A typical morning’s chinook catch in the 1960s, Mouse
Beach, Nahmint River, Alberni Inlet. Where are they now DFO? Where are the
Fraser chinook, and all the rest, DFO?
Four Responses – DC Reid
Summary: Fish
farms promise jobs and revenue, but do not deliver either. Their environmental
damage far surpasses the value of their contribution to GDP. Fish farms kill
wild forage fish, salmonids, chinook stocks and thus killer whales. British
Columbians want in-ocean fish farms banned and put on-land. British Columbians
want targeted support for freshwater habitat restoration, epigenetic hatchery
work and netpens of sterilized, fin-clipped chinook fry put in the Salish Sea
every year, until wild stocks are healthy.
First Response
Crisis
DFO has been managing BC Salmon and Southern Resident
Killer Whales (SRKW) into extinction for 50 years. Now, in a crisis of its own
making, DFO continues doing more of the same – cutting the sport fishery, with
90% of businesses down – and expecting a different outcome.
The solution is to do something different: put more
fish in the sea – 12 netpens of 2 million sterilized, fin-clipped chinook each
every year, epigenetic hatchery production and focus on freshwater habitat
restoration. (1) And put fish farms on land.
By failing to act, DFO is killing killer whales. And
fish farms kill killer whales because they kill wild chinook fry by lice and chinook
adults by jaundice anemia. (2, 3, 4, 5) Fish farm lice kill BC salmon, and salmonids
all around the world, some 800 lice articles. (5)
Circumstance
Wild salmon mean as much to British Columbians as
French does to Quebec. (6, 7)
There is no social licence for fish farms in BC and the
vast majority wants them banned. (8)
If Ottawa wants another fish farm, Justin, put it in
the Rideau Canal in Ottawa. You won’t like it anymore than anyone else.
DFO has ignored warnings. Step by step, I led DFO
through more than 20 cases of legal, scientific and other problems three years
ago, and gave DFO more than thirty references. (7) DFO did not take action and,
thus, things have only gotten worse.
Now we are in crisis, with only 501 wild chinook in
Clayoquot Sound where 20 fish farms have as many as 50 lice per fish, killing
fry. And PRV kills adult chinook with jaundice anemia (2). Your own DFO
scientist, Kristi Miller, told you this.
Fish Farms are banned or not allowed in all Pacific
Coast jurisdictions except BC: California, Oregon, Washington and Alaska. BC
also wants them banned.
Background
DFO backs fish farms because they promise jobs and
revenue. But fish Farms do not lead to jobs and revenue. Their BC jobs are only
20% of the 9,000 sport jobs, and their jobs have declined 5.3% over the past 20
years to 1,800. Sport fishing employment is 500% higher than fish farms. (9)
Fish farms do not lead to revenue. Their contribution
to GDP has fallen since 2010, - 2.8%, and their revenue is $582.9M, some 400% more
than their contribution to BC real GDP; hence, fish farms take huge amounts of
revenue out of BC, home to Norway and their shareholders. (9)
And the low number of jobs will drop dramatically when
the automation in Norway is introduced to BC. In fact, in Atlantic Canada, jobs
have dropped 32% in the past decade. Furthermore, Norway produces 10 times more
salmon than Canada with only twice as many people, because of the automation already
introduced there. (10)
DFO won’t reveal Norwegian testing of BC PRV. (11). It
redacted a 2019 Norwegian email, and BC wants the full text revealed.
FARM
If
DFO had introduced the FARM plan in BC in the ‘80s when fish farms were new,
there would have been lots of time to get it right. But now, 40 years later,
FARM is being considered in a time of crisis. There is no more time. If DFO
comes back to do its ‘five year check’ on its plan, there may be no more
salmon. DFO needs to wake up.
Precautionary
Principle:
(16) DFO says it will use the PP, but it has been unwilling to do so, using
alleged scientific uncertainty, to keep fish farms in the water. It has
appealed PRV court cases rather than take fish farms out of the water. (17, 18)
The PP says that scientific uncertainty is not a reason to not use the PP, and
economic loss is not to be considered before the PP is used.
Laws: DFO has a long history of refusing
to use laws, to update laws and so on. Here is a list of 20 cases. (19) BC Does
not believe DFO will act in accordance with the law. And there is a long
history of failure to enforce the laws, so it doesn’t matter what the laws are
if they are not enforced. (20) In fact, a scathing review of DFO’s use/misuse
of fisheries law has just been released. (21)
Evidence
and Science:
DFO likes to say it uses evidence and science to make fish farm decisions.
There is, however, that pesky PRV case where it did the opposite in court, then
lost, then appealed, then appealed and quit. (18) Here is a list of 20 cases
where DFO has not used E&S. (22, 23, 24). DFO only uses E&S when it
suits the narrative it prefers, whether true or not.
Fraud: In fact, there is one fraudulent
case where DFO and the CFIA colluded to find a lab that would return a negative
result to diseases in BC fish farms. (25) This case should be investigated, but
the AG would not sue DFO when I asked her to.
Forage
Fish:
Fish farms don’t save fish, they kill fish. Fish farms kill protein to grow
protein, resulting in a net global loss of protein, and diverting global fish
from Third World mouths, to fatten up fish for First World mouths. 5.76 Billion
forage fish are killed to bring in one crop of fish in BC. (26)
Global
Forage Fish:
Fish farms don’t save fish, they kill fish. The Sea Around Us project has
determined that 19 of the top 20 forage fish species are either badly managed,
collapsing or both. (27) Norway is singled out for having destroyed global Jack
Mackerel stocks to feed farmed fish, rather than humans. (28)
Fish
Farms Kill Salmonids:
Fish farms don’t take pressure off or save salmon stocks. They kill salmonids
everywhere they operate in the world, including in BC and Atlantic Canada. Up
to 50% of salmon are killed. (29, 30, 31, 32).
