Effects of the Regulatory Framework on Fish Welfare and Health

In this project, we analysed how laws, regulations and the interactions between government agencies and the aquaculture industry affect the welfare and health of farmed salmon. We first performed a systematic comparison of the regulatory framework for farmed salmon health and welfare with the corresponding framework for chicken production. This analysis revealed that overall, the regulations for salmon are more complex, have potentially conflicting aims, and use more neutral descriptors to describe welfare. Even though many of the paragraphs regulating chicken and salmon production are almost identical, the regulations for salmon are less strict about daily inspection of animals, recording of mortality, and welfare confirmation at production end. Staff in animal production are obligated to take regular animal welfare courses, however one important difference is that infection prevention is specified as a mandatory subject for chicken producers, but not for fish farm personnel. One of the goals of the project was to investigate potential consequences of nonspecific (e.g. 'the operations must be suitable for animal welfare') vs. specific (e.g. 'dead animals must be removed from the production unit daily') welfare rules in the regulations. We therefore conducted a survey about specific and nonspecific rules in the Aquaculture Operation Regulation among company executives, middle managers and inspectors in the Norwegian Food Authorities. The results showed that many perceived the nonspecific rules open to a large degree of interpretation, found it difficult to determine whether or not they were satisfied and believed that this can lead to disagreements between fish farmers and inspectors. To obtain insight into existing perceptions about the governance of fish health and welfare in Norwegian aquaculture, we conducted surveys and in-depth interviews with fish farm workers, fish farm managers, administrative staff, company executives, fish health personnel and personnel from the authorities. The inquiry explored possible conflicts around regulations on salmon lice, pancreas disease and farm site positioning. It also focused on which measures were considered to improve fish welfare, what where the priorities of management and farm personnel, and the impact of the regulatory framework. The results showed that the limit of salmon lice levels permitted on farms creates frustration, both among the farmers themselves and among fish health personnel. Many held the opinion that the inflexible limit leads to unnecessary handling of the fish and thus decreased fish welfare, but also personnel from the authorities expressed concern that animal welfare may be trumped by the specific and easy to determine lice limit. Concerning pancreas disease, there was a predominant incredulity that a disease that so clearly harms the welfare of salmon is permitted to be endemic in parts of Norway. Especially, when contrasting that a positive diagnosis outside the endemic zone would lead to the fish farmer having to slaughter all the fish. For the topic of triploid salmon, there was a divide between the supervising authorities and farmers perceptions; authorities considered the production of triploid salmon lacked sufficient documentation, whereas farmers believed published research showed good outcomes. Farm positioning proved less controversial than expected - few expressed strong opinions, but some asked for an overall strategy to limit spread of pathogens between farms. Focus groups from fish welfare courses gave a clear impression that farm personnel often felt that they were 'between a rock and a hard place' when prioritising between production efficiency, economy, lice levels versus fish welfare. The responses from the surveys and in-depth interviews confirmed this. Both farm and fish health personnel described a sense of helplessness due to the strong priority to comply with regulations and economic considerations ahead of animal welfare. However, many respondents believed that their daily routines safeguarded fish welfare, and reported that they try to influence management and authorities to put fish welfare first. Fish health personnel conveyed high expectations towards that the companies should safeguard fish welfare, but they also reported that the nonspecific nature of the welfare rules sometimes puts them in a tight spot between doing as the company wishes and doing what would be best for the fish. Our investigations provide knowledge that can be used by industry and the authorities when reviewing company routines and regulations, especially in the context of increasing welfare of farmed fish. We have documented known problem areas, relationships, and consequences. We have also described key conflicts that will not be easy to resolve, but that are important to be aware of when forming regulations and governance to improve animal welfare within the salmon farming industry.

Gjennom prosjektet har vi fått innblikk i hverandres fagfelt og dannet grunnlag for videre samarbeid. Vi har fått økt forståelse av regelverk og hvordan forvaltningen av regelverket fungerer. Denne kunnskapen er særs nyttig når vi skal gi råd til forvaltningen og bidra i høringssvar. Vi forventer at kunnskapen fra prosjektet vil bli vektlagt av forvaltningen i videre utvikling av regelverket. I særdeleshet i revideringer av Akvakulturdriftsforskriften, men også i andre forskrifter som vil påvirke fiskevelferd. For næringen er det en vesentlig nytteverdi i at prosjektet målbærer mange av de meningene, refleksjonene og dilemmaene som oppdrettere og fiskehelsepersonell har, hvilke frustrasjoner de har med regelverket og i møte med forvaltningsinstitusjoner, og forslag de har for hvordan forvaltningsrammeverket kan forbedres.

The project will investigate the regulatory framework that governs the production of post-smolt Atlantic salmon, with a focus on how the framework may come in conflict with fish welfare and health. To assess the interactions between regulations and fish welfare, we will use a set of quantitative and qualitative approaches. Comparing the regulatory fish health and welfare framework of salmon with the regulatory framework of chicken production will give a systematic point-by-point assessment, and facilitate the identification of discrepancies and conflicts between regulations. Information sourced from focus groups within fish welfare courses will give insight on how the regulatory framework is perceived by the personnel rearing the fish, and highlight issues they think the framework fails to address. We will use surveys and in-depth interviews of key personnel in the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Fisheries, the Norwegian Food Safety Authority, farm inspectors, fish health professionals, fish farmers and fish farm company leaders to understand how they interact with each other, and how each party interprets the legislation and the policy instrument used by the various branches of the government. This includes evaluating when the regulations should be specific, and when function-based rules are more effective. Through utilising a set of case studies, we aim to achieve an understanding on how conflict cases are tackled by the industry and different levels of government. Based on the findings, we will postulate assumptions about the effects of the regulatory framework, and test if these are falsified by data in available databases. The ultimate goal is to provide a better realisation of the interplay between regulatory measures and production practices, which will then ground practical advice on how the regulatory framework for fish health and welfare may be improved.