NMFS

This Tuesday, Food & Water Watch applauded as two separate lawsuits where filed in Florida, challenging the legality of a recently finalized program known as catch shares that would privatize access to tilefish and grouper – public fish stocks – in the Gulf of Mexico.

One challenge came from the 90,000 member-strong Coastal Conservation Association, a recreational fishing group based in Texas. The other came from an independent small-scale commercial fisherman with a strong backbone named Brian Lewis, based in Clearwater, FL. Both legal complaints cite the unfair (and likely illegal) process used to develop and finalize the privatization plan, and the unfair intended outcome: creating a program that makes a "free market" tradeable commodity of the ability to catch fish – principally to enable a handful of businesses to control public fish resources.

Titled the Amendment 29 to the Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan, the plan was approved by National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) despite glaring problems – including the failure to conduct a social impact assessment; the awarding of the bulk of the catch shares to fishermen who use a gear type known as longlines, which might not even be allowed in the Gulf in the future due to the fact that they are suspected of killing ten times the number of sea turtles allowed; and a sham referendum that excluded 70 percent of commercial fishermen whose jobs were at stake if the plan passed.

In June 2009, Food & Water Watch provided NMFS with an 18-page comment letter outlining problems with the plan, including the privatization aspect and violation of the national and international laws.  Food & Water Watch also conducted its own re-referendum surveying the fishermen who were excluded from the initial vote and found that the nearly 90 percent of respondents opposed the privatization plan. Had these fishermen been included in the initial vote, it is questionable whether the plan would have passed the referendum hurdle. Still, NMFS proceeded to approve the plan seemingly without regard for this clear opposition and the risk of massive job loss.

The legal challenges by Brian Lewis and the CCA will hopefully result in an end to fishery privatization in the Gulf. Food & Water Watch is opposed to privatization of public resources and is calling for Congressional oversight hearings to raise the matter to a national level.

See our Fair Fish campaign and fact sheet for more information on the issue and on ways to help protect our oceans and give fish and fishermen a fair chance.

Change. It’s the promise that propelled our new President into office. Recently, however, I watched the state of our fisheries change for the worse as the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council approved a plan to allow industrial fish farming in Gulf waters.

Ocean fish farming, also known as offshore aquaculture or open-water aquaculture, is the mass production of fish in large floating pens or cages in ocean waters. With the U.S. already dealing with issues such as run-off pollution, loss of wildlife, and overwhelming coastal development – what incentives would there be to worsen the situation through aquaculture? The answer lies in personal profits. Proponents of offshore aquaculture on the Council have already received over $10 million in financial support from the federal government for aquaculture research and endeavors – which explains why the 16,000 letters and e-mails protesting the Council’s plan fell on deaf ears.

The National Marine Fisheries Service, tasked with the conservation and management of natural marine resources, has been feverishly pushing to allow offshore aquaculture in U.S. waters for years. This is clearly a poorly disguised way for NMFS to excuse their own poor stewardship of marine resources. The agency projects that domestic ocean fish farming will provide new jobs, reduce pressure on depleted wild fish populations, and lessen our dependence on seafood imports. However, the opposite is far more likely.

Fish farms will probably reduce jobs, causing economic problems for coastal communities. In British Columbia, Scotland and Norway, the salmon-farming industry dramatically expanded production without creating new jobs, in some cases decreasing employment. U.S. ocean fish farms are also likely to outcompete and replace traditional fishing, causing widespread job losses and harming support businesses in the process.

Farming fish could increase fishing pressure on wild fish and disrupt ecosystems. Ocean farms in U.S. waters will need fish for use as protein in feed – likely local wild fish. These often are the same that wild fish and marine birds eat, leaving less food in the wild and disrupting ecosystem balance. In addition, because ocean fish farms allow free flow of water between the cages and the ocean, concentrated amounts of fish food, wastes, diseases, chemicals or antibiotics can flow directly into ocean waters.

These farms are unlikely to eliminate our seafood deficit. Currently, the U.S. exports about 71 percent of its domestic fish production, including tilapia, tuna, salmon, crab, and some shrimp – which are also among its top seafood imports. The U.S. exports its fish to fetch a higher price, serving cheaper, often industrially produced, lower-quality, imported fish in domestic restaurants and markets. The same may occur with domestic farmed fish.

For now, we wait for a final decision on the Gulf aquaculture plan, and hope that the new administration demonstrates the change that was promised by fighting it. Then we ask them to focus on better management of wild fish and explore truly sustainable sources of aquaculture to benefit the entire nation, not just a few self-interested people.

 - Marianne Cufone