The only specialised marine publication in Oceania that focuses on the maritime industry, from super yachts to small craft to large commercial ships, including coastal shipping, tugs, tow boats, barges, ferries, tourist, sport-fishing craft
Issue link: https://viewer.e-digitaleditions.com/i/73196
Two sides in the NZ KING SALMON debate M arlborough-based New Zealand King Salmon has applied to the Environmental Protection Authority to add nine salmon farms to its existing fi ve. If approved, the expansion will increase the company's water space by 11 hectares to 17 hectares, or 0.01 percent of the 150,000 hectares in the Marlborough Sounds. The company's application was publicly notifi ed by the Board of Inquiry established by the EPA and have now closed. A fi nal decision on the company's application will be announced in December. Arguments for: NZ King Salmon already runs seven salmon farms in the Marlborough Sounds with an output of almost 9,000 tonnes of salmon a year and a staff of 450 workers, mainly in Nelson. NZKS has spent more than $6 million on its EPA application, commissioning 40 experts to assess the proposal's impact. Chief executive Grant Rosewarne said the company had worked hard to turn a commodity product into a luxury brand, reaching out into Asia and striving to have New Zealand products listed named on menus around the globe. Extracts from NZKS's reports and submissions. The proposed expansion will generate: • an additional $119 million of value added commercial activity in the Nelson Marlborough economy • $178 million to the New Zealand economy by 2016 • $194 million every year from 2021 • 1510 jobs by 2016 • More than 1600 jobs by 2021 NZKS included written letters from the Service and Food Workers Union, the city's mayor, and many Nelson businessmen who support the application for largely fi nancial reasons. NZKS say they have robust management practices and have been successfully farming in the Sounds for 25 years without any environmental effect remote from their farms. They support this with comment from NIWA scientist Dr Andrew Forsythe, who says the company's proposed scale of salmon farming was of little risk and that linking human waste to discharge from fi sh farms is "a fl awed comparison". He says that from NIWA's monitoring of environmental effects in Pelorus Sound and in a highly mixed situation, no nutrient enrichment can be detected 100 metres from a salmon farm. Grant Rosewarne says, "Cook Strait tends to be much more nutrient-rich and the drivers of change in nutrient levels in the Sounds, are what is occurring in the ocean and the river fl ows, not salmon farms. The issue is what you do about it to minimise that effect." NZKS commissioned a survey to gauge local and national support for their expansion application. The results show 52.4 percent support compared to 10.8 percent opposition, with 54 percent support in Marlborough. Arguments against: The Marlborough District Council's objections are: • The Council is not opposed to salmon farming but it has areas specifi cally zoned for this type of marine farming and NZ King Salmon is seeking approval to establish farms outside those areas. The Council is opposing the NZ King Salmon application because it would set a precedent for other applicants seeking private plan changes in the Sounds which would lead to an undesirable ad hoc approach to planning. • Council has concerns that the proposed plan changes would provide solely for the interests of NZ King Salmon without also giving full consideration to the broader format and workability of the Marlborough Sounds Resource Management Plan. Tasfi sh (the Tasman and Sounds Recreational Fishers' Association (Inc)) say that the sites are used for recreational fi shing and that the farms will have an adverse effect on fi shers. In their submission to the EPA they ask for: • Comprehensive monitoring of feed waste and discharge and, that the effects these have on the marine environment must be carried out by the applicant up to 2nm from the farm. • Compulsory notifi cation of all fi sh mortalities and their cause, to ensure protection of wild fi sh stocks. • Occupancy charges to be 3 to 5 times that of commercial land-based rentals. General community criticisms include disappointment that the proposed Picton processing plant initially included in the NZKS proposal has now been relocated back to expanded plant in Nelson. Sustain Our Sounds will complain to the Commerce Commission that the company is violating the Fair Trading Act by misleading the public. They say: • The proposal is misleading because the Picton water supply could not handle a new processing factory. • They believe the expansion would have a negative impact once the effects of the farm's pollution on commercial fi shing and tourism are considered. Clearly there has been an honest attempt by NZKS to consult widely on this application. The prospect of establishing a processing plant along with the possibility of 50 permanent jobs in Picton was a huge draw card for local public support. Sadly the subsequent withdrawal of this option has now resulted in a negative effect. Likewise one must question the prudence of the company's decision to apply for water space outside tahe Marlborough District Councils aquaculture management plan. Applying for water space outside areas identifi ed within the district plan was never going to gain Council support, so why do it? Skipper comment: There are clear lessons for the aquaculture industry to be learned from this process: • Do not offer promises to the local community you do not intend to deliver • When seeking deviations to district plans, it should be for the benefi t of the industry at large rather than one specifi c company. This is a separate public process.* For both of the above NZKS have risked having their application declined. JULY/AUGUST 2012 ■ NZ AQUACULTURE ■ 15