Draft National Aquaculture Policies Call-in Session Answers Questions
Posted by Santa Monica Admin, on February 16th, 2011 in Announcements, SustainabilityTweet
We sat in on one of the call-in sessions that NOAA has arranged to help clarify their Draft National Aquaculture Policy. The goal of the call was to also answer any constituent questions about the policies.
The administrator reminded the listeners that the comment deadline on the policies is April 11; we encourage you to let NOAA and the Department of Commerce know what you think!
Dr. Michael Rubino, manager of the NOAA Aquaculture Program in Silver Spring, MD did most of the talking. He put the policies in context, reminding us of the significant role aquaculture products (and especially imported aquaculture products) play in food production, especially in this country where 84% of the seafood we eat is imported, and 50% of that is from aquaculture.
Dr. Rubino described our domestic aquaculture industries as “vibrant” although admitting they only provide 5% of the seafood that we eat. “We can do better than that,” he stated.
He also reminded us that we’ve just been encouraged to double our seafood consumption! According to Dr. Rubino, “a robust sustainable aquaculture industry can increase food security and reduce our huge seafood trade deficit which is second only to crude oil and natural gas.”
The aim of the draft aquaculture policies is simply to increase sustainable aquaculture in the US.
Rubino elaborated that “Healthy oceans are everyone’s business”. The policies are also designed to protect the environment, create green jobs while enhancing other coastal businesses
He ended by stating that they also understand the need for rebuilding wild fish populations while demand for seafood increases – A domestic aquaculture industry can be a compliment to wild caught seafood consumed here in the US.
There was then a lively question and answer period…
A variety of questions covered everything from algae grown for biofuel to sustainable feed sources, and also included the ubiquitous derisive comments about salmon farming.
One caller asked for a definition of sustainable to which Dr. Rubino replied that the entire draft policy is their definition of sustainable.
There will be two more opportunities to join one of the call in sessions yourself – take an hour out of your day and listen in!
The last call in day is Wednesday, Feb. 23, 2011
10:00 – 11:00 a.m. (EST)
Call-in (800) 369-1823
Passcode: Aquaculture
4:00 – 5:00 p.m. (EST)
Call-in (800) 369-1823
Passcode: Aquaculture
Boy-oh-boy. I’m not sure where to begin.
Let’s start here. I just found out that out federal government has been pushing for the establishment of an aquaculture industry for some time, starting with the National Aquaculture Act of 1980. Since then, this Act has been updated and revised several times ultimately culminating in this Draft Aquaculture Policy. Are we really going to spend millions of federal dollars to research and develop the technology needed to make off-shore fish farming in the EEZ viable? With off-the-shelf technology (developed by NOAA et al and paid for by you and me) some food corp. like Tyson Chicken can come in, take the tech off the shelf, go fish farming, and behold……I give you, Tyson Salmon! But wait you say…everyone knows that farmed fish are bad.., bad for the ecology, bad for the wild species in the area, bad for the farmed fish themselves and bad for the consumer. Ah-ha, never fear, NOAA is here. NOAA will make sure that everything is done sustainably. Not only that but (and this is the best part of all), NOAA and the United States Department of Commerce will make sure to tell everyone how safe and environmentally sound our new grand Aquaculture Industry really is. They’ll probably have posters with rainbows and kittens and happy cartoon salmon.
That’s right folks. in this draft policy NOAA and the DOC pledge to not only overcome the technical hurdles presented by off-shore fish farming in the EEZ but to overcome the public-perception problem too. God I love my government.
Ok, ok, some might be justified in saying that I’m over-reacting a bit. And, they might be right. This new aquaculture policy could present some wonderful opportunities for all of us, IF our energy and our money is applied in the right places.
