Back to PCFFA Fishermen's News
Archive
By Zeke Grader, Natasha Benjamin, Glen Spain
The Alaska Department of Fish & Game is forecasting a harvest of 151 million salmon this year, up from the 131 million harvested in 2002. The Pacific Fishery Management Council has just approved the most liberal ocean salmon seasons for Washington, Oregon and California in at least 15 years. This should all be good news. And it would be, if we could just get a decent price for the fish. Everywhere market prices are being depressed by a glut of farmed salmon.
Declining prices for all salmon, and wild salmon in particular, is nothing new to Fishermen’s News readers. The problem is, what to do about it? Some have resigned themselves to lower prices for wild fish without a fight. Proposals abound for reducing the number of salmon permits in Alaska or even more buyouts along the west coast. The problem, of course, is that just hoping fewer fishermen can catch more fish and thereby live on rock-bottom prices is conceding defeat. This is saying that wild fish deserve no better price than farmed fish.
Others have lashed out against low prices by suing fish buyers, accusing them of price-fixing, such as the current litigation going on now in Alaska. Without getting into whether or not particular claims have merit, suing buyers is not a good long-term strategy for addressing falling wild fish prices, particularly in those instances where the buyers themselves are operating on very slim margins and there is no evidence of collusion.
Some fishermen, of course, have already taken on the price issue, by exploring non-conventional markets. Many California and Oregon fishermen in recent years became involved in the Seafood Producers Cooperative, working to get a better price for their fish then that offered by private fish buyers, while at the same time working to improve the quality of the fish coming off their boats. Fishermen in some of the more urban areas have gone to direct marketing with off-the-boat sales, selling at Farmer’s Markets as well as selling directly to restaurants and retail markets. The majority of fishermen, however, do not have access to these alternative but limited markets.
Two efforts are afoot presently aimed at creating better markets and, consequently, a better price for wild salmon. The first effort is that aimed at better promotion of wild salmon to distinguish it from farm fish in the minds of consumers. The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) certification of Alaskan salmon is part of that effort. This appeals to discriminating markets (such as some European nations and some upscale, environmentally-conscious U.S. grocery chains), and to consumers, through an eco-label for the wild salmon, certifying it as a sustainable fishery. In that vein, California is seeking MSC approval, too, for its troll-caught wild kings, as is British Columbia for its wild salmon.
The other half of the promotion effort has been advertising – touting the health benefits, the great flavor of wild salmon. The various marketing boards, from the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute to the California Salmon Council (www.calkingsalmon.org) have been pushing salmon in the media, to the extent their budgets allow. The Governor of Alaska is also pushing an aggressive campaign to promote his state’s salmon, coupled with the Alaska Quality Seafood Program (www.alaskaqualityseafood.com) aimed at improving the quality of wild salmon coming off the boats and out of the plants. Although not an industry promotion, conservation groups and chefs are also pushing wild salmon as an example of a sustainably harvested fish, and this spring the Seafood Choices Alliance (www.seafoodchoices.com) began its national “Wild About Salmon” campaign.
The second effort is aimed at educating the public about the true risks posed by farmed salmon to the environment and human health. The basis for this effort is straightforward – if the public learns of the dangers inherent in the production and consumption of aquacultured salmon, they will less readily purchase the farmed product and opt, instead, for wild salmon even if prices may be higher or availability more limited.
Not surprisingly, some of the most active groups leading the anti-farmed salmon effort are from British Columbia, where the provincial government has promoted and approved massive salmon netpen aquaculture operations to the detriment of wild salmon stocks and the commercial, First Nation and recreational fisheries that depend on them. Organizations such as the Friends of Clayoquot Sound and the Rainforest Alliance have ramped up their “Farmed and Dangerous” campaign (www.farmedanddanerous.org) targeting a North American audience. In the U.S., Anne Mosness (eatwildfish@aol.com) and the Institute for Agriculture & Trade Policy (www.iatp.org), Ecotrust (www.SalmonNation.com) and the Institute for Fisheries Resources’ “Good Fish: Seasonal, Healthful, Sustainable” program (www.ifrfish.org) are working as a “truth squad” to educate the public regarding farmed salmon.
Added to this mix are groups such as SeaWeb, which has an aquaculture website aimed to assist with information on fish farming (www.aquacultureclearinghouse.org). Consumer seafood guides, such as the Monterey Bay Aquarium’s “Seafood Watch” card (www.montereybayaquarium.org) have also put farmed salmon squarely in their “do not buy” red column, while Alaskan and California salmon are “greenlisted” (best choice) and BC, Washington and Oregon wild salmon (currently on the yellow list), are candidates for the green list.
