Re: “Farmed B.C. salmon could carry organic label under federal plan,” July 15.

The proposal by the Canadian General Standards Board and the organic aquaculture working group at Fisheries and Oceans Canada to give the “organic stamp of approval” to B.C. farmed salmon raised in open-net pens is nothing short of Orwellian.

Among many practices that should be considered antithetical to the spirit and intent of organic certification, the B.C. fish farm industry relies on the application of the agricultural drug Slice to address chronic sea lice outbreaks.

Emamectin benzoate is the active ingredient in Slice, which is administered in feed. The use of Slice is a concern to scientists like David Carpenter, professor at the environmental health and toxicology division at the University of Albany in New York. Carpenter has said that “emamectin is one of a class of drugs known to block a major inhibitory neural transmitter in the brain. Animal studies have demonstrated exposure to this chemical during development causes changes in behaviour and growth as well as pathological changes in the brain.”

Little is known about the long-term impact of Slice on other aquatic life. Mounting evidence indicates that Slice may negatively affect crustaceans. Canadian scientist Les Burridge, who works in the field of ecotoxicology, has written that “chemicals used to control infestations of sea lice on cultured salmon have a potential for impacting non-target organisms, particularly other crustacea. Investigations have been conducted on lethal impacts but observations made during these experiments indicate potential for ecologically important sub-lethal impacts.”

Chris Genovali

Raincoast Conservation

Sidney

Calgary Herald, July 16, 2010

Edmonton Journal July 18, 2010

Regarding the billboard ads urging Americans not to visit Alberta this summer, B.C. conservation groups might want to take a page from U.S. environmental organizations and adopt a similar campaign urging British Columbians to “rethink” travelling to Alberta.

As the Alberta government, oilsands industry and Enbridge Inc. attempt to shove the Northern Gateway pipeline down our throats in B.C., maybe it’s time we launched a boycott of our own. Why should British Columbians be willing to put our magnificent north coast at risk so that Alberta can reap profits from shipping “the world’s dirtiest oil” to Asian and American markets?

And sorry, we’re not falling for the full-page hyperbole-filled Enbridge advertisements in newspapers across B.C. trumpeting how Northern Gateway will solve unemployment, build sustainable communities and even make B.C.’s rocky north coast safer for all marine traffic.

Chris Genovali,

Sidney, B.C.

Re: The billboard ads urging Americans not to visit Alberta. B.C. conservation groups might want to take a page from U.S. environmental organizations and adopt a similar campaign urging British Columbians to “rethink” travelling to Alberta.

As the Alberta government, oilsands industry and Enbridge Inc. attempt to shove the “Northern Gateway” pipeline down our throats in B.C., maybe it’s time we launched a boycott of our own.

Why should British Columbians be willing to put our magnificent north coast at risk so Alberta can reap profits from shipping “the world’s dirtiest oil” to Asian and American markets?

And sorry, we’re not falling for the full-page hyperbole-filled Enbridge ads in newspapers across B.C. trumpeting how Northern Gateway will solve unemployment, build sustainable communities and even make B.C.’s rocky north coast safer for all marine traffic.

Chris Genovali

Raincoast Conservation

Sidney, B.C.

By Misty MacDuffee, Corey Peet and Chris Genovali

As the Canadian federal inquiry examining the 2009 Fraser River sockeye salmon collapse in British Columbia kicks into full gear, one might be surprised to learn that at the same time, the Marine Stewardship Council wants to designate this fishery as “eco-certified.”

Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) certification for the Fraser River sockeye fishery raises serious questions about the process and methodology for MSC certification, especially given the latest Fraser sockeye collapse of some eight million fish. Even the possibility of MSC certification for Fraser
sockeye has led many of BC’s environmental NGO’s to express qualms about the logic and rationale of the MSC, as their judgment in this matter has, thus far, overlooked serious concerns about the status and management of Fraser sockeye.

It is an unfortunate situation as the existence of MSC certification should signify an opportunity to increase the protection of wild salmon on the coast and to work around the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) who have been a major obstacle to achieving that goal.

