Chapter 2
Overview of the fin-fish aquaculture industry in Tasmania
2.1
This chapter provides an overview of the fin-fish aquaculture industry
including its development, companies involved in the industry and the Tasmanian
Government regulatory framework. The committee also canvasses research and
development activities and third-party certification of fin-fish aquaculture
companies. Finally, the committee discusses community perception of the
industry.
Development of the fin-fish aquaculture industry in Tasmania
2.2
The Tasmanian salmonid marine farming industry has its origin in the
establishment of fresh water trout farms at Bridport in 1964 and at Russell
Falls in 1974. This led to the first successful seawater trial at Nubeena (on
the Tasman Peninsula) in the early 1980s, where rainbow trout hatched in fresh
water were transferred to seawater for grow out.
2.3
Atlantic salmon ova were imported from NSW in 1984 and the first
commercial harvest of 55 tonnes of Atlantic salmon occurred in 1985–86. The
industry was established as a joint venture agreement between the State
Government, a Norwegian company, Noraqua, and local salmon growers. The
agreement allowed the transfer of technology from Noraqua to assist in the development
of the industry which was considered a crucial factor in the early days of development.[1]
2.4
The agreement also established Salmon Enterprises of Tasmania Pty Ltd
(SALTAS) which was responsible for the culture and distribution of smolt to its
shareholders. Until the late 1990s, SALTAS was the only producer of Atlantic
salmon smolt in the State. A number of private companies have now established
hatcheries to produce Atlantic salmon smolt.[2]
2.5
Over the decade to 2013–14, there was a significant expansion of
salmonid production in Australia from 16 686 tonnes in 2003–04 to 41 615
tonnes in 2013–14. Almost all of this growth is a result of the expansion of
salmon aquaculture farms in Tasmania.[3]
2.6
Currently, eight entities hold salmonid marine farming leases within
Tasmanian state waters. There are four main companies, Tassal Group Ltd
(Tassal), Huon Aquaculture Group, Petuna Pty Ltd, and Van Diemen Aquaculture
Pty Ltd of which Petuna Pty Ltd is a major shareholder. Three of these
companies are fully vertically integrated and also provide product for a number
of businesses who value add for niche markets.[4]
2.7
There are 48 licenced salmonid farming leases in Tasmanian State waters
which occupy a total of 2196 hectares in six marine farming development plan
areas. Farming takes place in south east Tasmania including the Huon River
estuary and D'Entrecastaux Channel; in Macquarie Harbour on the west coast; and
the Tamar Estuary in the north of the State.
Figure 2.1: Marine lease areas in Tasmania
![Figure 2.1: Marine lease areas in Tasmania](~/media/Committees/ec_ctte/Fin_Fish/c02_1.jpg)
Source: Tasmanian Government, Submission 35, p. 3.
2.8
In the south east, leases are held by Tassal, Huon Aquaculture and
Alstergren Aquaculture although Alstergren does not currently undertake any
marine farming operations. In Macquarie Harbour, leases are held by Tassal,
Huon Aquaculture, Petuna and Russfal Pty Ltd (subleased to Tassal and Huon
Aquaculture). Van Diemen Aquaculture Pty Ltd holds a marine farming lease in
the Tamar River.
2.9
There are currently 18 licenced salmonid inland fish farm activities in
Tasmania. Two have not been developed. The two SALTAS hatcheries are joint ventures
between industry and government with the Tasmanian Government being a minor
shareholder. Additionally, there is one new activity in construction and two
new development proposals under review by the Environment Protection Authority.
Of the existing activities, four are currently undergoing development works.[5]
State government regulatory framework
2.10
The Tasmanian Government stated that the National Strategy for
Ecologically Sustainable Development was endorsed by the Council of Australian
Governments in 1992. The strategy provides the objectives for aquaculture development.
