Part 2: Other matters to be considered
2.1 Monitoring
The majority of deemed coastal permits relate to sites that have been occupied for a number of years and it is therefore likely that most environmental effects have already occurred. Very few of these existing farms have been subject to environmental monitoring in the past but considerable research has been carried out on the environmental effects of mussel farming. Where these effects are well documented, in Marlborough for example, the need for monitoring is greatly reduced or even eliminated entirely. However, monitoring might be appropriate, depending on site-specific circumstances, where current information cannot be applied, or where there is concern in the area. Where deemed permits authorise fish farming, the monitoring conditions should be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
Guidance on monitoring is currently being prepared as part of the Information Project (Project VII, being led by the Department of Conservation and the Ministry of Fisheries in the national aquaculture reform implementation programme,). The guidance will concentrate on the high-level principles of monitoring, in order to focus thinking on what proposed monitoring is designed to achieve. Monitoring needs to be scientifically robust, useful and able to contribute to a management response. It is preferable that monitoring information is publicly accessible.
The Ministry for the Environment has undertaken some work on reviewing the consistency of monitoring of marine farms. This has involved assessing who has done what monitoring where, at what cost, and who paid for the monitoring. This work acknowledges that the industry has a number of compliance monitoring requirements to meet, and in reviewing the information collected the Ministry will be seeking to ensure there is no duplication of monitoring requirements and also to identify examples of good practice. Results will be available later this year.
2.2 Biosecurity
Biosecurity New Zealand's concerns in relation to aquaculture focus on introductions of new species to New Zealand and the spread of existing species around New Zealand. There are some basic actions that would help reduce the biosecurity risk, and therefore the adverse impacts, to the marine environment and related industries. These actions are:
- early detection
- early notification
- collection of information on movement of stock and equipment around New Zealand
- action to avoid the transfer of 'species of concern' around New Zealand.
'Species of concern' may fall into one (or more) of the following categories:
- unwanted organisms under the Biosecurity Act 1993
- notifiable organisms under the Biosecurity Act 1993
- organisms not normally seen in New Zealand
- pests in a regional pest management strategy under the Biosecurity Act 1993
- organisms of concern to industry.
Early detection
The earlier a 'species of concern' is detected and notified the more likely effective action can be taken. Biosecurity New Zealand undertakes surveillance for new exotic organisms at points of entry into New Zealand. Aquaculture industry awareness of, and surveillance for, the full range of species that are of concern would greatly assist Biosecurity New Zealand's surveillance work and facilitate early detection.
Biosecurity New Zealand will work with industry and regional councils to determine what information is currently available within the industry on 'species of concern'. Biosecurity New Zealand has awareness material on a number of 'species of concern'.
Early notification
Significant requirements already exist under the Biosecurity Act 1993 in relation to early notification (see advice note 7).
It is important to note that while Undaria pinnatifida and Styela clava are unwanted organisms, they are not notifiable organisms and therefore not captured by the reporting requirements under section 46 of the Biosecurity Act. However, the industry code of practice for Styela clava requires that "any positive identification or suspected samples found in a clear area must be declared to Biosecurity New Zealand as soon as possible after the find or identification".
If regional councils and unitary authorities want to include additional requirements to be notified of relevant pests of particular concern to their region, this could be achieved through reference to industry codes of practice where they exist, or a rule in a Regional Pest Management Strategy.
Collection of information on stock and equipment movements
Information on the movement of stock and equipment around New Zealand is important in the event of an incursion to determine possible pathways of spread. This information is also important to assess the biosecurity risk of different activities. Biosecurity New Zealand is reviewing the extent of the information that industry already provides to the Ministry of Fisheries and the New Zealand Food Safety Authority, and does not suggest at this stage any additional conditions relating to the provision of information on the movement of stock and equipment.
Action to avoid the transfer of 'species of concern' around New Zealand
It is difficult to develop prescriptive conditions on how farmers must treat their stock, equipment and associated vessels before moving from one location to another without first having detailed information on:
- what is at risk
- what pests and diseases are of concern
- what pathways pose a risk of spread.
Biosecurity New Zealand proposes to fill these knowledge gaps throughout 2006. Once this work has been completed, it envisages working with industry and regional councils to develop risk-based codes of practice and transfer protocols.
Once developed, the risk-based codes of practice and protocols could be implemented through:
- voluntary arrangements
- conditions on resource consents/rules in regional coastal plans (under the Resource Management Act)
- rules in a Regional Pest Management Strategy (under the Biosecurity Act).
For more information contact Maria Cassidy at Biosecurity New Zealand, email maria.cassidy@maf.govt.nz.
2.3 Bonds
The question of security for abandoned or derelict farms, or farms that break free, is of concern to a number of councils. The requirement under the new legislation that aquaculture can only take place in an AMA, may well make it less likely that a farm would be abandoned (as the permit could be sold), unless the site becomes unsuitable for farming. However, some councils are considering including a condition requiring either a bond or a copy of an insurance policy that will cover the removal of structures and the rehabilitation of the site.
Industry is very concerned about the imposition of bonds on existing farms that have been operating for many years, and the necessity or appropriateness of imposing bonds on new farms. Industry considers there is no history of abandoned mussel farms that would justify bonds. A bond is treated as another loan from the bank and, in a tight economic environment, it could force the closure of some operations.
The Seafood Industry Council presented an initial paper exploring the need for security and alternative methods of achieving bonds at the November 2005 Aquaculture Workshop. The Ministry of Fisheries will provide an historical context to the issues of abandoned structures and adrift marine farms along with a suggested risk framework. This information will be available in July 2006. For more information contact Stephanie Hopkins at the Ministry of Fisheries (03) 548 1069 or Sarah McRae at the Department of Conservation (04) 971 4118.
