Chile’s salmon-farming sector has seen significant expansion since the early 1990s. From USD 159 million (EUR 152 million) worth of salmonid exports in 1991, the industry closed 2024 with 782,076 metric tons (MT) of salmon and trout exports worth USD 6.37 billion (EUR 6.18 billion), according to the latest figures from Chile’s National Customs Service – marking growth of nearly 4,000 percent.
However, that initial growth was often unruly and unregulated, leading to environmental damage and culminating in an ISA virus crisis from 2007 to 2010.
The industry has since taken a firm stance on sector sustainability, but it has still drawn the attention and criticism of national and international environmental organizations.
Further, since taking office in 2022, Chile President Gabriel Boric has been critical of the nation’s salmon-farming industry, pushing to reform the sector, which has faced increased regulatory pressure after a series of scandals that included salmon-farming firms underreporting environmental damage and salmon mortalities.
Sector players have said the current administration has been overzealous in implementing audits, increasing controls, and limiting further aquaculture growth. SeafoodSource spoke with the Chilean Salmon Council Executive Director Loreto Seguel on whether the sector should assume more responsibility.
SeafoodSource: The Chilean salmon industry has faced criticism when it comes to sustainability. Should the sector assume more blame for what has happened over the last 30 years or so?
Seguel: We have to be proud of what this industry has built and how it has developed, but at the same time, we have to be aware of the challenges and take responsibility for what it means.
If we only talk about pride, it communicates that we have done everything fantastic, and that’s not true; there have been successes and significant failures. Nor can we only talk about challenges and responsibilities because it sounds self-flagellating and does not recognize that an industry started from scratch 30 years ago, created wealth, has changed the lives of thousands of families, and continues to do so today.
It is the most relevant industry in southern Chile, so we also have to be proud.
With respect to different environmental NGOs, I believe that an industry like this has turning points, with important successes and failures. Before the ISA virus, the industry was self-regulated, and that created a communication liability.
After the ISA virus, it has been another story. It is another industry where the public system worked together with industry to be able to regulate it, and today, it has become an overregulation. When one regulates in a crisis, it is poorly regulated.
This industry has been characterized by regulating itself in crisis, but there is a public institutionality that has an international prestige that is little talked about.
Sernapesca [National Fisheries and Aquaculture Service] and our SAG [Agricultural and Livestock Service] are two public institutions that regulate the industry in Chile and have a high standard of prestige abroad; there’s a reason for that.
Obviously we have challenges, and many times we have differences with Sernapesca or SAG. But, that does not mean we should not recognize that this public body has a recognized international seniority that gives us certain guarantees on the world stage.
Additionally, environmental NGOs often misinform, unfortunately, and they don’t provide accurate information. That must be said with all its force. A clear example is that many times, the reports from Chile show pictures of round pens, but in Chile, there are no round pens.
When you see that, you say that's neither the photo, nor the seabed, nor the production of a pen in Chile. In the end, this also represents a communication challenge. The industry was very quiet for many years, and he who is silent concedes. That cannot be, and those are the issues we’re facing today.
Today, we as a council are being very firm because of our technical rigor. That doesn’t mean we do not have challenges with antibiotics, with the seabed, and with environmental issues from the point of view that we operate in the sea. The reality, though, is far from the images published and what is said because an industry that exports to more than 100 countries would not be able to do so considering those countries’ standards of health, welfare, safety, and certifications.
The United States is the top market for us and then Japan and Brazil.
In those places, you can’t just do whatever you want; there are regulations, there are things to comply with, and Chile complies with them. Unfortunately, some NGOs and competitors have dedicated themselves to misinforming about Chile. For a long time, we were silent, and I think that it is the role of the council not to be silent but also not to ignore the challenges of responsibility, providing objective and hard data to help people really understand.
We can promote that we have the best feed conversion factor [among protein production], for example. There is waste, true. We have to address it, but it is minimal, and that is what must be said forcefully.
