Executive Summary 

Katherine Hawes, Principal Solicitor has wondered, with the amount of coastline available in Australia and the growth of Aquaculture globally, why Australia’s market share has not increased dramatically to assit . 

 This paper explores the crossroads facing Australia’s aquaculture industry in our ambition to double aquaculture production by 2027. Expanding seafood farming requires the highest Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) standards. 

 We explore the current legislative framework governing aquaculture at both federal and state levels through an ESG lens, identifies critical gaps – especially in environmental protection, industry regulation, Indigenous rights, and governance – and proposes a roadmap for reform. 

 The key findings and recommendations are positioned as critical to the growth of Aquaculture in Australia and require the attention of political and industry leaders in their crucial roles. 

Australia’s aquaculture industry is at a crossroads. With one of the world’s longest coastlines and an ambition to double aquaculture production by 2027, the nation faces the challenge of expanding seafood farming while upholding the highest Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) standards. This paper evaluates the current legislative framework governing aquaculture at both federal and state levels through an ESG lens, identifies critical gaps – especially in environmental protection, industry regulation, Indigenous rights, and governance – and proposes a roadmap for reform. Key findings and recommendations include: 

However, rapid expansion brings equally significant responsibilities. Aquaculture operations interact closely with the environment and communities: sea-cage farms discharge waste into coastal waters, aquaculture enterprises operate on Indigenous traditional lands and sea country, and the industry’s governance can make the difference between sustainable growth and ecological harm. Legislation and regulation are the tools that ensure aquaculture development aligns with national values and international obligations. Well-designed laws can promote investment, innovation, and best practices, whereas weak or fragmented rules risk environmental damage, social conflict, and loss of public trust. 

This position paper critically examines Australia’s current aquaculture legislative framework against Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) principles. ESG has emerged as a benchmark for sustainable industry: Environmental criteria ensure activities do not degrade ecosystems and biodiversity; Social criteria ensure benefits and rights are shared equitably (including engagement with Indigenous peoples and local communities); and Governance criteria ensure transparent, accountable oversight and ethical management of the sector. By using the ESG lens, we assess how well Australia’s laws are performing and where they fall short. 

We begin with an overview of the federal and state regulatory landscape for aquaculture, highlighting the division of powers and key legislation. We then delve into specific challenges in environmental protection, industry regulation & governance, and Indigenous and social dimensions – illustrating these with a detailed case study of the Tasmanian salmon farming industry. Tasmania’s experience, often cited as both an aquaculture success story and cautionary tale, offers valuable lessons on regulatory gaps, environmental impacts, and the importance of social license. 

Subsequently, the paper explores how Australia can expand aquaculture sustainably. With the world’s seventh-longest coastline and vast marine resources, Australia has immense opportunity for aquaculture growth, from open-ocean farming to new species like shellfish and seaweed. We discuss strategies to maximize these opportunities while maintaining robust environmental safeguards – essentially, how to have both “blue growth” and healthy oceans. 

Finally, we present a reform agenda: actionable recommendations in the short, medium, and long term to strengthen aquaculture governance. These recommendations range from quick administrative fixes (like clarifying regulatory roles and improving inter-agency cooperation) to more structural changes (like unified national standards and better data transparency) and visionary long-term shifts (like comprehensive ocean zoning and Indigenous co-management of marine resources). We also consider Australia’s aquaculture in the context of international law and agreements – such as the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the FAO’s Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, and relevant World Trade Organization (WTO) standards – underscoring that domestic policy does not exist in isolation from global norms and market expectations. 

In sum, this paper advocates for a forward-looking, ESG-aligned legislative framework that will support sustainable aquaculture growth. The goal is to inform government bodies, industry peak organizations, lobby groups, and civil society stakeholders of the current state of play and to persuade them of the urgent need for reforms that balance development with environmental stewardship, social responsibility, and good governance. Such reforms will help ensure Australian aquaculture lives up to its promise: providing food and economic benefits without compromising our ecosystems, communities, or future generations. 

Federal Jurisdiction and Laws 

At the federal level, Australia’s role in aquaculture regulation is relatively limited but crucial in certain areas. The Commonwealth Government’s jurisdiction covers marine waters from 3 nautical miles to 200 nm offshore (the Exclusive Economic Zone), as well as international obligations, trade, and overarching environmental protection. In practice, there is currently no large-scale offshore aquaculture in Commonwealth waters (beyond state limits), but this may change as technology enables operations farther out to sea. The Commonwealth has indicated it would work to “enable state and NT governments to extend their existing aquaculture legislation and management into Commonwealth waters” as offshore farming expands. In other words, rather than create a separate federal aquaculture licensing regime, the approach is to cooperate with states to manage any offshore farms adjacent to their coasts. 

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (EPBC Act) is the centrepiece of federal environmental law and plays a key role in aquaculture oversight. The EPBC Act applies nationwide and can be triggered by aquaculture projects that are likely to significantly impact “Matters of National Environmental Significance” – such as World Heritage areas, Ramsar wetlands, threatened species, or Commonwealth marine areas. For example, if a proposed fish farm might harm a federally listed endangered marine species or pollute a World Heritage-listed Bay, the proponent must refer it for assessment under the EPBC Act. This federal law thus acts as a safeguard for high-value environmental assets, ensuring that major aquaculture developments are subject to rigorous impact assessment and approval conditions in addition to state processes. The EPBC Act’s objectives explicitly include promoting “ecologically sustainable development” and “the role of Indigenous peoples in protecting and sustainably using the environment” – aligning with ESG principles at a high level. However, the Act has been criticized for being slow and for reactive oversight (it intervenes only if a trigger is met), and there are calls to strengthen it to better address cumulative and emerging impacts. 

In summary, the federal framework provides environmental oversight (EPBC Act), ensures national consistency in biosecurity and food safety, and handles the “big picture” policy coordination (including a National Aquaculture Strategy). Yet, day-to-day regulation – site selection, licensing, operational monitoring – largely falls to the states, which is where we turn next. 

Table 1: Overview of Aquaculture Legislative Frameworks by Jurisdiction in Australia (as of 2025). Sources: State legislation and parliamentary reports. 

Despite this diversity, there are some unifying themes. Most states require an aquaculture license or permit, which stipulates conditions on how farming is conducted. Many have a system of leases for marine aquaculture sites (e.g. Tasmanian salmon leases, South Australian zone leases), separating the tenure of water space from operational licensing. Environmental protection is usually handled through a mix of dedicated rules in aquaculture legislation and general state environmental laws. For instance, states often mandate environmental impact assessments for new farm developments and ongoing monitoring of water quality, benthic (seafloor) health, and so on. In Tasmania, any new marine farm proposal must go through a planning review process under the Marine Farming Planning Act, including environmental studies and public consultation, before it can be approved and added to a zoning plan. 

However, the stringency and enforcement of environmental conditions vary widely. In some jurisdictions, environmental oversight has historically been quite lenient or housed within the same department that promotes industry, raising governance concerns. Tasmania until recently vested much of the salmon farm environmental regulation in the hands of the Primary Industries department (which seeks industry growth), though an independent EPA now plays a stronger role in compliance. New South Wales, by contrast, subjects many aquaculture projects to its Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, requiring environmental impact statements for larger farms and development consent from planning authorities. 

Another point of inconsistency is the treatment of Indigenous and community interests. Some states explicitly recognize Aboriginal fishing or sea country rights in their fisheries laws (e.g. NSW exempts Indigenous cultural fishers from certain licensing), but no state aquaculture law provides a formal role for Indigenous communities in aquaculture planning decisions. This is left to general consultation policies, which may or may not be effective. Where native title exists over coastal waters (as determined in landmark cases like Yarmirr for the NT), a proposed aquaculture lease might require notification or negotiation under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth), but this process is separate from fisheries legislation and not well integrated. 

In summary, the state-level patchwork means that an aquaculture proponent faces different rules depending on location, and environmental or social safeguards can differ as well. Each state’s framework has strengths and weaknesses – for example, South Australia’s zoning and single-agency model streamlines development but could risk industry capture if not checked; Tasmania’s detailed marine farming plans provide certainty but have been criticized for being too influenced by industry during site selection; Queensland’s rigorous water quality rules protect the Great Barrier Reef but make approvals time-consuming, etc. These inconsistencies set the stage for the discussion in the next section on how the legislative framework measures up to ESG principles and where deficiencies lie. 

