The Effects of Salmon Farming in British Columbia 
on the Management of Wild Salmon Stocks 

Auditor General of Canada Report 2000 

Summary by Dr. Diane Urban

The 2000 Auditor General of Canada report, The Effects of Salmon Farming in British Columbia on the Management of Wild Salmon Stocks, investigated how well the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) is managing the wild salmon fishery in BC since 1998 when it became involved in the development and promotion of the salmon farming industry. The report examined five areas of DFO responsibility :

• Regulatory and coordination
• Siting
• Cumulative environmental effects
• Research and monitoring to assess effects
• Resolution of federal/provincial issues

It found that DFOs regulatory framework and policies are not always effective in achieving the Fisheries Act’s goal to protect and conserve wild fish stocks. Even the Wild Salmon Policy (still in draft form) is not clear about prioritizing wild fish stocks over aquaculture concerns.

In general, existing policies or regulations are incomplete or inadequate for ensuring wild stocks are protected and many are missing:

• no policy is in place on how the Fisheries Act will be applied to the salmon farming industry
• standards for enforcing allowable concentrations of deleterious substances have not been researched
• no monitoring has been done on effects of salmon farming on marine habitat or on wild salmon
• an evaluation of effects of an expanded industry cannot be done because of inadequate research.
• DFO can’t enforce Sec. 35 and 36 of the Fisheries Act

1. Siting

DFO is using the province’s siting criteria to protect the environment on the assumption that good dispersal and dilution will adequately prevent ‘harmful alteration, destruction, or degradation’ (HADD). The report points out that the criteria for siting are not based on scientific evidence and furthermore expresses concern that DFO are adopting the criteria that the province designed. The province is not responsible for the Fisheries Act and therefore there could well be conflicts in what the province decides is acceptable and what the federal government should find acceptable where it to uphold its role as the arbiter of the Fisheries Act.

The report concluded that more emphasis on potential impacts of sites to wild salmon must be placed on the research designed to support the siting criteria.

2. Cumulative environmental effects

The report noted that the Salmon Aquaculture Review’s (1997) approval of the salmon farming industry was based on then levels of productivity (which have doubled despite the moratorium) and the assumption that Atlantic salmon posed little threat of colonizing streams.

New evidence of risks of escapees and new production conditions will certainly require an assessment of the cumulative environmental impacts should the industry expansion go ahead. The report doubts that DFO is equipped with adequate research to carry out such an extensive undertaking. A public review must be built in to any expansion plans.

3. Research and monitoring to assess effects

DFO needs to be directing and prioritizing the research to ensure that risk assessment is possible (risk of industry expansion on environment, habitat degradation, disease transfer to wild stocks, antibiotic resistant strains), assessment of risk of future issues such as transgenic salmon) and to enable defensible monitoring and enforcement policies.

Some progress is being made prioritizing research on effects to wild stocks. More research is needed on the Atlantic salmon escapes (more surveys) and an assessment of the risk to wild salmon if the number of farms increased (more escapes would be certain). To assess the potential impact need more information about how Atlantic salmon interact with wild stocks. But difficulties with tracking where research budgets go and what projects are undertaken.

4. Resolution of federal-provincial issues

Potential for conflict of interest exists because the federal government is responsible for managing environmental effects of salmon farming, yet the tasks are delegated to the provincial government under a 1998 MOU. Which means the provincial work in this area is overseen by the federal agency.

The problem is around monitoring and enforcing Sec. 35 and 36 under the Fisheries Act (HADD). As a component of the Salmon Aquaculture Policy released in October 1999, BC is developing performance-based standards using water and sediment data they have collected from salmon farm sites. The tricky part is that DFO is obliged to monitor and enforce standards set by a provincial agency that is ultimately not responsible for defending the Fisheries Act. To avoid a conflict, DFO should be doing its own research to develop standards or at least to assess the credibility of BC’s standards.