National Code on Introductions and Transfers of Aquatic Organisms
Table of Contents
Preliminary Information
Members of the Task Group
Forewood
Part 1 - Background
Part 2 - The Code
Definitions, Related Definitions, References
Appendixes
Preliminary Information
At the Canadian Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers (CCFAM)
meeting in 2003, the Council approved the National Code on Introductions and
Transfers of Aquatic Organisms (the Code).
The development of the Code stems from the increasing demand to introduce and
transfer aquatic organisms into Canada, between Provinces/Territories and within
Provinces/Territories. Fisheries managers wish to acquire new stocks to improve
or create new recreational fisheries and to expand enhancement programs and the
growing aquaculture industry requires flexibility to acquire species for
seedstock and to diversify the range of species cultivated.
Canadians are concerned that the introduction of non-native organisms might
result in the introduction of pathogens and parasites, cause genetic changes in
native aquatic organism populations or have unforeseen ecological impacts. Even
the transfer of native species from one watershed to another might have
unforeseen impacts.
The Code's intent is to ensure that before introductions or transfers take
place, they are evaluated on a consistent basis by all parties, using
established criteria. The federal and provincial/territorial governments want to
protect aquatic ecosystems while encouraging responsible use of aquatic
resources for the benefit of Canadians. The development of the Code is
consistent with Canada's commitments under the 1992 Convention on Biological
Diversity.
This publication of the Code marks the end of an 18-month review and comment
period. We are proud of the fact that a number of Canadians, representing a wide
variety of organizations and viewpoints came together to help create and
finalize this Code.
We urge you continue to follow the implementation process and provide the
Chair or Co-Chair of the Introductions and Transfers Committee in your province
or territory with your views on the application of the Code and any comments you
may have on ways to improve the Introductions and Transfers review process. The
Chairs and Co-Chairs of the Introductions and Transfers Committees will meet
annually to share best practices and to ensure that all jurisdictions are
reviewing introductions and transfers requests on a consistent basis across
Canada.
Iola Price
Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Federal Co-Chair
Kevin Callele
Saskatchewan Environment and Resource Management
Provincial Co-Chair
Members of the Task Group on Introductions and Transfers
- Iola Price - Fisheries and Oceans Canada - Co-Chair
- Kevin Callele - Saskatchewan - Environment and Resource Management -
Co-Chair
- Gary Caine - British Columbia - Ministry of Agriculture, Food and
Fisheries
- Hugh Norris - Alberta - Ministry of Sustainable Resource Development
- Shelley Matkowski - Manitoba - Manitoba Conservation
- Beth MacKay- Ontario - Ministry of Natural Resources
- Bernard Bergeron - Québec - Wildlife and Parks of Québec
- Sandi McGeachy - New Brunswick - Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and
Aquaculture
- Murray Hill - Nova Scotia - Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries
- Neil MacNair - Prince Edward Island - Ministry of Fisheries, Aquaculture
and the Environment
- Brian Meaney - Newfoundland and Labrador - Ministry of Fisheries and
Aquaculture
- Don Toews - Yukon - Ministry of Environment
By correspondence
- John Colford - Northwest Territories - Ministry of Resources, Wildlife and
Economic Development
- Doug Stewart - Northwest Territories - Ministry of Resources, Wildlife and
Economic Development
- Carey Bonnell - Nunavut - Department of Sustainable Development
ex officio
- Dennis Orbay - Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Intergovernmental Affairs
- Paul Lyon - Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Office of Sustainable Aquaculture
Former members
- Duane Radford - Alberta - Ministry of Sustainable Resource Development
- Alan Dextrase - Ontario - Ministry of Natural Resources
- Serge Gonthier and Yvan Turgeon - Québec - Wildlife and Parks of Québec
- Edward Black - Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Aquaculture Science Branch
FOREWORD
The National Code on Introductions and Transfers of Aquatic Organisms sets in
place a mechanism (Introductions and Transfers Committees) for assessing
proposals to move aquatic organisms from one water body to another. It also
provides all jurisdictions with a consistent process (the Risk Assessment
procedure) for assessing the potential impacts of intentional introductions and
transfers of aquatic organisms.
The Code applies to all aquatic organisms (called fish hereafter) in fresh
water and marine habitats. These include finfish, molluscs, crustaceans,
echinoderms, and other invertebrates, aquatic plants, both attached to the
bottom and floating, and other aquatic animals as defined in the Fisheries Act.
It applies to all activities in which live aquatic organisms are introduced or
transferred into fish bearing waters, or fish rearing facilities such as
aquaculture, and for commercial and recreational fishing including biological
control programs e.g. control of aquatic vegetation.
The federal and provincial/territorial governments want to maximize the
benefits associated with introductions or transfers and at the same time, they
wish to avoid
- risks of harmful alterations to natural aquatic ecosystems;
- risks of deleterious genetic changes in indigenous fish populations; and,
- risks to aquatic animal health from the potential introduction and spread
of pathogens and parasites that might accompany aquatic organisms being moved.
In sum, the Code is intended to protect aquatic ecosystems while encouraging
responsible use of aquatic resources for the benefit of Canadians. Federal,
provincial and territorial governments agree to work co-operatively in applying
this Code to national and regional regulations and policies that govern
intentional introductions and transfers. Provinces and territories and the
federal government will work to ensure that affected jurisdictions are given a
voice when aquatic organisms are introduced or transferred to shared watersheds.
Humans have been the principal movers of plants and land animals to new
areas. The same is true for aquatic species, whether it is the intentional
introduction or transfer of an aquatic organism, or the accidental movement of
accompanying organisms from one area to another. Some of the major reasons why
aquatic organisms have been intentionally introduced or transferred include:
- to fill perceived "vacant niches" in specific aquatic communities;
- to create economic benefits through new recreational and commercial
fisheries and/or to increase production from aquatic ecosystems (e.g. through
aquaculture and enhancement);
- to enhance diminished populations of a selected species and/or to
re-establish extirpated species;
- to create refuges for species or strains that are threatened with
extinction in their native habitats; and,
- for human food or to use as forage for other aquatic organisms;
The Code has two parts. Part 1 is general background - the purpose of the
Code, why Canada needs such a code, what are introductions and transfers
(including brief histories of some that have taken place in Canada), what has
been the experience with introductions and transfers in Canada and why are there
concerns about introductions and transfers. Part 1 also describes, in written
and graphic form, who is part of the decision making process and in general
terms, how such a mechanism would operate (that is, what happens when someone
proposes to move an aquatic organism from one water body to another within a
province or territory or into a province or territory).
Part 2 is the main body of the Code. It briefly describes the legal framework
and the Guiding Principles of the Code. Part 2 also commits provinces and
territories and the federal government to establishing Introductions and
Transfers Committees in each province or territory if they do not already exist
there. As well, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans agrees to establish a
registry of introductions and transfers so that national reports can be issued
on a regular basis for public information.
There is a list of definitions, a list of scientific references on the topic
of introductions and transfers, and 5 appendices.
Appendix I contains information on the regional, provincial, national and
international regulations, policies, and guidelines that apply to introductions
and transfers of aquatic organisms in Canada.
Appendix II outlines the roles and responsibilities of:
- The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and/or the Provincial Fisheries
Minister - in regard to the Code and Introductions and Transfers;
- The Assistant Deputy Minister of Science for the Department of Fisheries
and Oceans (DFO);
- The Regional Director General of DFO and/or the Provincial/Territorial
Director of Fisheries;
- The Proponent for the introduction or transfer;
- The Introductions and Transfers Committees;
- The Aquaculture Science Branch of DFO.
Appendix III outlines the nature and scope of information that the proponent
of an introduction or transfer should provide in support of the proposal. The
major kinds of information required include:
- Who is making the proposal;
- What is being proposed for introduction and why;
- Where will the aquatic organism come from and where is it to go;
- Information on the life history of the organism;
- How is it expected to interact with native species already in the water
body;
- Information about the water body into which the aquatic organism is to be
placed;
- What precautions are being taken to avoid problems; and,
- Scientific references to back up the proposal.
Appendix IV, the Risk Assessment, is perhaps the most important part of the
document. In some jurisdictions, the proponent will prepare the risk assessment
and the Introductions and Transfers Committee will review it. In other
jurisdictions, the Introductions and Transfers Committee will do the risk
assessment or contract out the work to a competent third party. The object of
the Risk Assessment is to identify whether the proposed Introduction or Transfer
presents a low, medium or high risk for the receiving environment. The Risk
Assessment is an adaptation of internationally acknowledged models and
processes. The procedures asks questions and the answers are entered into a box
in a table. The person or committee answering the questions is asked, on the
basis of the scientific literature and/or the person's own personal knowledge,
to answer whether the organism is likely to become established in the receiving
environment and if the answer is yes, to state what the consequences of that
establishment would be in terms of ecological, genetic or disease impacts. Each
answer should be supported with references.
In all cases, the person must indicate, on a 5-point scale, whether he or she
is certain or not certain whether his or her determination of low, medium or
high impact is correct. The risk assessment procedure also asks for a
description of how mitigation could reduce the risk of negative impacts even
lower. (For instance, if there was concern that a species new to the area might
become established in a water body, the authorities could require that only
males or only females or only infertile individuals of both sexes be introduced
so that there could be no mating.)
The final steps in the risk assessment are to place all the answers given in
a summary table and, using a pre-established format, come up with a judgement of
whether the introduction or transfer will have a low, medium or high risk of
negative environmental impacts.
Appendix V is a summary of the whole risk assessment and it is used as the
permanent record of the proposal and the review process. It finishes with the
Introductions and Transfers Committee's advice to the Decision-Making Authority.
PART 1 - BACKGROUND
1.1 Statement of Purpose
1.1.1 The purpose of this National Code on Introductions and Transfers of
Aquatic Organisms is to establish an objective decision-making framework
regarding intentional introductions and transfers of live aquatic organisms that
is designed to protect aquatic ecosystems while encouraging responsible use of
aquatic resources for the benefit of Canadians. This can only be accomplished by
developing sound and consistent scientific criteria to evaluate and facilitate
the safe movement of live aquatic organisms into and within Canada in an
environmentally sustainable and responsible manner. Federal, provincial and
territorial governments agree to work cooperatively in applying this Code to
national and regional regulations and policies that govern intentional
introductions and transfers.
1.1.2 Part 1 is not an exhaustive study on the issue of introductions and
transfers. It provides information that helps to explain the Code. Appendix I
contains information on the regional, provincial, national and international
regulations, policies, and guidelines that apply to introductions and transfers
of aquatic organisms in Canada.
1.1.3 Within the context of this Code, "introduction and transfer" refers to
the deliberate movement of live aquatic organisms into Canada, between provinces
and territories, or within provinces or territories. The Code applies to all
aquatic organisms in fresh water and marine habitats. These include finfish, molluscs, crustaceans, echinoderms, and other invertebrates, aquatic plants,
both attached and planktonic, and other aquatic animals as defined in the
Fisheries Act. It applies to all activities in which live aquatic organisms are
introduced or transferred into fish bearing waters, or fish rearing facilities
such as aquaculture, commercial and recreational fishing including biological
control programs, e.g. control of aquatic vegetation.
1.1.4 The Code reflects, as far as possible, existing federal and provincial
acts, regulations and policies, and regional and international standards that
relate to introductions and transfers of aquatic organisms. Issues related to
aquarium fish, live baitfish, live fish for the food trade and transgenic
aquatic organisms are not covered by this Code.
1.1.5 This Code establishes a mechanism for assessing proposals to
intentionally introduce or transfer aquatic organisms, so that all jurisdictions
have a consistent process to evaluate and minimize the potential for:
- Risks of harmful alterations of natural aquatic ecosystems;
- Risks of deleterious genetic changes in indigenous fish populations; and,
- Risks to fish health from the potential introduction and spread of
pathogens and parasites.