MSC began in 1997 when the World Wildlife Fund and Unilever – a major seafood buyer – formed a partnership to try to leverage buying power into transformative change for global fisheries and collectively define sustainable, or at least environmentally preferable, fisheries. A collaboration of this type represents a potentially powerful step forward, as conscientious members of industry can work with NGOs to integrate conservation and social justice agendas into fisheries sustainability.

This new approach also changes the role of governments, given their poor track record at managing fish, into a follow-up function that implements policy as it is defined by the collaboration between industry and NGOs. This scenario has the potential to drive substantial change as long as the
environmental NGOs involved fully grasp the conservation science at the local level. It is also key that they never lose sight of the fact that establishing sufficient rigorousness for such a process is of paramount importance to ensuring that their integrity is not squandered for bad tradeoffs.

The Raincoast Conservation Foundation recognizes the value that certification could play in terms of improving fisheries practices. However, we are concerned that MSC relationships between the client (industry) and the certifier are far too close and not independent. Secondly, we are concerned that the MSC criteria sets a low bar and will not result in transformative change. These factors have allowed them to endorse fisheries around the globe that are not sustainable. For example, the stock status of
both Alaskan pollock and New Zealand Hoki have declined under MSC certification. Their criteria also lack sufficient ecosystem considerations. For example, BC salmon fisheries do not consider whales, bears or other wildlife that depend on salmon. In addition, if the Fraser River certification moves forward then Cultus Lake or Sakinaw sockeye would also be certified; this leads us to raise the question, is the MSC actually sanguine about certifying endangered fish populations?

Certification must account for all environmental (and social) issues facing the certified fish in question, even if this means committing to continuous improvement on certain issues, especially as science and conservation objectives evolve. Failure to do so is greenwashing and forces NGOs who are also working on these issues into difficult positions, where they find themselves opposing the MSC instead of supporting it.

As an example, the industry is proposing that MSC give the green stamp of approval to pink and chum salmon runs in the Great Bear Rainforest, the area where Raincoast has been working for over a decade to protect salmon- grizzly systems and other important salmon ecosystem linkages. In the last
several years, however, there has been a disturbing silence at the time of year when these streams should be vibrant with spawning fish and splashing bears. Raincoast believes it to be imperative to account for these types of ecosystem functions when considering a fisheries sustainability.

We suggest that the MSC re-examine both their process and certification standards are determined and pay much more attention to their ecological shortcomings if they want long-term legitimacy from conservation groups. They need a transparent, independent and impartial certification process, as
well as a mechanism for ongoing improvement of criteria that would continually push for the highest fishing standards and truly drive conservation in the world’s oceans. To attain this, they must address the structural flaws in their certification process and commit to incorporating ecosystem objectives for marine and terrestrial environments. Their brand reputation is at stake and they run the risk of turning their theoretical supporters into very real opponents if their approach to these issues is
allowed to continue.

Misty MacDuffee is a biologist with Raincoast Conservation Foundation’s wild salmon program. Ecologist Corey Peet is an aquaculture specialist and Raincoast board member. Chris Genovali is Raincoast’s executive director.

When British Columbia Conservation Officer Andrew Anaka learned that a Bella Coola Valley resident was threatening to “pop” a grizzly bear mother and her three cubs for stealing salmon off his deck, Anaka advised the man to instead remove his salmon. He said the family of bears should only be shot if they were an imminent threat. The resident did not remove the salmon and later shot all four bears.

Read the full story at  Huffington Post

As the Canadian federal inquiry examining the 2009 Fraser River sockeye salmon collapse in British Columbia kicks into full gear, one might be surprised to learn that at the same time, the Marine Stewardship Council wants to designate this fishery as “eco-certified.”

For the rest of this Raincoast article visit The Huffington Post at:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-genovali/would-a-grizzly-bear-cert_b_615947.html

As British Columbia’s southern resident killer whales return to local waters, many scientists and citizens are growing increasingly concerned for their future. Even with new arrivals in local pods, the population still needs to show clear signs of recovery.