The three core objectives are :
-
to enhance individual and community well-being and welfare by
following a path of economic development that safeguards the welfare of future
generations;
-
to provide for equity within and between generations; and
-
to protect biological diversity and maintain ecological processes
and life support systems.[6]
2.11
The strategy is implemented under the guidance of a number of ecological
and development principles. In its submission, the Tasmanian Government stated:
The strategy emphasises that a balanced approach is required
for ecologically sustainable development and these guiding principles and core
objectives need to be considered as a package. No objective or principle should
predominate over the others.
Management judgments have to be based on the available
scientific evidence of risk, and the levels of short and long-term impacts that
are acceptable in the socio-economic as well as ecological contexts.[7]
2.12
The environmental planning and management system in Tasmania is established
under the Resource Management and Planning System (RMPS). The RMPS is based on
principles of sustainable development and aims to achieve sustainable outcomes
for the use and development of the State's natural and physical resources.[8]
2.13
In 1995, the Tasmanian Government passed legislation to provide a
comprehensive regulatory regime for the management of aquaculture operations
and protection of the environment. The legislation addresses both marine
farming and the freshwater farming operations of the salmonid industry as well
as other aquaculture activities. Following the passing of this legislation, a
development process for marine farming was initiated, with a number of marine
farming regions around the State being identified as marine farming development
areas.
Marine farming operations
2.14
The regulation of marine salmonid farming operations is primarily
managed under the Marine Farming Planning Act 1995 (MFP Act) and Living
Marine Resources Management Act 1995 (LMRMA). The Acts are administered by
the Marine Farming Branch of the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water
and Environment (DPIPWE).
2.15
The Tasmanian Government stated:
The Marine Farming Planning Act 1995 and the Living
Marine Resources Management Act 1995 provide an integrated and robust framework
that ensures the ongoing sustainable management of the salmonid farming
industry in Tasmania.[9]
Marine Farming Planning Act 1995
2.16
The MFP Act aims to achieve well-planned sustainable development of
marine farming activities, having regard for the need to:
-
integrate marine farming activities with other marine uses;
-
minimise any adverse impact of marine farming activities;
-
set aside areas for activities other than for marine farming
activities;
-
take account of land uses; and
-
take account of the community's right to have an interest in
those activities.[10]
2.17
The MFP Act, and associated regulations, provide for:
-
zoning areas of State waters, through marine farming development
plans (MFDPs), where future marine farming operations may occur;
-
amendments to MFDPs; and
-
reviews of MFDPs.
2.18
MFDPs contain management controls to manage and mitigate negative effects
of marine farming operations. Management controls may include provisions
relating to:
-
the activities that may take place;
-
specific marine farming activities that may take place;
-
the environmental monitoring that must be undertaken by a lease
holder;
-
the limits for any water quality indicators;
-
the restrictions on noise, light, or presence in a marine farming
zone;
-
the size of structures in a marine farming zone; and
-
any other appropriate matter.[11]
2.19
In preparing an MFDP, or an amendment to an existing MFDP, the proponent
is required to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The EIS must
disclose any available information relating to the environmental impact of a
proposal and contain information appropriate to the significance of the
proposal to the environment.[12]
Marine Farming Planning Review
Panel
2.20
The Marine Farming Planning Review Panel is established under the MFP Act
to assess draft plans and draft amendments to plans, for example, expansions.
There are eight members of the Panel.
2.21
Prior to 2011, the Panel was able to make binding determinations. In
doing so, the Panel was required to take into account public submissions, the
recommendation of the Marine Farming Branch of DPIPWE and the sustainable development
objectives of the MFP Act. With amendment of the MFP Act in late 2011, the
Panel may now only make a recommendation to the minister in relation to a draft
amendment to a MFDP.[13]
Living Marine Resources Management
Act 1995
2.22
All marine farming operations must be licensed under the LMRMA. Each
licence includes environmental conditions specific to that licence to ensure
that the marine farming operation is sustainable and does not have an
unacceptable impact on the marine environment.
