For example, a zone has been proposed just to the south of the popular Tinderbox marine reserve. Anyone who has visited this area during the summer can see how popular this reserve is, not only for divers but also for swimmers and people who just want to spend some time at the beach or walk along the foreshore.

Noise and visual pollution from this proposed site could have unacceptable impacts for the majority of users of this important recreational reserve, as well as many local residents.

As the prevailing flow of water in this part of the Channel is from the south, nutrients and other pollution from the farm are likely to have a direct and unacceptable impact on the marine reserve at Tinderbox.

Incredibly, the EIS actually states that "Consideration has been given to reservations In the siting of marine farming zones" (although no details are given about what is meant by (consideration").

That this zone could even be considered is an indication of the failure of the planning process associated with marine farming in Tasmania.

Another zone is being proposed at Simpsons point. The marine habitat off the western shore of Bruny Island around Simpsons Point and to the south contains numerous important recreational dive sites and a rich variety of marine habitats. A marine farming zone in this area would seriously damage the natural values associated with this part of Channel.

Some other problems associated with the Government's approach to aquaculture planning:

Recreational Fishing
The EIS for the proposed expansion does not provide any evidence to suggest that mitigation methods will ensure that the rights of recreational fishers are protected in the D'Entrecasteaux Channel. The D'Entrecasteaux Channel has been declared a recreational only fishing area. A recent meeting of the Marine Recreational Fishery Council (13 May, 2002) indicated that further expansion of marine farming in the D'Entrecasteaux Channel was unacceptable.

Recreation
The EIS states that "This plan has attempted to minimise potential conflict that may arise with other user groups of the Channel". Unfortunately there is no indication as to how this attempt to minimise potential conflict was made, what recreational users were consulted or what recreational activities were considered. It appears that recreational users continue to be ignored in this planning process.

Tourism
The statement in the EIS that "Marine farming operations proposed within this Plan have not been sited in pristine coastal waters that are considered major tourist attractions" also illustrates the difficulty that this process has in assessing the variety of opinions and needs found within local communities. It also raises questions about who was consulted with regard to defining "pristine" and "major tourist attraction".

The EIS states that there may be "evidence to suggest that tourists visiting the States are interested in viewing a variety of marine farming operations". A more reasonable argument is that natural values that attract many tourists to Tasmania are significantly harmed by the operation of the aquaculture industry.

It is already difficult to find a bay in the D'Entrecasteaux Channel that is out of sight or hearing of marine farming activities. This is a major loss of amenity for much of the community. It is a cost that does not appear to be taken seriously by this plan or the EIS.

The worst thing about the this plan is that the people of Tasmania actually have no real input into the planning process that determines where marine farm zones are located. Along with forestry and mining, aquaculture is quarantined from the normal planning process in Tasmania.

While the Marine Farming Act 1995 requires that the public be informed of broad planning and development proposals and outcomes, and an opportunity is given for public submissions, there is absolutely no requirement for public opinion to be taken seriously or even taken into account.

There is no transparency of the decision making process, no right of appeal and no representation for local communities, conservation groups or other people who may have a problem with a light industry setting up shop in a sensitive area.

The Marine Farming Act 1995 even appears to override council planning schemes. What all this means is that if there is an objection to the location of a marine farming zone/activity there is no way that anyone can realistically object and have an impact on the planning process. The only successful challenges to the aquaculture planning process seem to have been due to political pressure - not the horribly flawed planning process.

In contrast to the existing planning processes for Tasmanian aquaculture and the Marine Farming Planning Review Panel, the Tasmanian mainstream planning process, Tasmania’s Resource Management and Planning System, has worked to allow true community involvement and responsible planning outcomes.

The ongoing expansion of the aquaculture industry in the D'Entrecasteaux Channel is having a major impact on recreational users, natural values and local communities. It is changing the fundamental character of this important part of Tasmania. The peaceful, sheltered bays that were once such a wonderful feature of the Channel have practically disappeared due to the encroachment of this noisy, ugly industry. Many find these changes difficult to accept. They also find it impossible to have their views taken into account because the aquaculture planning process is quarantined from Tasmania's normal planning process.

A fair and transparent planning process for the aquaculture industry, and any other industry, should be considered a fundamental part of responsible resource management.