EDITORIAL
Editorial | Send a letter to the editor
Subsidizing fish farming helps to destroy the wild fisheries

Eric Wickham, Canadian Sablefish Association
Special to the Sun

Monday, May 30, 2005

1 | 2 | NEXT >>

A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep, the great American novelist Saul Bellow remarked.

Bellow's observation neatly describes the federal and provincial governments campaign to win the public over to aquaculture. In this case, the illusion is that fish farms offer an environmentally risk-free way to create wealth and jobs in coastal communities.

In a 2003 report, DFO's commissioner for aquaculture development claimed that aquaculture was mankind's last step in a 10,000-year journey from hunter-gatherer to food producer. He added that "over the next 10-15 years aquaculture will grow by 10-15 per cent annually and could generate in excess of $2.8 billion and employ 47,000 in coastal communities."

At a glance, the statistics appear even more impressive in British Columbia. Over the past 15 years, B.C. salmon farm production soared from 24,000 tonnes to 70,000. At the same time, DFO mismanagement of the wild salmon fishery reduced catches from 80,000 to less than 20,000 tonnes per year.

Salmon farmers contend that their industry is superior to the wild fishery from both an ecological and an economic perspective. But is it?

Scientists warn that fish farms pose a risk to wild stocks through the transfer of disease, that feces and other fish farm debris can damage habitat and that the use of antibiotics and dyes in feed for farm fish poses a health risk to consumers.

Government officials spurn this as alarmist, and instead point to the jobs created by aquaculture. But as Bellow suggests, we ought to be skeptical.

In a 2003 report titled Fishy Business, Dale Marshall of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives provides a completely different perspective about aquaculture.

Aside from the usual environmental concerns, Marshall reveals that the economic future of fish farming is bleak. Although salmon aquaculture in B.C. has tripled in production, mechanization means that no new jobs were created. Worse yet, a world-wide glut of farmed salmon means that salmon farmers are losing money -- boatloads of money.

In October 2003, Norwegian fish farms destroyed a crop of market-ready salmon worth $100 million to avoid further price declines for farmed salmon. Closer to home, one of Canada's biggest corporations, George Weston Ltd., recently put its subsidiary Heritage Salmon Ltd. -- which operates salmon farms in B.C. and Chile -- up for sale after years of major financial losses.

What do taxpayers get in return? Though promoters often cite 4,000 jobs, B.C. salmon farmers claim that 1,800 employees produced 72,000 tons of salmon in 2003. In contrast, Norwegian salmon farmers produced 577,000 tonnes of salmon with 3,200 employees in the same year. The Norwegians produce 41/2 times more fish per employee than B.C. farmers -- such a large gap in efficiency is simply not believable. Someone's cooking and they're not cooking salmon.

The federal and provincial governments, between 1997 and 2002, subsidized the aquaculture industry to the tune of $110 million. Salmon farms want more, but they only paid $5 million in taxes in 1996; to save them more money, Victoria decided not to collect fines levied against salmon farmers for habitat violations.

In contrast, the wild salmon industry -- sports, commercial and processing -- still supports 13,844 jobs. Revenue from the wild salmon fishery in 2001 was $944 million, compared to only $273 million for salmon aquaculture. Wages paid to workers in the wild salmon sector totalled $280 million, while those working in salmon aquaculture received only $40 million.

Despite the questionable economics, the B.C. Liberals recently passed a resolution urging that new salmon farm applications be fast-tracked. Agriculture Minister John van Dongen's prodding also led to the Liberals passing a new law reducing community zoning control over aquaculture sites.

Worse yet, to help fish farmers stop their financial red tide, the Campbell government recently issued 47 licences to allow farms to switch from salmon to sablefish.

This could spell disaster for one of B.C.'s most successful wild fisheries. B.C. fishing families sell $30 million of sablefish to niche export markets every year. Unlike the fish farm industry, the sablefish fishery doesn't get government subsidies and it contributes $2.4 million a year for research and management of the fishery. Why risk this fishery for imaginary fish farm jobs?

Even if we ignore the environmental risks, a recent study by economists from the University of Washington shows that 30,000 tonnes of farmed sablefish would flood world markets (B.C. farmers plan to produce 80,000 tonnes) driving prices downward.

Within a year or two, both the wild fishery and B.C. farms would be losing money. The only profitable place to farm sablefish will be Chile. B.C. fish farmers will again be looking for a new species to farm and yet another wild fishery to decimate.

Why are governments hell-bent on encouraging aquaculture? Why not take better care of our wild fishery?

A carefully managed Fraser River fishery could produce $250 million a year in export sales of wild salmon. This production, from a single river, is almost equal to the total production of all B.C. salmon fish farms.

Instead, our senior governments seem content to watch the destruction of the Fraser fishery, while throwing hundreds of millions of dollars at fish farms.

If governments protect fish habitats and enforce the law against all poachers, the economic benefits of the wild salmon fishery would far outweigh the questionable promises of fish farmers. And there would be no environmental risks.

Eric Wickham is executive director of the Canadian Sablefish Association.
© The Vancouver Sun 2005