reLAKSation 377. Callander McDowell
Sustaina-bull!: During our travels to France this week, we came across a copy of the latest issue of the environmental magazine ‘The Ecologist’ (www.theecologist.org). Although not our usual reading material, the cover blared out the headline ‘Counting the high cost of cheap farmed salmon’ which we will discuss later. However our attention was also caught by a couple of other features including the editorial which discusses the issue of sustainability. Pat Thomas, the editor, writes that there was a time when sustainability was a laudable concept but today is often just a sales gimmick. She also says that the notion of sustainability and saving threatened species is often used as a good reason to breed fish such as salmon in cages when in reality she argues that many practices are unsustainable, the feed industry being her case in point. She adds that there are other issues too such as animal cruelty, over crowding stress and the ‘need forcefully to inject the fish with hormones to get them to breed in confinement’. Ms Thomas also argues that fish farming challenges some of the notions that ‘local’ is best since she says Scottish salmon could be considered ‘local’ but she asks whether is it really sustainable.
It is true that the aquaculture industry has jumped on the sustainability bandwagon and we at Callander McDowell, believe unnecessarily so. The reality is that what sets humans apart from other animals is our ability to stretch the population mortality limits far beyond what is possible from the world’s natural bounty. We have been able to do this by moving away from hunter gathering into farming growing ever more food. Populations of wild food animals were decimated thousands of years ago promoting man to learn how to farm both animals and crops something we having been doing for many centuries. Now the demands of an ever-growing population mean that we have laid waste to much of the seas, harvesting many species beyond their potential to maintain their natural populations. The solution offered is to fish sustainably, but we could equally regulate our own population to reduce demand or we could follow the example of our ancestors and increase the available fish through farming. Fish farming is not something that we can attribute the tag ‘sustainable’ nor is it something that we should aspire to. This does not mean that our practices should disregard the ethics of welfare and good management. This is something that is now a given with the industry aspiring towards the best possible practices in what ever it does.
Just as some parts of the fish farming industry describe themselves as sustainable so do some sections of the fishing industry. However we, at Callander McDowell, have some difficulty in equating many aspects of modern fishing with sustainability believing much is just a gimmick to gain a competitive advantage in the market place. This does not mean that a fishery cannot be sustainable; it is just that to be so the recruitment rate must better than or at least match the harvest rate. In many examples of so called sustainable fisheries, this does not appear to be the case. It seems that we are not the only ones. However, before we consider this we would first like to clarify our own position. To us, the reality is simple. It makes little difference whether the world fisheries increase or decrease their harvest, the outcome is the same, global fisheries cannot supply sufficient fish to meet world demand. The only way to relieve the fishing pressure on wild catch fish stocks is through farming and we believe that it is wrong that those who support sustainable fisheries argue otherwise. We will return to this later on.
Fish sustainability is in the news again with Greenpeace arguing that the Alaskan pollock fishery is in trouble, prompted by the forthcoming vote on new quotas by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council. According to IntraFish, US fisheries scientists recommended that the Bering Sea pollock catch should be cut by 18% to 815,000 tonnes. By comparison, Greenpeace want catch levels to be reduced by at least 50%.
Disagreements about quotas are commonplace in many fisheries but what makes the Alaskan pollock fishery different is that it has been certified as sustainable by the Marine stewardship Council. The MSC have told IntraFish that the fishery remains certified as sustainable by its independent third-party certification system with annual audits assuring that the fishery meets the MSC standard. The current downturn in stocks is attributed to a natural cycle in fish population which is carefully studied by fishery scientists. Yet if this cycle is not unexpected then any cuts in quota would have already been anticipated and therefore not so contentious.
MSC certified fisheries may be assessed by independent third-party assessors but there must be a question mark over their independence as they undoubtedly have a vested interest in the certification process. In addition, we can only wonder why, for example, the EU, continues to have protracted discussions about the state of their fish stocks and the setting of quotas, if such independent expert third-party companies are available to pronounce on the state of fish stocks.
The truth of the matter is that even the best expert cannot guarantee the sustainability of any fishery. Even the MSC admit that one of the criteria to qualify for their certification is that a management system must be in place that can make decisions that are precautionary. Yet a truly sustainable fishery would not require any such precautionary measures as the fact that it is sustainable means that it cannot be over-fished and its balance subsequently destroyed.