1.1.6 This mechanism provides a consistent, scientifically sound basis for
application in all provinces and territories to enable the continuation of safe
and responsible movements of aquatic organisms for purposes that:
- Maintain environmental sustainability and renewal;
- Maintain public and private sector benefits accrued from aquatic ecosystem
use; and,
- Increase future public and private sector opportunities that can be
derived from prudent use of the aquatic resource.
1.1.7 The Code does not cover accidental introductions and transfers, where
the transfer of an aquatic organism (and its eventual release into natural
waters) is not intentional. However, accidental introductions and transfers such
as those resulting from the discharge of ballast water can have serious negative
impacts on aquatic ecosystems. Controls involve a wide range of industries and
agencies and are being dealt with by regulations and other mechanisms dealing
with ballast water.
1.1.8 While socio-economic analysis of introductions and transfers are not
addressed in this Code, all jurisdictions recognize that such analysis is
important to and may even be required in the overall assessment of introductions
and transfers. Therefore all jurisdictions are encouraged to develop their own
processes for socio-economic assessments as appropriate and to consult with all
interested parties such as individuals and local organisations, Aboriginal
Groups, commercial and recreational fishing groups, etc.
1.2 Need for a National Code
1.2.1 The demand is increasing in Canada to introduce and transfer aquatic
organisms into the country, between provinces or territories and, in certain
instances, within provinces or territories. Fisheries managers may need to
introduce or transfer fish to restore stocks, improve fishing opportunities and
to expand enhancement programs, while the growing aquaculture industry may
require flexibility to acquire fish for seedstock, to obtain new strains to
improve the performance of production fish, and to obtain new culture species
for diversification.
1.2.2 With the increased demand for introductions and transfers, there is a
potential risk of negative impacts on indigenous species, habitats, and cultured
species. Although the ecological, social and economic importance of these
resources may vary across Canada, they are all considered to be significant.
1.2.3 As a signatory to the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity under the
United Nations Environment Program, Canada is committed to "develop[ing]
national strategies, plans or programs for the conservation and sustainable use
of biological diversity". The Code sets out procedures for assessing proposals
for introductions and transfers so that impacts on fisheries resources
(including cultured species/aquaculture products), habitat and ecosystems are
minimized.
1.2.4 As well, in 1990, the Wildlife Ministers' Council of Canada adopted A
Wildlife Policy for Canada. This Policy, agreed to by all federal government
departments and all the provinces and territories, provides a national framework
for federal, provincial/territorial and non-governmental policies and programs
that affect wildlife, including fish. Section 8 provides guidance in regard to
species introductions.
1.2.5 The purpose in developing this national Code is to minimize the
negative impacts of introductions and transfers in recognition of Canada's
responsibility to protect aquatic resources and, at the same time, permit
environmentally sound fisheries resource enhancement and development of
aquaculture. Administrators in provinces or regions have often worked
independently in preparing local regulations and policies and have addressed
only selected species or species groups. Therefore, it is important that we
develop this national Code to:
- provide a comprehensive and consistent national framework for the
introduction and transfer of aquatic organisms that will ensure there is a
single, standard set of risk assessment and approval procedures covering
introductions and transfers of aquatic organisms in Canada, that may be
applied across the country. Provinces or regions may add additional
requirements to address local needs;
- provide effective procedures that will help to minimize the negative
impacts of introductions and transfers on fisheries resources, on habitat, and
on aquaculture operations, without unduly impeding government and private
sector activities that depend on the ability to move aquatic organisms from
one location to another;
- ensure that Canadian risk analysis procedures are consistent with
international standards and commitments;
- increase public and private sector awareness of the risks and benefits
involved with introductions and transfers;
- stimulate research that will improve our ability to assess, and make
decisions on, proposals to introduce and transfer aquatic organisms; and
- ensure that affected jurisdictions are given a voice when aquatic
organisms are introduced or transferred to shared watersheds.
1.3 What are "Introductions" and "Transfers"?
1.3.1 An introduction of an aquatic organism is the intentional or accidental
transportation and release of the organism into an environment outside its
present range (ICES 1988).
1.3.2 When an organism is introduced outside its original range, it is called an
exotic species in the new environment.
1.3.3 A transfer is the shipment of individuals of a species or population of an
aquatic organism from one location and its release to another within its present
(geographic) range (ICES 1988).
1.4 Experience in Canada
1.4.1 Humans have been the principal movers of plants and land animals to new
areas. The same is true for fish species, whether it is the intentional
introduction or transfer of an aquatic organism, or the accidental movement of
accompanying organisms from one area to another. Aquatic organisms have been
intentionally introduced or transferred for several reasons:
- for human food or to use as forage for other aquatic organisms;
- to fill perceived "vacant niches" in specific aquatic communities;
- to enhance diminished populations of a selected species;
- to create new recreational and commercial fisheries;
- to re-establish extirpated species;
- to create refuges for species or strains that are threatened with
extinction in their native habitats;
- to increase production from aquatic ecosystems (e.g. through aquaculture
and enhancement); and,
- to introduce species for biological control purposes (e.g. to control
aquatic vegetation).
1.5 Concerns and Impacts
1.5.1 Aquatic ecosystems are continuously changing as a result of human
activities and natural processes. Selective pressures on fish populations are
created by recreational, commercial, and First Nations harvesting. Fish habitats
are being degraded and altered through human activities. Introducing and
transferring aquatic organisms can also affect the stability of aquatic
ecosystems.
1.5.2 Three major biological concerns with the introduction or transfer of
aquatic organisms are:
- Ecological effects such as competition for food, space, spawning areas,
alteration of habitat, and predation on indigenous organisms.
- Genetic changes that will lessen the ability of local populations to
survive; and,
- Movement of fish disease agents, parasites and other accompanying
organisms that will affect organisms, both wild and cultured, in receiving
waters and their habitats.
1.6 Examples of Introductions and Transfers
1.6.1 Examples of Introductions
1.6.1.1 The introduction of finfishes into Canada began with the introduction of
common carp (Cyprinus carpio) to Ontario in 1880 (Crossman 1991). Since then,
the list of species that have been brought to Canada from other countries, that
have naturally invaded Canadian waters, or that have been moved from one
ecosystem to another within Canada includes 92 species and 13 additional "forms"
(subspecies, varieties, hybrids) of finfish (1989 statistics; Crossman 1991). Of
these, 71 were authorized introductions.
1.6.1.2 The species most often introduced and transferred are salmonids (salmon
and trout (Salmo, Oncorhynchus and Salvelinus spp.)), centrarchids (bass (Micropterus
spp.) and bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus)) and percids (yellow perch (Perca
flavescens) and walleye (Stizostedion vitreum)). The most common reasons for
these introductions and transfers were to improve recreational fisheries, or for
aquaculture.
1.6.1.3 The movement of the Belon or European (flat) oyster (Ostrea edulis) to
Atlantic Canada, Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) to British Columbia, and coho
salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha) to the Great
Lakes are examples of intentional introductions.
1.6.1.4 The introduction of coho and chinook salmon from the Pacific coast to
the Great Lakes basin has created economically important sport fisheries. This
Pacific salmon fishery in the Great Lakes has been largely supported on a
put-grow-and-take basis using hatchery production. However, high stocking rates,
coupled with decreases in nutrient input , have created large instabilities in
forage fish populations in Lakes Ontario and Michigan in recent years. The
continued reliance on the hatchery-based Pacific salmon fishery in the Great
Lakes may have compromised managers' abilities to rehabilitate native top
predators such as lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush) and Atlantic salmon (Lange
and Smith 1995; Crawford 1997, 2001).
1.6.1.5 Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), most of which originated west of
the North American continental divide, have been introduced to every province of
Canada, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. This salmonid provides the
basis for significant recreational fisheries and is an important species in the
aquaculture industry. However, rainbow trout have displaced native brook trout
through competition in many areas where they have been introduced into the
latter species' range (Ryder and Kerr 1984; Krueger and May 1991).
1.6.1.6 Populations of brown trout (Salmo trutta) introduced to Canada from
Europe, are now established in most provinces, although they are not as
important economically as rainbow trout. Brown trout have also displaced native
brook trout through competition and predation (Ryder and Kerr 1984; Krueger and
May 1991).
1.6.1.7 Lobsters (Homarus americanus) from the Atlantic coast have been
introduced to British Columbia. However, self-sustaining populations have not
become established there.
1.6.1.8 A malacostracan invertebrate, (Mysis relicta) was introduced into
Kootenay Lake in British Columbia in hopes of enhancing food for kokanee salmon
(Oncorhynchus nerka). This introduction has since proven detrimental because
their vertical migration behavior made them unavailable to the kokanee. Instead
of serving their intended purpose, they became a competitor with kokanee for
other zooplankton prey (Lazenby et al. 1986; Martinez and Bergersen 1989).
1.6.1.9 Demands for new species in Atlantic Canada led to trials with the
Pacific oyster (Crassostrea gigas (unsuccessful)), several introductions of
European oyster from different sources and, most recently, two introductions of
bay scallops (Argopecten irradians) from the United States (Couturier et al.
1989). Newkirk (1989) described the history of the introductions of the European
oyster to Atlantic Canada. Only one self-sustaining population of European
oyster is believed to have been established.
1.6.1.10 Japanese scallops (Patinopecten yessoensis), Pacific, American (Crassostrea
virginica) and European oysters, have all been introduced to British Columbia
for commercial aquaculture. Most of these oyster introductions are sustained by
regular transfers of seed from the USA. The Manila clam (Tapes philippinarum)
was accidentally introduced and has now become established. The commercial
harvest of both wild caught and cultured Manila clams and Pacific oysters is now
well established.
1.6.1.11 Range extensions are also considered introductions. This occurs when
organisms are intentionally released in areas outside their normal range. The
negative impact of range extensions can be significant, even though the
organisms may be only just outside their original range (e.g. the impact of
northern pike (Esox lucius) on the muskellunge (E. masquinongy) when the range
of northern pike was extended to the Kawartha Lakes, Ontario, through the Trent
Canal system). In instances of range extension, fisheries administrators in
neighboring jurisdictions should be consulted before the range of an organism is
extended into waters that are shared between two or more jurisdictions.
1.6.1.12 The use of hybrid organisms has previously occurred. Hybrids are
obtained by crossing different species and, rarely, different genera. For
example, brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) and lake trout were crossed to
create "splake" (S. fontinalis x namaycush) in Ontario. The hybrid had desirable
characteristics of both the brook and lake trout. Another common hybrid tested
by fisheries management agencies for the recreational fishery is the tiger
trout, an inter-generic cross between brown trout and brook trout. The concern
with hybrids is that if they backcross with either of the original species,
there could be a transfer of foreign genetic material into the indigenous
population. This has raised concerns about the changes to genetic diversity in
the indigenous populations and the potential to reduce the ability of
individuals to survive in the wild.
1.6.2 Examples of Transfers
1.6.2.1 Transfers of aquatic organisms are common throughout Canada. Many
valuable recreational fisheries for salmonids are dependent on the transfer and
release of hatchery-reared fish in lakes and rivers. Oysters and other shellfish
species are transferred from polluted waters or inferior rearing areas to
cleaner and more productive waters for aquaculture and commercial harvesting.
Other examples include the shipment of live Atlantic salmon between New
Brunswick and Nova Scotia. and brook trout from Ontario to Nova Scotia. In each
case, the species is native to both source and receiving provinces.
1.6.2.2 Shipments of live Atlantic salmon from Norway or Scotland to the east
coast of Canada would also be considered as transfers, because Atlantic salmon
occur naturally in all three areas (see Section 1.5 where concerns are described
about such transfers between locations which may have different genetic strains
and different disease profiles).
