why do so many americans react negatively to increasing ......
TRANSCRIPT
Why do so many Americans react negatively to increasing aquaculture in the US?
Jim Diana, DirectorMichigan Sea Grant College Program
Seafood production
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Yiel
d (M
MT)
Aquaculture
Capture
•Aquaculture growth about 9% per year since 1985
•Wild fisheries yield stagnant since 1990
Seafood production
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Yiel
d (M
MT)
Aquaculture
Capture
9.2%
•Aquaculture growth about 9% per year since 1985
•Wild fisheries yield stagnant since 1990
Seafood production
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Yiel
d (M
MT)
Aquaculture
Capture
9.2%
38%•Aquaculture growth about 9% per year since 1985
•Wild fisheries yield stagnant since 1990
US Aquaculture Production
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Aqua
cultu
re P
rodu
ctio
n M
MT
US World
US Aquaculture Production
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Aqua
cultu
re P
rodu
ctio
n M
MT
US World
US Aquaculture Production
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Aqua
cultu
re P
rodu
ctio
n M
MT
US WorldIncreases at about 9%/yr
US Aquaculture Production
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Aqua
cultu
re P
rodu
ctio
n M
MT
US WorldIncreases at about 2.4%/yr
US public view of aquaculture
US public view of agriculture?
Michigan Sea Grant and aquaculture
Have a long history of HACCP program to support the industry
Developed fact sheets about aquaculture systems Funded an integrated assessment to help industry come
up with a strategic plan to follow Started Seafood Summits to promote all Michigan
seafood as safe and sustainable, build public, fisher, and culturist trust
Received grant to develop aquaculture extension, including new educator, interns, GAAMPs, community college curricula
Michigan Sea Grant’s integrated assessment of aquaculture in 2014
Integrated assessment was part of MISG’s normal grant process; one of the winning proposals was for such an assessment of aquaculture
Idea was to help the industry develop a plan for their future and determine how to implement such a plan
It was not Sea Grant’s plan, but rather a plan adopted by the Michigan Aquaculture Association
However, it was initiated by MISG and the plan was developed with multiple stakeholder involvement and peer review
Some basic ideas in the plan Michigan needs to step up in aquaculture because: 90% of our seafood is imported We have reasons to question its quality Population growth is causing new demand We have the water, expertise, and fishing history to make it work
However, Michigan needs to use caution to develop systems that will be productive yet not cause undue harm to the environment Somewhat an issue because ALL interventions cause some harm – need
to limit it
Basic concepts in strategic plan
Expand aquaculture to $1 billion industry by 2025 Do so using 3 main systems – raceways, recirculating, and cage
culture Start by expanding existing systems, but then develop
demonstration farms and business plans that will support financing for new systems
Develop whole industry, not just production facilities - fry production, feed production, food fish production, processing, and marketing
Raceways
Most common system in Michigan today –includes state salmon and trout hatcheries
Recirculating aquaculture
Developing in US, more common in Europe
Cage culture in Great Lakes
Systems in place in Ontario, also common on both coasts and the Columbia River
Cage culture fears
Controversy surrounding Michigan aquaculture
Net pens
Grayling fish hatchery
Michigan’s net pen controversy Received 2 pre-permit
applications Decided to convene expert panel
to give recommendations to QOL group
Panel reported in October 2015, along with a cursory market evaluation http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,457
0,7-153--368780--rss,00.html
Panel recommendations Asked not to propose a decision, but recommend what
to consider in decision Use adaptive managementMonitor carefully (BACI) Start slowly and develop best practices Consider siting as the most important issue Require decommissioning bonds or insurance Pay particular attention to effects of ice and plans to manage
for them
State Decision The Michigan QOL agencies do not recommend pursuing of
commercial net-pen aquaculture in the Great Lakes at this time for the following reasons: Commercial net-pen aquaculture would pose significant risks to fishery
management and other types of recreation and tourism. The $3.3 million to implement a commercial net-pen aquaculture program
by the State are not provided through any conventional funding models available to the QOL agencies.
Regulatory authority does not currently exist to issue registrations for commercial aquaculture in the Great Lakes.
Public concerns and beliefs Net pens are dirty and will foul Great Lake waters Genetic degradation from escaped fish Great Lakes are for better public use – Charter
fishing? Economic value of aquaculture poor Against net pens – probably 75% of public
comments Groups include MUCC, TU, MEC, Sierra Club Most of these groups were uninformed about the issues
and were not willing to listen to scientific data on impacts
Grayling hatchery
Originally a state fish hatchery Converted to tourist site Granted NPDES permit in 2014 to
expand to 300,000 pounds Suit against DEQ to stop farm by
Sierra Club, Anglers of the Au Sable Judge supported permit in February
2017
Legislative responses AAS lawsuit to Circuit Court alleges
ramping-up fish farming will pollute the river and violate the Michigan Environmental Protection Act. The group is asking a judge to shut down the hatchery and impose special restrictions on nutrient pollution discharge.
Congressman Kildee (D, Michigan) has introduced two federal bills restricting aquaculture as a response to this farm
Aquaculture bills in development
The Ban Aquaculture in the Great Lakes Act would ban aquaculture facilities in the Great Lakes, ending the current patchwork of state laws that attempt to regulate such commercial fishing. The Preserving Fishing on Wild and Scenic Rivers Act would
ban aquaculture facilities on Wild and Scenic Rivers and its tributaries, such as the Au Sable River, unless such facilities are shown not to discharge pollutants into the river.
Concerns about Grayling farm
Phosphorus discharge into the river Disease increase in river due to trout farm Introduction of exotic organisms (NZ mud snail?) from farm All of these would damage the “Holy Waters” and its multi
million dollar tourist tradeWho is involved? Anglers of the Au Sable, Sierra Club, Michigan Environmental
Council, MUCC
Positive conclusions Aquaculture is here to stay Many projects and businesses are improving the environmental
footprint of aquaculture Rural and urban areas in Michigan could benefit greatly from
jobs created by expanding aquaculture Michigan needs to regulate aquaculture businesses
appropriately, as an agribusiness and comparable to other agribusinesses
We need some successes to drive more financial investment
Negative conclusions
Many people have already made up their minds against aquaculture Scientific facts do not seem relevant to many of these
people Often those against aquaculture are not happy about losing Most do not see the value in economy or in seafood safety
from domestic aquaculture
What can we do?
How do we help expand the dialog about aquaculture? How do we educate people who do not want to hear it? How do we get decisions out of the hands of politicians and
into the hands of responsible agencies? Are we capable of commercial scales aquaculture
production in inland waters given the general response against it?
