Document Actions

Offshore Aquaculture: FAQs

by diana — last modified July 09, 2007 05:54 PM

The following Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) and AMCC's answers provide background on proposed national legislation to allow commercial fish farming in the open ocean and AMCC's conservation and community concerns.

Q: What is Offshore Aquaculture?

Offshore aquaculture, also referred to as open ocean aquaculture (OOA), is open ocean fish farming. It is defined as “the rearing of marine organisms under controlled conditions in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) – from the three mile territorial limit of the coast to 200 miles offshore.”

Q: Why are we talking about Offshore Aquaculture now?

The National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is pushing to allow commercial offshore aquaculture in the United States. The National Offshore Aquaculture Act of 2007 (H.2010) was introduced in Congress in April 2007.The bill would allow commercial fish farming operations in the U.S. EEZ.

Q: Doesn’t the State of Alaska prohibit fish farming?

Yes, but the 1990 State of Alaska ban on fish farming only applies to State waters from 0-3 miles offshore.

Q: What is NOAA's rationale for promoting fish farming offshore and what are AMCC's responses?

NOAA's rationale	AMCC's response
Commercial fisheries can't meet present or future demand for fish; offshore aquaculture will feed the world and relieve pressure on wild stocks.	Because of the high cost of implementing offshore aquaculture projects in the U.S., most of the species being considered are high-value carnivorous fish such as halibut and black cod. These species consume large amounts of fishmeal and fish oil. Farming carnivorous fish actually increases pressure on wild stocks.
Offshore aquaculture will enhance depleted wild stocks.	Halibut and black cod are not depleted and are already high value and shold not be farmed. In countries or areas where there are depletions, rebuilding plans and other conservation tools should be used to restore fish populations. Offshore aquaculture should not be a substitute for good fisheries management.
Offshore aquaculture will complement wild fisheries, not compete with them.	Farming of species that are healthy and are commercially harvested in the wild will definitely compete with, rather than complement wild fisheries.
Offshore aquaculture demonstration projects in state waters show that offshore aquaculture can work well.	Small, experimental research projects through government–funded Sea Grant programs at the Universities of Hawaii, New Hampshire and others do not provide a realistic, long-term assessment of the potential environmental impacts of industrial scale commercial offshore fish farms.
Inshore water quality concerns would not exist offshore. Offshore aquaculture will result in fewer environmental concerns than those plaguing nearshore fish farming.	The same environmental risks that exist with coastal fish farming would exist offshore: water pollution from feed and waste, spread of disease from farmed fish to wild fish populations, and escapes of non-native species or geneitclaly modified fish. The ecological problems associated with industrial scale fish farming don't go away when you move farms offshore.
Fishery conservation programs are putting many fishermen out of work and offshore aquaculture will provide year-round job opportunities in coastal communities.	The high cost of tending fish far from shore means facilities will likely be automated. Employment opportunities will be few.
Offshore aquaculture will happen in other parts of the world regardless of whether or not the U.S. permits it, so we should get on the bandwagon and take advantage of the economic gain.	With the increased emphasis on quality and marketing by U.S. fishermen responding to the flood of farmed fish on the market, the educated consumer favors "wild". Just because offshore aquaculture might be done in other countries, does not mean that we should risk degrading our marine resources and contribute to the social and economic decline of our coastal communities.

Q: What are some of the troubling provisions of the National Offshore Aquaculture Act (H.2010 )?

The proposed bill lacks strong and specific environmental standards.
The legislation gives almost exclusive control for permitting and operations to the Secretary of Commerce.
The legislation would allow for multi-national and foreign corporations to lease the sites.
The proposed legislation specifically exempts projects/proposals from the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the regional fishery management councils.
The bill allows for any marine species to be authorized: “the term ‘marine species’ means finfish, mollusks, crustaceans, marine algae and all other forms of marine life, excluding marine mammals and birds.
A programmatic EIS needs to be included in legislation. The revision contains no such provision for NOAA to conduct a programmatic EIS.
There is no provision explicitly prohibiting genetically modified species.
There is a need for a standard requiring species-specific offshore aquaculture that would not compete economically or environmentally with wild stock.
The draft revision contains a provision for 20 year permits, renewable for 20 years. This is unreasonable and without merit.

Q: What is AMCC’s position on offshore aquaculture and H.2010?

The Alaska Marine Conservation Council (AMCC) opposes offshore aquaculture because:

Offshore aquaculture poses environmental risks to our ocean resources and the proposed bill lacks strong and specific environmental safeguards.
Offshore aquaculture would have negative socio-economic impacts on Alaska’s coastal communities.
AMCC supports conservative management of wild fisheries, community-based opportunities for independent fishing families and advanced marketing of healthy, wild seafood products. Offshore fish farming is incompatible with this community vision.

Q: Where can I find the full text of the proposed bill?

To read the full text of the bill (H.R. 2010) introduced in the House in April 2007, go to the following page on the Library of Congress THOMAS website: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2010.IH:

Q: What are Alaska’s leaders saying about the offshore aquaculture legislation?

Governor Sarah Palin: Until equivalent measures are in place that assures protection of Alaska’s wild stocks, Alaskans will not support offshore aquaculture development off of Alaska’s shores. (March 15, 2007). The State requests “a five-year moratorium on new offshore aquaculture development until environmental and socio-economic impacts are adequately developed.” Specifically, the State of Alaska requests prohibitions on “farming of certain species, particularly salmon, halibut and black cod.” (March 15, 2007)

Senator Lisa Murkowski: "If we simply take dollars away from the existing commercial fishing industry and move them over to the aquaculture industry, are we really creating new commerce?" asked Lisa Murkowski ("A fight about fish farms," by Marc Gunther Fortune, June 8, 2007.) Senator Murkowski has introduced a moratorium bill that would prohibit any permitting or development of offshore aquaculture projects until in depth research has been conducted into the environmental and socioeconomic impacts of such programs.

Senator Ted Stevens: Senator Stevens has indicated he would support the legislation “as long as Alaska’s finfish wild capture industry was sufficiently protected. They (the Bush Administration) want help to get the bill passed and we intend to help get it passed.” (April 2007 Fishermen’s News).

Congressman Don Young: Congressman Young has indicated that he opposes fish farming (May 8 meeting with AMCC and Alaska Trollers Association).

Alaska's Legislature: In 2005, The Alaska State Legislature unanimously passed House Joint Resolution (HJR) 15 opposing open ocean aquaculture in federal waters for finfish and predatory shellfish, such as shrimp.

Alaska's Fishing Associations: The United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA), representing over 30 fishing groups, has spoken out strongly against H.2010, as have other fishing organizations. "We oppose finfish farms, anytime, any place, any species," said Mark Vinsel, executive director of UFA.

Q: What Can I Do?

Stay informed! Sign up to receive AMCC's electronic newsletter.
Join AMCC or Donate. Your support makes a difference in our work to conserve fisheries and support working waterfronts.
Contact your state and Congressional delegations and tell them your concerns about offshore aquaculture.