1.6.2.3 Transfers within provinces, between provinces or countries could have
significant implications for stocks in receiving waters. Different stocks of
aquatic organisms have clearly defined behavioral characteristics, many of which
are genetically controlled. Interbreeding between divergent stocks of the same
species, which could be separated spatially or temporally, may result in the
reduction of, or changes to, particular traits that could alter the ability of
an indigenous population to adapt to changing environmental conditions.
1.6.2.4 Transferring different genetic strains into water bodies containing
locally-adapted strains can be contentious (Phillip 1991; Evans and Willox 1991;
Waples 1991; Campton 1995). Some resource managers have developed policies which
recognize this concern by recommending that donor stocks for transfers closely
match the stocks in the receiving waters. A trend exists also towards adopting a
conservative approach in approving transfers between distant locations.
1.6.2.5 Early transfers (1910-15) of American oysters to waters off Prince
Edward Island are believed (but cannot be proven) to have caused the outbreak of
Malpeque disease. Interest in "alternate species" for aquaculture has resulted
in increasing requests for new species and genetic infusions from new stocks,
including transfers of a new "selected variety" of hard-shell clam (Mercenaria
mercenaria var. notata).
1.7 The Decision Making Process
1.7.1 The process of providing a fair and informed decision in response to an
Introduction and Transfer request requires a variety of inputs. These inputs can
include legal factors, ecological, social, economic and cultural information,
local community knowledge and the views of Aboriginal Groups, including the use
of traditional aboriginal knowledge (Figure 1).
1.7.2 This section provides detail on one aspect of these inputs - ecological
issues and how they are addressed through Introductions and Transfers (I&T)
Committees using the risk assessment model. The Code is intended to present a
clear and common process for assessing ecological risks and for the operation of
the I&T Committee. It should not be construed as indicating that other inputs to
the decision making process are less important. Rather, it provides input on
what are generally accepted as the biological inputs such as ecological, genetic
and fish health implications.
1.7.3 Other inputs to the decision making process are summarized as follows:
- Cultural - Includes issues such as historical and traditional access, and
trends in demographics such as increased leisure time. Such input may be
important in the assessment to reach decisions affecting the movement of fish.
- Economic - Includes economic issues that may reflect society's value on
development and the protection of fish stocks in both a public context (i.e.
salmon enhancement) or a private context (i.e. improved performance of
aquaculture stocks). Economic considerations may also describe and promote
industries (e.g. aquaculture) and resource uses (e.g. recreational fisheries).
- Social - Includes aspects of social policy that often establish the
framework of societal values in the context of natural resource management.
Social policy can identify the uses of natural resources that society deems
appropriate and supportable.
- Aboriginal Groups - Includes aspects of Treaty rights and other agreements
that can define, or give direction to, the use of natural resources giving
proper respect to the cultural and social rights of Canada's Aboriginal
Groups.
- Legislative - Includes aspects of a number of Federal and Provincial Acts
as well as inter-provincial and international agreements affecting the
movement of aquatic animals and plants.
1.7.4 The responsibility to ensure that applicable factors are reviewed prior
to final approval for introductions and transfers rests with the Decision-Making
Authority in each province or territory.
1.8 The Introductions and Transfers Committee Process
1.8.1 The regional or provincial I&T Committee provides scientific advice to
the Decision-Making Authority on risks associated with ecological, genetic and
fish health issues for each proposed introduction or transfer of aquatic
organisms. The general process is illustrated in Figure 2. A more complete
description of the process follows.
1.8.2 The process is initiated by a submission to the appropriate
regional/provincial I&T Committee of an application for a permit to introduce or
transfer an aquatic species. All applications are reviewed by the I&T Committee
to determine if there is any prohibition of use of the organism in the region
(if so the application is forwarded to the Decision-Making Authority to respond
to the applicant), and to determine if the application contains all required
information (if not the I&T Committee may request the applicant to supply
missing information).
1.8.3 All applications are screened by the I&T Committee as either being a
routine or non-routine movement. Routine movements may be handled by the Chair
of the Committee. If the Committee determines that the movement is non-routine,
then it will decide if the application would require further review in the form
of an Aquatic Organism Risk Assessment as described in Appendix IV of the Code.
If the assessment is that the risks associated with the proposed movement of the
organisms are low, the application is passed, with the advice, to the
Decision-Making Authority for further processing.
1.8.4 All applications representing a high or medium risk are examined by the
I & T Committee to determine if there are mitigation procedures or technologies
available to reduce the level of risk. The Committee consults with the
proponent(s) to determine if they have suggestions on such procedures and
technologies and to determine if any proposed procedures and technologies are
feasible.
1.8.5 Applications assessed as constituting a medium or high risk and for
which there are no mitigation measures to reduce that risk to low are then sent
to the Decision-Making Authority. The committee provides information to the
Decision-Making Authority concerning the level of risk and how and why it was
determined.
1.8.6 The decision-making process ensures that all appropriate consultations
are undertaken including those with other agencies, jurisdictions and Aboriginal
Groups. The applicant is then informed in writing, of the results. When a permit
is refused the Code identifies an appeal process that involves both the
Decision-Making Authority and the applicant.
PART 2 - THE CODE
2.1 Authority
2.1.1 Section 43 of the Fisheries Act provides enabling authority for the
Governor in Council to make Regulations for the conservation and protection of
fisheries resources, including the taking or carrying of fish or any part
thereof from one province to any other province. The authority to issue licences
permitting the release of live fish has been delegated to provincial Ministers
in only some provinces; the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans retains
this power in the other provinces and the territories. This Code establishes the
principles and standards for the intentional introduction and/or transfer of
aquatic organisms in order to protect these resources.
2.2 Guiding Principles
2.2.1 The federal, provincial, and territorial governments intend to work
cooperatively to apply this Code to federal and provincial regulations and
policies dealing with intentional introductions and transfers. The Code will be
national in scope and will be applied fairly, equitably, and consistently.
2.2.2 Needs and benefits must be evident and well defined for human or natural
resource communities for the introduction or transfer of aquatic organisms.
2.2.3 Use of suitable indigenous species for intentional release to unconfined
waters from within the aquatic zone or watershed is preferable to the
introduction of an exotic species or transfer of indigenous species from other
distinct stocks (within and outside Canada). However, there may be instances
where it is preferable to use a non-indigenous species that is reproductively
isolated from indigenous stocks or that would be unable to survive in the wild.
2.2.4 Ecological risks and benefits of introductions and transfers will be
assessed prior to movement, except for those cases which have been reviewed and
deemed exempt (see Appendix II A 2).
2.2.5 Assessment of proposals from an ecological perspective will include a
review of potential genetic and disease impacts on indigenous fisheries
resources, aquaculture operations and habitat.
2.2.6 In the spirit of the 1999 Agreement on Interjurisdictional Cooperation
with Respect to Fisheries and Aquaculture, consultations should take place
between and among neighboring jurisdictions, (including those in the USA and
France) on proposals to introduce exotic species, or to extend the range of
organisms, in shared watersheds. Neighboring jurisdictions should also be
consulted if an introduction, transfer or range extension proposal might impact
stocks within a watershed but outside the receiving province (see Appendix II
for more details). The advice of the I&T Committee of the affected jurisdiction
should be included with the advice provided to the Decision-Making Authority by
the I&T Committee in the originating province or territory. Interested parties
(e.g. local groups, Aboriginal Groups, commercial fishermen and aquaculturists)
should also be consulted prior to the introduction of an exotic species. Because
Canada is a signatory to ICES , proposals to introduce exotic species, which may
impact on jurisdictions outside of Canada should also be reviewed through the
ICES process. Where arrangements do not already exist, Canada should seek to be
included in discussions about proposed introductions into watersheds shared with
the United States and France.
2.2.7 The initial introduction of an exotic aquatic organism into Canada that
may affect neighbouring jurisdictions should be consistent with the ICES (1995,
2003) Codes of Practice on the Introductions and Transfers of Marine Organisms.
The ICES Code describes a step-by-step process, from holding of the imported
organisms in quarantine in a containment facility, to small-scale testing in a
containment facility in the local environment, to final release in the natural
habitat. Throughout the course of a project, and based on the results of
monitoring, procedural adjustments may be required or a decision to terminate
may be necessary. Subsequent introductions could be modified based on the advice
of the Introductions and Transfers Committee if there is a low risk of negative
impacts.
2.2.8 'Uncertainty' is unavoidable in the development of a risk assessment.
In such cases, the Precautionary Approach will be adopted. "States should apply
the precautionary approach widely to conservation, management and exploitation
of living aquatic resources in order to protect them and preserve the aquatic
environment. The absence of adequate scientific information should not be used
as a reason for postponing or failing to take conservation and management
measures" (FAO 1996, 2001). If the outcome (impact) is uncertain, priority
should be given to conserving the productive capacity of the native resource.
2.3 Intent
2.3.1 A risk assessment based on the classifications of high, medium and low
risk will form the basis of advice on all requests for introductions and
transfers of aquatic organisms. In most cases, unless additional mitigation
measures are taken, or included, the advice should be that the introduction or
transfer not proceed if the level of risk is determined to be medium or high.
2.4 The Code
2.4.1 Where Introductions and Transfers Committees or their equivalents do
not exist, they will be established in each province or region by the agency or
agencies responsible for administering fisheries and/or aquaculture. Each
Committee will provide advice to the Decision-Making Authority, on proposals to
introduce or transfer aquatic organisms (see Figure 1). Each Committee will
develop procedures that are consistent with this Code and keep records of all
applications for introductions and transfers received throughout the year and
the decisions reached on such applications. These will be reported to the
Aquaculture Science Branch, DFO, Ottawa. Each jurisdiction should be responsible
for consulting and seeking advice from those principal stakeholders and
Aboriginal Groups that could be affected by introductions and transfers.
2.4.2 Proponents must obtain authorization to undertake the following
procedures for the release of certain specified aquatic organisms into
fish-bearing waters or fish-rearing facilities: to import the organisms from
sources outside Canada; to ship species, not native to the receiving province,
from another province or territory of Canada; to extend the range of an organism
within a province; or, to transfer aquatic organisms within or between
provinces.
2.4.3 The Code recognizes that ongoing historic as well as routine transfers
and introductions have occurred within Canada. It is the intent of the Code to
enable such transfers and introductions to continue at the discretion of the
local authority. The process for handling new introductions or transfers of
aquatic organisms requests is outlined in Figures 1 and 2. In the absence of
alternative federal-provincial agreements, the Regional
Director-General/Assistant Deputy Minister Science (DFO) will adjudicate
applications.
2.4.4 Proponents whose applications for permits are rejected may appeal to
the appropriate authority (Figure 2).
2.4.5 Proposals to introduce aquatic organisms that are exotic or that may
result in a range extension require biological assessments of the impacts on
indigenous fisheries resources, habitat and aquaculture, as well as a plan for
monitoring any negative impacts arising from the introduction. Additional
non-ecological analyses, while important, should be conducted as an adjunct to
or after the conduct of the ecological risk assessment and at the discretion of
the body with authority over the approval process. Information requested of the
proponent is listed in Appendix III and the Aquatic Organism Risk Assessment
procedure and Organism Risk Assessment Summary Report Form are given in
Appendices IV and V. Proponents may be required to bear the cost of all such
risk assessments.
2.4.6 Approvals to import organisms may have conditions attached, such as the
requirement for holding in quarantine facilities in Canada, additional disease
testing, or reproductive sterilization.
2.4.7 Species exotic to a province should be introduced in a systematic
manner, first in quarantine facilities to test for pathogens of concern, then in
facilities where there is low risk of escape so as to test adaptability of the
organisms to survive in the natural environment. Organisms will only be released
from containment after all quarantine conditions have been met.
