"A lot of folks can take credit for the improved market for wild salmon, from the California Salmon Council and the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute, to the chefs that revolted at serving farmed salmon, but the programs Packard (the David and Lucile Packard Foundation) helped fund played a big part in boosting our markets and no one in our industry should ever forget that.”
- Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations
Background
Back in the spring of 2002, Tides Canada reported that its first donor advised fund was opened in December of 2000. Tides Canada reported that its core support came from four sources:
- The Endswell Foundation - which has been Tides Canada's largest donor
- The J.W. McConnell Family Foundation
- The David and Lucile Packard Foundation
- James Morrisey - treasurer of several Tides-affiliated charities
Since 2000, James Morrisey has been the treasurer or director of several Tides-affiliated organizations, including Tides Canada Foundation, Tides Canada Initiatives Society, the Endswell Foundation, the Salal Foundation, and the Nextwave Foundation. (According to U.S. tax returns, the Salal Foundation and the Nextwave Foundation are recipients of funds from Endswell, and have also made payments to Tides Canada, eg. $5,000 and $2,000 in 2004).
Since 2000, Tides Canada Foundation has reported expenditures for a total of $137 million. The question is, where did that money originate? And how and why did Tides Canada get started in the first place?
According to calculations based on Canadian tax returns, Tides Canada Foundation and Tides Canada Initiative Society have reported combined revenues of $178 million (2000 - 2009). Of that, about $33 million was from tax-receipted donations while $138 million was from other registed charities, other gifts and other sources of revenue. An important point to note is that Tides Canada Foundation grants substantial funds (at least $26 million to Tides Canada Initiatives Society) so simply combining the total revenue of both organizations probably yields an over-estimate of the total revenue of Tides Canada over the past ten years.
Regarding the $138 million that Tides Canada received from other charities, other gifts and other revenue, the question is, where did this money come from and why are other charities funding Tides Canada?
Canadian tax returns show that over the past ten years, 27 Canadian foundations have granted $27 million to Tides Canada. Of that, 79 percent came from four foundations alone: Endswell, Bealight, the Simons Foundation and the Richard Ivey Foundation. U.S. tax returns and other records show that U.S. foundations have granted more than twice as much, $57 million. Two of the biggest American funders of Tides Canada have been the Hewlett foundation and the Packard foundation which have granted $22 million and $14 million to Tides Canada, respectively. The Gordon & Betty Moore Foundation has granted $23 million to Tides Canada (2000-2010). That accounted for about one third of the $64 million that the Moore foundation has granted to B.C. environmental organizations.
Starting back in 2000 when Tides Canada advised that it opened its first donor-advised fund, Tides Canada reported revenue of $2.4 million for that year. Of that, $2.1 million was from “other gifts.” U.S. tax returns show that the U.S. Tides Foundation paid $450,000 to Tides Canada in 2000. Tides USA also paid $30,000 to Tides Canada in 1999 and $350,000 in 1999. But where did Tides USA get the funds that it paid to Tides Canada? That's another story.
The Packard Foundation's Market Intervention Strategy
Since 1999, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation funds a Market Intervention strategy to sway consumer and retailer demand towards certain types of wild fish that are certified by the Marine Stewardship council (MSC). For many years, the majority of MSC-certified fish has been Alaskan so promoting MSC-certified fish has been tantamount to promoting Alaskan fish, especially salmon. At the same time, the Packard foundation also funds a multi-million dollar campaign to sway consumers and retailers away from the competition: farmed fish. This helps to prop up commercial fisheries, all in the name of aquaculture "reform." The 'punching bag' for lack of a better term, is farmed salmon.
As I have described in Packard's Push Against B.C. Salmon, an article published in The Financial Post, over the past 10 years, Packard has granted nearly $90 million for various initiatives and projects that sway the global seafood market.
At the time that studies of contaminants in farmed salmon, and sea lice were published in the journal SCIENCE, the editor-in-chief of SCIENCE was Dr. Donald Kennedy, a trustee of the Packard foundation. Dr. Kennedy left the helm of SCIENCE three days after a widely publicized sea lice study of sea lice was published by Krkosek et al., in 2007. The new editor-in-chief, Dr. Bruce Alberts, is a trustee of the Gordon & Betty Moore Foundation which funded an "antifarming campaign" involving "science messages" and has paid more than $64 million (2003 - 2010) to environmental organizations in B.C.
Did Packard pay Tides Canada $346,500 to start Farmed & Dangerous?
