By Stan Proboszcz. This piece was first published on Policy Options.

Does Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s (DFOs) science advisory process have integrity when tasked with answering questions on salmon farming? If there is any hope of changing the trajectory of many iconic but endangered wild salmon stocks, there must be a resolution to political and industrial interference that continues to influence fisheries science advice at the federal level.

Since 2001, a scientific debate has been active in British Columbia around parasitic salmon lice from open-net salmon farms and their impacts on wild fish. Two “camps” of scientific opinion have been obvious.

On one side, academics and NGO scientists have published articles in peer-reviewed journals detailing the negative effects parasites from salmon farms can have on migrating wild salmon. On the other, government and industry-supported scientists have published papers that cast doubt on these conclusions, thereby fuelling the debate and encouraging the continued operation of salmon farms on wild fish migration routes.

It is well established that manufacturing a scientific debate on the impacts of smoking and climate change benefits tobacco and petroleum companies. Some believe the salmon-farming debate is not very different.

DFO’s mandate to promote salmon farming

The DFO is the regulator of the salmon-farming industry, but it also promotes the industry and their products.

These dual roles were identified by the 2012 federal Cohen Commission on the decline of B.C. salmon stocks as a potential conflict of interest that may impede DFO’s ability to protect wild fish stocks. Justice Cohen recommended that the federal government remove industry promotion from DFO.

An expert panel of the Royal Society of Canada reached a similar conclusion — that DFO’s conservation of biodiversity may be impeded by its relationship with industry.

More recently, DFO scientist Kristi Miller broke ranks and testified to a parliamentary committee, raising concern the agency’s science may be influenced by the industry. Despite this, and a commitment by the prime minister to implement all of Justice Cohen’s recommendations, no known action has been taken to remove the salmon-farming promotional mandate from DFO.

Meanwhile, the salmon-farming debate continues. Evidence uncovered by the Cohen Commission rekindled the feud around the impacts of the industry. The subject this time: viruses.

DFO’s scientific stance seems to diminish the relevance of a particularly worrisome virus — piscine reovirus (known as PRV) — as a risk to wild salmon. As in the salmon lice debate, DFO appears to favour Scientific Certainty Argumentation Methods (SCAMs).

Environmental sociologist William Freudenburg, who coined the term SCAMs and studied their use in the climate change debate, wrote:

“Given that most scientific findings are inherently probabilistic and ambiguous, if agencies can be prevented from imposing any regulations until they are unambiguously ‘justified, most regulations can be defeated or postponed, often for decades, allowing profitable but potentially risky activities to continue unabated.”

Within the context of SCAMs, we can compare three conclusions from DFO’s 2015 Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat report on PRV with more recent published conclusions from academics, NGO scientists and Kristi Miller’s lab.

• 2015 DFO conclusion 1: “There is no evidence from laboratory studies in British Columbia and Washington State that PRV infection is associated with any disease state, including HSMI [heart and skeletal muscle inflammation]”
  • 2017 Wessel et al.: PRV can cause heart and skeletal muscle inflammation
• 2015 DFO conclusion 2: “HSMI has not been reported on B.C. salmon farms”
  • 2017 Kristy Miller’s lab: HSMI was reported on B.C. salmon farms in 2017
• 2015 DFO conclusion 3: The information suggests “a low likelihood that the presence of this virus in any life stage of farmed Atlantic and Pacific Salmon would have a significant impact on wild Pacific Salmon populations.”
  • 2017 Morton et al.: Salmon farms may spread PRV to wild salmon and impede their ability to migrate upstream and spawn.

Mirroring the salmon lice debate, DFO’s PRV conclusions appear to exploit the uncertainty around the evidence and steer away from exercising precautionary action to protect wild fish.

The 2015 DFO report ends with unsubstantiated platitudes about B.C.’s “robust” disease surveillance program that purportedly minimizes the threat of diseases spreading from farms to wild fish. It appears DFO’s premier peer-review science advisory process, CSAS, produced premature conclusions that coincidently aligned with industry conclusions, but that are now in question.

This raises the question: Is the salmon-farming industry influencing DFO’s Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat?

