Report of the 2005 ICES/NASCO Symposium on Interactions ...

NINA SPECIAL REPORT 34
principle.
I heard some spokespeople for <strong>the</strong> salmon farming sector
accept that <strong>the</strong>se problems exist, that <strong>the</strong> industry is
working hard to fix <strong>the</strong>m, and that we need consensus
and co-operation to meet <strong>the</strong> challenges, particularly as
tonnage <strong>of</strong> farmed salmon increases and we see ongoing
development <strong>of</strong> resistance to sea lice medicines.
But I also heard some hints - as one does in o<strong>the</strong>r fora -
that <strong>the</strong>re are still some people within <strong>the</strong> industry who
appear to be in denial about <strong>the</strong> seriousness <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se
impacts on wild fish.
At <strong>the</strong> <strong>NASCO</strong> workshop in Trondheim this August, Nell
Halse referred to <strong>the</strong> fish farming industry’s ‘justifiable
paranoia’. I believe <strong>the</strong>re are people on <strong>the</strong> wild fish and
environmental side who are also guilty <strong>of</strong> ‘justifiable
paranoia’. We need to get rid <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> culture <strong>of</strong> blame and
look toge<strong>the</strong>r at <strong>the</strong> multiple impacts on wild stocks, to
identify what we can tackle.
A strong message I take away from this symposium is that
we’d better address this sooner ra<strong>the</strong>r than later because,
as Pat O’Reilly reminded us, many stocks <strong>of</strong> wild salmon
don’t have <strong>the</strong> luxury <strong>of</strong> time on <strong>the</strong>ir side.
We heard that we need to recognise what we can work
to change - and I believe that applies to <strong>the</strong> wild fish
sector too. Where <strong>the</strong>re are multiple effects, it’s
necessary to work co-operatively on <strong>the</strong> ones we have
<strong>the</strong> power to address.
It’s clear that regulation has a role to play, in both sea lice
management and minimisation <strong>of</strong> escapes. It’s a counsel
<strong>of</strong> perfection that this should be backed up by local and
regional co-operation. I sense that <strong>the</strong>re’s a lot <strong>of</strong> interest
in this, and perhaps a message for <strong>NASCO</strong> to take away
is that it could facilitate some ‘cherry-picking’ sessions to
arrive at some sort <strong>of</strong> guidelines for area management,
based on what works and what doesn’t?
I have learned - both in <strong>the</strong> presentations and in c<strong>of</strong>feebreak
conversations with o<strong>the</strong>r delegates - that in order
to be effective, area management needs to get better at
engaging communities as well as a wide range <strong>of</strong>
stakeholders. It has to be inclusive, transparent, with a
built-in way <strong>of</strong> measuring success - I’d probably add that it
has to be accountable. Both ‘sides’ have to communicate -
particularly in view <strong>of</strong> what we’ve heard about <strong>the</strong>
scenario <strong>of</strong> emergent resistance to sea lice medicines, and
<strong>the</strong> importance <strong>of</strong> spotting early signs <strong>of</strong> fish disease.
The challenge is: how do we report successes which may
not be easily measurable, to boost public confidence and
stakeholder buy-in?
From what I’ve heard here, it seems to me that <strong>the</strong> most
crucial requirement is good - top-notch - communication.
I believe that we have to go beyond that, because
‘communication’ can be one-way, particularly government
communication. We need more constructive dialogue and
cooperation, and trust.
Malcolm mentioned at <strong>the</strong> start that he’s convinced we
can have ‘win-win’. I’m leaving this ga<strong>the</strong>ring still with a
sense <strong>of</strong> optimism that we can achieve that - but only if
we can do away with confrontation, which is seldom
constructive. We need to stop <strong>the</strong> tug-<strong>of</strong>-war and put all
hands to <strong>the</strong> rope to pull in <strong>the</strong> same direction to meet
<strong>the</strong> challenges.
I don’t think we need any more evidence to prove that
<strong>the</strong>re are problems; we need to take that as a given and
move on to find cooperative and pragmatic ways <strong>of</strong>
addressing <strong>the</strong>se problems. We need to see <strong>the</strong> wild fish
side and <strong>the</strong> industry playing on <strong>the</strong> same team and
seeking out <strong>the</strong> common ground.
The worst outcome would be ano<strong>the</strong>r <strong>NASCO</strong> meeting
in several years’ time where we still hear mounting
evidence <strong>of</strong> problems. The next one needs to be a
record <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> solutions that are being explored!
3. Knut A. Hjelt
During <strong>the</strong> last three days we have had a number <strong>of</strong>
presentations focusing mainly on <strong>the</strong> possible interaction
between aquaculture and wild stocks <strong>of</strong> Atlantic salmon.
The symposium has shown us that today we have much
more science-based information about possible
interactions between aquaculture and wild fish than
before.
The industry is still young, but over <strong>the</strong> years it has
evolved tremendously, and will continue to evolve in <strong>the</strong>
future. As we have heard, <strong>the</strong> industry has put a lot <strong>of</strong>
effort into preventing possible negative interactions with
<strong>the</strong> wild stocks. The focus has been on health, technical
improvements, codes <strong>of</strong> best practice, site selection and
good training and management. The production <strong>of</strong>
Atlantic salmon is mainly based in areas where <strong>the</strong> wild
Atlantic salmon is most abundant, which in itself is a
challenge. But populations <strong>of</strong> Atlantic salmon are facing a
variety <strong>of</strong> possible threats, and attention must be paid to
all kinds <strong>of</strong> negative interactions, not only <strong>the</strong> topics
considered during this symposium.
65