One action we hope will help is a legal challenge launched against the Canadian federal government. You might ask, how will a lawsuit help whales? As with science and law, it can get murky, but the case hinges on a key point critical habitat.

For the rest of the article visit The Georgia Straight at:

http://www.straight.com/article-329246/vancouver/bcs-killer-whales-get-their-day-court

MEDIA RELEASE  June 15, 2010

VANCOUVER – Conservation groups, represented by Ecojustice, are back in Federal Court today after launching a lawsuit against Canada’s Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) over the protection of B.C.’s resident killer whales.

If successful, the case will ensure stronger legal protection for all of Canada’s endangered species.

The coalition, made up of nine leading environmental groups, alleges that DFO failed to legally protect all aspects of critical habitat for southern and northern resident killer whales. Critical habitat is defined as the habitat endangered or threatened species need to survive and recover.

The government’s own science shows that for resident killer whales, critical habitat is more than just a place on a map – it includes clean and quiet marine waters and available salmon, their primary food source.

“There is no ‘later’ for these whales,” said Margot Venton, Ecojustice staff lawyer. “Our killer whales need legal protection of their critical habitat. They can’t live in a polluted ocean without fish.”

In 2008, DFO issued an unlawful protection statement that sought to safeguard habitat using voluntary guidelines and non-binding laws and policies. In 2009, Ottawa issued an order for resident killer whale critical habitat protection. The order however, fails to address the biological aspects of critical habitat, including water quality, noise pollution and declining salmon stocks. The coalition alleges that the government has unlawfully interpreted its own law and breached the terms of the Species At Risk Act.

The resident killer whales are made up of two distinct populations that live in B.C. waters year-round. The southern resident killer whales are listed as “endangered” with about 85 members remaining, while approximately 235 “threatened” northern residents survive. Both species are listed under Canada’s Species At Risk Act, which requires DFO to create plans for their recovery and protection.

Ecojustice represents David Suzuki Foundation, Dogwood Initiative, Environmental Defence, Greenpeace, Georgia Strait Alliance, International Fund for Animal Welfare, Raincoast Conservation, Sierra Club of BC, and the Wilderness Committee in this lawsuit, which has implications for the more than 400 endangered and threatened species listed under the Species At Risk Act.

The hearing begins today at 9:30 a.m. in the Federal Court of Canada (701 West Georgia Street, Room 702). Proceedings are expected to last five days, and will take place June 15-18 and June 22.

For multimedia requests or other media inquiries, please contact:
Kimberly Shearon, Communications Associate | Ecojustice
604-685-5618 x242

For comment, please contact:

Devon Page, Ecojustice | Executive Director
604-685-5618 x233

Gwen Barlee, Wilderness Committee | Policy Director
604-683-8220 or 604-202-0322

Charles Campbell, Dogwood Initiative | Communications Director
250-858-9990

Chris Genovali, Raincoast Conservation | Executive Director
250-655-1229 x225

Susan Howatt, Sierra Club BC | Campaigns Director
250-888-6267

Sarah King, Greenpeace Canada | Oceans Campaigner
778-227-6458

Misty MacDuffee, Raincoast Conservation | Biologist
250-818-2136

Scott Wallace, David Suzuki Foundation | Fisheries Analyst
778-558-3984

Christianne Wilhelmson, Georgia Strait Alliance | Executive Director
250-753-3459 or 604-862 7579

As British Columbia’s southern-resident killer whales are welcomed back to local waters, many scientists and citizens are growing increasing concerned for their future. Even with new arrivals to our local pods, the population still needs to show clear signs of recovery. One action we hope will help is a legal challenge launched against the Canadian federal government. How, you might ask, will a lawsuit help whales? As with science and law, it can get murky, but the case hinges on a key point — critical habitat.

For the rest of this article visit BUZZFLASH at http://blog.buzzflash.com/contributors/3275

VICTORIA — Environmental groups will be in court this week arguing the federal government is failing to adequately protect critical habitat for endangered and threatened pods of killer whales.