Sewage: Sewage is the worst environmental
and economic issue. Ocean eutrophication is the equivalent of climate change in
the atmosphere. The conservative cost of sewage to BC is $10.4B (33). The other
end of conservative is $31.2B. Dilution is not the solution. (34)
Antibiotics:
fish farm bacteria become resistant to ones we need for humans, and there is a
staggering list of scientific research on the problems (35)
Lice chemicals:
Lice are a crisis in Clayoquot Sound, a UNESCO Biosphere with 20 fish farms in
a non-flushing sound. Lice become resistant to every chemical used to kill
them, while the chemical negatively affects the environment. (36)
Diseased Dead Fish Payments:
Canadian taxpayers paid more than $177M to billion-dollar, foreign corporations
for their dead fish. (37) The CFIA cancelled the program because of taxpayer
complaint.
Taxpayer Payments:
more than $107M so far, plus the dead fish payment equals $284M. (37, 38). This is a conservative estimate of taxpayer money given to fish farms.We
don’t want our money given to multi-national, multi-billion-dollar fish farm
companies.
Licence Costs:
in BC total licence cost is $650,000. In Norway, the same licence costs $32- to
$40- million each. That would be $4.16- to $5.2- B. – or the company can come out of the water
for a zero-dollar licence. BC is losing billions of dollars. (39)
Wild Salmon Restoration: DFO
has put aside $142M along with a BC component. However, the fund requires innovation,
technology and partnerships, rather than for citizens in gumboots, the most
important kind of freshwater habitat restoration. (40) And why is restoration
relegated to a later subclause?
Wild Salmon Restoration, BC:
the Wild Salmon Advisory Council’s plan is far better than DFO’s. (41)
BAD NEWS BITES:
from global fish farm/seafood industry press, I have found 5,000 problems in
the past three years. (42)
Escapes: 97% of Van Isle
rivers swum have adult Atlantics and progeny. (43) The research on this subject
leads to an annual escape rate of 153,000 Atlantic salmon in BC. (43, 44, 45,
46, 47, 48, 49). DFO actively inhibited this research, pulling out 2 days
before Volpe was to start.
Catastrophic Collapse of Wild Pink Salmon
to Fish Farm Lice: in 2002, from 3.6 million pinks in
Broughton Archipelago to 147,000 returned, or 96% killed. (50)
The Bottom Line: Fish
farms are a huge environmental and economic loss to the host country. They
should not be left in the ocean. And we taxpayers don’t want anymore of our
money spent on them. It is over $284M so far (36, 37) There are so few jobs and
they will decline with automation and there is so little net revenue that stays
in Canada and the environmental cost is so extraordinarily high, there is no point
DFO continuing to back this losing industry. Put them on land and move on.
Spend our money on wild salmon. Note that on-land fish farm facilities
represent a far higher investment in Canada, than twine nets in the ocean.
Second Response – DFO FARM Documents
Framework for Aquaculture
Risk Management
Quote: Global demand for fish and
seafood as a high-protein food source has increased significantly in the last
decades. This demand is projected to increase as the world’s population
continues to grow. With pressures on global fish stocks, aquaculture is
recognized as having a valuable contribution to food security while reducing
pressure on wild fish stocks. Ensuring the environmental sustainability of
Canada’s aquatic resources requires a robust regulatory structure and a suite
of policies to guide decision-making.
Answer:
1. The fish farm industry
has trashed 19 of the top 20 global forage fish stocks for fish feed the Sea
Around Us has determined. The 20th is Antarctica Krill, which is not
even a fish. Norway is singled out as destroying the global Jack Mackerel
stocks. (27) Fish farms are a net negative to global protein.
2. Fish farms kill third
world fish to feed first world fish, a net protein loss.
3. Fish farms kill wild
fish stocks everywhere they operate in the world. They do not reduce pressure
on wild fish.
4. Canada’s oceans need
fish farms put on land raising a vegetarian fish, not a too little too late
in-ocean plan of ‘robust sweet’ measures, when wild salmon are in a DFO induced
crisis.
Quote: In Canada, the management of
aquaculture is a shared jurisdiction between the federal, provincial, and
territorial governments. Each jurisdiction has specific regulatory
requirements, mitigation measures and risk tolerances, as outlined in specific
legislation and regulations. Federally, in addition to Fisheries and Oceans
Canada (DFO), departments and agencies such as Environment and Climate
Change Canada, Health Canada, Transport Canada, and the Canadian Food
Inspection Agency also have regulatory responsibilities and make decisions
on aquaculture.
Answer: DFO
and the CFIA fraudulently colluded to find a lab that would return a no-disease
finding for fish farm diseases in BC. These agencies should be prosecuted for
fraud. (25)
Quote: Four
key pieces of federal legislation apply to fisheries, including
aquaculture: the Fisheries Act, the Coastal Fisheries
Protection Act, the Oceans Act and the Species at
Risk Act. Consequently, DFO’s mandate requires the consideration of the
biodiversity within the ecosystem, and the habitat and productivity of fish
species.
Answer:
A recent review of DFO and federal fish farm law returned a scathing response
to federal legislation and use of legislation, including the precautionary
principle. (21) There are dozens of problems. (19)
Quote:
Ensuring the sustainable management of fisheries resources is supported through
a well-defined risk management framework, one with a clear understanding
of unacceptable harm, embraces the precautionary approach where
uncertainty and risk of serious impacts exists, and clearly communicates
underlying policies, management objectives and decisions. The purpose of this
document is to describe DFO’s aquaculture-specific risk management framework,
the Framework for Aquaculture Risk Management (FARM).
