Transport and the Environment Committee, 12 Dec 2001

Meeting date: Wednesday, December 12, 2001

Official Report 220KB pdf

---

Aquaculture Inquiry

I welcome the press and public back to the meeting. The main item of business is further evidence taking on the committee's inquiry into aquaculture. I also welcome our three witnesses—Dr Kenneth Black, Professor Randolph Richards and Dr Dick Shelton.

Before we start, I will say a few words about the proposed appointment of a research co-ordinator for the committee and the Executive on this matter. Reporters from the committee are discussing proposals with officials from the Scottish Executive. We hope, by next week, to have put more flesh on the bones of the proposal that the committee discussed. We hope to hear from the reporters next week on their recommendations on how we should proceed.

We will now move to questions to our three witnesses. We will go through several specific issues on aquaculture. When the questions are asked, could the witnesses indicate who wants to answer first? You may all want to comment on the same issue. We will try to ensure that supplementaries are related to the initial questions.

On our travels, the committee's reporters—Maureen Macmillan, Bristow Muldoon and I—have picked up an almost unanimous view that an assessment of the carrying capacity of Scottish coastal waters is needed. What work needs to be undertaken to assess carrying capacity?

A lot of research has been done over the years in the name of contributing to carrying capacity estimations. Internationally, a lot of effort has been made. In Scotland, there are estimates of carrying capacity in both benthic effects and sea loch level effects. Fairly simple modelling approaches have been taken. We need more of those. We must consider them loch by loch and region by region. We also need more definitions about the aspects that limit carrying capacity. One could argue that the best use of funds would be to focus on the issues that are likely to limit capacity. Sea lice should be included, as well as aspects such as nutrients.

The current estimation of carrying capacity is carried out quite well by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency through the impact assessments that are done as part of the licensing process and the continuing ability to hold fish in stocked areas. The factors other than fish farming that contribute to the relative carrying capacity of loch systems should also be considered to find out whether the total effects can properly be estimated. That is probably not being done yet.

If we are to include sea lice in the carrying capacity calculation, I can say confidently that the carrying capacity of Scottish coastal waters is already substantially exceeded. I have prepared a background paper for the committee, which I hope members have received.

Sea trout populations in the north-west of Scotland have collapsed—a situation that is unique to that part of Scotland. Sea trout spend the entire summer in inshore waters where they are exposed constantly to high levels of young sea lice. That exposure has caused the collapse in the sea trout population. Given the collapse of many of the wild fish populations, the staple diet for young sea lice now has to be caged salmon. As a matter of urgency, the salmon industry needs to be regulated and inspected. As I said, I have given the committee a full background paper on the subject.

Sea lice are the biggest threat to wild salmonid fish in north-west Scotland. In some of the more fiordic systems, salmon are also affected. In contrast to sea trout, which hang about in the inshore waters, young salmon go to sea rapidly. Sea louse larvae treat long fiordic systems such as Loch Fyne and Loch Linnhe as bomber alleys. I would like a moratorium on the expansion of salmon farming in Scottish coastal waters until the problem has been resolved properly. The carrying capacity is exceeded substantially.

In the absence of scientific certainty about carrying capacity, what steps should the Executive take to manage the environmental risks of fish farming? Should there be a moratorium on the issuing of new consents for large-scale salmon farming?

To expand salmon farming in certain areas would produce greater risks. A moratorium would have to be carried out on a site-by-site basis. However, the salmon farming industry is important to Scotland. A blanket moratorium, which may be based on insecure facts, would not help the industry to develop.

We are at the early stage of the development of fish farming in other species of marine fin fish. It is likely that that development into other fin fish, including cod, will depend in the first instance on the ability to try out cod farming in association with salmon farms. Such associated development would help to determine what factors are important to the development of other fin fish species. The future of fish farming in Scotland may depend on the substitution of new species for salmon. A moratorium at this time on new species farming would be detrimental to Scotland.

I agree with Professor Richards's last statement. However, we need to get salmon farming out of the most sensitive locations and a moratorium might not be conducive to that. We need to find good offshore sites that have fewer sea lice problems. We need to take farms away from the heads of sea lochs and other places where there are known problems and where the farms have difficulty in controlling sea lice.

Two members want to ask supplementary questions. I will return to Robin Harper in a moment.

We heard evidence from Scottish Natural Heritage that the definition of carrying capacity should be broadened to include shoreline development and visual impact. Do you agree with that? Do we need to broaden the definition of carrying capacity to encompass aesthetic as well as scientific aspects?