Even the food dyes used in farmed salmon are coming under attack. Last December, the Oregon Department of Agriculture informed retailers it would begin enforcing federal laws requiring consumer notices on fish products containing food colorants, and in late April a class action lawsuit was filed in Seattle against three of the west coast’s largest grocery chains for failing to place notices or to label farmed salmon telling consumers about the presence of chemical food color additives in the flesh of these fish (www.smithandlowney.com/salmon).
Finally, the Center for Food Safety (www.gefish.org) has been working the halls of Congress educating lawmakers about the potential danger of genetically-modified fish for use in salmon farm operations. The first genetically-modified, or “transgenic” animal application for commercial use before the U.S. Food & Drug Administration is for a fast growing Atlantic salmon for use in fish farms.
Like the efforts to rebuild and recover salmon stocks, however, there is no overall strategy, no war plan for marketing wild salmon in North America, Europe or Japan or elsewhere. While the anti-farmed salmon campaign does have some coordination, none exists for marketing wild salmon – certainly not for the long term. Although individual fishermen may get better prices for their fish through their own initiatives, such as direct marketing, Farmer’s Markets or participation in a cooperative, it will be difficult to improve prices overall unless there is coordination between all of the different wild salmon producers and a long-term strategy adopted for marketing wild salmon worldwide. It is not bodies or resources we are short of, but coordination and planning.
Promoting the consumption of wild salmon is also the way to protect and recover wild salmon. Nevermind naysayers who worry that promoting wild salmon somehow will lead to it being overfished. The fact is that MSC certification, or a least being greenlisted on a seafood consumer guide, is a critical element in getting back our markets, and certification or greenlisting won’t happen without strong management/regulatory measures in place to prevent overfishing. If wild salmon are valuable, however, there is an economic incentive to protect and restore them and an economic/employment justification for governments to protect their watersheds.
What are some of the elements that need to be considered in a promotional strategy? For this we need to ask ourselves a key question:
How Should Wild Salmon Producers Respond To Farmed Salmon Competition? A fundamental question that has to be asked at the outset of any strategy development for promoting wild salmon has to do with its competition. You can’t really discuss promoting wild salmon without deciding what approach will be taken with farmed salmon. There are really three schools of thought here.
The first school of thought would have wild salmon producers keep on doing pretty much what they’ve been doing – i.e., trying to match the price of farmed salmon. This means there will be fewer and fewer fishermen, catching more fish individually but making no economic headway. With fewer fishermen, fishing for ever-lower prices, the critical mass of individuals, infrastructure and economic value for maintaining a viable fishery is jeopardized, and at some point society may simply determine that it is no longer worthwhile saving the fish or the fishery.
Moreover, it is difficult to say where the downward price spiral will stop if wild salmon producers do nothing more than try to meet farmed fish prices. Salmon farming is becoming increasingly controlled by a few large multi-national corporations. In Norway, Canada and Chile these producers have been heavily subsidized. The subsidies have not been in the form of cash grants or low interest loans (this is not to say those have not occurred), but in the form of government sponsored research and development assistance, tax credits and favorable permit approvals (or just lax enforcement). The biggest subsidy of all, however, has been governments’ allowing fish farmers to externalize their costs.
Salmon farmers have been allowed to pass along the environmental damage costs associated with their operations to wild salmon producers and to society as a whole. The destruction of Norway’s wild salmon populations came at the expense of wild salmon commercial fishermen and anglers. The recent destruction of British Columbia’s pink salmon fishery from the sea lice infestation emanating from salmon netpens comes at the expense of commercial salmon fishermen and First Nations. The public in Canada, Chile, Norway and elsewhere is being forced to pick up the costs associated with the pollution, the losses of wild fish from disease and parasites, and the escapes from these netpen operations.
So even if salmon aquaculturists are not getting direct cash grants from governments (which many are), they are nevertheless still being heavily subsidized. Wild salmon fishermen, however, are being asked to fish responsibly and, indeed, act responsibly toward the resource. There is little or no externalization of costs on their part. It is against that backdrop that they are being asked to compete with farmed salmon. With plans afoot in B.C. and Chile to further increase farmed salmon production, it is doubtful wild salmon fishermen can continue to compete, particularly if a few large corporate salmon farmers can afford to dump fish to drive their competition out of business. The idea of trying to compete head-on with fish farmers on price alone, therefore, does not appear to us to be a viable alternative.
