Marine aquaculture presents an opportunity for increasing seafood production in the face of growing demand for marine protein and limited scope for expanding wild fishery harvests. However, the global capacity for increased aquaculture production from the ocean and the relative productivity potential across countries are unknown. Here, we map the biological production potential for marine aquaculture across the globe using an innovative approach that draws from physiology, allometry and growth theory. Even after applying substantial constraints based on existing ocean uses and limitations, we find vast areas in nearly every coastal country that are suitable for aquaculture. The development potential far exceeds the space required to meet foreseeable seafood demand; indeed, the current total landings of all wild-capture fisheries could be produced using less than 0.015% of the global ocean area. This analysis demonstrates that suitable space is unlikely to limit marine aquaculture development and highlights the role that other factors, such as economics and governance, play in shaping growth trajectories. We suggest that the vast amount of space suitable for marine aquaculture presents an opportunity for countries to develop aquaculture in a way that aligns with their economic, environmental and social objectives.

Aquaculture is developing rapidly at a global scale and sustainable practices are an essential part of meeting the protein requirements of the ballooning human population. Locating aquaculture offshore is one strategy that may help address some issues related to nearshore development. However, offshore production is nascent and distinctions between the types of aquatic farming may not be fully understood by the public–important for collaboration, research, and development. Here we evaluate and report, to our knowledge, the first multinational quantification of the relative sentiments and opinions of the public around distinct forms of aquaculture. Using thousands of newspaper headlines (Ntotal = 1,596) from developed (no. countries = 26) and developing (42) nations, ranging over periods of 1984 to 2015, we found an expanding positive trend of general ‘aquaculture’ coverage, while ‘marine’ and ‘offshore’ appeared more negative. Overall, developing regions published proportionally more positive than negative headlines than developed countries. As case studies, government collected public comments (Ntotal = 1,585) from the United States of America (USA) and New Zealand mirrored the media sentiments; offshore perception being particularly negative in the USA. We also found public sentiment may be influenced by local environmental disasters not directly related to aquaculture (e.g., oil spills). Both countries voiced concern over environmental impacts, but the concerns tended to be more generalized, rather than targeted issues. Two factors that could be inhibiting informed discussion and decisions about offshore aquaculture are lack of applicable knowledge and actual local development issues. Better communication and investigation of the real versus perceived impacts of aquaculture could aid in clarifying the debate about aquaculture, and help support future sustainable growth.

No abstract

Is catch shares management of commercial fisheries a good investment for the US federal government? We estimate the federal budget effects of switching US commercial fisheries from traditional management to catch shares, and describe the resulting impact on the federal deficit in net present value (NPV) terms. We examine two existing catch shares fisheries and two traditional management fisheries, and estimate that converting to catch shares in these fisheries could reduce the federal deficit by approximately $165M in NPV. Catch shares reduce the federal deficit for two primary reasons. First, fishermen are more profitable, and therefore contribute increased income tax payments. Second, catch shares programs are mandated to recover some costs of management from participants, as per federal law. An additional analysis suggests that the federal deficit could be decreased by an estimated $890M to $1.24B in NPV if 36 of the 44 federal US fisheries adopted catch shares. Keywords: Catch shares, Budget, Sustainability, Fishery management 1. Introduction Is catch shares commercial fishery management a good investment for the US federal government? Catch shares appear to be an important tool for fishery managers to consider for a variety of economic, ecological, and social reasons (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2010). Many recent studies suggest that catch shares may ensure sustainable fishing stocks, reduce ecological waste, increase revenues per boat, and improve safety, providing for more sustainable communities. However, there is often a transition from more part time jobs to fewer full-time jobs; and a shift in landings between ports, causing economic losses for some communities and processors and gains for others (Branch, 2008; Costello, Gaines, & Lynham, 2008; Essington, 2010; GSGislason and Associates, 2008; Knapp, 2006; McCay, Creed, Finlayson, Apostle, & Mikalson, 1995; Redstone Strategy Group, LLC (2007), "Assessing the potential for LAPPs in U.S. fisheries," unpublished). With increased attention to deficit reduction, and little attention paid to catch shares programs' government fiscal impacts, we seek to estimate the revenues and costs to the US federal government when switching commercial fisheries from traditional fishery management to catch shares. Historically, most US fisheries transitioned from open-access to traditional management. In the last 20 years, some traditionally managed fisheries have transitioned to catch shares (including Individual Fishing Quotas [IFQs] or limited access privilege programs [LAPPs]). Traditional management fisheries are non-catch shares fisheries that use any or all of the following management tools: limited entry, effort control, and total catch limits. Catch shares management regimes allocate privileges to harvest a portion of a fishery's total allowable catch (TAC) to individual fishermen or groups. Managers set the TAC and hold participants responsible for not exceeding their allotment. These varying management regimes have important effe...