Environmental Protection: Strengths, Gaps, and Inconsistencies 

Environmental stewardship is arguably the most developed aspect of aquaculture regulation on paper – all jurisdictions claim to pursue “ecologically sustainable development” (a concept embedded in laws like the EPBC Act and various state Acts). In practice, however, there are significant gaps between policy ideals and enforcement on the water. Key observations include: 

• Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA): Most large aquaculture proposals undergo some form of environmental assessment. Federally, the EPBC Act can trigger an assessment for significant impacts on protected matters, but this mechanism is reactive and has thresholds that many projects do not meet. States require EIA for certain projects (e.g. an Environmental Impact Statement for a new large fish farm in NSW or QLD), yet smaller or incremental expansions often slip through with minimal review. Cumulative impacts – the collective effect of multiple farms in one bay – are not always adequately assessed by fragmented project-by-project approvals. For instance, in Tasmania’s Macquarie Harbour, three companies’ salmon farms were each approved, but the combined load exceeded what the ecosystem could bear, leading to oxygen depletion and faunal collapse. 

• Water Quality and Pollution Controls: Regulations on discharge and water quality differ widely. Some states set numeric limits on nutrient releases or require a certain assimilation capacity. Others rely on broad conditions like “no significant environmental harm” without clear metrics. Tasmania historically allowed the industry to self-monitor local impacts, using a 35-meter benthic impact zone under each pen beyond which impacts should not extend. But evidence showed this was inadequate – waste and anoxia spread further, affecting greater areas of the harbour floor than permitted. Alarmingly, instead of tightening this, Tasmania proposed to legalize pollution up to 135m from farms in 2023, effectively expanding the permitted impact zone. This approach – redefining rules to fit industry impact rather than curbing industry to meet environmental limits – is a serious governance concern and contrary to ESG principles. It highlights a deficiency: lack of firm science-based limits on waste outputs and nutrient loading for aquaculture operations. 

• Biodiversity Conservation: Australia’s laws contain tools for biodiversity protection (e.g. habitat reserves, species protection under the EPBC Act and state laws), but integrating these with aquaculture has been inconsistent. Certain sensitive areas are off-limits to aquaculture by policy (for example, no farming in marine national parks or World Heritage areas in most states), yet enforcement can waver. Macquarie Harbour is adjacent to the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area, and farming was allowed there under conditions. When it became clear the endemic Maugean skate (a “living fossil” fish only found in that harbour) was plummeting towards extinction due to salmon farming’s impacts, environmental groups sought to invoke federal intervention. While initially the Environment Minister showed willingness to reconsider approvals, politics intervened (as detailed in the Tasmanian case study below). Overall, biodiversity concerns – such as interactions with marine mammals, genetic risks of escapees interbreeding with wild stocks, disease transfer to wild fish – are not comprehensively regulated in all states. Some measures exist (e.g. farms must have seal-proof enclosures or protocols to handle wildlife), but these can be ad hoc. Shocking practices came to light in Tasmania, where operators used lead pellets and underwater explosives to deter seals until public outcry led to scrutiny. This indicates that stronger uniform standards for wildlife interaction and habitat protection in aquaculture are needed. 

• Climate and Cumulative Impact: Presently, climate change is not explicitly accounted for in aquaculture laws, yet it is a growing environmental factor. Warming waters, ocean acidification, and extreme weather events threaten farmed species (e.g. Tasmanian salmon suffer in summer heat, leading to disease outbreaks and losses) and can exacerbate pollution impacts (warmer water holds less oxygen). The current regulatory framework does not mandate climate risk assessments for farms or adaptation strategies. Nor does it integrate with marine spatial planning that considers climate resilience (e.g. identifying future suitable farming zones as ocean conditions change). This is a forward-looking gap in environmental regulation that needs addressing in long-term reforms. 

In summary, while Australia has strong environmental principles in theory – for example, the EPBC Act’s goals of biodiversity conservation and ESD, or Tasmania’s stated vision for an “environmentally responsible” salmon industry – implementation is uneven. Deficiencies include inadequate pollution limits, slow response to scientific warnings, lack of transparency in environmental data, and insufficient precaution for sensitive species and habitats. These gaps not only harm ecosystems but also jeopardize the industry’s social license and sustainability. As one international guideline succinctly puts it, “aquaculture development should conserve genetic diversity and minimize negative effects on wild fish populations” – a benchmark Australia should consistently meet through its laws and enforcement. 

Social and Indigenous Rights: Inclusion and Shortfalls 

Aquaculture operations exist within communities – they create jobs and economic activity but also compete with other uses of land and water and can impact cultural and social values. A sustainable aquaculture framework must address social license to operate, which includes community acceptance, benefit-sharing, and respect for Indigenous rights and heritage. In Australia, there is room for significant improvement in this sphere. 

Indigenous Peoples and Sea Country: Indigenous Australians have managed and harvested marine resources for millennia, and many coastal Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities maintain strong cultural connections to the sea (often referred to as “Sea Country”). Under Australian law, native title can be recognized in coastal waters (though usually non-exclusive), and Indigenous Protected Areas and Sea Country Plans are increasingly common. Despite this, aquaculture legislation has only minimal provisions related to Indigenous interests. The Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) provides that if an aquaculture lease might affect native title, a notification and negotiation process (the “future acts” process) is required. This gives Indigenous title holders a voice, but not an outright veto, and this process happens under native title law rather than aquaculture-specific law. 

No state explicitly requires consultation with relevant Aboriginal groups as a condition for aquaculture licensing, unless the project triggers a separate cultural heritage law (e.g. if it might disturb an Aboriginal cultural site) or the native title process mentioned. This is a shortfall in terms of procedural rights and co-management. It contrasts with the aspirations of many Indigenous communities to be partners or leaders in managing marine resources. It is also at odds with ESG and modern governance norms which emphasize stakeholder engagement and inclusion. 

However, there are emerging positive developments: in aquaculture RD&E (research, development & extension) strategies, inclusion of Indigenous peoples has been identified as a priority. The National Aquaculture Strategy consultations explicitly heard the “need for recognition of the role [of] Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders” in the industry. There have been a few Indigenous-owned or co-managed aquaculture ventures (for example, an Indigenous community-run sea cucumber farm in NT, or a partnership in SA involving an Aboriginal corporation in oyster farming). These indicate both interest and the possibility of economic development aligned with cultural values. Yet, the legislative framework has not caught up to facilitate such involvement broadly. Long-term reform could consider formal Indigenous co-management agreements in aquaculture zones or allocation of aquaculture licenses to Indigenous enterprises as a form of development right – ideas that resonate with principles of self-determination and have precedents in Canadian and New Zealand fisheries management. 

Community Consultation and Social License: Beyond Indigenous communities, the general public in coastal areas also has a stake. Aquaculture can sometimes conflict with other coastal uses – conservation, tourism, recreational fishing, or simply the amenity of a natural bay. A lack of community buy-in has led to intense conflicts in some regions. For instance, in Tasmania, coastal residents and local governments have at times opposed salmon farm expansions due to concerns over visual impact, odour, noise, and environmental harm to beloved waterways. The “social license” of the Tasmanian salmon industry was notably eroded after high-profile environmental incidents and a 2016 media investigation (“Big Fish” on ABC’s Four Corners program) that revealed poor practices. 

Legislative processes do allow for some public input – e.g. when new marine farming zones are declared in Tasmania, there is a public comment period, and environmental impact documents are exhibited. Similarly, in other states, big projects might go on public exhibition under planning laws. But critics argue these processes are perfunctory, with community objections rarely altering outcomes. Once farms are established, ongoing community engagement is voluntary for companies (some have liaison committees, others do not). There is no requirement for regular public reporting of farm performance in many states, which feeds public distrust when rumours of fish kills, or pollution circulate. As noted earlier, transparency is lacking – EDO observed that Tasmania’s new draft rules did “not require the public release of monitoring data… [which] is essential for understanding the health of our waterways”. This lack of transparency and community visibility into operations undermines the social dimension of ESG. 

