Meeting of the Parliament 20 March 2025 [Draft]
Absolutely. We recognise that the industry has gone some way in innovating and looking at how it can tackle some of the challenges. Of most concern to the committee was whether the rate at which climate change challenges are being addressed is effective.
During our visit, we learned that fish farms already collect a lot of data for onsite audits and management purposes. The cabinet secretary’s position on mandatory reporting is even more concerning, given what I have said about the need to improve regulatory oversight of farms when it comes to mortality. We do not believe that reporting would be an additional burden, given that much of that data is already being collected.
However, the cabinet secretary has not completely rejected our proposals for new enforcement powers but has said that further analytical work is required before she can come to a view on that. I hope that, in her contribution to the debate, she will elaborate on precisely what that work will entail and when it will be completed.
The committee was also concerned to hear that specific welfare standards for farmed fish are set voluntarily rather than required by regulation. The committee feels that it is time, and that it would be good for the industry, which often goes above and beyond statutory requirements in other areas, for the statutory regime to keep pace with knowledge about what constitutes good fish welfare.
That was communicated to the committee in great detail in the evidence that was provided to us by the likes of Professor Lynne Sneddon and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. For that reason, the committee recommends that the Scottish Government introduces new regulations to set specific baseline standards for farmed fish. Those standards exist for most other farmed animals, so why not for farmed fish? The cabinet secretary said that that recommendation would require further analysis and that she would update us on what she intends to do in September. Again, I hope that, in her remarks today, she will say more about exactly what that analysis will look like.
The committee was also pleased to see that the industry is making improvements with regard to reducing sea lice. That progress has, in part, been made by tightening the enforcement thresholds and by the introduction of mandatory reporting of sea lice counts. That is to be welcomed, but it makes me question even more why the cabinet secretary seems so reluctant to take a similar approach to tackling fish mortality.
The committee also took evidence from the Scottish Environment Protection Agency on the changes that have been made since 2018 to the regulatory framework for controlling the amount of waste that is discharged from fish farms. We are supportive of the revised regulatory framework and of the additional monitoring of the sea bed that it requires, but significant gaps in knowledge and understanding about the environmental footprint of salmon farming, which were identified back in 2018, remain, largely due to the lack of scientific evidence.
To address those gaps, the committee feels that there is a case for the Scottish Government to establish research pens to develop scientific evidence about the environmental impacts of salmon farming and how those can be reduced. The cabinet secretary seems to agree with that in principle and said that the Scottish Government would take forward further discussions on that.
The interactions between farmed and wild salmon are another area on which the committee felt that minimal progress has been made since 2018. Shortly after the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee inquiry, the Scottish Government commissioned a working group to review its policies on the issue. However, the former chair of the group told the committee that the Scottish Government had implemented only one of the group’s 42 recommendations. The committee is disappointed by that and has said that a clear timetable for delivering those recommendations is urgently needed. In response to the committee’s report, the Scottish Government has now provided more information on the status of each recommendation, but that seems to be more of an update on progress, with minimal detail on the timescales for the recommendations to be delivered.
The committee noted that the industry felt the most frustration about the difficulty of navigating the consenting and planning process for the siting of new salmon farms. In 2018, the REC Committee called for immediate dialogue between the Scottish Government and the industry to develop a mechanism to allow farms to relocate to sites that are more likely to promote good fish welfare and allow for the mitigation of environmental impacts. It is disappointing that there is no evidence that those discussions have taken place, and the committee recommends that that is now progressed as a matter of urgency, alongside a detailed analysis and assessment of the potential risks that that could have for fish health and welfare and of the economic and social impacts on fish farm staff and communities.
Time is short and I have managed to cover only a fraction of the report, but I will conclude by saying this: in light of the lack of progress in certain areas over the past seven years, the committee seriously considered recommending a moratorium or pause on new salmon farms or on the expansion of existing farms. However, the committee agreed to give the Scottish Government one year to implement our recommendations and for that work stream to have dedicated ministerial oversight to ensure delivery.