Ironically, given the Resource Management (Extended Duration of Coastal Permits for Marine Farms) Amendment Bill is part of the government’s suite of fast-track measures, it has been much delayed by Labour expending plenty of parliamentary time and energy on matters such as the gangs and water legislation — Parliament only debated four Bills in its last sitting week.
The first interested party, the sea lion or pakeke, is one of four pinniped species which live in or around Stewart Island ... but sea lions are the animals which are most affected by fish farming.
Sea lions are naturally curious creatures, and when checking out the human activity in their neighbourhood they have been richly rewarded.
Fish farming is the sea lion equivalent of Uber Eats, and it comes with the same potential pitfalls: Forest & Bird Southland’s select committee submission suggested sea lions are doing the human equivalent of slumping lazily on the couch — they are not getting any exercise or eating a balanced diet because there is a pile of yummy king salmon sitting within easy reach.
Ironically, that might be good for another animal interested party, the hoiho or yellow-eyed penguin, which also live near southern fish farms.
Although sea lions rarely eat penguins anyway, they are even less inclined to chase and catch such elusive prey when a gourmet feed is close at flipper.
But hoiho, a critically endangered species, are highly susceptible to human disturbance and studies suggest that having marine farming nearby has affected the breeding patterns of a bird which needs to lay as many eggs as possible to survive.
Both these species, and the many other majestic creatures which live at Rakiura, have the great good fortune — or misfortune, depending on how you look at it — to dwell in one of the great spots for aquaculture. Fish and shellfish have been commercially farmed in Southland’s waters for many years and have justly gained an international reputation for quality.
Most, if not all, aquafarming enterprises are aware of the need to be environmentally responsible as they go about their business: quite apart from it being the right thing to do, doing otherwise would be to foul the very waters in which they operate. Being a green and pristine operation is a major drawcard in their marketing.
To get off the ground — so to speak — necessitates compliance with some very rigorous consenting conditions, and that is no small, and a not inexpensive, process.
In its select committee submission, Sanford — which owns or operates nine salmon farms in Big Glory Bay at Rakiura Stewart Island, has a processing plant and marine farming yards located in Bluff and smolt hatcheries in Canterbury and Otago — noted that it operated 224 marine farms in six regions.
To renew consent for a mussel farm cost about $23,000, Sanford said;for a more complicated consent such as a salmon farm, which might require advice on marine mammals, sea birds and water quality, costs could hike by another $10,000 or so. Multiply that by 224 and that’s some serious money.
Hence, unsurprisingly, the aquaculture industry is — mostly — in full-throated support of Oceans and Fisheries Minister Shane Jones’ proposed law change, which intends to allow for an automatic 20-year blanket consent extension (but not beyond 2050) to all current marine farm consent holders.
About 200 such farms have consents due to expire by the end of this year: many are in Southland. A further 150 consents are due to expire by the end of the decade.
To quote Sanford: "This Bill is a targeted legislative change that will be the single most positive pivot for aquaculture in the last 25 years, it will liberate the marine farming industry from the churn of costly reconsenting.
"The status quo is not working, this Bill is the solution."
Aqua farming is a major employer across New Zealand and the sector is also a major earner of export dollars.
So, what’s not to like?
Well, there a few wrinkles to this.
Take Ngai Tahu, for example, which is a big player in aquaculture and also a substantial shareholder in Sanford.
While it is all for protecting its economic interests, the iwi — whose tribal boundaries incorporate much of the South Island coastal waters — has a higher calling to consider, that being preservation of its Treaty rights.
Ngai Tahu was far from impressed with how it was consulted over the proposals — just 13 days were allocated for submissions, which did not deter 1100 people from lodging them. Ngai Tahu, and other iwi, felt that undermined Māori expressions of rangatiratanga and kaitiakitanga in the resource management of the moana.
In its forthright presentation to the primary industries select committee (of which Waitaki National MP Miles Anderson is a member), the iwi said as much in no uncertain terms, suggesting that a five-year extension be granted instead to allow for the process to be done properly.
Seven of the eight councils which submitted also oppose the Bill, their concerns largely encompassing worries about who would cover the cost of any reviews of a resource consent.
Less surprisingly, environmentalists — who made up a large number of the about 1000 submissions which did not support the passing of the Bill — were also unhappy.
Forest & Bird Southland argued that the current consenting regime was working as intended and there was no need to change it: "it seems the government is putting profits over the planet and proper process".
More specifically, it pointed out that consenting provided an important check to ensure management of the environmental impacts of aquaculture and that blanket re-consenting might allow less responsible operators to function unchecked for decades.
Despite the weight of opposition to the Bill, it sailed through select committee with few consequential amendments. But the waters may well be choppier when it eventually gets back to the debating chamber.