2.23
Conditions that expand on the provisions of management controls are
contained in marine farming licences issued for salmonid marine farming. The
Tasmanian Government stated that licences are renewed annually and conditions
may be varied at any time, which provides flexibility in the management of
ongoing farming operations.[14]
Freshwater farming operations
2.24
The Inland Fisheries Act 1995 regulates freshwater salmonid
farming operations. The freshwater operations supply salmon smolt or rainbow
trout from freshwater hatcheries for on-growing at sea.
2.25
The Inland Fisheries Service is responsible for the regulation of
hatcheries and freshwater fish farms under the Inland Fisheries Act 1995.[15]
2.26
The Director of Inland Fisheries has power to grant fish farm licences
to grow declared fish in inland waters. If Atlantic salmon is involved then the
agreement of the minister administering the LMRM Act is required. Fish farm
licences contain conditions to regulate matters including the species of fish
permitted to be grown; the location and size of the farm; the source of supply
of fish stock; notification requirements; disease management; and measures to
prevent the escape of fish from the farm. Licences can also include conditions
that require participation in the DPIPWE salmonid health surveillance program
and monitoring of water quality and effluent.[16]
2.27
In addition to the Inland Fisheries Act, the Land Use Planning
Approvals Act 1993, Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994
and the State Policy on Water Quality Management 1997 apply to inland farming
operations.[17]
2.28
The Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994 is
administered within the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) Division of
DPIPWE and establishes the authority of the Director, EPA, and the Board of the
EPA to conduct the assessment of level 2 and 3 activities, as defined the Act.
The Director also has authority to ‘call-in’ activities for assessment by the
Board. The Act is also subject to the objectives of the Resource Management and
Planning System.
2.29
The Act defines serious and material environmental harm and
environmental nuisance and lists offences and penalties. The EPA Division, on
behalf of the Director, regulates Environment Protection Notices that are
issued by the Director, and conducts enforcement action for offences against
the Act, including non-compliance with Environment Protection Notices or
environmental permit conditions.[18]
Adaptive management
2.30
The MFP Act, marine farming lease conditions, management controls
contained within MFDPs and marine farming licence conditions are the principal instruments
for managing marine farming activities. These provide for the adaptive
management framework adopted by the Tasmanian Government which stated:
Both the planning and operational regulatory frameworks
applied to the salmonid farming industry employ recognised best practice
adaptive management principles. These frameworks takes into account the dynamic
nature of the environment within which marine farming occurs and accordingly
provide the capacity and flexibility to manage future marine farming operations
in an environmentally sustainable manner.[19]
2.31
Dr John Whittington, Secretary, DPIPWE, added that:
...we are very confident that our adaptive management approach
to regulation is the right approach and the sensible approach...it is an
approach that relies on assessing the environment where the farming is to
occur. It involves an iterative process of decision making, monitoring and
evaluation, and that feeds back into decision making. As a regulatory agency,
we are confident that this adaptive management approach provides a sound way
for the industry to be managed and to grow.[20]
2.32
Support for the Tasmanian Government's adaptive management approach was
provided by the Tasmanian Seafood Industry Council which commented:
Despite some differences, the entire seafood industry shares
one common value: to continue to operate as a fully sustainable seafood
industry. Our capacity to achieve this is underpinned by world's best ecosystem
based and adaptive regulatory framework. As a foundation, this framework
requires comprehensive scientific input into the decision-making processes.[21]
2.33
The pre-development and operational components of the adaptive
management cycle employed for ongoing environmental management and regulation
of operation of operational fin-fish marine lease areas were provided in the
Tasmanian Government's submission.
Figure 2.2: Pre-development and operational components
![Figure 2.2: Pre-development and operational components](~/media/Committees/ec_ctte/Fin_Fish/c02_2.gif)
![Figure 2.2: Pre-development and operational components](~/media/Committees/ec_ctte/Fin_Fish/c02_3.gif)
Source: Tasmanian Government,
Submission 35, p. 9.