Answer:
1. Frameworks impress
only the people who draw them up. They have nothing to do with fish farms and
wild salmon as they exist. I used to draw up such frameworks when I worked in
Finance, BC. They look good on paper, but never get used in the real world.
2. DFO’s misuse of the
precautionary principle has been well documented. (21, 51) When DFO has and is
actively misusing the precautionary principle why should you be trusted to
change your ways?
Quote:
Objectives for sustainable aquaculture: The Department’s goal is to protect wild fish and
their habitats using tools like avoidance, mitigation, monitoring, compliance
and remediation approaches to reduce possible impacts to the environment. In
this context, we seek to create the conditions for a sustainable aquaculture
industry across Canada that also protects aquatic ecosystems and wild fish
populations.
The
threshold for unacceptable harm to fish or fish habitat is any aquaculture
activity that is anticipated to cause population-level detrimental effects to
fish populations.
Answer:
1. We
are in the stage where aquaculture is a major problem with wild salmon. Fish
farms need to be on land. I have a list of almost 300 on-land fish farm systems
around the world. (52) The reality is that in-ocean is a technological dinosaur,
and has been so for a decade, and, there is a deluge of press on the new
global, on-land movement. (53)
2. The
vast majority of BC residents want fish farms out of the water. (8)
3. The statistics
show that the balance of negative environmental and economic facts greatly
outweigh the benefits of stagnant and declining jobs, sewage, and revenue that
gets taken out of BC after Norwegian fish farms use our ocean as a free, open
sewer. (33)
4. The
term ‘population-level’ is just the kind of phrase that DFO is hiding behind
now when appealing PRV testing. And it actively hides evidence, redacting the
current Norwegian PRV testing email. (11)
Quote: Aquaculture Risk Management: Risk considers how likely an
event is to occur (likelihood) and the severity of the potential environmental
impact (consequence) should that event occur. For fisheries, the management
of this risk is primarily through using decision rules focused on complying
with pre-specified reference points for a fishery. In the aquaculture
context, there are opportunities to manage risks at every decision-making
stage. Adaptive management is informed by the results from compliance and
audit monitoring, research, and science advice. This creates the ability to
apply additional mitigation measures prior to the activity to address any risk
of environmental or ecosystem impacts.
The level
of acceptable risk is related to the status of the fish and habitat found in
the local area where aquaculture is proposed or operating.
Answer:
1. This
sounds good, almost like a game, on paper. But the reality is that DFO managed
east coast cod into collapse. It has also managed west coast chinook, and other
salmon stocks, as well as killer whales, into collapse, just short of
extinction. A new approach must prevail, put fish farms on land and adequately
do freshwater habitat restoration.
2. The legal analysis by Lee (21) and the industry
wide criticism from Milewski (51) of the science side form a stinging
indictment of DFO practices with respect to in-ocean fish farms. The people of
BC (8), the people of Canada want fish farms on-land (54) and commercial
fishermen all over North America want fish farms out of the water. (55) Everywhere
that in-ocean fish farms soil the world’s oceans, the public who has to live
with them, wants them out of the water. That includes far-flung Tasmania. (56) And
the Indigenous people of BC want fish farms out of the water. (57)
Quote: Considerations
include local environmental conditions, status of local populations, the scale
and intensity of the activity, and predicted effects on habitats, particularly
those that have specific functions for fish populations (i.e., nursery grounds,
spawning grounds, forage grounds, etc). This level of harm avoidance is
similar to fishery harvest control rules and avoiding the lower stock reference
point in managing fish stocks, which if exceeded may result in population
impacts (A Harvest Strategy Consistent with the Precautionary Approach [PDF
- 104 KB])
Answer: Despite these
good words, the reality is that DFO managed east coast cod into collapse. And
DFO has managed chinook, and wild salmon, along with killer whales into crisis
in BC. A different approach is needed or wild salmon and killer whales will
become extinct. On DFO’s watch a dozen stocks of Fraser chinook have fallen to
critical. Thompson steelhead stocks, once the envy of the world, are on the
brink of extinction. Killer whales are down to 75 or lower. As above, the
solution is: 12 net pens of 2 million sterilized, fin-clipped chinook,
epigenetic hatchery work and freshwater habitat restoration.
