SeaChoice

Category: Sustainability

  • How much seafood is actually covered by retailers’ sustainable seafood policies?

    How much seafood is actually covered by retailers’ sustainable seafood policies?

    It may be less than you think.

    What if we told you that most Canadian retailers don’t include all of the seafood products sold in their stores in their sustainability commitments? It all comes down to the scope of their commitment.

    Whether or not a certain seafood product falls under the retailer’s sustainability policy depends on three factors: the seafood’s brand type, the store department managing the product, and the “banner” of the store selling it. Using these factors, retailers will decide which products fall within the scope of their sustainability policies, and which ones are not covered. Let us explain.

    Scope factor 1: Type of product brands

    We’ll start by looking at the product brand types.

    There are three types of product brands that retailers sell:

    1. Grocery store brands, or “private label” brands, which are owned by the retailer they are sold by (e.g. Loblaw’s President’s Choice, Sobeys’ Compliments, Costco’s Kirkland Signature);
    2. Seafood company brands, or “national brands”, which are companies that sell products across a range of businesses (e.g. Birds Eye, High Liner, Clover Leaf);
    3. Products with no brand are typically fresh, and sometimes frozen, products sold without any branding on the packaging (except perhaps for the logo of the store on the price label). Examples of “no brand” or “unbranded” products would be seafood you buy from your retailer’s fresh counter, such as fillets to order wrapped by a sales associate, or plastic-wrapped fillets on a Styrofoam or plastic tray.

    Retailers have different levels of control over products of different brand types. They have a lot more control and decision-making power when it comes to their grocery store brands and the unbranded products because they work directly with suppliers or distributors to purchase these products. For important or high risk store-branded products, retailer’s involvement in the supply chain may start at the landing dock or fish farm.

    Seafood companies, on the other hand, manage their brand’s supply chains and their agreements with suppliers. Although retailers have less direct control over where company-branded products come from or how they were produced, as major buyers of these products they have a lot of leverage to influence seafood companies’ practices. They just aren’t using it yet. One of the first steps in that direction is for retailers to include seafood company branded products in their seafood commitments, ensuring a level playing field across all of their products. Save-On-Foods’ and Walmart’s sustainable seafood commitments do not apply to the seafood company branded products, and Costco’s and Sobeys’ commitments do not apply to seafood company branded products or products with no brand.

    Scope factor 2: Store department

    A summary of which retailer’s commitments or policies apply to which seafood segment.

    The department where you find seafood also matters. There are specific terms for the different categories of seafood that retailers sell, depending on how they are presented to the consumer and by which department. Fresh or frozen seafood is usually managed by a retailer’s meat (or sometimes “meat and seafood”) department. Canned, jarred, or pouched seafood that is stored at ambient room temperature is often referred to as “shelf stable”. These products don’t need to be refrigerated or frozen, and they are often managed by a retailer’s “grocery” department.

    It’s important to know the difference between these types of products because retailers often use this language when describing their commitment. Sometimes only the “meat and seafood” department manages and follows the retailer’s commitments to sustainable seafood, while the “grocery” department of the same retailer does not. In these instances, the “meat and seafood” department will source fresh and frozen products (sometimes unbranded and private label only) in line with their commitments, but shelf-stable products, managed by “grocery”, may not be acquired in the same way. This is the case with Buy-Low Foods, Costco, Save-On-Foods and Sobeys.

    Scope factor 3: Store brands (“banners”)

    The store’s “banner” is one more dimension of the scope of a retailer’s commitment that determines which products are sourced according to the retailer’s seafood policy. Retailers frequently own multiple supermarket brands, called banners. For example, the retailer Loblaw owns the banners Atlantic Superstore, Extra Foods, Loblaws, Provigo, Real Canadian Superstore and Zehrs (among others). This can get very confusing, as sometimes multiple retailers have the rights to operate under the same banner, like with IGA. Only three IGAs in B.C. are owned by Sobeys – the rest of B.C.’s IGAs are owned by Georgia Main Food Group. To add further confusion, IGA stores in Quebec are managed by Sobeys Quebec, which operates independently from the national Sobeys. Alternatively, some retailers only operate banners under their name, such as Costco and Walmart. The following retailers do not require all of the banners they operate to adhere to their sustainable seafood policy: Buy-Low Foods (Budget Foods, Choices Market, Meinhardt Fine Foods, Quality Foods and Shop n’Save do not), Loblaw (Arz, Real Canadian Wholesale Club and T&T Supermarket do not), METRO (Marché Adonis does not) and Save-On-Foods (Bulkley Valley Wholesale, PriceSmart Foods and Urban Fare do not).

    So, how can shoppers tell what is covered by their retailer? 

    Some retailers have information about the scope and limits of their sustainable seafood policy stated publicly and transparently – others are less clear. SeaChoice thinks that consumers should know whether the seafood they’re buying was sourced in accordance with a retailer’s commitment or not. We’ve developed an infographic that sums this up (see above) and scope information is included at the bottom of each retailers’ Seafood Progress profile overview page.

    If you want your retailer to increase the scope of its seafood policy or commitment, please let them know by talking to an associate in-store, contacting their customer services department or using the Tweet buttons that are on each retailer’s profile page.

  • Use it or lose it: seafood eco-certifications and stakeholder engagement

    Use it or lose it: seafood eco-certifications and stakeholder engagement

    NGO stakeholders are increasingly opting out of eco-certifications because their input disappears into the schemes’ “black box” of decision-making.

