http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_cesd_201804_01_e_42992.htmlOMG the Almo Sea Lice photo shows up in a government report wow!
What we examined. We examined whether Fisheries and Oceans Canada had measures in place to prevent and control infectious diseases and pathogens in salmon farms where it had this authority. We also looked at whether the Canadian Food Inspection Agency met its requirement to implement measures to prevent the introduction and spread of infectious diseases in salmon farms across Canada.
1.38Disease controls for aquaculture operations in British Columbia. We found that the Department established conditions for the location and expansion of aquaculture sites to ensure that farms were best located to reduce aquaculture risks. For example, as had been recommended by the Cohen Commission, the Department prohibited new sites and expansions in one area of British Columbia where many salmon farms were located, due to the number of wild salmon migrating through this area.
1.39 The Department also imposed conditions on the operation of salmon farms in British Columbia. For example, aquaculture companies had to monitor and control diseases and parasites, and to record the number of fish placed in net pens, the number of deaths during the growing cycle, and the number of fish harvested. If the number of deaths exceeded a certain limit, the companies had to notify the Department.
1.40 To verify compliance with these conditions, the Department conducted fish health audits and sea lice inspections on salmon farms in British Columbia. Although it noted high compliance with licensing conditions, the Department acknowledged that it might not have been addressing the most important fish health issues, such as the detection of new and emerging diseases. The audit program had not been updated since 2006. In addition, the Department had not analyzed trends in diseases and parasites. During the course of our audit, the Department conducted a review of its audit program and planned to make changes as appropriate.
1.41Disease controls for aquaculture in Canada. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Fisheries and Oceans Canada co-delivered the National Aquatic Animal Health program to prevent and control the spread of disease. Under this program, the Agency had the lead role for activities such as monitoring the presence of disease and ordering the destruction of diseased fish. In 2016, the Agency also became responsible for controlling the movement of fish between provinces. Before 2016, only Fisheries and Oceans Canada had this responsibility.
1.42 For the areas we examined, we found that the Agency managed its responsibilities in terms of disease control for salmon aquaculture in a manner consistent with its mandate to protect fish across Canada. It certified whether areas where net-pen salmon farms were located were free of disease, and it set conditions for the movement of fish to prevent the spread of disease. It focused on a set of diseases based on a list of criteria established by the World Organisation for Animal Health. The criteria included trade importance and the potential to negatively affect significant wild fish populations.
1.43 However, we found that the Department and the Agency did not have a formal process to share information about aquatic animal health. Agency officials noted that they shared information with Department officials at headquarters, but that this was not always transmitted to Department staff in the regions. In our view, information sharing was critical to ensure that the Agency and the Department were working together effectively to control the disease risks associated with aquaculture.
1.44 At the time of our audit, the Department planned to transfer to the Agency responsibility for controlling risks related to the movement of live fish. This transfer would be limited to diseases the Agency was already regulating. We found that the Department had not formally assessed whether this change would create gaps in the protection of wild fish. For example, the Department and the Agency had not clarified their respective roles and responsibilities for managing emerging diseases, which created the risk that potential emerging diseases affecting farmed and wild salmon would not be adequately addressed.
1.45 Finally, we found that the Department had limited laboratory capacity to provide timely surveillance test results to the Agency so that the Agency could make timely decisions on disease control. In some cases, the Department provided test results to the Agency one year after samples had been taken.
1.46Recommendation. Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency should clarify their roles and responsibilities for managing emerging disease risks to mitigate the potential impacts of salmon farming on wild fish.
The Department’s response. Agreed. Fisheries and Oceans Canada will continue to work collaboratively with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, the federal lead for managing diseases of both farmed and wild fish, to clarify roles and responsibilities for managing emerging diseases and agree on the most efficient and effective method for sharing information on fish health. The Department will work with the Agency to establish a formal process to discuss, assess, and share information on emerging diseases of interest to either government entity. This process will help to clarify the government response and framework for the assessment of risk for emerging diseases to mitigate any potential impacts to wild fish. This formal process will be implemented by April 2019.
The Agency’s response. Agreed. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency will work with Fisheries and Oceans Canada to develop and document a formal process to discuss and evaluate emerging diseases of concern to either government entity and decide which entity will assume which role or responsibility with regard to such diseases in order to protect wild fish. Technical staff in the Agency and the Department will engage in the development of such a process during the 2018–19 fiscal year, with implementation by April 2019.
1.47Use of the precautionary approach in managing aquaculture. In its Aquaculture Policy Framework, the Department committed to applying the “precautionary approach” to decision making. This approach ensured that when there were threats of serious or irreversible damage to wild fish, lack of full scientific certainty would not be used as a reason for postponing measures to protect them.
1.48 However, the Department had not clarified how it would apply the precautionary approach in its management of aquaculture. For example, it had not set limits or thresholds for when to take action if it observed declines in wild fish stocks in areas where aquaculture was prevalent. To respond to such declines, the Department would have to consider the potential effects of aquaculture along with those of other stressors, such as climate change and overfishing.
1.49 In our view, a clear explanation of how the Department applied the precautionary approach was especially important, given its commitment to advancing aquaculture, as stated in the Aquaculture Policy Framework. Without this explanation, the Department was vulnerable to claims that it prioritized the development of the aquaculture industry over the protection of wild fish.
1.50Recommendation. Fisheries and Oceans Canada should determine and communicate how it applies the precautionary approach to managing aquaculture when there is uncertainty about the effects of aquaculture on wild fish. The Department should also clearly articulate the level of risk to wild fish that it accepts when enabling the aquaculture industry.
The Department’s response. Agreed. Fisheries and Oceans Canada will continue to apply the precautionary approach according to the Government of Canada’s framework on precaution. The Department applies the precautionary approach where appropriate, as a subcomponent within an overall decision-making approach, to deal with risks of serious or irreversible harm even with significant scientific uncertainty. Even when a particular activity is deemed “low” risk, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used to postpone mitigation measures to prevent further potential environmental degradation. The Department will clearly communicate how it applies the precautionary approach to management decisions (for example, on the Department’s website).
To support this, the Department conducts research to characterize how individual species, populations, and communities respond to a range of stressors, including aquaculture. This research informs management decision making concerning establishment or refinement of thresholds to protect at-risk ecosystem functions and valued components.
The Department will further explore options, building on best practices in the current pathway of effects framework, to more clearly articulate, by March 2019, how precaution and the application of risk assessments inform departmental decision making.
Author
Topic: Get your facts straight? (Read 1682644 times)