Aquaculture Policies and Procedures
In August 2004, the Ministry of Natural Resources finalized 10 new policies and procedures on aquaculture – the farming of fish, shellfish and aquatic plants. These documents lay out the ministry’s overall framework for licensing aquaculture, the approvals procedures related to various sources of fish used in aquaculture operations, and detailed procedures for issuing aquaculture licenses. Some of the policies deal with specific types of aquaculture, such as aquaculture on private land, and “fee for fishing” operations. MNR posted a proposal on the Registry in February 2000 for eight of the 10 draft policies that it considered environmentally significant. However, an eleventh policy, Aquaculture on Crown Land, was not released either with the 2000 drafts or with the suite of policies finalized in 2004. This missing piece is the policy that would provide specific guidance for MNR’s licensing of cage aquaculture in the Great Lakes.
Contents |
Background
Ontario’s aquaculture operations include both “land-based” facilities such as dug ponds and concrete tanks, and “cage aquaculture” operations – cages floating in lakes or rivers. Cage aquaculture in Georgian Bay and elsewhere in the Great Lakes accounts for roughly four-fifths of Ontario’s farmed fish production and has attracted the most controversy. (A 2003 EBR application for review of cage aquaculture policies and regulations is described in Aquaculture in Georgian Bay – Water Quality and Environmental Monitoring.)
MNR licences aquaculture operations under O. Reg. 664/98 (Fish Licensing) of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act (FWCA). The regulation requires a licence to culture, buy and sell fish (the aquarium trade is exempted from this requirement), and other licences for stocking fish and for collecting fish from Ontario waters. The regulation also requires cage aquaculture operators in waters over public land (e.g., the Great Lakes) to monitor their water quality impacts.
The Ministry of the Environment plays a supporting role – for example, by advising MNR on which water quality monitoring conditions to set for cage aquaculture licences. Other agencies involved include the Ministries of Agriculture and Food and Northern Development and Mines, Conservation Authorities and municipalities, and the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
(For more details on the 10 new aquaculture policies and procedures, refer to pages 161-172 of the annual report Supplement.)
Ecological risk and public consultation
MNR’s aquaculture policies require licence applicants to complete a risk analysis to determine the impacts escaped fish might have on local fish populations and to establish the level of security (escape prevention) that must be in place. Under EBR regulations, MNR must post a proposed aquaculture licence for full consultation on the Environmental Registry if (a) the applicant is required to submit a Detailed Ecological Risk Analysis, or (b) the licence is for cage aquaculture in waters over Crown land. However, MNR’s 2004 policies indicate that a Detailed Ecological Risk Analysis will be carried out only in exceptional circumstances. For most applications, a Short Form Risk Analysis will be used instead, and full EBR consultation will not be undertaken.
For Great Lakes cage aquaculture, MNR invokes section 32 of the EBR, which exempts ministries from EBR instrument consultation and appeal provisions if an instrument is part of a project approved under the Environmental Assessment Act (EAA). MNR will screen applications for Great Lakes cage aquaculture licences through the ministry’s Class Environmental Assessment – Resource Stewardship and Facility Development Projects. MNR will post an information notice with a comment period on the Registry, instead of a regular proposal notice. Since the aquaculture policies were implemented in August 2004, MNR has classified most of these applications for licences as proposals of low concern under the Class EA and approved them with minimal public review.
MNR discretion in regulating aquaculture
The 2000 draft policies required MNR to conduct a site visit before issuing a licence. This step has been removed from the final policies. Instead the policies suggest, but do not require, facility inspections during the term of the licence, subject to MNR’s discretion.
The policies leave many other matters to MNR’s discretion. For example:
- For each applicant, the ministry sets a threshold of fish that may escape before operators are required to report the escapes.
- MNR considers applications for a licence to collect fish from Ontario waters on a case-by-case basis.
- MNR decides when there is a “very high ecological risk” requiring a Detailed Ecological Risk Analysis.
- Operators are required to report fish diseases, but the policies provide no clear guidance on the steps that MNR must then follow.