    Many seafood eco-certifications gain credibility due to the engagement opportunities they provide for stakeholders. Civil society organizations, alongside industry stakeholders, often play central roles in standard development and governance of eco-certifications. More often than not it is environmental and social justice non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that provide invaluable expertise and local knowledge by way of input to a fishery or farm certification. For example, that “certified sustainable” tuna in your pantry likely had an NGO help establish the sustainability criteria it met or, perhaps, register objections to its certification.

    In fact, stakeholder consultation is a fundamental component of any legitimate eco-label according to the frameworks that a number of seafood eco-certifications adhere to, including the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (UN FAO) eco-labelling guidelines and the International Social and Environmental Accreditation and Labelling (ISEAL) codes of practice.

    Yet, despite these guidelines and codes, there is growing discontent by many NGO stakeholders who report fatigue, frustration and disillusionment with seafood eco-certifications. A number of NGO stakeholders have withdrawn or decreased their engagement with certifications citing little benefit to continuing their efforts. Some groups, including SeaChoice, have even initiated public campaigns in response, at least in part, to certain certification schemes’ inability to effectively address stakeholder concerns. The international Make Stewardship Count campaign is a good example.

    In light of these challenges, SeaChoice conducted an NGO stakeholder workshop during the 2019 Seafood Summit in Bangkok, Thailand, as well as an online survey, to explore stakeholder sentiment about participating in eco-certification processes, including any challenges and barriers, as well as what improvements scheme holders could make to help ensure meaningful stakeholder engagement.

    Read the full report here.

    Report Highlights

    Participants reported that eco-certification stakeholder processes were often not user-friendly,  requiring the need to “speak their language” (i.e., either referring to technical jargon or to documentation that is literally not available in their language) and that local and cultural contexts can be missed by auditors and certification processes.

    We heard that where stakeholders were able to engage in the process, stakeholders commonly experienced frustrations with the lack of accountability and transparency on how decisions are made. That is, stakeholder comments often appear to go into a “black box” of decision-making, and when the outcome is announced there is no rationale or explanation as to how input was considered, or not. Where responses were provided, stakeholders typically felt that they were not meaningful as they rarely adequately addressed stakeholder concerns.

    We also heard stakeholders express a general sentiment that stakeholder disillusionment is not taken seriously enough. In many cases, negative stakeholder feedback was met with hostile responses  by eco-certification schemes rather than serious engagement. This further eroded stakeholder trust and interest in program participation.

    Evidence suggests that stakeholder engagement can lead to higher quality decision-making and outputs. However, this is strongly reliant on the quality of the processes that lead to decision-making and other outputs. Done poorly, such processes can cause stakeholders to become cynical, harbour distrust and withdraw from the process. Such cynicism can, in turn, threaten the legitimacy of the decision-making. Based on the stakeholder perspectives represented in our report, we believe there is a cause for concern that seafood certification standard holders should make more efforts to incorporate stakeholders in decision-making, and be more transparent about their processes, in order to maintain legitimacy.

    Moreover, there is widespread agreement in the available literature that stakeholder participation hinges on the need for a genuine opportunity to be heard and to influence the decision. Therefore, for engagement to be genuine, certification standard holders should be open to stakeholder influence and ensure outcomes are not predetermined.

    Our report has been shared with the major seafood eco-certifications many of which are currently in the midst of important consultation processes (e.g. from MSC and ASC). We urge these schemes to strongly consider implementing the report recommendations as though their credibility and legitimacy depends on it. Because as stakeholder sentiment demonstrates – it does.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

  • What is a bocaccio and what can it teach us about patience and resilience?

    What is a bocaccio and what can it teach us about patience and resilience?

    By Scott Wallace, Senior Research Scientist at the David Suzuki Foundation and SeaChoice Steering Committee member

    After years of careful management and industry efforts, bocaccio rockfish are rebounding

    Nobody likes a big mouth. Well, that’s not completely true. Canada’s Pacific groundfish industry is elated about a long hoped-for recovery of bocaccio rockfish. Bocaccio derive their name from the Italian term ‘bocacho’ meaning big-mouthed. While very few people have heard of this fish species, it has been the most talked about species in British Columbia’s groundfish fishery for the last 18 years.

    Rockfish fisheries are difficult to manage. There are 39 species of rockfish in our waters and they all have an inherent vulnerability to over-harvesting and a highly variable survival rate. The amazing story of bocaccio’s sudden recovery carries lessons that can be applied to most fisheries. It underlines the importance of having patience, managing expectations and building enough resilience to be able to follow nature’s lead.

    Since the 1950s, bocaccio populations from southern California to Alaska experienced a sustained decline throughout their range (Figure 1). In Canada’s Pacific waters, it is estimated that the population has declined to 3.5% of its unfished level. The situation was so severe that in 2002 the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) recognized the species as threatened. Despite drastically lower catches and a prohibition on selling them, the bocaccio population continued to fall. In 2013, COSEWIC reassessed it as endangered – a more severe designation.

    In Canada, the main rebuilding strategy has been to ratchet down the level of allowable bycatch and hope for a period of high recruitment (i.e., larval survival). Lowering the catch limit sounds easy, but the challenge with this species is that they are difficult to avoid while targeting other more abundant species of fish. Even if they are returned to the water right away, rockfish do not survive being caught with commercial fishing gear. The change in pressure affects them too much on their way to the surface.  For 15 years, B.C.’s fishing fleets adapted their gear and methods to be able to stay within increasingly lower catch limits. That is, until 2019, when suddenly vessels were encountering bocaccio everywhere and could no longer avoid them. The hoped for high recruitment finally occurred.