2.4.8 Introductions and transfers of aquatic organisms must be in compliance
with all other national and provincial legislation, regulations, and policies.
2.4.9 A national Registry on Introductions and Transfers will be established
and maintained by the Aquaculture Science Branch, DFO, Ottawa. Annual summary
reports of introductions and transfers of aquatic organisms in Canada will be
issued from the National Registry for public information. All jurisdictions will
work together towards the establishment of a shared electronic risk assessment
library and a national registry system.
2.5 Application of the Code
2.5.1 The Code will apply to:
- Introduction of a species exotic to the waters of a province or territory;
- Transfer of indigenous or naturalised exotic species from other countries
and between provinces or territories;
- Deliberate range extension of a species within a province or territory;
and,
- Transfers of indigenous or naturalised exotic species within a province or
territory if there is no other review process.
DEFINITIONS, RELATED DEFINITIONS AND REFERENCES
Accidental introduction - Introduction of an
aquatic organism, including "fellow travellers", by chance, not by design. For
example, the release of an organism transported in ship's ballast water (=
unintentional introduction). <introduction accidentelle>
Aquarium fish - This includes all species of fish
and aquatic plants for ornamental use imported or transferred into strict
confinement (ICES 2003). <poissons d'aquarium>
Aquatic organisms - This includes all organisms
(finfish, molluscs, crustaceans, echinoderms, and other invertebrates and their
lifestages defined as "Fish" in the Fisheries Act, as well as marine and fresh
water plants. <organisme aquatique>.
Baitfish - Live (or dead) fish (or other aquatic
organisms) placed on a hook or in a trap in order to lure fish. <poisson-appât>
Benefits - Advantages or profits derived as a
result of an action (e.g. social or economic benefits from a proposed
introduction). <avantages>
Containment facility - A facility that has been
specially modified to prevent the release of aquatic organisms to waters outside
the facility (includes quarantine facility with treated effluent). Some
jurisdictions assign level of containment status to facilities based on defined
standards. <installation de confinement>
Enhancement - The release of fish to augment the
public resource. This can be accomplished through fish culture techniques or the
introduction or transfer of wild fish. <mise en valeur>
Environment - Key components of aquatic ecosystem
necessary for fish survival and reproduction. <milieu>
Exotic species - (= introduced species) (Porter
1992). <espèce exotique>
Facility - In the context of fish, all locations
holding fish or from which come cultured or wild fish or eggs from wild or
cultured fish. <installation>
Fellow traveller - Organism which inadvertently
accompanies the shipment of the species intended for introduction/transfer. <organisme
associé>
Fish - As defined in the Fisheries Act includes a)
parts of fish, b) shellfish, crustaceans, marine animals and any parts of
shellfish, crustaceans or marine animals; and c) the eggs, sperm, spawn, larvae,
spat and juvenile stages of fish, shellfish, crustaceans and marine animals. <poisson>
Genetic diversity - All of the genetic variation in
an individual population or species (ICES 1995, 2003). <diversité génétique>
Hazard - A thing or action that can cause adverse
effects (APHRAN 1998). <danger>
Hybrid - Offspring of two animals or plants that
are of different species. <hybride>
Import - Movement of aquatic organisms across
national or interprovincial boundaries. <importation>
Indigenous (native) species - Existing and having
originated naturally in a particular region or environment (ICES 1988). <espèce
indigène>
Intentional introduction - The deliberate release,
or holding, of live aquatic organisms in open-water or within a facility with
flow-through circulation or effluent access to the open-water environment
outside its present range. <introduction délibérée>
Introduced species - Any species intentionally or
accidentally transported and released by humans into an environment or facility
with effluent access to open-water or flow-through system outside its present
range(= exotic species, non-indigenous ) (adapted from ICES 2003). <espèce
introduite>
Live fish for the food trade - Fish destined
strictly for consumption. Imported live fish are held in containment facilities
or containment units such as those in restaurants or fish stores. <poisson
vivant destiné à la consommation>
Naturalised exotic - Introduced species that have
become established and have formed self-sustaining populations (Anon. 1991). <espèce
naturalisée>
Niche - The attribute of an organism which defines
the boundaries within which it can carry out its life processes. The potential
niche of an organism is constrained by the physical environment and interactions
with other species producing a realized niche in a particular ecosystem (based
on Hutchinson 1957). <niche>
Precautionary Approach - Measures to implement the
Precautionary Principle. A set of agreed cost-effective measures and actions,
including future courses of action, which ensures prudent foresight, reduces or
avoids risk to the resources, the environment, and the people, to the extent
possible, taking explicitly into account existing uncertainties and the
consequences of being wrong (FAO 1995, 1996). Adapted from Garcia 1996. <approche
de précaution>
Province - Includes Territories in Canada.
<province>
Quarantine - The facility and/or process by which
live organisms and any of their associated organisms can be held/or reared in
complete isolation from the surrounding environment. <quarantine>
Range extension - The enlargement of a geographic
area that is occupied by a species, usually through intentional human action;
the extension is usually incremental (Anon. 1991), over short distances and
contiguous. <extension de l'aire de répartition>
Release - The liberation of aquatic organisms to
the natural environment. Release can be unintentional, as in the escape of
organisms from aquaculture facilities or during use as live bait. <libération>
Risk - The probability of a negative or undesirable
event occurring; the likelihood of the occurrence and the magnitude of the
consequences of an adverse event; a measure of the probability of harm and the
severity of impact of a hazard. <risque>
Risk analysis - The process that includes risk
identification, risk assessment, risk management and risk communication. <analyse
des risques>.
Risk assessment - The process of identifying and
describing the risks of introductions or transfers of aquatic organisms having
an impact on fisheries resources, habitat or aquaculture in the receiving waters
before such introductions or transfers take place; the process of identifying a
hazard and estimating the risk presented by the hazard, in either qualitative or
quantitative terms. <évaluation des risques>.
Species - A group of interbreeding natural
populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups (ICES 1988).
<espèce>
Stock - A population of organisms which, sharing a
common gene pool, is sufficiently discrete to warrant consideration as a
self-perpetuating system which can be managed (ICES 1988). <stock>
Strain - A group of individuals with common
ancestry that exhibits genetic, physiological or morphological differences from
other groups of the same species as a result of husbandry practices (Porter
1992). <souche>
Transfer - The movement of individuals of a species
or population of an aquatic organism from one location to another within its
present range (ICES 1988). <transfert>
Transgenic organisms - Organisms bearing within
their DNA, copies of novel genetic constructs introduced through recombinant DNA
technology. This includes novel genetic constructs within species as well as
interspecies transfers. Such organisms are usually (but not always) produced by
micro-injection of DNA into newly fertilized eggs. <organismes transgéniques>
Watershed - All land and water within the confines
of a drainage divide; the whole gathering ground of a river system (Shorter
Oxford English Dictionary 1965). <bassin versant>
RELATED DEFINITIONS
Contain - To prevent the escape of an organism
(from a facility). <confiner>
Ecology - A branch of science concerned with the
inter-relationships of organisms and their environment (ICES 1988). <écologie>
Genetically modified organism - Organism in which
genetic material has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by
mating and or natural recombination (excludes hybrids and polyploids; includes
transgenics) (See also Transgenic organisms). <organisme génétiquement modifié>
Genetic containment - Prevent escape to the wild of
organisms that can propagate, or allow only the release of organisms that are
reproductively sterile. <confinement génétique>
Minimal impact or risk - A change in an
environmental attribute that will have, or is predicted to have, little or no
consequence to the environment. <répercussions ou risque minime>
Re-introduction - Release of a species to waters
from which the species had been previously extirpated (= introduction). <réintroduction>
Risk communication - The open exchange of
information and opinion, leading to a better understanding of risk and related
decisions; the processes by which the results of the risk assessment and
proposed risk management measures are communicated to the Decision-Making
Authority and interested parties. <communications connexes à un risque>.
Risk management - The process of selection and
implementation of options to reduce, to an acceptably low level, the risk of
negative impact of introductions or transfers of aquatic organisms; the process
of identifying, evaluating, selecting and implementing alternative measures for
reducing risk. <gestion des risques>.
Significant impact - A predicted or measured change
in an environmental attribute that should be considered in project decisions,
depending on the reliability and accuracy of the prediction and the magnitude of
the change within specific time and space boundaries (Beanlands and Duinker
1983). <répercussion importante>
REFERENCES
The scientific literature covers introductions and transfers extensively.
Recent references that are particularly relevant to Canada are given below, as
well as the publications referred to in the text.
Anon. 1990a. Policy for Introductions and Transfers of Salmonids in the
Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. MS. DFO, Newfoundland Region and Gulf
Region. 7 pp.
Anon. 1990b. A Wildlife Policy for Canada. Wildlife Ministers' Council of
Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service. 29 pp.
Anon. 1991. Report from the Ad Hoc Working Group on Introductions and Transfers
of Aquatic Organisms. DFO Biological Sciences Directorate, Ottawa. 10 pp.
Anon. 1992. United States of America national report, 1991-92, on introductions
and transfers of marine organisms. Prepared for ICES Working Group on
Introductions and Transfers of Marine Organisms, Lisbon, April 14-17, 1992. 44
pp.
Anon. 1993. Harmful non-indigenous species in the United States. US Congress,
Office of Technology Assessment. OTA-F-565. Washington DC. US Government
Printing Office. 391 pp.
Anon. 1994. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations of the Intentional
Introductions Policy Review. Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force Report to
Congress. 53 pp.
Anon. 1996. Report to the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force. Generic
nonindigenous aquatic organisms risk review process. Risk Assessment and
Management Committee. US Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force. Aquatic Nuisance
Prevention and Control Act of 1990. Feb 9, 1996.
www.anstaskforce.gov/gennasrev.htm
APHRAN (Animal and Plant Health Risk Assessment Network). 1998. Animal Health
Risk Analysis. The Animal Health and Science Division of the Canadian Food
Inspection Agency (CFIA). Nepean, Ontario. 25 pp.
Balouet, G., Poder, M. and Cahour, A. 1983. Haemocytic parasitosis:
morphology and pathology of lesions in the French flat oyster, Ostrea edulis L.
Aquaculture 34:1-14.
Beanlands, G. and P.N. Duinker. 1983. An ecological framework for
environmental impact assessment in Canada. Institute for Resource and
Environmental Studies, Dalhousie University and Federal Environmental Review
Office. 132 pp.
Berry, D.K. and C.E. Stenton. 1993. A decision-making process for the evaluation
of fish introductions in Alberta. Alberta Environmental Protection. 29 pp.
Billington, N. and P.D.N. Hebert (eds.). 1991. International Symposium on "The
Ecological and Genetic Implications of Fish Introductions (FIN)". Canadian
Journal Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 48(Suppl. 1):181 pp.
Campton, D.E. 1995. Genetic effects of hatchery fish on wild populations of
Pacific salmon and steelhead: what do we really know? American Fisheries Society
Symposium 15:337-353.
Copp, G.H., R. Garthwaite and R.E. Gozlan. 2003. A risk assessment protocol for
freshwater fishes. 12th International Conference on Aquatic Invasive Species.
Windsor 9-12 June 2003. Abstract on page 123 of Conference Abstracts and full
powerpoint presentation on
http://www.aquatic-invasive-species-conference.org/powerpoint_pdf/Session%20A/Thursday/gordon_copp.pdf
Crawford, S.S. 1997. A review and ecological evaluation of salmonine
introductions to the Great Lakes. A report prepared for The Chippewas of Nawash
First Nation. RR#5, Wiarton, ON, Canada N0H 2T0. 1 August 1997.
Crawford, S.S. 2001. Salmonine introductions to the Laurentian Great Lakes: An
historical review and evaluation of ecological effects. Canadian Special
Publication of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 132. 205 pp.