Research and development
2.34
Research and development plays a key role in the salmonid industry in
Tasmania. Dr Whittington, DPIPWE, commented that 'we are really fortunate in
Tasmania to have a very strong and vibrant research and environmental
consultant community'.[22]
2.35
Industry and government work in collaboration with CSIRO, the University
of Tasmania's Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies (IMAS), other
interstate and international research institutes and small independent
consultancies. Research projects are undertaken across all aspects of the
industry: environment; breeding and genetics; and fish health and welfare.
2.36
The Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC) is a co-funded
partnership between the Commonwealth Government and the fishing and aquaculture
industry.[23]
The FRDC invests in research, development, and extension (RD&E) activities
that support aquaculture, commercial fishing, Indigenous fishing and
recreational fishing. The FRDC partners with other organisations that have the
necessary capabilities to undertake the varied specialised activities. The FRDC
facilitates the extension, adoption and commercialisation of research and
development and evaluates the benefits.[24]
2.37
Through the FRDC, the Commonwealth and industry have invested
significantly in the development of the Tasmanian fin-fish aquaculture
industry. Between 1991 and 2015, 96 research projects valued in excess of
$25 million were undertaken in support of the sustainable development of
the fin-fish aquaculture industry. The FRDC has 20 active research projects
across the Tasmanian fin-fish aquaculture sector and, as at June 2015, there
were a further four approved projects awaiting commencement.[25]
2.38
Principal areas of investment have included:
-
environmental management;
-
industry development;
-
farm management, animal health and disease mitigation; and
-
threatened and endangered species.[26]
2.39
The FRDC's research and development investment decisions in the
Tasmanian fin-fish aquaculture sector are made in consultation with the
Tasmanian Fisheries Research Advisory Body (TasFRAB) and the Tasmanian Salmonid
Growers Association (TSGA) under the Industry Partnership Agreement (TSGA-IPA).[27]
2.40
The TSGA also pointed to the significant investment by industry in
research and development with the salmonid industry contributing in excess of
$200 million in recognised research expenditure to a broad range of topics over
the last 30 years. This was predominantly through co-partnering with UTAS and
CSIRO. Current research projects are valued at $5.6 million.[28]
The TSGA submitted that, with further contributions from the FRDC, supportive
research bodies and organisations and businesses associated with the industry,
the total industry expenditure on research and development is in excess of $275
million.[29]
2.41
IMAS, and its predecessors, has over the last 20 years undertaken
research which has significantly contributed to knowledge of environmental
impacts and interactions of fin-fish aquaculture in Tasmania. IMAS commented
that it provides independent advice and understanding to support decisions
regarding the management and regulation of the salmonid farming industry and has
been central to the development, implementation, and review of the aquaculture
environmental monitoring programs currently employed in Tasmania. IMAS added
that its 'researchers have played key roles in both identifying and responding
to "knowledge gaps" and will continue to do so in the future'.[30]
2.42
In its submission, IMAS outlined the development of its research focus
for the industry and commented that initially, local scale benthic impacts were
the focus, and research was integral to developing management controls. With
research suggesting that farming in the Huon River/D'Entrecasteaux Channel
region was approaching capacity, concern then shifted to broadscale effects of
dissolved wastes. A limit on further development was imposed, and a Broadscale
Environmental Monitoring Program (BEMP) initiated that has since been
highlighted as world's best practice. IMAS noted that concern now focuses on
potentially adverse interactions between marine farming and reefs, and on declines
in oxygen in Macquarie Harbour. IMAS is currently providing research advice on
these issues as part of the adaptive management process.[31]
These issues are discussed further in chapters 4 and 6.