The second way to approach farmed salmon competition would be to work with salmon growers to divide up the market, such as keeping farmed salmon off the markets during the times the wild salmon season is open. This approach has a myriad of problems. Even if it could be worked out with growers, it could be subject to legal challenge on anti-trust grounds. Further, it is doubtful that salmon growers could be held to such an agreement, even if it were legal, given the tremendous competition among these growers and the increases in production that are planned. Complicating matters further is the question of what constitutes the wild salmon season. There is some wild salmon production going on nearly year around. Are some of the smaller fisheries, such as the Alaska winter-troll fishery, to be sacrificed to give fish farmers their exclusive time in the market? Lastly, such an arrangement overlooks frozen salmon. Where does this leave wild salmon producers who freeze their product to assure that wild salmon is available in markets year around? Considering all the factors in this second approach, it is our belief that realistic sharing of markets between wild and farmed salmon is not workable.
The third school of thought, and one that we subscribe to, is to continue and increase efforts to educate the public and policy makers regarding the environmental and human health threats posed by farmed salmon. The ultimate goal, of course, would be a worldwide ban on what we believe, with considerable scientific evidence to back it up, is a very destructive form of aquaculture. Obviously this will take a long time and may not be totally possible, but certainly keeping up the pressure on salmon farmers with truth squads will help to open more markets for wild salmon. Pursuing this line of thought, two questions immediately come to mind:
A) Is there any reason or circumstance to justify salmon farming? and;
B) Can wild salmon production meet worldwide demand for salmon if salmon farming is banned?
As most Fishermen’s News readers know, salmon farming itself is problematic. The problems are numerous and include the following:
(1) Pollution: Salmon farms are major polluters. The pollution comes principally from four sources: a) fecal matter from the concentrated numbers of fish in each netpen (salmon netpen aquaculture amounts to a form of oceanic feedlots); b) anti-fungal agents used on the fish to contain such things as sea lice; c) uneaten food that settles beneath the nepens resulting in high concentrations of organic matter that often contains antibiotics and other medicines and artificial colorants contained in the fish feed; and, d) pesticides and anti-foulants used on the nets to retard algal growth.
(2) Spread Of Disease And Parasites To Wild Fish: Salmon grown in netpen operations in open waters can and have spread disease and parasites to native wild salmon populations. This has nearly wiped out whole wild populations, such as what is occurring in the Broughton Peninsula in British Columbia.
(3) Escape Of Farmed Fish Into The Wild: Salmon escape from netpens with considerable frequency. The danger they pose to native salmon populations are from: a) predation; b) competition for forage or habitat; and, c) displacing native fish in watersheds, including the destruction of the spawning redds of native salmon populations. The latter is now of great concern given that escaped Atlantic salmon have now successfully spawned and produced offspring in several British Columbia rivers.
(4) Feed Conversion: Aquaculture proponents make a big deal about the need to increase world food production for a growing human population, and offer up aquaculture as a means for achieving increased food production. The fact is that we are currently taking three to four pounds of wild fish, such as anchovy, herring and sardines, that themselves are suitable human foods, to make one pound of edible salmon farm fish flesh. The wild fish caught to produce the feed for farmed salmon are also important forage for other commercially valuable fish, as well as forage for marine mammals and seabirds. Indeed, some of these wild fish, used only to make fish pellets, are themselves in demand as a food source in developed nations. Thus salmon farming, as currently practiced, results in a net loss of food for humans, not an increase.
(5) Human Health: Farmed salmon, too, pose problems for human health. Unlike their natural counterparts, farmed salmon have much lower levels of omega-3 fatty acids and thus lack health benefits offered by wild salmon. The consumption of farmed salmon can also pose human health risks that are associated with the use of antibiotics in the growing of the fish, as well as antifungal agents and pesticides that may be taken up by the fish in the farm operations. Farmed fish have also been found to have 10 times the level of PCBs [polychlorinated biphenyls] of that found in wild salmon. Finally, the chemical colorants used to give farmed salmon their pink-red coloring can cause vision problems.
(6) “Frankenfish” – A Future Problem?: The current application by Aqua Bounty to the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) for approval of the use of transgenic Atlantic salmon in fish farm operations is also a problem looming close on the horizon. If problems with salmon farming are bad now, it’s only going to get worse in the future when “Frankenfish” come alive. Given the push by the U.S. government, at the behest of biotech and large food processing companies, for the use of genetically engineered organisms in food production, FDA approval is likely to be granted, despite widespread concerns. But don’t expect the National Marine Fisheries Service or the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to raise objections. Both NMFS and USFWS are busy pandering to aquaculture rather than looking out for natural fish populations or the public good.
With all the problems associated with farmed salmon, why in the hell is anyone allowing it? Even if salmon farming were done in completely closed systems, as some environmental groups have proposed, this is only aimed at eliminating pollution, disease and escape problems but there would still remain unaddressed environmental and health concerns.