Quote: Sustainable Fisheries Framework:
Conservation and Sustainable Use Policies: We’ve adopted policies that use
precautionary approaches and support the adoption of ecosystem approaches into
fisheries management decisions. They help us to:
- keep our fish stocks healthy
- protect biodiversity and fisheries habitats
- make sure our fisheries remain productive
Answer: These
statements are false. Fish stocks are being managed into extinction. They are
not healthy. (DFO’s two Integrated Fisheries Management Plans, as well as the
annual Fraser sockeye stats show this). Fisheries habitat was being destroyed,
not maintained. Fisheries are not productive. The commercial sector in BC
crashed in the ‘90s and still has not come back to where it had been. Now, in 2019,
DFO, cancelled sport fisheries, rather than putting more salmon in the sea, the
only solution for killer whales, which may be dead long before freshwater
habitat is improved enough to support them. (58)
The money put to habitat
restoration has serious limitations on it. Innovation is required, technology
is required, and partnerships are required. The most important aspect: sport
fishers, students and others putting on gumboots and getting into streams is
not where the greatest amount of money is going. (59)
Third Response
2019 Criticism of Laws,
DFO and Fish Farms
The most recent scathing
report of DFO handling of fish farms is: Laws: Farming the Sea, a False
Solution to a Real Problem: Critical Reflections on Canada’s Aquaculture
Regulations. Authored by Angela Lee and Pierre Cloutier de Repentigny, 2019,
University of Ottawa. (21)
Quote P38: “…the regulatory land
scape in Canada is, to say the least, complex, fragmented, and deficient in many respects, 25 as stated in government-commissioned reports 26 and as exemplified by the two case studies [PRV and genetically modified salmon] explored
below.” P38
Quote
P42 : “in her Spring 2018 report on salmon farming, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development found the AAR deficient in both their design and implementation. 68 Specifically, the Commissioner found that DFO did not assess whether the AAR were adequate to minimize harm to wild fish, that DFO was not validating the information in the industry self-reports, and that the AAR were not sufficiently enforced to minimize harm to wild fish. 69 Further, the fragmented approach to regulation that is apparent in the case of aquaculture has been identified as a general roadblock for attaining sustainability. 70”
Quote
P44: “PRV: III. CASE STUDY: BC SALMON AND PISCINE REOVIRUS [PRV]
“DFO has not been a role model in ensuring the sustainability of the aqua culture industry, focusing
primarily on economic development rather than environmental protection, despite the demonstrable risks associated with aquaculture. 72” “It took litigation
and the federal Commission of Inquiry into the Decline of Sockeye Salmon in the Fraser River (the Cohen Commission) to ensure that the federal
government took responsibility over the impact of aquaculture on wild Pacific salmon. 73”
Quote
P44: DFO
would not act on PRV, so Alex Morton took them to court: “At the centre of the dispute was the concept of risk: the level of risk acceptable
according to the FGR, and the risk posed by transferring fish infected with PRV. Justice Rennie (now of the Federal Court of Appeal), analyzed
both points from a precautionary perspective. This fact alone merits attention, as the precautionary principle has thus far had a limited impact in Canadian case law, and the principle
is not mentioned in the Fisheries Act or its regulations. 78”
Quote,
P45: “Regarding the risk of disease
harmful to fish, the evidence
was, on one hand, that PRV is likely the cause of HSMI, and on the other hand, that the causal relation between the two had yet to be proven with scientific
certainty. 79 The lack of scientific certainty did not deter Justice Rennie; he found it was enough that PRV may cause HSMI and thus may harm fish. 80 In other words, there was a risk, and ignoring the risk would not be exercising
the appropriate degree of precaution. Justice Rennie then turned his attention
to the interpretation of paragraph 56(b) of the FGR. He found the regime to be one of risk management
embodying the precautionary
principle. 81”
Quote
P46: DFO
lost the case: “DFO and Marine Harvest initially attempted to appeal the decision. 86 Before the appeal could be heard, it was discontinued, prompted by the detection of an outbreak of HSMI disease among farmed salmon. 87 A study of the outbreak conducted in part by DFO’s biologists demonstrated a link between PRV and HSMI, and a statistical correlation between PRV and the severity of some HSMI symptoms. 88”
Quote
P46: “Furthermore, subsequent research on PRV infection in
wild and farmed salmon in
BC revealed
that 95 per cent of farmed Atlantic
salmon are infected, and that 37–45 per cent of wild Pacific
salmon close to aquaculture operations are infected — an infection rate that drops to five per cent for wild Pacific salmon the farthest from aquaculture operations. 89”
Quote P46-47: “Despite the considerable risk posed by PRV transmitted
through farmed salmon, the requirements of section 56 of the FGR, and the fact that DFO has recognized, to some extent, the link between PRV and HSMI, DFO refuses to test salmon for PRV before issuing a transfer licence. 91”
Quote
P47: Prior
to this the Cohen Commission accepted that there was a disease risk for Fraser
sockeye. The paper goes on to say: “DFO’s cavalier and potentially illegal attitude towards the risks inherent in aquaculture has not changed.”
Quote P52:
The paper concludes: “In the case of PRV risk management, there is a clear disconnect between what DFO presents to the public — that is, policy and decision-making based on a precautionary
approach 125
— and its
actual management of diseases and risks related to aquaculture operations. DFO’s actions suggest that it continues
to demand scientific certainty or quasi-certainty of the threat posed by PRV and its extremely high occurrence
within farmed Atlantic salmon populations before it will take measures to protect wild Pacific salmon populations.” In other words, DFO does not use the
precautionary principle.
Quote
P 54: about pesticides: “but no precautionary measures have been put in place to mitigate
these known risks to the environment. In fact, the AAR are very permissive regarding the use of pesticides (as long as they have been approved by Health Canada), leaving
the industry to monitor itself and report to DFO on its pesticide discharge and certain events, like fish mortality. 137 In addition to the inherent limitations of such regulatory models, 138 enforcement of environmental standards, even in the face of serious incidents, 139 appears to be non-existent. 140
Quote
P 54: “Like the issue of disease transmission, the management of aquaculture pollutants by DFO is plagued by the same political use of science favouring
economic development above other considerations.” Comment, this is, again, against the
precautionary principle that economic issues are not to be considered.
Quote
P 59: “The current regulations do not provide sufficient safeguards to create a sustainable framework for aquaculture. Furthermore, scientific knowledge is currently used in decision-making and risk management
as a shield, hiding political
or value choices
favouring the industrial
development of aquaculture and techno-scientific solutions to environmental and food security issues, without sufficient transparency.”
Quote
P60: “For example, in terms of disease risk management, the well-established precautionary principle can serve as an effective guideline to avoid the current
situation regarding PRV. 162” And: “Instead of downgrading paragraph 56(b) of the FGR, as suggested by DFO’s Notice of Intent, the regulation on fish transfer should specifically require proof that a disease or disease agent is not harmful to the protection and conservation of fish and marine ecosystems before a licence can be issued.” And: “Furthermore, the absence of conclusive scientific evidence demonstrating the harmful effect of a particular disease or disease agent should not be taken as proof that a transfer is safe.”