    Independent scientific surveys corroborated the information from fishers and indicated a population recovery. The recently published Science Advisory Report suggests that in 2016, larval survival was 44 times better than average (Figure 1). Three years later, the juveniles of this cohort became large enough to be captured by trawl nets. It’s not surprising that fishers started to exceed the restrictive catch quota.

    For 2020, the quota for bocaccio has been cautiously increased, permitting industry a small level of non-directed catch while the population continues to grow (Figure 1). By 2022, a large portion of the 2016 cohort will become reproductively mature and will further contribute to rebuilding the population. Although marine ecosystems are highly unpredictable, at this point it appears that bocaccio is on a trajectory for recovery.

    This explosive recovery was a result of rebuilding efforts, ocean environmental conditions and patience. And in addition to this being a much-needed good news story in these challenging times, the story of bocaccio illustrates an important lesson: it shows that the year-to-year stability which businesses and regulators prefer can be incompatible with a species’ life history strategy.

    This means that for rockfish – and many other marine species – the only sustainable approach is to take a very small amount of what nature provides and accept that the “surplus” that we can safely harvest will change. We must be sure to leave enough resilience in the population until the next time when the ingredients of the ecosystem soup are favourable. For bocaccio, there was no predictable recovery trajectory, but all species have the capacity for resilience if we give them a chance. While it certainly was challenging, the industry had to accept lower levels of harvest and be patient while they waited for nature to provide the appropriate conditions for recovery.

    Similar to most fished marine species, bocaccio are a product of an exceedingly complex marine ecosystem. Ensuring that all species are managed with conservative catch limits, accurate reporting, and an abundance of precaution are the most important elements of maintaining wild harvests into the future.

    Figure 1: Estimates of spawning biomass (tonnes) from model published in Science Advisory Report. The median biomass trajectory appears as a solid curve surrounded by a 90% credibility envelope (quantiles: 0.05, 0.95) in light blue and delimited by dashed lines for years t=1935-2020; projected biomass appears in light red for years t=2021-2080. Also delimited is the 50% credibility interval (quantiles: 0.25-0.75) delimited by dotted lines. The horizontal dashed lines show the median Limit Reference Point (red: 0.4BMSY) and Upper Stock Reference point (green: 0.8BMSY). Catch and assumed catch policy (200 tonnes/year) are represented as bars along the bottom axis.

     

  • Impacts of the global pandemic on Canadian seafood sectors are starting to surface

    Impacts of the global pandemic on Canadian seafood sectors are starting to surface

    We must keep the sustainable seafood industry AND the environment healthy through the COVID-19 era.

    The past few weeks have been incredibly challenging for individuals and companies across the world as the COVID-19 pandemic disrupts our daily routines and business operations. Some segments of the Canadian seafood sector have taken a hard hit. With uncertain support packages, regulatory challenges and new buying patterns, it is imperative that we figure out how to help businesses, fishing communities and the environment survive now and prosper long-term.

    Vendors of fresh products such as oyster, snow crab or lobster and producers who supply restaurants and food service are clearly struggling. Their buyers are on hiatus or have significantly scaled back – leaving many producers, distributors and wholesalers with no one to sell to. Segments geared towards selling to retailers, like the farmed salmon supply chain, seem to be faring better (at least in the short term) due to the increased spending in grocery stores across Canada and the US as people are cooking much more at home and the decreased availability of imported products due to the reduction in air travel.

    The Canadian government has declared seafood production an essential service during the COVID-19 pandemic but the details of how, where, and to whom the government allocates its support will determine whether sustainable fisheries and local food access and security are effectively supported. The Government recently (April 25) announced specific measures aimed at helping the seafood processing industry continue to operate and protect the health of their workers. There are also supports available for fishermen, but there is significant confusion about how the Government will apply them, especially for inshore, independent harvesters. This sector is facing a difficult choice; many operators are considering not fishing this season because they are concerned about the health of their crew and the lack of market for their fish – but then they may not qualify for government support benefits since they have “chosen” not to perform their essential service (fishing). Alternatively, they can fish and receive below-cost prices for their catch, because their buyers have limited reselling options, potentially driving them further into debt. The Fisheries Minister, Bernadette Jordon, has already indicated she will continue to work on more measures aimed at harvesters (update: on May 14th, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced a nearly $470 million package to support fish harvesters).

    In addition to making sure that businesses stay afloat until the pandemic subsides, we need to make sure that the environment is also protected. After all, a healthy marine environment also provides essential services to humanity in the form of climate regulation, sustenance, recreation, medicine and inspiration. But there have been mixed reactions from seafood industry to the proposed changes.

    The Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance sent a letter to the Fisheries Minister with a suite of asks, including “regulatory flexibility”, and lists as examples the requirement to conduct sea lice counts on farms or compliance with the Aquaculture Activities Regulations. These requirements are designed to minimize and mitigate the impact of salmon farms on the marine environment and wildlife – not to mention the welfare of the farmed fish. Now would be a particularly bad time to release farms from their responsibility to monitor sea lice levels because wild juvenile Pacific salmon are currently migrating past B.C. salmon farms where they are vulnerable to potentially unchecked sea lice loads, viruses and other effluent that could be lethal. In Nova Scotia, the herring, gaspereau (also known as alewife), eel and mackerel runs will also be passing salmon farms and facing similar concerns.

