Complaints - Please scroll to the bottom of the page
« WDHB Responds to My OIR Request | Main | Kingfish Framing in the Hauraki Gulf »

Another Patrick Smellie King Salmon Sob Story 

Respected journalist Patrick Smellie is again acting at King Salmon CEO Grant Rosewarne's 'mouth-piece' in a Thursday Scoop article. The distinction between journalism and PR 'spin' is becoming more and more blurred in this country, and we all need to be awake to it.

        King Salmon braced for ‘disappointing’ fish farm relocation decision

By Pattrick Smellie Sept. 27 (BusinessDesk) 

"New Zealand King Salmon hopes it will be allowed to move around half of nine square hectares of its Marlborough Sounds fish farms to better locations, but is braced for a “disappointing” outcome for both the company’s growth and environmental outcomes.

Speaking to BusinessDesk at the Aquaculture New Zealand conference in Blenheim, NZKS managing director Grant Rosewarne expressed frustration at the likelihood of a “sub-optimal outcome”.

Leaving 4.5 hectares of the nine hectares of existing farms in place would be worse for both productivity and the environment “when we can get a world’s best practice environmental outcome a kilometre away,” he said.

Fisheries Minister Stuart Nash is expected to take recommendations on the proposed relocations to Cabinet before Christmas, with a decision pencilled for February.

Nash told the aquaculture conference the industry needed to innovate more and invest in high-value brands to maximise export revenues.

However, Rosewarne said NZKS was already producing “the most highly branded salmon in the world, with highly differentiated products. We’re getting high prices” but slow regulatory processes were impeding growth potential.

“I do think we will get there and you heard the positive intent of the minister,” he said. “But I think we’re all dumb-founded that when something is so positive it’s not given a fast track or enabled with a proper strategy.”

Nash said the newly created Fisheries New Zealand agency, split out from the Ministry for Primary Industries, would deliver a new aquaculture strategy within the next year and strongly backed emerging deep-sea fish farming technology.

“The sooner we get into that space, the better,” Nash told BusinessDesk. “The consumer wants that, local iwi want that, communities want that. They can grow. The sooner tech allows us to get to the point where we can have commercial finfish farms off the coast, the better we all are.”

But he pushed back at the suggestion the regulatory processes were too slow and failing to support the aquaculture industry.

“One of my frustrations is that it does seem to take a long time to get anywhere in fisheries.

“I would rather take six months longer and make sure we get the process right than rush something through, get it wrong, and end up in court.”

Rosewarne said barely 20 surface hectares of salmon farming was consented in New Zealand, “17 hectares of which are ours, and half of which is no good”.

Moving the whole nine surface hectares in question “should not be a hard thing”, he said.

“We can’t even move a tiny nine surface hectares, which we’ve already got and can already use, to a better spot and get a vastly superior outcome. That’s really disappointing.”

NZKS could apply to the Provincial Growth Fund for assistance with applying deep-sea fish farming in New Zealand, but the most important government contribution was a new aquaculture strategy.

“We could be New Zealand’s most valuable industry bar none – technology, dairy, education, tourism. We can outdo all of those if there’s a proper industry strategy and we can do it with an environmental footprint that would be hard to measure, it would be so green.”

The conference heard from international speakers from the World Wildlife Fund and the Norwegian salmon-farming industry about the relatively low impact of aquaculture for the production of protein for human consumption compared with traditional agriculture.

Aaron McNevin, from WWF-USA, made a case for a global shift from land-based farming to farming in the sea, given the far greater efficiency and lower environmental impact of aquaculture."

We have been fed so much similar 'spin' over the years about King Salmon that one tends to 'turn off' when Patrick comes into sight yet again. What is clear is that King Salmon is in trouble at its present site, and the pressure on our aquaculture friendly government to allow them to move to the outer sounds is huge. Minister Nash appears a willing player - certainly, Jones is a 'booster', but we all should be wary of the motivation and probable outcome of these moves. They may be good for King Salmon, (and New Zealand First!), but it is unlikely that they will benefit anyone else.

The move to Cook Strait off-shore, deep sea farming is being deliberately conflated to confuse, but such a move remains long term conjecture at best - the techniques remain to be proven in Norway where where they have been developed. And Rosewarne clearly has his eyes on giant dollops of Jonesey's largesse to fund it. Both Smellie and Rosewarne (and hopefully, Nash!) know this very well, and thus their claim that the move to the outer sounds is essential for the future of the industry in the interregnum needs close interrogation.

As for the long term benefits of the industry, some of Rosewarne's over-blown rhetoric (as reported by Smellie!) at the Marborough Conference leaves one gasping. Where on earth does he get some of these suppositions, and to what degree is he impressing the Government with these persuasive claims?

I think that we (and the Government!) should remain very sceptical and wary. Absolute proof should be demanded that the move to the outer sounds will not repeat the increasing environmental damage that is occurring in the current location. If the proof cannot be provided, then they should be required to 'stay-put' until the open sea techniques have been proven, or otherwise, and then encouraged by whatever means to move. After all, how much more damage can they do at their present location? Their is no justification for them to be permitted to repeat the fouling in the outer sounds in the meantime, and MPI certainly appear unconvinced of the claimed benefits of the increased water flow in that location.

Let us not 'lose' the industry - just make sure that it plays 'by the rules,' and the same should apply in regard to whatever evolves in the Gulf. Too much damage has already been done to our ocean environment by vested interests through miscalculation, and blind optimism.




PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments

There are no comments for this journal entry. To create a new comment, use the form below.

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>