Contained salmon farms are much more expensive operations and it is doubtful that the large aquaculture corporations would convert to such facilities; frankly, its cheaper to buy off national, state and provincial officials. However, even if they switched to contained facilities, the problem remains of food conversion, and the use of antibiotics and colorants. It is hard to conceive of most fish farmers being willing to convert to contained facilities or even being able to meet all of the environmental and human health concerns. At the point they even began to address the environmental and human health issues, their costs would begin exceeding that to produce wild fish at a fair price.
What if there were no farmed salmon? Is there a potential for wild salmon to fill the demand if salmon farming were stopped? Currently farmed salmon production worldwide stands at about 1.18 million metric tons, while wild production stands at about 1.85 million metric tons. Could wild salmon production fill this gap and replace farm fish in the marketplace completely?
Unlike most other fisheries worldwide that are fully exploited or even overfished, there is, we believe, an opportunity to greatly expand wild salmon production to fill any void in the marketplace left by removing farmed salmon. How can this be done?
(1) Efficiency: The first thing to look at in expanding wild fish production is where there may be quotas that are not being filled or fish caught but not getting to market, either due to price or production problems. While our primary focus would be on Alaska (where over 85 percent of our wild salmon is currently coming from), there may be some market inefficiencies in B.C. and the lower 48 as well. For instance, California’s record return of fall-run chinook this past year into the Sacramento River – about three times the number of fish needed to meet optimum spawning escapement – came about in part because of a fleet tie-up in a price dispute. What this says is that our wild salmon fisheries in the Eastern North Pacific may not be producing at their capacity even within their often severe conservation and allocation constraints. This, then, is at least one place where additional wild salmon production can be found.
(2) Restoration: After efficiency, the next road to increasing production is from straighforward watershed spawning and rearing habitat restoration. This applies primarily to B.C. and the lower 48, where there is considerable additional production that could be achieved through aggressive inland habitat restoration. Yet to date, most salmon restoration and recovery operations have been carried out grudgingly by government, with no real production goals.
True, most big coastal rivers have been blocked with dams and the small ones blown out or just dried up by bad land use practices. However, habitat destruction is still largely reversible, if we have the political will to actually do it. In fact, there is a tremendous economic opportunity out there that will result from restoring flows, removing many antiquated dams and providing better passage around others. U.S. and B.C. salmon production could easily double just by cleaning up the obvious problems in once productive, but now nearly devastated coastal watersheds.
Many fishery managers are good at telling us what is needed to protect stocks, but they lack any vision for increasing production at the watershed sources of those stocks. Fishing groups need to work with managers, as well as salmon conservation groups, to re-instill a sense of vision into fish restoration, and to begin aiming at higher population production goals, leading in turn to higher harvest production goals (and economic opportunities) within the context of rebuilt fish populations. Salmon habitat restoration is truly an economic investment that makes good business sense, and one that will return economic dividends forever.
(3) Russia: The other best place to look for increasing wild salmon production is to go around the Pacific Rim to the Russian Far East. The Kamchatka Peninsula and the rest of the Pacific Coast of Russia abounds in productive salmon streams, most still pristine. With the development of mechanisms for protection and governance (probably locally-based watershed groups), infrastructure (fleet development, handling and processing facilities) and transportation, this region could undoubtedly greatly increase production for domestic and international markets. The window of opportunity for developing the Russian Far East’s salmon fishery is likely to be short, however, given the other economic interests, such as timber, oil and mining that could all threaten salmon production and that are also slavering to develop in that region.
Ecotourism, fly-fishing or the purchase of whole watersheds by U.S. charitable foundations is not going to save Russia’s salmon. However, empowering the local populations in the Far East, however, and giving them more local control over their rivers and their resources, as well as the right to enjoy the economic benefits of the salmon on a sustainable basis, could. This would not only help fishermen and communities in that region, but oddly enough could benefit U.S., Canadian and even Chilean fishermen in an effort to eradicate salmon farms. What is needed are not big U.S., Canadian or Japanese companies moving in, but help from international aid agencies directly to community and fishing groups in the region to develop and empower locally-owned and operated fishermen or community cooperatives capable of harvesting, processing and transporting high quality salmon to domestic and world markets.
We do not mean to overlook Japan here, but Japan appears to be producing its wild salmon already to capacity, just to fulfill its own very large demand. China and Korea, too, have some salmon rivers, but their potential for substantially increasing world wild salmon production pales in comparison to that of the Russian Far East.