    While some sectors demand fewer environmental requirements, other sectors are concerned about a relaxation of requirements. When DFO announced that fisheries observers wouldn’t be allowed on commercial fishing boats for 45 days due to challenges with physical distancing onboard vessels – the B.C. groundfish trawl fleet expressed alarm for what that could mean for the protection of the stocks they fish. It’s been reported that the Groundfish Trawl Advisory Committee (GTAC) wrote to DFO recommending, among other things, that an electronic monitoring pilot project be expanded to all vessels before they are allowed to fish and that the plan to start retaining 100% of rockfish catches on May 15th be enacted immediately. The industry association and government acted quickly and on April 14th DFO and GTAC announced the implementation of an emergency electronic monitoring project to ensure coverage throughout the duration of the suspension of human observers due to COVID-19. This proactive response is encouraging. While environmental groups welcomed the move to protect observer health and understand the necessity of suspending their work on boats at the moment, they also note it is imperative for DFO to step up monitoring of fishing vessels in fleets that haven’t adopted electronic monitoring and ensure data collection requirements are met by other means during this time.

    In addition to environmental and business concerns, the pandemic is bringing to light the vulnerability of our current seafood market system as a whole. Canada exports over two-thirds of the seafood it produces and the majority of seafood that Canadians eat has been imported. This includes products that were caught or farmed in Canada, exported to another country for processing (usually somewhere far away, like China) and then re-imported. These trends are driven by market dynamics; overseas markets are willing to pay more than Canadians for our seafood and many Canadians want to eat seafood that we don’t produce domestically (like tropical farmed shrimp and prawns). We import seafood products that were harvested in Canada and shipped halfway around the world to be processed in countries with lower wages. The disruptions caused by COVID-19 are showing the weaknesses in these complicated systems, both from a business angle and a domestic food security perspective.

    And speaking of domestic food security, SeaChoice wants to thank everyone in the seafood supply chain for doing what they can to keep Canadians supplied with sustainable seafood – from inshore fishers going out in day boats to land the catch of the day, workers continuing their shifts in processing plants, and businesses that are getting creative with how they get sustainable seafood to people (for example, Organic Ocean in BC’s lower mainland and Afishionado Fishmongers in Halifax, NS). We salute you.

    SeaChoice will continue to monitor the impacts of the pandemic on the Canadian seafood supply chain as we move from the initial stage to longer-term solutions. We hope everyone out there is staying safe and physically distancing as much as possible so that we can all get back to life as usual – or perhaps even slightly improved – before too long.

  • Turning commitments into action – a personal reflection at a time of change

    Turning commitments into action – a personal reflection at a time of change

    Sustainability is more than a promise, it requires showing up and doing the hard work.

    I can’t believe we are in the final weeks of 2019. As the world gets ready to start a new decade (where did 2020 come from anyway?), I am getting ready to start a new chapter in my professional life. I have made the very difficult decision to step down as SeaChoice National Manager effective January 1. Difficult because it has been an absolute pleasure to manage the SeaChoice team for the last three years. The end of the year, the decade, and this chapter in my life have all been cause for reflection. And when I think about what has defined SeaChoice’s work – and so mine in turn – during our time together, it comes down to holding people accountable to their commitments. This has been true for SeaChoice, but also for the environmental movement writ large.

    Commitments to sustainable practices are being made at every turn. Globally we have seen 187 governments committing to the Paris Agreement, which in turn commits them to limiting the global average temperature rise to well below 2°C. The 193 United Nations member states have adopted the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that together provide “a blueprint for peace and prosperity for people and the planet, now and into the future”. And 196 Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity have adopted a Strategic Plan for Biodiversity that includes 20 time-bound, measurable Aichi Biodiversity Targets to be met by the year 2020 (yup, next year!). If all those promises were turned into reality, what a wonderful world it would be! Unfortunately promises do not necessarily equate to action, which is why the world needs groups like SeaChoice.

    If all those promises were turned into reality, what a wonderful world it would be! Unfortunately promises do not necessarily equate to action, which is why the world needs groups like SeaChoice.

    Holding the seafood supply chain accountable to their sustainability commitments has been a key SeaChoice focus since we transitioned (in 2016) from a consumer facing program to become Canada’s sustainable seafood watchdog. Whether it be holding retailers accountable to their commitments to procure sustainable seafood through Seafood Progress, holding eco-certifications accountable to the sustainability promises they make through their standards, and/or holding the government accountable to its promise to ensure truthful and not misleading labelling of Canada’s seafood. The challenge in these examples is not whether industry, certifiers or government are talking the talk – but whether they follow through to walk the walk. Indeed, supply chain and regulator commitments to sustainability have become increasingly status quo. The challenge lies in making sure they follow through, a challenge SeaChoice has risen to meet very well.

    SeaChoice will continue to meet this challenge into the next decade. For just two examples, we are very pleased to see our campaigns reflected in the Prime Minister’s mandate letter to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, that she “work with the province of British Columbia and Indigenous communities to create a responsible plan to transition from open net-pen salmon farming in coastal British Columbia waters by 2025” and “support the Minister of Health who is the Minister responsible for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency in developing a boat-to-plate traceability program…”. You can count on the SeaChoice team to make sure these paper promises lead to real action on behalf of Canada’s wild salmon in the case of the farms, and transparency in Canada’s seafood supply chain in the case of traceability.

