PRAWN AquAcultuRe iN WesteRN AustRAliA

119 Pages·2009·1.55 MB·English

PRAWN AquAcultuRe iN
WesteRN AustRAliA:
FiNAl esD Risk AssessmeNt RePoRt
FoR PRAWN AquAcultuRe
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PAPER NO. 230
Published by
Department of Fisheries
168 St. Georges Terrace
Perth WA 6000
January 2009
ISSN 0819-4327
Prawn Aquaculture in Western Australia:
Final ESD Risk Assessment Report
for Prawn Aquaculture
January 2009
Project manager and author: Fiona vom Berg
Fisheries Management Paper No. 230
ISSN 0819-4327
ii Fisheries Management Paper No.230
coNteNts
DisclAimeR...................................................................................................................... 1
AckNoWleDGemeNts ................................................................................................ 1
GlossARy .......................................................................................................................... 2
1.0 iNtRoDuctioN ........................................................................................................ 5
1.1 Prawn Aquaculture in WA ....................................................................................... 5
1.2 What is ESD? .......................................................................................................... 6
1.3 How does the ESD framework fit with Aquaculture? ............................................. 6
1.4 What are the major components of ESD for Aquaculture? .................................... 7
1.5 How does the ESD Framework operate? ............................................................... 8
1.6 How are the specific issues identified? ................................................................... 8
1.7 Prioritising issues .................................................................................................... 8
1.8 Risk Assessment ..................................................................................................... 8
2.0 metHoDoloGy ....................................................................................................... 10
3.0 ReGioNAl/cAtcHmeNt AReAs FoR leVel 2 AssessmeNts ................ 13
3.1 IBRA Regionalization ............................................................................................. 13
4.0 Results ...................................................................................................................... 15
4.1 Summary of Issues & Risk Rankings ..................................................................... 18
5.0 DiscussioN................................................................................................................ 21
5.1 Impacts on the General Environment (Whole of Industry) .................................... 22
5.1.1 Wild stock of cultured species ....................................................................... 22
5.1.2 Cultured stock/businesses (husbandry) ......................................................... 27
5.1.3 Other species/communities processes ........................................................... 32
5.2 Impact of the Industry on the Catchment/Region (Cumulative Impacts) ............... 44
5.2.1 Water use quality/quantity ............................................................................. 45
5.2.2 Ecological/community structure and biodiversity ......................................... 54
5.2.3 Physical structures and construction & tenure .............................................. 68
5.2.4 Production ..................................................................................................... 77
5.3 Impacts of Individual Facilities on Environmental Wellbeing ............................... 82
5.3.1 Site selection/construction/infrastructure ...................................................... 82
5.3.2 Operations ..................................................................................................... 94
6.0 APPeNDix 1 – WoRksHoP PARticiPANts ...................................................... 113
7.0 ReFeReNces ............................................................................................................. 114
Fisheries Management Paper No.230 iii
iv Fisheries Management Paper No.230
DisclAimeR
The information in this document is derived from sources believed to be reliable and accurate
at the time of release. The publisher disclaims any responsibility or duty of care towards any
person for loss or damage suffered from any use of this publication for whatever purpose and
in whatever manner. While considerable care has been taken in producing this publication, the
publisher accepts no responsibility for errors or omissions. The information is provided solely
on the basis that readers will be responsible for making their own assessment of the matters
contained or discussed herein and are advised to verify all relevant representations, statements,
information and advice. No person should rely solely on this publication for the purpose of
making business or investment decisions.
© Department of Fisheries
AckNoWleDGemeNts
A number of government officers contributed to the development of this report.
• Rick Fletcher Department of Fisheries
• Peter Skitmore Department of Environment and Conservation
• Kerrod Beattie Queensland Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries
The author would also like to thank the following people for providing thoughts, ideas and
constructive comment during the development of this report.
• Steve Nel Aquaculture Development Council & Department of Fisheries
• Greg Jenkins Aquaculture Development Unit, Challenger TAFE
• Dan Machin Aquaculture Council of WA
• Emma Glencross Department of Environment and Conservation
• Cameron Sim Department of Environment and Conservation
• Peter Ryan Department of Water
• Jo McCrea Department of Fisheries
Fisheries Management Paper No.230 1
GlossARy
APVMA Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority
Aquafin CRC Aquafin Cooperative Research Centre
BAM Act Biosecurity and Agriculture Management Act
BAMB Biosecurity and Agriculture Management Bill
CALM Department of Conservation and Land Management
CoP Code of Practice
DEC Department of Environment and Conservation
DIA Department of Indigenous Affairs
DoF Department of Fisheries
DoW Department of Water
DPI Department of Planning and Infrastructure
ESD Ecological Sustainable Development
EMP Environmental Monitoring Program
EMMP Environmental Management and Monitoring Program
EPA Environment Protection Authority
EP Act Environmental Protection Act 1986
EPBC Act Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
FCR feed conversion rate
FRDC Fisheries Research and Development Council
FRMA Fish Resource Management Act 1994
FRMR Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995
GAV Gill Associated Virus
GMO genetically modified organism
HAB harmful algal bloom
IHHNV Infectious Hypodermal and Haematopoietic Necrosis Virus
IDCA Inter-Departmental Committee of Aquaculture
IFM Integrated Fisheries Management
MCMS Mid-crop Mortality Syndrome
MPG8 Ministerial Policy Guideline No. 8
PIRSA Primary Industries and Resources of South Australia
PL post larvae
RAMSAR The Conservation of Wetlands of International Importance, especially as
Waterfowl Habitat, signed at Ramsar Iran, in 1971
SARDI South Australia Research and Development Institute
2 Fisheries Management Paper No.230
Seafood CRC Seafood Cooperative Research Centre
SMV Spawner Mortality Virus
SBT Southern bluefin tuna
SWQMS State Water Quality Management Strategy
WAPC Western Australian Planning Commission
WQ water quality
WQPN Water Quality Protection Note
Fisheries Management Paper No.230 3
4 Fisheries Management Paper No.230
1.0 iNtRoDuctioN
Aquaculture is one of the faster growing industries in Australia having grown in value by over
13 per cent over the past 10 years. It is currently valued at $743 millionwith an industry vision