On the positive side, the national strategy for aquaculture recognizes improving public perception and understanding as a priority. Leading companies are also aware of ESG pressure and have begun publishing sustainability reports and committing to certification schemes (like the Aquaculture Stewardship Council certification) to bolster their social and environmental credentials. Governments can complement this by mandating greater disclosure and creating forums for community input in management (for example, advisory committees for each major aquaculture region with local stakeholder representation). 

Labor and Human Capital: An often-overlooked social aspect is labour conditions in aquaculture. While Australia generally has strong labour laws and there have been no widespread reports of labour abuse in its aquaculture like those seen in some other countries, ESG principles would call for ensuring fair employment, training, and worker safety in this expanding industry. The legislative framework does not directly address this (it’s covered by general employment law), but a comprehensive position on sustainable aquaculture should include workforce development and safety standards – especially as operations move offshore where working conditions can be hazardous. 

In summary, social and cultural considerations are not deeply embedded in aquaculture legislation, representing a significant deficiency. Indigenous rights, in particular, deserve a more prominent and proactive inclusion, moving from mere acknowledgment in broad terms to practical mechanisms for joint decision-making and benefit-sharing. For the broader community, building social license requires transparency, consultation, and responsiveness – areas where current governance has been reactive rather than proactive. A failure to address these social aspects can lead to community opposition, legal challenges, and reputational damage, which ultimately threaten the sector’s growth. Sustainable aquaculture is not only about the fish and the environment; it’s also about people – a fact that the regulatory regime must better reflect. 

Industry Regulation and Governance: Oversight, Coordination, and Accountability 

The governance of aquaculture – how rules are enforced, decisions made, and the industry guided – is the third pillar of ESG analysis. A sound governance framework ensures that aquaculture is regulated effectively, fairly, and transparently, balancing industry development with public interest. Several governance challenges and inconsistencies have become evident in Australia’s multi-jurisdictional regime: 

• Fragmented Regulatory Authority: As outlined earlier, multiple agencies at different government levels have a hand in aquaculture. This can result in “siloed” decision-making and poor coordination. For example, a state’s fisheries department may issue an aquaculture license, while a separate environment department (or EPA) issues discharge permits, and a local council handles development approval for on-shore facilities – each with separate processes that might not align in timing or conditions. Investors have complained about red tape and duplication, which the National Aquaculture Strategy sought to address by committing to “streamlined regulatory frameworks”. From an ESG perspective, efficiency is good, but streamlining must not come at the cost of environmental or social oversight. The key is coordination: agencies working together so that all concerns are addressed without unnecessary delay. Some progress has been made (e.g. one-stop shops in SA’s PIRSA for aquaculture licensing), but more could be done nationwide. The concept of an inter-agency “aquaculture taskforce” or MoU in each state – aligning fisheries, environment, planning, and perhaps Indigenous affairs departments – is a possible quick fix to improve coherence. 

• Inconsistency and Uncertainty: Differences in regulations between states can also pose governance issues. Companies operating in multiple states face varied compliance requirements, and there’s a risk of a “race to the bottom” if one state lowers standards to attract investment, pressuring others to follow. Conversely, lack of uniform standards can mean good practices aren’t shared. For instance, if one jurisdiction mandates real-time water quality monitoring and public reporting and another does not, firms in the latter face less scrutiny. A more harmonized approach (without overriding the beneficial ability of states to tailor local solutions) is needed. The notion of developing National Environmental Standards for Aquaculture – possibly under federal coordination – could set a baseline (e.g. all farms must meet certain waste output criteria, all states must require escape prevention measures, etc.), leaving implementation to states but ensuring no state significantly undercuts environmental protection. This would mirror how national food safety or biosecurity standards work. 

• Transparency and Accountability: Good governance mandates that regulators and industry are accountable to the public. Currently, as noted, transparency is lacking in many areas: environmental monitoring data is often kept confidential to companies or only provided to regulators with no public release. Decisions like license approvals or changes in farming plans might happen with little community notice beyond legally required gazette notices. Enforcement actions (e.g. if a farm is found non-compliant) are rarely publicized in some states, whereas others like SA do publish annual compliance reports. The absence of transparency can breed perceptions of regulatory capture – the idea that agencies are “going soft” on industry behind closed doors. Strengthening governance would involve mandatory disclosures (publish environmental and compliance data online, as EDO recommended), independent audits of industry self-reported data, and greater use of advisory committees including independent scientists and community representatives to oversee aquaculture management plans. 

• Regulatory Capture and Conflicts of Interest: One of the more troubling governance issues is the potential (or perception) that regulators are too closely aligned with industry interests. In Tasmania, for example, the government has actively promoted salmon farming as a growth industry (for jobs and regional development), which led some to question if environmental regulation was being compromised to facilitate expansion. The state’s decision in early 2023 to draft an amendment to federal law – effectively lobbying the Commonwealth to exempt salmon farms from certain EPBC Act reviews – reinforced this perception of protecting industry at the cost of due process. When the Prime Minister and federal MPs of the ruling party championed a bill to shield Tasmanian salmon farms from environmental challenges, critics argued that it exemplified regulatory capture by a powerful industry. Good governance requires independence – decisions based on evidence and law, not undue influence. To improve this, some have suggested moving aquaculture environmental regulation to independent bodies (e.g. bolstering the role of state EPAs or creating an Aquaculture Ombudsman). At minimum, clear separation between industry promotion functions and compliance functions within departments is needed, as well as ensuring robust federal oversight remains for checks and balances. 

• Intergovernmental Coordination: Because marine ecosystems and industries don’t neatly stop at state borders, national coordination is important. The current mechanism for this is mostly through ministerial councils and non-binding agreements (like the 2017 National Aquaculture Strategy). That strategy identified as Priority #1 the promotion of “an efficient regulatory framework modelled on best practice… transparent and [removing] unnecessary burden”, acknowledging regulatory issues. It also emphasized improving environmental performance and public confidence (#5 and #6 priorities). While the strategy and statement of commitments exist, they rely on states individually implementing them. There is no single national aquaculture law (unlike, say, the National Electricity Law which is a cooperative scheme). The Productivity Commission and others have in the past recommended simplifying the system, but states guard their jurisdiction. A future approach might consider a cooperative legislative model: for example, states agreeing to adopt uniform regulations on certain matters, or even handing some powers to the Commonwealth for offshore aquaculture licensing beyond 3nm (should that frontier open up significantly, a clear federal regime might be needed to avoid six separate sets of rules for offshore waters). 

In essence, the governance dimension of aquaculture regulation in Australia is patchy. Some elements meet good governance criteria – e.g. generally rule of law is present, licenses are required, major decisions are documented. But the effectiveness and trustworthiness of governance are undermined by fragmentation, lack of transparency, and perceptions of bias. Stronger inter-agency and intergovernmental coordination, plus measures to increase openness and community participation, are required to ensure the regulatory framework is seen as legitimate and capable of enforcing ESG standards. Without such trust, industry expansion will continue to face opposition and controversy. 

Case Study: The Tasmanian Salmon Industry – A Regulatory Crossroads 

To vividly illustrate the interplay of legislative frameworks, ESG issues, and the need for reform, we examine the Tasmanian salmon farming industry. Tasmania is Australia’s aquaculture heavyweight – salmonids (Atlantic salmon and ocean trout) farmed in its cool temperate waters make up roughly 60% of the nation’s total aquaculture value. The industry grew from modest beginnings in the 1980s to a modern production exceeding 50,000 tonnes annually, supplying both domestic and export markets. This growth has been facilitated by supportive state policies and Tasmania’s natural advantages (clean waters, suitable climate in the south). However, it has also exposed serious regulatory gaps, environmental impacts, and governance challenges. The Tasmanian case provides both cautionary tales and lessons for how to better manage aquaculture nationally. 

An open-net pen salmon farm in the Huon/Channel region of Tasmania. The rapid expansion of such farms has led to environmental and regulatory challenges. 