P60: the study goes on to
say that: Atlantic stocks/smolts should be destroyed if carrying PRV.
P61: the law should be
changed.
P63: And there should be
a tribunal, and the whole system needs a rethink anyway, because: “We must consider that solutions to ecological concerns likely do not lie within
the current productionist mind frame that created the environmental crisis we seek to resolve in the first place. 173”
P63: “Farming the sea is a false solution to a real problem, in that it fails to address the fundamental issues underlying marine resource management and food production”
Fourth Response
Criticism
of Science, Social Licence, Jobs, Etc. 2019
In
a scathing report, the best science article on fish farm issues that I have
ever read, the Milewski et al paper, is a global view of all problems with
respect to fish farms. (51) Go read the post, as it deals in more depth than
the few issues quoted here.
Global Issues with Fish Farms
The paper starts by pointing out the array of problems:
"The shift from small-to industrial-scale salmon farming has brought with
it all the issues characteristic of industrial food-production systems. These
include: waste-product pollution (feces, feed) [29], use of chemical and
veterinary products (antibiotics, pesticides) [30], environmental quality
issues (nutrient and organic loading) [31], off-farm pathogen transmission [32]
and farm escapes [33], human health concerns [34], devolution of state-led
control to corporate/market-driven governance [26,35–37], and increased control
by large-scale processor and retailers (value chain) on seafood systems
[38–40]. As a result, the development trajectory of farmed salmon production
globally, and in Canada, has been uneven and marked by periods of reduced
production due to a range of issues including disease (e.g. infectious salmon
anemia, piscine reovirus) and parasite (sea lice) outbreaks, increased global
competition, price fluctuations, availability of suitable farm sites, and
moratoria [25,26,41]."
DFO is Remiss on Issues
"Environmental sustainability indicators
identified in the scientific literature for finfish aquaculture operations,
such as salmon farms, include the quantity of resources used (e.g. water, energy,
space, feed and amount of raw marine ingredients), waste discharges (nitrogen,
phosphorus, particulate organic matter, greenhouse gasses, metals), chemicals
use (e.g. antibiotics, pesticides, hormones), disease incidence, escaped fish,
genetic interactions, and biodiversity impacts [42–46]. To date with two
exceptions (antibiotics and drugs), DFO does not publicly report on any of the
aforementioned environmental indicators nor does it report on the environmental
SI identified in Table 1."
DFO on Industry Reporting Rather than DFO
Investigating
Just how bad can it be when fish farms need to report
something? This bad: "Compliance with these new regulations means
aquaculture operators are now required to report the quantity and frequency of
drugs and pesticides use. In 2016 and 2017, marine finfish operators used 16.8
mt and 14.4 mt of antibiotics and 617 mt and 439 mt of pesticides (hydrogen
peroxide) respectively [51]."
Doesn't this make you want to eat farmed salmon? Of
course, they are not doing much to measure the effects on the natural
environment, such as effects on lobsters etc. nor the cost of the sewage, which
is far more than the deep piles directly under a fish farm. The rest floats
away on ocean currents and contributes to eutrophication on a vast scale.
And what did the scientists find? This: "Monitoring sub-lethal, cumulative, and far-field (beyond the farm lease) effects of sequential exposure to antibiotics and pesticides on non-target species is not required."
And what did the scientists find? This: "Monitoring sub-lethal, cumulative, and far-field (beyond the farm lease) effects of sequential exposure to antibiotics and pesticides on non-target species is not required."
The BC sewage is conservatively estimated at $10.4B
(33), far in excess of economic return.
Jobs
The
conclusion on jobs is stunning: "DFO identified
employment in aquaculture as a social SI, but has not developed an employment
target. One possible reason may be that the potential for expanding direct
employment in aquaculture is continually being undermined by technological
improvements that enhance economic efficiencies but reduce the amount of labour
needed for production. Between 2007 and 2016, overall Canadian aquaculture production
increased 18% but direct employment in the sector dropped 32% [24].
Nowhere is the impact from improved technological efficiencies more evident
than in Norway which grows almost ten times (1.33 million tonnes in 2014)
more farmed salmon than Canada (134,000 mt) but does so with slightly more than
twice the direct labour force (6,300 people) than that of Canada (3,205
people) [23,24]. In addition since the mid-2000s, increased and significant
reliance on the Canadian government's Temporary Foreign Worker Program by
aquaculture" So no jobs for locals who are down on their luck.
In other words, there are few jobs in fish farming,
and they will decline dramatically, leaving fish farms polluting the ocean, and
taking all the revenue home to Norway, while jobs plummet to zero.
And DFO can’t get a handle on jobs and revenue because
it can’t get: "access to farm-level financial and production data as many
farms regard such data as confidential [53]." And the industry funded
studies come in at 400% higher than, in BC, the BC Stats report figures.” (60)
The above stats suggest that if Canada's output is
about 10% of Norway, that 10% of Norway's job numbers is all it will take to
farm in Canada, or about 630 jobs. Even if you believe the 3,205 number
of Canadian jobs, what would be left would be less than 20% of the current
job numbers (630/3205 = 19.6%). Why does DFO want in-ocean fish farms?
Jobs in Port Mouton, NS
A fish farm was put in in 1995. And those promises
about jobs were false: "Although farmed salmon production in Nova Scotia
has increased 1000% from 1995 (1120 mt) to 2017 (11546 mt), the number
of people employed in finfish aquaculture is the same (100) in 2017 as in 1995
and full-time employment has dropped 86% from 211 in 1995 to 46
in 2017 [72]." Look to the bottom, under the references for a link to a zero-job, offshore fish farm from Norway, Appendix 3.