to achieve $2.5 billion in sales by 2010.
In Western Australia, the industry is still in its infancy, with a total of 446 aquaculture licensees
across the State producing a variety of species from finfish (barramundi, silver perch, rainbow
trout, pink snapper and black bream), to marron and yabbies, black pearls, mussels and
ornamental fish. Not counting marine algae production, the value of aquaculture production in
2001/02 was around $6.5 million (338 tonnes). This value has dropped slightly over the last few
years, due to a lower price being received for some products.
There are a number of potential impediments to achieving continued growth of this industry. These
include the need for increased investment, an expansion in markets and ensuring environmental
sustainability. However, one of the most important is meeting the growing expectations of the
community that all aquaculture sectors can clearly demonstrate that they are operating within
the principles of Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) (see Section 2).
The Western Australian Department of Fisheries is responsible for the management of
aquaculture in WA and is committed to implementing ESD. These principles are contained
within the objectives of the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 and the Department is
keen to demonstrate both to the Government and the broader community that these principles
are being achieved. The Department developed a policy statement in 2002 - Policy for the
Implementation of Ecologically Sustainable Development for Fisheries and Aquaculture
within Western Australia - (Fletcher 2002) that described its direction to the Department on
incorporating ESD within fisheries and aquaculture management.
Using the ESD Framework for Aquaculture, which was generated by the Fisheries Research and
Development Council (FRDC) in conjunction with the Aquaculture Committee of the Australian
Fisheries Managers Forum and the National Aquaculture Council, the prawn aquaculture sector
is the second to be run through this process.
1.1 Prawn Aquaculture in WA
There has been rapid expansion of prawn farm aquaculture worldwide, underscored by an erratic
production level. Record-breaking production figures followed by spectacular collapses have
been repeated throughout south-east Asian countries. The principal causes of collapse have
been disease, poor water quality and poor environmental management. Despite these set-backs,
the industry has continued to grow.
By comparison, prawn farming in Australia has developed relatively slowly. The industry which
currently produces more than 3,500 tonnes of prawns a year, valued at over $47 million, is based
on approximately 900 hectares of ponds and 12 hatcheries. Queensland has the largest proportion
of ponds, at 85 per cent, with New South Wales having 10 per cent and the Northern Territory and
WA combined having five per cent. Only native species are farmed in Australia, the main species
being the black tiger prawn (Penaeus monodon), and the Kuruma prawn (Penaeus japonicus).
In WA, 11 licenses have been issued authorizing prawn aquaculture in hatcheries (to produce
post-larvae) or in earthen ponds (to produce a food product). These are at Cone Bay, Exmouth
Gulf, Derby, Broome and Carnarvon. Others, linked to tertiary education institutions are
located at Maddington, Fremantle, and Bentley. A site at Learmonth is in the process of being
constructed and it is hoped production will commence in 2009. The Derby site was operational
Fisheries Management Paper No.230 5
however there is no activity under this license at present. An expression of interest was
undertaken for prawn farming on the Dampier Peninsula at Wyndham, with Native Title
issues still being resolved.
Hatchery production of prawns has commenced in the Exmouth area, with the Kimberley
Aquaculture Research Project also developing hatchery technology for the black tiger prawn.
This technology has been successfully transferred to the multi-species hatchery in the Broome
Tropical Aquaculture Park however the long term operation of this facility is in doubt.
It is considered that areas north of Geraldton are most suitable for the farming of black tiger
prawns in coastal pond-based systems.
1.2 What is esD?
Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) is:
“Using, conserving and enhancing the community’s resources so that ecological processes,
on which life depends, are maintained and the total quality of life, now and in the future,
can be increased” (COAG, 1992).
ESD includes three key objectives:
• To enhance individual and community well-being and welfare by following a path of
economic development that safeguards the welfare of future generations;
• To provide for equity within and between generations; and
• To protect biological diversity and maintain essential ecological processes and life-support
systems.
To achieve these objectives will require the integration of short and long-term economic, social
and environmental effects in all decision-making. Thus, to be consistent with ESD principles:
“resources not only need to be used sustainably, but how they are used, who benefits and when,
along with the impacts of their use, all need to be evaluated” (Fletcher, 2002).
The desired outcomes using such a process are likely to evolve through time as society’s needs
and values alter. Therefore ESD should be seen as a means – not as an endpoint.
1.3 How does the ESD framework fit with Aquaculture?
Until recently, there were no methods available to implement ESD in a full and practical manner.
During the past four years, work within the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation’s
(FRDC) subprogram on ESD Reporting and Assessment has been underway to develop a
series of national ESD frameworks to enable all Australian fisheries and aquaculture sectors to
demonstrate that they are operating utilising ESD principles.
The ESD framework for aquaculture has similarities to the ESD framework that was previously
developed for wild-capture fisheries. Both of them help to identify the relevant environmental,
social/economic and governance issues; assist with determining the appropriate level of management
response using risk assessment techniques; and provide a reporting structure to document outcomes.
There are, however, a number of important differences between these systems.
The major difference between the two frameworks is in the structure of the environmental
components. For aquaculture, these are structured into three different spatial levels:
6 Fisheries Management Paper No.230