This Web page has been archived on the Web.

2008 March Status Report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development

Main Points

What we examined

Aquatic invasive species include any aquatic organism whose introduction or spread can threaten the environment, the economy, or society, including human health. In its 1995 Canadian Biodiversity Strategy, the federal government committed to prevent, control, or eradicate invasive species that threaten Canada's ecosystems and economy, including aquatic invasive species.

In 2002, we audited the federal government's management of invasive species. We recommended that Fisheries and Oceans Canada, which is responsible for protecting fish and fish habitat in Canada, develop and implement a means to identify and assess the risks posed by aquatic invasive species and use it as a tool for setting priorities and objectives for prevention, eradication, or control of those risks. We also recommended that it put in place a monitoring and reporting system to track the effectiveness of actions taken toward its aquatic invasive species objectives and report annually on progress. The Department agreed with our recommendations and provided an expected completion date of fall 2003 for addressing them.

Since ship ballast water is a very important pathway for the introduction of aquatic invasive species and since Transport Canada is responsible for regulating and controlling ballast water on commercial ships in Canada, we recommended that Transport Canada define best management practices for ship ballast water and establish regulations requiring the application of those practices. We also recommended that it develop and implement a means to monitor, maintain records, and report annually on compliance. The Department accepted our recommendations and committed to regulating and monitoring ballast water accordingly.

This year, we carried out a follow-up audit to determine whether the two departments made satisfactory progress in response to our recommendations.

Why it's important

Aquatic invasive species can fundamentally change the environment they occupy and, by extension, affect its economic value in terms of beneficial uses. For example, invasive species can change a clear, open waterway into a weed-bed, or a sandy beach into a shell-encrusted hazard. Such changes have ripple effects that can disrupt or destroy the native ecology and existing recreational and commercial uses along with it.

Aside from its intrinsic value as part of Canada's natural heritage and beauty, biodiversity in the form of plant and animal life is the source of many "ecological goods and services" and, in that regard, it holds tremendous potential value. Experts have concluded that aquatic invasive species are second only to habitat destruction as a leading cause of biodiversity loss, including local extinctions of species. Studies to date indicate that they cause billions of dollars of damage to Canada's economy every year. For example, one study in 2006 estimated that damages caused by six aquatic invasive species alone cost more than $343 million a year. Currently, approximately 185 alien species have invaded the Great Lakes.

When the habitat of a commercially valuable species is destroyed or if an invader crowds it out by occupying its space or eating its food, the livelihoods of those relying on it are at risk. Sea lampreys, for example, have had a serious negative impact on the Great Lakes fishery. Their aggressive behaviour contributed significantly to the collapse of fish species such as trout, walleye, and sturgeon. Perhaps the most infamous aquatic invasive species in Canada is the zebra mussel, which is widely known to have caused biodiversity loss as well as direct economic costs to industry. For example, in 2002, Ontario Power Generation estimated that, as a direct result of the presence of zebra mussels, operating costs increased by $500,000 and $1 million per year at its Darlington and Pickering nuclear stations.

What we found

• Fisheries and Oceans Canada has made unsatisfactory progress in implementing our 2002 recommendations. While the Department has identified some aquatic invasive species that pose major risks to Canada and put in place biological risk assessment guidelines, the rate at which new alien species are becoming established is exceeding the rate at which the Department is assessing risks. The Department has failed to assess economic and social risks, and priorities and objectives for prevention, control, or eradication of risks posed by aquatic invasive species have not been set.
• In addition, Fisheries and Oceans Canada does not have plans or mechanisms in place for early detection of, or rapid response to, aquatic invasive species and is therefore unprepared to prevent, control, or eradicate potential new aquatic invasive species. It has not monitored or reported how effective its efforts have been at preventing, controlling, or eradicating the aquatic invasive species it has identified.
• Transport Canada has made satisfactory progress in implementing one of our 2002 recommendations. Mandatory regulations for the control and management of ballast water came into force through the Canada Shipping Act in 2006. These regulations constitute a major step forward in addressing the issue of aquatic invasive species. Ships entering Canadian waters are now required by law to take steps to manage ballast water to reduce the likelihood of introducing aquatic invasive species.
• Transport Canada has made unsatisfactory progress on our 2002 recommendation related to monitoring and reporting on compliance. While Transport Canada has developed the tools it needs and is gathering information on compliance with its regulations for ships entering the Great Lakes, gaps remain in the Department's compliance monitoring and reporting at the national level.
• We found that risks posed by aquatic invasive species have not been adequately assessed or effectively managed. The federal government is not yet in a position to prevent, control, or eradicate invasive species that pose the greatest threat to Canada's aquatic ecosystems and economy. Much remains to be done to meet commitments made in the federal government's 1995 Canadian Biodiversity Strategy.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Transport Canada have responded. Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Transport Canada agree with our recommendations. Their responses follow the related recommendations throughout the chapter.

