PRV: DFO Doesn't do Evidence and Science, nor Precautionary Principle

As we all know, DFO likes to say it uses 'evidence and science' to make decisions. Well the PRV case is one where it refuses to test fish, refuses to act in accordance with a court decision requiring it to change policy and test for PRV (twice), and has now put off the decision until the month of the federal election, October, in Canada, by saying it will consult with Indigenous people - even though they had four months from the Feb decision to do so, and didn't.

Here is the June 4th take: https://www.facebook.com/alexandra.morton.1671/posts/2469478909947322

Here is one of several posts I have done on DFO refusal to use evidence and science: https://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/2019/05/dfo-does-not-use-evidence-and-science.html.

Here is another on refusal to use E&S: https://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/2019/02/evidence-and-science-based-decisions-at.html.

And a third on refusal to use E&S: https://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/2019/02/transparency-in-fish-farming-well-no.html.

These three list more than a dozen cases of refusal to use E&S by DFO. I can go back in my files and find many others, but feel that a dozen cases prove the point.

Now, moving on, is it just me or do you think they will take a negative decision - as in more non-evidence and more non-science so close to the election? Sorry to be cynical, but it is unlikely this case is moving forward in 2019. Let's all vote Green and boot the Liberals out of BC. They know they are going to lose Alberta, but they may well lose BC, too. (Kinder Morgan, Bill C-48, killing off wild salmon and killer whales...).

Now, here is some history about the PRV case worked on by Ecojustice: https://www.ecojustice.ca/case/protecting-wild-salmon-from-piscine-reovirus/.

"Specifically, Ecojustice said, the minister’s practice contravened Section 56 of the Fishery (General) Regulations, which states that the minister cannot issue a transfer licence for fish that “have any disease or disease agent that may be harmful to the protection and conservation of fish.” The Federal Court agreed.

"In a 200-page decision issued in February 2019, the court ruled that the minister’s PRV policy is illegal for several reasons. Critically, it found that the PRV policy does not comply with the precautionary principle. This important principle says that, whenever possible, harm to human health and nature must be prevented before it happens — particularly in situations in which scientific understanding of potential risks is incomplete.

In its decision, the court gave the minister four months to come up with a new, precautionary, and science-based policy. That is the June 4, 2019 date they have just passed doing nothing except sending in DFO lawyers to extend 'consultations' to October.

And do remember that BC is the only jurisdiction on the Pacific coast that allows fish farms in the water. Alaska, Oregon, California have none, and Washington outlawed them after the Cooke Aquaculture escape of 263,000 Atlantics in 2017. 

Here is some more: "PRV is highly contagious and research shows that it is present in up to 80 per cent of farmed salmon."

Now, "The court’s decision in this case made it clear that, in order to do this [protect wild salmon], the minister must use a precautionary and science-based approach to protecting wild salmon — especially when there is a risk of transmitting a potentially deadly virus or disease."

This, below, is the evidence and science for the PRV/HSMI, jaundice/anemia in BC, by, DFO scientists no less, but DFO ignores this further case of E&S - it includes Di Cicco and Miller et al, among other scientists.


"Abstract

Piscine orthoreovirusStrain PRV-1is the causative agent of heart and skeletal muscle inflammation (HSMI) in Atlantic salmon(Salmo salar). Given its high prevalence in net pen salmon, debate has arisen on whether PRV poses a risk to migratory salmon, especially in British Columbia (BC) where commercially important wild Pacific salmon are in decline. Various strains of PRV have been associated with diseases in Pacific salmon, including erythrocytic inclusion body syndrome (EIBS), HSMI-like disease,and jaundice/anemia in Japan, Norway, Chile and Canada. We examine the developmental pathway of HSMI and jaundice/anemia associated with PRV-1 in farmed Atlantic and Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) salmon in BC, respectively. Insituhybridizationlocalized PRV-1 within developing lesions in both diseases. The two diseases showed dissimilar pathological pathways, with inflammatory lesions in heart and skeletal muscle in Atlantic salmon, and degenerative-necrotic lesions in kidney and liver in Chinook salmon, plausibly explained by differences in PRV load tolerance in red blood cells. Viral genome sequencing revealed no consistent differences in PRV-1variantsintimately involved in the development of both diseases, suggesting that migratory Chinook salmon may be at more than a minimal risk of disease from exposure to the high levels of PRV occurring on salmon farms."

This is the link to the PRV/HSMI paper: https://www.psf.ca/sites/default/files/ISH%20Manuscript%20%2B%20Suppl%20mat.pdf.