As stated in their draft policy, the primary reason for establishing and supporting a new aquaculture industry is to address an alarming seafood trade imbalance. “Approximately 84% of seafood consumed in the U.S. is imported” is a quote from the policy and sourced from an annual report put out by the U.S. Dept. of Commerce entitled “Fisheries of the United States” . The quote comes from the 2009 edition of this report. I read the report. This “84%” is a very deceptive number and in no way reflects the true nature of our engagement in the international seafood trade. Here’s some numbers from the same report that wasn’t mentioned in the Draft Policy. Value of total imports of all fishery products (that’s edible and non-edible combined) = 21.8 billion dollars. Value of total exports of all fishery products (also edible and non-edible combined) = 19.6 billion dollars. ?? We Import 21.8 billion and export 19.6. This is a difference of 2.2 billion and when expressed as a percentage one arrives at 11.1%. In other words, the value of our exports is 89.9 % of our Imports. Admittedly, a deficit does exist but nothing like the 84/16 split that is implied by that “84%”. The truth is it’s a 21.8/19.6 split. So, although a trade deficit does exist and should be addressed, it’s not quite time yet to make a run on your local supper markets supplies of flour, sugar, rice, beans, toothpaste, and bullets, then start farming fish as quickly as we can. Lets all just take a deep breath and calm down please. I have some ideas about how we might go about addressing this deficit and the other sustainability goals laid out in the policy, but first I’d like to address this “84%”
So, how did they come up with that 84% number? A good question, and one I can answer. However, a better question I will also attempt to answer is: why did they chose to express the trade imbalance in this overly-exaggerated way? What possible motivation is there?
Let’s answer the first question first. How did they determine that 84% of all seafood consumed in the U.S. is imported?
Here’s the relevant text right out of the report:
The NMFS calculation of per-capita consumption is based on a “disappearance” model. The total U.S.supply of imports and landings is converted to edible
weight and decreases in supply such as exports are subtracted out. The remaining total is divided by a population value to estimate per-capita consumption.
Data for the model are derived primarily from secondary sources and are subject to incomplete reporting; changes in source data or invalid model assumptions
may each have a significant effect on the resulting calculation.
So, lets do an example. Lets say total US fish caught = 10 lbs, and say our imports = another 10 lbs. To get our total supply we add these together and get 10 + 10 = 20 lbs total supply (now, when calculating per-capita consumption its important to reduce all the weights to an edible weight figure to accurately represent how many pounds of fish-meat each of us actually eat, but here we skip that step since we’re simply showing how the math works. It still works the same way when the edible weights are calculated because all the variables reduce by the same amounts but we just want to know how they came up with the 84% so we’ll keep it simple.)
So total supply is 20 lbs (10 from domestic production and 10 from imports). Now, we subtract out the amount we want to export, say 8.1 lbs.
So, 20 – 8.1 = leaving us with a remaining US supply of 11.9 pounds ( the fish we get to eat). Now, there is a critical assumption made in the disappearance model; that all our exports come out of our total domestic production, the 10 lbs caught by US fishermen that we started with, and NOT taken away from the 10 lbs we imported. After all, why would we export something we just imported? So, following this logic, our 11.9 net supply (the fish we get to eat) is made up of the 10 lbs we imported and the 1.9 lbs we have left of our domestic production after exporting 8.1 lbs of it. So this leaves us with the fact that 10 lbs of our supply(11.9 lbs) is made up of imports and so:
10 of 11.9 ; ( 10 lbs/11.9 lbs) = .84 or 84% !! By this calculation, 84% of our domestic seafood supply is imported. Sounds real bad but lets look again at the imports and exports, 10 lbs imported, 8.1 exported. A loss of 1.9 pounds after a total of 18.1 pounds changed hands. Certainly a seafood trade deficit but not as extreme as that 84% figure would suggest.
To further demonstrate the limitations of the disappearance model lets try to fix the trade imbalance and get that 84% down to a more manageable number.
What would happen to that 84% if we, say, increased our exports to equal that of our imports, thus getting rid of our trade deficit. To get more lbs to export, we would have to increase our domestic production by the additional amount we wish to export (since according to the “disappearance model” our exports come out of our domestic production). So, for our exports (8.1 lbs) to equal our 10 lbs of imports, we have to increase our exports by 1.9 pounds, and to do that we have to increase our domestic production (by the same amount: 1.9 lbs) from 10 lbs to 11.9 lbs. So now we have; domestic production= 11.9 lbs, imports= 10 lbs, and exports= 10lbs. Wow look at that, imports 10 lbs, export 10 lbs, equal. Great !! Now lets see what percentage of our net domestic supply our imports are, using the “disappearance model”. Domestic production + imports = 11.9 + 10 = 21.9 total supply, minus exports, 21.9 – 10 = 11.9 lbs of fish we get to eat. Now, once again we look at imports (10lbs) as a percentage of the food we get to eat (11.9 lbs) and what do we get? 10 lbs/11.9 lbs = .84 or 84%…wait..what? We balanced the seafood trade deficit , 10 lbs imported and 10 lbs exported, but still 84% of the yummy fish I’m eating comes from evil foreigners. God those foreigners are sneaky. I hope you see now how misleading that figure of 84% can be. In short, the only way to get that 84% down to zero is to reduce our seafood imports to zero, and that’s not just unrealistic, it’s plain silly.
