MILLERTIME
Member
10 Sep 2011 Times Colonist EDITORIAL
DFO In Conflict On Fish Farms
Many British Columbians will likely be mildly insulted to find the Department of Fisheries and Oceans considers opposition to salmon farming the result of a confused and unaware public, manipulated by environmental groups and poorly served by biased reporters.
That’s the conclusion in a DFO communications plan filed as an exhibit at the Cohen Commission investigating the decline of Fraser River sockeye runs.
The National Aquaculture Communications and Outreach Approach report, by a New Brunswick communications consultant, is revealing.
The DFO is assumed to be the champion of the industry. Critics — or reporters — are presumed to be self-serving. Environmental groups raising concerns are seeking “to further their agenda and fundraising efforts.” Reporters for the Times Colonist, Vancouver Sun and the Globe and Mail covering fisheries all “tend to focus on the negatives, present one-sided opposition and don’t work toward presenting a balanced story,” the report claims.
News coverage often draws those sorts of comments. In the case of salmon farming, both supporters and critics routinely accuse the news media of favouring the other side. That’s one of the things that is troubling about the report. The industry can be expected to have an agenda. So can communities and environmental groups.
But the DFO should be a neutral, science-based regulator, ensuring that the best evidence is used to set standards for fisheries, farmed and wild, that protect the environment and the public interest. That role is undermined, even corrupted, if the government department becomes an advocate for a particular industry segment. Its impartiality and willingness to enforce standards is cast in doubt. Its pronouncements can no longer be trusted. Actions like forbidding scientists from discussing their research are taken as evidence of pro-aquaculture bias.
The report highlights a fundamental conflict. The DFO, or at least senior management, believes it should be promoting aquaculture. At the same time, it is charged with regulating the industry. The two roles create, at the least, the perception of conflicts of interest.
According to the report, DFO employees are troubled by the conflict. “Depending on the role within the department or the region the employee works in, there is a wide variance of opinions as to what DFO’s role related to aquaculture is, should be and where the industry is going,” it notes. “In some areas with the DFO, there is clear opposition to the department’s involvement in aquaculture.”
And the report found many employees share the concerns about the potential damage from fish farms. The long-term communications plan calls for the DFO, industry and provinces to convince both DFO staff and the public to support fish farming. It proposes attempting to shift attention from problems identified by researchers to potential solutions, and suggests hiring a celebrity chef.
The DFO’s performance has frequently been questioned on both coasts. Its failure to prevent the collapse of the East Coast cod fishery, inaccurate forecasts of salmon returns and inability to maintain the confidence of communities and industry have all been damaging.
Boosterish PR campaigns to sell British Columbians on the aquaculture don’t address those issues. In fact, they increase concerns that the department has lost sight of its core function of protecting and managing the ocean environment in the long-term interests of all citizens.
DFO In Conflict On Fish Farms
Many British Columbians will likely be mildly insulted to find the Department of Fisheries and Oceans considers opposition to salmon farming the result of a confused and unaware public, manipulated by environmental groups and poorly served by biased reporters.
That’s the conclusion in a DFO communications plan filed as an exhibit at the Cohen Commission investigating the decline of Fraser River sockeye runs.
The National Aquaculture Communications and Outreach Approach report, by a New Brunswick communications consultant, is revealing.
The DFO is assumed to be the champion of the industry. Critics — or reporters — are presumed to be self-serving. Environmental groups raising concerns are seeking “to further their agenda and fundraising efforts.” Reporters for the Times Colonist, Vancouver Sun and the Globe and Mail covering fisheries all “tend to focus on the negatives, present one-sided opposition and don’t work toward presenting a balanced story,” the report claims.
News coverage often draws those sorts of comments. In the case of salmon farming, both supporters and critics routinely accuse the news media of favouring the other side. That’s one of the things that is troubling about the report. The industry can be expected to have an agenda. So can communities and environmental groups.
But the DFO should be a neutral, science-based regulator, ensuring that the best evidence is used to set standards for fisheries, farmed and wild, that protect the environment and the public interest. That role is undermined, even corrupted, if the government department becomes an advocate for a particular industry segment. Its impartiality and willingness to enforce standards is cast in doubt. Its pronouncements can no longer be trusted. Actions like forbidding scientists from discussing their research are taken as evidence of pro-aquaculture bias.
The report highlights a fundamental conflict. The DFO, or at least senior management, believes it should be promoting aquaculture. At the same time, it is charged with regulating the industry. The two roles create, at the least, the perception of conflicts of interest.
According to the report, DFO employees are troubled by the conflict. “Depending on the role within the department or the region the employee works in, there is a wide variance of opinions as to what DFO’s role related to aquaculture is, should be and where the industry is going,” it notes. “In some areas with the DFO, there is clear opposition to the department’s involvement in aquaculture.”
And the report found many employees share the concerns about the potential damage from fish farms. The long-term communications plan calls for the DFO, industry and provinces to convince both DFO staff and the public to support fish farming. It proposes attempting to shift attention from problems identified by researchers to potential solutions, and suggests hiring a celebrity chef.
The DFO’s performance has frequently been questioned on both coasts. Its failure to prevent the collapse of the East Coast cod fishery, inaccurate forecasts of salmon returns and inability to maintain the confidence of communities and industry have all been damaging.
Boosterish PR campaigns to sell British Columbians on the aquaculture don’t address those issues. In fact, they increase concerns that the department has lost sight of its core function of protecting and managing the ocean environment in the long-term interests of all citizens.
Last edited by a moderator:
