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 introductions¹ 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.

¹Bold/underlined words are defined in the "Definitions" section.