Courtenay, W.R. and J.R. Stauffer, (eds.). 1984. Distribution, biology and
management of exotic fishes. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. 430 pp.
Couturier, C., P. Dabinett, and M. Lanteigne. 1989. Scallop culture in Atlantic
Canada. pages 297-340. In A.D. Boghen (ed.). Cold-water Aquaculture in Atlantic
Canada. Canadian Institute for Research on Regional Development, Moncton. 410
pp.
Crossman, E.J. 1991. Introduced freshwater fishes: a review of the North
American perspective with emphasis on Canada. Canadian Journal Fisheries and
Aquatic Sciences 48(Suppl. 1):46-57.
Currens, K.P., and C.A. Busack. 1995. A framework for assessing genetic
vulnerability. Fisheries 20(12):24-31.
DeVoe, R. (ed). 1992. Proceedings of the Conference and Workshop on
Introductions and Transfers of Marine Organisms - achieving a balance between
economic development and resource protection. Hilton Head Is., SC Oct. 30 - Nov.
2, 1991. South Carolina Sea Grant Consortium. 198 pp.
Dextrase, A. J. and M.A. Coscarelli. 1999. Intentional introductions of
nonindigenous freshwater organisms in North America. pages 61-98. In Claudi, R.
and J.H. Leach (eds.) Nonindigenous freshwater organisms: vectors, biology and
impacts. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton. 464 pp
Doubleday, W.G. 2001. Is Atlantic salmon aquaculture a threat to wild stocks in
Atlantic Canada? Isuma 2(1):114-120.
Evans, D.O. and C.C. Willox. 1991. Loss of exploited, indigenous populations of
lake trout Salvelinus namaycush, by stocking of non-native stocks. Canadian
Journal Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 48(Suppl.1):34-147.
FAO. 1996. Precautionary Aproach to Fisheries. Part 2: scientific papers.
Prepared for the Technical Consultation on the Precautionary Approach to Capture
Fisheries (Including Species Introductions). Lysekil, Sweden, 6-13 June 1995. (A
scientific meeting organized by the Government of Sweden in co-operation with
FAO). FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 350 Part 2. Rome, FAO. 1996. 210 pp.
FAO. 2001. Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Technical Guidelines for
Responsible Fisheries No. 2. Precautionary Approach to Capture Fisheries and
Species Introductions. Part 6: Precautionary Approach to Species Introduction,
pages 29-36, plus ICES 1994 Code of Practice on the Introduction and Transfer of
Marine Organisms.
FAO. 2001. Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Technical Guidelines for
Responsible Fisheries No. 2. Part 5: Aquaculture Development. 42 pp.
Garcia S.M. 1996. The precautionary approach to fisheries and its implications
for fishery research, technology and management: An updated review. FAO Fish.
Tech. Paper 350 Part 2:1-76.
Hnath, J.G. (ed.). 1993. Great Lakes Fish Disease Control Policy and Model
Program. Great Lakes Fishery Commission. Special Pub. 93(1):1-37.
Horner, R.W. and R.L. Eschenroder. 1993. Protocol to minimize the risk of
introducing emergency disease agents with importation of salmonid fishes from
enzootic areas. Great Lakes Fishery Commission. Special Pub. 93-1:39-53.
Hudson, E.B. and Hill, B.J. 1991. Impact and spread of bonamiasis in the U.K.
Aquaculture 93:279-285.
Hutchinson, G.E. 1957. Concluding remarks. Cold Spring Harbor Symposium
Quantitative Biology 22:415-427.
ICES. 1988. Codes of practice and manual of procedures for consideration of
introductions and transfers of marine and freshwater organisms. ICES
Co-operative Research Report No. 159. 44 pp.
ICES. 1995. ICES Code of Practice on the Introductions and Transfers of Marine
Organisms 1994/Code de Conduite du CIEM pour les Introductions et Transferts
d'Organismes Marins 1994.
ICES. 2003. Code of Practice on the Introductions and Transfers of Marine
Organisms. http://www.ices.dk/pubs/itmo.pdf.
Jenkins, J.B. 1993. Policy on the Introduction and Transfers of Freshwater and
Marine Organisms into the Waters of Prince Edward Island. Dept. Fisheries and
Oceans, Charlottetown, PEI. MS. DFO Gulf Region.
Johnsen, B.O. and A.J. Jensen. 1992. Infection of Atlantic Salmon Salmo salar L.
by Gyrodactylus salaris Malmberg 1957 in the River Laksekva Misvaer in northern
Norway. Journal Fish Biology 40(3):433-444.
Kreuger, C.C. and B. May. 1991. Ecological and genetic effects of salmonid
introductions in North America. Canadian Journal Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
48(Suppl. 1):66-77.
Lackey, R.T. 1994. Ecological Risk Assessment. Fisheries 19(9):14-18.
Lange, R.E. and P.A. Smith. 1995. Lake Ontario fishery management: the lake
trout restoration issue. Journal Great Lakes Research 21(Suppl. 1):470-476.
Lazenby, D.C., T.G. Northcote and M. Fürst. 1986. Theory, practice and effects
of Mysis relicta introductions into North American and Scandinavian lakes.
Canadian Journal Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 43:1277-1284.
Leach, J.H. and C.A. Lewis. 1991. Fish introductions in Canada: provincial views
and regulations. Canadian Journal Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 48(Suppl.
1):156-161.
Martinez, P.J. and E.P. Bergersen. 1989. Proposed biological management of Mysis
relicta in Colorado lakes and reservoirs. North American Journal Fisheries
Management 9:1-11.
Mills, E.L., J.H. Leach, J.T. Carlton and C.L. Secor. 1993. Exotic species in
the Great Lakes: A history of biotic crises and anthropogenic introductions.
Journal Great Lakes Research 19(1):1-59.
National Biological Service. 1996. GIS for Non-indigenous Aquatic Species.
http://www.nfrcg.gov/nas/nas.htm.
Newkirk, G.F. 1989. Culture of the Belon oyster, Ostrea edulis, in Nova Scotia.
pages 159-179. In A.D. Boghen (ed.). Cold-water Aquaculture in Atlantic Canada.
Canadian Institute for Research on Regional Development, Moncton. 410 pp.
Phillip, D.P. 1991. Genetic implications of introducing Florida largemouth bass,
Micropterus salmoides floridanus. Canadian Journal Fisheries and Aquatic
Sciences 48(Suppl. 1): 58-65.
Porter, T.R. (ed.). 1992. Protocols for the introduction and transfer of
salmonids. North American Commission, North Atlantic Salmon Conservation
Organization, Scientific Working Group on Introductions and Transfers.
NAC(92)24. 119 pp.
Ryder, R.A. and S.R. Kerr. 1984. Reducing the risk of fish introductions: a
rational approach to the management of integrated cold water communities, pages
510-533. In EIFAC. Introductions and Transplantations - A Symposium on Stock
Enhancement the Management of Freshwater Fisheries. Tech. Paper 42. Suppl. Vol.
2.
Stephen, C. 1998. Outline of the decision making process used by the British
Columbia Federal-Provincial Fish Transplant Committee. Prepared for the
Federal-Provincial Fish Transplant Committee. Centre for Coastal Health,
Malaspina University-College, Nanaimo BC. 29 pp.
Stewart, J.E. 1991. Introductions as factors in diseases of fish and aquatic
invertebrates. Canadian Journal Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 48(Suppl.
1):110-117.
Waples, R.S. 1991. Genetic interactions between hatchery and wild salmonids:
lessons from the Pacific Northwest. Canadian Journal Fisheries and Aquatic
Sciences 48(Suppl. 1):124-133.
Appendix I: AUTHORITY
There are many national, provincial/territorial, regional, and international
regulations, policies, and guidelines as well as Aboriginal land claims
agreements and legislation in effect that apply to introductions and transfers
of aquatic organisms in Canada. These include:
1. Federal Legislation
A. Fisheries Act
(Section 43)
This legislation, which deals with the conservation and protection of fisheries
resources, provides the mandate to prepare this Code on Introductions and
Transfers of Aquatic Organisms.
43. The Governor
in Council may make regulations for carrying out the purposes and provisions of
this Act and in particular, but without restricting the generality of the
foregoing, may make regulations
a) for the proper
management and control of the sea-coast and inland fisheries;
b) respecting the
protection and conservation of fish;(...)
k) respecting the taking
or carrying of fish or any part thereof from one province to any other
province;(...)
Regulations
i) Fish Health Protection Regulations
The Fish Health Protection Regulations (FHPR) promulgated under Section 43 of
the Fisheries Act, require that fish imported to Canada or transferred between
provinces be accompanied by an Import Licence. The FHPR apply only to salmonid
species at present, but they are being amended to cover all other finfish (and
molluscs, echinoderms, and crustaceans via the proposed Shellfish Health
Protection Regulations). The FHPR are administered by the Aquaculture Science
Branch, DFO, Ottawa, and by Local Fish Health Officers in each province.
ii) Fishery (General) Regulations
The Fishery (General) Regulations (FGR) are a consolidation of common aspects
of fisheries regulations that come under the Fisheries Act. Part VIII of the
Fishery (General) Regulations applies to the release of live fish into fish
habitat and to the transfer of live fish to a fish rearing facility.
55 (1) Subject
to subsection (2), no
person shall, unless authorized to do so under a licence,
(a) release live fish into
any fish habitat; or
(b) transfer any live fish
to any fish rearing facility.
(2) Subsection
(1) does not apply in respect of fish that is immediately returned to the waters
in which it was caught.
56. The Minister
may issue a licence if
(a) the release or transfer of the fish
would be in keeping with the proper management and control of fisheries;
(b) the fish do not have any disease or disease agent that may be harmful to the
protection and conservation of fish; and
(c) the release or transfer of the fish will not have an adverse effect on the
stock size of fish or the genetic characteristics of fish or fish stocks.
The FGR do not apply to Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Ontario and they
do not apply in respect of fishing and related activities where the Quebec
Fisheries Regulations apply.
iii) Provincial Fisheries Regulations
Provincial Fisheries Regulations promulgated under the federal Fisheries Act
in each province (Leach and Lewis 1991) are administered by the agency
responsible for fisheries resource management in that province. The Regulations
require that organisms released into the waters of a province have no disease or
disease agent that may be harmful to fish and that the organism will have no
adverse effect on the genetic characteristics or size of fish populations.
Specific diseases or disease agents are not identified.
The Maritime Provinces Fishery Regulations apply to fishing in the provinces
of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island and adjacent tidal
waters. Sections 18 and 19 of the Regulations prohibit the use of live fish for
bait that were imported from another province.
The Ontario Fishery Regulations restrict the release of live fish into open
waters and prohibit the importation of baitfish (including crayfish and
salamanders).
The Pacific Fishery Regulation, 1993, prohibits the importation of a number
of fish species to British Columbia.
B. The Fish Inspection Act
Regulations under this Act prohibit the importation of live freshwater mitten
crabs of the genus Eriocheir or any members of the puffer fish family
Tetraodontidae.
C. The Wild Animal and Plant
Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act
Under the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and
Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act (WAPPRIITA) any
importation of plant and animal species that are listed in schedules to the Wild
Animal and Plant Trade Regulations requires a permit. The schedules include all
species regulated by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species
(CITES) of Wild Flora and Fauna and alien species considered invasive in and
potentially harmful to Canadian ecosystems. Provincial governments may also
request that a species be listed if they are of the opinion that transport into
their jurisdiction would be harmful to its environment. The federal Department
of Environment's Canadian Wildlife Service administers the Act and is currently
considering different approaches to augment the list of species regulated.
The Act protects certain species of animals and plants by implementing CITES
and regulates international and interprovincial trade in these animals and
plants. In addition, it permits provinces to make regulations that prohibit the
import of animals and plants that may be harmful to the environment.
