Although Rhode Island is a major producer of wild fish and shellfish, aquaculture has not been a significant contributor to recent seafood production. Historically, however, aquaculture was an important aspect of Rhode Island fish production. Beginning in 1864, Narragansett Bay was leased to cultivate shellfish. At peak production oyster farmers produced 15 million pounds of product every year in Narragansett Bay. Unfortunately, the 1930ís and 1940ís brought disaster to the aquaculture industry in Rhode Island. The possible causes of the destruction of the oyster beds include the influx of pollution from Providence and the hurricane of 1938. Marine aquaculture production in Rhode Island grew slightly in the 1970ís with the existence of ten small-scale operations and Blue Gold Mussel farm (http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/leg_addons/haughton/aqua/aqua13.html 9/17/98).
Currently, nine private aquaculture sites and four public finfish hatcheries exist. Five private sites for aquaculture are pending and some individuals have completed the preliminary process to obtain permission to operate small-scale aquaculture facilities. The current facilities in Rhode Island include:
If opportunities for
aquaculture production in Rhode Island are to be readily available, a number
of factors must be taken into consideration. For instance, the aquaculture
industry needs to investigate the demand for aquaculture products, identify
the products in high demand, and coordinate aquaculture with the stateís
existing water resources. Currently, potential aquaculture opportunities
in Rhode Island include the direct supply of aquaculture food products,
the enhancement of wild stocks of fish and shellfish, and the production
of equipment used by in- and out-of-state aquaculture facilities (http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/leg_addons/naughton/aqua2/chap1.html
9/17/98).
A potential benefit
of aquaculture for Rhode Island would be the augmentation of fish and shellfish
stocks. The people of Nantucket have already initiated a bay scallop
enhancement project. Stock enhancement programs could also be used
for oyster, clam, scallop, cod, striped bass, and haddock production.
In addition, public and private operations could directly increase the
flounder populations in Rhode Island. The use of land-based aquaculture
systems could help the state overcome some of the problems associated with
starting an aquaculture facility. When starting an aquaculture facility,
regulatory constraints, use conflicts, and limited water resources are
common problems. However, land-based systems usually use little water
and donít discharge large amounts of waste directly into the water.
Because Rhode Island has idle mills and industrial facilities, the opportunity
exists to incorporate land-based systems into the current aquaculture industry.
Such a system can be used to increase the stocks of striped bass, flounder,
cod, and tilapia (http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/leg-_addons/naughton/aqua/aqua8.html
10/14/98).
Aquaculture operations
require operating equipment such as nets, specialized vessels, water-filters,
specialized harvesting equipment, and feed for aquaculture species.
Although firms in Rhode Island manufacture similar equipment for other
industries, the equipment needed for aquaculture is not readily produced
in the state. The need for aquaculture industrial supplies creates
potential opportunities for Rhode Island net makers, boat builders, and
equipment manufacturers (http://rilin.state.ri.us/leg_addons/naughton/aqua/aqua17.html
9/22/98). Rhode Island firms could then market aquaculture equipment
to out-of-state operations. Aquatic equipment design, the manufacturing
of equipment, and the distribution of aquaculture products would all be
sources of economic and job growth for the state. Experts of aquaculture
in Rhode Island believe Neptune Benson, Yankee Supply, Plastic Pipe and
Supply, and Hanna Instruments are the firms in Rhode Island that could
"accommodate the needs of a developing or existing aquaculture industryî
(http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/leg_addons/naughton/aqua2/chap1.html 9/17/98).
Furthermore, with the existence of individuals who have a detailed knowledge
of aquaculture practices, fisheries management, and aquaculture economics,
the aquaculture community could rely on Rhode Island to provide advisory
and educational services.
As noted earlier,
the Rhode Island aquaculture industry needs to examine what species would
be viable to cultivate. The expansion and success of the aquaculture
industry in Rhode island depends upon the choice of species. The
concerns in choosing species to cultivate include ìspecies biology
and growth rates; the capacity for the species to thrive in an aquaculture
environment; the economics of the involved techniques; and the marketing
of the final products(s)î (http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/leg_addons/naughton/aqua2/chap1.html
9/17/98).
Examining the species
being cultivated by other operations in the region can provide assistance
to the species selection process. The finfish species with the best
potential for cultivation in Rhode Island are Atlantic salmon, Atlantic
cod, catfish, tilapia, striped bass, bluefin tuna, and yellow perch.
Blue mussels, clams, oysters, and scallops are the shellfish species with
the greatest potential for aquaculture cultivation in Rhode Island (http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/leg_addons/naughton/aqua2/chap1.html
9/17/98).
Establishing an
aquaculture facility in Rhode Island is not an easy task. The four
major constraints that currently limit the growth of the aquaculture industry
in Rhode Island are regulatory issues, predators, financial capital, and
water quality. Detailed regulation laws have a negative impact on
the aquaculture industry. Established aquaculture firms in the state
know that the regulatory process aquaculturists must endure to obtain permits
and the right to produce an aquaculture product severely paralyzes aquaculture
expansion. For example, the Director of the Rhode Island Department
of Environmental Management must determine whether or not an aquaculture
facility will ìadversely affect marine life adjacent to the proposed
area, the waters of the State, and the continued viability of indigenous
fisheriesî (http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/leg_addons/naughton/aqua/aqua16.html
10/14/98). The regulations created by Rhode Island Fisheries Management
Council have also stifled potential growth in the aquaculture industry.