    Managing a team whose mandate is to hold people accountable to their commitments has prepared me well for my next role. I am returning to The University of British Columbia in order to pursue my efforts to advance seahorse conservation. Seahorses are extraordinary fishes – they are the only animal we know of where the male gets pregnant, for just one example. And they are beautiful. But they are also overfished by the world’s most damaging fishing gears and traded internationally in huge numbers for use as traditional medicines. Because of this they are listed on Appendix II of The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). The listing means that all CITES Parties (member countries, now 182 plus the EU) are obliged to ensure that their seahorse exports are sustainable, legal and monitored. But for the listing to be effective in addressing the threats seahorses face, it needs to be more than a paper promise – it needs to be implemented. This summer I facilitated the Parties to adopt an action plan to move seahorse trade toward sustainability. This created a time-sensitive opportunity to hold CITES Parties accountable to the promises they have made for seahorses.

    At the end of the day, having a gym membership doesn’t automatically make you fit. You need to show up and do the hard work.

    At the end of the day, having a gym membership doesn’t automatically make you fit. You need to show up and do the hard work. It is promising to see more and more actors across the seafood supply chain taking out “sustainability memberships”. It’s a very important first step. But without showing up the membership will mean nothing at all. That’s why SeaChoice will continue to do the hard work of holding all actors accountable to their commitments. I’m proud of the progress my team has made so far, and can’t wait to see what they do next.

    That’s me signing off. So long SeaChoice, and thanks for all the fishes!

  • What ASC’s new chemical rules mean for Canadian farmed salmon

    What ASC’s new chemical rules mean for Canadian farmed salmon

    ASC has changed its rules around treating sea lice – how “responsible” are the new rules?

    The open nature of net-pen salmon farms means they are inherently susceptible to sea lice infections. Sea lice occur naturally in the wild ocean environment, but the “open” nature of net-pens allow the lice to infest farmed fish and multiply to unnatural levels. The lice can then infect any vulnerable juvenile wild salmon swimming by. Even low sea lice abundance on juvenile salmon can cause significant harm or death. Sea lice infestations are also a significant economic cost to the industry.

    Parasiticides (i.e. chemicals) are regularly used by farms to combat sea lice infections. The chemicals have their own set of environmental impacts, as untreated discharge and fish excrement gets released directly into the ocean. Chemical resistance has become an increasing concern – resistance can leave farmers unable to control outbreaks. This was seen at Clayoquot Sound in 2018 where farms, including Aquaculture Stewardship Council certified farms, experienced sea lice outbreaks as high as 34 adult lice per fish. Meanwhile, wild salmon runs are left with the consequences.

    It is therefore no surprise that parasiticide use is one of the sustainability concerns addressed by the ASC salmon standard. Unfortunately, the eco-label recently revised the number of chemical treatments allowed under its standard – and not for the better. The changes that go into effect at the end of this month dramatically increase the number of chemical treatments allowed in some salmon farming regions.

    Here’s what the changes mean for ASC ‘responsibly farmed’ Canadian salmon.

    First, farms on both coasts will be allowed to treat sea lice more often – with each treatment releasing parasiticides into the ocean environment and increasing the chance of chemical resistance. Many more treatments will be allowed on the east coast than in the west. Previously all ASC certified farms, regardless of their location, needed to meet a threshold of 2-3 sea lice treatments. Now, a B.C. salmon farm will be allowed 3-4 treatments, while an Atlantic Canada farm will be allowed as many as nine. Atlantic Canada farms will have up to eight years to work towards the 3-4 treatment threshold. And actually, an ASC certified B.C. farm might receive more than four treatments; an ASC interpretation means up to a year of production time can be excluded from the audit.1 During this time, environmental impacts such as sea lice treatments are simply ignored.

    Second, east coast farms benefit from another change – the removal of precautionary lobster protections. Until now, farms were penalized for chemical treatments during the sensitive lobster moulting period because the chemicals can be incredibly toxic to lobsters and other crustaceans. But the amendment no longer penalizes farms for the use of chemicals that could have significant impacts on lobster populations and/or fisheries. Deltamethrin has been found to be “extremely toxic” to crustaceans and may be lethal to lobsters up to 10 km away and several hours after release. Cypermethrin has also been found to be “very toxic” to crustaceans. Another study found azamethiphos exposure could cause sub-lethal effects, including delayed spawning in female lobster and other physiological impacts.

    Third, ASC has approved problematic variances (departures from standard criteria) that undermine the amendment’s Integrated Pest Management (IPM) requirements. The IPM requires certified farms to try and control sea lice using coordinated management practices (for example fallowing between cycles and chemical rotation), thereby reducing the risk of drug resistance. One requirement is that farms maintain lice loads of less than 0.1 mature female lice per fish. B.C. farms are exempt from this requirement, however, which has resulted in certified farms with lice counts of over 20 mature lice per fish. Another IPM requirement is area-based management. ASC’s own internal report found B.C. is the only salmon farming region without an ABM regulatory requirement. Like with the sea lice threshold, B.C. farms are exempt from the ABM requirement. Both the sea lice and ABM variances instead defer to Fishery and Oceans’ inadequate regulations.

