Moving mussels offshore? Perceptions of offshore aquaculture policy and expansion in New England

Abstract

a b s t r a c tEfforts to expand marine aquaculture into offshore environments have increased in the United States, however many questions remain about whether offshore aquaculture is a feasible and appropriate activity. This paper explores these questions by investigating stakeholder perceptions of offshore mussel aquaculture in New England, USA. These views provide insight into the important challenges and opportunities facing expansion, and elucidate whether and how industry may develop and be incorporated into ocean planning and management. Results shows that regulatory and financial conditions are considered the primary challenges facing offshore expansion, whereas technical, environmental, and market conditions were generally deemed favorable or manageable. There is greater uncertainty about social and political conditions. While moving mussel aquaculture offshore lessens the conflicts associated with inshore activity, it also moves industry into new spaces with unfamiliar users. There are tensions inherent in addressing these challenges. Whereas broad regulatory change will encourage offshore development, targeted government involvement may be more productive in the near term. Similarly, while large seafood companies may appear viable candidates for offshore development, they are also limited by regulatory, social, and political resistance. Overall, an increased emphasis on government interventions at the local and regional scale are desirable for proponents of offshore expansion. The paper discusses the management implications of these findings, and suggests that a shift in focus toward targeted and non-regulatory government interventions; local, regional, and informal planning discussions; and community-based and cooperative mussel aquaculture initiatives may hold promise for responsible development in New England offshore waters and elsewhere.

Fisheries Volume 45 Number 4 April 2020

“…Thus, confl icts of use are less likely to come from the public and more often from fi shermen against privatization of marine resources. Additionally, the public and environmental groups have expressed concern about interaction between farming practices and wildlife, citing the lack of knowledge and limited experience involving this new activity (Upton and Buck 2010 ;Fairbanks 2016 ;Froehlich et al 2017). Froehlich et al ( 2017 stated that the sentiment towards offshore aquaculture was deemed specifi cally negative in the United States, according to analysis of journal headlines and public comments in the media.…”

“…The New England area has experience with offshore development of both aquaculture, including attempts with fi nfi sh and shellfi sh farming (Fairbanks 2016 ) and wind energy (Oteri et al 2018 ). On a global scale, much research has been done evaluating co-location of energy production and aquaculture, including suspension culture of seaweed, shellfi sh, fi nfi sh, and multi-trophic projects involving several species (Lapointe 2013 ;Buck et al 2017a ).…”

“…Despite the fact that environmental, market, and aforementioned technical conditions are perceived as good or manageable for offshore farming, the regulatory situation is identifi ed by ocean users and policy actors as a constraint (see Fairbanks 2016 ). As offshore farming activity in federal waters is new, there are several different agencies in charge of permitting and regulating the activity, such as, but not restricted to: the U.S. Army of Corps of Engineers, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.…”

“…Previous articles have discussed the regulatory constraints to offshore aquaculture development (Fairbanks 2016(Fairbanks , 2018Knapp and Rubino 2016 ;Lester et al 2018 ) and concluded that offshore aquaculture would be hindered indefi nitely if: regulatory frameworks were not clearly defi ned; fear of negative outcomes continued to overshadow the acknowledgment of positive gains, despite favorable scientifi c fi ndings (Lester et al 2018 ); and initiatives were not allowed to start for adaptive knowledge to be gained (Knapp and Rubino 2016 ). Spatial planning is suffi cient to resolve confl icts of use that could emerge with fi sherman, ship traffi c, and other human users (Tlusty et al 2018 ).…”

“…As demand for seafood continues to increase and fi sheries are held to maximal sustainable yield, the only way to meet increasing seafood demand, without dependency upon foreign production, is through aquaculture. Nearshore areas of the northeastern USA host predominantly a robust oyster farming industry, but nearshore sites are subjected to increasing confl icts of use (Fairbanks 2016 ), concerns of potentially degrading environmental quality, and visual impact. By contrast, local federal waters are more spatially available, are environmentally suitable, and can accommodate farming practices to sustain good shellfi sh productivity and high quality of fi nal product (Langan and Horton 2003 ;Cheney et al 2010 ;Lester et al 2018 ).…”