I am not an expert on the visual aspects of carrying capacity—neither is anyone else. When people start to talk about such issues, they mean integrated coastal zone management. That would ensure that all users have an equitable stake in the environment. It would include coastline developments and, potentially, tourist developments—we have to consider more than just carrying capacity. There may be people who can make judgments on carrying capacity and scenic amenity, but I have not yet seen a robust approach to those issues.

I agree with those comments. A great start has been made in involving a number of different users of the coastal areas—the tripartite working group has been set up and area management agreements are being developed. It may be sensible to expand those arrangements to include other interested parties.

Dr Shelton, do you wish to comment?

Not really—coastal amenity is not my area of expertise.

There seem to be slightly conflicting views on moratoriums. Robin Harper referred to scientific uncertainty. On what kind of evidence could there be either a wholesale moratorium or localised moratoriums?

We have to be clear about what scientific uncertainty we are talking about. On sea lice, there is limited scientific uncertainty, in my view; Dick Shelton explained that well. On nutrients, there is more scientific uncertainty. Which issue are you referring to, because the issues are different?

What evidential basis would support local moratoriums or a national moratorium, in either circumstance? I am not clear which circumstance you were talking about.

The evidential basis for the need to be precautionary is the collapse of populations in the affected area. On the north coast of Scotland or west of the outer Hebrides, salmon farming goes on with very little effect, as far as we can see, on sea trout or wild salmon. In Orkney and Shetland, there are problems. However, on the mainland coast, to the north, west and south-west of the farmed area, the wild salmonid fisheries are functioning perfectly normally.

Having seen the problems, we have to be careful about the way in which the industry spreads. In particular, we do not want it to spread to new areas in the east of Scotland, which has some of the most valuable salmonid fisheries. I will give members a case in point: the proposal to put a smolt-rearing operation on the River Ettrick. The River Ettrick system is the driving force for the remaining spring salmon population in the Tweed. The introduction of such an operation would be absolute lunacy, given the worries about the impact of the two industries on each other, but I do not know how it can be prevented.

Under the precautionary principle, until there is better regulation and inspection, we have to be very cautious about allowing the industry to get bigger and spread further. My view is that the future of the industry lies not in expansion and chasing the world salmon price; my view is like that of Dr Michael Foxley, who would say, "Let's go for the quality end of the market, let's do so in the right places, and let's not try to chase the world salmon price because we can always be beaten by countries such as Chile. Let's do what we are best at—producing high-quality farmed salmon at lower stocking densities."

The decline in sea trout and salmon stocks has been going on for a considerable time. It certainly predates the beginning of salmon farming in Scotland. Although in some areas sea lice may be a contributing factor to that decline, they are hardly the main cause. It is important to acknowledge that.

However, the industry is determined to bring sea lice under control and is doing so reasonably well in many areas. We have a range of medicinal compounds to treat sea lice. Much of the urgency is focused on ensuring that those products are available and can be used effectively in the fish farming areas. In that way, the risk from sea lice will be dramatically reduced for the industry and for wild fish operations. Perhaps the ability to use such treatment compounds effectively should be taken into account in the siting of fish farm operations.

I want to say a little bit about the wider problem of the decline in the abundance of salmon and sea trout. This circumpolar problem also affects Pacific salmonids and is associated with changes in the growth and survival opportunities provided by marine climate, which is currently not particularly conducive to high survival rates of subarctic fish. As a result, the return rates of fish are about a third to a half of what they were in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

The problems in north-west Scotland are of an entirely different character. They are major and quite unprecedented changes in the abundance and structure of the stocks and are unrelated to the wider problem, which is driven by changes in world climate.

I ask Adam Ingram to make his question brief, as I want to make progress.

I wanted to follow on from Robin Harper's question about moratoriums. I take on board Professor Richards's point about improving the hygiene of the fish farms to ensure that the natural balance is not disturbed. However, given the delicate balance in the north-west of Scotland, does it not make more sense to establish an exclusion zone for fish farms in such areas and perhaps to relocate the farms outwith those areas? How feasible would that be?

We are actively following up the possibility of relocation. Fish farming has modified the sites that it uses to farm fish. We should also realise that, after major investigations and discussions about the effects of infectious salmon anaemia, there is a greater understanding of the need to fallow sites to maintain single-year classes. However, such an approach requires more sites, not necessarily with increased production. Although the siting of those operations should be made on a case-by-case basis, there is a requirement constantly to modify the areas where fish are being farmed.

What are the key factors in determining carrying capacity? Might they include the physical geography of the coastal area, the farming practices that are used—or some combination of the two—or the incidence of latent carriers of disease that might be present? Can we draw any useful international comparisons with Norway or other countries with a similar physical geography that would allow us to find out how different factors could be manipulated to influence carrying capacity?