2. Land Claims Agreements
Canada's land claims agreements establish the roles and responsibilities of
federal, provincial, territorial and First Nation and aboriginal governments
with respect to fisheries and wildlife management. Most land claims agreements
also establish management boards and councils with fisheries and wildlife
management responsibilities. Other agreements are under negotiation.
In the initial development and subsequent review of the Code it was
recognized that the roles and responsibilities of various levels of government
and public management structures varied from claim to claim. The Code was
intended primarily to establish a uniform and objective risk assessment process
for introductions and transfers of aquatic organisms across Canada based on
scientific and technical information. As a technical policy framework the
purpose of the Code is assist and support consultation and approval processes in
each jurisdiction as provided for in land claims agreements. This will include
the incorporation of local and traditional aboriginal knowledge in the decision
processes as required and the consideration of other socio-economic factors as
appropriate and as described in Figure 1
3. Provincial and Territorial Legislation and Regulations
Regulations promulgated by provincial or territorial governments, by means
other than the Fisheries Act and WAPPRIITA, that can affect introductions and
transfers of aquatic organisms include:
- Aquaculture Acts and Regulations;
- Game and Fish Acts and Regulations;
- Environmental Acts and Regulations; and,
- Fish Transportation Regulations.
4. Federal Policies
A. Canadian Biodiversity Strategy: Canada's Response to the Convention on
Biological Diversity
The Government of Canada, with support from provincial and territorial
governments, ratified the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity in
1992, believing it to be a very important global and national instrument for
promoting and guiding efforts to conserve biodiversity and use biological
resources sustainably. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has committed to
the support and implementation of this strategy.
Under Section 1.55 of the strategy Canada is committed to:
"Enhance efforts to conserve aquatic biodiversity by
protecting species and ecosystems at risk, endemic species, vulnerable spawning
areas and unique and representative ecosystems."
Furthermore, under section 1.58 of the strategy Canada is committed to:
"Reduce to acceptable levels, or eliminate, adverse impacts
of species introductions on aquatic biodiversity resulting from aquaculture
projects, fisheries enhancement programs and interbasin transfers of water and
organisms."
B. Wildlife Policy for Canada
The Wildlife Ministers Council of Canada has endorsed a Wildlife Policy for
Canada (Anon. 1990b). This policy recommends that introductions of a
non-indigenous or genetically engineered species, including fish, be considered
only if:
- No indigenous species is suitable for the purpose of the introduction;
- Clear and well-defined benefits to human or natural communities are
foreseen;
- No known adverse environmental impact is foreseen, and some means of
controlling the introduced population exists (such as predators or climate).
C. DFO Fish Habitat Management Policy
This policy is designed to achieve a net gain of productive capacity for
fisheries resources. It provides a comprehensive framework for the conservation,
restoration, and development of fish habitats, and strategies for the
implementation of its various components. Regulations for this policy are under
the Fisheries Act.
D. DFO Policy on Importation of Aquatic Organisms from
Outside Canada
DFO's Assistant Deputy Minister, Science, reviews proposals to import aquatic
organisms to Canada. The purpose of this Code is to ensure that decisions to
import aquatic organisms are consistent across Canada, and that decisions are in
compliance with international standards. Where there is a history of importation
of certain species from sources in the USA, and there has been minimal negative
impact on local fisheries resources, habitat or aquaculture, ADM authorization
prior to importation is not required. Also, annual summaries of imported aquatic
organisms are provided by regional DFO offices and provincial agencies for
inclusion in Canada's annual report to the ICES Working Group on Introductions
and Transfers of Marine Organisms.
5. Provincial or Territorial Policies
DFO and/or provincial governments have established Transplant/Introductions
Committees in most provinces. These committees assess proposals to introduce or
transfer organisms to a province, and provide advice to the Decision-Making
Authority on the acceptability of individual proposals. These committees do not
have legislated or regulatory authority at present.
A range of policies on introductions and transfers of aquatic organisms have
been prepared in individual provinces. Examples include:
- Newfoundland-Labrador - for salmonids and shellfish
- Prince Edward Island - for finfish, molluscs and crustaceans
- New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island - specific to rainbow trout
- Nova Scotia - for rainbow trout, Arctic charr (Salvelinus alpinus) and
smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieui)
- New Brunswick - for salmonids
- Quebec - for live finfish
- Ontario - for all finfish
- Manitoba - for live baitfish
- Saskatchewan - for all species
- Alberta - for all species
- British Columbia - various species are included under:
- Federal Policy on Atlantic Salmon Introductions
- Federal/Provincial Policy on Pacific Salmon Introductions
Leach and Lewis (1991) provide detailed information on provincial policies
related to introductions and transfers. These policies provide for health
protection, and preservation of genetic diversity and ecological integrity of
indigenous fish populations. The policies served as valuable building blocks
with which to develop this national Code on introductions and transfers. Alberta
has a formalised decision-making process described in Berry and Stenton (1993).
6. Regional Organizations
- Regional organizations have been established in different parts of Canada
and the USA, to improve co-ordination of efforts to minimize the negative
impacts of human activities on fisheries resources. Examples follow of the
organizations, and the standards or procedures that they have developed:
- Great Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC - Comprising representatives from
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
Wisconsin, and Ontario, and the federal governments of Canada and the USA) -
policies on fish disease control and health requirements for importation of
salmonids, and a draft policy on introduction of exotic species.
- Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species - The Panel is directed to
identify priority exotic species issues in the Great Lakes; assist/make
recommendations to the US Task Force on Aquatic Nuisance Species; coordinate
exotic species program activities in the region; advise public and private
interests on control efforts; and, submit an annual report to the Task Force
describing prevention, research and control activities in the Great Lakes. The
Panel membership is drawn from US and Canadian federal agencies, the eight
Great Lakes states and the province of Ontario, regional agencies, user
groups, local communities, tribal authorities, commercial interests and the
university/research community.
- Pacific Northwest Fish Health Protection Committee (Alaska, California,
Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington states, and USA federal government;
observers from DFO Pacific and British Columbia attend) - standards for
protecting the health of salmonid resources.
- BC Working Group on Non-Indigenous Species - together with its counterpart
in Washington State, under the Joint Environmental Council, developing a
strategy to prevent the unintentional introduction of non-indigenous species
into the shared waters of Puget Sound and Georgia Basin (e.g. in ballast
water).
- Proposed compact between North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota and USA
federal government with Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and the Canadian
federal government - co-operative procedures for control of the introduction
of exotic species.
7. International Organizations/Agreements
Standards that affect introductions and transfers of aquatic organisms have
been developed by international organizations and under bilateral/multilateral
trade agreements. Examples include:
- United Nations
- Convention on Biological Diversity
- Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES).
- International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) - Code of
Practice for Introduction and Transfer of Marine Organisms; to carry out an
international review, ICES requests early notification of planned
introductions which may affect joint water bodies.
- l'Office International des Epizooties (OIE) - International Aquatic Animal
Health Code; to facilitate international trade, the Code (which is updated
every two years) defines minimum health requirements for finfish, molluscs and
crustacea to avoid the risk of spreading aquatic animal diseases.
- General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and World Trade Organization
(WTO); Sanitary / Phytosanitary (SPS) Agreement - agreed-upon rules for the
use of SPS measures in international trade.
- Canada-USA Free Trade Agreement (FTA) and North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA) - sanitary/phytosanitary measures considered acceptable for
trade between Canada, USA, and Mexico.
- North American Commission (NAC) (Canada and USA of the North Atlantic
Conservation Organization (NASCO) - protocols for the introduction and
transfer of salmonids on the Atlantic seabord.
- International Joint Commission under the Boundary Waters Treaty Act.
Appendix II: IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES
This Appendix provides a general outline of the Roles and Responsibilities of
the various entities involved in the Introductions and Transfers process.
However, due to some legislative delegation of powers and inter-jurisdictional
agreements, as well as the unique arrangements under land claims agreements, the
roles and responsibilities may vary somewhat in some jurisdictions.
Roles and Responsibilities
A) Roles and Responsibilities of the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans and/or the Provincial Minister include:
- Propose future amendments to the Code to Canadian Council of Fisheries and
Aquaculture Ministers.
- Exempt certain transfers of organisms or classes of organisms from the
requirements of this Code if their importation presents minimal risk of
negative impact on fisheries resources, habitat, or aquaculture. Exemptions
must be subject to regular review by the regional Introduction and Transfers
Committee.
- Consider appeals by proponents whose applications for licences for
introductions or transfers originating outside of Canada are rejected.
Communicate appeal decisions to Decision-Making Authority for action as
necessary.
- Ensure compliance with the Fisheries Act and its attendant Regulations
respecting unauthorized releases of live fish into fish habitat, transfers of
live fish into fish rearing facilities and the importation of cultured fish or
eggs of indigenous fish.
B) Roles and Responsibilities of the Assistant Deputy Minister
(ADM), Science, include:
- Review proposals to ensure national consistency, and approve or reject
new/initial proposals to import exotic aquatic organisms from sources outside
Canada.
- Indicate approval to the Regional Director-General so that he or she may
issue an import licence.
- Consider appeals by proponents whose applications for licences for
introductions or transfers originating from another province are rejected.
Communicate appeal decision to Decision-Making Authority for action as
necessary.
C) Roles and Responsibilities of the Regional Director-General
and/or Provincial Director include:
1) Determine composition of Introductions and Transfers Committees, taking
into account the need for balance between wild stock conservation, enhancement,
sport and commercial fishing, and aquaculture mandates.
2) Review and approve or reject proposals to introduce or transfer organisms
from another province based in part on advice from the regional Introductions
and Transfers Committee.
3) Ensure that proposals have been discussed to incorporate provincial
concerns.
4) As appropriate, consult and seek advice from the principal groups that
could be affected by introductions and transfers (e.g. local groups, Aboriginal
Groups, commercial and recreational fishermen). Responses to such consultation
should be documented, in case of an appeal.
5) Issue import permits or licences.
6) Consider appeals by proponents whose applications for permits or licences
for intraprovincial transfers are rejected. Communicate appeal decisions to
Introductions and Transfer Committee for action as necessary.
D) Roles and Responsibilities of the Proponent include:
1) Obtain authorization to: import aquatic organisms within or from sources
outside Canada; ship exotic species from one province or territory of Canada to
another; extend the range of an organism within a province or territory; or,
transfer aquatic organisms within or between provinces.
2) Prepare a detailed description of the life history features of the
proposed species, the characteristics of the receiving waters, and the potential
for interactions with native species so that the Introductions and Transfers
Committee can conduct biological risk assessments of the impacts on indigenous
fisheries resources, habitat, aquaculture, and the aquatic community.
3) If required by the authorising jurisdiction, prepare a risk assessment
(Appendix IV) for review by the Introductions and Transfers Committee.
E) Roles and Responsibilities of the Introductions and Transfers
Committees include:
1) Provide advice to the Decision-Making Authority (Regional Director-General
DFO, ADM Science-DFO, and/or a provincial Minister/Director of Fisheries) on
proposals to introduce or transfer aquatic organisms.
2) Develop procedures that are consistent with this Code.
3) Report records of all approved introductions and transfers to the National
Registry on Introductions and Transfers, Aquaculture Science Branch, DFO, Ottawa
.
4) Conduct, or have conducted and evaluate, the biological risk assessment of
the impacts of the proposed introduction on indigenous fisheries resources,
habitat and aquaculture.
5) Assess the plan of action for controlling any negative impacts from the
introduction (which are possible even though only applications with low
potential for negative impact are approved).
6) Develop mitigation conditions for proposals to import organisms as
required, such as, but not exclusive to, the requirement for holding in
quarantine facilities in Canada, additional disease testing, or reproductive
sterilization.
7) Inform (via DFO as appropriate) neighboring jurisdictions, including those
in the USA and France, that could be affected by the proposed introduction or
range extension.
