18 — Sunday, October 24, 1999 — North Shore News Sal Laurie MacBride Contributing Columnist DESPITE countless hours of work by thou- sands of people, the B.C. government is going to allow what effectively amounts to an expansion of netcage salmon farm- ing on our coast. The announcement was clothed in “greenspeak” and framed as environmentally responsible, but beneath the surface, it’s smoke and mir- rors and spells potential dis- aster for wild salmon and the human communities that depend on them. It undereuts the cftforts of volunteers throughout the province who have been labouring to restore salmon habitat and rebuild wild stocks. And it makes a mock- ery of the sacrifices fishing communities have made over the past two years in the interests of conservation. The package “caps” the number of stand-alone netcage farms at current lev- els. Sounds good — but look again. The government is deiin- ing “current levels” as 121 farms, not the 89 active sites that actually exist. In my view that’s an increase of 32 farms. The larger number includes tenures that have expired, others that are about to and some that have never really been used. There is no legal requirement to renew these, so why do it? fs it just a veiled way to get new farms onto the coast without admitting they're lifting the moratorium? The policy package has no requirement for closed containment, and no provision to ban Adantic salmon in open netcages despite continuing fish farm escapes, the fact that escaped Adantic salmon have now been found spawning in at least three Vancouver Island rivers, and the finding of dis- eased Atlantic escapees swim- ming among spawning coho in at least one stream. The package does include some closed containment pilot projects, which would have been a good idea if they hadn’t been paired with new netcages. These will bring the total of netcage sites to 131] a 42% increase over today’s number of active GVRD to review report ; From page investigation of the effects on nthe’ water supply of logging and road building are consideved to be. serious deficiencies in view of longstanding : controversies about these issues.” Said. Will Koop: of:the B.C. Tap Water . Association, “The. plan is:incompicte. and defi-_ tol (When the issue“ was last voted on by ‘the water committee) that the rea- son we wzre holding onto the amending inden- it-for the. eee. inventory. Chad Day, chair of the independent RWAC (Regulatory “Water Advisory Committee), and professor of resources and environmental man- agement at SFU, said the GVRD had set up “more of a forestry pian than a water plan.” When asked fast week by water committce.. member North Vancouver District Coun.. - Trevor Carolan if s° water management’ plan | ‘would have cost less than‘a forestry management plan, Pearse responded: “Yes. If it had been designed differently, the data could have been collected at a lower cost and could have been more efficiently focused on the causes of ivater quality problems.” Since the initiation of the ecological invento- ry in 1992, the GVRD has shelled out $6.7 mil- lion in consultation fees. The inventory has been “a waste of moncy. ‘sight from the start,” said Paid Hundal of SPEC “(the . Conservation). “The alleged risk of forest: fires “sand pests has been a phony excuse to log ou _ watersheds.” Society _ Promoting — Environmental GVRD watershed management represent tive Laurie Fretz_ said all the reports would. be ” reviewed by the GVRD board. MG Sites. How is this holding the fine on the industry? There is nothing in the package that ensures indus- try’s buy-in te closed con- tainment now or in the future. There’s nothing ro guarantee that the results of the pilot projects won't be undermined ia the mdustry’s interest in reverting to less costly netcages, We're told thar all farms will be more closely moni- tored and enforcement will be tough but the industry will be responsible for col- lecting che monitoring data. - It’s clear that seli-regula- tion, in an cra of government cutbacks and chronic field staff shortages, is not in any- one's interest except the pol- luters. Without a lor more meney, the Ministry of Environment will have little control over practices that result in pollution, escapes, disease and drug use. Why would the govern- ment put forth this package? Don’t they understand the risks that open netcages pose to wild salmon? Do ~ they think they’re going to win political support from the industry? Have they made a deal with the pro-tish farm federal government in exchange for fifting the moratorium? There are a few good pieces in the package: the development of new regula- tions that will provide better legal tools to control the industry, some processes to give more public oversight and input into siting deci- sions, and immediate reloca- tion of the most-polluting farms (including moving some out of the densely- farmed Broughton Archipelago). -- But these fall far short of ° what is needed -—- put simply, the political will to deal effectively with an industry that is out of control, an industry that has increased its KB-One offers the most affordable & flexible: schedule, Jor you and your, Jamily ages 5 & up: production by 60% even while the so-called “morato- rium” has been in place. Government officials have said this is “the best deal they could ger.” Really? Coulda’t they have let lapsed tenures expire, and sec a fixed date for conversion of remaining farms to closed containment (for example, the five vears environmental groups urged)? Thousands of people, all over the coast, have worked _ hard on this issue. Many are ° now disappointed and angry. The provincial and fedurat governments must both stop - undermining the wild fishi: and start putting an hones: effort into rebuilding it — something that should have been their first priovity all along. — Laurie MacBride i: is the Executive Director - a Georgia’ Strait. Allian represented the environments: sector in — the ~*Salmon. Aguaculture Review.