Pol Memo 2

To: Chris Wilkie, Puget Sound Keeper Alliance From: Conor Miles Re: Cooke Aquiculture Fish Farm Incident Date: October 17, 2017

Background In July 2017, nearly half of the anchor lines on an aging Cooke Aquiculture salmon farm snapped. A month later—and after no formal investigation by Cooke nor State officials—the farm ruptured, releasing pollutants and over 160,000 potentially invasive Atlantic Salmon into the Puget Sound1. Accelerating corrosion on the farm’s substructures and wear on its metal hinge joints—as Cooke described months earlier2—went unaddressed for so long that the incident was practically inevitable.

Analysis Market and Polis Issues Cooke’s claim that the incident was caused by "exceptionally high tides and currents coinciding with [August’s] solar eclipse"3 demonstrates the company’s desires to create a power imbalance by disinforming its customers and to exert more market control (Stone, 3rd Edition). The issue of full information is worsened by the public’s lack of awareness about the spillage itself. Even if residents know about the spill, it is unlikely that consumers have heard of Cooke Aquaculture or know if their salmon was raised by Cooke. This means that salmon consumers are not informed enough to influence the market by choosing to buy from Cooke or from a competitor—nor can the public fully hold Cooke accountable (Stone, 3rd Edition) (Oct. 10 Lecture). Scale Coverage of the incident is very local. This means that organizations near the Puget Sound would likely see the state of fish farms as an important, personal policy issue, particularly local environmentalist groups, consumers, and tribes (Moy, Tewksbury, and Rinke, date unknown). If these local groups formed an advocacy coalition and worked through local or state governments, they could have significant lobbying power. (John, 2003) (Nov. 2 Lecture). The coalition could even form an iron triangle with the state legislature and the Washington Department of National Resources to accelerate its efforts (Nov. 2 Lecture). Policy Window

“911 call on Atlantic salmon farm: 'The whole thing is buckling'”, KUOW, Nov. 2017 “That Atlantic salmon farm was on its last legs — and Washington state knew it”, KUOW, Aug. 2017 3 “'Environmental Nightmare' After Thousands Of Atlantic Salmon Escape Fish Farm”, NPR, Aug. 2017 1 2

A policy window is open currently because (Nov. 2 Lecture):   

Politics: Puget Sound counties most affected by the problem are primarily liberal areas that support conservation and government regulation. Problem: The incident is fresh in the public mind for now, but it will be pushed aside by other news if enough time passes. Policy: The fact that Cooke applied to replace and locate the aging farm to the state in February2—but was still allowed to operate the aging farm—demonstrates that the local government needs to improve its infrastructure and salmon farm regulation policy.

Policy Options4 1. Incentivize and subsidize fish farm repairs and conduct bi-weekly, on-site examinations of the farms’ conditions. Though repairs alone may not have prevented the incident in August, they could have given Cooke more time to fully replace the farm. Bi-weekly examinations will ensure that the state understands the farms’ infrastructure— and that it can judge which companies receive subsidies. Note that this solution assumes that the cost of preventing a future spill outweighs the cost of repairs. 2. Demand that businesses display which companies produce commercial salmon on the salmon’s packaging/ on restaurant menus and the state of their farms. By giving consumers information about where their salmon is coming from, they will have access to better information and will make a more educated decision in the market (Stone, 3rd Edition). This means that Cooke will likely change its repair practices to repair its public image—fixing the problem through self-regulation. Potentially, this could help advocacy coalitions extend the policy window by framing the problem as ongoing, local, and within the public’s control to alter (Oct. 26 Lecture). 3. Fine or shut down aging farms that are not replaced by November 2018. If Cooke had not been punished for inaction, it may have addressed the farm’s infrastructural problems before a major incident2. If aquaculture companies are given a solid timeframe and penalty now, they will be incentivized to prevent a similar problem from occurring in the future.

Policy Suggestion Option 2 is the best way to confront the issue. It better educates the public on the problem and allows market forces to motivate aquiculture companies to avoid a future disaster (Stone, 3rd Edition). If Cooke’s consumer base is targeted, it will send a powerful message to aquiculture companies: the public and the market will know and hold them accountable.

4

These options should be implemented via an iron triangle—as laid out at the end of Scale—organized by the Puget Sound Keeper Alliance.