2.43
One of the main bodies providing research for aquaculture related issues
is IMAS. IMAS research is often undertaken in collaboration with other
organisations and it stated that it responds to concerns raised not only by
industry and government, but also the broader community and matters identified
by IMAS researchers. IMAS commented that 'in making management recommendations
we have sought to promote multi-use management solutions and to provide advice
that supports sustainable management practices for all stakeholders'. IMAS added
that its 'aquaculture research is acknowledged as world class, and our
environmental research has been identified as world's best practice in
international standards...and is regularly cited in relation to the development
of aquaculture management strategies globally'.[32]
2.44
The IMAS submission provides a comprehensive review of research
undertaken in relation to the salmonid industry.
2.45
An experimental aquaculture facility has been established at the IMAS
campus, Taroona. Collaborative aquaculture research, particularly with the
Atlantic salmon industry, will be undertaken. It is the only facility in the
South Hemisphere for large production sized fin-fish.[33]
2.46
In commenting on the research resources available to the aquaculture
industry, Dr Adam Main, Chief Executive Officer, TSGA, noted that the industry
was fortunate in not only being able to access the resources of CSIRO but also
the University of Tasmania:
We have been able to tap into that knowledge set, that
ability, that think tank on marine science for 30 years. That is not
understating the influence of the Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies or
UTAS more generally. There are not only the marine scientists, but the
economists and the social scientists. We have been so lucky in regard to having
all of that at our fingertips and to be able to incorporate that in with the
regulator to make sure that we get a system that is robust and world's best. As
much as there is a pull factor for us to be demonstrating that we are the best,
there is a significant push factor within the industry and within the companies
to achieve that for themselves.[34]
International certification of the industry
2.47
Tasmanian salmonid companies participate in third-party sustainability
certifications. The TSGA noted that third-party certifications are robust,
transparent and independent. They require companies to comply with numerous
standards that cover environmental impacts; fish health and disease management;
sustainability of feed ingredients; wildlife management; employee safety and
working conditions; transgenic animals; escapes; energy efficiency and
biosecurity; as well as the mandatory regulations required by the government. The
TSGA stated that these voluntary standards typically have higher requirements
than Commonwealth and state regulations.[35]
Dr Main, TSGA observed that:
When you bring in the community aspect and you bring in some
of the other environmental measures which are not required under the currently
regulatory framework, it is a push from industry to strive even further and
harder past the agreed regulatory framework.[36]
2.48
The TSGA noted that certification procedures include auditing, with the
auditors also having the opportunity to bring in third parties to review
procedures and data, make comments and provide direction on the practices of
the company.[37]
2.49
The cost of gaining international certification is significant with the
industry spending $0.5 million per annum.[38]
However, the TSGA commented that:
...the extra compliance costs involved may be offset by
increased production through the reduction of mortality from disease and
stress, and increased growth under better environmental conditions. Certified
products also have greater market access and can obtain a higher market price.[39]
2.50
Companies make their own decision about which certification they wish to
obtain.[40]
The Tasmanian salmonid companies participate in the following certification
