Cristopher Toledo, Terram
The debate on salmon farming in Chile must transcend the narratives of stagnation and focus on building a model that prioritizes the public interest, protects national assets and respects ecological limits.
In his response to our column on the alleged stagnation of salmon production in Chile, Joaquín Sierpe, economist at Pivotes, points out that the moratorium on the granting of new salmon farming concessions established in 2010 after the ISA virus crisis, would be a factor in the stagnation of the industry.
This is an interpretation that does not conform to reality, so it is necessary to contextualize its origin, along with clarifying the mechanisms by which, even with this moratorium, the industry did not stop growing.
The moratorium is not simply a "burdensome" measure, as it is claimed, but arose in response to a serious health crisis caused by the outbreak of the ISA virus, which began in mid-2007.
Several studies have shown that this crisis was associated with the uncontrolled expansion of the industry and the spatial concentration of operations, key factors that contributed to the spread of this disease. Therefore, to present the moratoriums as an isolated obstacle is to ignore their origin in the need to curb an unsustainable model.
However, even under these restrictions, the figures show that the industry has maintained significant growth in production, even after the establishment of the moratoriums, as will be detailed below.
Pivotes points out that the salmon farming concessions granted since 2010 correspond to applications prior to the implementation of the moratoriums, suggesting that this limits the interpretation of growth. However, this does not invalidate the fact that the total number of concessions granted has continued to grow to saturate the available spaces established through the Appropriate Areas for Aquaculture (AAA), going from a total of 1,108 concessions granted in 2009 (before the moratorium) to 1,380 in 2023, in the regions of Los Lagos, Aysén and Magallanes, which is equivalent to 272 new concessions.
Stagnation or growth?
Regarding the growth of harvests, it is important to specify the following: data from the National Fisheries and Aquaculture Service (SERNAPESCA) show that since 2019, considering the year-on-year rate, harvests have increased every year. Except in 2021, when they decreased by 8%.
However, it is evident that the current year-on-year growth rate of crops is significantly lower than in previous decades, when the industry expanded in a deregulated manner. For example, at the beginning of 2000, when it exceeded 40% year-on-year, which precisely generated the optimal conditions for the development of the sanitary crisis.
In other words, the claim for an alleged stagnation is not due to the absence of growth in the salmon industry, but because it does not adjust to an expectation of profitability that apparently does not want to assume limits due to environmental and sanitary factors, which reflects a short-sighted and dangerous vision due to its voracious relationship with nature.
Contradictions
Pivots presents a contradiction in its arguments by claiming that harvests have not grown since 2019 and, at the same time, that the supposed growth is due to a decrease in mortality and escapes. So, is there growth or not? Regardless of this inconsistency, the data do not support their claim that reduced mortality and escapes are the main cause of an increase in production.
To exemplify this, let us take SERNAPESCA data on salmon mortality and escapes during the period 2016-2024. When analyzing this period we see that 2019 stands out as the year with the greatest reduction in both events together (mortality and escapes), with respect to the previous year. If we assume that this decrease translated directly into additional harvests, the reduction in mortality and escapes would have contributed approximately 5,667 tons that year.
This figure represents a minimal fraction compared to the 989 thousand tons harvested in 2019, considering that this year's harvests grew by 7% (65,646 tons) compared to 2018. Therefore, the claim established by Pivotes that the growth is due to better environmental practices in operation, which would translate into lower escapes and mortality, is unfounded.
On the contrary, what has contributed significantly to increase the production of this industry, beyond the granting of new concessions, are the constant increases in biomass (production) in cultivation centers through the modification of the Environmental Qualification Resolutions (RCA) and without carrying out an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).
Just as an example, within the Multiple Use Conservation Area "Fiordo Comau-San Ignacio de Huinay" (ACS 17A) we have identified 10 centers with increased biomass, all after the ISA virus crisis. On average, they increased their production limit by 237% of what was originally authorized, which translates into greater pressure on the ecosystem by increasing nutrient inputs due to increased fish fecal matter and food not ingested. All this in an area of low water circulation.
It is worth noting that the Comau Fjord, located in Chilean Patagonia, is almost the only place in the world where the cold water coral Desmophyllum dianthus can be found at a depth of only five meters and where some years ago scientists stated that this protected area is "very degraded" due to the impacts of the salmon farming concessions located within it and the effects of the advance of climate change.
Environmental non-compliance in the salmon industry
Regarding environmental non-compliance, it is not something we "suggest", as Pivotes points out, but rather we affirm based on evidence, such as information from the public agencies in charge of oversight and sanctions.
There is clear evidence that the salmon industry frequently operates outside of environmental regulations. For example, in protected areas alone, specifically in Las Guaitecas and Kawésqar National Reserves, a significant part of production exceeded the permitted limits.
In these areas, according to recent reports prepared by Fundación Terram, it was detected that in the period 2013-2023, nine companies harvested more than 67 thousand tons of salmon in excess of what was authorized in their RCAs, distributed in 95 production cycles, which shows a pattern of systematic non-compliance by this industry and not a simple environmental impact like any other activity, as stated by Pivotes.
These non-compliances, added to those detected by the Environmental Superintendency (SMA) and all those that have not been sanctioned at the national level, contribute much more significantly to the growth experienced by this industry than the decrease in leaks and mortalities, as Pivotes argues.
On sustainability and the future of the salmon industry
Finally, regarding the constant comparison with Norway, it is worth noting that Norway ranks first in the Yale Environmental Performance Index because it operates under much stricter standards than Chile. However, even in Norway, the expansion of salmon farming has generated environmental and social conflicts. To attempt to replicate its model without addressing the structural problems of the Chilean industry, such as systematic environmental non-compliance and its effects and the lack of effective oversight, among many others, is not a sustainable route.
The debate on the salmon industry in Chile must transcend the narratives of stagnation and focus on building a model that prioritizes the public interest, protects national assets and respects ecological limits.