Environment & Energy

salmon farming

Economic development and environmental protection aren't incompatible

The debate surrounding salmon farming in Tasmania has often been framed as a binary choice between economic development and environmental protection, which oversimplifies the issue. This policy statement advocates for a more nuanced approach that acknowledges both the legitimate environmental concerns and the crucial economic role of the aquaculture industry in Tasmania’s future.

Current context

Tasmania’s salmon farming industry has grown into a substantial economic driver, contributing over $1 billion annually to the state’s economy. ^[1]The industry is a significant employer, directly and indirectly supporting approximately 5,000 jobs,^[2] with 87% of these in regional areas where alternative employment is scarce. However, this growth has come with environmental challenges, including impacts on water quality, marine ecosystems, and interactions with protected species.

Understanding environmental concerns

The environmental community has raised serious concerns about the industry’s impact on Tasmania’s waters. These include:

• Nutrient loading in enclosed waterways: Salmon farms discharge nutrients, which can cause de-oxygenated “dead zones” on the seabed beneath pens, particularly in areas like Macquarie Harbour. This has been linked to mass fish mortalities and deteriorating water quality.
• Potential effects on local marine ecosystems: The endangered Maugean skate, found only in Macquarie Harbour, faces severe threats from reduced oxygen levels linked to aquaculture pollution.
• Impacts on aquatic environments: The accumulation of waste on the seafloor beneath salmon cages can lead to long-term damage to sensitive aquatic habitats.

These concerns prompted some to call for the wholesale shutdown of the industry, while for others, the underlying basis for these concerns has been either questioned or denied altogether. There is a wide gap between the environmental movement being entirely right and entirely wrong, and it appears that neither industry nor environmental interests are prepared to entertain that there is any truth to the claims made by their opponents. It is a recipe for polarisation, not for policy. Little wonder, then, that nobody is especially satisfied with where things stand.

Economic and social benefits

The salmon farming industry remains integral to Tasmania’s socioeconomic fabric:

• Direct and indirect employment: The sector directly employs over 2,000 people and indirectly supports thousands more through supply chains and related industries.^[3]
• Regional economic impact: With the majority of economic activity concentrated in regional communities, dismantling the industry would result in significant job losses and economic disruption.
• Export revenue: Salmon exports strengthen Tasmania’s economic position globally.
• Research and innovation: The industry fosters local research, advancing sustainable practices and aquaculture technology.

A path forward: sustainable co-existence

The future of salmon farming in Tasmania need not be a zero-sum game between environmental protection and economic development. Through robust regulation, continuous improvement, and genuine stakeholder engagement, the industry can thrive while safeguarding Tasmania’s unique natural environment. This balanced approach would enable Tasmania to set a global example for responsible aquaculture practices, ensuring that both the environment and the economy can coexist sustainably.

The way forward is to recognise that both environmental protection and economic development are essential for Tasmania’s future. Achieving this balance requires:

Some ways forward

Split-location model

The salmon industry could radically reduce its ocean impact by keeping fish in land tanks for most of their life cycle. The controlled environment reduces disease risk and feed waste, as well as environmental impacts.

The industry has historically been opposed to this development, citing its environmental and economic impacts. For example, Huon in 2021 claimed^[4] that an on-land component to salmon farming would result in:

• A 1000% increase in stocking density;
• The equivalent energy consumption of that of a city of 1.2 million people;
• Water usage of 4.2 billion litres, and land use of 136 square kilometres; and
• The relocation of salmon farms from Tasmania to the mainland.

These claims are largely misleading. For example, Norway’s Indre Harøy land-based salmon production facility, with a planned 31,500 tonne production capacity when it comes online in 2028, requires 100,000 square metres. In other words, it is on track to produce 20% more than Huon, at one-tenth of its current land use (not to mention 0.07% of what Huon claims would be required to produce the same).

As for the energy consumption claims, it would be extraordinary if the energy requirements were even close to this. If the average daily energy per kg of fish per day is about 0.072 kWh^[5], then it would require about 657 GWh of energy to produce 25,000 tonnes per year (which is Huon’s annual production). For comparison, mainland Tasmania consumed 11,082 GWh of energy in 2022-23^[6], putting the predicted energy requirements of a fully on-land production at about 6 per cent of Tasmania’s consumption overall.

Tasmania, obviously, is not a city of 1.2 million people.

But while 6 per cent is a far cry from 200 per cent, it would nonetheless represent an enormous increase, and would have flow-on effects throughout the rest of the market. Those impacts could result in higher prices for consumers, businesses, and make load management more difficult.

Restoration integration

A workable offset system needs to be based on measurable impacts rather than arbitrary targets. Farms would measure their key impacts – particularly nitrogen discharge and seabed changes – and be required to fund equivalent environmental improvements elsewhere in the marine system. This could include seagrass restoration to capture nitrogen, or rehabilitation of degraded seabed areas. The offset requirements would be proportional to measured impact, creating a direct incentive to minimize environmental effects while maintaining production.

The system needs to balance environmental protection with economic viability. Setting offset requirements too high would threaten industry sustainability, while setting them too low would fail to address environmental concerns. The metrics and required offset levels should be developed collaboratively between industry, scientists, and regulators to ensure they’re both achievable and meaningful. This provides a framework for salmon farming to continue as a major industry while gradually reducing its net environmental impact.

Success would require clear metrics, independent verification, and realistic targets that acknowledge both environmental and economic needs. The goal is to maintain Tasmania’s salmon industry while providing measurable environmental benefits, not to create an impossible regulatory burden.

The key here isn’t compromise – it’s finding solutions that actually improve outcomes for both sides. Most current proposals focus on damage minimization rather than creating new value. These approaches aim to generate more benefits for both industry and environment than either could achieve alone.