A minimum harvest size for fish and shellfish, equipment restrictions,
and landings quotas are just a sampling of the regulatory constraints that
could make aquaculture economically unfeasible in Rhode Island.
Fisherman have fought
against the expansion of aquaculture in the state because ìshellfish
aquaculture would increase the amount of product available on the marketî
and the ìexclusive use of submerged lands would interfere with lands
presently being used by commercial clammers, lobstermen, draggers, recreational
fishermenî (http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/leg_addns/naughton/aqua/aqua16.html
10/14/98). Coastal landowners, environmental groups, and boaters
have also been skeptical of the expansion of the aquaculture industry.
These groups have used the argument that property values will decrease
with an increase of shoreline activity. Also, the increase in coastal
residential development in Rhode Island has been a major source of constraint
to the aquaculture industry.
The predation of aquaculture
facilities is another problem for the Rhode Island aquaculture industry.
In Rhode Island, bird and animal predation is common. However with
the existence of endangered species and bird migration regulations, an
overall solution to the predation problem does not exist. Rhode Island
must also consider the limited availability of water to be a potential
problem in expanding aquaculture practices within the state. If Rhode
Island aquaculture facilities could minimize the use of water and the release
of untreated wastes into the water, then access to quality water may not
become a serious problem (http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/leg_addns/naughton/aqua/aqua16.html
10/14/98).
However, the economic
aspect of aquaculture may be the most significant constraint to the development
of a successful aquaculture industry in Rhode Island. The risky nature
of aquaculture ventures is the main reason why banks in Rhode Island would
be unwilling to lend money to promote and start new aquaculture facilities.
Subsequently, existing aquaculture facilities in Rhode Island are self-financed
operations. With high tax rates, energy costs, land costs, and a
complicated bureaucracy, Rhode Island will have difficulty ìin gaining
financial support and in competing with firms in other states for their
share of the U.S. and global marketsî (http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/leg_addns/naughton/aqua/aqua16.html
10/14/98).
The state of Rhode
Island has made some progress to increase awareness for the need to expand
the aquaculture industry. A major indication of the effort being
made on behalf of aquaculture is the existence of an Annual Rhode Island
Aquaculture Conference. The first hurdle of the conference was to
introduce the topic of aquaculture to a skeptical audience. Because
this hurdle was cleared, the people who have attended the conference have
been receptive to the idea of aquaculture.
At the Second Annual
Rhode Island Aquaculture Conference, Dr. Jim Anderson of the University
of Rhode Islandís Department of Environmental and Natural Resource
Economics discussed his Strategic Plan for Rhode Island Aquaculture (http://www.aquanet.com/aqua/pubs/osaa97_3.htm
10/14/98). To promote aquaculture in Rhode Island, Andersonís
plan recommends that the state recognize ìaquaculture as agriculture,
designate a single lead agency, streamline the permitting process, develop
an aquaculture zoning plan, expand financial incentives, and promote research
and education effortsî (Anderson 1997).
The issues of water
quality and government regulation constraints have also sparked debate
with in the Rhode Island aquaculture industry. For example, the development
of recirculation technologies and management approaches for sea pens was
emphasized to promote the steps being taken to lessen the potential environmental
impact of releasing untreated aquaculture waste into the water. In
addition, represented by Bob Burke, the hospitality sector of the Rhode
Island economy berated ìstate regulators for dragging their heels
on aquaculture permitsî (http://www.aquanet.com/aqua/pubs/osaa97_3.htm
10/14/98).
Despite the existence
of regulatory roadblocks to aquaculture development, Rhode Island has just
begun to orchestrate efforts to develop proactive aquaculture programs.
As Burke, a strong supporter of aquaculture, has noted, ì ëWe
have all the elements in place for a successful aquaculture industry.
We have Narragansett Bay, the salt ponds and thousands of acres of clean
water. We have a skilled workforce and some of the best aquaculture
experts in the world at URI.íî (http://www.aquanet.com/aqua/pubs/osaa97_3.htm
10/14/98). Hopefully, Rhode Island will take advantage of its existing
opportunities to establish a viable aquaculture program and become a leader
in the aquaculture industry.
Anderson, James L. ìA Strategic Plan
for Rhode Island Aquaculture.î Kingston, RI:
Department of resource Economics,
URI, 1997.
ìAquaculture in Rhode Island and the World:
An Overview.î [http://www.rilin.state.ri/
us/leg_addons/naughton/aqua2/chap1.html].
17 Sept. 1998.
ìAquaculture Production in Rhode Island.î
[http://www.rilin.state.ri/us/leg_addons/
naughton/aqua/aqua13.html].
17 Sept. 1998.
ìConstraints to Aquaculture Development
in Rhode Island.î [http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/
leg_addons/naughton/aqua/aqua16.html].
14 Oct. 1998.
Ocean State Aquaculture Association. ìThe
Second Annual Rhode Island Aquaculture
Conference.î
[http://www.aquanet.com/aqua/pubs/osaa97_3.htm]. 14 Oct. 1998.
ìPotential Opportunities.î [http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/leg_addons/naughton/aqua/aqua17.
html]. 14 Oct.
1998.
Return to main page