Science on Environmental Effects
And: "Despite the federal government's
long-standing interest in increasing knowledge for regulatory purposes about
the impacts of aquaculture operations on wild fish (and shellfish) populations,
water quality, and important marine habitat such as eelgrass [82,83], these
studies [done by Friends of Mouton Bay] represented the first studies
of their kind in Canada." This means that DFO had done zero
studies.
Social Indicators and DFO
The various certification schemes, ASCs, and so on,
have environmental, social, governance and culture measures, some 2830
indicators in all of the eight schemes looked at. It turns out that the
prov/fed/DFO don't have anywhere near the indicators that the certification
schemes have, and the ones they do have are, wait for it, not revealed to the
public.
The social SIs have become far more important, there being 1427 in the private schemes. And the report says: "A weakness in both the DFO and certification schemes is the absence (DFO) and the near-absence (certification schemes) of indicators associated with community-level decision-making."
The social SIs have become far more important, there being 1427 in the private schemes. And the report says: "A weakness in both the DFO and certification schemes is the absence (DFO) and the near-absence (certification schemes) of indicators associated with community-level decision-making."
Social licence is absent in in-ocean fish farms.
As for the indicators, DFO at zero, with the private certifications at 1427 - on the social side indicators. On the environment side DFO is remiss compared with these systems, and the local govt/social side, it is also 1400 to zero.
And you have to remember that DFO/feds want more aquaculture, more 'Blue Revolution' that Norway has had the rest of us rolling our eyeballs about because it is just a good slogan, when their entire emphasis is on making money. You know: neoliberalism, and those profit margins that range from 20- to 80-%. (51)
As for the indicators, DFO at zero, with the private certifications at 1427 - on the social side indicators. On the environment side DFO is remiss compared with these systems, and the local govt/social side, it is also 1400 to zero.
And you have to remember that DFO/feds want more aquaculture, more 'Blue Revolution' that Norway has had the rest of us rolling our eyeballs about because it is just a good slogan, when their entire emphasis is on making money. You know: neoliberalism, and those profit margins that range from 20- to 80-%. (51)
DFO and the Global Blue Revolution
Milewski
et al noted that Bene had reviewed more than 200 papers that
examined the contribution of fisheries and aquaculture to improving food
security, nutrition and poverty in developing and emergent countries.
"Their analysis revealed no evidence to support the claim that a higher consumption of fish results in higher nutritional status, that an increased supply of farmed or wild fish had a direct effect on the micronutrient status of households and/or consumers and concluded that the protein contribution of fish to nutritional status was overstated [99]. The share of protein intake derived from plants far exceeds animal protein in general, and fish-protein in particular [102]."
You wouldn't know it from fish farms, but in fact: "World agricultural food production has now outpaced population growth by a significant margin [103,104]. The world now produces more than enough food, including animal protein, to satisfy the dietary needs of the entire global population [105]."
Despite this: "oversupply of food, more than 800 million people suffer from hunger, food insecurity and malnutrition." And not one of them will ever have enough money to buy even one farmed Atlantic salmon, raised by Mowi Harvest, Cermaq, or Grieg Seafood, from Norway, in their 'blue' revolution, and that trashed the ocean forage fish stocks that those 800 million third world humans should be eating.
***************
Note: I have found another instance of automation replacing workers, Feb28, 2020:
CageEye's New AI Does Away With Staff - and 7% drop in feed use as well: https://www.undercurrentnews.com/2020/02/27/first-chile-then-the-world-how-norways-cageeye-is-taking-aquaculture-ai-global/?utm_source=Undercurrent+News+Alerts&utm_campaign=c80fd832b8-Salmon_roundup_Feb_28_2020&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_feb55e2e23-c80fd832b8-92426209.
"Their analysis revealed no evidence to support the claim that a higher consumption of fish results in higher nutritional status, that an increased supply of farmed or wild fish had a direct effect on the micronutrient status of households and/or consumers and concluded that the protein contribution of fish to nutritional status was overstated [99]. The share of protein intake derived from plants far exceeds animal protein in general, and fish-protein in particular [102]."
You wouldn't know it from fish farms, but in fact: "World agricultural food production has now outpaced population growth by a significant margin [103,104]. The world now produces more than enough food, including animal protein, to satisfy the dietary needs of the entire global population [105]."
Despite this: "oversupply of food, more than 800 million people suffer from hunger, food insecurity and malnutrition." And not one of them will ever have enough money to buy even one farmed Atlantic salmon, raised by Mowi Harvest, Cermaq, or Grieg Seafood, from Norway, in their 'blue' revolution, and that trashed the ocean forage fish stocks that those 800 million third world humans should be eating.
***************
Note: I have found another instance of automation replacing workers, Feb28, 2020:
CageEye's New AI Does Away With Staff - and 7% drop in feed use as well: https://www.undercurrentnews.com/2020/02/27/first-chile-then-the-world-how-norways-cageeye-is-taking-aquaculture-ai-global/?utm_source=Undercurrent+News+Alerts&utm_campaign=c80fd832b8-Salmon_roundup_Feb_28_2020&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_feb55e2e23-c80fd832b8-92426209.
Footnotes
1. A
new plan to save chinook and SRKWs: http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/2018/05/dfo-salmon-and-killer-whales.html.
2.
In Clayoquot Sound there were only
501 chinook in six streams in 2012. There are 20 fish farms. Lice kill fry, and
PRV kills adult chinook with jaundice anemia: https://www.psf.ca/news-media/prv-virus-may-cause-disease-chinook-salmon.
And: 501 wild chinook: http://commonsensecanadian.ca/author/dc/page/2/.
3.
Lice out of control in Clayoquot, DFO
doing nothing: https://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/2019/05/cermaq-lice-peroxide-slice-paramove-50.html.