Moving on, the Vancouver Sun had this to say about the victory for wild salmon: "The court ruling stated that PRV is a highly infectious virus, first discovered in Norway in 2010. It is now also present in waters off the UK, Ireland, Chile, the U.S. and Canada. It is found in B.C. in both wild and farmed salmon."

This is the Sun link, Feb 2019: https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/court-quashes-government-policy-not-to-test-baby-farmed-salmon-for-disease.

The Sun gives you a take for the general reader, so for most it is worthwhile reading.

So, we have established that PRV is nasty, DFO won't test for it, and it's unlikely they will get to this before the October federal election -  after all there are hundreds of thousands of BC residents against fish farms. 

And, who is for fish farms you ask? Well, the total employment is 1,800 according to the BC government's own statistics in the BC Stats Report update to 2019. That is about half of one percent, as in less than 1% of those against fish farms.

See: https://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/2019/03/mar-21-2019-bc-stats-report-2016.html.

Now, the final thing is getting a better handle on what the precautionary principle means.
 
Fortunately, in the BC Agriculture Minister's finfish committee (it had fish farms on it) Tony Allard, who is a lawyer, wrote a good long piece on the principle, in their voluminous report. Lots of arguing in this committee, I'll bet.

Here is my summary of his take on the precautionary principle: https://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/2018/10/precautionary-principle-has-defined.html. 

You can read it for a shortened and to the point take, and then go to the whole version if you want more pain, er, depth.

And here is what it means:  

Allard's summary: "The precautionary principle does more than forbid decision makers from using scientific uncertainty as an excuse for regulatory inaction. It requires decision makers to err on the side of caution by anticipating harm and taking protective measures when there is environmental risk, even if there is scientific uncertainty."

After the east coast cod collapse (a lot like what is happening in BC now with the west coast salmon collapse, and DFO in Ottawa): "The Oceans Act was passed in 1996 to ensure that such a catastrophe never occurred again in Canada. The Oceans Act extended Canada’s jurisdiction over marine waters and required an ecosystem approach to the management of the marine environment based on the precautionary principle"

And: Allard points out that: "Canada’s Policy for the Conservation of Wild Salmon expressly requires the precautionary principle to be applied with respect to the conservation of wild salmon"

And: "The precautionary approach, defined in the Oceans Act as “erring on the side of caution,” is a key principle to be applied in the management of ocean activities."

And: "...the framework that government must use includes the following: "The application of precaution is distinctive within science-based risk management and is characterized by three basic tenets: the need for a decision, a risk of serious or irreversible harm and a lack of full scientific certainty.145"

And: ""Since the Framework provides a series of principles a decision-maker must follow to protect the environment, it is not surprising that the Framework makes it expressly clear that any impact on the assessment of trade occurs only after the decision- maker has determined the level of protection is consistent with society’s values. Accordingly, the Framework’s last principle makes it clear that the impact on trade is to be considered only after the decision to apply precautionary measures has been made"

And: In closing, Allard puts it this way: "The precautionary principle does more than forbid decision makers from using scientific uncertainty as an excuse for regulatory inaction. It requires decision makers to err on the side of caution by anticipating harm and taking protective measures when there is environmental risk even if there is scientific uncertainty."

And that the minister must do what is reasonable, not what he thinks is reasonable, but what the situation requires as the most reasonable outcome, such as putting fish farms on land."

And, thus industry claims of wasted investment are not valid.

Finally, you may know that my list of on-land fish farm systems now sits at 281 such RAS systems: https://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/2016/05/152-different-on-land-fish-farm-systems.html. 

Yes, that is nearly 300 on-land fish farm systems. This is a no-brainer, even for a fish farm, because they can continue to operate in BC with their present employees, only now on land.

If only DFO were sufficiently illuminated. "DFO build an on-land fish farm in Ottawa, just don't use BC/Iceland stocks of eggs/fry because you'll get PRV/HSMI."

Come on, that's funny.

Remember, it's only four months to the election: Vote No to Liberals. "You voted no to wild salmon by voting no to PRV testing, so we are voting no to you." 

***

Hold on a sec while I lift myself up from the floor after I fell out of my chair. DFO says it will test for PRV:  https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/testing-bc-fish-farms-prv-virus-1.5163032?utm_source=Watershed+Watch+Email+List&utm_campaign=73bdaa2444-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_06_05_10_07&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_405944b1b5-73bdaa2444-166907249&mc_cid=73bdaa2444&mc_eid=5777c92bcd.

