Regulating and monitoring British Columbia’s marine finfish aquaculture facilities 2011–2014
Table of Contents
- Summary of marine finfish aquaculture in British Columbia
- How aquaculture facilities are regulated
- Assessing compliance
- Reporting requirements and reports submitted
- Monitoring and audits: Fish health
- Monitoring and audits: Environmental
- Monitoring and audits: Inventory and aquaculture statistics
- Summary
Assessing compliance
How DFO assesses the performance of aquaculture facilities
DFO uses audits, monitoring, and surveillance to develop a full understanding of the B.C. aquaculture industry’s operational performance. It uses this understanding to assess its current regulatory approach and to provide a basis for future decisions. DFO analyzes the results of site inspections and technical audits and reports the results online to give the public an accurate view of how well the industry operates and its impacts on the environment. Figure 2 shows the number facilities that were licensed in 2011 to 2014 and the number that were active for at least a portion of each year. It is important to note that even though many licences were renewed annually, not all facilities were stocked with fish at the same time.
Figure 2. Marine Finfish Aquaculture Facilities - Table version
| 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Active Facilities | 84 | 94 | 79 | 82 |
| Licensed Facilities | 122 | 123 | 121 | 115 |
In 2011 to 2014, site visits were conducted year round by Fishery Officers and other DFO staff including veterinarians, biologists, fish health technicians, and resource managers.
Monitoring and surveillance activities included:
- Assessing compliance with licence conditions
- complete and accurate records and paperwork
- no culturing of unlicensed species
- production at or below the licensed maximum
- appropriate markings and signage
- appropriate storage and tagging of equipment, feed, and chemicals
- compliance with Fish Health Management Plans
- site debris being managed appropriately
- complete and accurate containment array plans, marine mammal management plans, and fish escape prevention plans
- Inspecting nets, cage arrays, and other physical structures
- Auditing fish health and sea lice records
- Assessing the effects on the surrounding environment using benthic (seabed) surveys
- Conducting watershed surveys to search for escaped farmed salmon
- Reviewing protocols for fish health management
- Observing harvests and transfer, to assess procedures for reporting incidental catch visiting processing plants to confirm that records have been submitted to DFO by licence holders
- Responding to reported concerns related to specific aquaculture facilities
During site inspections, DFO staff assess compliance based on the marine finfish licence conditions. Deviations from these conditions are noted as "deficiencies" which licence holders are required to address.
In 2011, DFO focused on establishing protocols and standard procedures for site inspections and technical audits. Where aquaculture facilities did not comply with the requirements, Fishery Officers promoted compliance through education and corrective measures.
In 2012, the goal for Fishery Officers was to visit as many marine finfish aquaculture sites as possible to assess how many were complying with the requirements stated in their licences. Fishery Officers continued to use an educational and corrective approach.
In 2013, Fishery Officers shifted towards a priority-based and risk-based inspection program, with increased corrective measures to address non-compliance.
In 2014, Fishery Officers continued to conduct inspections on compliance with the conditions of licence, as well as marine mammal interactions assessment, incidental catch at fish processing plants, and proper harvest procedures and reporting.
Enforcement options
Fishery Officers are responsible for enforcing the Fisheries Act, the Fishery (General) Regulations and the Pacific Aquaculture Regulations as they pertain to the aquaculture industry in B.C., and they are responsible for investigating violations of the Act and regulations. The enforcement option used is based on the severity of the violation.
Education
Used to promote compliance through education and corrective measures.
Warnings
Issued to the violator, and form part of the permanent compliance record for the individual or company. Follow-up inspections and corrective measures may be required.
Charges
An individual or company may face formal charges laid in court for one or more violations. The Fisheries Act allows a maximum penalty of a $100,000 fine and/or one year in jail for summary convictions and a $500,000 fine and/or two years in jail for an indictable conviction. Extra costs may also be imposed, and seized items may be forfeited.
Alternative measures
These are measures outside the judicial process to deal with individuals who have allegedly committed an offence. Restorative justice is one method designed to address offending behaviour and conflict in a formally recognized dispute resolution process. In some cases, the accused will be offered the opportunity to engage in alternative measures or a restorative justice process instead of proceeding to court. Restorative Justice may take place before or after charges are laid.
Summary of charges and convictions, 2011–2014
Fishery Officers conducted several investigations of non-compliance with the Marine Finfish licence conditions between 2011 to 2014. There were no charges and convictions in 2011, 2012 and 2014 related to the licence conditions, however, in 2013, Marine Harvest Canada was fined for exceeding the maximum production levels allowed by their licence at one aquaculture facility.
Details of fishery officer activities
Figure 3 shows the number of hours that Fishery Officers dedicated to various aspects of monitoring marine finfish aquaculture activities between 2011 and 2014. It also shows the number of sites they visited. All inspections by Fishery Officers were unannounced visits to the aquaculture facilities.
Figure 3. Fishery Officer Hours Dedicated to Monitoring Marine Finfish Aquaculture Facilities, 2011–2014 - Table version
| 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patrol | 935.5 | 618.25 | 1332.5 | 811.5 |
| Investigation | 330.5 | 765.5 | 989.75 | 274.5 |
| Operation Planning and Analysis | 581.25 | 507.25 | 62 | 122 |
| Forensic Audits | 0 | 21.5 | 0 | 0 |
| Prosecution | 14 | 8.5 | 78.5 | 131 |
Many facilities received multiple warnings during site inspections in 2011. Licence conditions are updated annually to ensure appropriate management of the aquaculture industry. As licence holders have become more familiar with the licence conditions, Fishery Officers have noticed a sharp decline overall in document deficiencies and non-compliance issues.