Introduction

6.1 An aquatic invasive species is any aquatic organism whose introduction or spread can threaten the environment, including native fish and their habitat, the economy, or society, including human health. Referred to by some scientists as "biological pollution," these species can multiply and persist in the environment, crowding out native species and eating their food, reducing the numbers of commercially valuable species, and threatening the livelihoods of those relying on these species. Invaders may be introduced intentionally, for example, through the release of unwanted aquarium species, or unintentionally from sources such as ship and boat hulls or ballast water. Invaders may come from abroad or from other parts of Canada. According to the Canadian Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers, ballast water is a very important pathway by which aquatic invasive species enter Canadian waters.

6.2 According to Fisheries and Oceans Canada, aquatic invasive species are a large and growing problem in Canada. A 2006 study estimated that damages caused by six species alone cost more than $343 million a year.

Federal roles and responsibilities

6.3 At the federal level, two key departments share responsibilities for dealing with aquatic invasive species in Canadian waters. Fisheries and Oceans Canada has overall responsibility for conserving and protecting the fisheries resource, including the habitat in which fish live and the food on which they depend. Transport Canada is responsible for regulating and controlling how commercial ships manage their ballast water in order to prevent or reduce the release of foreign aquatic organisms from those ships.

What we found in 2002

6.4 In our 2002 audit on invasive species, we found that Fisheries and Oceans Canada had not established a coordinated national response to aquatic invasive species. The Department had not identified the aquatic invasive species that pose the greatest threats to Canada's freshwater and marine ecosystems or to the economy, nor the specific pathways by which they arrived. It had not assessed the relative risks posed by aquatic invasive species in order to set management priorities and it had not put in place the capability to monitor and report on the effectiveness of actions taken to prevent, control, or eradicate them.

6.5 Our 2002 audit also examined Transport Canada's effectiveness in preventing or reducing the release of foreign aquatic organisms from the ballast water of ships entering Canadian waters. We found that Transport Canada was not regulating and monitoring ballast water discharges as it had committed to do, nor was it reporting on the level of compliance with existing voluntary guidelines on ballast water exchange.

Events since 2002

6.6 Calls for action on aquatic invasive species have continued. Since our 2002 audit, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans has issued two reports on aquatic invasive species, in 2003 and 2005. Due to the rising numbers of aquatic alien species in the Great Lakes, which border Canada and the United States, there have also been international efforts to deal with the issue. The United States Government Accountability Office (our counterpart in the United States) and the International Joint Commission (an independent organization established to help prevent and resolve disputes over boundary waters between Canada and the United States) have also continued to raise concerns about aquatic invasive species.

6.7 New strategies and plans were released. In 2004, the federal government issued an Invasive Alien Species Strategy for Canada, restating the government's primary goal of preventing the introduction of aquatic invasive species, as defined in its 1995 Canadian Biodiversity Strategy. Exhibit 6.1, adapted from the Invasive Alien Species Strategy, summarizes the government's approach to the management of aquatic invasive species. The 2004 strategy included a commitment to develop the Canadian Action Plan to Address the Threat of Aquatic Invasive Species. The government's ultimate goal as stated in the Plan is to "minimize (and ideally eliminate) the introduction of harmful aquatic invasive species and remediate the impact of those already in Canada."

Exhibit 6.1—Approach to addressing aquatic invasive species, as adapted from the Invasive Alien Species Strategy for Canada (2004)

6.8 Budget 2005 contained commitments to allocate $85 million over five years to combat invasive species, including $20 million over five years for aquatic invasive species. Half of the funds available to manage aquatic invasive species—$2 million per year—will supplement Canada's existing contribution to controlling one species: the sea lamprey. With the additional funds, Canada's contribution to that control program now stands at $8.1 million per year. The remaining $2 million per year will be used to implement the Canadian action plan to address the threat of all other aquatic invasive species.

6.9 An international convention on ballast water has been adopted by the United Nations. In 2004, the International Maritime Organization (IMO), a United Nations agency concerned with the safety of shipping and cleaner oceans, adopted the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments. The convention, which is expected to come into force in 2009, will define a ballast water treatment standard that would place limits on the number of organisms that ships could discharge in their ballast. To enter into force, the convention must be ratified by at least 30 countries constituting at least 35 percent of the gross tonnage of the world's merchant shipping.

6.10 At the time of our audit, 10 countries had ratified the convention; Canada had not. Transport Canada officials told us there are various reasons why Canada cannot yet ratify the convention, including the uncertainty of what measures will be taken by the United States, the need for consensus among federal departments on the merits of the IMO-approved treatment systems for use in Canada, and the need to determine whether any ships on Canadian domestic voyages should be required to fit treatment systems.

6.11 Ballast Water Control and Management Regulations were established in 2006. Mandatory ballast water control and management regulations came into force through the Canada Shipping Act in 2006. These regulations formalize ballast exchange guidelines in place since 1989, which had been voluntary. The regulations apply to ships entering waters under Canadian jurisdiction and require them to manage their ballast water to reduce the likelihood of introducing aquatic alien species.

Focus of the audit

6.12 The objective of our follow-up audit was to determine whether Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Transport Canada had made satisfactory progress in implementing selected recommendations we made in our 2002 report on invasive species. More specifically, we examined whether Fisheries and Oceans Canada identified and assessed the risks posed by aquatic invasive species in order to set management priorities and objectives. We also examined whether Fisheries and Oceans Canada put in place a monitoring and reporting system to track the effectiveness of actions taken toward its objectives and to report annually on progress.

6.13 We also examined whether Transport Canada ensured that there is regulation and enforcement to control the introduction of aquatic alien species into Canadian waters from ship ballast water, and had implemented a means to monitor and report on compliance with the regulation.

6.14 More details on the audit objectives, scope, approach, and criteria are in About the Audit at the end of this chapter.

Observations and Recommendations

Managing the risks posed by aquatic invasive species

6.15 In our 2001 audit on the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River basin, we said that Fisheries and Oceans Canada was not meeting its commitments made in the 1992 United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity and in the federal government's subsequent 1995 Canadian Biodiversity Strategy. Both documents commit the government to preventing, controlling, or eradicating aquatic invasive species.

6.16 In our 2002 audit on aquatic invasive species, we said that to assure Canadians that it is responding effectively to the problem of invasive species, the federal government needs to know three key things:

• what aquatic invasive species pose the greatest risks to Canadian ecosystems, habitats, or species and by what major pathways they arrive;
• who is taking what action to respond to major risks; and
• how effective those actions have been at eliminating or reducing adverse effects to acceptable levels so the government can determine whether programs are working or whether corrective measures are required.

We found that the government did not have this information. We recommended then that Fisheries and Oceans Canada identify the aquatic invasive species that pose the greatest risks to Canada's ecosystems and economy and use its analyses to set priorities and objectives for their prevention, control, or eradication. We also recommended it monitor and annually report on the effectiveness of its control measures. The Department agreed with our recommendations and provided an expected completion date of fall 2003 for addressing them. We therefore expected that Fisheries and Oceans Canada would have identified and assessed the risks posed by aquatic invasive species and used this information to set departmental priorities and objectives for prevention, control, or eradication, and that it would have reported annually on the effectiveness of its actions.

Research on risk has recently started

6.17 Fisheries and Oceans Canada has begun risk assessment on certain species and pathways. In 2006, the Department's new Centre of Expertise for Aquatic Risk Assessment drafted national guidelines for assessing the risk of aquatic invasive species in Canada. Such assessments involve estimating the likelihood of a species being introduced, and the biological risks or consequences. At the time of our audit, the Department had completed six biological risk assessments, had five others completed in a draft form, and planned eight more in 2008, for a total of nineteen.

6.18 In our 2001 audit on the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River basin, we reported that Fisheries and Oceans Canada had not assessed the relative significance of non-ballast water pathways of aquatic alien species, such as the live food fish, aquarium, and bait fish industries (Exhibit 6.2). During the course of this follow-up audit, risk assessment work on these other pathways was only beginning.

Exhibit 6.2—Pathways of invasion by aquatic alien species

6.19 Since our last audit, the number of aquatic alien species known to be in the Great Lakes alone has climbed from 160 to approximately 185. Given the current pace of work, Fisheries and Oceans risks falling further behind in assessing the biological risks posed by aquatic invasive species.

6.20 Moreover, Fisheries and Oceans Canada has not assessed the socio-economic risks posed by aquatic invasive species in order to estimate the overall risks. Without that analysis, the Department lacks key information necessary to set priorities or establish risk-based objectives.

Ability to respond rapidly is not in place

6.21 The federal government has long acknowledged that prevention is the most economical and effective option for addressing aquatic invasive species. However, according to the government's 2004 Invasive Alien Species Strategy, "When invasive alien species circumvent prevention measures and enter Canada, it is essential to respond rapidly before—or immediately after—they become established and spread..." In addition to good information on high-risk species and pathways of entry, responding rapidly to aquatic invasive species requires monitoring and early detection. To be effective, rapid response plans should be in place before a crisis occurs so decisions and actions can be taken quickly.

6.22 Although the government's Invasive Alien Species Strategy calls for such plans, Fisheries and Oceans Canada has no concrete plan in place for responding rapidly to new aquatic invasive species on a national basis. The Department did, however, carry out one pilot project for a species of invasive tunicates in the Gulf of St. Lawrence region (Exhibit 6.3). Fisheries and Oceans Canada held regional workshops in 2006 with the aim of setting monitoring priorities. As a result, some priorities have been defined, but the Department has yet to implement a comprehensive national monitoring program. The Department cannot yet detect the introduction of invasive species in a timely manner and respond rapidly.

Exhibit 6.3—Mussels aquaculture is affected by invaders in Prince Edward Island

6.23 Recommendation. Fisheries and Oceans Canada should apply a systematic risk-based approach to early detection and develop the ability to respond rapidly when new invasive species are detected in order to prevent them from becoming established or to control them.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada's response. Agreed. Fisheries and Oceans Canada acknowledges the need for a systematic, risk-based approach to early detection and rapid response and therefore accepts this recommendation.

Risk assessment is the foundation of a risk-based approach to any management program and aquatic invasive species are no exception. Since Budget 2005, when the Department received an annual budget of $2 million, the Department has put in place the building blocks to establish a systematic risk-based approach and has been working with Canadians to mitigate the impacts of aquatic invasive species.

One of the critical building blocks has been the creation of the Centre of Expertise for Aquatic Risk Assessment (CEARA). CEARA assesses the risk of existing and potential aquatic invasive species and their introduction pathways to guide other program activities.

With regard to a rapid response capacity, the Department alerts stakeholders and other jurisdictions in a timely fashion when a new nonindigenous species is discovered. The Department provides them with advice on appropriate response measures when required.

In response to this recommendation and to the extent permitted by current budgets, the Department will build upon its existing risk assessment, scientific research, and monitoring activities to implement a formalized risk-based approach to early detection of and rapid response to aquatic invasive species in partnership with other jurisdictions and stakeholders.

A control program has been developed for only one species

6.24 The only formal aquatic invasive species control program in place is for sea lamprey in the Great Lakes. Established in 1955, the Sea Lamprey Control Program is now a $21-million-a-year joint venture managed by the Great Lakes Fishery Commission in cooperation with Fisheries and Oceans Canada, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Exhibit 6.4). Canada's contribution to this program is now $8.1 million annually (see paragraph 6.8).

Exhibit 6.4—Sea Lamprey Control Program in the Great Lakes

6.25 As the sea lamprey program illustrates, given sufficient funds, containment and control measures can slow the spread of aquatic invasive species and reduce their impacts even when they have become established. Fisheries and Oceans Canada officials told us that there is no mitigation or operational response capacity in place, aside from the sea lamprey program.

6.26 Although we recognize the Department's risk assessment guidelines were an important step forward, based on our findings, the Department's progress on establishing risk-based priorities and objectives for active prevention and control of aquatic invasive species has been unsatisfactory (Exhibit 6.5).

Exhibit 6.5—Progress in addressing our recommendation on managing the risks of aquatic invasive species is unsatisfactory

Weaknesses in monitoring and reporting on effectiveness remain

6.27 In our 2002 report, we recommended that Fisheries and Oceans Canada monitor and report on the effectiveness of measures taken to prevent, control, or eradicate aquatic invasive species. The Department agreed with our 2002 recommendation. We therefore expected that it would have put in place a monitoring and reporting system and that it would be reporting regularly on the effectiveness of measures taken.

6.28 Both the 2003 and 2005 reports on aquatic invasive species of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans reinforced our 2002 recommendation. In its response to the committee, the Department said it would report its progress in its future annual Report on Plans and Priorities and Departmental Performance Report.

6.29 Although Fisheries and Oceans Canada's 2005–06 Departmental Performance Report lists three related activities—providing internal advice on the development of a regulatory framework for aquatic invasive species, supporting the establishment of a research network, and conducting research and monitoring projects—it does not provide a progress report on the issues raised in our 2002 audit or by the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. The Department has yet to put in place a monitoring and reporting system.

6.30 In its 2005 report, the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans also recommended that a central repository of aquatic invasive species research be established. In its response, as well as in its 2004–05 Departmental Performance Report, Fisheries and Oceans Canada reported that it was developing an aquatic invasive species database to share information nationally. However, at the time of our audit, no such database was publicly available. Without a central repository for aquatic invasive species research, effective sharing of existing scientific data is constrained (Exhibit 6.6).

Exhibit 6.6—Progress in addressing our recommendation on monitoring and reporting is unsatisfactory

Managing ballast water

6.31 Ballast water is water carried by ships to ensure stability and structural integrity (Exhibit 6.7). If a ship does not have cargo on board to stabilize it, ballast water is pumped into on-board tanks for stability and safety. While taking on ballast water, the ship will also take on a variety of aquatic organisms, including micro-organisms, algae, plants, and even small fish. Ships pump out their ballast tanks, along with any organisms in the water, at the ports where they load cargo. The volume of ballast water transferred around the world is estimated at 3 to 5 billion tonnes per year (enough water to fill 1,200 to 2,000 Olympic-sized pools). It is estimated that at least 7,000 different species are being carried in ships' ballast tanks around the world. Not all will become aquatic invasive species, but some will: ballast water is one of the major pathways of introduction for aquatic invasive species.

Exhibit 6.7—Cross-section of ships showing ballast tanks and ballast water cycle

6.32 Since 1980, the federal government has been considering how best to deal with ballast water. Between 70 to 75 percent of aquatic alien species in the Great Lakes are attributed to ballast water. Responding to the 1988 discovery of zebra mussels in Lake St. Clair, part of the Lake Erie basin, Transport Canada published voluntary guidelines in 1989 for the control of ballast water from ships entering the St. Lawrence River and the Great Lakes.

Ballast Water Control and Management Regulations are now in place

6.33 In our 2002 audit, we recommended that Transport Canada define best management practices for ship ballast water and establish regulations to require all ships entering Canadian waters to follow those practices. The Department agreed with our recommendations; we therefore expected that it would have defined best management practices for ballast water and that ballast water regulations would be in place requiring those practices on all ships entering Canadian waters.

6.34 The Mandatory Ballast Water Control and Management Regulations, which formalized the voluntary 1989 guidelines, came into force in June 2006. The new regulations are a major step forward, as ships entering Canadian waters are now required by law to manage their ballast water to reduce the chance of introducing aquatic invasive species. Four options for managing ballast water are provided for in the regulations:

• Ballast water exchange: This procedure exchanges freshwater for seawater. It is intended to flush organisms out of the tanks, reduce sediment accumulation, and kill freshwater organisms by exposing them to saltwater. Ships are required to proceed to the exchange before entering Canadian waters.
• Ballast water treatment: Such systems are still under development, but could include chemical (for example, ozone) or physical (for example, heat or filtration) systems.
• Retaining ballast water on board: This can be used when circumstances prevent the ship from using other management options.
• Discharging ballast water to a reception facility that can receive, store, or process ballast water to manage it.

The 2006 regulations also define "alternative exchange zones," to be used by ships to manage ballast water that was not exchanged outside Canada's 200-mile limit of sovereignty. The identification of these zones was based on peer-reviewed science advice from Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

6.35 Ships unable to apply the management procedures to their ballast water are required to notify Transport Canada at least 96 hours before they enter Canadian waters. In this event, ship captains are obliged to consult with Department officials to identify alternative measures to reduce the chance of introducing alien species, such as keeping the ballast water on board the ship.

6.36 Ships declaring no ballast on board are also capable of transporting alien species since they still carry residual amounts of ballast water and sediment in their ballast tanks. Ships intending to take on ballast in tanks containing residual ballast water and subsequently discharge it in Canadian waters must also ensure they have followed best management practices as prescribed by the Ballast Water Control and Management Regulations.

6.37 The Department has made satisfactory progress in addressing our 2002 recommendation to establish a regulation to better control the introduction of alien species through ballast water (Exhibit 6.8).

Exhibit 6.8—Progress in addressing our recommendation on establishing ballast water regulations is satisfactory

6.38 Although the 2006 regulations were a major step forward, the Department still lacks a standard to assess whether or not alien species have been effectively eliminated from the tanks of ships that have exchanged their ballast water as required by the regulation. While the regulations specify a standard for the presence of living organisms in treated ballast water, there is no process for approving treatment technologies and the Department does not have the means to test for compliance with its treatment standard.

Weaknesses in monitoring compliance remain

6.39 In 2002, we also recommended that Transport Canada develop and implement a means to monitor, maintain records, and report on compliance with any future Canadian ballast water regulations. The Department agreed with our recommendation. We therefore expected that it would have put in place a monitoring and reporting system and that it would have reported on compliance with the Canadian ballast water regulations on a national basis.

6.40 In 2005, the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans recommended that a tracking system for ships in transit be created to monitor compliance with the ballast water management program. Transport Canada committed to working with the Canadian Coast Guard and the United States Coast Guard to develop such a system. At the time of our audit, the system was still in development.

There are shortcomings in the federal compliance program

6.41 Transport Canada monitors compliance with its regulations primarily through the examination of ballast water reporting forms received from incoming vessels and through on-board ship inspection, including testing the salinity of water in ballast tanks to confirm exchange at sea. The Ballast Water Reporting Form describes the ship's ballast water management activities. These forms are sent to Transport Canada, where they are to be entered into the Canadian Ballast Water Database. Our audit found the following shortcomings with this information:

• Though submission of the form is mandatory under the regulations, not all ships have been submitting them. For example, between January and April 2007, in the Atlantic Region, 1,029 ships arrived into port, with 960 (93 percent) submitting ballast water reporting forms.
• Of the ships that do submit the forms, important information is sometimes missing. For example, a ship may not report how many ballast tanks in total it has, or where it has discharged or intends to discharge the ballast water it carries.
• Despite the requirement for ships to submit ballast water reporting forms and for Transport Canada to monitor and report this information in a central database, weaknesses exist in ensuring the completeness and accuracy of ballast water information.
• Missing entries in the Canadian ballast water database make it difficult to determine whether the original form was incomplete, entered incorrectly, or not applicable (in the case where ships do not intend to discharge).

6.42 The Department has set targets for ship inspection that differ depending on the point of entry into Canada. According to Transport Canada officials, all vessels (100 percent) entering the Great Lakes through the St. Lawrence Seaway are inspected, whereas the inspection target for ships entering Canadian waters on the east or west coasts is set at 25 percent. Numbers obtained from the Department's west coast office indicate that between January and September 2007, inspections were carried out on about 7 percent of ships. For the east coast, since inspections started in October 2007, that information was not available for our examination. Therefore, we concluded that the Department has yet to achieve its inspection target of 25 percent on the east and west coasts.

6.43 Department officials told us that new funds received in the fall of 2007 as part of the federal Health of the Oceans Initiative, announced in October 2007, should allow the Department to meet the 25 percent inspection target on the two coasts. Officials also told us that a database being developed for implementation in 2008 will address the issue of the availability of inspection information.

Compliance varies and data is incomplete

6.44 Testing the salinity of ship ballast water is the principal method Transport Canada uses to ensure that ships have carried out ballast water exchange at sea. Results from the inspections carried out by the Canada–United States Joint Ballast Water Management Exam Program on vessels entering the Great Lakes through the St. Lawrence Seaway between April and December 2006 indicate that 94 percent of ballast tanks tested satisfied the exchange salinity test.