Public participation and the EBR process
This Registry proposal was posted on February 4, 2000. All eight policies identified by MNR as environmentally significant were summarized in a single notice, which outlined proposed changes without providing hyperlinks to the draft documents.
The proposal was not updated until the August 2004 decision notice. Some changes in the final version resulted from changes to regulations during the interim years, such as the 2002 approval of a new MNR Class Environmental Assessment. By not posting an update of the 2000 aquaculture policy proposal, MNR failed to alert the public about its plan to use this Class EA to exempt certain licences – for instance, Great Lakes cage aquaculture – from EBR consultation requirements.
ECO Comment
The ECO was pleased to see that MNR reached a decision on the aquaculture policies it proposed in 2000. For years, the aquaculture industry has been asking the Ontario government to provide clearer direction.
However, the failure to release the policy, Aquaculture on Crown Land, that will guide Great Lakes cage aquaculture is disappointing, as these operations represent the majority of fish cultured in Ontario, and present the highest environmental risk. The ECO urges the ministry to formalize this key policy and related protocols that it is developing together with MOE, through a fully consultative process.
The ECO also reminds MNR that for each proposed policy, a separate notice should be posted, including a link to the draft document. However, proposals should not be left on the Registry for years.
The focus of MNR’s aquaculture policies is fish escapement and potential impacts on wild fish. These are valid concerns. However, other environmentally significant risks – to water quality, to aquatic plants and to bottom-dwelling animals – are not given due consideration. There are also no provisions for restoring environments degraded by fish farming. The ECO urges MNR to address the range of environmental risks and impacts, in collaboration with MOE and other interested agencies.
The MNR policies guide MNR staff and address that ministry’s concerns, but they leave it to the aquaculture operator to obtain any necessary approvals from MOE or other agencies. There is still a need for MNR, as lead ministry, to work with other agencies to develop a more integrated approach.
The aquarium trade is largely exempt from the aquaculture regulations and policies. Yet the danger of species introductions, a primary consideration in the aquaculture policies, is also a concern with aquarium species. Risk assessment principles in Ontario’s aquaculture policies could be adapted for the aquarium industry, to mini- mize the risk of non-native ornamental species invading Ontario waters. These aquaculture policies leave many important environmental matters to MNR’s discretion, rather than providing clear, documented guidance. The impacts of such an approach will depend largely on whether MNR dedicates sufficient resources and technical capacity. The policies also rely heavily on industry self-reporting. With no site visit by MNR prior to issuing a licence, with only infrequent inspections, and without provisions for government monitoring of operational processes and environmental impacts, damage to the environment, along with contraventions of the FWCA and other laws, may go undetected. Full transparency and full public consultation could be of great help in ensuring that local ecological issues are appropriately addressed.
By invoking section 32 of the EBR and applying a Class Environmental Assessment, MNR is sidestepping the EBR’s consultation and appeal provisions for cage aquaculture operations in the Great Lakes. The ECO is disappointed that MNR is ignoring the spirit of the EBR and failing to provide full public consultation on most of these aquaculture licences, despite growing public interest and despite the clear intent of the EBR’s O. Reg. 681/94, Classification of Proposals for Instruments. This is especially disappointing, in light of MNR’s commitment in July 2001 that the ministry would ensure these types of approvals were subject to the public consultation requirements of the EBR, a commitment made in response to a June 2001 ECO Special Report urging MNR to finalize its instrument classification regulation by amending O. Reg. 681/94. If MNR chooses to exempt Great Lakes cage aquaculture from this EBR requirement, the ECO urges the ministry to do so in a transparent and accountable manner: through a revision to O. Reg. 681/94, after a full public consultation regarding the revision.
| Recommendation 7:
The ECO recommends that MNR develop transparent and accountable processes related to approvals for aquaculture operations. |
| This is an article from the 2004/05 Annual Report to the Legislature from the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. |
Citing This Article:
Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. 2005. "Aquaculture Policies and Procedures." Planning our Landscape, ECO Annual Report, 2004-05. Toronto, ON : Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. 82-86.