The only thing is that its 'report' that showed PRV doesn't affect Fraser sockeye was panned by experts on the committee because DFO would not give them the research to look at before it, on their behalf, said the experts agreed PRV doesn't affect Fraser sockeye.

Hmm. Read Stan Proboszcz' rebuttal to DFO on this one: https://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/2018/02/new-science-copmmittee-dont-bother.html. This one has Stan's take on the 'non science' from DFO on sockeye, two links, actually.

And on science in general at DFO:  https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/april-2018/integrity-of-the-dfos-science-advisory-process-in-question/.

And Brian Riddell's response to the Rapid Science Response: https://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/2018/11/fake-science-by-dfo-riddell-response.html.

Well, I'll fall off my chair again, if DFO finds no problem from PRV when DFO has already found a problem with PRV.

                                                   *********
And... I fell off my chair, yet again, with the news, just in, Feb 11, 2020:  
 
Here in BC, DFO has refused scientific evidence on harm and killing of wild salmon by PRV four times now:  https://alexandramorton.typepad.com/alexandra_morton/2020/01/the-virus-prv-brings-out-the-worst-in-dfo.html?fbclid=IwAR1RVl5HttXekuttvJChNOwu51SufY3oxLT3uc7hZ_TScKjBL5nyr0siMuE.

Precautionary Principle has a Defined Approach - Updated Oct 10, 2019

Here is a thorough look at the precautionary principle, as applied to getting fish farms out of the water on the grounds they are detrimental to wild salmon. The reason for using the principle is that it doesn't matter how much science is done, fish farms will always say that the science done doesn't prove anything and that more science is required.

Doing science is thus a trap, because a decade will go by and still fish farms, and DFO, will say there is not enough science. Hence the reason for using the precautionary principle to save wild salmon. one example is that fish farms don't agree that lice cause problems even though there have been 30 such studies in BC, and 800 world wide, and that lice cause the greatest loss of farmed fish around the world. And Helge Aarskog, CEO of Marine Harvest says lice are their biggest problem, even though Marine Harvest in BC doesn't agree.

For links to the lice studies, see this post of mine: https://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/2018/05/lice-outbreak-in-clayoquot-sound.html.

There is a good coverage of the issue of precautionary principle in the Agriculture Minister's Advisory Council's Appendix 2 in the report: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/farming-natural-resources-and-industry/agriculture-and-seafood/fisheries-and-aquaculture/minister-or-agriculture-s-advisory-council-on-finfish-aquaculture/maacfa-2017-docs/minister_of_agricultures_advisory_council_on_finfish_aquaculture_final_report_and_appendices.pdf.

Written by Tony Allard - who is a lawyer


He says: "There are constitutional, legislative, policy and international obligations that require the Minister to apply the precautionary principle.The precautionary principle does more than forbid decision makers from using scientific uncertainty as an excuse for regulatory inaction. It requires decision makers to err on the side of caution by anticipating harm and taking protective measures when there is environmental risk, even if there is scientific uncertainty."
 
The federal government has a constitutional obligation to protect fisheries and oceans. Section 91(12) of the Constitution Act, 1867 gives the federal government jurisdiction over the “Sea Coast and Inland Fisheries”.

And:

"The history of the Oceans Act is important to understanding its legislative intent. By the early 1990s, the cod fishery on Canada’s Atlantic coast had collapsed. The Oceans Act was passed in 1996 to ensure that such a catastrophe never occurred again in Canada. The Oceans Act ext ended Canada’s jurisdiction over marine waters and required an ecosystem approach to the management of the marine environment based on the precautionary principle.

"Sections 29 and 30 of the Oceans Act expressly require the Minister to apply the precautionary principle.

"Moreover, in the Prime Minister’s Mandate Letter to the Minister, the Prime Minister expressly requires the Minister to “[u]se scientific evidence and the precautionary principle, and take into account climate change, when making decisions affecting fish stocks and ecosystem management”.

"In The Uncertain Future of the Fraser River Sockeye(the “Cohen Commission”), Mr. Justice Cohen came to similar conclusion. Mr. Justice Cohen observed that the Federal Court in Environmental Defence Canada v . Canada (Fisheries and Oceans), 2009 FC 878 said that Canada had ratified the United Nations Convention on the Conservation of Biological Diversity (the Convention) and, since the precautionary principle was a main component of that convention, Canada had committed to apply the precautionary principle.

"Canada has also committed to the precautionary principle in several pieces of federal legislation,including the Oceans Act, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, SC 1999, c 33, and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, SC 2012, c 19, s 52."

