Sea Cage Fish Farming
Agenda item 1 is a report on sea cage fish farming. Members of the committee have received a paper that outlines the Transport and the Environment Committee's progress in its inquiry on that subject. I note from the paper that that committee has published its report on phase 1 of its inquiry. The conclusions are set out in full in the paper. The Transport and the Environment Committee is taking evidence for phase 2 and continues to progress research issues. John Farquhar Munro is our reporter on the issue. Some time ago, we charged him with keeping us up to date on progress. I invite him to speak and highlight any issues in the paper.
Good morning, everybody. The paper simply details the Transport and the Environment Committee's current position. As a member of the Rural Development Committee, I have been appointed to report on the process and what stage the Transport and the Environment Committee has reached.
The Transport and the Environment Committee has taken evidence from groups that have an interest in the promotion of fish farming and the sustainability of the fish farming industry. As the committee travels around the countryside, we constantly hear about the importance of the fish farming industry to rural parts of Scotland, and to the west Highlands in particular. We also hear about that importance from people who make representations to us and we receive representations about pollution and environmental damage. There has been a wide-ranging debate and evidence has been taken from a wide section of the community to ensure that, at the end of the day, there is a balanced report.
A key issue that has been highlighted by evidence concerns the involvement of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. Currently, SEPA licenses the application of chemicals and medicines for use in the fish farming industry. It has been suggested that SEPA should be given a wider remit and have more control of the whole production process in the fish farming industry. The Transport and the Environment Committee is anxious to see progress in that respect.
A reasonable suggestion has been made by various councils and by Highland Council in particular. It has suggested for many years that the control of fish farming should be subject to the democratic process in that particular locality and that the approval for the establishment of any fish farm or applications for an extension of fish farming should transfer from the Crown Estate to the local authorities.
Another suggestion, which may be more controversial, concerns the control of sea lice. We receive a lot of comments and evidence about sea lice causing a significant problem to the wild salmon and sea trout. Anyone who has an interest in the wild salmon and sea trout fisheries up and down the west coast will know that there has been a serious decline in that activity and that it is difficult to establish evidence for the real cause. The fish farming industry produces statistics to show that the decline in the wild fishery, which has been going on for a number of years, started long before fish farming was established. That debate is continuing.
There is a controversial suggestion that the treatment of sea lice not only take place in and around the sea farm cages, but should extend into the whole sea loch system. I am not sure how that could be undertaken. The Transport and the Environment Committee has received that suggestion and will take further evidence on it.
The paper that I have presented to the Rural Development Committee is fairly broad and contains extensive suggestions. The Transport and the Environment Committee has sub-contracted the marine laboratory in Oban to produce a report on the fish farming industry, which is due to come out at the end of the month. We will await the outcome of that report before deciding what the next stage of the inquiry should be. The continuing inquiry should be completed by autumn, when we will have a better indication of the situation.
The Executive, the Transport and the Environment Committee and the Rural Development Committee are strongly supportive of the aquaculture industry in all its forms. They are particularly supportive of the fish farming industry, because of the economy and the jobs that it creates, and that support has been reflected in most of the evidence that the Transport and the Environment Committee has taken. We seek a sustainable fish farming industry that is in harmony with the environment.
Thank you. Do members have any questions?
The committee's visit to a fish farm yesterday was useful and informative. It was my first visit to a fish farm and I got a lot out of it. I ask John Farquhar Munro to ensure that when the Transport and the Environment Committee takes forward its inquiry to phase 2, it considers specifically allowing movement of fish cages within the loch. At the moment, permission is granted on the basis that the fish cages remain static. As a result, environmental damage occurs directly underneath the cages. Yesterday, it was suggested that if the permissions were relaxed so that the cages could be moved occasionally, that would allow the bed of the loch to recover. I would like John Farquhar Munro to pursue that issue with the Transport and the Environment Committee.
When that question has been posed, members of the fish farming industry have suggested that they would like to leave fallow some of their existing sites and to move to new locations within the boundaries of their existing leases. I understand that the acreage that is allocated under the existing leases would allow some movement of the fish cages to new locations. SEPA—the relevant regulatory and licensing body—is rather reluctant to allow that movement to take place. Some of the evidence that we have received has indicated that such movement would be desirable, as it would allow the existing sites of sea cages to be left fallow, which would let the seabed recover quickly.
I see no reason why there should not be a relaxation of the current restrictions, which prohibit movement to a fresh site within the boundaries of the lease. There is a lot of support for that measure. At the outset, I believed that the movement of the cages would perhaps be an additional expense on fish farmers. However, the fish farming people tell me that, on a four-year cycle, they change the whole net and cage systems because they anticipate that four years is the effective life of the net system. They have, therefore, quite a bit of additional expense during the four-year cycle. They would be happy to move to new locations as they do not consider that that would cause much additional expense. There is support for that, so it is likely to happen.