Ecojustice lawyer Margot Venton is asking the Federal Court of Canada for a judicial review, claiming the government is acting unlawfully by interpreting critical habitat only as physical space, instead of ensuring there is salmon for the whales to eat, the water is not overly polluted and whales are not subjected to excessive noise.

“The reason that this is critical habitat is that the areas are natural funnels for migrating salmon — that is why the whales are there,” said Venton, who is acting for the David Suzuki Foundation, Dogwood Initiative, Environmental Defence Canada, Greenpeace Canada, International Fund for Animal Welfare, Raincoast Conservation, Sierra Club of Canada and Western Canada Wilderness Committee.

Declines in chinook salmon runs, together with chemical pollution and noise in the ocean that makes it difficult for whales to echolocate prey, have been identified as affecting the survival of the endangered southern resident killer whales and the threatened northern resident pods.

Re: Grizzlies at risk: province; Dwindling bears given threatened status,  The Journal, June 4.

Sustainable Resource Development Minister Mel Knight should be commended for finally listing the province’s grizzly bears as a threatened species and for keeping the trophy hunting ban in place. However, he falls critically short by failing to restrict access to grizzly habitat, as universally recommended by ecologically informed bear biologists.

Significantly reducing incursions into the bear’s habitat by the energy and forestry industries will be required if Alberta’s grizzly population is to recover.

In addition, the article states categorically that there are 17,000 grizzlies in B.C.; this number is speculative and should always be qualified as such. Grizzly population estimates in B.C. have been in dispute for many
years and remain a point of controversy.

Chris Genovali, executive director, Raincoast Conservation, Sidney, B.C.

Although Dr. Chris Darimont initially made his mark with seven years of cutting edge research on BC’s coastal ‘rainforest wolves,’ he actually specializes in all large carnivores, not just Canis lupus.

A University of Victoria graduate trained as an evolutionary ecologist, Chris has developed strong scholarly and practical interests in animal welfare. As a Conservation Biologist for the Raincoast Conservation Foundation and a Postdoctoral Fellow at the University of California (Santa Cruz), his research focuses on sensitive carnivores, like wolves and bears, which endure some of the most severe suffering among wild animals due to direct (e.g., trophy hunting) and indirect (e.g., food competition with fishers) human effects.

As a vocal advocate for animals, Chris subscribes to an ‘informed advocacy’ approach. Several television documentaries have focused on his work including Discovery Canada’s Rainforest Wolves, Canadian Geographic’s Secrets of the Coast Wolf, and National Geographic’s Last Stand of the Great Bear. His work is also commonly featured in print (Discover Magazine, Nature, New York Times, Oprah magazine) and on radio (CBC, National Public Radio).

Chris also believes that conservation biologists must lead by example.

Accordingly, his research employs exclusively non-invasive methods. His current focus for Raincoast is assessing how much salmon is required to sustain key terrestrial species, such as grizzly bears.

This question probably means more to Chris now than ever, as he explains: “I’ve been blessed with my own ‘cub’ this spring (our first). My partner, Alison and I were fortunate; we had access to abundant and high qualityfoods throughout our pregnancy. Our daughter Maëlle emerged from the womb happy and healthy. The same may not be true for the bears.”

“My family will travel with me and the Raincoast team to BC’s Great Bear Rainforest this field season,” he says. “We will embark on the second year of what we believe to be the most important applied conservation work on the coast; counting bears and cubs, and assessing their health in an era of dwindling salmon runs.”

Chris Darimont’s work with Raincoast is more urgent than ever. At the policy level, we are pushing for meaningful changes to salmon harvest regulations that now allocate only a small amount of salmon to bears and other wild creatures.

Did You Know?

Grizzly reproduction includes delayed implantation in which the embryo waits for a signal of good things to come before developing.

Female coastal grizzlies – even if pregnant – can only have cubs if they consumed enough salmon before heading for winter hibernation.

For the full story in the Seaside times click here

Guest comment by Chris Genovali

Many Canadians have been anxiously following the unfolding Gulf of Mexico oil spill disaster and are experiencing a deep sense of unease as they scan the daily media reports.