SeafoodSource: The council has warned that salmon production is falling, particularly in the Aysén region. Is this due to supply, to demand, or is it an internal problem?
Seguel: It is a reflection of an industry that is stagnant. We can try to open new markets, but in the end, since we can't produce more [due to regulations], we have to start changing from one market to another where prices and other changes are variable.
You can take a look and say it was just a little bit of a drop, but it is worrying because when you look at the industry figures of the Aysén region, all of them are down: cultivation centers, biomass grown, harvest totals. It is no coincidence that Aysen's GDP is the only one that is negative across the country.
It is also no coincidence that in exports, we do not have figures where one says, "We are growing at 10 percent or 20 percent." I would say that this is a red flag; it is no longer a yellow or orange flag. It is a wakeup call that something is happening. What motivates us the most to continue fighting is that when you look at the productive indicators of health, well-being, and safety, which are essential worldwide, we in Chile are far better than everyone else.
The mortality that we have today is less than 8 percent; you look at Norway, and it has almost 20 percent. Mortality is a very relevant indicator in protein production, and we are doing much better, as well as in better welfare and safety.
With the production standards we have today in Chile, we can achieve the objective. The issue is that there are more internal considerations – that of the authorities and the lack of a state policy – which are limiting growth.
SeafoodSource: When you talk to international buyers, what do they look for? What are the practices and metrics they want?
Seguel: First of all are the international certifications, such as Aquaculture Stewardship Council and Best Aquaculture Practices, which cover sustainability, environmental issues, and also other productive indicators.
Animal welfare standards, however, have not yet been established worldwide for the aquatic industry. It has existed for a long time for the terrestrial industry but not so for the aquatic environment. So, what are we to do?
As a council, we sent a formal letter to the WOAH [World Organization for Animal Health] that we want to start working as a country to establish aquatic standards that these proteins have to have when it comes to animal welfare. WOAH has over 180 member countries that are dedicated to this.
I think the world is asking for that.
At the annual WOAH meeting held in Paris last May, which was the 100th anniversary of the organization, a Chilean woman [Alicia Gallardo, Chile’s former undersecretary of fisheries and aquaculture] was elected as president of the aquaculture commission.
It’s important that she is Chilean because it shows that things are done well in Chile. Moreover, she was unanimously elected by more than 140 countries that voted.
SeafoodSource: How is the Yelcho project progressing in reducing the use of antibiotics in the country?
Seguel: The issue of antibiotic use is a challenge. The Chilean salmon industry uses antibiotics, but it does not have antibiotics [when the fish are harvested].
We use them because salmon get sick, in particular from a bacteria called SRS that causes them to die. Keeping mortality at bay is essential to ensure well-being; we have to minimize mortality, which is why we use antibiotics.
But, [the fish harvested] does not have antibiotics due to two programs from Sernapesca: one that analyzes and certifies what type of antimicrobials are going to be used, what type of chemicals are used, and regulating and registering what, why, and how it is going to be used.
The other entails Sernapesca laboratories certifying the latency period between when antibiotics were used and when the fish was harvested.
That latter program is very rigorous. Everything is registered.
We have to use antibiotics not to improve the nutritional capacity but so that the fish don't die, but it carries costs. Who would be more interested than us in cutting it down or eliminating it?
That’s where the Yelcho project comes in, which is an initiative I find important because Sernapesca and SAG are working along with the entire industry to help mitigate SRS – a virus for which more than 30 vaccines have been developed, but they don’t work. It’s a case study even for scientists.
We as a council are very cautious. The latest report from Sernapesca showed that there was a 40 percent reduction in the use of antibiotics by Chilean salmon production companies, but we have to take this data with caution because we know that tomorrow it may rise again. If the sea or oceanographic conditions change, this could also change. It is a serious issue for us.
It is essential to work with WOAH because one of its lines of work in Chile is the use of antimicrobials. Aligning with an international organization with a focus on improving the use of antimicrobials and implementing best practices demonstrates that it is an important issue for us; not only do we say it, but we do it.
