Government Promotes Salmon Farms at Environment's Expense
If the provincial government allowed a municipality to discharge the raw sewage of up to 330,000 people into the environment, there would be a resounding public outcry. Yet, in terms of nutrient loading to the marine, this is exactly what the provincial Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture has done in licensing the current level of aquaculture operations in the Bay of Fundy. (Actual waste discharges from salmon cages in 1989 were equivalent to the phosphorus and nutrient discharges of untreated sewage from 60,000 people.)
The provincial government, with $10 million worth of ACOA's help, has been enthusiastically supporting and subsidising salmon aquaculture with little regard for the environment. The government's fine rhetoric about promoting sustainable development apparently does not apply in this case.
For example, Dark Harbour on Grand Manan is polluted. It no longer can support fish because of the damage caused by the salmon aquaculture that was once located there.
To inform the public about the environmental threats posed by the current unsustainable approach to aquaculture development, and the kind of steps that need to be taken to ensure that future development in this area is environmentally sustainable, the Conservation Council has published a report called, Aquaculture in the Bay of Fundy - The Need for Sustainable Development. This work was initiated by a resolution tabled at our Annual General Meeting in the fall of 1989.
While caged salmon might, at first glance, appear to be of little consequence from an environmental point of view, aquaculture, if pursued in the absence of environmental controls, could pose a serious threat to the nearshore marine environment, and the fisheries it supports.
The Conservation Council is concerned that the discharge of nutrients, and to a lesser degree, pesticides and antibiotics, from caged salmon represent a significant source of uncontrolled pollution to the Bay of Fundy. We are also concerned about the potential for escaped farmed salmon to genetically weaken native stocks of salmon through cross-breeding.
There are approximately 50 aquaculture sites currently licensed in the Bay of Fundy. Together they have a holding capacity of some 4.5 million salmon covering 44 acres of water.
All provincial regulatory power regarding salmon aquaculture rests with the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, which as a development agency, has no legal mandate to prevent environmental impact from the development it is promoting.
The nutrient loading from salmon aquaculture threatens marine life through eutrophication, habitat degradation, and the increased production of algae and phytoplankton. There is a lack of information on the fate and effects of antibiotics and biocides in the marine environment. Yet these chemicals are used to control both disease and parasites.
The escape of caged salmon results in "genetic" pollution when escapees breed with wild stocks, and has the potential to eliminate entire salmon stocks, and has the potential to eliminate entire salmon populations from particular rivers. Genetically engineered "super" salmon would pose a similar threat.
In the Bay of Fundy, St. John River salmon are currently used as the mainstay of the aquaculture industry. While this is preferable to using salmon imported from elsewhere in Canada or Europe, the risk of cross-breeding with other stocks from other rivers in the area remains. In Norway, this problem has become so severe, that the sperm of wild salmon is being frozen to preserve the genetic stock of the local species.
Many commercial fishermen are concerned about the potential negative impacts of salmon aquaculture on herring, lobster, clam, and scallop fisheries in the Bay of Fundy's coastal waters.
The Conservation Council is making the following recommendations:
1.
A moratorium should be placed on finfish aquaculture until legally binding environmental
controls are implemented.
2. The New Brunswick Department of Environment's jurisdiction should
be extended to the nearshore marine environment, with the provision of appropriate
resources to carry out this expanded mandate.
3. The Department of Environment must have a legislated mandate under
the Clean Environment Act to close down an aquaculture site if monitoring indicates
that bottom or water quality has been degraded. A regulation should be promulgated
under the Clean Environment Act to control the discharge of nutrients, drugs,
biocides, and to prevent the escape of genetic material and disease from aquaculture
sites. The regulation would include, but not be limited to: a requirement that
the control of sea lice should be restricted to biological controls, the establishment
of a 30,000 fish limit / licence [today's average is 300,000], a requirement
for the use of sterile stock.
4. The Environmental Impact Assessment Regulation of the N.B. Clean Environment
Act should apply to aquaculture site development.
5. Fisheries and Oceans Canada should maintain its right to veto any
aquaculture site approval under its fisheries habitat management mandate.
6. The Aquaculture Act should ensure that traditional fishermen displaced
by aquaculture development have first choice of sites, or are compensated for
the loss of income.
7. A Coastal Zone Management Plan should be developed to govern development
of coastal waters in New Brunswick. Areas could be designated for specific uses,
such as traditional fisheries, aquaculture, recreation, industrial development,
and ecological reserves. -
Conservation
Council Marine Aquaculture Resolution
June 10, 1990
Whereas finfish aquaculture posed potential risks to native species of fish through disease and genetic pollution (crossbreeding with native wild species), and to other marine life through eutrophication, habitat degradation, and increased production of algae and phytoplankton; and
Whereas the 1989 waste discharge from aquaculture sites in the Bay of Fundy was equivalent, in terms of nitrogen and phosphorus discharge, to the untreated sewage of 60,000 people, and thus the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture has licensed a raw sewage discharge of equivalent of 330,000 people (22,000 tonnes of salmon); and
Whereas finfish aquaculture requires significant inputs of pharmaceutical and biocidal chemicals; and Whereas finfish aquaculture is being promoted in New Brunswick by the provincial government without due regard for the resulting environmental impacts;
Therefore be it resolved that the Conservation Council of New Brunswick demand that a moratorium be placed on finfish aquaculture until legally binding environmental controls are implemented. Specifically, the provincial government must amend Schedule A of its Environmental Impact Assessment Regulation to include aquaculture development, and promulgate a new regulation under its Clean Environment Act to control the discharge of nutrients, drugs and biocides, and to prevent the escape of genetic material and disease organisms from aquaculture sites. The regulation would include but not be limited to: a prohibition on the chemical control of sea lice; A requirement for the use of sterile stock; the restoration of the 30,000 fish limit per licence.
Be it further resolved that Fisheries and Oceans Canada maintain the right to veto any aquaculture site proposal under its responsibilities for fisheries habitat management.
Be it further resolved that research be conducted to evaluate and promote the use of appropriate species to be cultivated in conjunction with finfish for nutrient uptake.
Be it further resolved that the Conservation Council campaign for the development of a coastal zone management plan to govern the development of coastal waters in New Brunswick.
Be it further resolved that the Conservation Council lend its support to commercial fishermen's organizations in their advocacy of policies and programs to sustain traditional fisheries.
This resolution was passed at the June 10, 1990 meeting of the Conservation Council Board of Directors.