The current system tends to encourage sites with better water exchange. We have traditionally moved away from inland sites with good protection against wind and wave action—which might lead to the build-up of solid waste—to more open areas. The same approach applies to the use of medicaments, as their build-up or otherwise is an important factor in the allowable amount of material that can be used. That factor is taken into account in the licences to discharge that SEPA issues; it is constantly monitored and can be modified if the modelling suggests that the level is not correct. As a result, the current system prevents the development of major problems such as the build-up of waste and the possible effects of treatment products. Our system is probably more advanced than that in most other areas where fish farming takes place. We are already very regulated and controlled and the industry is developing its own systems of environmental management to take account of the issue.

I would like farmers to have more incentives to take advantage of developments in technology for cages in locations that are further offshore and more exposed. Some new technologies are coming along and the regulations need to create incentives for farmers to expand into less sensitive areas and to move out of the more sensitive areas.

Sorry for the extensive delay, Robin.

Before I ask my third question, I have some quick supplementaries to sum things up on that section. SEPA supported Professor Richards's view that there is a case for localised moratoriums. Do the three witnesses agree that the argument is between Dick Shelton's view of loch moratoriums and localised moratoriums, not between no moratoriums and localised moratoriums?

Having a moratorium on new development will not solve the problems in places where there are existing sites. The issue is more about relocation than about moratoria.

The issue is about evaluation of cutting the capacity of those areas. An assessment might suggest that, rather than a moratorium, there should be no expansion of farming or a reduction in farming in certain areas. That might extend to a whole loch system, but it is just another example of local evaluation of the risks and opportunities in those areas.

I will let Dr Shelton carry on, Robin, but Maureen Macmillan would like to ask a supplementary before you get to your final question.

There is a wider issue where the scientific uncertainty is greatest—the problem of algal blooms in open waters in the Minch. Conventional wisdom and all the modelling that has been done suggest that the algal blooms are unrelated to the large quantities of nutrients that arise from the rearing of salmon in cages. Allan Berry's view is that perhaps there is a link. We do not know for certain whether he is right or wrong. If there is any possibility that he is right, that would be another reason to hold on for a minute; we should find out whether he is right before we allow a large industry, which already pours enormous quantities of nutrients into confined waters, to get bigger.

I am not an expert on the generation of algal blooms, but I know that it is a complex area that is full of uncertainty. Over a 30-year scientific career as an environmental and fisheries scientist, I have never before come across a situation in which scallop fishing had to be banned over 10,000 square miles of sea. We need to be cautious—we are not necessarily just dealing with problems in the lochs. I am perhaps being alarmist in saying such things. However, we need to be sure and that will require high-calibre work.

When I discussed relocation of fish farms with senior executives in the industry, they said that moving fish farms offshore creates the problem of stress on the fish, because of the pounding of the seas. What is your response to that?

There is a risk of that happening, but I believe—although far more would probably disagree—that there are plenty of good, relatively sheltered offshore sites. There are ways round the problem. We do not want to put the farms in a situation where the fish will not grow and thrive, but there are places of high dispersion that are nonetheless relatively sheltered. We have an absolutely marvellous coastline for that sort of thing.

I agree with that. Lots of opportunities exist—we do not have to go out into full open sea, where the fish can be pounded and suffer major mortality rates.

Although algal blooms appear to be more common around the Scottish coast, many scientists who work specifically on such matters have evaluated that, for example, the contribution from fish farming to the total nutrient loading in the Minch is very small compared to that from the run-off from agricultural land. I cannot remember the exact figure, but it is of the order of 15 per cent. Therefore, although fish farming contributes to nutrient build-up, it does so to a lesser extent than agriculture.

It is recognised that many of our algal bloom problems originate far out at sea and drift inshore. The direct comparison of salmon farming effects and non-effects was probably best evaluated by the Irish, who have been monitoring such things more carefully and for longer. The Irish have found no evidence of a link between fish farming and the development of algal blooms.

In a sense, you have already begun to answer my last question. If you are operating a rope, you do not operate it at breaking strain—if it has a breaking point of a ton, you use a daily load of only a couple of hundredweight. Is there any possibility that we can move to a reasonably transparent assessment of carrying capacity in order to have a reduced load precautionary assessment of fish farming releases into the environment? Is it necessary to take a more holistic approach to the monitoring and control of coastal enrichment rather than treating aquaculture in isolation? Is the regulatory framework appropriate and adequate for a holistic approach that must, by its nature, deal with diffuse pollution?