Such foreboding is clearly understandable as one can’t help thinking this might be a nightmarish peek into one possible future for British Columbia as federal and provincial political “leaders” here in Canada lay the groundwork to transform our Pacific coast into an “energy corridor.” They dream of seismic testing, off-shore drilling, pipelines from the tar sands and oil tankers plying our rocky coast.

Carl Pope, former chairman of the Sierra Club in the United States, has dubbed the British Petroleum catastrophe “America’s Chernobyl.” U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, not exactly known as being a fervent environmentalist, describes the potential outlook for the Gulf Coast oil spill as “a very grave scenario.”

In the wake of the Gulf of Mexico disaster, federal opposition parties are calling for emergency hearings before the Commons Natural Resources Committee to discuss the need for more stringent safeguards against oil spills in Canada’s Arctic. But the public needs to be properly and clearly informed as to the risks and tradeoffs with regard to proposed oil development and transport for the B.C. coast as well. Raincoast Conservation Foundation’s recently released report, “What’s at Stake -– The cost of oil on British Columbia’s priceless coast,” is designed to do just that; available on the Raincoast website.

Enbridge Inc.’s proposal to build a twin pipeline from Alberta’s tar sands to the north coast of B.C. means we could see supertankers on the coast transporting oil to offshore markets. This presents a very significant threat to coastal marine and terrestrial species and ecosystems, as well as to the food supply and livelihoods of First Nations and coastal communities.

It was fascinating to recently read in the Financial Post how Enbridge CEO Patrick Daniel is advocating for what amounts to a national corporate welfare initiative as he flogs his company’s “Northern Gateway pipeline” project, tossing out empty platitudes like “we’re doing it … for Canada.”

Daniel’s suggestion that Canadians will need to massively subsidize the transport of tar sands crude through a series of confiscatory tax mechanisms in order to make it viable is transparently ironic.

However, his assertion that tar sands development and the Enbridge pipeline, as well as the attendant oil tanker traffic that will put B.C.’s coastal environment at great risk is at heart an egalitarian crusade to help poor energy-starved developing countries is cynical beyond belief.

The FP’s Terence Corcoran was spot-on when he wrote that what Enbridge “appears to be looking for is not so much a National Energy Strategy as a national regulatory system to codify massive transfers of wealth from one energy source to another, from consumers to the oil sands.” But more than that, in effect Enbridge wants to socialize the cost of the inevitable oil tanker accident on B.C.’s coast, while privatizing the profit of course.

Glib statements regarding the risk of a catastrophic oil spill on the B.C. coast if his company’s pipeline is approved and constructed are likely cold comfort to most British Columbians, the majority of who would prefer an oil-free coast according to polling on the issue.

Enbridge has made much of the fact that double hull tankers would be used to transport tar sands crude from the north coast terminal in Kitimat.

But double hulls have their own set of problems. In an article for the Prince Rupert Daily News, Jennifer Rice delineated several of those issues, including this one: “When double-hulled tankers are traveling at low speeds and a collision occurs, only the first hull is punctured preventing the oil from spilling out. At higher speeds the extra hull has done little to prevent oil spills. In reality, the speed at which both hulls can be pierced is surprisingly low – as little as three knots depending on the strike angle.”

Blind faith in modern technology is often misplaced; only 18 days before the Gulf Coast disaster, in justifying his position on off shore drilling, President Barack Obama asserted “oil rigs today don’t generally cause spills as they are technologically very advanced.”

Attaching a dollar value to the damage that spilled oil does to marine and terrestrial ecosystems is an impossible task.

Who will pay? If history is any indication, it likely won’t be the corporate entities responsible for the disaster. The cost of the Exxon Valdez spill has been estimated at $9.5 billion, of which Exxon paid $1 billion, with taxpayers footing the rest of the bill. Further, does that even begin to cover the price of a pod of killer whales driven to extinction or the demise of a coastal fishing community’s way of life?