Allard goes on to cite several cases and policy documents that show DFO is to use the precautionary principle.  For example Justice Rennie in Morton, 2016 spells out what is required:

"...although there is a healthy debate between respected scientists on the issue, the evidence, suggests that the disease agent (PRV) may be harmful to the protection and conservation of fish, and therefore a “lack of full scientific certainty should not be used a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation”: Spraytechat para 31"


And:

"Mr. Justice Rennie’s interpretation al so sits squarely with the classic statement of the precautionary principle by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Spray Tech decision, but it shifts the emphasis away from scientific uncertainty, where the discussion is often focused, and places it back on anticipation and prevention of environmental harm:

In order to achieve sustainable development, policies must be based on the precautionary principle. Environmental measures must anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of environmental degradation. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation."

Allard points out that: "Canada’s Policy for the Conservation of Wild Salmon expressly requires the precautionary principle to be applied with respect to the conservation of wild salmon"

This means it applies to the Wild Salmon Policy.

And: 

"The precautionary approach, defined in the Oceans Act as “erring on the side of caution,” is a key principle to be applied in the management of ocean activities. Under the Strategy, the Government of Canada is reaffirming its commitment to promoting the wide application of the precautionary  approach to the conservation, management and exploitation of marine resources in order to protect these resources and preserve the marine environment. 142

And, science is needed as a place to start, but not a place to say no: "Before the precautionary approach can be applied, scientific data relevant to the risk must be evaluated through a sound, credible, transparent and inclusive mechanism leading to a conclusion that expresses the possibility of occurrence of harm and the magnitude of that harm (including the extent of possible damage, persistency, reversibility and delayed effect).143"

 And the framework that government must use includes the following: "The application of precaution is distinctive within science-based risk management and is characterized by three basic tenets: the need for a decision, a risk of serious or irreversible harm and a lack of full scientific certainty.145"

Now, fish farms will always say that they have millions invested and the government can't just dump them on land, where is the science? I have pointed out several times that the sewage cost to BC is at minimum, $10.4B and this is vastly higher than the revenue, as measured by BC Stats of $469M. It would pay us well to give them $1m each to set up on land, as that total would be $85 million, given that roughly 85 farms are operating at any time.

"Since the Framework provides a series principles a decision-maker must follow to protect the environment, it is not surprising that the Framework makes it expressly clear that any impact on the assessment of trade occurs only after the decision- maker has determined the level of protection is consistent with society’s values. Accordingly, the Framework’s last principle makes it clear that the impact on trade is to be considered only after the decision to apply precautionary measures has been made"


 The precautionary approach, is summarized this way, rather than the oppposite of fish farms saying the country will never attract investment, that you have to show us 100% proof that w e cause damage, and jobs will be lost, etc.:

"First, a level of protection is chosen so that it is aligned with society’s values. Second, optionsfor protective measures that meet that level of protection are identified. Third, and only after the first two steps, the impacts on trade are assessed and protective measures that may have a lesser effect on trade may only be chosen if they maintain an equal level of protection.151 The decision-maker cannot decrease the level of protection to increase trade. Rather, once society’s chosen level of protection has been determined, the decision-maker can only choose between protective measures that maintain that level of protection. If multiple options for precautionary measures are available that provide the same level of protection, only then can the decision- maker choose the least trade-restrictive option."

 For example, DFO should refuse to let PRV infected smolts be put in the ocean, acting on the precautionary principle, not ironclad science, because fish farms say there is no ironclad science.

In closing, Allard puts it this way: "The precautionary principle does more than forbid decision makers from using scientific uncertainty as an excuse for regulatory inaction. It requires decision makers to err on the side of caution by anticipating harm and taking protective measures when there is environmental risk even if there is scientific uncertainty."

And that the minister must do what is reasonable, not what he thinks is reasonable, but what the situation requires as the most reasonable outcome, such as putting fish farms on land. You may know that my list of on-land fish farm systems now sits at 251 such RAS systems: https://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/2016/05/152-different-on-land-fish-farm-systems.html.

*****

In 2019, read about DFO using economic considerations to not do anything about the extinction nearing Thompson steelhead, a tragedy of the commons, and failing to use the PP:  https://www.kamloopsthisweek.com/community/the-outdoor-narrative-ottawa-s-decision-on-steelhead-is-shortsighted-1.23971848?utm_source=Watershed+Watch+Email+List&utm_campaign=ca899b6bf5-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_10_10_12_24&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_405944b1b5-ca899b6bf5-166907249&mc_cid=ca899b6bf5&mc_eid=5777c92bcd.