Independence of federal science advisory body in question

DFO is responsible for three oceans and thousands of lakes, rivers and species, and its decisions need to be informed by sound science.

The Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat, established in the early 2000s, is headquartered in DFO and coordinates science review processes throughout the country with the goal of providing high-quality scientific advice to the minister of fisheries and oceans, managers and other interested parties.

CSAS coordinates over 100 science advisory processes a year and responds to specific questions on various subjects, such as the state of fish stocks, species at risk and other fisheries issues. Federal scientists from DFO and other agencies typically comprise a significant segment of each advisory process; however, external experts are also invited to participate in the peer reviews.

The Cohen inquiry had significant implications. It identified pathogens from salmon farms as a risk to wild fish and made several related recommendations. Two of particular interest state that salmon farms located along a key wild salmon migration bottleneck should be removed unless the minister of fisheries is satisfied they do not pose more than a “minimal risk of serious harm” to wild fish.

The minister is also required to summarize the information relied on and include detailed reasons for the department’s decision.

Cunningly, these recommendations shift the burden of proof and place them firmly on the federal government, if it insists on allowing farms to operate.

When the minister needed “detailed reasons,” a new series of CSAS processes was initiated, examining the risk of various pathogens from salmon farms on wild salmon. The first examined the risk of infectious haematopoietic necrosis virus (IHNV), another salmon virus.

I was asked to sit on the steering committee as a representative of the conservation community. I accepted.

This CSAS meeting was held December 5-8, 2016, in Vancouver. It examined five technical papers.

The first four covered oceanography, salmon-farm disease management practices, Fraser sockeye salmon biology and IHNV. The fifth drew on information from the other four and purported to examine the risk to wild sockeye salmon from IHNV arising from salmon farms. The final Science Advisory report was published days before Christmas 2017, over six months late.

How to improve independence in aquaculture science in Canada

After participating throughout DFO’s CSAS process, I developed some recommendations for its future conduct.

1. Separate CSAS from DFO.

During the process, I witnessed several instances that suggested DFO scientists were hesitant to freely express views that might be unfavourable to industry. During the peer-review meetings, two DFO scientists quietly urged me to raise concern about the use of a confidential memorandum of understanding (MoU) among several salmon-farming companies.

Allegedly, the MoU detailed voluntary industry disease management practices. The shocking thing was that this MoU was being used to substantiate a final conclusion in the CSAS report that there is reasonable certainty that an IHNV outbreak on salmon farms in the Discovery Islands is very unlikely.

Yet an author of the report refused to provide access to review the MoU. The inability to review the details of substantiating information is contradictory to the fundamental principles of transparency and peer-reviewed science.

In another instance, a report author deferred to DFO aquaculture management staff several questions about possible constraints that may arise in their research due to the use of summarized farm data. I think that serious concerns arise when scientists do not feel free to answer questions about their research, whether it aligns with industry or not.

These two problems give rise to questions around political interference impeding good science advice, similar to those raised over the mismanagement and collapse of east coast cod stocks.

CSAS professes to follow the Government of Canada’s Science Advice for Government Effectiveness guidelines, yet seems to violate a stated core principle around transparency and openness.

Having a science advisory process that is at arm’s length from DFO could improve the integrity of the science advice produced on fisheries issues. Good advice is critical at a time when many salmon stocks are in decline.

2. Make potential conflict of interest disclosure explicit and mandatory.

After I experienced the CSAS process, it was apparent to me that some steering committee members, participants, report authors and reviewers had current or recent connections to the salmon-farming industry.

Unlike many scientific journals, CSAS does not have explicit requirements for the disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. As a steering committee member, I requested that it include explicit conflict-of-interest criteria but was assured by the chair and lead organizer (who both held current and recent high-ranking DFO aquaculture management positions) that this was unnecessary. I was also assured that all steering committee members and participants would be listed in the final reports. No such list was published that I can see.

CSAS is supposedly based on DFO’s Values and Ethics Code, which states government will take “all possible steps to recognize, prevent, report, and resolve any real, apparent or potential conflicts of interest between our official responsibilities and any of our private affairs.”

I witnessed no explicit steps during the process.

Aside from direct financial benefits, there are many potential sources of conflicts of interest in science communication. The CSAS process should immediately integrate strong conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements for all participants, authors and steering committee members.

