OP-ED: Where is the plan for Maine’s ocean economy?

Investors need a reason to spend money on Maine, but right now the state is ‘dead in the water,’ writes a Sedgwick resident

April 8, 2026

By Peter Neill

Recently, two conferences unfolded regarding ocean issues here in Maine. The first, hosted by established marine research institutes, focused on the so-called “blue economy,” specifically on emerging aquaculture along our Atlantic coast: shellfish, seaweed, processed by-products, and investment opportunities.

The keynote speaker was an old friend, Thor Sigfusson, founder of the Iceland Ocean Cluster, proponent of the innovative utility of “100% of the fish” as a unifying policy and successful catalyst for proven ocean-related start-ups worldwide finding value in every element of the catch, from medical services to fashion. The attendees included research scientists, consultants, policy innovators, and investment firms with ocean interest.

The second meeting was the Maine Fishermen's Forum, an annual gathering of local industry representatives, marine scientists, policymakers, support groups, commercial product representatives and actual fishermen, the workforce behind an industry that is the second largest revenue producer, after tourism, in the state of Maine. 

The back-to-back events caused me to ask a question relative to both: if these perspectives and activities are central to the future of an ocean-driven community, then “where is the plan?” My response to both, given the sense of fulsome prospect projected, was the same: that despite the success of the developed lobster fishery, despite the optimism about further exploitation of the state’s coastal resources, the future seemed piece-meal, opportunistic, conventionally framed and limited by past values, structures, and behaviors, inadequate to a justified investment by state government and serious  “blue economy” investors.

What seemed absent was a larger integrated plan to justify–indeed, to motivate–adequate funding beyond friends, family, and prescient first round capital. There seemed to be best intent, but there did not seem to be a plan.

Here are some of the forces affecting the future of the lobster industry in Maine:

Sea temperature change. Related species migration and relocation. Inflation and the rising costs of bait, fuel, labor, landside transportation, and access to shifting offshore harvest. Increased capital costs and interest rates. Lack of adequate processing to capture full added value. Loss of profits to export markets. Impact of volatile tariffs. Single species focus, with limited investment in associated fisheries, by-products, new applications and new markets. Seasonal limit for equipment and on-the-water skills. Reduction in next generation supply, not only of infant lobsters, but in new fishermen to react to any expanded opportunity, and human capital to meet demand.

Add to that the implications of reduced working waterfront facilities, the certainty of more extreme weather, comparable offshore dis-opportunity by limiting wind and ocean-geothermal energy, industrial aquaculture, future desalination needs, coastal transportation, and community development, and you realize that there is no plan.

Given no plan, how can any investor assume a context for success? Rejection of offshore wind projects, coastwise aquaculture, industrial seaweed cultivation, diminished salt-water access, and little federal or state seed funding seems more a plan for failure, not success. 

State government has reacted to the larger implications of climate change, with the multi-year effort of a commission to define adaptation and mitigation of predictable impacts that are well documented and predictable. Slowly, specific reactions with limited funding are being legislated with specific, albeit similarly limited, outcomes.

As the federal government has denied the climate reality, and worked to cancel funds for further research, development, and infrastructure preventions and improvements, the financial climate has also changed for the worse, and without economic subsidy, private capital has no interest in augmenting scale and speed of the outcome. We are dead in the water.

What is local appears also global. Distracted again by war and the vicissitudes of worldwide dependence on oil, planners have no platform, no traction, and no finance, to look toward the future. Simply to pause is to regress and diminish any idea of any social return or profit from any investment.

I came away from these conferences despondent by the subversive reality of perverse intent. The plans can be there, and they can be realized by imagination, commitment, and acceptance of “blue economy” interest. What is so tragically ironic is that failure to shape a future, internationally, nationally, locally, and personally, is the worst investment of them all. And the inevitable payout is only loss.

Where is the plan? 

—Neill is the founder of the World Ocean Observatory, and is chair of The Rising Tide’s board of directors.

The Rising Tide welcomes letters and opinion pieces from a wide variety of viewpoints. Published pieces do not reflect the editorial stance of The Rising Tide or its board, and are not endorsements. To submit a piece to us, email info@risingtide.media. We ask that all submissions be original and exclusive to The Rising Tide.