4.
Lice out of Control in Clayoquot, and
30 BC studies, 90 studies by Mowi, 800 world wide studies: https://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/2018/05/lice-outbreak-in-clayoquot-sound.html.
5.
Lice , a 2006 report: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/farming-natural-resources-and-industry/agriculture-and-seafood/fisheries-and-aquaculture/aquaculture-reports/fish_health2006.pdf.
6.
British Columbians value salmon as
much as Quebec does French: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/bc-residents-consider-salmon-a-cultural-touchstone-survey-finds/article1998476/.
7.
Hasta La Vista liberals, Salmon Mean
As Much to BC as French Does to Quebec: https://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/2016/11/hasta-la-vista-liberals-salmon-as.html.
8.
Poll: 75% of BC citizens want fish
farms banned. There is zero social licence for fish farms in BC: https://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/2019/06/vast-majority-against-in-ocean-fish.html.
9.
BC Stats Report, the 2012 one and the
2016 one, released in 2019: https://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/2019/03/mar-21-2019-bc-stats-report-2016.html.
10. Automation:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X19301332.
Milewski et al.
11. DFO
won’t release the Norwegian test of BC PRV, 2019: https://act.newmode.net/action/unredactforsalmon?sp_ref=501813569.392.197751.f.0.2.
12. Consultation
on the Framework for Aquaculture Risk Management: http://dfo-mpo.gc.ca/aquaculture/consultations/farm-cgra/farm-consult-cgra-eng.html#contact.
13. Framework
for Aquaculture Risk Management: http://dfo-mpo.gc.ca/aquaculture/consultations/farm-cgra/farm-cgra-eng.html.
14. Study
on the State of Salmon Aquaculture Technology: http://dfo-mpo.gc.ca/campaign-campagne/aquaculture/study-eng.html.
Introduces the committee.
15. Government
of Canada Announces new Way Forward on Aquaculture Management and the
Protection of Wild Salmon: https://www.canada.ca/en/fisheries-oceans/news/2018/12/government-of-canada-announces-new-way-forward-on-aquaculture-management-and-the-protection-of-wild-salmon.html.
16. Precautionary
Principle, Tony Allard: https://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/2018/10/precautionary-principle-has-defined.html.
17. PRV
Case: https://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/2017/01/dfo-taken-to-court-for-not-protecting.html.
This post also has a link to a Norwegian study that proves PRV causes HSMI.
18. Here
is an Alex Morton video summary of the case, appeal and so on, that DFO lost on
PRV: https://www.facebook.com/alexandra.morton.1671/videos/2398538087041405/.
19. Laws:
20 links to legal problems with fish farms: https://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-strictest-laws-in-world-wrong.html.
20. Randy
Nelson: Poachers, Polluters and Politics, lack of enforcement: https://onfishingdcreid.blogspot.com/2014/10/poachers-polluters-and-politics-by.html.
21. Laws:
Farming the Sea, a False Solution to a Real
Problem: Critical Reflections on Canada’s Aquaculture Regulations, 2019, Angela
Lee and Pierre Cloutier de Repentigny, U of Ottawa: https://commentary.canlii.org/w/canlii/2019CanLIIDocs16?zoupio-debug&fbclid=IwAR3mLofsVEVVr89sd-E5zSmtqVZjOwISMosaAjegS5iLPFUDtKqn2Q5UPDQ#!fragment/zoupio-_Tocpdf_bk_3/(hash:(chunk:(anchorText:zoupio-_Tocpdf_bk_3),notesQuery:'',scrollChunk:!n,searchQuery:'',searchSortBy:RELEVANCE,tab:'')).
22. No
to science and evidence at DFO, a dozen cases: https://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/2019/02/evidence-and-science-based-decisions-at.html.
This post adds another half dozen cases: https://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/2019/02/transparency-in-fish-farming-well-no.html.
23. NO
to not using E&S, a half dozen, plus PP: https://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/2019/06/prv-dfo-doesnt-do-evidence-and-science.html.
24. More
not using E&S, a link to a dozen cases: https://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/2019/05/dfo-does-not-use-evidence-and-science.html.
25. Fraud,
DFO/CFIA: https://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/2016/09/canadian-food-inspection-agency.html.
26. 5.76
B fish killed to feed one crop in BC: https://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/2016/10/fish-farms-kill-billions-of-wild-fish.html.
27. The
Sea Around Us document of fish landings: http://www.seaaroundus.org/doc/publications/books-and-reports/2016/End_Use_Reconstruction_Report.pdf.
28. The
Sea Around Us graph of Jack Mackerel collapse: http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/2016/08/jack-mackerel-fish-farms-buffalo.html.
29. Fish
farms kill wild salmonids: Norway, 2019 paper: https://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/2019/04/fish-farms-kill-wild-salmonids-says.html.
30. Fish
farms kill will salmonids in Ireland, Scotland and Norway: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/fish-farm-lice-are-killing-wild-salmon-9s096zf3v.
31. Fish
farms kill wild salmon in BC, 2006 study: https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/fish-farms-kill-wild-salmon-study-finds-1.590335.
32. Fish
farms kill wild salmon in Atlantic Canada, Pacific Canada, Ireland and
Scotland: http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/2013/01/fish-farms-kill-more-than-50-of-wild.html.
The original post.
33. Sewage
cost in BC: https://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/2017/02/fish-farm-sewage-huge-cost-to-bc.html.
Lots of links in this one.
34. Dilution
is not the solution, Ken Ashley Op-Ed, Times Colonist: https://www.timescolonist.com/opinion/op-ed/comment-science-flushes-away-sewage-dilution-theories-1.2283079.
