Download A Precautionary Approach to U.S. Open

Open-ocean
aquaculture is
expanding, but
this growth has
had serious
environmental
consequences.
A healthy ocean and a vibrant seafood industry are critical to
America’s environmental and economic future. Driven in part
by the decline of wild fish, aquaculture, or “fish farming,” is
expanding rapidly worldwide. Nearly one half of the world’s
seafood supply now comes from farming operations on land
and in the ocean. But this growth, especially of ocean fish
farming, also known as open-ocean aquaculture, has had
serious environmental consequences overseas where the
industry is more established.
In the United States, plans are afoot to grow domestic
aquaculture five-fold by 2025.1 In 2007, the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) - the lead federal
agency with authority to regulate fisheries in U.S. waters announced intentions to nearly triple ocean fish farming by
2017, a prospect that presents a threat to ocean ecosystems
that Congress must not ignore.2 Right now, ocean fish
farming in the US is governed by a piecemeal regulatory
patchwork of disjointed laws and overlapping but incomplete
authority. Recently, Congresswoman Lois Capps (D-CA)
introduced environmentally-protective legislation to create
a comprehensive federal permitting and regulatory system
for offshore aquaculture, accompanied by an ecologicallybased research program. H.R. 4363, the National Sustainable
Offshore Aquaculture Act of 2009, introduced on December
16, 2009, establishes a system to help ensure that any openocean aquaculture in the U.S. avoids the adverse impacts on
marine ecosystems, human health, and coastal communities
that have accompanied the industry’s development elsewhere.
Photo: Kypp Pollack / Marine Photobank
A Precautionary Approach to U.S.
Open-Ocean Aquaculture
A diver next to an offshore aquaculture pen.
Photo: Kydd Pollack / Marine Photobank.
Risks of Open-Ocean Aquaculture
To date, promoters of domestic open-ocean aquaculture have
downplayed the significant risks that could accompany the
growth of such an industry in the US. A large body of peerreviewed scientific literature has identified a host of risks and
impacts, including:
• Escapes: Aquaculture is known to be a major source for
the introduction of exotic species, causing concern over
the ecological impacts that escaped farmed species can
have on wild fish.3 Escaped fish compete with wild fish for
food and habitat, transmit diseases, and prey on and breed
with local fish, reducing the health of wild populations.
• Diseases and Parasites: Intensive fish culture has
been involved in the introduction and/or amplification of
pathogens and disease in wild fish populations.4
• Nutrient and Habitat Impacts: By design, untreated wastes
from open net pen systems are released directly into
nearby bodies of water, which can negatively impact the
surrounding environment.5 Waste and uneaten food can
build up on the ocean floor beneath pens, altering species
abundance and community biodiversity.
• Impacts on Predator Populations: The presence of captive
fish held in high density attracts predators such as birds,
sharks, and marine mammals. Techniques to keep some of
these predators at bay can impact their natural behavior
and pose entanglement and drowning risks.6
• Drugs and Chemicals: Aquaculture
often relies on the use of chemicals
including antibiotics, pesticides, and
antifoulants.7 In some cases, use of
antibiotics has resulted in bacterial
resistance in the environment8 and
has influenced antibiotic resistance in
humans.9
• Increased Fishing Pressure on Wild
Environmental Impacts of Open-Ocean Aquaculture
Fish Meal &
Fish Oil
Drugs &
Chemicals
Using wild-caught fish to
feed farmed fish puts
additional pressure on
these populations and can
impact other wildlife that
depends on them for food.
Rx
When used, antibiotics,
parasiticides, and other
chemicals flow out of pens
and can affect wild fish as
well as the broader marine
ecosystem.
Fish Stocks: Though counterintuitive,
farming of fish can actually increase
pressure to catch wild fish. Feed
for many farmed species contains
high percentages of fish meal and
fish oil that come from wild-caught
fish.10 To feed their livestock, the fish
farming industry is creating pressure
to remove key food sources on which
economically and environmentally
important wild species depend.11
• Socioeconomic Impacts: Farmed
fish compete with wild fish in the
marketplace.12 While price competition
may be good for consumers, it
can result in negative impacts on
communities dependent on wild fish,
including industry consolidation,
overproduction and elevated fishing
pressure on wild fish stocks as
fishermen try to catch more to make
up for lower prices at market.
The Need for a National
Framework
Diseases &
Parasites
Disease, pathogens, and parasites
can multiply in crowded pens and
rapidly spread to wild fish.
Escaped Fish
Escaped fish compete for food
and habitat, transmit diseases,
and prey on and breed with local
fish, reducing the health of wild
populations.
Fish Waste
Fish waste flows out into the ocean,
adding potentially harmful extra
nutrients to the ecosystem. Uneaten
food can also build up on the ocean
floor underneath pens, altering the
abundance and biodiversity of these
communities.
Predators
Seals, sea lions, sharks, birds,
and other marine wildlife can
become entangled in fish pens.