It was also suggested that it was inappropriate for fish cages to be in inland lochs, which do not have a quick exchange of water. It was felt that it might be better to move those cages to locations that were more exposed. The fish farming industry is happy to be involved in such an exercise but is reluctant to move too far from the coast, to where there is more turbulent and more adverse weather.
I am grateful to John Farquhar Munro for his summary, which set out the issues clearly in principle. Will the Transport and the Environment Committee, in phase 2 of the inquiry, consider the Norwegian model that we heard about yesterday during our visit to a fish farm in Locheil? Fish farmers in Scotland must deal with a multiplicity of agencies—up to eight, I believe—but fish farmers in Norway deal with only one directorate, which takes applications through all the necessary bodies.
I understand that the rules that govern the footprint of each fish farm stem from a 25m rule—for which there is no basis in fact—that is called the acceptable zone of effect. If there is no basis for the current SEPA rules, it seems to me that there is no basis for applying them. That is a technical matter, but the Transport and the Environment Committee could consider it.
Will the Transport and the Environment Committee also consider the dubious value of the Crown Estates Commission to fish farming in Scotland? I believe that around £3 million is paid in rent for the seabed. No other fish farming nation in the world pays such a rental, for which fish farming receives nothing in return.
The Crown Estates Commission is a controversial issue. Over the years the commission has taken substantial sums of money in lease rental from fish farming and other aquaculture industries. There is little evidence that any percentage of that revenue goes back into the fish farming industry. That matter would be addressed if the planning regime were transferred to the local authority, as is proposed.
I understand that the 25m rule is also controversial. As Fergus Ewing said, that rule was established in the early days of the fish farming industry. The rule was perhaps appropriate at that time, when fish farming was much smaller. However, it is difficult, if not impossible, to contain activity within a 25m zone, because sea currents change—they do not always drift in the same direction. The fish farming industry has suggested that if it were allowed to fallow its sites, even a 25m area would quickly recover. That is a valid argument.
Fergus Ewing stole most of the points that I intended to make. I welcome the paper from John Farquhar Munro. It is important that we keep a close eye on aquaculture developments. I think that I am right to say that the next big event on the agenda is the Executive's publication of its aquaculture strategy. I suggest that we get the minister before the committee after that strategy is published.
I am seriously concerned about the minister's attitude towards the industry. He let the industry down again at last week's fisheries exhibition in Glasgow. He was to deliver, at the conference, a presentation to the industry and the media, but he pulled out at the last moment.
With due respect, Richard, will you stick to questions on the report?
I was about to suggest that we get the minister before the committee to find out his policy and whether he is committed to the industry.
I must reiterate the point about the Crown Estate. It is ridiculous that a Scottish industry should be accountable to Whitehall. The surplus from the Crown Estate, which comes to £2.5 million to £3 million a year, goes to Whitehall. Instead, that money should come to the Scottish Parliament so that some of it can be reinvested in Scotland's own industries, including fish farming. I ask John Farquhar Munro to reiterate that point.
That argument has been well made and indeed has been taken on board by the Transport and the Environment Committee. We just have to convince the Executive, through that committee, that the view has been forcibly expressed.
The report says:
"In the long term the Committee wishes to see full implementation of Integrated Coastal Zone Management."
I take that recommendation to mean that we should have a broader-based aquaculture involving more species that are perhaps dependent on each other, instead of having a monoculture. Is that the case?
Yes. The many coastal zone management areas that have already been designated—I know of one such extensive area in Lochaber—try to encompass all types of aquaculture. Although we are talking in particular about sea cage fish farming, members know that other interests—for example, prawn and shellfish fisheries—are all trying to operate and maintain a viable industry in neighbouring areas. The coastal zone management associations are a step in the right direction to bring harmony into the fishery.
However, we have to take into account other commercial interests that involve trawling and dredging activities. A continuing battle seems to be taking place between sea cage fish farming and, in particular, shellfish fisheries. Steps are being taken to create more harmony between those activities. I understand that up and down the west coast—and especially in and around the Mallaig area—there is now close co-operation. Working practices have been amended to ensure that there is much more harmony than in the past.
As no other members have indicated that they have any questions, I thank John Farquhar Munro for his report. As for Richard Lochhead's earlier suggestion, members will recall that we have already asked the minister to come before us when the draft strategy is published. That point has been taken on board.
The committee has also agreed that, until the strategy is published, we should keep a watching brief on the situation. Are members content for John Farquhar Munro to remain as reporter on this issue?
Members indicated agreement.
I should also thank John for the very thorough way in which he fielded members' queries.