schemes:
-
Best Aquaculture Practices (BAP) – Van Diemen Aquaculture, Tassal
and Petuna;
-
Global G.A.P. – Huon Aquaculture;
-
Global Salmonid Initiative (GSI) – Huon Aquaculture;
-
Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC) – Tassal; and
-
Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) – Tassal.[41]
2.51
The TSGA submission provides a summary of the key aspects of the ASC,
BAP and Global GAP schemes which is provided below.[42]
Table 2.1: Comparison of industry certification and
accreditation schemes
Requirement of Standard
|
Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC)
|
Best
Aquaculture Practices (BAP)
|
Global GAP
|
Third
party certification body
|
ü
|
ü
|
ü
|
Audit reports made publicly available
|
ü
|
-
|
-
|
Local and national legal requirements and regulations
|
Compliance with local and national
legal requirements and
regulations
|
ü
|
ü
|
ü
|
Local biodiversity and
ecosystem function
|
|
|
|
Benthic
Biodiversity and benthic effects
|
ü
|
ü
|
ü
|
Water quality
|
ü
|
ü
|
ü
|
Nutrient release from production
|
ü
|
ü
|
ü
|
Critical or sensitive habitats
and species
|
ü
|
ü
|
ü
|
Interactions
with wildlife
|
ü
|
ü
|
ü
|
Biosecurity
|
Biosecurity Management
|
ü
|
ü
|
ü
|
Area
Management Agreement
|
ü
|
ü
|
ü
|
Escapes Management
|
ü
|
ü
|
ü
|
Resource Use
|
Third
party certification of feed suppliers
|
In
development
|
-
|
ü
|
Raw materials in
feed
|
ü
|
ü
|
ü
|
Non-biological waste from production
|
ü
|
ü
|
ü
|
Non-therapeutic chemical inputs
|
ü
|
ü
|
ü
|
Energy consumption and GHG emission accounting
|
ü
|
-
|
ü
|
Fish Health
|
Animal
welfare
|
ü
|
ü
|
ü
|
Fish Health Management Plan
|
ü
|
ü
|
ü
|
Dedicated Fish Health professionals
|
ü
|
ü
|
ü
|
Stocking densities
|
-
|
ü
|
ü
|
Responsible disposal of mortalities
|
ü
|
ü
|
ü
|
Controls on chemical, therapeutant and antibiotic
use
|
ü
|
ü
|
ü
|
Maximum level of viral
disease-related mortality
|
ü
|
-
|
-
|
Maximum unexplained mortality rate
|
ü
|
-
|
-
|
Harvest,
transport and handling
criteria
|
ü
|
ü
|
ü
|
Social Responsibility
|
Workplace Health and Safety criteria
|
ü
|
ü
|
ü
|
Human Resources criteria (discrimination, access to union, wages,
conflict resolution)
|
ü
|
ü
|
ü
|
Contractor management criteria
|
ü
|
ü
|
ü
|
Education and training criteria
|
ü
|
ü
|
ü
|
Stakeholder Engagement
|
Community Engagement criteria
|
ü
|
ü
|
ü
|
Indigenous
Engagement criteria
|
ü
|
ü
|
-
|
Assessment of company’s
impact on access to resources
|
ü
|
ü
|
ü
|
Freshwater
|
Smolt Production
|
ü
|
-
|
ü
|
Third
party certification of smolt
suppliers
|
-
|
-
|
ü
|
Food Safety
|
Food safety criteria
|
ü
|
ü
|
ü
|
Transparency of
farm-level performance data
|
Requirement for transparency
of farm-level performance data
|
ü
|
-
|
o
|
Publicly available information
|
Lethal Wildlife Interactions
|
ü
|
-
|
o
|
Unidentifiable transmissible agents
|
ü
|
-
|
-
|
OIE-notifiable disease detected on farm
|
ü
|
-
|
-
|
Estimated Unexplained Loss (EUL) by
production cycle
|
ü
|
-
|
-
|
Therapeutic Treatments
|
ü
|
-
|
o
|
O Represents information made publicly
available which is not a requirement of the certification
Source: Tasmanian
Salmonid Growers Association, Submission 33, pp 47–48
2.52
The industry pointed to the substantial benefits arising from
third-party certification including that certification acts 'as a driver for
achieving ongoing improvements in environmental performance'.[43]
The TSGA added that 'the attainment of third-party sustainability certification
has also fostered a transformation of attitudes and abilities within the
companies to consider management at the ecosystem level'.[44]
In addition, the TSGA commented that certification supports industry growth, helps
to develop and maintain markets, helps consumers to make informed decisions and
provides evidence to a range of stakeholders that the industry is acting
responsibly and sustainably.[45]
2.53
The TSGA also pointed to the transparency aspects of certification. Dr
Main commented that certification requires companies to provide large amounts