8) Ensure that there are measures in place so that the exotic species will
only be introduced in a systematic manner, first in quarantine facilities to
test for pathogens of concern, then in facilities where there is low risk of
escape so as to test adaptability of the organisms to survive in the natural
environment. Release organisms from containment only when the potential negative
impacts of the release on the ecological and genetic health of fisheries
resources, habitat and aquaculture have received full consideration and have
been assessed to be of minimal risk.
9) Issue licences for introductions and transfers for applications where the
Introductions and Transfers Committee is the Decision-Making Authority.
10) Communicate the Code, its application and implications to stakeholders.
F) Roles and Responsibilities of the Aquaculture Science Branch
include:
1) Maintain a National Registry on Introductions and Transfers. Issue annual
summaries of introductions and transfers of aquatic organisms in Canada from the
National Registry for public information.
2) Convene an annual meeting of Introductions and Transfers Committee chairs
to review and discuss procedures and problems in implementing the Code.
3) Coordinate the preparation of an annual report for the Canadian Council of
Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers on introductions and transfers requests and
their outcomes.
4) Communicate the Code, its application and implication and any future
changes to stakeholders.
G) Establishing a Dispute Avoidance Procedure
1) As the introduction or transfer of a species is subject to a rigorous risk
assessment procedure, officials in neighbouring jurisdictions can be reasonably
certain that a province or territory will take into account the probability of a
species crossing provincial/territorial borders through adjoining waters, as
they make their decision. If a jurisdiction receives a proposal for the
introduction or transfer of a species in a shared watershed and the species is
likely to cross borders, it will consult with its affected neighbours, prior to
making a decision, and inform them of its decision as soon as possible, ensuring
that there is enough time for a response prior to any further action being
taken.
2) In keeping with the spirit of the 1999 Agreement on Interjurisdictional
Cooperation with Respect to Fisheries and Aquaculture ? which all jurisdictions
have signed ? every effort will be made to come to a mutually satisfactory
resolution of the issue through any avenue to which they might agree. If after
such notification has taken place, and after discussing the issue amongst
themselves they have not resolved it to their mutual satisfaction, the
jurisdiction wishing to proceed with the introduction or transfer will publicly
announce their decision to do so. This would be done to ensure that the public
interest is protected, as such contentious introductions or transfers decisions
would be made openly, giving interested parties the opportunity to voice their
opinions.
3) If, after the decision to proceed is made, a neighbouring provincial
jurisdiction still believes that the introduction or transfer presents
unacceptable risk to the aquatic ecosystems in their jurisdiction, it should
have the opportunity to appeal the decision.
Appendix III: INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS
To be completed by proponent
Wherever possible, information is to be supported with references from the
scientific literature, and notations to personal communications with scientific
authorities and fisheries experts. Applications lacking detail may be returned
to the proponent for additional material, resulting in a delay in assessing the
proposal.
For some proposals, e.g., intraprovincial transfers or other routine
introductions/transfers, the information requirement may be reduced
significantly. The local Introductions and Transfers Committee should be
consulted in such cases.
A) Executive Summary:
Provide a brief summary of the document including a description of the
proposal, the potential impacts on native species and their habitats and
mitigation steps to minimize the potential impacts on native species.
B) Introduction
1) Name (common and scientific [genus and species]) of the organism proposed
for introduction or transfer.
2) Describe the characteristics, including distinguishing characteristics, of
the organism. Include a scientific drawing or photograph.
3) Describe the history in aquaculture, enhancement or other introductions
(if appropriate).
4) Describe the objectives and rationale for the proposed introduction,
including an explanation as to why such an objective cannot be met through the
utilization of an indigenous species.
5) What alternate strategies have been considered in order to meet the
objectives of the proposal? What are the implications of a "do nothing" option?
6) What is the geographic area of the proposed introduction? Include a map.
7) Describe the numbers of organisms proposed for introduction (initially,
ultimately). Can the project be broken down into different sub-components; if
so, how many organisms are involved in each sub-component?
8) Describe the source(s) of the stock (facility) and genetic stock (if
known).
C) Life History Information of the Species to be Introduced or
Transferred - For Each Life History Stage
1) Describe the native range and range changes due to introductions.
2) Record where the species was introduced previously and describe the
ecological effects on the environment of the receiving area (predator, prey,
competitor, and/or structural/functional elements of the habitat).
3) What factors limit the species in its native range.
4) Describe the physiological tolerances (water quality, temperature, oxygen,
and salinity) at each life history stage (early life history stages, adults,
reproductive stages).
5) Describe the habitat preferences and tolerances for each life history
stage.
6) Describe the reproductive biology.
7) Describe the migratory behavior.
8) Describe the food preferences for each life history stage.
9) Describe the growth rate and lifespan (also in the area of the proposed
introduction, if known).
10) Describe the known pathogens and parasites of the species or stock.
11) Describe the behavioural traits (social, territorial, aggressive).
D) Interaction With Native Species
1) What is the potential for survival and establishment of the non-native
species if it escapes? (This question applies to species intended for
aquaculture or for live rearing in a contained facility.)
2) What habitat(s) will the introduced species likely occupy in the proposed
area of introduction and will this overlap with any vulnerable, threatened or
endangered species? Indicate if the proposed area of introduction also includes
contiguous waters).
3) With which native species will there be a niche overlap? Are there any
unused ecological resources of which the species would take advantage?
4) What will the introduced species eat in the receiving environment?
5) Will this predation cause any adverse impacts on the receiving ecosystem?
6) Will the introduced species survive and successfully reproduce in the
proposed area of introduction or will annual stocking be required? (This
question applies to species not intended for aquaculture or life in a contained
facility)
7) Will the introduced species hybridize with native species? Is local
extinction of any native species or stocks possible as a result of the proposed
introduction? Are there any possible effects of the introduced species on the
spawning behaviour and spawning grounds of local species?
8) Are there any potential impacts on habitat or water quality as a result of
the proposed introduction?
E) Receiving Environment and Contiguous Watershed
1) Provide physical information on the receiving environment and contiguous
waterbodies such as seasonal water temperatures, salinity, and turbidity,
dissolved oxygen, pH, nutrients and metals. Do those parameters match the
tolerances/preferences of the species to be introduced, including conditions
needed for reproduction.
2) List species composition (major aquatic vertebrates, invertebrates and
plants) of the receiving waters. Are any of these species known to be
susceptible to the diseases and parasites found to affect the introduced species
in its native range?
3) Provide information on habitat in the area of introduction, including
contiguous waters, and identify critical habitat. Which of those parameters
match the tolerances/preferences of the species to be introduced? Can the
introduced species disturb any of the habitats described?
4) Describe the natural or man-made barriers that should prevent the movement
of the introduced organisms to adjacent waters.
F) Monitoring
1) Describe the plans for follow-up assessments of the proposed introduced
species' success and how the negative impacts on native species and their
habitats will be assessed.
G) Precautions and Management Plan
1) Describe the management plan for the proposed introduction or transfer.
This should include but not be restricted to the following information:
a) details of the disease certification status of stock to be imported;
b) disease monitoring plan proposed for the introduced stocks following
introduction or transfer;
c) precautions taken to ensure that no other species (fellow travellers)
accompany the shipment;
d) who will be permitted to use the proposed species and under what terms and
conditions;
e) will there be a pre-commercial phase for the proposed introduction or
transfer;
f) description of the quality assurance plan for the proposal; and,
g) other legislative requirements that need to be met.
2) Describe the chemical, biophysical and management precautions being taken
to prevent accidental escape of any fish, parasites and/or pathogens to and
their establishment in non-target recipient ecosystems. Give details of the
water source, effluent destination, any effluent treatment, proximity to storm
sewers, predator control, site security, precautions to prevent escapes.
3) Describe contingency plans to be followed in the event of an
unintentional, accidental or unauthorized liberation of the species from rearing
and hatchery facilities or an accidental or unexpected expansion of the range.
4) If this proposal is intended to create a fishery, give details of fishery
objective. Who would benefit from such a fishery? Give details of a management
plan, and, if appropriate, include changes in the management plans for species
which will be impacted.
H) Business Data
1) Provide the legal name of the owner and company, the aquaculture licence
number and the business licence (if applicable) or the name of the government
agency or department with a contact name, telephone, fax and email information.
2) Provide an indication as to the economic viability of the proposed
project.
I) References
1) Provide a detailed bibliography of all references cited in the course of
the preparation of the risk assessment.
2) Provide a list of names, including addresses, of scientific authorities
and fisheries experts consulted.
Appendix IV: AQUATIC ORGANISM RISK ANALYSIS
To be Completed by Introductions and Transfers Committees
Unless the authorising jurisdiction requires the Risk
Analysis to be prepared by the proponent
INTRODUCTION
To evaluate risks associated with the introduction or transfer of aquatic
organisms, it is necessary to assess the probability that a species will become
established and the consequences of that establishment. The process addresses
the major environmental components. It provides a standardised approach for
evaluating the risk of genetic, ecological and disease impacts as well as the
potential for introducing a "fellow traveller" or parasite that might impact the
native species of the proposed receiving waters. It also provides a mechanism
for assessment in cases where establishment of a population in the wild is the
intended outcome. This approach has been adapted from "Final Draft - Report to
the Aquatic Nuisance Task Force - Generic Non-indigenous Aquatic Organisms Risk
Analysis Review Process, Washington, DC, February 9, 1996 by the Risk Assessment
and Management Committee of the U.S. Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force" (Anon.
1996).
At each of Steps 1, 2 and 3, the element rating and rationale for the rating
should be recorded, based on the following criteria:
A HIGH rating means that the risk is likely or very
likely to occur.
A MEDIUM rating means that there is a probability
of negative impact.
A LOW rating means that the risk is considered to
be insignificant.
Note: For the High and Medium category of risks, application of appropriate
mitigation measures are required to lessen the risk to a Low rating. However, it
is recognized that this may not be possible for all proposals.
The strength of the review process is not in the ratings but in the detailed
biological and other relevant information statements that motivate them.
Part I - Ecological and Genetic Risk Assessment Process
Step 1 Determining the Probability of Establishment (beyond the intended
area of introduction)
Complete the following table and provide a brief rationale with appropriate
references to support the rating given.
Element |
Probability of Establishment
(H, M, L) 1 |
Level of Certainty
(VC to VU) 2 |
Estimate of probability that the introduced
species successfully colonizes and maintains a population in the intended
area of introduction3 |
|
|
Estimate the probability of its spreading
beyond the intended area of introduction 4 or,
Estimate the probability of its spreading beyond the intended are of
introduction if it escapes (apply to cases in which the intended area of
introduction is a confined environment)5 |
|
|
Final Rating 5,6 |
|
|
Explanatory Notes
1.
Element ratings should be supported with data and references, including a
rationale for the rating given.
2.
VC |
Very certain |
RC |
Reasonably certain |
RU |
Reasonably uncertain |
VU |
Very uncertain |
The level of certainty is intended to give an estimate of whether the element
that is being rated is based on scientific knowledge, experience, or whether it
is extremely subjective and based on "best guess". Such uncertainties need to be
taken into account when making a decision.
3. Characteristics within this element include: the organism coming in
contact with an adequate food resource; suitability of habitat, encountering
appreciable biotic and abiotic environmental resistance; and the ability to
reproduce in the new environment. . If the organism is introduced into a
confined facility (land based, sea cages etc.), the facility itself is
identified as the intended area of introduction.
