6 New Zealand Aquaculture Industry Initiative: Collingwood Case Study
71
An independent dairy farm environmental advisor is now working with the
farmers in the Aorere and has drawn up environmental plans. In addition, a system
was developed whereby a dairy farmer could self report accidental discharges to
Fonterra who in turn notified MSQP. Fonterra then followed up with the farmer
to mitigate future discharges. MSQP could then determine if the discharge would
impact the shellfish sanitation and implement a voluntary closure ahead of the
harvest of any affected product.
Conclusions
The net result of the project has been a strengthened community with committed
self management and policing of an effluent problem, while harvest criteria has
now been restored to the previous level. Pursuing a legal option in the first instance
could have been expected to take many years and cost literally millions of dollars
while pitting neighbour against neighbour, industry against industry. This case study
provides an example of a sustainable development approach and offers further
evidence of the value and efficacy of collaboration between scientists, regulators
and industry.
The harvest criteria was able to be revised, such that the time open for harvesting
improved from 50 % at the height of the problem to 79 %, better than the original
72 %. As an industry, marine farming is very unusual in that it operates in an
environment subject to pollution by a wide variety of causes, some of which may
originate hundreds of kilometres away, out of sight and too easily out of mind.
As regulators, scientists and industry it is our goal to optimise food safety of our
products for our consumers. A basic premise of quality assurance is prevention of
“defects” rather than their post occurrence detection. That implies mitigating risks as
far back in the production chain as possible. In this instance, we were able to trace
the risk factor to source and mitigate it there. While we had to rely largely upon
a process of deduction and elimination, the availability now of microbial source
tracking provides additional science to support efforts to identify and mitigate
pollution sources.
Although the case study relates to a dairy farming environment in a rural
location, the model and methodology, with adaptation could be applied in a
variety of situations by industry and regulators when confronted with anthropogenic
contamination of growing waters.
Reference
Cornelisen CD, Gillespie PA, Kirs M, Young RG, Forrest RW, Barter PJ, Knight BR, Harwood VJ
(2011) Motueka River plume facilitates transport of ruminant faecal contaminants into shellfish
growing waters, Tasman Bay, New Zealand. N Z J Mar Freshw Res 45:477–495
71
An independent dairy farm environmental advisor is now working with the
farmers in the Aorere and has drawn up environmental plans. In addition, a system
was developed whereby a dairy farmer could self report accidental discharges to
Fonterra who in turn notified MSQP. Fonterra then followed up with the farmer
to mitigate future discharges. MSQP could then determine if the discharge would
impact the shellfish sanitation and implement a voluntary closure ahead of the
harvest of any affected product.
Conclusions
The net result of the project has been a strengthened community with committed
self management and policing of an effluent problem, while harvest criteria has
now been restored to the previous level. Pursuing a legal option in the first instance
could have been expected to take many years and cost literally millions of dollars
while pitting neighbour against neighbour, industry against industry. This case study
provides an example of a sustainable development approach and offers further
evidence of the value and efficacy of collaboration between scientists, regulators
and industry.
The harvest criteria was able to be revised, such that the time open for harvesting
improved from 50 % at the height of the problem to 79 %, better than the original
72 %. As an industry, marine farming is very unusual in that it operates in an
environment subject to pollution by a wide variety of causes, some of which may
originate hundreds of kilometres away, out of sight and too easily out of mind.
As regulators, scientists and industry it is our goal to optimise food safety of our
products for our consumers. A basic premise of quality assurance is prevention of
“defects” rather than their post occurrence detection. That implies mitigating risks as
far back in the production chain as possible. In this instance, we were able to trace
the risk factor to source and mitigate it there. While we had to rely largely upon
a process of deduction and elimination, the availability now of microbial source
tracking provides additional science to support efforts to identify and mitigate
pollution sources.
Although the case study relates to a dairy farming environment in a rural
location, the model and methodology, with adaptation could be applied in a
variety of situations by industry and regulators when confronted with anthropogenic
contamination of growing waters.
Reference
Cornelisen CD, Gillespie PA, Kirs M, Young RG, Forrest RW, Barter PJ, Knight BR, Harwood VJ
(2011) Motueka River plume facilitates transport of ruminant faecal contaminants into shellfish
growing waters, Tasman Bay, New Zealand. N Z J Mar Freshw Res 45:477–495