I am not an expert on regulatory frameworks, so I would rather address the first part of your question. Someone having a hypothesis that there is a strong link between one thing and another—it might be a justifiable hypothesis—is not a justification for stopping an activity. One could produce hundreds of hypotheses. We could not stop everything we do simply because we have ideas about it. It is reasonable to find a position where we know, given the current practices, what is Scotland's current capacity for salmon production. That is a reasonable and achievable objective.

The Scottish Executive is funding some modelling work on fish farming nutrients. That study will be complete next year and its results will be very interesting. The study will give us a good idea of the impact of fish farming and its nutrient inputs. We need to concentrate on the carrying capacity. We could be miles from it and we could be above it. I do not think that we are above capacity and I do not think that we can stop the industry in its tracks for a long period while people argue it out. We need to take it on board quickly. To some extent, that has already happened.

I agree. I would also point out that most of the models in use have large built-in safety factors, to allow for uncertainty. That is backed up by measurements that determine that the models are safe.

I want to address the international dimension. Are we similar to other countries, such as Chile and Canada, in relation to our carrying capacity?

I am not sure what the regimes are in those countries, so I speak from a position of some ignorance. The controls in those countries are probably rather fewer than those applied here. Fish farming in Chile is rapidly increasing in scale. I do not know what environmental assessment is carried out there, but I do not believe it to be as strict as that in the UK.

I am sure that that is correct. I know a little about the carrying capacity for sea lice. In Norway, the issue of lice from farms is treated more seriously than that of medicines. The Norwegians purposefully err on the side of caution in respect of lice, whereas we have gone the other way, by erring on the side of caution in respect of chemical use.

I can add a few points about Canada. Cage rearing of salmon takes place on a large scale in the Bay of Fundy. There are two main sorts of salmon population there. One group migrates to the open ocean—to the wide Atlantic—much as our salmon do. There are other salmon populations—bearing in mind the fact that sea trout do not occur naturally in Canada—that behave in a sea-trout-like way and spend their whole lives close inshore. There is a group of populations of that kind in the Bay of Fundy that have almost collapsed. That is new, and it correlates strongly—we do not know the cause for certain—with the advent of relatively large-scale salmon farming in the Bay of Fundy. That is another carrying capacity issue. It is part of the whole world story.

We will try to make progress now. I am conscious that I have been quite liberal in allowing a range of supplementary questions. We should move on to the next area that we wish to examine, which Professor Richards touched on in one of his earlier answers. I invite Angus MacKay to ask his questions on new species and polyculture.

I have three questions, the first of which has a number of parts. Ministers have decided to take a more pragmatic approach to multi-species farming. What are the implications of that decision? Should polyculture be encouraged at all? What risks are there, if any, with multi-species farming? For example, one risk could be the proximity of sites.

When new species are developed, it is unlikely that massive farms will be set up soon after the young stages are produced in numbers. It is likely that to gain experience in the production of those animals, a cage in a complex will be given over to the development of the new species. As the young stages come on stream and are produced in numbers, it is unlikely that there will be polyculture; rather, there will be individual cage farms for each species. However, there will have to be a transitory phase in which polyculture takes place.

Work to evaluate the risk of the transfer of disease agents from salmon to new species and from new species to salmon is going on. That is an important part of the science that underlies the issue. A new condition may appear in time. We know, for example, that cod and salmon suffer disease from common agents; that will always be the case. The risk from new species will be monitored carefully, because people will be on a learning curve. Monitoring will principally and initially be carried out by salmon farmers who switch part of their production to new species. That makes sense in terms of the development of the industry.

The polyculture of new fish species with or close to existing species is one thing, but integrated polyculture, where a variety of different trophic levels exist in the same area, and where each feeds off the waste products of the other, has been practised in the world for many centuries, particularly in south-east Asia. Lots of experiments have been done in the Bay of Fundy, the Baltic and Scotland to see whether we can put species together so that one mitigates the impact of another. That is particularly appropriate for shellfish, and perhaps also for seaweed culture.

At present, regulation is oriented towards salmon. Perhaps that has contributed to what I call the segmentation of the industry. The way forward is not to have a salmon industry but to have an aquaculture industry, where farmers are encouraged to farm a variety of species, and not just different fin fish species, but different shellfish and perhaps seaweed species. That will have positive environmental benefits and probably economic benefits, because one of the problems that shellfish farmers have had is a lack of infrastructure, whereas salmon farmers have good established infrastructure and marketing organisations. I feel that putting them together more and more is a good way forward. One or two of the smaller, more Scotland-based companies are beginning to do that.

All I would add is, as Randolph Richards said, that we need to be especially vigilant at this time. We do not want to rush bald-headed into things and make the same mistakes with other species as have already been made with salmon farming. We must remain vigilant.