6.45 In addition to testing the salinity, the Department looks at evidence that a vessel has followed best management practices, such as an updated ballast water management plan and record-keeping log book, including reporting forms. According to Transport Canada, of the 146 ships inspected in the Great Lakes by the Canada–United States Joint Ballast Water Management Exam Program between June and December 2006, 52 (36 percent) were issued "instruction letters." These letters are issued to vessels that do not comply with the regulations and that may be ordered not to discharge their ballast in Canadian waters.

6.46 Transport Canada and its partners started to inspect no ballast on board vessels (NOBOB) in 2005. Approximately 80 percent of vessels entering the Great Lakes have no ballast on board. Results from a 2006 report by the Canada–U.S. Joint Ballast Water Management Exam Program for the Great Lakes indicate that during that year, only about half of NOBOB vessels followed best management practices (Exhibit 6.9). Department officials told us that the situation was improving in 2007 but were unable to provide us with the supporting documentation at the time of our audit.

Exhibit 6.9—Only about half of ships declaring no ballast on board followed best management practices in 2006 in the Great Lakes

6.47 High-risk ships are known, but not always targeted for inspection. Since our 2002 audit, Transport Canada has completed risk assessments to determine which Canadian ports are most at risk from aquatic invasive species, and from which international ports alien species are most likely to come. Identifying those ports was a good first step. However, the Department does not systematically inspect vessels coming from the high-risk ports it identified. As a result, except for the Great Lakes, the Department is not applying a systematic risk-based approach to monitoring compliance with its regulations. Significant risks could be left unmanaged.

6.48 Although Transport Canada has started to monitor compliance with Canada's ballast water regulations, the data the Department had collected was incomplete and unreliable. The Department is not yet in a position to report on compliance with Canada's ballast water regulations on a national basis. Progress on our recommendation has been unsatisfactory (Exhibit 6.10).

Exhibit 6.10—Progress in addressing our recommendation on monitoring and reporting on compliance is unsatisfactory

6.49 Recommendation. Transport Canada should ensure that ships entering Canadian waters from high-risk locations are appropriately and systematically monitored and that ballast water management practices applied by these ships comply with Canadian regulations.

Transport Canada's response. Agreed. We are acting on this by launching a database of ecosystem data of the world's ports. This will identify ships arriving from ports with a higher risk of carrying species that would be invasive for Canada.

Ballast water measures do not address all key risks

6.50 Transport Canada has acknowledged that ballast water exchange is not always effective at removing the organisms contained in ships' ballast water tanks. The Department noted in its response to one of our 2002 recommendations that regulation of ballast water exchange is only an "interim step," and that ballast water treatment technology is needed in the longer term. Department officials told us that the process for incorporating ballast water treatment technology will be long and complicated, requiring international cooperation and research. Compounding the problem is that once an appropriate treatment technology is developed, retrofitting existing ships with new ballast treatment technologies is expected to take many more years.

6.51 A further complication is the fact that non-ocean-going vessels operating exclusively within the Great Lakes can spread aquatic invasive species that have already been introduced. Despite this, these vessels are exempt from the 2006 regulations and are not required to submit ballast water reporting forms. Consequently, Transport Canada has no ballast water use, discharge, or exchange data available for the domestic fleet on the Great Lakes. This pathway is significant because domestic vessels move millions of tonnes of ballast water between the lakes.

6.52 Other shipping-based pathways still pose major risks. Organisms attached to ship hulls can easily survive a long voyage and establish themselves in foreign ports. Recreational watercraft and fishing equipment can also spread aquatic invasive species between waterways. Despite hull fouling being identified as a key pathway for the introduction and spread of aquatic invasive species in the Canadian Action Plan to Address the Threat of Aquatic Invasive Species, there are no regulations in Canada to reduce dispersal by this means (the attachment of invasive species to ship and boat hulls). Aside from the ballast water regulations, measures to limit dispersal of aquatic invasive species due to recreational and commercial boating are mainly focused on education and are voluntary.

Conclusion

6.53 The government has made unsatisfactory progress in responding to the recommendations we made in 2002. Fisheries and Oceans Canada has made unsatisfactory progress in assessing the risks posed by aquatic invasive species. Although some risk assessments have begun, the number of existing aquatic invasive species and the rate at which new ones are becoming established far exceeds the rate at which the Department is assessing risks. The Department is not in a position to formally identify which aquatic invasive species pose the greatest risks to Canada's aquatic ecosystems, or the economy.