In 2000, the David & Lucile Packard Foundation ("Packard") allocated $640,000 to Tides Canada for “start-up costs” and “the creation of a re-granting fund to support marine protection efforts in British Columbia.” In 2001, the year that the funds were actually paid, the Packard foundation also paid $346,500 to Tides Canada "for general support and for support of sustainable aquaculture in B.C." That same year, Tides Canada reported that "a dedicated funder" made it possible for the Coastal Alliance for Aquaculture Reform (The Farmed & Dangerous Campaign) to do what limited funding would otherwise never have allowed: to meet on a monthly basis. Tides Canada has been asked but has declined to identify the “dedicated funder.”
U.S. tax returns show that the same year that Packard paid Tides Canada $640,000 for start-up costs for a re-granting fund, Packard also paid $50,000 to the Georgia Straight Alliance “for the strategic planning process and related activities on Salmon Aquaculture.”
The Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations (PCFFA) refers to the Farmed and Dangerous campaign as part of a "truth squad." ".... keeping up the pressure on salmon farmers with truth squads will help to open more markets for wild salmon," says the PCFFA.
The Farmed and Dangerous campaign is only one of the programs run by the Coastal Alliance for Aquaculture Reform (CAAR). CAAR also has a program called Wild Salmon Supporters. This program promotes specific, high-end restaurants that sell wild salmon in major cities of the U.S. and Canada, for example, The Mandalay Bay Resort & Casino in Las Vegas, and the Rattlesnake Club in Detroit. Of all the things that CAAR could do to protect wild salmon, why is CAAR promoting high-end restaurants that sell wild salmon - most of which is Alaskan - in the U.S.? Is this protecting wild salmon? Or is this helping to protect the market for wild salmon?
The logos of the two programs of CAAR, Farmed and Dangerous, and Wild Salmon Supporters, are shown below.
During the same period, the Packard foundation also paid the David Suzuki Foundation $762,600 for the Pacific Salmon Forests project which produced, among other things, The David Suzuki Foundation's brochure titled "Why You Shouldn't Eat Farmed Salmon?" Was this brochure one of the "market intervention tools" funded by the Packard Foundation? David Suzuki has been asked in a series of open letters over the past four years. Dr. Suzuki replied initially but hasn't answered this question.
U.S. tax returns also show that the Packard foundation paid $100,000 for Ecotrust “to work with the Heiltsuk Nation to discover sustainable development opportunities on the midcoast of B.C.” It so happens that the Heiltsuk have a zero tolerance policy with regards to fish farms. Since 2000, American foundations have paid well over $50 million to First Nations along the B.C. coast. This includes $27.3 million paid by Tides Canada in a single cheque. The Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation alone has granted $9 million to First Nations since 2003. To the best of my knowledge, none of the First Nations that are heavily funded by American foundations are favorable to salmon farming.
Packard also paid Ecotrust $100,000 for a project titled, “Sustainable Fisheries = Sustainable Seafood Marketing Campaign.” Since when is sustainability the equivalent of marketing?
Packard also granted at least $100,000 for the Vancouver Aquarium's seafood program. Now, of all the aquariums in the world that the Packard foundation could support, why Vancouver?
Packard has paid $2.8 million for campaigns against farmed salmon and $1,150,000 for Greenpeace “to lead a North American retailer campaign” and "for transforming retail seafood procurement practices." Early in 2010, Greenpeace praised Target, a U.S. retailer, for discontinuing sales of farmed salmon. "Target will replace farmed salmon with wild Alaskan salmon, a relatively healthy and sustainable product," announced Greenpeace.
Over roughly the same period that Packard paid for the Farmed and Dangerous campaign to get Safeway to stop selling farmed salmon, Packard also paid $7.8 Million to WWF for “aquaculture standards” and “to improve the environmental performance of Wal-Mart’s source fisheries.” When Wal-Mart announced that it would transition to MSC-certified fish, 95 percent of the volume of the initial fisheries, was Alaskan.
Since 2002 and the Packard-funded campaign against farmed salmon, the ex-vessel value of Alaskan salmon has more than quadrupled from $125 million to $533 million. Some of that increase is likely due to Alaska's $50 million Salmon Revitalization strategy which, it has been reported, was "to beat farm salmon." But even commercial fishermen themselves have given credit to the Packard foundation for "boosting our markets."
So, coming back to my initial question, why did the David and Lucile Packard Foundation pay Tides Canada for initial start-up costs for a marine protection initiative? Was that exclusively for marine protection, as reported to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service? Or was this for market protection - in the name of marine protection? Or perhaps both? After all, the Packard foundation has been funding for a formal strategy for Market Intervention - since 1999.