of information and 'a huge amount of trust on behalf of the company to open up
their books and all of the information, warts and all, and let the auditors
have a look at it'.[46]
2.54
Other witnesses also commented on third-party certification of the
industry. Ms Jessica Feehely, EDO Tasmania, commented:
...the fact that industry is going through these processes is
commendable. They are globally recognised and they are quite stringent. As for
whether or not that then means that they meet the criteria under the Tasmanian
legislation, I cannot say, but you would hope that any global certification
would be equally rigorous.[47]
2.55
Both WWF-Australia and the Tasmanian Abalone Council commented
specifically on certification by the ASC. WWF-Australia stated that it
considered the ASC standard to be 'the most credible, independent, third-party
certification for responsible aquaculture' and that 'the ASC provides a high
social and environmental standard for salmon aquaculture globally'. While
noting that certification is not a substitute for an effective regulatory
regime, WWF-Australia commented that certification provides 'third-party
validation of compliance and an additional means to implement a stringent set
of checks and balances on environmental impacts, as well as providing consumers
with assurance that the food they eat is responsibly produced according to
third-party standards'.[48]
2.56
Mr Dean Lisson, Tasmanian Abalone Council, also supported the ASC and
commented that the Council believes that, of all the third-party certification
systems for aquaculture, the ASC is probably the most independently robust.
While not agreeing that the ASC 'is 100 per cent perfect', Mr Lisson commented
that 'it stacks up well against all of the other third-party certification
systems'.[49]
2.57
The Tasmanian Abalone Council commented that the ASC is 'a form of
assessment that is positive for Tasmania' and aligns with the Tasmanian Abalone
Council's aim of both the salmonid and abalone industries 'flourishing as it
brings together all areas of compliance with a final certification that seeks
to drive accountable improvements in environmental and social responsibility'.[50]
The Council concluded that the current Tasmanian regulatory regime 'could be
further strengthened through Government endorsement of the ASC as the preferred
accreditation framework for Salmonid farming in Australia'.[51]
Committee comment
2.58
Tasmanian fin-fish aquaculture companies have gained a range of
third-party certifications of their operations. The committee considers that
third-party certification provides additional confidence to stakeholders that
the aquaculture industry is committed to environmental, biosecurity, fish
health and social responsibility standards.
2.59
There a number of third-party certifications available and each company
makes its own decision about which one it will seek to obtain. However, the
committee notes that the Aquaculture Stewardship Council certification was
supported by some submitters and that it includes standards for publicly
available information including lethal wildlife interactions and therapeutic
treatments.[52]
Community perception
2.60
The issue of community perception of the fin-fish industry was discussed
extensively in evidence, particularly in regard to the negative perception of
monitoring activities and transparency of regulation.
2.61
For example, the Kingborough Council commented that while it appeared
that environmental impact monitoring and reporting of the salmon industry has
improved significantly over the last decade, there appears to be an 'ongoing
perception that the industry is not sustainable and that a steady degradation
of the waterways is occurring'.[53]
In addition, the community considers that the 'approval process is
predetermined' and 'the industry is monitoring itself'.[54]
The Council commented that this had arisen as the outcomes of monitoring
activities are not adequately articulated in a manner that is readily available
and understood by the community.