4. In cases in which the intended area of introduction is a natural habitat
(i.e., the wild) the probability of spreading includes consideration of, but is
not limited to, factors such as the ability to use human intervention/activity
as a means of dispersal
5. In cases in which the intended area of introduction is a confined
environment such as a land facility or cages, the probability of spreading
beyond the area of introduction is dependent on whether the organism escapes
from the area of introduction. For example, a Low
probability of escape from a confined facility will necessarily result in a
Low probability of spreading in the surrounding
natural habitat. If the probability of escape is deemed
Medium, the probability of spreading beyond the area of introduction, if
estimated as High, could still not be rated higher
than Medium. Whereas, if the probability of escape is deemed
High, the probability of spreading beyond the area of introduction will
not be limited by its probability of escape and could be rated as estimated
(i.e., High, Medium or Low).
6. The final rating for the Probability of Establishment
is assigned the value of the element with the lowest rating (for example,
High and Low ratings for the
above elements would result in a final Low rating).
Again, both events - probability of the organism successfully colonizing and
maintaining a population in the intended area of introduction (be it a confined
environment such as a facility, or a natural habitat) and the probability of
spreading beyond the intended area of introduction (estimated as explained
above) - need to occur in order to have establishment beyond the intended area
of introduction.
The final rating for the Level of Certainty is
assigned the value of the element with the Lowest level of certainty (e.g., Very
Certain and Reasonably Certain ratings would result in a final Reasonably
Certain rating).
Part 1 - Step 2 Determining the Consequence of Establishment of an Aquatic
Organism
The "Consequence of Establishment" is assigned a
single rating based on environmental impacts.
Element
Estimate of magnitude of environmental impacts, if established. |
Consequences of Establishment(H, M, L)
7 |
Level of Certainty
(VC to VU) 8 |
Ecological impact on native ecosystems both
locally and within the drainage basin.9 |
|
|
Genetic impacts on local self-sustaining
stocks or populations.10 |
|
|
Final Rating 11,12 |
|
|
Explanatory Notes
7. See Note 1.
8. See Note 2.
9. Ecological impacts that can affect the distribution or abundance of native
species resulting from alterations in relationships such as predation, prey
availability, and habitat availability. In assessing the ecological impacts of
establishment, the assessors should take into consideration whether the
non-indigenous stock i) enters or alters the habitat of indigenous species; ii)
displaces indigenous species from optimal habitat; iii) affects the quantity,
quality, and availability of food supply of indigenous species; or, iv) preys on
other species of concern.
10. Genetic impacts which can affect the capacity of native species to
maintain and transfer to successive generations its current identity and
diversity. In assessing the genetic impacts, the assessors should take into
consideration whether the non-indigenous stock i) encounters or interacts with
species of concern; ii) affects the survival of local species; iii) affects the
reproductive success of local species; or, iv) affects the genetic
characteristics of native stocks or species.
11. The final rating for the Consequences of Establishment
is assigned the value of the element (individual probability) with the
highest rating (for example: a High
probability of ecological impact and a Medium rating for the probability of
genetic impact would result in an overall High
probability of environmental impact), as both events are independent (i.e.,
additive probabilities).
12. See Note 6.
Part 1 - Step 3 Estimating Aquatic Organism Risk Potential
The overall Risk is assigned a single value based on the
Probability of Establishment and the Consequences of
Establishment.
Component |
Rating
(H,M,L) |
Level of Certainty
(VC to VU) |
Probability of Establishment estimate13 |
|
|
Consequences of Establishment estimate14 |
|
|
FINAL RISK ESTIMATE
15, 16 |
|
|
Explanatory Notes
13. As estimated in Step 1 - Use the "final rating level" and "final level of
certainty", respectively.
14. As estimated in Step 2 - Use the "final rating level" and "final level of
certainty", respectively.
15. Under "element rating " - Table 1 provides a guide for categorizing the
final risk estimate. See also the explanatory note number 29 below Table 1.
16. Under "level of certainty" - the final level of certainty for the Final
risk estimate is assigned the value of the element with the lowest certainty
level (e.g. a Very Certain and Reasonably Uncertain estimate for the probability
of establishment and consequences of establishment, respectively, would result
in an overall Reasonably Uncertain level of certainty).
Definition of Overall Aquatic Organism Risk Potential
HIGH = Organism(s) of major concern (major
mitigation measures are required). It is advised that the proposal be rejected
unless mitigation procedures can be developed to reduce the risk to Low.
MEDIUM = Organism(s) of moderate concern. It is
advised that the proposal be rejected unless mitigation procedures can be
developed to reduce the risk to Low.
LOW = Organism(s) of little concern. It is advised
that the proposal be approved. Mitigation is not needed.
Note: It is advised that the proposal be approved as presented (no mitigating
measures required) only if the overall estimated risk potential is LOW
Note: It is advised that the proposal be approved only if the overall confidence
level for which the overall risk was estimated is VERY CERTAIN or REASONABLY
CERTAIN.
Note: For an overall HIGH or MEDIUM risk, a second risk assessment needs to be
conducted to determine whether the proposed mitigation procedures are adequate
to reduce the overall risk to LOW.
Part 1 - Step 4 Completion of Risk Assessment Documentation
Specific Management Questions (Mitigation Factors or Measures)
Additional Factors and Notes
1. Mitigation measures could reduce risks to a Low rating. Mitigation
measures include but are not limited to the following:
Reducing risk of genetic impact on local stock:
- hold in containment facilities to prevent escape
- use stocks genetically similar to stocks in receiving waters
- sterilize organisms to prevent interbreeding with local populations
Reducing risk of ecological impact on local ecosystems:
- use local stock only
- sterilize organisms to prevent natural reproduction and increase in
population size
- use species that cannot reproduce naturally in receiving waters
- hold in containment facilities to prevent escapes
2 Are there any neighbouring jurisdictions to consult?
If Yes ? Has this been done?
Is the neighbouring jurisdiction concerned?
If Yes ? Has the dispute avoidance mechanism outlined in Appendix II been
applied?
Part 2 - Pathogen, Parasite or Fellow Traveller Risk Assessment Process
Step 1 Determining the Probability of Establishment
Complete the following table and provide a brief rationale with appropriate
references to support the rating given.
Steps 1 to 3 must be carried out for each hazard
identified in the hazard identification step (Appendix V).
Element |
Probability of Establishment
(H,M,L) 17 |
Level of Certainty
(VC to VU)18 |
Estimate the probability that a pathogen,
parasite or fellow traveller may be introduced along with the species
proposed for introduction. Note that several pathways may exist through
which pathogens or accompanying species can enter fish habitat. Each must be
evaluated. |
|
|
Estimate the probability that the pathogen,
parasite or fellow traveller will encounter susceptible organisms or
suitable habitat. |
|
|
Final Rating 19, 20 |
|
|
Explanatory notes
17. See Note 1.
18. See Note 2.
19. The final rating for the Probability of Establishment
is assigned the value of the element with the lowest
risk rating (e.g., a Medium and Low
estimate for the above elements would result in an overall
Low rating). Note that the calculation of the final rating follows the
multiplication rule of probabilities (i.e., the probability that a given event
will occur corresponds to the product of the individual probabilities). Thus the
final risk of establishment is assigned the value of the lowest individual
probability estimate. Again, both events - probability of the pathogen, parasite
or fellow traveller successfully colonizing and maintaining a population in the
intended area of introduction (be it in a confined environment such as a
facility, or a natural habitat) and the probability of spreading beyond the
intended area of introduction (estimated as explained above) - need to occur in
order to have establishment beyond the intended area of introduction.
20. The final rating for the level of certainty for the Probability of
Establishment is assigned the value of the element with the lowest level of
certainty (e.g. a Very Certain and Reasonably Uncertain ratings for the above
elements would result in a final Reasonably Uncertain rating).
Part 2 - Step 2 Determining the Consequence of Establishment of a Pathogen,
Parasite or Fellow Traveller
Complete the following table and provide a brief rationale with appropriate
references to support the rating given. The final rating of the Consequences of
Establishment is assigned a single rating based on environmental impacts.
Element
Impacts of establishment of a parasite, pathogen or fellow traveller on
native species and/or aquaculture in the watershed. |
Consequences of Establishment
(H, M, L) 21 |
Level of Certainty
(VC to VU) 22 |
Ecological impacts on native ecosystems both locally and within the
drainage basin including disease outbreak, reduction in reproductive
capacity, habitat changes, etc. |
|
|
Genetic impacts on local self-sustaining stocks or populations (i.e.
whether the pathogen, parasite or fellow traveler affects the genetic
characteristics of native stocks or species). |
|
|
Final Rating 23, 24 |
|
|
Explanatory notes
21. See Note 1.
22. See Note 2.
23. The final rating for the Consequences of Establishment is assigned the
value of the element (individual probability) with highest risk rating (e.g.
High and Medium ratings for the above elements would result in a final High
rating) as both events are independent (i.e., additive probabilities).
24. See Note 20.
Part 2 - Step 3 Estimating Pathogen, Parasite or Fellow Traveller Risk Potential
The overall Risk is assigned a single value based on the Probability of
Establishment and the Consequences of Establishment.
Component |
Rating
(H, M, L) |
Level of Certainty
(VC to VU) |
Probability of Establishment estimate 25 |
|
|
Consequence of Establishment estimate 26 |
|
|
FINAL RISK ESTIMATE 27, 28 |
|
|
Explanatory notes
25. As estimated in Step 1 - Use " final rating for probability of
establishment" and "final rating for the level of certainty", respectively.
26. As estimated in Step 2 - Use "final rating for consequences of
establishment" and "final rating for the level of certainty", respectively.
27. Under "element rating", Table 1 below provides a guide for categorizing
the final risk estimate.
28. See Note 20.
Definition of "Pathogen, Parasite, Fellow Traveller Organism Risk Potential"
HIGH = Organism(s) of major concern (major mitigation measures are required). It
is advised that the proposal be rejected unless mitigation procedures can be
developed to reduce the risk to Low.
MEDIUM = Organism(s) of moderate concern. Mitigation is justified. It is
advised that the proposal be rejected unless mitigation procedures can be
developed to reduce the risk to Low.
LOW = Acceptable risk - organism(s) of little concern. It is advised that the
proposal be approved as presented. Mitigation is not needed.
Note: It is advised that the proposal be approved as presented only if the
overall risk associated with each identified potential hazard (as defined in
Step 1) was estimated as LOW.
Note: It is advised that the proposal be approved as presented only if the
overall confidence level for which the overall risk is VERY CERTAIN OR
REASONABLY CERTAIN
Note: For an overall HIGH or MEDIUM risk, a second risk assessment needs to be
conducted to determine whether the proposed mitigation procedures are adequate
to reduce the overall risk to LOW
Part 2 - Step 4 Completion of Risk Assessment Documentation
Specific Management Questions (Mitigation Factors or Measures)
Additional Factors and Notes
Mitigation measures could reduce risks to a low rating. Examples of
mitigation measures include the following:
Reducing risk of transferring accompanying pathogens, parasites and/or fellow
travellers
- health inspection and certification
- pre-treatment for pathogens, diseases and parasites
- inspection for fellow travellers
- disinfection prior to discarding water in which the organisms arrived
- vaccination
- disinfection of eggs
- importation as milt or fertilized eggs only
- quarantine incoming organisms and use as broodstock, release F1 progeny
only if no pathogens, parasites or fellow travellers appear.
Table 1. How to Categorize the Final Risk Estimate 29
Probability of Establishment |
Consequences of Establishment |
Final Risk Estimate |
High |
High |
High |
High |
Medium |
High |
High |
Low |
Medium |
Medium |
High |
High |
Medium |
Medium |
Medium |
Medium |
Low |
Medium |
Low |
High |
Medium |
Low |
Medium |
Medium |
Low |
Low |
Low |
Explanatory Note
29. If there is no probability increment between the two estimates, (i.e., if
the Probability of Establishment is High and the Consequence of Establishment is
Medium) the final risk estimate takes the value of the highest of the two
probabilities to err on the side of safety (precautionary approach).
Back to Top
|