As yet, MSC certification is still relatively new and has not been around sufficiently long enough to ably demonstrate that it can effectively protect fish stocks. At present, we can only rely on their word alone. The question is whether this is enough?
Strangely enough, it is the Ecologist magazine that introduces an element of doubt. When the MSC was established it was modelled in part on the Forest Stewardship Council which was set up to protect the world’s forests. The Ecologist says that FSC certified timber and wood products are seen as the ‘gold standard’ by shoppers and the industry alike. Now it appears that this may not be true. The FSC have been accused of being too free with its certification offering then to controversial commercial logging operations. This apparently came to a head last March when the environmental group ‘Ecological Internet’ accused the established NGO’s such as Greenpeace of being ‘forest liars’ who were ‘greenwashing’ the FSC’s practices. As a result Friends of the Earth have since refused to recommend the standard until a review has taken place. The FSC say that in order to be effective they must work with industrial logging and allow the cutting of old growth and primary forest even though campaigners say that this does not guarantee their protection. It thus seems that the FSC is no guarantee of sustainable forestry. We have no idea whether the same is true of sustainable fishing?
The reason for looking at the Ecologist magazine was the fishy cover linked to an article about the high cost of cheap farmed salmon. This is somewhat misleading since the featured article relates to the cost of fishmeal production in Peru, not to wild fish populations or the salmon industry but rather to the effects of production on local coastal towns and villages which the article claims are blighted by fishmeal plants. Local people claim, among other issues, that the plants are responsible for asthma, bronchial and skin problems particularly in children as well as local contamination and pollution. These are clearly issues which must be addressed through local controls as with any local manufacturing industry in the developing world. However, fishmeal production has been around much longer than the salmon industry and it is wrong to suggest that these local problems are due to increasing demand for farmed salmon alone.
One of the difficulties with environmental issues is that it is easy to spin the truth to suit any cause. The Ecologist also offers its readers a modern day dilemma to consider. In this issue it is whether consumers should buy farmed or wild fish? Of course there is no simple answer and the author, Matilda Lee, does not arrive at any firm conclusions although as would be expected, the recommendation for wild fish is to buy only MSC certified fish.
With farmed fish, the picture is less clear as the farming industry is painted with the usual black brush. Ms Lee suggests that modern day fish farming as more in common with factory farms for meat, eggs and dairy generating large amounts of waste and being entirely removed from ecological systems. Yet, Ms Lee doesn’t suggest that the consumer stops eating meat, eggs and dairy products. Instead she points out that Scotland’s salmon farms produce the same amount of waste as 3.2 million people. What she doesn’t mention is that fish usually discharge their waste in the sea, whilst humans don’t, although the regular reports in the Scottish press of polluted beaches suggest that human waste often finds its way out to sea, without much public comment.
Ms Lee also says that modern fish farming is actually a net drain on the worlds seafood supply with small fish such as anchovy, herring, capelin and whiting caught for conversion into fishmeal depriving the public of an important source of fish protein. Of course, what she fails to mention is that if wild fish stocks were in a much better state than there are now, then much of this fish would be consumed within the food chain. Farming simply gathers this food to the fish rather than the fish having to seek it itself. She quotes a report from the University of British Columbia that in 1948 only 7.7% of marine fish landings were turned into fishmeal whereas now the figure is 37%. This is misleading.
In 1948, terrestrial farming was till relatively extensive and demand for extra feedstuffs was low, however after the war, food production intensified as more food was required. Demand for fishmeal increased dramatically and nearly all went into terrestrial farming not aquaculture. At the same time, fish stocks were in a much healthier state and large quantities of fish were harvested for human consumption. Fishmeal production was tiny by comparison. As fish stocks have declined, the percentage of fish destined for fish meal production has increased as that for human consumption decreased (at least relatively).
It is only in recent years that demand for fishmeal from aquaculture has risen but these fish are the natural feeds of farmed fish whilst the same cannot be said for terrestrial animals. If there are concerns about fishmeal production then the first action must be to take fishmeal out of terrestrial farming. Only then can we really consider how to address fishmeal usage in aquaculture.
It is possible to put a twist on any story without consideration of the real facts. Matilda Lee offers four suggestions to help fish stocks of which only the last is important. She says to ‘Use your voice to change the policy on fishing and marine issues’ The aquaculture sector should take heed and ensure that the public realises that only fish farming offers a viable solution for the protection of wild stocks whilst ensuring that consumers can continue to receive supplies of healthy, value for money fish and seafood.