• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Senate Inquiry into Fin-Fish Aquaculture in Tasmania Submission: Cr Rosalie Woodruff Member of Local Government for the Huon Valley PhD in Epidemiology, ANU I would like to draw your attention to some of the views of residents from the Huon Valley local government area in southern Tasmania. These are from people who have contacted me over recent years with a range of concerns relating to the operations of the fin-fish industry. My comments relate to the two companies that operate in the Huon and D’Entrecasteaux waterways – Tassal and Huon Aquaculture (HAC). The Huon River runs wholly through the municipal area of the Huon Valley Council, and the D’Entrecasteaux Channel runs along its western boundary. Too Big to Fail – Rapid Industry Expansion The fish farming industry is one of the largest employers of residents in the Huon Valley, and as such occupies a privileged position. Any criticisms of the impact of fish farming activities have historically been met with defensiveness by both Tassal and HAC, and by the state government that approves their operating licences. In the recent past (2-4 years ago), HAC and Tassal appeared to be favouring more constructive community engagement and negotiation. A couple of the industry’s most controversial practices were substantially mitigated – following persistent community concern and negative advertising in the media. These included: • The slaughtering of seals who try and eat the fish (substantiated by documentation of mass graves of seals, and the evidence of locals in the Dover/Southport region about shootings of seals by farm deckhands around pens). • Shooting at birds to avoid them settling on the pens, including shooting in close proximity to residents’ dwellings. However, since the listing of both Tassal and HAC as companies on the ASX, and their strategy for a very large and rapid expansion of their businesses, I have noted a sharp reduction in their willingness to consult both with the Huon Valley Council and the community about their activities. Discussions with residents about serially problematic issues have stalled. The main issues can be summarised as: • The lack of advance consultation and negotiation with the community about changes to farming activities (such as operations, intensity, and location). • The withholding of information about the impact of massive quantities of farming waste on the marine environment. Submission from Cr Rosalie Woodruff (Senate Inquiry into Fin-Fish Acquaculture in Tasmania) 1 There is now a view in the Huon Valley, held by many, that the fish farm industry is “Too big to fail”. However, there is also another view: because the industry is such a large employer in the valley we must do everything we can to protect it from external risks. Ensuring the marine environment is functioning normally, with its native complement of flora and fauna, is known to be the best insurance policy against risks to from diseases, external predators, marine weeds – and the loss of consumer confidence in a product that claims to be farmed in a clean, green fashion. Conflict between fish farming and other users of the waterways The waterways and marine areas of Australia are public assets, and the access to and benefits of these resources should be shared between all residents, industries and other users. Use activities have to be environmentally, socially and economically sustainable in the short, medium and longer-terms, and companies should not be allowed to hide their business behind an argument of “commercial in confidence”. Some issues relating to conflicting usage include: Residents: • I have been approached by residents living on the Russell River down stream from the HAC hatchery who have observed significant changes to the instream fauna and flora as a result, in their view, of contaminated water being released back into the river via flow- through systems. It has not been possible to adequately assess the truth of this matter, because the attitude of HAC, and of the state government department responsible for monitoring their activities, has been resistant to investigating the effectiveness of the existing monitoring and sampling data. • Physical and mental health issues: Ø The operations of HAC’s Ronja Huon are one recent example of a serious negative impact on residents. This new, 75m long, freshwater well-boat motors the Huon River from Port Huon to the southern lease locations. The boat has a very deep, loud and penetrating rumble from the motors, and has extremely bright lights (similar to the brightness at football stadiums) that are clearly visible from the shore. The Ronja Huon travels up and down the river during the day and late into the night. Ø Residents have written me letters, and attended council meetings to make comments during public question time, about the effect of these activities on their quality of life. Lack of sleep, leading to anxiety and ongoing depression about the loss of peace and quiet, are some of the distressing impacts that have occurred. Ø Notably, residents expressing concern about the Ronja Huon are a mix of older and newer residents. Even people who have lived with industrial activity along the Huon River their whole life (such as boat and barge movements in the era of apple/pear exports) are concerned by the lack of any prior consultation and the excessive intrusion of these activities on their lives. The proposed expansion of the fin-fish industries – a doubling in size – makes people extremely nervous about the inevitable increase in these already highly invasive operations. Other industries: At present the activities of fish farming are directly threatening a number of other industries in the Huon. (i) One mussel business (Dover Mussels) has recently been Submission from Cr Rosalie Woodruff (Senate Inquiry into Fin-Fish Acquaculture in Tasmania) 2 forced out of business by salmon farm cleaning operations. (ii) The Huon Valley Council has been briefed by the Tasmanian Abalone Council about the high level of risk that the proposed expansion of Tassal’s farming operations, south of Port Esperance, provides to the health of the Actaeon Reef, and hence their industry. This reef is a highly productive reef for abalone. (iii) Operators in the tourism industry are concerned about the expanding scale of industrial farming activity along the river. The noises (which travel long distances in the otherwise very quiet valley), lights, and increasing clutter of the water view are in direct conflict with their marketing of unspoilt water views and tranquility. Other users: Fish farming has had a substantial impact on sailing and recreational fishing activities. (i) The placement of lines and pens across the water, and the increasing near- shore encroachment of pens, makes it treacherous to sail a keel-boat in bad weather in the vicinty of fish farms (due to the decreased water width available for tacking). (ii) Many older residents complain about the lack of any available flathead in the river, where less than ten years ago there were always plentiful catches. Assessing the impacts of the fish farm industry As a councillor I am required to form a view about issues that affect the well-being and earning ability of local residents, as well as the health of the environment that sustains us. Fish farming in Tasmania does not operate as a closed loop system (this is a system it could employ, but chooses not to). The waste product from penned fish, consisting of excrement and excess feed, is not removed from the water. It settles into the lower sedimentary layers under the pens, and some of it is carried further afield by currents. Given insufficient fish farm data (in terms of availability, quantity, and quality) I cannot form an evidence-based view about how this waste material affects the seabed under the pens, the surrounding marine life, or the waterway system over time. In the absence of engagement and answers from the industry about the questions that have been posed by residents, the information that is most persuasive to me as an epidemiologist is: • Video material from abalone divers showing drastically different reef life between closely located fish farm and non-fish farm zones. • Long-term observations from multiple people who have lived on the river their whole life about the recent step change in fish life and the growth of in-shore algaes and other nutrient-related flora. Other factors may also have contributed to the significant changes that have recently been observed in marine life. But given the defensiveness of the fish farming industry about data transparency, and about meeting with residents to discuss alleged gaps in the monitoring and sampling regime, it is natural to ask, “What is the industry trying to hide?” Some unanswered questions I have: • What is the content of fish food (including the presence and amounts of genetically modified organisms, antibiotics, heavy metals and their potential for bio- accumulation)? Submission from Cr Rosalie Woodruff (Senate Inquiry into Fin-Fish Acquaculture in Tasmania) 3 • Where is the Tasmanian-based research on reef and waterway environmental risks? • Where is the medium to long-term research about the cumulative impacts of these waste products on the marine environment? • Why is the sampling and monitoring regime developed under the Broadscale Environmental Monitoring Program (the BEMP) not made available to relevant independent scientific bodies (such as marine science institutions) and other industries (aquaculture) to enable them to assess whether it is sufficient and supportive of the long-term health of the marine environment. • Why is this industry given special protection by virtue of the fact that it is not assessed under the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act (like all other businesses that operate on public land would be)? Sincerely, Cr Rosalie Woodruff (PhD in Epidemiology, ANU) Submission from Cr Rosalie Woodruff (Senate Inquiry into Fin-Fish Acquaculture in Tasmania) 4 .

Load more

  4

Copy Link