The use of deterrents like
underwater loudspeakers can
alter the natural behavior of
predators.
Produced by Ocean Conservancy
Responding to these real and well-documented risks,
Congresswoman Capps has introduced legislation to ensure
that the expansion of this new industry in U.S. federal
waters does not proceed without strong, performance-based
environmental, socio-economic, and liability standards. Previous
attempts to pass federal legislation were strongly opposed
by both the fishing and conservation communities because
the legislation lacked the necessary protection for ocean
ecosystems.
In the absence of federal legislation, regional expansion
of the industry is quietly proceeding. In September 2009,
the Secretary of Commerce allowed the legally-dubious
“Aquaculture Fishery Management Plan” to go into effect in the
Gulf of Mexico, paving the way for industry expansion in those
important waters. Meanwhile, in California, Hubbs-SeaWorld
Research Institute is attempting to navigate the current
regulatory process hoping to install the first commercial fish
farm in federal waters, located five miles west of San Diego.
Finally, plans for un-anchored, self-positioning fish farm cages
have just been approved in Hawaiian state waters which could
pave the way for additional development in offshore waters as
well. However, a precautionary national framework is urgently
needed in advance of industry development.
Provisions of a Precautionary Approach
An overarching federal framework, with nationwide standards,
is needed to help ensure aquaculture development in offshore
waters is ecologically sustainable. Such a framework must
adopt the precautionary approach13 as its operating principle
and establish a priority for the protection of wild fish, functional
ecosystems, and coastal and fishing-dependent communities.
The National Sustainable Offshore Aquaculture Act of 2009
is an opportunity to protect the U.S. from the risks of poorly
regulated open ocean aquaculture.
The National Sustainable
Offshore Aquaculture Act
of 2009 will:
• Require regional
environmental impact
statements that explicitly
address the impacts of
industry expansion,
before any commercial
permits are granted.
• Implement a
The Precautionary Principle:
“Where there are threats
of serious or irreversible
damage, lack of full scientific
certainty shall not be used
as a reason for postponing
cost-effective measures
to prevent environmental
degradation.”
-Principle 15-Rio Declaration
on Environment and
Development, June 14, 1992.
comprehensive,
ecologically-based
research program to ensure that critical environmental
and socio-economic information is integrated into a
precautionary federal permitting system.
• Enforce specific, legally-binding standards for:
» Fish Escapes: Only native fish, genetically similar to their
wild counterparts, and never genetically modified, may
be farmed in U.S. federal waters. All farmed fish must
be marked or tagged for identification in the event of
escapement.
» Disease Transfer: Antibiotics and other drugs may
only be used in the open-ocean to treat a diagnosed
condition. In all cases, fish farmers must minimize the
use of drugs and chemicals and always choose the
treatment option with least environmental impact.
» Nutrient Impacts: Fish farms must meet measurable,
numeric standards for discharging nutrients into the
ocean, and permitting decisions must consider the
impact of multiple farms on the surrounding ecosystem.
» Interactions with Marine Wildlife: Fish farmers must use
non-lethal predator deterrents and prevent the disruption
of wildlife or their use of critical habitats. Underwater
acoustic deterrent devices are specifically prohibited.
• Collect permit fees and resource use fees to cover
program administration and a reasonable portion of the
value of the use of our public ocean resources.
• Limit permits to a 10-year period with annual Secretarial
review to provide business certainty while ensuring
continued environmental compliance.
• Show a preference for technologies that substantially
exceed permit requirements.
• Prohibit siting of aquaculture facilities in specific sensitive
marine habitats, including marine reserves and National
Marine Sanctuaries, or on oil and gas platforms.
• Require operators to monitor and report on environmental
performance, while mandating that federal regulators
evaluate this information and make the findings available
to the public.
• Provide sufficient authority to federal regulators to modify,
suspend or revoke permits for violations or emergence of
new information.
• Give a strong voice to fishing communities through
the regional fishery management councils, including
requirements that aquaculture not impede access to fish
stocks.
• Enable states to determine if they wish to participate in
marine fish farming off their coasts, while not overriding
their existing authority granted under the Coastal Zone
Management Act.
• Require open-ocean aquaculture to be integrated
with future federal marine spatial planning efforts, in
recognition of the nation’s move toward ecosystem-based
management.
» Use of Wild Fish for Feed: Fish meal and fish oil may
only come from abundant wild stocks with ecosystembased management measures in place, while using
alternatives to wild fish in feed compounds as much as
possible.
» Impacts on Fisheries: Permits must include terms and
conditions necessary to minimize the displacement and
economic harm that fish farm operations may have on
fishing communities.
• Provide financial guarantees and liability provisions to
address potential environmental damage from aquaculture
operations.
Fish pen off the coast of Hawaii.
Photo: Kate Naughten / NOAA
Cobia in a surface cage, Belize.