    It’s not all bad news – there are some positive changes in the amendment. The chemical hydrogen peroxide now counts toward the treatment limit count – it didn’t before even though studies have demonstrated that hydrogen peroxide may negatively impact non-target species, including lobster and the surrounding benthic fauna and flora. Farms are also now required to monitor benthic sediment for parasiticide residues – allowing for potential short-term and long-term effects of chemical treatments to be identified and better understood. Finally, farms are now required to publicly report chemical treatment types, amounts and frequency. This is an important change given that public disclosure is not the industry’s forte.

    Certifications offer the potential to improve industry practices, but only when they go beyond industry norms and government regulations.

    Certifications offer the potential to improve industry practices, but only when they go beyond industry norms and government regulations. While the ASC parasiticide amendments are still more rigorous than required by most other aquaculture certifications, these amendments no longer reflect ‘best practices’ in salmon farming. SeaChoice continues to urge the ASC to remedy any weakening of the standard, particularly the problematic variances and the variance process itself.

    While ASC’s amendment might not meet the goal of ‘responsible’ aquaculture, the Prime Minister’s recently announced mandate to the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard is a promising step in the right direction. The Minster has been mandated to “work with the province of British Columbia and Indigenous communities to create a responsible plan to transition from open net-pen salmon farming in coastal British Columbia waters by 2025 and begin work to introduce Canada’s first-ever Aquaculture Act.” The transition of B.C. open net-pen salmon farms to closed containment by 2025 is one sure way to keep farm chemicals out of the ocean, and farmed derived sea-lice away from our wild fish (though we would like to see the transition extended to both coasts). Now that would be truly ‘responsible’ farmed salmon.

  • Fishing for change – are the world’s most influential seafood companies doing enough?

    Fishing for change – are the world’s most influential seafood companies doing enough?

    New assessment shows companies need to move from talk to action, and fast.

    After a long process of research, consultation, and iterative development, the World Benchmarking Alliance recently released the results of the Seafood Stewardship Index (SSI), which ranks the world’s 30 largest and most influential seafood companies against seafood-relevant commitments in the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Specifically, the SSI assessed what contribution these companies were making towards the achievement of SDG 1 (no poverty), SDG 2 (zero hunger), SDG 5 (gender equality), SDG 8 (decent work and economic growth), SDG 12 (responsible consumption and production), SDG 14 (life below water) and SDG 15 (life on land).

    The SSI is designed to show us what companies have committed to doing to advance sustainable seafood, how transparent they are about their activities and how well they are meeting their targets. The supporting framework consists of 60 indicators across five measurement areas: governance and management of stewardship practices, stewardship of the supply chain, ecosystems, human rights and working conditions and local communities. Each indicator measures commitment, transparency or performance within these five areas.

    The approach taken with the SSI is similar to the methodology SeaChoice followed for Seafood Progress – companies’ profiles were first completed using publicly available information, and then companies were invited to submit further information to address any gaps. Interestingly, the exact same proportion of companies decided to engage in both initiatives from the get-go – two-thirds submitted additional information, while one-third chose not to.

    Of the 30 companies profiled in the SSI, there are three Canadian companies or companies with direct (as in, not run by subsidiary companies) and significant activities in Canada:

    • Cooke, ranked 25th out of 30, has salmon farming at its core but is also involved in fishing and aquaculture feed production. The SSI summarizes that “compared to its peers [Cooke] underperforms, primarily due to the general lack of information surrounding its activities. Cooke discloses few details about its operations and policies with respect to most measurement areas.”
    • High Liner Foods, ranked 21st, processes and sells value-added frozen seafood products (such as battered or breaded fish fillets or bites) to retailers, restaurants, institutions and foodservice providers. High Liner Foods scored well on the design of its environmental and social commitments, but less well on performance indicators due to the lack of information available for how it is addressing potential adverse human rights impacts.
    • Mowi (formerly known as Marine Harvest), ranked 2nd, is the world’s largest producer of farmed salmon, both in terms of volume and in terms of revenue. The company’s headquarters is in Norway, but it operates large-scale open-net pen salmon farms on Canada’s Atlantic and Pacific coasts. Mowi ranked 2nd in the benchmark, scoring well on indicators related to transparency and its commitment, but distinctly less well on indicators related to its performance against those commitments. Mowi’s profile summary ends with “although Mowi’s overall performance is good, there remain sustainability issues the company faces, such as the high quantities of fish escapes from its farms and its environmental footprint.”

    The companies profiled are so large that it must have been difficult for SSI researchers to decide on their scores, particularly when the performance of multinational companies vary across geographies or subsidiaries. For example, Mitsubishi Corporation (ranked 8th) owns over 1,400 subsidiary companies in 90 countries. One of their subsidiaries, Cermaq, runs large-scale open-net pen salmon farms on B.C.’s coast. Mitsubishi’s SSI profile summary states that “to support local communities, Mitsubishi recognises the rights of indigenous peoples. Its subsidiary Cermaq is also active in local community engagement and development programs. Moreover, Cermaq has a strong commitment to area-based management for fish farming to limit its impacts on the ecosystem.” SeaChoice can’t speak to Cermaq’s operations in other jurisdictions, but there is currently no area-based management salmon farming in Canada, and the rights of indigenous people in some areas where Cermaq operates in BC have only just started to be considered after years of formal opposition and protest.

    As with all commitment tracking and reporting platforms, the results will only be as good as the information that was fed into the analysis. To help increase the accountability of information submitted by companies, the scoring guidelines for the analysis are designed to encourage companies to make information publicly available (although the SSI methodology does allow for confidential information to be provided under non-disclosure agreements).