A point in favour of bivalve culture is that it really is farming: it uses the production of the sea rather than uses it simply as a source of salt water to keep fish in. Bivalves live on phytoplankton, which is greatly in their favour.

My next question was going to be about the scientific risks involved in the farming of new species and how those problems could be addressed, but Dr Shelton and Professor Richards have already touched on that in flagging up the fact that we need to think about what may lie ahead in future. You may want to say a little more about that.

I would also like to pick up on what two, or perhaps all three, of you seemed to be saying about polyculture. Do you foresee any positive advantages in polyculture? Dr Black seemed to imply that there could be some positive advantages in a polycultural approach to the industry.

You mentioned the existing marketing infrastructure in the salmon industry. You seemed to be saying that there is potential to add considerable value to the existing industry by developing a wider range of products and tacking them on to the existing infrastructure for producing salmon. Is that what you were saying?

Yes, I think that that is right. The risks for new fin fish or shellfish species, or even for plant species, are fairly clear. There is a risk of transferred diseases and transferred genes. Those are big issues. As Dick Shelton said, the risks must be carefully assessed, particularly if non-indigenous species are to be moved around. There is lots of literature about the disasters of moving non-indigenous species around—intentionally, through aquaculture, or unintentionally, through such things as ballast water. The effects can be catastrophic and we would obviously want to study the literature and consider the risks. There is already plenty of regulation.

Regulations to prevent that are already in place. In France, the introduction of new species to the shellfish industry has introduced new diseases, which have had a severe effect on the existing industry. That is not to be recommended.

What are the regulations that militate against polyculture?

I was referring to the guidelines on separation distances. They are guidelines rather than regulations. They seem to imply that shellfish farming and salmon farming should not occur close together. In my view, there is no particular reason for that. From a scenic point of view, it might not be very attractive, but in terms of science there is not a great deal wrong with such polyculture. Perhaps there is a fear that diseases may be retained in cultivated shellfish populations as a residue that could be transmitted on to farmed fish again if they were on a different production cycle, which they probably would be. That may be one aspect of the concerns. However, we can get round such problems. I do not think that they are insurmountable. The current regulations try to separate species. I do not think that that is necessarily a good thing.

Are there examples of existing polyculture fish farms?

There are two companies that I know of that have both shellfish and farmed fish interests. There are probably several more that I do not know about. They tend to be the smaller operators.

Does polyculture make the modelling process that you referred to more difficult? From what you said about salmon farming, it appears that there is a balance of risks between those associated with parasites, those associated with the chemicals that deal with the parasites and those associated with nutrients. Those seem to be the three main sources of pollution. If you are dealing with a single fish species, it appears that you can map out a model based on that balance. If a polyculture in which the risks may be different species by species is being dealt with, does that make the process of modelling and planning more difficult?

That would probably not affect waste modelling, for example. The systems are similar. The differential usage of medicaments and risks from disease agents are taken into account. It would certainly be possible to model that easily into the system.

That is absolutely right. The more complex the model, the more interested the modellers will be.

We have already touched on my final question. Ministers have announced an intention to regulate on reporting escapes of farmed fish. How important is the prevention of escapes and the containment of escaped fish? Can more be done to minimise the risks to wild stock of escapes?

Containment of salmon and escaped salmon is crucial to the genetic integrity of wild stocks. However, there is a potential problem. One might want to ensure that farmers use the best available technology for containment and the best maintenance regimes. One might want them to move offshore, into a more hostile environment. They will be required to report losses. If farmers are penalised too heavily for reporting losses, there might not be such good reporting. That needs further work. There must be proper policing, but for much of the time we rely on the farmers to give us information.

A potential way around the problem is to tag. Salmon could be marked just like we mark sheep—that is becoming feasible, although I imagine that farmers would not like it because it is an additional cost. However, it is a possible way of policing the system.

Des McNulty has a question about locational guidelines, which we have already touched on.

If locational guidelines are introduced, they will be based on scientific evidence. How will we get the people running fish farms to buy into the scientific, evidential basis of locational guidelines? How can locational guidelines be revised to take account of advances in scientific knowledge since being published? Is there a role for locational guidelines in zoning issues—in creating exclusion zones, for example? Dr Shelton highlighted that as a possible route forward.

Absolutely. The scientific basis for locational guidelines should be transparent. I do not think that they are sufficiently transparent at present. Perhaps they could be on a web page that is continuously updated. The underlying rationale for their designation could be publicly available—I do not see any problem with that.