2.62
The Kingborough Council went on to suggest that there was a need for
improved communications from the industry, particularly in reporting on
monitoring or scientific activities, so that the community can understand what
is occurring. Mr Gary Arnold, Kingborough Council, elaborated:
The scientific data needs to be gathered and
communicated—sure, we all agree with that—but it also needs to be communicated
in a way that is easily understood for people who are not necessarily endowed
with a scientific background. We feel, from feedback from our community, that
that is the main point we can make as advocates on their behalf. They need to
be convinced that the improvements that the scientific community and the
industry talk about are in fact understood by them, which does not appear to be
the case.[55]
2.63
Kingborough Council suggested that the regulator could make himself
available to engage directly with the community. The Council noted that the
state Auditor-General undertakes such an activity by attending audit panel
meetings of council.[56]
2.64
Councillor Rosalie Woodruff also raised concerns about community
consultation. Councillor Woodruff noted that in the recent past, companies have
appeared to be favouring more constructive community engagement and
negotiation. However, this willingness appears to have diminished recently with
'discussions with residents about serially problematic issues' being stalled.[57]
2.65
In response to these concerns, Mr Chris Dockray, Chairman, TSGA,
acknowledged that the industry has to work hard to ensure that the community
comes along with industry as it expands.[58]
In this regard, the TSGA outlined the industry's stakeholder engagement
activities:
The industry continually engages with key stakeholders to
ensure the calibre and relevance of regulations and the ongoing development
environmentally and socially responsible practices. The industry has developed
and initiated a modern and adaptive stakeholder engagement approach to ensure
that there are ample opportunities for communities, interest groups and other
stakeholders to engage in a range of consultative processes and discussions in
relation to marine farming management and ongoing industry development.[59]
2.66
Dr Main, TSGA, added that there are some strong voices in the
Tasmanian community that held a negative view of the industry. Dr Main went on
to cite a 2014 study which found that:
...90 per cent of people answered either 'yes; strongly in
favour' or 'yes; somewhat in favour' to the question: are you in favour or
against the aquaculture industry in general? So that was Tasmania. In Australia—mainland—it
was 78 per cent plus 17, so it is even more than 90 per cent. We do have
significant support from our community—and we have to keep working with them on
that.[60]
2.67
The Tasmanian Seafood Industry Council provided its view on the
engagement of the fin-fish industry with the community. Mr Julian Harrington
stated that the industry has an 'open and transparent community relationship'.
Mr Harrington noted that the fin-fish industry holds forums to discuss
planning developments as well as being involved in a diverse range of community
programs, projects and sponsorships. Mr Harrington concluded that 'relative to
the seafood industry they would be the standout performers for community
engagement'.[61]
2.68
A further mechanism allowing the engagement of the community and
stakeholders was the conference hosted in 2012 by EDO Tasmania. The conference
looked at the experience of marine farming planning and operation in Tasmania
and internationally. Participants included scientists, Tasmanian Conservation
Trust and the TSGA.[62]
Ms Jessica Feehely, EDO Tasmania, commented that the conference was held
as a consequence of community concerns about lack of transparency and lack of
public debate about the industry. Ms Feehely, stated that:
....we saw the conference as an opportunity to bring together
all the stakeholders—both the industry stakeholders concerned and also industry
and government—to have a conversation about what the industry looks like, what
the community concerns are and how industry is responding to those concerns...
As much as anything, it was a conversation starter. It
certainly performed that role. It highlighted areas where the regulation in New
Zealand and Canada is something that we would want to emulate. It also
identified lots of areas where the Tasmanian regulatory framework is in fact
working quite well.
It certainly was not a conference that was designed to bash
the industry; it was quite the opposite. It was an opportunity for the industry
to talk about where it plans to go and think about how we might want to design
our laws to make sure that happens effectively.[63]
Committee view
2.69
The committee notes the efforts by the industry to actively engage with
stakeholders and the community generally and to provide information on its
operations that is accessible and easily understood. The committee also notes
the activities of other stakeholders in engaging with the industry and applauds
the EDO Tasmania's efforts to bring together stakeholders to discuss issues of
concern under the auspices of the 2012 conference on marine planning and
operation.
2.70
The committee considers a greater understanding of industry activities
would be beneficial, particularly as the industry seeks to expand its
operations. One avenue of achieving this would be by making available a wider
range of information about marine farming monitoring and regulatory activities,
particularly those undertaken by the Tasmanian Government. This matter has been
considered in chapter 3 of the report.
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page