World Aquaculture Magazine - June 2020

34 JUNE 2020 • WORLD AQUACULTURE • WWW.WA S.ORG kg annually in conjunction with projected population growth, perhaps due to an increased consciousness of the nutritional value of seafood, then the additional amount would be 5.6 million t per year. Thus, the obvious question arises as to where this seafood will come from to fulfill an obvious deficit due to the anticipated increase in demand. To satisfy this anticipated demand, would the source be domestic production, more imports, or a combination? The prospects of such a dichotomous choice relative to the seafood supply was previously examined by Kite-Powell et al. (2013). Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) Analysis One way to examine the future supply of seafood and the role of domestic production in meeting demand is through a SWOT analysis. SWOT is an anagram for strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats, and the analysis is conducted through a framework that identifies both external and internal factors that would influence the realization of meeting a projected objective or goal. The following presentation of external and internal factors as presented in the following SWOT analysis will bring together an identification of what needs to be addressed and what is available to at least partially solve the “wicked problem” and move forward. A significant movement away from the lack of progress associated with the wicked problem is crucial in producing responsive action that can yield clear and meaningful results. Otherwise, US aquaculture will continue to be mostly focused towards meeting demand from niche markets for high-value luxury species. Strengths Protein conversion efficiency in aquatic animal production is comparable to that of poultry and much better than those of swine and beef cattle. Within the realm of environmental sustainability, aquaculture uses less land and fresh water and releases less greenhouse gases (GHG) per unit of protein produced compared to terrestrial animal production. Aquaculture also provides ecosystem services such as mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions and eutrophication potential, as exemplified by oyster, clam and scallop aquaculture. These remove carbon dioxide and nutrients dissolved in seawater that are taken up by algae and then removed through filtration by bivalve shellfish. The feasibility of increases in domestic production already has its foundation in the US being a global leader in the development of technologies for aquaculture production systems. A notable rise in domestic seafood production can contribute to the output (GDP) of the US economy, leading to a reduction in the US trade deficit for seafood, and also as a source of employment. Seafood is recognized as highly beneficial for human health and nutrition based on some unique macro- and micronutrients that it contains. Domestic production also offers the ability to improve US food security when a large portion of what is consumed is derived from imports. When the US is so dependent on seafood imports, difficulties in the food supply can arise under both expected and unexpected conditions. The recent global Covid-19 pandemic and the magnitude of its lethal consequences were unanticipated and resulted in a significant decrease of food service demand for seafood and a disruption of seafood supply chains in the US. Weaknesses If increases in domestic aquaculture production are going to be realized, then the much-needed regulatory framework needs to be enabling, supportive and encouraging, rather than excessive, confusing and counterproductive. Thus, despite the existence of promotional encouragement for expansion of the aquaculture industry, progress is stymied by the lack of an adaptive and integrative regulatory plan to develop and judiciously enhance domestic production. This situation can in part be attributed to the multitude of agencies with jurisdiction over various parts of aquaculture, including the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Fish andWildlife Service (FWS), Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). These federal agencies are responsible for different facets of policy, regulation and enforcement. Respective differences in perspectives and opinions, presumably founded in a lack of knowledge or understanding of aquaculture production systems often create organizational silos in contrast to much needed collaboration, adaptability and compromise to find solutions to meet challenging problems. Trying to maneuver through labyrinthine regulations that emerge from overlapping jurisdictions among agencies and lack of sufficient knowledge contributes to loss of valuable time, expenditure of money and often the viability of an aquaculture enterprise. For example, the US sportfish/ baitfish aquaculture sector spends 25 percent of its annual variable (operational) costs in demonstrating compliance with regulations. Such a level of expense is particularly noteworthy when 84.5 percent of the 2935 aquaculture farms in the US are considered small-scale businesses with total sales of less than US$ 500,000 (Census of Aquaculture 2019). The management and regulation of aquaculture development is indeed a wicked problem that is attributed to its inherent uncertainty that is founded on a lack of reliable knowledge, dynamic, ever-changing requirements, and diverse opinions that hinder effective solutions. That inherent uncertainty arises from the comparatively young nature of aquatic animal production systems in the US and is also responsible for the difficulty in obtaining investment funds to assist burgeoning aquaculture enterprises. The essence of the magnitude of the role that the regulatory environment exerts on the fate of the expansion of sustainable US aquaculture and domestic food security is captured in the following statement: “The regulatory environment that emerges as a result of these policies will determine whether aquaculture development expands to fulfill its potential or Americans continue to import ever- increasing quantities of seafood to meet future demand” (FAO 2018). The role of economics can be highly influential in the development of the framework of regulatory policy and therefore must be adequately considered in decision making (Anderson et al. 2019). New and significant sources of domestically produced seafood will most likely be derived from systems that utilize the appealing resources offered by coastal and/or offshore marine environments. Coastal areas are commonly characterized by multiple use and regulation by policy agreements. The inclusion of commercial aquaculture operations, particularly mollusks, through site selection and leasing has been subject of much controversial debate. The prospects of increased utilization of this appealing environment for increased production becoming a reality will require science-based information and support applied to the establishment of cautious and sensible policy management.