Tassal flags ‘worst case’ harbour exit
TASSAL has twice warned Tasmania’s environment watchdog it could pull its operations out of Macquarie Harbour, documents reveal.
The company gave the warnings in December and again in April this year in response to a proposed reduction in fish farming density in the waters off the West Coast.
Correspondence from Tassal managing director Mark Ryan to Environment Protection Authority director Wes Ford last month noted Tassal’s future in Macquarie Harbour was delicately poised.
“Due to the extreme timelines of the proposed reduction, there is no clear way for Tassal to compensate the loss organically for the company or the state economy,’’ Mr Ryan noted.
“The impact of this loss will lead to Tassal’s withdrawal from Macquarie Harbour as it will be challenging to justify continued operations in the region post a massive financial loss.’’
The company flagged a “worst case scenario’’ that “Tassal withdraws from Macquarie Harbour’’ next year.
“If Tassal withdraws from Macquarie Harbour, this will be completed after the remaining 2016 salmon input year is harvested in early 2018,’’ Mr Ryan wrote.
He said 577 direct and indirect Tasmanian jobs were on the line. Tassal directly employed 39 workers at Macquarie Harbour.
Mr Ryan also referred to Tassal’s potentially uncertain future on the West Coast in a letter to Mr Ford on December 22 when he said the company required a minimum of 1 million smolt — baby fish — annually to remain at the site.
“Ultimately, a sustainable operation must allow at least an input of 1 million smolt per year class for Tassal — otherwise, we do not believe we can operate in Macquarie Harbour and all infrastructure and jobs would likely be required to be removed,’’ Mr Ryan told the EPA.
Mr Ford told the Mercury the EPA was required by law to consider environmental, social, economic and cultural matters when making decisions. “... but this does not mean that social and/or economic matters are given greater weighting than environmental ones,’’ he said.
“The Director requested ad- ditional information from Tassal regarding implications of the proposed de-stocking requirement for Macquarie Harbour, including the social and economic impacts.”
He said this was taken into consideration “along with all available scientific, ecological and technical material relating to the decision” and resulted in the proposed draft biomass cap of 12,000 tonnes and a “smolt intake of about half what Tassal was seeking”.
He said it was up to Tassal, Huon Aquaculture and Petuna to determine their next moves.
Huon Aquaculture executive director Frances Bender said one of the key reasons it was pursuing legal action over the harbour was its belief the economic considerations of only one company appeared to be driving decision making.
“We have taken the hard decisions and cut back production voluntarily, spent millions on oxygenation systems and had our reputation damaged but we have never threatened to pull out of Macquarie Harbour if we didn’t get our own way,” Mrs Bender said.
A Tassal spokeswoman said: “Tassal is fully committed to its sustainable operations in Macquarie Harbour and will do everything possible to ensure ongoing success.”