© Eric Punkay
Window of Opportunity
Now is the time for strong leadership from members of
Congress on the future of open-ocean aquaculture in the
United States. If Congress fails to act, a piecemeal, poorlyregulated industry is likely to develop with potentially severe
environmental consequences. But with bold action, Congress
can ensure an overarching national vision for environmentally
responsible ocean fish farming and develop the legislative
framework necessary to ensure strong protection of U.S.
waters.
Doing anything less is a gamble with our oceans that we simply
should not take.
How the American People Can Help:
• Stay Informed: Check Ocean Conservancy’s website for
updated information related to open-ocean aquaculture
and other issues affecting our ocean.
www.oceanconservancy.org
• Get Active: Join Ocean Conservancy’s online community
to receive up-to-the-minute information on how to ensure
your voice is heard in Washington on attempts to craft a
strong, precautionary national framework.
• Write your Member of Congress: Bold national leadership
is needed to regulate offshore fish farming in our ocean.
Urge your elected officials to be a part of the solution by
advocating for strong national standards.
Contact:
George Leonard, Aquaculture Program Director
Ocean Conservancy
55 C Municipal Wharf
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
(831) 471-2755
James Ferro, Aquaculture Policy Analyst
Ocean Conservancy
1300 19th Street, NW 8th Floor
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 429-5609
[email protected]
References
1. United States Department of Commerce. 1999. Aquaculture Policy.
Online: http://aquaculture.noaa.gov/pdf/18_docaqpolicy.pdf. Accessed
on January 5, 2009.
2. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2007. 10-Year Plan for
Marine Aquaculture (October). Online: http://aquaculture.noaa.gov/about/
tenyear.html. Accessed on January 5, 2009; Nash, C.E. 2004. Achieving
policy objectives to increase the value of the seafood industry in the
United States: the technical feasibility and associated constraints. Food
Policy 29(6):621-641.
3. Naylor, R., S.L. Williams and D.R. Strong. 2001. Aquaculture- A gateway
for exotic species. Science 294:1655-1656.
4. Blazer, V. S., & S.E. LaPatra. 2002. Pathogens of cultured fishes:
potential risks to wild fish populations. In J. Tomasso, Aquaculture and the
Environment in the United States (pp. 197-224). Baton Rouge, LA: U.S.
Aquaculture Society, A Chapter of the World Aquaculture Society.
5. Wu, R.S.S. 1995. The environmental impact of marine fish culture:
towards a sustainable future. Marine Pollution Bulletin 31:159-166;
Hardy, R.W. 2000. Fish feeds and nutrition: urban legends and fish
nutrition. Aquaculture Magazine 26(6):47-50.
6. Galaz, T. & A. de Maddalena. 2004. On a great white shark trapped in a
tuna cage off Libya, Mediterranean Sea. Annales Series Historia Naturalis
14:159-163; NOAA Small Business Innovation Research Program. 2005.
Development of effective and low cost predator exclusion devices for
offshore aquaculture facilities in the United States EEZ. Contract No.
DG133R05-CN-1200: Snapperfarm, Inc.; Upton, H.F., E.H. Buck & R.
Borgatti. 2007. Open Ocean Aquaculture CRS Report for Congress.
Congressional Research Service, Order Code RL32694.
7. Tacon, A.G. & I.P. Forster. 2000. Global trends and challenges to
aquaculture and aquafeed development in the new millennium. In
International Aquafeed- Directory and Buyers’ Guide 2001 (pp. 4-25).
Uxbridge, UK: Turret RAI.
8. Kerry, J., R. Coyne, D. Gilroy, M. Hiney & P. Smith. 1996. Spatial
distribution of oxytetracycline and elevated frequencies of oxytetracycline
resistance in sediments beneath a marine salmon farm following
oxytetracycline therapy. Aquaculture 145:31-39.
9. Sapkota, A., A.R. Sapkota, M. Kucharski, J. Burke, S. McKenzie, P.
Walker, P., et al. 2008. Aquaculture practices and potential human health
risks: current knowledge and future priorities. Environment International
34:1215-1226.
10. Tacon, A. G., & M. Metian. 2008. Global overview on the use of fish meal
and fish oil in industrially compounded aquafeeds: Trends and future
prospects. Aquaculture 285:146-158.
11. Tacon, A. et al. “Use of Fishery Resources as Feed Inputs to Aquaculture
Development: Trends and Policy Implications.” FAO Fisheries Circular No.
1018, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome,
2006.
12. Knapp, G., C. A. Roheim and J. L. Anderson. 2007. The great salmon run:
competition between wild and farmed salmon. TRAFFIC North America.
World Wildlife Fund, Washington, D.C.
13. Bowling, T. 2008. Facing Uncertainty: Local Governments and the
Precautionary Principle. National Sea Grant Law Center. MASGP 08020. Online: http://nsglc.olemiss.edu/Precautionary%20Principle.pdf.
Accessed on January 7, 2010.
1300 19th St, NW, 8th Floor | Washington, DC 20036
1.800.519.1541 | www.oceanconservancy.org