Now, lets get real folks. Trade imbalances are a bit more complex than whether or not we have fish-farms. In 1970 we paid 47.2 cents for every pound of edible seafood we imported while we received 77.6 cents per pound for our exports. Our exports were much more valuable than imports. Since then there has been a trend which has reversed that situation. As of 2009, we paid $2.76 per pound for our imports while exports earned us only $1.70 per pound. To put it another way, if the relative value of our imports verses exports had remained constant since 1970, the 2009 import/export balance of trade would look like this: imports = $8.9 billion, exports = $7.2 billion (instead of what we are seeing now with imports = $13.1 billion and exports = $4 billion). So whats going on? Why are we paying more for our imports than we did in years past? Well, the answer has EVERYTHING to do with macro-economics, federal monetary policy, relative value of the dollar to foreign currencies, and NOTHING to do with whether or not we have fish-farms in the EEZ.
The international trade in seafood is actually quite complex. We have fish here that are in high demand elsewhere and, there are species of fish we really like that are neither produced nor caught here so, naturally, we import them. If we get scared by this spooky “84%” and let fish farmers go wild and begin producing zillions of pounds of fish willy-nilly, we would be just as likely to hurt the economic situation as to help it. So, what do we do? How do we balance the seafood trade deficit or even become a net exporter? Like most things in this world of ours, its complicated. There are no quick fixes or easy solutions. The solutions to these problems will necessarily use a combination of methods, implemented strategically in order to maximize our existing strengths. Here are some ideas.
1. At no time should existing or future aquaculture technology be used to establish fish farming in a sector that would compete head-to-head with an already existing, robust, sustainable fishery. Period.
The Policy’s definition of “sustainable marine aquaculture” encompasses, environmental, economic, and social sustainability.
If (for example) large scale salmon farming is taken up and millions or 10’s of millions of additional pounds hit the market, fish prices could drop to a point where 10’s of thousands of commercial salmon fishermen would no longer be able to operate. Not only would those fisherman and their families become homeless but all the industries that support a healthy fishing fleet will have to find another way to pay the rent also. (producers of fishing gear, chain, cable, rope, nets, paint, marine electronics, navigation and fishing specific software, welders, marine mechanics, shipwrights, hydraulics engineers, boat builders, I could keep going but I think you get the idea). A healthy fleet puts millions of dollars into these sectors every season. In short, destroying an existing, sustainable, fishery clearly violates both the economic and social aspects of the policy’s “sustainability” promises.
But wait! All those people could go work for the fish farms! Then everything would be OK right? Wrong. That’s not how things would play out. If the fish farming industry develops the same way the rest of the meat industry has, then we are likely to see 10’s of thousands of fishing jobs earning 50-70k (middle-income) replaced by lower paying processing jobs (18-25k or so, just a guess). This must not happen.
2. To meet the Policy’s rebuilding goals, any research and development conducted should have a heavy emphasis on rebuilding the bases of regional food webs.
The base of the oceans food chain is in trouble. Many feed populations are seriously depressed when compared to historic levels. The reasons for this may vary but certainly include over-fishing in many cases. The current state of these systems must be assessed (if not yet known) and aquaculture (hatch and release possibly) applications used to jump start and accelerate recovery programs where needed. This would be a huge job but one that desperately needs doing. No recovery of depressed commercially sought species can occur without robust and healthy feed-stock populations. As stocks recover, sustainable fishing can be an efficient means of monitoring the health of the feed-stock population.
Also, the effects of rising ocean acidity levels could (and probably will) produce changes in regional ocean food webs. Having an infrastructure that monitors and supports the base of these food webs already in place and functioning could be critical as we face the challenges of a changing global climate.
3.All existing and future aquaculture technology should be used to accelerate the rebuilding of existing, depressed fisheries and the further expansion of healthy fisheries in order to meet the needs of a growing population and the increasing demand for healthy seafood.