The long-standing scientific debate around salmon farming and around CSAS and DFO’s potential conflicting interests requires immediate resolution.

In February 2018, it was announced that Minister of Science Kirsty Duncan has asked Canada’s chief science adviser, Mona Nemer, to lead an independent expert panel on the appropriate use of scientific evidence in decision-making around protecting the marine environment, as it relates to salmon farming. More recently it was revealed that the “independent” panel will be substantially supported by DFO staff.

Time will tell what Canadians will get from yet another investigation into the salmon-farming industry. Canada’s commitment to science-based decision-making and to iconic wild salmon are at stake.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

The federal government is playing a shell game, claiming to have acted on most of the Cohen Commission recommendations, but failing to fully implement many of them, say critics, pointing to lack of action on fundamental issues such as fish farms and removing responsibility for the promotion of salmon farming from Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

“They are being very disingenuous by deeming some of the recommendations irrelevant or saying they have addressed them when they have not implemented them,” said Chief Bob Chamberlin of the Kwikwasut’inuxw Haxwas’mis First Nation and chairman of the First Nations Wild Salmon Alliance.

The 2012 Commission of Inquiry into the Decline of Sockeye Salmon in the Fraser River, headed by Justice Bruce Cohen, cost taxpayers more than $37 million and came up with 75 recommendations designed to save wild salmon runs after the disastrous 2009 sockeye run.

The recommendations, ranging from habitat protection to government accountability, were all but ignored by the previous Conservative government and some deadlines had lapsed by the time the Trudeau government promised to follow through on Cohen’s recommendations.

Fisheries Minister Dominic LeBlanc said last month that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) has now acted on 64 of the 75 recommendations. Also, the government is drafting a five-year Wild Salmon Policy implementation plan and putting $40 million annually, for five years, into research, science and monitoring of Pacific salmon.

That amounts to meaningful progress toward completing the Cohen Commission recommendations, according to LeBlanc, but Aaron Hill, executive director of the Watershed Watch Salmon Society, sees it differently.

“They are making progress, but it’s not as impressive as their announcements would indicate,” Hill told DeSmog Canada.

A report compiled by Watershed Watch puts it more bluntly, saying the federal report lacks meaningful substance.

“It also attempts to replace the true intentions of fully implementing Justice Cohen’s recommendations with simply acting on the recommendations (meaningfully or not.) Canadians truly deserve an independent assessment of the recommendations, not slick messaging,” it says.

For both Chamberlin and Hill, government’s failure to close down open-net fish farms on wild salmon migration routes or separate responsibility for promoting the farms from DFO’s duty to protect wild salmon illustrate the half-hearted response to the Cohen recommendations.

The decades-long battle over open-net pen farms is again heating up, with First Nations occupying fish farms off northeast Vancouver Island and an injunction application by the company, Marine Harvest, seeking to remove the protesters.

Currents of dissatisfaction have reached the offices of provincial ministers, briefly taken over by fish farm opponents who reminded the province of its commitment to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and election campaign promises made by some NDP ministers to scuttle open-net fish farms.

The province has the authority to issue farm licences.

Meanwhile, Premier John Horgan has twice assured the Legislature this week that wild salmon are his priority and Agriculture Minister Lana Popham has sent a sharp letter to Marine Harvest reminding the company of its obligations to First Nations, after the company restocked farms with fish that will not have grown to harvest size before the licences expire.

So, why is the federal government not implementing all the commission’s recommendations and taking action on salmon farms, rather than responding with a press release, Chamberlin asked.

“How can they not listen to the clear message that we do not give any consent to having these farms in our territory?” he asked.

Despite increasing discontent and a growing body of scientific evidence that fish farms are posing serious threats to wild salmon, it does not seem that the government is willing to take action, Hill said.

Cohen recommended that, if salmon farms in the Discovery Islands were found to pose more than a minimal risk to the health of migrating sockeye salmon, they should be closed, but Watershed Watch points out that DFO has delayed any meaningful action.