Chris Genovali is the executive director of the Raincoast Conservation Foundation

Monday Magazine

Many Canadians have been anxiously following the unfolding Gulf of Mexico oil spill disaster and are experiencing a deep sense of unease as they scan the daily media reports. Such foreboding is clearly understandable as one can’t help thinking this might be a nightmarish peek into one possible future for British Columbia as federal and provincial politicians here in Canada lay the groundwork to transform our Pacific coast into an “energy corridor.”  They dream of seismic testing, offshore drilling, pipelines from the tar sands, and oil tankers plying our rocky coast; this is what passes as visionary in the age of government of the corporations, by the corporations and for the corporations.

Carl Pope, former chairman of the Sierra Club in the United States, has dubbed the British Petroleum catastrophe “America’s Chernobyl.” U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, not exactly known as being a fervent environmentalist by any stretch of the imagination, describes the potential outlook for the Gulf Coast oil spill as “a very grave scenario.”

In the wake of the Gulf of Mexico disaster, Canadian federal opposition parties are calling for emergency hearings before the Commons Natural Resources Committee to discuss the need for more stringent safeguards against oil spills in Canada’s Arctic. But the public needs to be properly and clearly informed as to the risks and tradeoffs with regard to proposed oil development and transport for the B.C. coast as well; Raincoast Conservation Foundation’s recently released report, “What’s at Stake: The cost of oil on British Columbia’s priceless coast,” is designed to do just that; we encourage you to go to the Raincoast website and download the report.

Enbridge Inc.’s proposal to build a twin pipeline from Alberta’s tar sands to the north coast of B.C. means we could see supertankers on the coast transporting oil to offshore markets. Enbridge proposes to construct and operate two pipelines—1,170 kilometers in length—between an inland terminal at Bruderheim, Alberta, and a marine terminal near Kitimat, B.C. One of the pipelines will carry crude oil west to Kitimat and the other line will carry condensate east to Bruderheim. This presents a very significant threat to coastal marine and terrestrial species and ecosystems, as well as to the food supply and livelihoods of first nations and coastal communities.

It was fascinating to recently read in the Financial Post how Enbridge CEO Patrick Daniel is advocating for what amounts to a national corporate welfare initiative as he flogs his company’s “Northern Gateway Pipeline” project, tossing out empty platitudes like “We’re doing it . . . for Canada.”

Daniel’s suggestion that Canadians will need to massively subsidize the transport of tar sands crude through a series of near-confiscatory tax mechanisms in order to make it viable is transparently ironic. However, his assertion that tar sands development and the Enbridge pipeline, as well as the attendant oil tanker traffic that will put B.C.s coastal environment at great risk, is at heart an egalitarian crusade to help poor energy-starved third world countries is cynical beyond belief.

The FP’s Terence Corcoran was spot on when he wrote that what Enbridge “appears to be looking for is not so much a National Energy Strategy as a national regulatory system to codify massive transfers of wealth from one energy source to another, from consumers to the oil sands . . .” But more than that, like their industry brethren Exxon and BP, Enbridge wants to socialize the cost of the inevitable oil tanker accident on BC’s coast while privatizing the profit.

In another related news item in the Globe and Mail, Daniel was quoted as follows: “But can we promise there will never be an accident? No. Nobody can.” Glib statements regarding the risk of a catastrophic oil spill on the BC coast if his company’s pipeline is approved and constructed are likely cold comfort to most British Columbians, the majority of who would prefer an oil-free coast according to polling on the issue.

Enbridge has made much of the fact that double hull tankers would be used to transport tar sands crude from the north coast terminal in Kitimat. But double hulls have their own set of problems. In an article for the Prince Rupert Daily News, Jennifer Rice delineated several of those issues, including this one: “When double-hulled tankers are traveling at low speeds and a collision occurs, only the first hull is punctured preventing the oil from spilling out. At higher speeds the extra hull has done little to prevent oil spills. In reality, the speed at which both hulls can be pierced is surprisingly low—as little as three knots depending on the strike angle.”

Blind faith in “modern technology” is often misplaced; only eighteen days before the Gulf Coast disaster, in justifying his position on off shore drilling, President Barack Obama asserted that “oil rigs today don’t generally cause spills as they are technologically very advanced.”

