LAST month, the Canadian government announced that it would ban open-net salmon farming in British Columbia (BC) by 2029.
Within the next five years an industry which generates more than $1 billion annually for the regional economy would, essentially, be snuffed out.
The rationale behind this decision will likely be familiar to many readers in Scotland.
“There’s a large body of science that indicates because of their open-net nature salmon farms can amplify parasites, viruses and bacteria and spread them to wild fish,” said Stan Proboszcz, a senior science and policy analyst at Watershed Watch Salmon Society in BC.
In both Canada and Scotland, these farms tend to be situated on the coast, near the same channels used by wild salmon species migrating back to the rivers of their birth.
This inevitably results in interactions between wild salmon and their farmed counterparts – whether it’s through the spread of sea lice, disease or escapees interbreeding.
READ MORE: Rewilding communities prove the movement isn't 'anti-people'
Combine that with the already existing pressures on marine environments – warming waters due to climate change, overfishing, and man-made infrastructure blocking migration routes – and the impact on wild salmon has been clear.
In 2009, the Canadian government launched a federal inquiry into the wild sockeye salmon population in BC’s longest watercourse, the Fraser River.
It came after officials reported record low numbers of the species returning, resulting in the closure of the fishery for the third consecutive year.
In 2012, the report concluded that restrictions be placed on the licencing of aquaculture farms on the migratory routes of Fraser River sockeye salmon.
“It didn't find any sort of smoking gun as to why sockeye are declining,” said Proboszcz.
“But it highlighted that salmon farms may be one of the important factors.”
Since the report, the record for low numbers of sockeye in the Fraser River has been broken three times - in 2016, 2019, and 2020.
First Nations and the power of occupation
IT took around eight years from the publication of the report for salmon farms to be removed from the waters around the Discovery Islands, a key route for sockeye salmon migrating to the Fraser River.
However, dozens of farms remained elsewhere along the coast of BC – including in an area known as the Broughton Archipelago.
A group of three First Nations in the area – the 'Na̱mg̱is, the Kwikwasut’inuxw Haxwa’mis, and the Mamalilikulla – made clear that they did not support the continuation of the aquaculture industry in their waters, either.
The First Nations people and their supporters occupied two fish farms in the archipelago in 2017, staying on the farms for a staggering 280 days until a landmark agreement was reached with the government of BC, which gave First Nations the authority to deny salmon farm leases in the area.
READ MORE: The progress being made to rid Orkney of invasive stoats
“Canada is so concerned about reconciliation with indigenous people,” said Alexandra Morton, a biologist who assisted in the occupation.
“This nation treated them horribly and they’re trying to make up for it.
“The fact First Nations people were involved really caused the government to look at the situation.”
Morton was one of the first people to raise alarms about the aquaculture industry in BC back in the 1990s.
“I started doing research on killer whales in a remote archipelago in British Columbia in 1984,” she told the Sunday National.
“The salmon farms arrived in 1989 and I thought they were a great idea.
“I believed everything they told me. I thought they would provide local employment to keep our little school open and take pressure off wild salmon.
“But, very rapidly, the number of fish farms increased and the impacts became obvious. We got toxic algae blooms, we had Atlantic salmon in our rivers.
“The killer whales I was studying left because of the acoustic harassment devices installed by the industry.
“Then we got the sea lice issue.
“I remember writing to a scientist in Scotland when the sea lice really started to cause issues and he wrote back: ‘Why did you let this happen? We knew you’d have this problem’.”
The potential embarrassment of another lengthy occupation by First Nations people ultimately led the Canadian government to an altogether more permanent solution than merely allowing them to veto new fish farms.
READ MORE: Majority of Scots back further reintroductions of beaver, poll finds
“Today, we are saying enough,” said Jonathan Wilkinson, the Canadian government’s Minister of Energy and Natural Resources at a press conference last month announcing that all open-net salmon farms would be banned in BC by June, 2029.
“It’s time for us to actually ensure that we are protecting the environment and thinking about how we actually move forward from the economic perspective.”
The aquaculture industry immediately criticised the government for listening to “extreme activist voices” and said the ban would result in the loss of up to 5000 jobs.
Yet the language from the government was clear.
“We’re saying to the companies, 'work with us',” said Wilkinson.
“At the end of the day, we can’t hide behind excuses … it’s not okay to do nothing anymore.”
The picture for wild salmon in Scotland
PROBOSZCZ and Morton both expressed concerns about the ban.
No legislation securing it has yet been passed and they consider five years to be far too lengthy a transition period, which permits more potential harm to come to salmon populations.
Still, they acknowledged the extraordinary nature of the decision.
“It’s a billion-dollar industry,” said Proboszcz. “It’s hard to think of examples where the Canadian government has announced the removal of such a massive industry. It’s almost unprecedented.”
In Scotland, a similar ban is currently unimaginable.
Industry body Salmon Scotland claims that around 12,500 people are employed by the industry – although only around 2500 are directly employed while other companies such as boat manufacturers are cited as being “dependent” upon it.
The wholesale removal of an economic pillar in rural communities along the west coast would be politically perilous territory for the Scottish Government to wade into, particularly in the wake of the HPMAs debacle.
However, Scotland’s wild salmon populations are arguably in a far worse state than Canada’s.
READ MORE: Community rewilding does not result in rural depopulation, says charity
In 2023, the country recorded the lowest catch for wild Atlantic salmon on record with just 33,023 caught by fisheries and in December of that year, the species was classified as “endangered” by the International Union for Conservation of Nature.
The Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (Sepa) was tasked with bringing down the numbers of sea lice on fish farms following a Scottish Government inquiry in 2018, which concluded that improvements to regulation were needed to protect wild salmon.
Since then, Sepa has introduced new monitoring demands on fish farms with the aim of keeping sea lice numbers down and established a series of wild salmon protection zones.
Fish farms are still permitted to operate within these zones but are subject to stricter monitoring conditions.
Unlike First Nations people in Canada, there is no option for local communities in Scotland to veto new developments.
According to Sepa, it’s a policy which aims to aid the “sustainable development” of fish farms in Scotland and keep farmed Scottish salmon as the UK’s most financially lucrative food export.
In short, it’s significantly different to the environment-focused approach being taken in Canada.
The future of salmon farms in Scotland
THE Canadian government has made clear its willingness to work with the aquaculture industry in developing better closed-containment salmon farms which don’t share the sea with wild populations.
Ultimately, though, the onus on developing environmentally less impactful technologies is placed on the industry itself.
“The removal of the farms in BC isn't dependent on there being farms on land,” said Proboszcz.
“That’s irrelevant. The farms are going to be removed and, if the industry wants to develop production on land, they're free to try that.
“But a ban isn’t contingent on it.”
Clearly, the governments of Canada and Scotland have different priorities and political realities to deal with – particularly after a bruising General Election for the SNP.
There are no First Nations people of Scotland whose emotional and cultural connections to the wilderness are implicitly valued above hard economics (even if such connections are genuinely felt by communities).
Our approach is far more attuned to the potential financial implications of a ban rather than the environmental ones.
At the moment, however, the reality is that fish farms are booming while wild salmon populations diminish.
“You need to ask yourselves,” said Morton. “Why would your fish or your rivers be any less important than ours?”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here