• Macquarie Harbour Crisis: Macquarie Harbour on Tasmania’s west coast was opened to salmon farming in the early 2010s. Multiple companies were granted leases, and production was pushed to high levels in a relatively constrained waterbody with limited tidal flushing. By 2015–2016, signs of stress emerged: oxygen levels in the deeper waters plummeted, indicating the ecosystem was overloaded with organic waste from fish feed and faeces. In 2017, the situation turned dire: over 1.3 million farmed salmon died due to low oxygen and disease, and scientists found portions of the harbour floor turned into “dead zones” devoid of normal marine life. Most alarmingly, the harbour’s endemic Maugean skate – a rare species only found in that single estuary – suffered a steep decline. By 2021 its population was estimated to have nearly halved, putting it on a fast track to extinction. This triggered environmental NGOs to request the federal Environment Minister to intervene under the EPBC Act’s provisions for World Heritage and threatened species (the harbour and surrounding wilderness have World Heritage status, and the skate is protected). The Macquarie Harbour saga exposed how state regulatory limits (on biomass and impacts) were insufficient or not enforced, and how industry pressure to maximize output led to ecological overshoot. It also demonstrated the need for adaptive management – when warning signs appeared, a quicker reduction in stocking should have been mandated. Eventually stocking was cut back by regulators, but only after irreversible harm had occurred. 

• Seal Deaths and Wildlife Interactions: Tasmanian farms operate in areas frequented by fur seals and seabirds. The salmon pens attract seals looking for an easy feed, which has led to conflicts. For years, farms used controversial methods to deter seals – including underwater explosives (“seal crackers”) and shooting blunt beanbag projectiles – under permits. Investigations found these methods were abused, with dozens of seals found dead in the vicinity and questions about transparency in reporting. Public revulsion at harming native wildlife added to calls for change. The industry has since moved toward better net technology and transitioning problem seals rather than lethal or harmful deterrents. The episode, however, underscores a regulatory gap: animal welfare and wildlife protection were not adequately built into aquaculture licenses; only after public scrutiny did the government tighten standards. 

• Disease Outbreaks and Biosecurity: In 2018 and again in 2022-2023, Tasmanian salmon farms experienced outbreaks of pilchard orthomyxovirus and other pathogens causing mass mortality events. In one case in 2023, a bacterium caused a “mass die-off” in southeast Tasmania, with significant stock losses. These events raise concerns about biosecurity in densely stocked farms and the risk of disease spreading to wild fish. While Tasmania has farm management zones and requires fallowing (periodic emptying of pens) to break disease cycles, the outbreaks suggest these measures may need strengthening. Furthermore, climate change is implicated in disease dynamics – warmer waters stress fish and favour pathogens. The regulatory system will need to incorporate climate adaptation (e.g. altered farming seasons or lower stocking during warm months, vaccine development, etc.) to maintain fish health and protect wild populations. 

• Escapes and Genetic Impact: There have been instances of large escape events (for example, a storm-related pen failure in 2020 led to ~50,000 salmon escaping into the wild). Escaped farmed salmon can compete with or prey on native fish and potentially establish feral populations (though Atlantic salmon haven’t established in Tasmania’s rivers to date, perhaps due to climate). Each escape is essentially marine pollution and a loss of a contained farming system. It demonstrates the importance of engineering standards for sea pens (an aspect of governance and regulation) and the need for contingency plans. In an ESG context, preventing escapes is crucial both environmentally and for public perception – the idea of “thousands of farmed fish on the loose” tends to alarm the public and other fishing stakeholders. 

On the social side, these environmental issues translated into public debate and loss of trust. Coastal communities in Tasmania, particularly around the Huon River, D’Entrecasteaux Channel, and Storm Bay, have organized protest groups, concerned about the expansion of salmon farms into new bays and near towns. The industry’s “social license to operate” was called into question. In 2021, two of the largest Tasmanian-based salmon companies (Tassal and Huon Aquaculture) were taken over by multinational firms (Brazilian meat giant JBS and Canadian company Cooke Aquaculture, respectively). Some locals worry that foreign ownership might prioritize profits over local environmental stewardship – whether or not that is true, it added to public scepticism. In Parliament, Tasmanian independent senator Jacqui Lambie voiced the sentiment that Tasmanians want the industry to change – “They want it pushed out into those coastal waters much further or [done] on land; it’s not a lot to ask of multinationals”. This captures the social demand for either higher-tech solutions (like land-based tanks) or relocating farms away from sensitive inshore areas. 

• The Tasmanian Government commissioned reviews and attempted reforms in the wake of the controversies. It developed a new Tasmanian Salmon Industry Plan 2023, intended as a long-term strategy for a “sustainable industry all Tasmanians can be proud of – one that is economically successful, environmentally responsible, socially beneficial and well managed”. This Plan, and associated draft environmental standards, aimed to address community and scientific concerns. Positive elements include a move to full cost recovery (making the industry pay for the costs of monitoring and regulation rather than taxpayers), and commitments to better community engagement and transparency. The Plan’s development involved extensive public consultation and input from the Blue Economy CRC. This indicates a recognition at policy level that ESG factors must be taken seriously for the industry’s future. 

• However, as the Environmental Defenders Office (EDO) pointed out in their analysis of the draft standards, some proposals seemed to weaken protections. We saw earlier the plan to expand allowable impact zones around farms and the omission of mandatory public data release. These aspects drew criticism for making regulation more accommodating to industry rather than to environmental thresholds. EDO and conservation groups have made detailed recommendations, such as setting clear pollution limits, requiring public reporting, and defining triggers for intervention when environmental metrics worsen. It remains to be seen how the final standards will balance industry input and these recommendations. 

• A particularly controversial governance move was at the federal level: in late 2024 and early 2025, the Commonwealth Government (urged by Tasmanian state and industry lobbying) introduced a bill to amend the EPBC Act to limit the reconsideration of old approvals. This was directly aimed at halting the Environment Minister’s ongoing assessment of Macquarie Harbour salmon farms, which had been initiated due to the Maugean skate concerns. The bill, described as necessary to “provide certainty” to salmon farmers, passed the House of Representatives in March 2025. It would “remove the environment minister’s ability to reconsider previous decisions, if they have been ongoing for at least five years and were approved with conditions involving state regulation”. In plainer terms, it cuts off a community and environmental avenue to force review of problematic projects. Conservationists decried this as the government “scaling back” environmental law and reducing public rights, despite having promised to strengthen environmental protections. The optics of rushing this amendment – which was indeed fast-tracked with minimal debate, according to news reports – were poor. It signalled that, under pressure, governments might erode safeguards to protect an industry. While it may resolve a short-term political issue, it sets a worrying precedent. This episode underscores the need for transparent, consultative law-making in aquaculture governance rather than sudden changes that favour one stakeholder (industry) over others. It also shows the delicate balance between federal and state roles: the federal EPBC Act was a backstop for environmental protection, but political intervention undermined its use in this case. 

• On a more positive governance note, there has been an increasing role of independent science and monitoring. After Macquarie Harbour’s troubles, the Tasmanian government involved CSIRO and IMAS (Institute of Marine and Antarctic Studies) scientists to develop environmental models and recommendations for setting carrying capacity. Similarly, proposals for new farming areas (like Storm Bay, off southeast Tasmania) went through a more rigorous assessment and modelling process than early farms did, informed by the lessons from Macquarie Harbour. This indicates a trend toward evidence-based regulation – a key governance improvement. The challenge is ensuring that scientific advice is heeded and that there are legal teeth to enforce recommended limits. 

• Economic and social compensation or benefit-sharing has also come up. In regions impacted by farming, communities have sought more direct benefits (jobs, infrastructure investment by companies, etc.) to compensate for the environmental and amenity impacts. While not formalized in law, this is pushing companies to adopt more CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) initiatives. A well-governed framework might incorporate this through, say, community development funds financed by aquaculture fees or requirements for local employment targets. Tasmania’s plan does highlight being “socially beneficial”, which implies fostering positive social outcomes. 