6.54 The Department has not set risk-based priorities for the prevention, control, or eradication of aquatic invasive species or determined the actions necessary to do so and it has not fully implemented monitoring nor reported on the effectiveness of measures taken. The Department does not have a plan for early detection of or rapid response to priority aquatic invasive species.

6.55 Transport Canada has implemented one of the two recommendations we made in 2002. Regulations that reflect current best practices for managing ballast water came into force through the Canada Shipping Act in 2006.

6.56 On our second 2002 recommendation—to develop and implement a means to monitor and report on regulatory compliance—the Department has made unsatisfactory progress. Monitoring and enforcement are insufficient on Canada's east and west coasts to assure Canadians that the risks posed by ballast water are being effectively regulated. Existing efforts are not sufficiently targeted to the highest risk vessels. There are also gaps in the Department's existing compliance data, particularly on the east and west coasts, and the Department has not established the capacity to report on compliance with Canada's ballast water regulations on a national basis.

6.57 The implementation gap persists. The federal government has made unsatisfactory progress in managing the threats posed by aquatic invasive species, and Canada's ecology and economy are still at risk from aquatic invasive species. Treatment standards for ballast water still need to be defined. Other major pathways, such as hull fouling and the domestic fleet in the Great Lakes, remain to be addressed. We reported in 2002 that real progress in controlling aquatic invasive species could be a long way off. Six years later, our view has not changed.

About the Audit

Objectives

The main objective of our follow-up audit was to assess the progress that Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Transport Canada had made in responding to the recommendations in our 2002 audit on invasive species.

We examined whether

• Fisheries and Oceans Canada had made satisfactory progress in implementing selected recommendations made with respect to managing the risks posed by aquatic invasive species, and
• Transport Canada had made satisfactory progress with respect to managing ballast water.

Scope and approach

Our audit covered the measures taken following the recommendations on aquatic invasive species made in our 2002 audit, Invasive Species. We looked at how Fisheries and Oceans Canada is managing risks posed by aquatic invasive species and how Transport Canada is controlling the introduction of aquatic invasive species into Canadian waters from ship ballast water. These issues were selected as being of continued interest to Parliament and Canadians and still posing a significant risk.

Our approach included reviewing documents from the headquarters and regional offices of both departments, interviewing management and employees (including visits to two Fisheries and Oceans Canada research labs, and one regional Transport Canada office), examining databases, analyzing procedures, and observing operations.

Our examination did not include recommendations made to Environment Canada, since this work would have involved terrestrial invasive species and the overall coordination of the federal government's response to invasive species. These areas were beyond the scope of our current audit. Our audit also did not include Fisheries and Oceans Canada's programs for dealing with introductions of alien or genetically modified species from domestic fish-stocking programs or from aquaculture operations. These areas were not within the scope of our 2002 audit and so were not followed up here.

Criteria

The criteria for the audit were derived from our 2002 audit recommendations.

• We expected Fisheries and Oceans Canada to have developed and implemented a means to identify and assess the risks of aquatic invasive species and use it as a tool for setting departmental priorities and objectives for the prevention, control, or eradication of those risks.
• We expected Fisheries and Oceans Canada to have put in place a monitoring and reporting system that tracks the effectiveness of measures taken toward its invasive species objectives and to report on progress annually.
• We expected Transport Canada to have defined best management practices for ship ballast and established regulations requiring application of those practices on all ships entering Canadian waters.
• We expected Transport Canada to have developed and implemented a means to monitor, maintain records, and report on compliance with Canadian ballast water regulations.

Audit work completed

Audit work for this chapter was substantially completed on 15 June 2007.

Audit team

Principal: Andrew Ferguson
Director: Francine Richard

Marie Duchaîne
Christopher Valiquet
Marc-André Lafrance
Korice Moir

For information, please contact Communications at 613-995-3708 or 1-888-761-5953 (toll-free).

Appendix—List of recommendations

The following is a list of recommendations found in Chapter 6. The number in front of the recommendation indicates the paragraph number where it appears in the chapter. The numbers in parentheses indicate the paragraph numbers where the topic is discussed.

Definition:

Alien species—a species introduced outside its normal past or present habitat. It includes any part, seeds, or eggs that might survive and subsequently reproduce.
Source: Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (Return)