Chilean MP attacks ‘insulting’ lack of consultation over bid to close salmon farms
A bill to shut down nearly 400 salmon farms in Chile because they are in protected areas has been slammed for ignoring local people who make their living from the industry.
A group of deputies (MPs) led by Jorge Brito, president of the Fishing, Aquaculture and Maritime Interests Commission of the Chilean parliament’s lower house, the Chamber of Deputies, wants to change to law so that fish farming is not allowed in the areas. They want to shut the farms within two years, without providing alternative sites.
However, Miguel Ángel Calisto, the deputy for the salmon farming region of Aysén, strongly criticised the group for not consulting with parliamentarians from the areas where the affected communities are located.
No connection with salmon regions
“It strikes me that the vast majority of the proponents of this project are from the north and central areas and have no connection with the regions in which salmon farming is carried out,” Calisto said at a Commission hearing on Wednesday.
“Beyond the industry versus environment contest, in the middle of this discussion are the people: many people who make a living from this activity and not even the most prominent scientists will be able to give me an answer for those families when they don’t have anything for the pot.”
Salmon farms are already excluded from national parks, and the bill would also exclude them from the maritime zones of national and forest reserves including the Guaitecas Forest Reserve in the Aysén region, which the Brito group says has more than 320 salmon farms.
Whole of the south would be hit
Calisto is concerned about how to sustain the economy of Las Guaitecas, “where this project practically kills the salmon farming activity”.
“If that happens, perhaps the next government will give them a bonus to survive, but it would also be necessary to incorporate the people of Raúl Marín Balmaceda, Puerto Cisnes, Islas Huichas and the entire southern macro zone of the country,” the deputy said.
Calisto is not uncritical of the industry and said he is working on a royalty project to keep more of the benefits of salmon farming in the regions where the fish are produced. He also supports strong control and regulation.
“However, eliminating a productive activity overnight, without taking into account the effects on people, is an analysis from the comfort of the political elite,” said Calisto.
“With all due respect, some of the motioning parliamentarians have no sea in their district. So, if we want to carry out this type of project, at least the parliamentarians who have a direct relationship with the communities, with their people, with the mayors and councillors of these localities, should be consulted. This project is an insult because it is inconsistent.”
An exotic species
Brito pointed out that unlike the northern hemisphere, in the southern hemisphere salmon are exotic species.
“Consequently, the scope and impact generated by the activity is different, because the species need the conditions of their places of origin,” said the Commission president.
“This is why we have been very critical of salmon escapes. Under the law, a person who introduces an exotic species to the sea of Chile, with intent, risks jail. However, the different salmon farms, which have introduced millions of specimens of this species to the ecosystems, have only suffered a fine a couple of times.”
Impact of escapes
In his speech, Brito asked those supporting the industry what alternative measures the Commission should take, “because no one doubts of the impact that loose exotic species generate in our sea?”
Brito said the Chilean state had made progress by defining marine protected areas, “but if we are going to put it into practice, we must ask ourselves what the concrete and effective protection measures are”.
He added: “It is a contradiction to allow activities that degrade the seabed and ecosystems we want to protect. Therefore, if for some the bill is not appropriate, [a solution] should be based on two central ideas from it.
“In the first place, when considering the expiration of the [fish farm] concessions, in what period it would be prudent to be able to propose an expiration? Or should they not expire? Because [we have suggested] two years thinking about a productive cycle.
100-plus applications
“Secondly, relating to the request for concessions, we have collected information that there are more than 100 applications for concessions in marine protected areas. So, is it the industry’s interest to continue as a priority in these areas because they generate more favourable conditions for cultivation and profitability?”
The Commission this week deferred a vote on the bill to a later date so that they could hear from all interested parties.
Brito said a debate about an expiration period for licences would require a very complete discussion “and if we start the discussion now, given the number of audiences requested in relation to this project, I do not see any possibility of receiving them all and developing the discussion in particular before March (when the current legislative period ends). It is a contradiction to start the process and then change your mind, not giving it the continuity required by the bills.”
If the Commission was to vote in favour of the proposal, it would then have to be approved by the parliament’s upper house, the Senate, and then return to the Chamber of Deputies for a vote by the full chamber.