In conclusion, the Tasmanian salmon case study highlights the consequences of inadequate regulation – significant environmental harm and public backlash – but also the potential for course correction through improved governance and technology. It emphasizes that transparency, adaptive management, and keeping regulatory integrity intact are paramount. The case study’s lessons inform the recommendations in this paper: stronger environmental standards, better community engagement, and a careful check on industry influence in regulatory decisions are needed not just in Tasmania but across all Australian aquaculture as it grows. 

The Expansion Potential 

Firstly, what does “maximising aquaculture expansion” entail? It includes: 

• Geographic expansion: utilizing new farming areas, such as offshore waters, areas further from shore or new regions (e.g. exploring aquaculture in northern Australia’s warm waters for different species). 

• Species diversification: moving beyond current dominant species (salmon, tuna, oysters, prawns) to include others like kingfish, barramundi, shellfish, sea cucumbers, and emerging sectors like seaweed farming and algae culture. There is strong interest in seaweed aquaculture globally for food, feed, and even carbon sequestration, and Australia’s waters could support a large seaweed industry with relatively low environmental impact. 

• Intensity and productivity gains: increasing output through technology – e.g. higher-density recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS) on land, improved feeds that reduce feed conversion ratios, selective breeding for hardy, fast-growing stock, etc., thereby getting more production with proportionally less waste. 

• Value-adding and supply chain: expanding not only production but also processing and product development (like nutraceuticals from aquaculture products), which though not directly a legislative matter, influences the overall industry footprint and benefit. 

Realizing these expansions requires supportive policy but crucially, it must be guided by scientific understanding of carrying capacities and ecosystem limits. Australia’s waters are generally clean and comparatively under-utilized for aquaculture (relative to parts of Asia or Europe), which is an advantage. To maintain that any expansion should follow the principle of “growth within environmental limits.” 

• Land-based Recirculating Aquaculture Systems (RAS): These closed-containment systems on land virtually eliminate direct marine pollution (water is treated and recycled) and prevent escapes and interactions with wild species. They have been heralded as a solution for species like salmon – indeed, some facilities globally grow Atlantic salmon entirely on land. RAS require high energy input and capital, but they are becoming more feasible as technology improves. For Australia, land-based aquaculture could complement sea farming, especially near major markets (e.g. there is an on-land barramundi farm in far-north Queensland supplying year-round). Legislatively, land-based farms fall under different regimes (mostly state land use and environmental laws). To encourage RAS, governments could streamline approvals for them and consider incentives, as their environmental risk profile is lower in many respects. The expansion of RAS aligns with climate goals too if powered by renewable energy, making aquaculture low carbon. 

• Improved Feeds and Waste Management: One environmental challenge of aquaculture is feed usage – historically, farming carnivorous fishlike salmon or tuna involved using a lot of wild fish as feed (fishmeal/oil). The industry has made progress in reducing fishmeal content and using plant or insect protein alternatives, thus lessening pressure on wild fisheries (this addresses a broader ecosystem impact often raised by WTO and others concerned with sustainable sourcing). Further innovations in feed efficiency and nutrient uptake can reduce waste (since what fish don’t digest becomes pollution). Technology like automatic feeders with sensors can optimize feeding to avoid overfeeding (and thus minimize leftover feed sinking to the seabed). Likewise, waste capture devices under pens or integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA, where species like shellfish or seaweed are co-farmed to uptake wastes) are emerging techniques that could be mandated or encouraged by regulators for new farms. All these reduce environmental impact per unit of production, aligning with the “E” in ESG. 

• Monitoring and Big Data: The future of environmental compliance might include real-time monitoring – for example, sensors on farms that continuously measure water quality (oxygen, nitrogen levels, etc.) and send data to regulators and the public. Embracing such technology could allow for adaptive management: if a farm’s sensors show deteriorating conditions, authorities could require an immediate response (like lowering stocking, increasing fallow time). It also provides transparency to reassure the public. Regulators could incorporate these requirements in licenses (some jurisdictions already require farmers to fund environmental surveys; real-time sensors could be next). Drones and remote imaging can also monitor farm infrastructure and benthic impacts more efficiently than occasional diver surveys. 

In essence, innovation can turn many ESG challenges into manageable ones. Government policy can drive this by funding R&D (which Australia does through FRDC and CRCs) and by setting regulations that push industry to adopt best available techniques (e.g. phasing in requirements for all new farms to have defined waste management plans, or using deepwater pens, etc.). Expansion should not mean more of the same everywhere, but rather smarter aquaculture that can increase output without proportional increases in footprint. 

• Carrying Capacity Assessments for New Areas: Before opening any new region (bay or offshore block) to aquaculture, rigorous scientific assessment should determine how much farming can occur without significant ecological deterioration. This includes modelling the assimilative capacity for nutrients, impacts on wild species, and space-use conflicts. The assessment process must involve independent science and stakeholder input, and results in clear limits (e.g. total tonnage of fish allowed, or maximum feed input, etc.). These limits should be legally enforceable and reviewed periodically. 

• Precautionary Zoning and Marine Protected Areas (MPAs): As part of marine spatial planning, some sensitive habitats should be permanently off-limits to farming (e.g. seagrass beds, important fish nursery areas, culturally significant marine areas). Conversely, identify zones that are suitable (sheltered, good flushing, minimal conflict). Zoning gives certainty and protects key areas. Australia has a system of MPAs federally and in some states; aligning aquaculture plans with those (no farms in national parks, etc.) is a baseline. In the future, with the push to protect 30% of marine areas by 2030 (international CBD goal), aquaculture expansion will have to coexist with expanding conservation areas – which means planning is crucial now to allocate space smartly. 

• Climate Adaptation Measures: Build in climate foresight into regulations. For example, if a region is warming beyond a farmed species’ tolerance, there should be strategies such as shifting to a different species or strain, investing in cooler-water refuges, or technological fixes like deeper pens where water is cooler. On the flip side, aquaculture could contribute to climate solutions: seaweed farming, for instance, can sequester carbon and even be used to make livestock feed that cut methane emissions (a co-benefit project being researched). Policymakers might support pilot projects for seaweed farming for climate and environment benefits. 

• Emergency Response and Accountability: Ensure that when things go wrong (disease outbreak, mass mortality, escape, pollution event), there are clear protocols and accountability. Companies should have emergency response plans filed with regulators and sufficient insurance or bonds to cover clean-up or remediation. For example, after a large fish kill, mandatory removal of dead fish is obvious, but also perhaps a pause on restocking until causes are addressed. If an escape happens, companies might be required to attempt recapture or fund conservation programs to offset potential impacts. Strong safeguards treat these incidents seriously and not just as unfortunate write-offs. 

All the above is to say: expansion and strong environmental safeguards are not mutually exclusive. In fact, one enables the other – without high standards, expansion attempts will meet opposition and could cause collapses that set the industry back (as seen when disease or pollution forces farm closures). By maintaining a high bar, Australia can grow aquaculture that is truly sustainable and internationally respected, aligning with both UNCLOS obligations to protect the marine environment and FAO codes of responsible practice. 

• Engage communities early in planning new developments. Use models like community consultation panels for any major aquaculture zone expansion. Genuinely consider input on site selection and conditions (for instance, adjusting buffer distances from townships or important fishing grounds). 

• Integrate Indigenous aspirations. Expansion should look at opportunities to involve Indigenous communities, whether through training and employment programs or partnerships granting Indigenous groups licenses in their sea country. This not only provides economic development in often disadvantaged communities but also ensures cultural respect and knowledge inform how new farms operate (like monitoring sacred sites or avoiding them altogether). 

• Ensuring equitable access. A concern sometimes raised is that industrial aquaculture can exclude small players or traditional users. Policies could be crafted to allow for smaller-scale community aquaculture projects (for example, an Indigenous-owned oyster farm or a cooperative seaweed venture) as part of expansion, not just large corporate farms. This diversity can make the industry more resilient and widely supported. 

By focusing on these angles, Australia can aim for a “triple win” – economic, environmental, and social – in aquaculture expansion. The coastline and resources give a natural advantage; marrying that with best-practice governance and ESG principles can make Australia a world leader in sustainable aquaculture. As we prepare recommendations for reform, the idea is to create a legislative and policy environment that fosters innovation and growth while holding everyone to high standards. 

