The Marine Farming Planning Review Panel did not have a proper understanding of Macquarie Harbour's environmental conditions before it approved salmon farming expansion in the water body, one of its member says.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Professor Colin Buxton appeared before a Legislative Council inquiry on finfish farming in Tasmania with three other members on Tuesday.
The biomass limit in Macquarie Harbour was increased in 2016 to 21,500 tonnes.
IN OTHER NEWS:
The water body soon developed pollution problems, which led to the cap being lowered by the Environment Protection Authority to 14,000 tonnes four months later.
Professor Buxton on Tuesday said the panel had acted in accordance with relevant laws and processes in making its approval to expand fish farming in the harbour.
"I don't believe the panel made any mistakes at all in its recommendations to go ahead with development in Macquarie Harbour," he said.
"What is clear with 20:20 hindsight is that we didn't have a proper understanding of some of the environmental conditions in that water body and that they have led to significant environmental damage.
"What has happened in Macquarie Harbour is not irreversible harm. It might take time, but it will recover."
Fears have been expressed that the environmental destruction in Macquarie Harbour could be replicated in Storm Bay where fish farm expansions have been approved.
Professor Buxton said there was no comparison between the water bodies of Macquarie Harbour and Storm Bay.
"If we were going to learn lessons about farming in the open ocean farming or in the marine realm, then we wouldn't look at Macquarie Harbour," he said.
"I don't think the panel can be accused in any way, shape or form of an inadequate process in the assessment of either Macquarie Harbour or Storm Bay.
"It was a very careful assessment, it was a very thorough assessment."
"We believed [Storm Bay] could progress under the adaptive management process here in Tasmania."
Professor Buxton said there had been criticism that the review panel had no teeth or limited powers which he described as incorrect.
He said it had power to reject a draft amendment and a draft plan, by sending it back to the relevant planning authority, at particular points of the development process.
But Professor Buxton said it did not have the authority to reject consideration of a plan.
What do you think? Send us a letter to the editor:
Political reporter for Australian Community Media, based in Hobart.
Political reporter for Australian Community Media, based in Hobart.