    In any case, the SSI very clearly shows that businesses need to be taking much more action to contribute to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals. And while retailers weren’t included in the scope of the SSI, as major purchasers of seafood produced around the globe, they also have a role to play in demanding and supporting truly sustainable seafood.

  • A promise to remove open-net pens is a promise for healthy oceans

    A promise to remove open-net pens is a promise for healthy oceans

    It’s time for responsible salmon farming

    SeaChoice is calling on the Government of Canada to stand by the election pledges made by four of our national parties (see pledges below), to protect wild salmon from the adverse effects of open-net pen salmon farming. For many years we have been engaged in researching the sustainability challenges posed by open-net pen aquaculture, particularly for wild salmon, and advocating for known solutions. We are encouraged by the parties’ shared commitment to this important challenge and to ocean health in Canada.

    Although the Liberal promise — to transition open-net pen fish farms to closed containment by 2025 — is specific to British Columbia, salmon farms on the east coast of Canada are just as problematic as those in B.C. We expect the government to uphold their commitment to wild salmon and healthy aquatic ecosystems on both coasts. Open-net pen fish farming needs to be transitioned out of all waters, particularly given the government’s commitment to protecting and rebuilding wild salmon stocks on both the east and west coasts of Canada. The government mandate to protect wild fish and habitats is the same across the country.

    Significant concerns remain in B.C. and Atlantic Canada regarding sea lice and pathogens and their impacts on wild fish, chemical/drug resistance, and the inability of the industry and Fisheries and Oceans Canada to successfully prevent and manage outbreaks of parasites and pathogens. It is due to these concerns that SeaChoice member groups advocate for the removal of open-net pen farms from wild salmon migration routes. In the interim, we continue to push government, industry and the markets – through collaboration and public accountability – to drive the improvements needed to alleviate the risk to wild salmon. This work, including those of many others, has helped to forward sea lice, pathogen and disease science and initiate investments in land-based Recirculating Aquaculture Systems (RAS) technology in B.C. and further afield.

    The concerns with Canada’s salmon farms were raised by both provincial and federal Ministers prior to the election, with both levels of government questioning the sustainability, environmental and/or social, of open-net pen salmon farming in B.C. The B.C. government is collaborating on a four-year program to transition farms out of the Broughton Archipelago. The federal Fisheries Minister Jonathan Wilkinson expressed, prior to the election promise, that the federal government is keen to help transition B.C. salmon farms to designs and technologies that address environmental concerns. In addition, government oversight bodies, inquiries and committees, inter alia have all called out inadequacies in regulation of the aquaculture industry in Canada (see below for details).

    Even Canadian open-net pen salmon farms eco-certified by the Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC) are problematic, because the ASC Salmon Standard criteria are not being applied as written. SeaChoice’s What’s Behind the Label report found that the ASC variance process is overriding the multi-stakeholder agreements that created the standard criteria and that the process lacks any scientific, technical or stakeholder input. Variances represent approved departures or exemptions from the Standard criteria and are the only reason Canadian farms are certified. These variances also mean that certified farms are not a Seafood Watch (SFW) program “Good Alternative” as was communicated in 2017. The SFW review failed to account for the fact that Canadian farms certified by ASC don’t actually meet the criteria reviewed by Seafood Watch (more here).

    SeaChoice and its member groups are supportive of responsible aquaculture. There are many forms of Canadian aquaculture that should be celebrated. When done right, farmed seafood can help feed our growing population by supplementing wild catches and adding to the overall seafood supply (important to note – farmed fish does not replace wild captured fish). However, it shouldn’t come at the expense of our wild salmon and ecosystems.

    The implementation of the Liberal’s promise is necessary to protect Canada’s wild salmon stocks, ensure healthy oceans and to reform the industry to be truly responsible. One worthy of celebrating.

    MORE INFORMATION

    Party promises:

    Liberal promise — In British Columbia, we will work with the province to develop a responsible plan to transition from open net pen salmon farming in coastal waters to closed containment systems by 2025.

    Conservative promise — Support the advancement of technology and practices that reduce contact between wild and farmed salmon.

    NDP promise — In order to protect wild salmon on the Pacific coast, we will fully implement the recommendations of the Cohen Commission and work with the province of British Columbia and First Nations to support the transition to land-based, closed-containment systems.

    Green Party promise — By 2025, move all open-net pen finfish aquaculture facilities into closed containment systems on land. As with land farmers transitioning from conventional production, provide financial and extension support to fish pen workers to make this transition.

    Example government oversight bodies, inquiries and committees that have called out inadequacies in regulation of the aquaculture industry in Canada: 

    1. Commission of the Environment & Sustainable Development (Auditor General) Salmon Farming report:

    “We concluded that Fisheries and Oceans Canada did not adequately manage the risks associated with salmon aquaculture consistent with its mandate to protect wild fish. Although the Department had some measures to control the spread of infectious diseases and parasites to wild fish in British Columbia, it had not made sufficient progress in completing the risk assessments for key diseases that were required to understand the effects of salmon aquaculture on wild fish. It also had not defined how it would manage aquaculture in a precautionary manner in the face of scientific uncertainty. Moreover, the Department did not adequately enforce compliance with aquaculture regulations to protect wild fish.

    The Canadian Food Inspection Agency had measures to prevent the introduction and spread of infectious diseases with respect to aquaculture. However, the Department and the Agency had not clarified roles and responsibilities for managing emerging diseases. This lack of clarification created a risk that potential emerging diseases affecting wild salmon would not be adequately addressed.”

