The Salmon Farm Monitor

Guest Columns

As part of The Monitor's monthly journal, we invite a series of guests to write a personal column on the salmon farm crisis and its impacts. Finds here both this month's guest column and, as they develop, past columnists.

Aspects of the Government's 'Pro Sea-cage Fish Farm' Policies

“In Allan Berry, the Scottish salmon farming industry has an adversary more dogged and tenacious than any sea louse. He has waged a 20-year battle to have regulators face up to the damage that salmon farming has done to Scotland's marine environment and, having sunk his teeth into the industry's flabby flesh, he shows no signs of ever letting go." (The Sunday Herald, March 2001)

Allan W Berry, Chairman, Society for the Protection of Salmon and Sea Trout and water quality expert, on the bias in favour of fish farming, at the cost of the environment, in government policy.

A serious problem has developed over the last twenty five years, namely the 'scientific' confusion concerning conflicting views on the nature and quantity of environmental damage caused by open discharge marine fish farming.

Sea cage fish farming began in the Western world around 30 years ago. Promoted vigorously by the industry and it's political, administrative and scientific supporters, it soon became a boom industry. Leases to moor cages in sheltered coastal waters quickly became valuable traded assets.

Cage farms are licensed to discharge untreated trade wastes directly to the sea, avoiding and externalizing the expense of waste treatment. This enables fish to be produced for less than a third of the cost, inclusive of waste treatment. This anomalous defect in environmental regulation (Most other intensive livestock producers have to internalize such costs), has enabled an industry dominated by multinationals to become one of the world's largest, wealthiest and most influential sources of licensed pollution.

Those who introduced, promoted and defended the industry, adopted the slogan: 'Jobs come first, nothing must be allowed to come in the way of such a benefit to fragile rural economies. Any environmental damage is a small price to pay'. Unfortunately for all of us, most politicians do not understand that the economy is only a part of the environment.

The core problem is corruption, deep rooted, founded on ignorance and greed, sustained by deception and denial, and the realisation that proper inquiry would bring the gravy train to an end. Scientists, administrators and others dependent on the industry worldwide are using every method at their disposal to protect their interests.

Production oriented scientific service providers compete for lucrative industry business, on all levels. Over the last 30 years, close customer/ supplier relationships have been formed. Loyalty to favoured industry customers is institutionalised.

Proponents of an objective scientific approach have been intimidated and excluded, while some supposedly 'independent' bodies can be accused of operating a protection racket, protecting polluters for reward.

Meanwhile, the function of the government science services appears to have been to 'harmonise science with policy'. Institutions such as the Royal Society of Edinburgh favour 'enabling' research on aquaculture.

Presenting the industry as the only way forward, industry promoters have denied the evident environmental damage, and deliberately suppressed attempts to bring the matter under proper scientific scrutiny.

The unsustainable nature of the industry and the damage it causes to the marine environment and other related interests has long been evident worldwide. However, by the use of political pressure, complicit administrations, and dependent science professionals, no credible assessment of environmental impact has yet been produced. Systematic study of such impacts is 'impossible', precluded by 'commercial confidentiality'. Actual evidence of impact is ignored.

Policy is defended by a science establishment charged with harmonising science with policy. The advocates of 'Science as a means for wealth creation' hold the 'trusty' positions in the administration of science. Control of funding, reinforced by intimidation, is the means of maintaining control.

Declared Government policy is pro development of the sea cage fish farming industry. The ethos of the Executive is to avoid any activity which might disrupt policy. Strategic 'stakeholder' consultation is restricted to representation deemed acceptable by the executive. Only those organisations and individuals adopting an 'inclusive' and 'enabling' approach to sea cage fish farming are invited. Anyone who does not sign up to the view that the existence of sea cage fish farming is 'a priori', an acceptable status quo, is excluded.