35. Antibiotic
resistance, a staggering list of nearly 60 research papers: https://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/2017/11/antibiotics-in-fish-farms-cause.html.
36. Lice
chemicals, a large Norwegian project. Even hydrogen peroxide, the simplest
chemical, has bad environmental problems: https://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/2018/09/toxic-sea-lice-chemicals-norway-is.html.
37. $107M
taxpayer money for fish farms. We don’t want to pay: https://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/2018/06/taxpayer-support-for-fish-farms-too.html.
38. And
$177M we paid for their diseased, dead fish: https://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/2016/01/taxpayers-pay-for-diseased-dead-fish.html.
The CFIA finally cancelled the program because we complained so much.
39. Lost
licence revenue in BC versus $32- $40-million/licence in Norway: https://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/2018/08/increase-license-fees-to-32-to-40.html.
40. Salmon
Innovation, Technology, Partnerships, Restoration Fund: http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/2019/04/salmon-restoration-and-innovation-fund.html.
41. WSACBC
Wild Salmon Plan: https://onfishingdcreid.blogspot.com/2018/12/options-for-made-in-bc-wild-salmon.html.
42. BAD
NEWS BITES: http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/2019/05/bad-news-bites-12th-post-moving-toward.html.
43. Volpe
on neoliberalism: https://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/2017/12/fish-farms-and-neoliberalism-john-volpe.html
44. Actual
rivers with escaped Atlantics: https://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/2017/12/atlantic-salmon-in-van-isle-rivers.html.
45. Volpe
research on escapes: https://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/2017/10/escaped-atlantic-salmon-in-bc-volpe.html.
46. Volpe
research: https://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/2017/09/atlantic-salmon-breed-in-bc-rivers.html.
47. Volpe
research: https://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/2017/09/atlantic-salmon-breed-in-bc-rivers.html.
48. Volpe
– DFO did its best to inhibit his work on escapes and Atlantic spawning
success; and the 153,000 escape/crop calculation; and a link to a dozen papers
on escapes in BC. Read this first: https://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/2018/03/dfo-fibs-on-farmed-salmon-escapes-bc.html.
49. Volpe
on escapes: https://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/2017/12/atlantic-salmon-in-bc-rivers-bad-news.html.
50. Catastrophic
collapse of Broughton Archipelago pink salmon: http://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/3273.
51. Milewski:
http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/2019/07/fish-farm-problems-on-global-scale-inka.html.
And a link directly to the article: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X19301332.
52. 285
On-land fish farms: https://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/2016/05/152-different-on-land-fish-farm-systems.html.
53. Deluge
of on-land fish farm press: https://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/2018/11/good-news-post-links-to-on-land
-closed.html.
54. Aquaculture
the Inside Stories, Atlantic Canada: https://www.facebook.com/groups/nlaquaculture/permalink/2406848442872334/.
59. Habitat
restoration program, problems with it: http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/2019/04/salmon-restoration-and-innovation-fund.html.
60. This
is the MNP 2017 study for the BC Salmon Farmers Association, which also
references Gardner Pinfold. Note the inflated figures when compared with the BC
Stats report: http://bcsalmonfarmers.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/BCSFA_Econ_ImpactStudy-SEP2017.pdf.
***
Appendices:
1. Descending Sockeye Stats in the Fraser:
2. Declining Fraser Chinook Stats, a slide presentation for five recent years: http://frafs.ca/sites/default/files2/2017%20Fraser%20Chinook%20-%20FN%20Forum%20-%20March%208-10%202016-final.pdf.
3. Here is a zero job, offshore fish farm, from Norway: 418. Zero Jobs for Workers - offshore, remote controlled fish farm, Noway: https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/transportation/marine/remotecontrolled-salmon-farms-to-operate-off-norway-by-2020.amp.html?utm_source=Watershed+Watch+Email+List&utm_campaign=19d1dc1ba8-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_07_24_10_08&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_405944b1b5-19d1dc1ba8-166907249&mc_cid=19d1dc1ba8&mc_eid=5777c92bcd.
4. The stats for 2019 are devastating. See how much help salmon need. There is no time left to wait on making changes: https://watershedwatch.ca/greg-taylor-an-overview-of-2019s-salmon-returns/?utm_source=Watershed+Watch+Email+List&utm_campaign=b9ff6f89d7-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_10_04_04_38_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_405944b1b5-b9ff6f89d7-166907249&mc_cid=b9ff6f89d7&mc_eid=5777c92bcd.
****************
5. And PRV in BC, 2020, that DFO says doesn't cause a problem: Here in BC, DFO has refused scientific evidence on harm and killing of wild salmon by PRV four times now: https://alexandramorton.typepad.com/alexandra_morton/2020/01/the-virus-prv-brings-out-the-worst-in-dfo.html?fbclid=IwAR1RVl5HttXekuttvJChNOwu51SufY3oxLT3uc7hZ_TScKjBL5nyr0siMuE..
Hello DC Reid,
ReplyDeleteMy name is Einar Nicolson. My friend and I briefly spoke to you this past weekend and the Eve, after which I realised I have came across your writing in the past. The following link to the review of salmon farms in Scotland which was published early in 2018. https://www.parliament.scot/S5_Environment/General%20Documents/20180125_SAMS_Review_of_Environmental_Impact_of_Salmon_Farming_-_Report.pdf
This was where I came across the expansion of fish farm production in Scotland to 300,000 tonnes by 2030. Apologies if this is old news.
Your above writing, specifically the section covering salmon farm employment or lack thereof, is very interesting.
Tight Lines,
Einar
P.S. It was a pleasure speaking to you yesterday evening, I should have introduced myself at the time.
Hi Einar. Thanks for this, I'll read the report in your note.
ReplyDeleteD