Fish farms: evidence vs. rhetoric
Herald Opinions, February 29, 2012
I have been reading the debate on fish farming and feel compelled to respond. I am a researcher with 25 years of experience examining aquaculture-environment interactions. I have worked with government, industry and community groups, and published dozens of papers in scientific journals on this topic.
The newspaper is not the place to debate the scientific literature, and I find it tiresome that so many people are certain of "the truth." I will thus make only general comments.
First, one of the great pieces of misinformation surrounding this issue is that government regulators are somehow lax or irresponsible in the decision process.
Both federal and provincial governments spend countless hours and dollars examining methods of assessing sustainability in aquaculture. This occurs in field research on fish farms, computer modelling, and numerous meetings debating how results can shed light on improved monitoring and regulation. As a participant in these activities, I can verify the time investment.
Second, the doom scenarios surrounding fish farming are overstated.
There is no question that sediment beneath fish cages suffers from too much waste input, although this "footprint" is rarely much larger than the cage itself. In contrast, the ecosystem-wide effects of fish farming have seldom been demonstrated, partially because it is difficult to assess ecosystem-level properties, and partially because it is difficult to assign cause-effect to aquaculture as being responsible.
There are multiple efforts underway to decrease the impact of aquaculture on the environment at every level. These inclued improvements in husbandry as well as in monitoring.
Fish farming is a valid use of ocean resources, but citizens have a right to expect sustainability. However, the debate must develop from evidence-based arguments rather than fear-mongering and rhetoric.
Jon Grant, PhD, lives in Halifax.
