’02, and has very recently been approved by NOAA’s
executive council. In 2004 it will be given to the Office of Management and Budget and
Joint Sub-committee on Aquaculture, the JSA’s concerns will be addressed and the bill
will go to congress.
Most of the draft bill’s findings are predictable, e.g. that it is US policy to support
aquaculture, encourage responsible aquaculture and promote research and development in
this area.
There will be two types of permit issued for offshore sites. 1) A site permit for a
minimum of 10 years, giving security of tenure to allow investors to attract loans for their
projects. Following the initial period it would be renewable every 5 years. 2) An
operating permit dependent on species, seabed, anchoring, consistency with the Coastal
Zone Management Act, and compatibility with other users.
There would be a ‘one stop permitting process’ and operators would have to meet
standards consistent with the species being raised (these have yet to be defined as many
species are experimental). Permits would be transferable and any citizen would be able to
hold one. It was mentioned that this must be consistent with international law such as the
Sea Convention, of which ‘the US is not a signatory but complies’
There will be annual permit fees which may be waived for research and tribal rights, and
these fees would go into an aquaculture fund used to safeguard aquaculture. Permits
could be revoked, and monitoring would take place. However if farms comply with
standards monitoring will be reduced.There will be Department of Commerce financial
assistance, R&D partnerships with industry for feasibility studies, and financial assistance
for farms that are not economically viable. Standards would be set through partnership
with industry in association with scientific studies.
Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the bill is that it will exempt Offshore
aquaculture facilities from the Magnusson Stevens act which currently regulates the EEZ.
This would allow foreign companies and individuals to own offshore sites. This is not
possible for US ships, which may not be foreign owned. When asked about foreign
ownership of leases and how it would benefit the US trade deficit, Mr Mahnken
answered that ‘we can’t and don’t’ exclude ownership by foreign companies. He did
however suggest that the Alien Exclusion Act of 1931 does not allow ownership of lands
by foreigners. When asked what would happen if states, e.g. Alaska, opposed this federal
policy, he replied that Alaska was a signatory to the Coastal Zone Management Act and
has constitutional rights with federal government. He suggested that an operator would
require land-based facilities which the state could veto
Tim Keeney, co-propenent of the bill with Conrad Mahnken, also gave a less informative
speech in which he indicated that NOAA’s Code of Conduct for Aquaculture in the US
EEZ, developed with the Joint Sub-committee on Aquaculture will be published in 2004.
A speaker from the fishing industry later noted that there is a disparity whereby
commercial fishing is very highly regulated, while aquaculture is subject only to
voluntary regulations.
He talked of the re-structuring which has occurred within NOAA recently under which,
NMFS, OAR, NOS and NESDIS remain part of NOAA but are ‘matrix managed’. This
means that various programs within NOAA will be managed across all the sub-agencies,
Conrad Mahnken being the matrix manager for the aquaculture program.
In response to a question about funding, Keeney stated that setting up the permitting
process would require $30 in its initial year, that revenues would come in with sales of
permits/leases and that there would be a further investment of ‘some millions of $’s’ in
the following years. This in addition to the $8million R&D money going annually to Sea
Grant. This seems like an extremely conservative estimate
In answer to a question, Bill Waknitz, also of NOAA Fisheries (NMFS) suggested that
since 2004 is a presidential election year, and senate is up for re-election along with half
of congress, the bill would be likely to die and be resubmitted in 2005.