East Penobscot Bay Environmental Alliance

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.