Why aquaculture needs a science-led democracy

“If campaigns against salmon farming were based on
facts, I wouldn’t be writing this article.”

Commentary
By Ian Roberts

As activists continue to sidestep the
democratic process in favour of interrupting work spaces, governments must step
up to protect the health and safety of employees working within the laws of the
country.

A recent court decision in Scotland awarded
an interim injunction to Shell, intended to protect its work sites from trespass
by Greenpeace members. The judge ruled that Greenpeace was unlawfully breaching
Shell’s property rights and also putting its own activists’ safety at risk.

The decision mirrored that of a Canadian
injunction against activists received by Mowi (then Marine Harvest) in 2018
that was required to protect the health and safety of its employees and
livestock.

But this issue should be dealt with long
before having to be heard in court.

There are democratic processes made
available by all governments where salmon farms operate for people opposed to
salmon farming to voice their concerns. Furthermore, government authorities are
paid by working people to protect citizens and domestic food products.

Or put more clearly: farmers and the
animals they raise should be protected by government authorities from the
health and safety threat posed by direct action protesters (many living outside
the country where they protest).

In response to a low return of Fraser River
sockeye salmon on Canada’s west coast in 2009, anti-salmon farming activists
pressed for a government inquiry. They got one, called the Cohen Commission.
Two years and $30 million later, the Commission detailed 75 recommendations to
improve the sockeye salmon’s survival.

Specific to salmon farming, Cohen concluded
that ‘data presented during this inquiry did not show that salmon farms were
having a significant negative impact on Fraser River sockeye’, and that ‘marine
conditions in both the Strait of Georgia and Queen Charlotte Sound in 2007 were
likely to be the primary factors responsible for the poor returns’.

The following year, the Fraser River
recorded its highest return of sockeye salmon in a century.

Similarly, in Scotland, the angling body
Salmon & Trout Conservation demanded that government impose a moratorium on
salmon farming. In response, the Scottish parliament’s Rural Economy and
Connectivity (REC) committee launched a review into the ‘environmental impacts
of salmon farming’ in 2018.

The REC expressed concern about the ability
of the country’s regulatory framework to adequately manage potential negative
impacts from salmon farming, and while requesting changes to current farming
practices, stopped short of recommending a moratorium, noting ‘insufficient
evidence to support this’.

This is the democratic process – allowing
for all stakeholders to provide input into a science led initiative upon which
reasoned policy decisions can be made.

Unfortunately, some stakeholders refuse to
accept a science led democracy, and have since taken to other means of
influencing government policies.

Shortly after Canada’s Cohen Commission
published its final report, salmon farmers in British Columbia witnessed direct
action on their businesses.

Organised by the international protest
group Sea Shepherd, activists began trespassing on salmon farms, threatening
the health and safety of both fish and employees.

One farm saw a group of protesters set up
camp for 16 weeks on the floating walkway of a salmon cage, blocking access to
and fouling the work site.

After pleading, unsuccessfully, with
government authorities to protect its employees from harassment, the company
was forced to seek protection through the courts. Only after the injunction was
received, did the protesters vacate the private work place.

Five years of direct action protests in
British Columbia have, to a great extent, served their purpose. Coupled with
targeted political influence from the social elite in Vancouver, and
philanthropic support to Canadian activist groups and individuals from US based
foundations, political support for salmon farming in the region has been
severely damaged.

Most recently, Justin Trudeau’s Liberal
government took a turn-about-face. Four years ago, the Liberals were very clear
about their support for Canada’s salmon farmers and science, stating that:
‘Legislating the removal of salmon aquaculture from Canada’s oceans represents
an excessive approach to resolving environmental issues that are already being
managed through robust, science based federal and provincial regulations.’

However, at the 11th hour before the latest
Canadian election that saw the Liberal party reduced to a minority government,
the party pledged to transition all ocean fish farms in British Columbia to
land based facilities by 2025.

The pledge strongly mirrored the words of
the ‘Wild First’ activist group formed by wealthy businessman and salmon
angling lodge owner Tony Allard. Not unrelated, another business entity of
Allard’s is seeking over $1 million in government funding…to build a 150 acre
on-land aquaculture business.

Sea Shepherd skipper Paul Watson has said:
‘Truth is irrelevant… A headline comment on Monday’s newspaper far outweighs
the revelation of inaccuracy revealed in a small box inside the paper on
Tuesday or Wednesday.’

If campaigns against salmon farming were
based on facts, I wouldn’t be writing this article. Sadly, but not surprisingly
given Captain Watson’s modus operandi, fish farmers have – like many other food
producers – fallen victim to embellishments at best, and flat out lies at
worst.

Salmon farmers, like all farmers,
experience challenges that must be overcome. We are not above fair and honest
criticism. We make mistakes and must own our mistakes, correct them, and work
to ensure we operate to the highest standards possible.

But when activists stage events, manipulate
images, or use publicly available statistics (salmon farming is among the most
transparent food production in the world) to twist fact, it should raise
serious alarm bells at all levels of government.

A photo published on Facebook by Sea
Shepherd, claiming to be that of a dogfish snared in an aquaculture net, was
quickly debunked by Canadian fish farmers. The fish was previously killed and
placed in the net.

I could, unfortunately, fill an entire
magazine on the spin, lies and misrepresentation about our sector that I have
witnessed over my 26-year career.

Some are big ones, but most are small ones
that fly under the radar; over time, they can add up to create the
‘overwhelming body of evidence’, providing juicy content to naive journalists
and social media, that influences public perception, that pressures politicians
into making decisions based on perception rather than science and fact.

And let’s not kid ourselves – direct action
protest and political influence has worked to erode public confidence in our
sector. Science-be-damned political decisions regarding aquaculture have now
been prescribed for Washington (USA), British Columbia (Canada) and Denmark.

Salmon farming companies in Canada and the
UK average about one inspection daily over the course of a year. Facilities are
inspected by qualified professionals, accredited non-governmental organisations
and government authorities.

It is not for unqualified activists to
‘inspect’ salmon farms. To satisfy its obligations to regulators and the Crown,
a company’s staff and livestock must be safeguarded from potential hazardous
interference.

It is now time for government authorities
to step up and protect their own turf: monitor and regulate a business the
nation has permitted and endorsed, and also protect the country’s workers and
the food they produce.

Ian Roberts from Campbell River, B.C.
has been salmon farming in Canada and the UK for 26 years. He is director of
communications at Mowi Scotland.

This commentary was first published in
Fishfarmermagazine.com