As #SalmonFarm Tensions Escalate, Watchdog Finds Feds Failed to Fully Implement Cohen Commission Recs https://t.co/IESVs0PIQE #bcpoli

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) October 19, 2017

“Salmon farms in the Discovery Islands have not been removed, despite new scientific evidence identifying new disease risks from salmon farms,” says the report, pointing to a research paper identifying heart and skeletal muscle inflammation (HSMI) on a B.C. salmon farm.

In an e-mailed response to questions from DeSmog Canada a DFO spokeswoman said the government has put limits on salmon farming operations in the Discovery Islands until September 2020 and multi-year licences will not be available.

“During this time, additional scientific research will be conducted and a disease risk assessment process will be completed. In the interim, licence holders are required to submit health data to DFO, which is then posted on the DFO website,” she wrote.

As for removing salmon farming from DFO’s mandate, “no further action is required on this recommendation as responsibility for production and export is split between several different departments,” according to DFO.

The commission’s recommendation for an independent audit “is considered acted upon” as DFO complies with all external reviews and access to information requests related to the Cohen Commission, says the opaque statement.

“DFO is acting on the intent of this recommendation through the development of the Wild Salmon Policy implementation plan and the associated commitment to public reporting on the status of the implementation on an annual basis,” it says.

A sticking point for both levels of government is that some First Nations support farms in their territories because they provide jobs.

However, Chamberlin regards that as a red herring and said, in addition to resolutions from major First Nations organizations, 90 per cent of B.C. First Nations oppose open-net fish farms.

If the government is anxious to create jobs in First Nations communities, all of Cohen’s recommendations should be met, creating tourism and bear-watching opportunities as wild runs recover, and then resources should be put toward developing a closed containment industry, he suggested.

John Reynolds, professor of aquatic ecology and conservation at Simon Fraser University, believes the federal government should be given credit for moving in the right direction and trying to catch up after years of inaction by the previous government.

However, there has been a nebulous response to many of the recommendations, such as the independent audit, rather than the focused response Cohen asked for, he said.

“For example, Cohen had very specific comments about the need for habitat protection and the government’s response is that, in many different ways, they are working on that,” Reynolds said.

“These are not the kind of targeted, easily-evaluated programs that I believe Commissioner Cohen had in mind.”

Government has made it clear it will not be following some key recommendations, such as creating a new position to oversee funding and implementation of the Wild Salmon Policy, said Reynolds, adding that he does not understand the explanation that government ‘does not work that way.’

“The intent was very, very clear and I don’t believe that after two-and-a-half years of deliberations and all the expert witnesses that Commissioner Cohen called from all levels of government that this recommendation should be quite so easily dismissed,” Reynolds said.

“It makes me uneasy. I really think there should be someone whose job is to oversee the wild salmon policy.”

Image: Open pen fish farm. Photo: Friends of Clayquot Sound

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

As federal Fisheries and Oceans Minister Dominic LeBlanc was in West Vancouver Tuesday, promising that his government would act on all 75 recommendations from the 2012 Cohen Commission into the decline of Fraser River sockeye salmon, independent biologist Alexandra Morton was sailing into friendly waters on northern Vancouver Island and casting doubt on the government’s intentions.

“There is no substance to it,” said Morton, pointing out that LeBlanc has avoided any commitment to act on the Cohen recommendation to separate promotion of aquaculture from its duty to protect wild salmon or to put the brakes on the salmon farming industry.

The progress report, delivered by LeBlanc, noted that Fisheries and Oceans  oversight of salmon farming meshes with the department’s mandate and LeBlanc said at the news conference that DFO has a responsibility to promote the sustainable use of “fish resources in a way that is good for the local economy.”

That does not go down well with Morton, a thorn in the side of the salmon farming industry and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans for decades.

In addition to the federal Liberal’s apparent reluctance to rein in the salmon farming industry, Morton is discouraged by government’s earlier decision to extend fish farm licences from one to six years, running counter to Cohen’s recommendations.

That is a decision that disrespects First Nations, said Morton in an interview from the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society’s research vessel Martin Sheen as she sailed into Musgamagw Dzawada’enuxw territory, where one-third of B.C.’s salmon farms are located.

