The anti-salmon farming lobby in Scotland is legendary, and not a week goes by without adverse comment by one or another organization against an industry that produces the country’s No. 1 food export, whose worldwide retail value is more than GBP 1 billion (USD 1.54 billion, EUR 1.16 billion). Whether it is on environmental, habitat, scenic impact, noise, adverse effect on the wild salmon population or other grounds, the lobby is well organized, active and highly vocal.
Until recently I assumed that the anger was restricted to salmon farming, but campaigners have recently switched their focus to trout. In particular, objections have been raised to the expansion of a farm operated by Dawnfresh, whose Loch Etive Ocean Trout has become so popular around the world, the company needs to expand production to meet demand.
“Order books are burgeoning in the U.S., Russia, Japan and South Africa and sales in U.K. supermarket are going well, but our planning application to increase capacity has hit problems with the anti-fish farming lobby,” explained Sean Lydon, seawater manager for Dawnfresh.
Already a major employer on Loch Etive, on the West coast of Scotland, with five small sites providing around 3,000 metric tons (MT) annually, Dawnfresh initially foresaw no problems in gaining permission to double production. They assumed that the local population would welcome a new farm that has all its discharge consents in place, does not attract sea lice, provides year-round employment, generates economic benefit for the local and national economy, and contributes to global food security. Tucked away in a corner of the loch, the proposed development of 10 x 80 meter circular cages and a feed barge would be unobtrusive to the majority of local residents and tourists.
However, the problem lies in it being in direct line of sight of a new local landowner, who finds it intolerable that the view he thought he might have from one corner of his castle, might be marred by a few fish cages.
He has set up a campaign to stop the farm, sent a flyer to every household in the area, and developed a website containing information that is at best misleading and at worst untrue.
“This is generating a huge response, and although what is portrayed by our opponents is not even close to what we are trying to do, the damage has been done and objections are flooding in,” said Lydon.
The website claims that the development will result in water pollution, waste and chemical discharge, contamination and smothering of the sea-bed, noise, smell, fumes, lights, interference to the public right to navigate, have an adverse impact on recreational and other boat traffic, interfere with fishing, sailing, kayaking, walking, photography, nature conservation and tourism, threaten sea-trout, salmon, otters, seals, breeding birds, crabs and other crustaceans and the list goes on.
Trout farming has already existed peacefully in the loch for more than 20 years, with none of these impacts becoming obvious, so it is difficult to see why they should suddenly occur now. However, public opinion has been stirred and the anti-aquaculture lobby is gathering momentum as other campaign groups rally to the cause.
The economic, technical, environmental, biological, physical and chemical aspects of any fish farm application these days is examined in great detail by well qualified people with all the evidence in front of them, and they are well able to make dispassionate decisions away from the hullaballoo of public opinion.
However, public opinion can still be a powerful force, and as fish farms here, in the U.S. and Canada have found to their cost, it can be very difficult to fight off a sustained campaign, even when it is based on irrational supposition. Dawnfresh can only hope that the local planning authority sees through the hysteria and realize that it is just NIMBYs at work.
We live in a world where food will have to be produced in ever greater quantities and if not here, then where? Not in my backyard?
