Risk dimensions of fish farming operations and conflicting objectives

Abstract

Operations at sea-based fish farms can be challenging, and several risk dimensions are of concern during operations. Sea lice represent a challenge for the fish farmers who are required to perform delousing when the infestation levels rice above a set value. Delousing operations are frequently performed and require the use of heavy machinery operated from service vessels moored to the net-cages. Operators are exposed to hazards that may cause severe injuries and fatalities. Escape of salmon, which is a substantial environmental risk, has occurred in relation to delousing operations. Chemicals used during the operations may cause negative environmental consequences. Other safety related issues are the fish health and welfare. In this paper, a delousing operation on a fish farm is discussed with respect to different dimensions of risk, and potential conflicting objectives are discussed. regulations (Norwegian Ministry of Trade Industry and Fisheries, 2012), and has become an operation frequently performed in fish farms. Delousing is an operation where several factors identified as critical or risk-influencing are present, see Table 1. In this paper, the first three risk dimensions are presented and compared with the purpose of identifying examples of potential conflicting objectives in the fish farming operation delousing. Conflicting objectives is an accident perspective, and highlighting consequences of the different pressures the human operators are exposed to in aquaculture, risk-reducing measures can be developed. 2 RISK DIMENSIONS IN A CONFLICTING OBJECTIVES’ ACCIDENT PERCPECTIVE The concept of conflicting objectives is described by Rasmussen’s migration model (Rasmussen, 1997a). It explains how accidents may happen when decisions in an organization are made based on different objectives and constraints. One example is the decisions made by management to minimize costs, while operators may focus on making the operations as efficient as possible. These sometimes competing, or conflicting, objectives may eventually lead to a migration towards the boundary of a functionally acceptable performance. As the decisions are made local at separate levels, the side effects of the decisions may eventually set the stage for an accident (Rasmussen, 1997b). The operators can be seen to be at the sharp-end, close to the hazard sources, while management can be seen to be at the blunt end, removed from the hazards (Rosness, 2001, Rosness et al., 2010a).