Next, we outline specific reforms and actions to achieve these goals in the short, medium, and long term. 

Short-Term Reforms (Immediate – within 1–2 years) 

These are actions that can be taken relatively quickly (through policy adjustments or minor legislative amendments) to address glaring issues and improve clarity and coordination: 

• Clarify Regulatory Roles & Eliminate Loopholes: Develop a clear Intergovernmental Agreement on Aquaculture Regulation that sets out the responsibilities of Commonwealth vs. states in all scenarios (including offshore). This agreement would reinforce that states lead in coastal waters and the Commonwealth in external territories/commonwealth waters, but also detail cooperation mechanisms. Close any jurisdictional loopholes – for example, if offshore trial farms don’t squarely fall under any law, issue regulations or use existing powers (e.g., Environment Minister’s regulations) to cover them temporarily. Clarity will help industry know where to go for approvals and ensure no activity falls through cracks unregulated. 

• Inter-Agency Aquaculture Taskforces: Each state should establish a formal coordinating committee including representatives from the primary industries (fisheries) department, environment/EPA, planning department, and other relevant bodies (and potentially a Commonwealth observer from DAFF or DCCEEW). This taskforce’s mandate: streamline the licensing process internally, share data, and rapidly address any compliance issues by joint action. This prevents the left hand not knowing what the right is doing – for instance, environment officers and fisheries officers can plan joint inspections of farms, share water quality reports, etc. It also expedites decisions (e.g., if an issue arises that could trigger an EPBC referral, state and federal can discuss it early). In short, better communication and cooperation daily. 

• Moratoriums/Buffer Policies for Critical Areas: As a precaution, impose immediate moratoriums on new aquaculture leases in particularly sensitive or contentious areas until stronger environmental standards are in place. For example, if a bay is near it carrying capacity or is a critical habitat (like Tasmania’s Macquarie Harbour or areas near the Great Barrier Reef), pause expansions or new entrants. Similarly, establish interim buffer zones – e.g. no farms within X kilometres of World Heritage areas or major tourism swim beaches – if such guidelines aren’t already clear. This quick fix can buy time to develop considered plans without allowing irreversible approvals in the meantime. 

• Enforce Existing Environmental Conditions Strictly: Direct regulatory agencies to rigorously enforce current license conditions and environmental regulations, signalling a culture of compliance. This includes issuing fines or enforceable directions for any serious breaches (such as repeated low oxygen readings below standards, unreported escapes, or exceeding biomass limits). In the immediate term, making a few enforcement examples visible can reset the industry’s expectations that non-compliance won’t be tolerated. It also reassures the public that regulators are acting. The key is using existing powers more effectively while longer-term reforms are worked on. 

• Transparency Kickstart: Without waiting for new laws, agencies can voluntarily start improving transparency. For instance, publish online the environmental monitoring data that is already collected for each farm (water quality, benthic surveys) on government portals. Also publish summary compliance reports annually for each farming region (some states do this sporadically; make it routine for all). Since this is just publication of data the government holds, it can be implemented via policy direction. Improved transparency is a quick win for governance and costs little. 

• Consultation with Indigenous Leaders: Begin a dialogue at national and state levels with Indigenous representatives specifically about aquaculture. This could take the form of a National Indigenous Aquaculture Advisory Panel. As a short-term measure, it’s about listening and identifying how Indigenous communities want to engage – whether it is co-management of sea country where farms operate, or support to run their own aquaculture projects. This will lay the groundwork for more structural inclusion later. It also aligns with broader government commitments to Indigenous partnership (e.g., the Closing the Gap initiative’s economic development targets). 

Medium-Term Reforms (3–5 years) 

These changes might require more substantial effort, such as legislative amendments, the development of new standards, or systems that take time to build. The focus is on creating a more harmonised, transparent, and evidence-based regulatory framework across Australia: 

• National Aquaculture Standards & Harmonisation: Working through bodies like the National Fisheries Ministers’ Forum or Council of Australian Governments (COAG equivalent), develop a set of National Best Practice Standards for Aquaculture Environmental Management. These could be codified as a schedule or policy that each state agrees to implement (similar to how Australian Drinking Water Guidelines are adopted by states). Key topics for these standards: 

• Setting science-based limits on pollution (nutrient release, allowable sediment impact levels). 

• Monitoring protocols (what parameters to monitor, frequency, and methods to ensure consistency nationwide). 

• Stocking densities/carrying capacity guidelines for different species and environments. 

• Escape prevention and response requirements. 

• Wildlife interaction rules (non-lethal deterrence methods, reporting of interactions). 

Having such standards ensures every state is at least meeting a baseline of ESG performance, reducing inconsistencies. States with more stringent rules can retain them, but no state should fall below the agreed baseline. Legally, this might be implemented via each state updating its regulations or through a federal EPBC Act strategic approval that sets conditions (an innovative approach: the Commonwealth could accredit state regimes that meet the standard, giving streamlined EPBC approval to farms under those regimes, thus incentivising states to lift standards). 

• Legislated Transparency & Data Sharing: Amend legislation (or introduce new regulations) to mandate transparency in aquaculture operations. This would formalize what was a quick fix voluntarily into a legal requirement. For instance, require that all environmental monitoring data and reports submitted by operators be made publicly available (perhaps via a centralized national portal for ease). Also, require companies to publish annual sustainability reports covering ESG metrics – or provide that data to the government for publishing. Additionally, establish a national database of aquaculture licenses, leases, their locations, species farmed, and compliance history. This aids not just transparency but also research and oversight, allowing cross-comparison and learning across states. 

• Independent Environmental Auditing: Create a system where independent auditors (third-party environmental consultants or scientific agencies) periodically audit aquaculture farms’ compliance and environmental performance. These audits could be required every X years or triggered by certain risk factors. The auditor’s reports would go to regulators and the public. Embedding independent checks helps verify company-reported data and bolsters confidence that issues won’t be swept under the rug. This medium-term reform might involve accrediting auditors and setting audit standards. It aligns with governance best practices in other industries (for example, how financial audits work for corporations). 

• Greater Community and Indigenous Participation Mechanisms: By this stage, concrete measures to involve stakeholders should be instituted. For communities, states could set up Aquaculture Management Advisory Committees for key regions – including local residents, fishers, tourism reps, Indigenous elders, scientists and company reps – that regularly meet to discuss operations and advise regulators. Their existence can be formalized in policy if not law. For Indigenous co-management, medium-term might see pilot programs: e.g. an Indigenous ranger group monitors cultural sites around farms, or a co-management agreement for a specific area where an Indigenous body has a say in farm conditions. These pilots can inform broader roll-out. This is moving beyond consultation to actual shared governance in specific cases, in preparation for more formal arrangements later. 

• Data-Driven Decision Tools: Invest in and deploy decision-support systems for regulators – essentially, integrate big data, modelling, and GIS tools so that licensing and monitoring become more high-tech. For example, a regulator might use a modelling tool (developed by CSIRO or similar) that in real-time predicts the environmental effect of increasing production in a zone, helping them decide on applications. Or a risk dashboard that flags if any farm’s indicators are trending towards a breach. This medium-term capacity building ensures that as data flows increase (from those transparency mandates and sensors), regulators can actually use it effectively. It may not need legislation, but government commitment of resources. 

• Alignment with International Certification and Markets: Encourage or require (perhaps through incentives or procurement policies) aquaculture operations to obtain international sustainability certifications like the Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC) label or Best Aquaculture Practices (BAP). If not outright required, government can facilitate this by aligning domestic standards with those schemes to reduce duplication. Certified sustainable farms will meet many ESG criteria by default, and it helps marketability overseas. Medium-term, Australia could brand itself as a source of “sustainably farmed seafood,” which has regulatory and trade support. 