Locational guidelines are almost the first step towards a proper data system for integrated coastal zone management. We need more information on that, but technology is developing so quickly that we can envisage putting together useful geographic information system-type tools and the decision-making process can be embedded into the software to become transparent to everyone. Rules can be developed and applied. In principle, that was done 15 years ago, but it needs to be implemented—it would clarify and make public and transparent many issues that we have discussed today.

I associate myself totally with Dr Black's views.

I think that the industry would also support that. New planning guidelines are coming in and the industry wants to ensure that standard features are applied uniformly throughout the country—from council to council and so on. It makes sense for the industry to realise exactly what the guidelines are, to enable it to assess individual sites for fish farming.

I want to ask about a contingency that could arise. It will take time and money to move a salmon farm from one location to another. What if the evidence suddenly shifts? What if there is a new scientific breakthrough, or a new mode of analysis designates that there is excess capacity in one area and that there will be a move towards enforcement? How will we deal with the dialogue that will inevitably ensue between the scientific evidence and the real economic circumstances that fish farmers will have to face as a result of scientific breakthroughs or development?

That is part of the integrated management process. There will always be conflicts. The right way of resolving them is to have all the information on the table so that all users can access it and to do things in a fair and open way. How one relocates a farm is a political problem that I do not feel able to address.

The next issue that I would like to address is that of best practice in disease and parasite control. We touched on that when we discussed carrying capacity and gave considerable attention to sea lice. I ask members and witnesses to address themselves mainly to issues that we have not yet considered.

In the seminar that I chaired at the aquaculture conference last week there was an extremely lively discussion of what we should do with sea lice. The seminar included someone from an environmental group, a representative of a firm that makes a well-known brand of medicine for dealing with sea lice, representatives of wild fish interests and fish farmers. We discussed the way forward in controlling sea lice. What are your views on the issue? Should sea lice be controlled through management—for example, through synchronised fallowing—or through chemical intervention? Is there a way forward with biological controls such as sea wrasse? If you see a role for all three methods, how do you think they should be balanced?

We need to use all the methods of controlling sea lice to which the member referred. At the moment, a great deal is done through husbandry to reduce the impact of all sorts of diseases, including sea lice. Techniques such as fallowing are very important. A panel of different medicinal treatments is now available for dealing with sea lice. It is important that resistance to those chemicals does not build up in stocks. That is why integrated pest management is a way ahead. We need to modify the compounds that are used, to prevent repeated use creating resistance.

There is a requirement to treat entire loch systems to reduce dramatically the overall impact of sea lice. Whether that can be done depends on the availability of materials for use. SEPA should consider the overall risk of allowing slightly increased overall use of a particular product within a loch system instead of narrowly determining daily allowances for treatment on a site-by-site basis. I think that the overall benefit to be gained from treating all sites at the same time outweighs the possible risk from slightly increased usage at one site.

The other possibility is to use other forms of control. Considerable efforts are being made to produce a vaccine against sea lice. It would be ideal if such a vaccine could be produced, but we are still a long way off that. Over many years, the industry has considered all the different ways of controlling the problem of sea lice.

I would like to make two points. What Randolph Richards just said is absolutely right. However, one problem with that approach is that SEPA is in control of the medicines and someone else is in control of the lice. I know that SEPA is reluctant to have anything to do with sea lice because it believes that that would put it in an awkward position, but I believe that we should join up sea lice regulation and place a constraint on SEPA regarding lice numbers. SEPA would then have to deal with the problem from both ends. I accept that that would be a very awkward spot for SEPA to be in, but the farms that cause the most trouble are the ones that are clearly in the wrong places. In time, we want those farms to move on. Farms that cannot regulate their lice burdens under the available discharge consents should eventually be moved on.

My second point concerns AMAs. Everyone agrees that they are a good starting point. One problem with the process is the degree to which information is held back both within AMAs, in some cases, and from the general public. Farmers hide behind commercial confidentiality. At the moment, lice burden data, production data, feed input data and so on are supplied every month to SEPA or some other regulator. There is no commercial reason why all farmers should not be obliged to put such information on the public register.

I agree with everything Kenneth Black has just said, particularly about joining up the regulations that relate to lice levels and the giving of consent for the use of the chemicals that are used to control them. The AMA system has been helpful, as it has brought out information that would otherwise not have been considered, but there is far too great a degree of confidentiality; the louse levels in the area of at least one AMA are having a harmful effect on the local sea trout population. We know about that because the area happens to be monitored by Fisheries Research Service scientists.

You will be aware that we are still researching this issue and are trying to determine whether we should have a national strategy on it. What is your view on that?