Deficiencies in 2011
In 2011, Fishery Officers inspected 79 marine finfish sites and issued a total of 140 warnings; a warning was issued for each component of the inspection that was non-compliant with licence conditions ("deficiencies") (Figure 4). Differences between the new federal regulations and the provincial regulations may have caused some of the non-compliance. Because 2011 was considered a transitional year for the marine finfish aquaculture industry, no charges were laid for these deficiencies. Approximately 49% of deficiencies in 2011 were related to insufficient documentation or the inability to produce records at the facility. Approximately 51% of deficiencies were physical site deficiencies related to infrastructure or equipment.
Figure 4. Deficiencies in 2011 - Table version
| Document Deficiencies | Physical Site Deficiencies | Other Legislation | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fish Health | 6 | 3 | 0 |
| Incidental Catch Logs | 7 | 0 | 0 |
| Protection of Fish Habitat | 4 | 27 | 0 |
| Transfer of Fish | 5 | 0 | 0 |
| Escape Prevention, Reporting and Response | 17 | 20 | 0 |
| Containment Array Requirements | 6 | 0 | 0 |
| Boat Operations | 0 | 7 | 0 |
| Other | 23 | 14 | 1 |
Document Deficiencies
There were 68 document deficiencies recorded (Figure 4), the most frequent being:
- fish escape plans not posted on site
- incidental catch logs not up to date
- veterinary attestations (statements) not available for inspection
Physical Site Deficiencies
There were 71 physical site deficiencies recorded (Figure 4), the most frequent being:
- poor or non-existent containment of secondary fuel or equipment powered by fuel
- incomplete or missing fish escape kits
- poor net maintenance or missing net coverings (also known as "bird lids")
- poor signage at fish mortality floats
Other Legislation Deficiencies
There was also one violation of the British Columbia Sport Fishing Regulations, where fish caught under a recreational fishing licence were not properly labelled ("Other" on Figure 4).
Deficiencies in 2012
In 2012, Fishery Officers inspected 38 facilities. As a result of the inspections, 16 warnings were issued for non-compliance with licence conditions (Figure 5). In addition, Fishery Officers used DFO’s air surveillance program to check that sites reported as fallow (empty) by industry were not in operation.
Due to an outbreak of infectious haematopoietic necrosis (IHN) virus , Fishery Officer inspections were suspended from July to September 2012 in line with protocols to prevent the spread of disease. Although there were fewer site visits in 2012 than in 2011, there was a reduction in non-compliance. Deficiencies were evenly divided between document and physical deficiencies in 2012.
Figure 5. Deficiencies in 2012 - Table version
| Document Deficiencies | Physical Site Deficiencies | |
|---|---|---|
| Fish Health | 2 | 0 |
| Incidental Catch Logs | 4 | 0 |
| Marine Mammal Conflict | 0 | 1 |
| Protection of Fish Habitat | 0 | 3 |
| Escape Prevention, Reporting and Response | 1 | 4 |
| Production Plan | 1 | 0 |
Document Deficiencies
Eight document deficiencies were recorded (Figure 5), the most frequent being:
- incomplete incidental catch records, veterinary attestations, and escape prevention procedures
- harvest logs unavailable for inspection
Physical Site Deficiencies
Eight physical site deficiencies were recorded (Figure 5), the most frequent being:
- net tags that did not correspond with office records
- poor or non-existent secondary fuel containment
- small holes observed in nets
- predator netting not properly installed
Deficiencies in 2013
In 2013, DFO moved to a production-cycle inspection system whereby each active site would be inspected at least once during a production cycle. Fishery Officers inspected 70 sites, issued 28 warnings for non-compliance with licence conditions (Figure 6), and laid one charge. Document deficiencies made up 68% and physical deficiencies made up 32%.
Figure 6. Deficiencies in 2013 - Table version
| Document Deficiencies | Physical Site Deficiencies | |
|---|---|---|
| Fish Health | 4 | 0 |
| Incidental Catch Logs | 6 | 0 |
| Protection of Fish Habitat | 0 | 4 |
| Use of Lights | 5 | 0 |
| Escape Prevention, Reporting and Response | 4 | 3 |
| Boat Operations | 0 | 2 |
Document Deficiencies
There were 19 document deficiencies recorded (Figure 6), the most frequent being:
- incidental catch logs not up to date
- incomplete use-of-lights reports
- veterinary attestations (statements) not available for inspection
- net tags that did not correspond with office records
Physical Site Deficiencies
Nine physical site deficiencies were recorded (Figure 6), the most frequent being:
- poor or non-existent secondary fuel containment or leaking equipment
- fish mortality storage floats without signage (to restrict access by boats not involved in cultivation of fish)
- equipment missing from fish escape kits
Deficiencies in 2014
In 2014, Fishery Officers inspected 37 sites, issued 11 warnings for non-compliance with licence conditions (Figure 7).
Document deficiencies made up 55% of all deficiencies in 2014, and physical deficiencies made up 45%.
Figure 7. Deficiencies in 2014 - Table version
| Document Deficiencies | Physical Site Deficiencies | |
|---|---|---|
| Protection of Fish Habitat | 4 | 0 |
| Escape Prevention, Reporting and Response | 2 | 2 |
| Boat Operations | 0 | 3 |
Document Deficiencies
Six document deficiencies recorded (Figure 7), including:
- inability to produce net inventory records,
- no sewage disposal records
Physical Site Deficiencies
Five physical site deficiencies were recorded (Figure 7), including:
- fish mortality storage floats without signage (to restrict access by boats not involved in cultivation of fish),
- net inventory control numbers did not match records
- Date modified: