How can government claim that allowing expansion of the aquaculture industry will reduce environmental impacts?
In order to remain competitive, the major salmon farming companies aim to produce a specific volume of fish annually. Ideally, this production will take place on a portion of their farm sites, while other sites remain fallow. When the moratorium was in place (1995-2002), one of the challenges faced by the industry was the inability to rotate production among multiple sites. Not allowing sites to rest between production cycles can put pressure on the ocean floor below the sites. Now that the moratorium has been lifted, companies are able to apply for additional sites. With more sites, unused sites can remain fallow for longer, giving the seabed more time to return to a natural state. During the first year since the moratorium was lifted, only a small handful of new sites were approved. All new site applications are subject to a rigorous review by both the provincial and federal governments, and proposed new sites will only receive approval if they meet the high standards in place for aq
Related Questions
- How can government claim that allowing expansion of the aquaculture industry will reduce environmental impacts?
- Should the federal government reduce environmental restrictions that stop logging in federal forests in Oregon?
- What are other Australian state governments doing to reduce their environmental impacts?
