Editor’s Note: This is the last in a series of articles examining the bond questions that will appear on the Nov. 4 ballot in Maine. Question 7 reads: “Do you favor a $7,000,000 bond issue to facilitate the growth of marine businesses and commercial enterprises that create jobs and improve the sustainability of the state’s marine economy and related industries through capital investments, to be matched by at least $7,000,000 in private and other funds?”
Maine has long had a reputation as a place where fishermen catch high-quality seafood, but lately there’s been an increased focus in the industry of doing more than just shipping that catch out of state.
That interest in aquaculture and value-added processed products has resulted in a bond proposal that will appear on the statewide Nov. 4 ballot. If a majority of Mainers vote “yes” on Question 7, the state would borrow $7 million that — when matched by a required additional $7 million in private funds — would fund capital investments in the state’s marine products industry.
The money would be awarded on a competitive bidding basis to a partnership comprised of researchers, commercial seafood entities, community-based organizations and private business.
The bond proposal initially was written to help spur investment in Maine’s lobster processing sector but, after some quiet lobbying to make it more geared toward developing new marine products, it was revised. The final wording of the proposal is broader in scope so it can be used to boost the aquaculture industry and to develop new applications for species already being caught in the Gulf of Maine or along the coast, according to officials familiar with the proposal.
Hugh Cowperthwaite, fisheries project director for Wiscasset-based Coastal Enterprises Inc., was the only person to testify before the Legislature’s Appropriations Committee about the bill back in March, when it was still worded specifically to benefit Maine’s lobster processing sector. He said Tuesday that though the proposal has been reworded substantially since then, the nonprofit business finance agency still supports it.
“I think it is better to be broader,” Cowperthwaite said. “We’re definitely interested in [having] funding go toward growth of marine businesses. Our aquaculture industry certainly has room to grow.”
Cowperthwaite reiterated on Tuesday some of his legislative testimony from March, when he said the recent decision by shipping company Eimskip to relocate its North American operations to Portland should help expand markets in Europe for Maine seafood products. If Maine can develop and effectively market more retail products from its marine resources, rather than just shipping its raw products out of state, it will have a multiplier effect for the cumulative dockside value of the state’s total annual marine harvest, which is estimated to be more than $500 million.
“Opening that opportunity in Maine is huge,” he said of Eimskip’s relocation to Maine.
Michael Saxl is spokesman for Growing Maine’s Marine Economy, which supports a “yes” vote on Question 7. Saxl said Tuesday that the $14 million that would be dedicated to the effort — $7 million from the state plus $7 million in matching funds — could go toward development of new products and markets in any maine fishery, including lobster.
For example, lobster processors add value and extend the shelf life of the 120 million-plus pounds of live lobster that is caught each year in Maine, but as much as 40 to 50 percent of what goes into the processor comes out as waste, Saxl said.
If a product can be developed from chitin extracted from disposed lobster shells — the same substance that is found in the shell of invasive green crabs — then the processors could get more value out of what they bring in, and lobstermen could fetch a higher price for their catch, he said. Chitin, which also is found in the exoskeletons of insects, has industrial and biomedical applications and is known to be used in food processing.
Maine’s elver industry also could benefit, Saxl said. If the young American eels could be grown to adult size in captivity in Maine and then processed in the state for retail consumption, he said, it would enhance the value of the highly restricted fishery to the state’s economy.
“Currently, we do the very least we possibly can,” Saxl said of how the elver harvest is handled in Maine. “We box them up and ship them to China.”
Rob Snyder, president of the Rockland-based Island Institute, said Tuesday that his organization also favors passage of Question 7. He said that one key outcome of having the bond approved would be taking a step to diversifying Maine’s marine economy away from its dependence on lobster.
Maine’s lobster fishery is by far the most valuable marine product in Maine, with a dockside value of $364.5 million in 2013. As other Maine fisheries have dwindled in their economic significance, many coastal fishing communities have become entirely dependent on lobster for their livelihoods, Snyder said.
Boosting Maine’s aquaculture sector, developing new products and finding new markets for other commercially harvested marine species are crucial, he said. Maine’s yearly lobster harvest has steadily and dramatically increased since the late 1980s, when 20 million pounds was a normal annual catch, and many industry officials accept that a downturn in lobster landings is inevitable.
“People are actively looking for ways to diversify,” Snyder said. “[Maine’s] future ocean economy is what this [bond proposal] should be about.”
There seems to be little opposition to the bond proposal, and no campaign organized specifically against it. The measure received bipartisan support when the Legislature held roll call votes on the proposal this past April, with 114 of 151 representatives and 28 of 35 senators voting for it. No Democrats voted against the bond, but some Republicans did.
Sen. Doug Thomas of Ripley was one of only four senators who voted against the bond (three others were absent from the vote). Thomas said Wednesday that he’s not opposed to what the bond would fund so much as he is opposed to borrowing the $7 million.
“It’s not a very big bond,” Thomas said of the amount. “In a $6 billion [two-year state] budget, why can’t we just pay for this and be done with it?”
Thomas said he supports borrowing money for emergencies, such as when the state had to replace the old Waldo-Hancock Bridge near Bucksport, but that generally he opposes the practice. Despite his opposition, he added, voters seem to approve nearly all the statewide bond measures put before them.
“It’s kind of frivolous, something that small,” Thomas said. “These little [bond proposals] should be part of the budget [approved by the Legislature].”