Long-Term Reforms (5–10 years and beyond) 

Long-term reforms are more visionary and structural, potentially requiring new legislation or paradigms. They aim to future-proof aquaculture governance, integrate it fully into marine and climate planning, and embed ESG at the core: 

• Comprehensive Ocean Zoning (Marine Spatial Planning): Enact a more formal Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) framework for Australian waters, ideally via a national Oceans Act or updated offshore legislation, in cooperation with states. This would involve mapping out all uses of marine space (fishing, aquaculture, conservation, energy, shipping, recreation) and planning zones in an integrated way. For aquaculture, MSP would provide designated zones where farming is preferred/suitable and other zones where it is excluded or limited. This approach minimizes conflicts and environmental surprises because it looks holistically at ecosystems. For example, certain offshore areas may be zoned for future aquaculture parks, with environmental buffers and corridors considered, rather than ad hoc site approvals. The MSP process heavily involves stakeholders and uses scientific habitat mapping, aligning with good governance and environmental precaution. Over a 5–10-year horizon, Australia can move toward this, learning from countries like Norway and Scotland that use spatial plans for aquaculture siting. Legislation may be needed to formalize MSP outcomes (e.g. adjusting state marine farm planning acts to incorporate a requirement to follow the higher-level spatial plan). 

• Integration with Climate Policy and Adaptation: By 2030 and beyond, climate change will be even more pressing. Australia should integrate aquaculture into its Climate Adaptation Strategies. This means two things: ensuring the aquaculture sector is resilient to climate impacts, and harnessing aquaculture to support adaptation/mitigation. Long-term policies could include: 

• Incentives or requirements for low-carbon aquaculture (e.g. using renewable energy, reducing reliance on fishmeal which has a carbon cost, exploring carbon sequestration via seaweed). 

• Including aquaculture stakeholders in climate scenario planning for coastal communities – for instance, if sea level rise affects coastal farms or extreme events become more frequent, how will farms be built to withstand or where might they relocate? 

• Supporting research into climate-tolerant species or strains (like salmon that can handle slightly higher water temperatures or shifting to species like kingfish in areas too warm for salmon). 

• Using aquaculture in nature-based solutions: large-scale seaweed or shellfish reefs can improve water quality and protect shorelines, doubling as commercial ventures. 

Policy coherence between departments of fisheries and climate/environment will be necessary, perhaps via joint strategies or new provisions in acts that require considering climate risks in farm licensing. 

• Indigenous Co-management and Economic Empowerment: In a long-term view of reconciliation and inclusivity, one can foresee formal co-management arrangements where Indigenous custodians have recognized authority and management roles over aquaculture in their traditional waters. This could be achieved via agreements under existing laws or perhaps new co-management legislation in fisheries/aquaculture (somewhat analogous to joint management of national parks, which exists in land context). For example, an area could be declared an Indigenous Protected Sea Country with certain zones for community-run aquaculture under joint oversight. Additionally, by this time, hopefully many more Indigenous-owned aquaculture enterprises will exist, supported by government training and possibly preferential licensing or funding schemes. These measures address the “S” and “G” of ESG by embedding social equity and shared governance. They align with international movements (like UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples – UNDRIP) calling for greater control by Indigenous peoples over activities on their lands and waters. 

• National Aquaculture Act or Unified Legislative Framework (if needed): As a possible long-term outcome, Australia could consider enacting a National Aquaculture Act – especially relevant if offshore aquaculture becomes significant. Such an act might operate in a cooperative federal manner (each state applying the national act or template). It could consolidate principles of environmental protection, outline rights and responsibilities of operators, and provide a uniform licensing scheme in certain waters. This idea has pros and cons: it could greatly simplify things and ensure uniform high standards, but it would require states to cede some control or agree on very detailed harmonization, which is politically challenging. An alternative is to amend the EPBC Act or another existing federal law to serve a similar function (for instance, an EPBC Act strategic approval process for aquaculture that effectively sets national conditions). In any case, if by 5-10 years the incremental reforms haven’t yielded enough consistency, a bigger legislative overhaul might be revisited. 

• Continuous Improvement Mechanisms: Finally, embed the idea that aquaculture governance is not a “set and forget” – it needs adaptive management. Long-term, one could formalize periodic independent reviews of aquaculture regulation (say every 5 years) perhaps by the Productivity Commission or a scientific panel, to assess performance against ESG outcomes and recommend tweaks. This creates a feedback loop ensuring the regime evolves with new knowledge and challenges (like new diseases, technologies, market trends). 

These long-term reforms will cement Australia’s approach as forward-thinking and robust. They also signal internationally that Australia is serious about meeting global expectations – from UNCLOS’s mandate for environmental protection to trade partners’ sustainability criteria. 

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS): As a party to UNCLOS, Australia has binding obligations regarding ocean use. Two principles are especially relevant: 

• States have “the sovereign right to exploit their natural resources” in their EEZ (which includes fish farming), but this is coupled with the duty to “protect and preserve the marine environment”. This encapsulates the balance between use and protection – essentially the ethos of ESG on a broad scale. In practical terms, it means Australia must ensure its aquaculture activities do not cause pollution or damage that spills over to other nations or the high seas. If, for instance, aquaculture pollution was to affect migratory species or shared waters, UNCLOS obligations would kick in. Our domestic laws like the EPBC Act, which implements many international environmental duties, and state laws must therefore enforce adequate environmental controls. The recent move to weaken federal oversight for salmon farming in World Heritage waters could be seen as at odds with the spirit of UNCLOS, which expects due diligence in protecting those globally significant areas. Additionally, Part XII of UNCLOS requires states to assess the potential effects of activities that may cause substantial pollution of or harm to the marine environment (Article 206) – this underpins why we do EIAs for big aquaculture projects. 

• UNCLOS also calls for cooperation in conservation of marine living resources (Articles 61, 62 for EEZ living resources management). Although these articles were written with capture fisheries in mind, by extension aquaculture should not undermine wild stocks (for example, ensuring that farming operations don’t lead to spread of disease that decimates wild fish, or don’t involve unsustainable capture of wild juveniles as seed). Australian regulations on translocation of species, disease control, and limited reliance on wild broodstock all help comply with this norm. 

By aligning national laws with UNCLOS principles, Australia not only adheres to international law but also provides a stable framework for any transboundary issues. One scenario could be if offshore aquaculture near a maritime boundary (say northern Australia near PNG/Indonesia waters) had impacts or if there was a need to share information. UNCLOS provides the legal backdrop for such cooperation. 

FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (1995) & Related Guidelines: This FAO Code, while voluntary, is globally recognized as setting out principles for sustainable fisheries and aquaculture. Article 9 of the Code deals with Aquaculture Development and urges states to ensure aquaculture is environmentally sustainable, socially responsible, and integrated with coastal management. We quoted one of its key principles: “As a primary goal, aquaculture development should conserve genetic diversity and minimize negative effects of farmed fish on wild fish populations, while increasing supplies of fish for human consumption.”. Australia has expressed commitment to this Code in international forums and in its national strategy documents. 

To operationalize the Code: 

• Our laws should emphasize conservation of genetic diversity – meaning preventing farmed escapees from interbreeding or competing with wild stocks. In practice, some jurisdictions require that farmed stock be of a specific genetic origin or even all-female triploid (sterile) in certain cases to avoid breeding if escaped. This could be strengthened if needed. 

• The Code also encourages appropriate siting to avoid significant ecological disruption, and effluent treatment to minimize pollution. Ensuring our reforms about waste limits and zoning follow these is implementing the Code. 

• Social responsibility is also highlighted – making sure aquaculture doesn’t adversely affect livelihoods of local communities or access to resources. For example, if a new farm would displace small-scale fishers, there should be a process to address that (through consultation or compensation). Australian processes are not explicit on this, so incorporating that consideration is in line with FAO guidance. 

• The FAO has technical guidelines for aquaculture certification and an ecosystem approach to aquaculture (EAA). Australia can take cues from these to refine its management. The idea of an ecosystem approach – managing aquaculture within the context of the wider ecosystem and cumulative impacts – resonates with what we’ve outlined (especially marine spatial planning and carrying capacity assessments). 

By heeding the FAO Code, Australia also makes its products more acceptable in markets where consumers care about sustainability. Many eco-certifications (ASC, etc.) derive criteria from the FAO’s guidelines. 