    2. Report of the Independent Expert Panel on Aquaculture Science (Office of the Chief Science Advisor):

    This report makes the recommendation that DFO’s Aquaculture science needs an external, non-government Science Advisor and Review Panel.  It repeats throughout the 28-page report that DFO science on aquaculture must be more transparent, consider localized impact and be inclusive of indigenous knowledge.

    3. B.C. Minister of Agriculture’s Advisory Council on Finfish Aquaculture recommendations included:

    “Strengthen the precautionary approach to regulation salmon farming in B.C. to reduce the potential risk of serious harm to wild salmon”; and

    “Acknowledge and incorporate First Nations’ rights, title and stewardship responsibilities in all aspects of fish farm governance, including tenuring, licensing, management and monitoring in a manner consistent with the United Nations Declaration of  Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP)”

    4. Cohen Commission of Inquiry into the Decline of Sockeye Salmon in the Fraser River:

    Found DFO has a conflicted mandate – to protect wild fish and to promote the salmon farming industry. Recommendation 3 is still not fulfilled with no plans to do so: “The Government of Canada should remove from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans’ mandate the promotion of salmon farming as an industry and farmed salmon as a product.”

    Furthermore, the Wild Salmon Policy is yet to be fully implemented (Recommendations 5 -7). DFO’s failure to implement the WSP was demonstrated by the recent voluntary suspension from MSC by the wild B.C. salmon fisheries due to DFO lack of resources to complete necessary functions.

     

  • Widow rockfish receives long awaited stock assessment

    Widow rockfish receives long awaited stock assessment

    DFO’s assessment suggests stock sustainably fished, but numbers well below unfished levels.

    Two months ago, DFO quietly published a long overdue stock assessment of widow rockfish. Despite having been an important component of the groundfish trawl fishery since at least the mid 1960s and considered BC’s fourth largest rockfish fishery, widow rockfish has never received a proper stock assessment. Lack of an assessment was the main reason why widow rockfish was classified as “red” or “Avoid” under Seafood Watch recommendations and has been one of SeaChoice’s priority species.

    When widow rockfish is re-evaluated by Seafood Watch in the coming years it will likely improve in rank to a “yellow” (Good Alternative) or “green” (Best Choice), thus becoming a “buy” option. The DFO stock assessment indicated that there was a high likelihood that the population was above DFO’s reference point for being in the healthy zone (see report figure below). Widow rockfish is primarily captured through mid-water trawl gear, which incurs no habitat damage and typically less bycatch than a bottom trawl. These characteristics further contribute to its positive sustainability scores.

    Widow rockfish
    Photo: Status of Widow rockfish relative to DFO reference points, from CSAS Science Advisory Report 2019/044.

    All of BC’s large volume rockfish species including Pacific ocean perch, yellowtail, silvergrey, canary, redstripe and yellowmouth are now all being fished at DFO defined sustainable levels with assessments (although some outdated) to back this up. There are still several smaller volume rockfish species without assessments including rougheye, shortraker and darkblotched rockfish.

    This is generally positive news but it does require some additional consideration. The concept of “sustainable”, when it comes to a wild fishery interacting with an ecosystem, is difficult to pin down. A deeper dive into the uncertainties and nuances of all these rockfish assessments indicates a high degree of precaution is required when carrying out rockfish fisheries. All of these fisheries are “sustainably” targeting greatly reduced populations with skewed age structures (older fish are less frequent in the populations). The harvest rate is such that a “sustainable” yield is being maintained but by no means are the populations close to their historical non-fished abundance, carrying out the same pre-fishery ecological roles, and unlikely maintaining their genetic diversity.

    The harvest rate is such that a “sustainable” yield is being maintained but by no means are the populations close to their historical non-fished abundance, carrying out the same pre-fishery ecological roles, and unlikely maintaining their genetic diversity.

    With the exception of redstripe rockfish, all of BC’s rockfish species populations with catch quotas (~15) are far below what is estimated to have been the “unfished” abundance levels. Canary rockfish is only 22% of it’s estimated historical abundance and Pacific ocean perch about 30%. For long lived species, this depletion rate qualifies them as “Endangered” under criteria used by the IUCN or COSEWIC.

    The opposing scientific perspective where a fish that qualifies as an endangered species can also be the target of a sustainable fishery has been enabled by the tightly held fisheries management concept of maximum sustained yield (MSY). This concept stems from a time when fisheries scientists believed that the trajectory of a fished population was predictable and that the population would be more productive per unit of fish when their numbers were intentionally lowered through catching them. However, even DFO’s stock assessment scientists have agreed that MSY targets may not be appropriate for long lived low productivity species – such as rockfish. Unfortunately, there are no broadly accepted alternative approaches.

    Increasingly the use of marine protected areas and refugia are gaining recognition as a means of mitigating the uncertainty associated with traditional fisheries management. There is currently an MPA network being developed for Canada’s Pacific waters. If properly designed this network can provide additional insurance for fisheries managers responsible for these populations. MPAs in combination with fisheries science, good monitoring and enforcement, and ongoing research surveys can collectively safeguard these populations and maintain a healthy fishery in an ever-uncertain ocean.

    DFO and industry deserve credit for moving this challenging fishery toward sustainability but no one should think these fisheries are being undertaken without a persistent risk to biodiversity.