World markets demand a high quality product. It is not enough that wild salmon are a high quality protein source, that quality has to continue along a chain from the sea to the ultimate consumer. Infrastructure and transportation are not a big problem in B.C., nor in the lower 48, where fishing is near major urban centers and transportation hubs. But B.C. and the lower 48 account for only about 15 percent of the wild salmon production on the Pacific coast of North America. Infrastructure – the processing plants and other support facilities – and transportation are a significant problem for Alaska and the Russian Far East. Even with successful marketing, even if there were a ban on salmon farms tomorrow, infrastructure needs to assure a high quality product, and transportation needs would still be a problem for those areas producing the lion’s share of wild salmon.
Assistance to Alaska’s salmon fishery must consider ways to improve the fishery infrastructure in remote fishing villages of the state, and to improve the means of quickly and cheaply transporting the fish to the major urban distribution centers. Likewise foundation and international aid agency assistance to the Russian Far East should be directed to helping local communities and fishermen develop the infrastructure and transportation needed to process high quality salmon for domestic and international markets.
A Coalition of the Willing. Whether or not salmon farming can be banned, there is a desperate need for the various salmon marketing groups to begin working together, not competing with one another. With the exception of Washington State, there are active salmon marketing boards from Alaska to California, including B.C.’s. There is much that could be gained from, for example, the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute, with 85 percent of world wild salmon production, cooperating with the California Salmon Council in a state of 33 million plus hungry people.
Additionally, these marketing boards should consider some outreach to Russian fishing groups, perhaps through organizations such as Pacific Environment that has been working extensively with natural resource groups, including fishermen, in the Russian Far East. There is a lot to be gained by cooperation and coordination of activities in increasing all of our effectiveness.
What’s Good For General Motors Is Good For Salmon? Not only should the various marketing groups be cooperating and not competing with one another, but we need to begin targeting our each species of Pacific Salmon for specific markets. In the early 1920’s Alfred Sloan took over a General Motors that had well over a dozen brands of cars at the time and paired it down to five, each aimed at a specific demographic. The same could and should be done with our wild salmon. Consider the chinook the Cadillac, the sockeye the Buick, the coho the Oldsmobile, the pink the Pontiac, and the chum the Chevy and you get what we mean. GM’s lines seldom competed with one another but competed for share in specific markets. Costco (if they could be broken of their farmed fish habit) is no place for top-of-the-line chinook. Those fish belong in a white tablecloth restaurant. Chum may be better suited, because of cost for institutional markets, for the Costco customer looking only for warehouse prices.
Of the two fundamentals for a commercial fishery, one is fish -- preferably in abundance -- and another is a market. Without either, there can be no commercial fishery. For our wild salmon, these two elements are inextricably linked together.
We know that salmon production is tied to healthy watersheds, as well as good oceanic conditions. We also know that salmon watersheds are continually under threat, whether from urban development, dams and diversions, logging, mining and grazing, or pollution. Our ocean waters too may be threatened by everything from offshore oil and gas development to offshore dumping. If our industry can maintain and enhance the economic value of our wild salmon fishery, not just from increased production but also by assuring that fishermen are paid a fair ex-vessel price, then we can do a far better job in protecting our watersheds and oceans. Governments will be far less willing to allow destructive practices to take place in watersheds -- whether a dam or a logging operation -- that will harm an industry worth billions of dollars and employing thousands of people.
Yes, wild salmon fishermen will once again be facing a tough time this summer in most markets. But rather than panic and become depressed or simply resigning ourselves to current conditions, let’s begin planning our way out, not surrendering. We’ve offered up here what we think is a plausible, if admittedly long-term, strategy for getting out of this mess – thinking about salmon production in terms of the Pacific Rim and being audacious enough to suggest a total ban on salmon farms. What do you think? What should be our strategy for marketing wild salmon – to get better prices for fishermen, to better defend watersheds and the ocean environment? Let us know.
Salmon fishermen up and down the coast this year are expecting good catches. Let us be happy for that blessing as we now develop a strategy for marketing this abundance and getting a fair price for the world’s best food – our wild salmon.
Zeke Grader is Executive Director, and Glen Spain is Northwest Regional Director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations (PCFFA), the west coast’s largest organization of commercial fishing families. Natasha Benjamin is with the Institute for Fisheries Resources, a PCFFA affiliate organization dedicated to the protection and restoration of our nation’s fisheries. PCFFA can be reached at: Southwest Regional Office: PO Box 29370, SF, CA USA 94129-0370, (415)561-5080; Northwest Regional Office: PO Box 11170, Eugene, OR USA 97440-3370, (541)689-2000; or by email to: fish1ifr@aol.com. PCFFA’s web site is at: www.pcffa.org.
Back
to PCFFA Fishermen's News Archive