Attaching a dollar value to the damage that spilled oil does to marine and terrestrial ecosystems is an impossible task. As the Wall Street Journal is reporting, the blame game in the Gulf of Mexico has begun as BP is claiming “this was not our accident.” Who will pay? If history is any indication, it likely won’t be the corporate entities responsible for the disaster. The cost of the Exxon Valdez spill has been estimated at $9.5 billion, of which Exxon paid $1 billion, with taxpayers footing the rest of the bill. Further, does that even begin to cover the price of a pod of killer whales driven to extinction or the demise of a coastal fishing community’s way of life? M

Chris Genovali is the executive director of the BC-based Raincoast Conservation Foundation

Mary Ellen Walling’s opinion piece ( Farmed salmon is more than just another meal option, May 10) conveniently skips over every single substantive problem salmon aquaculture presents to the marine environment, both locally and globally.

One-dimensional economic arguments aside, the first and foremost concern should be whether farming carnivorous species such as salmon is sustainable. In order to farm salmon, harvesting of wild fish and krill for fishmeal is required to produce the feed.

Leading fisheries experts, such as Daniel Pauly of the UBC Fisheries Centre, have cautioned against “farming up the food web” because of the inefficient and wasteful use of biological resources, all of which are already used by humans and other organisms, and some of which are commercially valuable.

Estimates indicate that farming salmon requires anywhere from two to four kilograms of wild fish to produce one kilogram of farmed fish. In contrast, farming herbivorous species, like tilapia and carp, requires minimal inputs of fishmeal.

Corey Peet is an ecologist researching the impacts of aquaculture on the marine environment. As he explains:

“Natural food webs take the shape of a pyramid. At the bottom of the pyramid lies an abundance of organisms that gain their energy directly from the sun or chemical processes. The next step up the pyramid are the slightly less abundant organisms, mostly herbivores,that feed on those below them. With each step up the pyramid, only 10 per cent of the energy is passed on to the next step, as 90 per cent of energy is lost to heat. Therefore, fewer organisms can be supported as you step up the pyramid, leaving only a few predatory species at the apex. There is a reason why we only see a few carnivores in the wild; nature only has so much energy to go around. Thus, when we consider the farming of salmon against the fundamental basics of ecology, it makes no sense to claim that this practice is sustainable.”

With the majority of the world’s fisheries in crisis, scientific evidence suggests that salmon farming is hurting more than helping the global fishery problem. In fact, the volume of harvested fish required to support the salmon farming industry in Europe is larger than the productivity of the entire North Sea, requiring the industry to depend heavily on fishmeal imported from South America.

The practice of taking protein sources from the Southern Hemisphere raises significant ecological concerns. The aquaculture industry in this province is also accessing, inadvertently or not, B.C.’s wild fisheries to feed its farmed salmon. Although the industry will claim that it is continuing to lower its dependence upon marine derived protein through the development of alternative feeds, such as soy protein, these gains have been offset by the rapid growth of the industry.

Peet also points out that more than 85 per cent of the world’s aquaculture production, primarily in Asia, involves the use of non-carnivorous species(freshwater fish, shellfish, and seaweed), and this has resulted in global aquaculture production adding to world seafood supplies. However, while the global aquaculture industry is a net fish protein producer, aquaculture of carnivorous fish is a net fish consumer.

Past and current scientific information suggests that farming salmon and other carnivores is not sustainable, contrary to industry claims. Farming carnivores is inherently illogical from an ecological perspective and layering additional risk factors, such as disease transfer and sea lice infestation, upon B.C.’s salmon via open net-pen aquaculture when our wild stocks are already under a suite of pressures makes no sense at all.

Accommodating salmon aquaculture in B.C., whether it is by eco-certifying “good” farmed salmon versus “bad” farmed salmon, or promoting closed containment or land based systems, will likely prove fruitless, unfortunately, as the industry has shown time and again it has no serious interest in embracing alternative technology. In light of this continuing intransigence, it might be time that multinational aquaculture corporations just got out of B.C. Period.

Chris Genovali is executive director of Raincoast Conservation Foundation.