You have touched on the conflicting evidence relating to whether sea lice should be controlled under the Diseases of Fish Act 1937, which was amended by the Diseases of Fish Act 1983, or under the auspices of SEPA. SEPA seemed to suggest to us that it did not want to get involved with the aspect of the situation that relates to disease. I felt that the result of that could be that although a fish farmer has been told that he has to do something about the sea lice in his farm, SEPA would not give the consent for the appropriate treatment. Presumably, that would result in fish being slaughtered.

What legislative regime should we have to control sea lice?

At the moment, one organisation passes the buck to another and the problem is not dealt with. We come down on the side of the careful regulation of medicines. By contrast, Norway came down in favour of the closer regulation of lice. The choice must be made on the basis of information about the environmental risks. I am clear that there is a severe risk to wild salmonids. I am not clear about the risks that arise from the current level of medicine use, but I think that the balance of evidence suggests that the lice are causing the problem at the moment.

It is perhaps worth mentioning that some of the newer medicaments offer much more practical ways of controlling lice than we had even two years ago. Greater access to those products would give us rapid control that could be more easily maintained.

Membership of Scottish Quality Salmon depends on adherence to the compulsory sea lice management strategy. That is a sensible and laudable scheme. Although many of the non-members have signed up to that strategy, the fact that many farmers are not members means that we must ensure that medicine is used strategically so that one medicine is not used continuously. That is probably more important than the commercial implications for individual farmers. Perhaps the matter should be dealt with by a statutory or other body rather than left to a voluntary scheme.

Previous witnesses have suggested that SEPA should apply an environmental consent rather than a discharge consent. The environmental consent would include conditions regarding site management, husbandry, best practice, food quotas, feeding practice, number of cages and the positioning of cages. What is your view of that proposal? Is it feasible to apply a best-available-technology regime to aquaculture? If not, should what I suggest be introduced into the new planning regime?

On the first question, I think that everyone agrees that SEPA should have the powers to regulate processes. I do not think that there is any argument about that. What was your second question?

Should best available technology be incorporated into the planning regime?

As opposed to it being regulated by SEPA?

As opposed to it happening at the time, I suppose. Is it necessary to have a plan?

I want common standards throughout Scotland. I suspect that if the matter is left to local authorities, different standards will be applied. However, I have no strong views on the subject.

Current quality schemes take on board many of those issues. It is not so much that the many people who are involved in quality schemes are at risk, but that people who do not conform need bringing into line. Perhaps regulation should have a role in ensuring that that happens.

Many previous witnesses highlighted the importance of synchronised production, fallowing arrangements and disease treatments and the difficulties that those measures can impose on small operators. How important are those techniques for disease control?

They are vital. I am not sure how one gets round the problem of farmers who cannot use those techniques because of the techniques' scale. Perhaps they should be encouraged to link with other farmers to form co-operatives so that they can get the benefits of scale. If not, perhaps those farmers should be encouraged to farm new species that might not need the same fallowing regime. However, I do not know what to do about the problem of farmers who cannot use those disease control techniques. There is no doubt, however, that those strategies are crucial to disease and pest control.

Those techniques, which have been developed over a long time, were developed particularly because of the infectious salmon anaemia outbreak. The joint Government-industry working group has helped to develop best practice, which is being widely undertaken in environmental quality schemes, to prevent disease from occurring. However, others are also aware of that work and are making improvements where they can. It is more difficult for the small operator who, for example, has to raise multiple year classes on a particular site and has difficulty in implementing extended fallowing periods. However, a move towards those practices is important for the future.

Would not that be more complicated in polyculture sites?

One would have to take that into account when one was deciding how to use those sites. If one was carrying out fallowing at a salmon site, one would have to ensure that fish that were in an adjacent cage—for example, cod—were also removed, to ensure that the entire site had a fallow period. It is important to do that.

We move on to the last section of this morning, which concerns the effectiveness of harmonising the regulatory regime.

The minister is investigating having parallel applications for planning and discharge consents and considering methods of aligning the two application forms. What might be the implications of that? Where should the work of the Fisheries Research Services and the Veterinary Medicines Directorate fit in such a proposed structure?

It would be sensible to have parallel applications for planning and discharge consents. However, there would be a cost implication for the industry, which at the moment applies for one consent before the other. That means that if the first one is turned down, there is no need to pay a fee for the second—which is why parallel applications would be an issue for the industry. However, that practice would cut down the time that the process currently takes.

You specifically mentioned the VMD, which licenses medicines in the same way as for all other farmed species. I see no need to change that role. It is perhaps worth pointing out that when fish products are examined, representatives from SEPA are invited to assess the environmental aspects of using medicines. That is considered when the decision is made whether to grant a licence for a medicinal product. SEPA is well aware of that work and has a chance to contribute to the discussion around it. Even when the product is licensed, SEPA considers its use on a site-by-site basis, which is the correct approach.