“I don’t understand how they can give the industry long-term licences and now (LeBlanc) says he is going to enact the Cohen recommendations,” said Morton, who is conducting sampling around fish farms to establish whether piscine reovirus (PRV) — a virus found in farmed fish — is present in wild salmon and whether there are hotspots of the virus around the farms. PRV has been linked to Heart and Skeletal Muscle Inflammation in fish.

Instead of making vague promises to talk to aboriginal groups, LeBlanc should be meeting with the hereditary leaders to find out what is happening to wild salmon runs around salmon farms, Morton said.

“The salmon farming industry has been in Musgamagw Dzawada’enuxw territory since the 1990s and they have never given them permission, but no one is compensating them and they are suffering,” she said.

Her words were echoed by Dzawada’enuxw councillor and fisheries coordinator Melissa Willie, who is also on board the Martin Sheen.

“There are 27 farms in our territory and we have never given them permission to be there. We just continue to write letters opposing them,” she said.

Damage from the farms is evident not only in declining salmon runs and the number of sea lice, but also in clam beds, Willie said.

“All that shit is going into the water. I don’t believe it’s being flushed out and the beaches are becoming muck. It’s our whole food chain. We want them totally out of our territory and I just hope someone is listening,” she said.

The Cohen Commission report languished on governmental back shelves for four years while the Conservatives were in power, but hopes were high that it would see the light of day under the Liberals and some, such as Willie, remain optimistic that there will be help, not only for the Fraser River sockeye, but for all B.C.’s salmon.

Willie is hoping that the secret weapon might be Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould, a member of the We Wai Kai Nation.

“Her grandmother was one of ours. We hope to get her involved,” Willie said.

However, salmon farming companies have economic agreements with many First Nations and at least two have denied the Martin Sheen permission to come into their territory.

That is a choice that is up to them, said Morton, who hopes they will not find they are importing diseases from the farmed Atlantic salmon into their traditional fishing grounds.

Bob Chamberlin, chairman of the First Nations Wild Salmon Alliance, found some encouraging aspects in LeBlanc’s progress report, although he said it lacked detail

“I found it positive that the minister spoke about looking after all species of salmon in B.C. and it was not just the restricted view of Fraser River sockeye and the Discovery Channel fish farms,” he said.

The emphasis on science and research, backed by an additional $197 million in funding announced last March, is good news, but the government should now be adhering to the precautionary principle until those science gaps are filled, Chamberlin said.

“That means stop expanding fish farms, stop creating new licences and stop setting the table for this industry. Science needs to be at the table,” he said.

What's Fishy About the Feds' Salmon Promises? https://t.co/eNULDlE8Rj #cdnpoli #bcpoli

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) August 11, 2016

Innovative programs such as tagging salmon smolts and genome science should be able to determine the major salmon stressors and pinpoint those industries causing grief to wild salmon, Chamberlin said.

But, until those scientific holes are filled, salmon farming industry expansion must be stopped, he said.

Jeremy Dunn, executive director of the B.C. Salmon Farmers Association, applauds the renewed emphasis on science and said LeBlanc has reinforced his government’s commitment to making science-based decisions for all Canadian fisheries.

But that does not mean curtailing the salmon farming industry and longer licence terms are necessary to provide security for the companies, he said.

“These licences could be revoked at any time if the farmers are not living up to their licence conditions,” he said, emphasizing that members of the Salmon Farmers Association work closely with government, scientists and academics and are concerned about the health of their own fish while being acutely aware of the importance of wild salmon.

Alexandra Morton’s virus-hunting patrols have added additional stress to salmon farmers and it is “important to distinguish between advocacy and science,” Dunn said.

Morton shows no sign of contrition and believes she is providing a voice to counteract the powerful lobby of Japanese and Norwegian-owned salmon farming companies.

“The industry is entrenched and everyone is afraid to say ‘this is not working,’ ” she said.

Instead of protecting those interests, government should be looking at rearing salmon in closed containment pens on land, which is being done by Namgis First Nation on northern Vancouver Island, Morton said.

Photo by Amanda Carroll, UNR Department of Art/Photography

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

“Nobody knows what happens when you introduce a virus into a popluation that hasn’t been exposed to it before. It might be totally benign or it might have a devastating impact like smallpox on the Aboriginal popluations in North America.”

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.