World Trade Organization (WTO) and Trade Standards: Aquaculture intersects with trade in a few ways: 

• Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Measures: Farmed seafood must meet stringent health standards for export (e.g. free of certain antibiotics, disease-free). Australian legislation (Export Control Act and food safety regs) ensures this, which is consistent with WTO’s SPS Agreement that allows countries to set science-based food safety standards. One could say maintaining environmental health in farms (avoiding disease outbreaks, etc.) also underpins our ability to meet SPS standards. For example, if antibiotics are overused because of poor farming practices, residues might be found, risking trade rejection. So, good farming (ESG) and trade go hand in hand. 

• Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT): If Australia or trading partners impose labelling or sustainability requirements, they must comply with WTO TBT rules (non-discrimination, etc.). The trend is that import markets (like the EU) are considering carbon footprint or sustainability of products. If Australian aquaculture is ahead on ESG, it can turn this into a competitive advantage rather than a barrier. Conversely, falling behind could see our products face non-tariff barriers (for instance, the EU could someday require proof that imported farmed fish didn’t harm biodiversity). 

• Fisheries Subsidies Agreement (WTO 2022): While this WTO agreement tackles wild fishery subsidies (like those leading to overfishing), its existence signals global intent to remove harmful subsidies. In aquaculture context, any government support should thus be “green” (supporting sustainability). Australia’s current support tends to be in research grants or marketing, which are generally allowed. But if in the future we consider subsidies (like insurance or price support for aquaculture), we’d need to ensure they don’t encourage unsustainable expansion (to comply with the spirit of WTO agreements and avoid disputes). 

• Trade and Environmental Agreements: There is also increasing inclusion of environmental chapters in trade agreements (Australia-EU FTA negotiations touched on sustainable food systems, for example). Being a leader in sustainable aquaculture could open doors to branding our seafood with premium status under such agreements. If not, we might be pressured by partners to improve anyway. 

Finally, being a responsible player internationally means reporting and cooperation. Australia regularly reports aquaculture data and practices to FAO, participates in regional forums (like the Asia-Pacific Fisheries Commission), and supports the Blue Economy global agenda. Our legislation should continue to adapt to any emerging global norms – for instance, if the global community sets targets for sustainable aquaculture or ocean protection, our domestic policies should reflect those. 

In summary, aligning with international law and standards is not only a legal duty but a practical necessity. It ensures our aquaculture industry can thrive in global markets, and that Australia is seen as a country upholding its marine stewardship responsibilities.  

Conclusion 

Australia stands at a pivotal moment in the development of its aquaculture industry. The choices made now in legislative and policy reform will determine whether aquaculture emerges as a truly sustainable blue growth success – one that nourishes both people and the environment – or whether it remains mired in controversy and ecological compromises. This position paper has evaluated the current national and state frameworks, revealing a mix of strengths (commitment to ESD principles, robust national environmental laws) and weaknesses (fragmentation, inconsistent standards, and shortfalls in environmental and social safeguards). We have highlighted how these issues manifest, notably through the lens of Tasmania’s salmon industry, and put forward a comprehensive set of recommendations grounded in ESG principles. 

Persuasive arguments for change rest on a simple truth: sustainability and prosperity can and must go hand in hand. In aquaculture, environmental health underpins industry productivity (fish cannot thrive in degraded waters), social license underpins market access and expansion (projects will stall if communities and consumers reject them), and strong governance underpins investor confidence (clear, fair rules attract long-term investment). In essence, aligning aquaculture with ESG principles is not a luxury or external imposition – it is in the enlightened self-interest of the industry and government. 

From the executive summary through to the detailed recommendations, a few key themes resurface: 

• Integration and Coherence: We need to move from siloed, ad hoc management to a harmonized, ecosystem-based approach. Integration across agencies, across jurisdictions, and across policy domains (environment, industry, Indigenous affairs, etc.) is critical. This could mean something as ambitious as a National Oceans Act or as practical as regular joint enforcement operations – likely both. 

• Prevention and Precaution: The old mindset of reacting to problems (fish kills, pollution complaints) must give way to a preventive mindset. Set the standards high upfront (e.g., rigorous site selection, enforceable limits) so that crises are far less likely. Use the precautionary principle when scientific uncertainty exists – err on the side of caution with new intensive farms in sensitive areas. It’s easier to relax a precaution later if proven safe than to pick up the pieces after damage. 

• Transparency and Trust: Time and again, the lack of transparency has been a corrosive element. By opening up data and decision-making, regulators can rebuild trust. When communities see that their concerns are heard and that industry impacts are honestly monitored and reported, the conversation shifts from suspicion to problem-solving. We recommend mechanisms to institutionalize this transparency, which in turn will support a more collaborative relationship between industry and stakeholders. 

• Equity and Inclusion: A sustainable industry must also be an equitable one. That means ensuring Indigenous peoples have a seat at the table and a stake in the benefits. It means small operators and local communities can partake in the aquaculture boom, not be sidelined by corporate giants. It means addressing the social dimensions (like job quality and community well-being) alongside environmental metrics. Our long-term vision included Indigenous co-management, which could be transformative in healing past exclusions and tapping into traditional knowledge of sea country management. 

• Global Leadership: Australia can leverage its strong institutions and marine science expertise to be a world leader in responsible aquaculture. By implementing the reforms outlined – many of which go beyond minimum compliance and towards best practice – we position Australian seafood as a premium, sustainable choice internationally. This not only helps industry value but fulfills our international obligations and reputation. Rather than waiting for external pressure or crises to force changes, Australia should proactively set the benchmark, showcasing how a country with high environmental values can successfully scale up aquaculture. This could influence others in our region to follow suit, amplifying the positive impact globally. 

In closing, the expansion of aquaculture is often described as a necessity to feed a growing population and relieve pressure on wild fisheries. That is a valid narrative, but it must be coupled with the narrative of doing it right. As custodians of one of the largest maritime jurisdictions on Earth, Australians have a duty – to us, our First Peoples, our precious marine life, and future generations – to ensure that our aquaculture industries grow on foundations of sustainability, fairness, and good governance. The legislative reforms and policy shifts recommended in this paper chart a path to that outcome. They are ambitious but achievable with political will and stakeholder collaboration. 

Government organizations, lobbyists, and peak bodies reading this paper are urged to take up these recommendations and champion them within their spheres of influence. Some actions can begin immediately (improving transparency, enforcing current rules strictly), sending a signal that the course is being corrected. Others, like establishing national standards or marine spatial plans, will require cooperative effort and should be initiated now to bear fruit in coming years. The Tasmanian salmon case taught hard lessons – let those lessons drive improvements nationwide so that history is not repeated elsewhere. 

Ultimately, success will be measured when Australia’s aquaculture is both booming in output and universally recognized for its sustainability and responsibility. A future where headlines about our aquaculture are positive – innovation, clean production, community partnerships – instead of environmental court cases or protest rallies. With the longest contiguous coastline in the world’s southern hemisphere and rich maritime heritage, Australia can and should set the gold standard for aquaculture. The time to act is now, and the blueprint is before us. 

Sources: 

• Australian Parliament House Committee Report on Aquaculture (2022) – data on industry value and regulatory arrangements. 

• Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 – objectives and role in aquaculture oversight. 

• Environmental Defenders Office (EDO) analysis “Why salmon farming needs new rules” – Tasmanian case study, environmental impacts and regulatory critique. 

• ABC News report “Laws to guarantee salmon farming in Macquarie Harbour…” – federal legislative changes in 2025 and reactions. 

• FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (1995) – Article 9 aquaculture principle. 

• UNCLOS Part XII – obligation to protect marine environment and sovereign resource rights. 

• Tasmanian Government, Salmon Industry Plan 2023 – vision statement and policy direction. 

• National Aquaculture Strategy (2017) – identified priorities for regulatory efficiency and environmental performance. 

• Stakeholder inputs on aquaculture (DAWE consultation) – issues like Indigenous role and regulatory problems. 

• Additional academic and media sources on aquaculture sustainability and social license (as referenced in text).