I would be interested in your comments on how robust the current monitoring, audit and enforcement arrangements are in respect of environmental protection issues, such as nutrient enrichment and the use of medicines and chemicals. Is the current regime sufficiently robust in relation to planning and siting controls and consumer protection? The difficulty with asking those questions at the end is that they have been partially answered already.

The level of enforcement is low. The penalties for farmers who misuse medicines are fairly trivial in comparison with the benefits that they might gain, and more of an obligation should be imposed on them. I am not suggesting that that practice is widespread, but only small fines have been imposed in the cases that have gone to court. That issue should be addressed.

I agree. The penalties for farmers who breach guidelines should be severe. However, I point out that the industry carries out much of the measurement independently—it uses outside bodies to carry out the measurement to the required standards, and the results are passed on to organisations such as SEPA. The codes of practice are mandatory for those who are involved in quality schemes. If they are found to be in breach of those codes, they are thrown out of the schemes, which has a severe financial effect on the member concerned.

The arrangements are robust and the system is constantly improving—the problem is with those who are outwith the quality schemes. For example, samples of fish flesh are monitored regularly by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, by quality schemes and by the supermarkets. Breaches that are found when those measurements are taken should be punished quite severely.

You are saying that the regime is fine; the difficulty comes with implementing it and ensuring sufficient sanctions.

I will add a little point. We are right to say that what gets measured gets done—that is a bit of cliché, but it is quite valid. However, louse levels are not inspected or measured uniformly, although, in my view, they should be.

I entirely agree. Inspection would be required if a lice maximum burden were set. I understand that, in Norway, state-funded veterinarians carry out that inspection. The issue is partly to do with money. SEPA has a limited budget for monitoring the environment. It is a question of who should pay for that work. Some people would argue that the polluter must pay but, at the same time, the public purse must make an investment and increase SEPA's financial resource, so that it can undertake that monitoring and counting of lice.

Dr Black summed up the answer that I was looking for. Professor Richards talked about the amount of self-monitoring that goes on, and we heard from Scottish Quality Salmon that it expelled a member when monitoring showed that they were not up to standard. Dr Black put his finger on the problem—self-monitoring is effective only to a certain level. Earlier, we were told that SQS monitors for lice, but we were also told that that monitoring is not sufficient to control the problem. Will Dr Black confirm my belief that one cannot rely on self-monitoring and that a statutory body must underpin regulation?

Yes. What we do is like auditing. Farmers have an interest in counting lice, as they need to know how many they have so that they know when to treat them. That work goes on for other reasons, and other monitoring programmes, such as self-monitoring programmes, are laudable. However, some statutory auditing must take place if we are to gain public confidence. Some auditing takes place already, but it is not enough. That is where the issue of resources comes in.

I agree. The monitoring of environmental impact is carried out within quality schemes by independent outside bodies, not by the farmers. Some monitoring by SEPA backs up that work. The issue of how much monitoring SEPA can carry out is connected with resources. Lice monitoring is not carried out by outside bodies—unless veterinary surgeons conduct that monitoring, it is done by the farmers themselves. It is essential to carry out lice monitoring in order to determine the right time for applying treatments. We do not want to apply treatments every fortnight in order to ensure that there is no problem—treatments should be applied when necessary. If farmers get it wrong, they will have a severe problem because lice will affect their fish.

It is necessary to carry out that monitoring in order to control lice on the farms. Perhaps the additional question is whether there should be another form of external monitoring to determine that the level of lice that builds up is not dangerous for other populations, such as wild salmon.

That is the nub of the louse problem, in regard to the wild resource. The level of ovigerous lice that can be tolerated on a fish farm is considerably higher than the level that would represent a danger to wild fish. That is the great difficulty. In my view, external surveillance is required if louse levels on fish farms are to become low enough to protect wild fish.

That concludes our questions. I thank our witnesses for their evidence, which was valuable to our inquiry into aquaculture.

As the deputy convener said at the beginning of the meeting, Allan Wilson MSP, the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development, was originally scheduled to give evidence to the committee today on the aquaculture inquiry, but he is unable to attend for family reasons. I hope that we will be able to reschedule his appearance as soon as possible. We might be able to do so next week, but that will depend on his availability.

I offer MSPs and members of the public a short comfort break, because I realise that the room is not very warm. We will reconvene in approximately five minutes.

Meeting adjourned.

On resuming—

I allowed the previous session to run on for longer than scheduled as the evidence was valuable and members wanted to ask quite a few supplementary questions.