There are numerous traditional fisheries that are hurting as a result of over-fishing. Science-based, sustainable fishing practices must be adopted industry wide to prevent further damage to regional ecosystems and aid in recovery efforts. Aquaculture technology has proven to be very effective when used in hatch and release applications and the intensive, wide-spread use of these applications will be required if we wish to rebuild existing stocks to sustainable levels.
4. Drive growth in specific aquaculture sectors that show high demand and are as yet unrepresented or under-represented.
The freshwater aquaculture industry could benefit greatly from Federal efforts directed towards increases in sustainability and growth. Currently, freshwater aquaculture products are in high demand with domestic production at 600 million pounds in 2008 worth approx. $500 million. Exports are relatively small at 15.6 million lbs, because we’re eating all we produce. At the same time, we’re importing an additional 593 million lbs worth over $1 billion and eating all of that too.. Here is an industry that could be greatly expanded and in so doing satisfy demand with domestic production, reducing imports as a result.
The shrimp fishery is another such sector which could benefit from aquaculture. High demand, high import rates, low export rates. Average commercial landings 2004-08 at 285 million lbs (with the lion’s share coming from the gulf at 230 million lbs), imports at 1.2 billion lbs worth $3.75 billion with exports at 25 million lbs. Once again, like freshwater fish production, we have low domestic production when compared to the rate of imports and a low rate of exports due to high domestic demand. However, because there is an already existing shrimp fishery, ramp-up of aquaculture projects would have to be controlled so as to avoid negative effects on the shrimp fishing industry. The goal of any domestic shrimp farming would be to take the place of imported farmed shrimp, not to challenge existing, sustainable, wild-shrimp fisheries. Once again , we’re trying to add to existing jobs, not replace them.
I came up with these two sectors after one quick glance at the data. There must be more opportunities where we could enhance an existing industry without threatening another. If we could replace the imports with domestic production in just these two sectors, we could lower total imports by 4.75 billion dollars. This alone would make us a net exporter and give us a trade surplus in excess of $2 billion.
Here’s an example of a fishery where fish-farming could prove to be counter-productive.
The commercial salmon fishery currently enjoys a domestic production of around 705 million lbs with exports at 390 million lbs (fresh,frozen,and canned) imports at 522 million lbs. With a robust rate of export and a trade imbalance of only 132 million pounds, salmon farming would only serve to take money away from fishermen engaged in a sustainable fishery, and put it in the pockets of big business. The rebuilding of existing threatened runs (in California, Oregon, and Washington) to levels where limited, sustainable commercial fishing can increase will, over time, address that 132 million pond deficit.
5. The policy states that there will be information flow from the government to the consumer. This information flow should consist of urges to buy American wild fish from American fisherman. Essentially a “buy American” campaign. A well run, well funded public relations campaign will, by itself, go along way to addressing our seafood trade deficit.
I said I would attempt to answer a second question regarding that figure of 84%. The question: Why use that alarming and misleading number? Or maybe why use it in such a misleading way?
I’ll give you the short answer. Two words. Political tactics. You use a scary number to scare people. It kick-starts political action because it becomes a “serious issue” and “something must be done about it”. And of course the problem then provides the answer. If we’re importing so much of our seafood then obviously our domestic fisherman just aren’t cutting it. We’re importing all this seafood to meet a demand that domestic production can’t keep up with. The only way to increase our domestic production without over-taxing already stressed fisheries is to begin fish-farming. And, since there’s that great big 84% out there, we better build lots and lots and lots of really big fish farms.
Why are political tactics being used to further the aquaculture industry? C’mon guys think about it.
Right now, there are four or five food industry corporations that control 75% of meat production in the US. That’s right. The economic forces that have driven the meat industry towards consolidation are the same economic forces that has now drawn the gaze of its cyclopian eye towards the sea and the $75 billion seafood industry. I hope they all choke on fish bones.
We already have a really big fish farm and it produces hundreds of billions of pounds of fish for us to eat each year. We need to learn how to maintain it properly (or we’re all going to die), and growing a bunch of fish in cages in the ocean is a laughably naive attempt at a solution.
(all statistics from “Fisheries of the United States 2009″)
[...] (Even so, Americans currently eat less than half the government-recommended amount of seafood.) Imported seafood currently constitutes 84% of total US seafood consumption.At the same time, American [...]