Chamber and committees

Do you mean the proposal in the bill?

That brings its own problems of overharvesting and mortality.

Regarding sea lice, SEPA has the idea of ensuring no deterioration. I hear that we are having problems with our wild fish, and I want to understand what no deterioration means in relation to wild salmon. Can you say a bit more about that?

I believe so. The recommendation is that,

“in order to increase transparency, there needs to be a significant enhancement in the way sea lice data and other key information related to the regulation of salmon farming is presented.”

You have mentioned a couple of times SEPA’s five-year approach to looking at the data and monitoring the situation. The REC Committee’s and the working group’s reports recommended a precautionary approach to mitigate any impacts of sea lice infestation on wild salmon, and I am interested in whether you believe that the sea lice risk framework applies such an approach. We have heard about the five-year timescale, but are there other aspects of what is being done that you can share with us?

So, there is an issue with where we get the snapshot of information, because we are not seeing the full experience of that fish.

Having the various sectors work together seems to be an important part of what we are trying to do here, such as in the collaboration that we discussed earlier. Everyone should have access to the information that we have, so that we are all looking at the same picture.

Good morning, John, and thanks for joining us.

I have a question on the precautionary principle. The REC Committee’s and interactions working group’s reports recommended the need for a precautionary approach to mitigate any impacts of sea lice infestation on wild salmon. I am interested in getting from you a sense of whether SEPA’s sea lice risk framework applies such an approach, given that, as I think you said, it is the only one of your recommendations that has been put in place since you produced your report.

I have one last question about the measurement of the amount of sea lice, which is related to the precautionary approach. Last week, we heard from SEPA that it is taking a case-by-case approach to the levels of sea lice on fish farms, but we know that Norway has taken an approach that involves a limit of 0.2 sea lice per female salmon. What are your thoughts on whether a broad approach like Norway’s or a case-by-approach is the appropriate one for Scotland?

Good morning. Recommendation 44 of the RECC report was that

“mechanisms to encourage ... collaboration between the sectors should be further developed and introduced.”

The report also recommended that

“the Scottish Government’s wild salmon interactions group should, as part of its work, address this matter as a priority”.

Is it your sense that there has been improvement in relation to collaboration and the transparency aspect of collaboration and information sharing between the two sectors since 2018? If you have any examples of good practice, it would be great to hear them.

We have discovered that during our inquiry. There is a Scottish Government definition—well, it is not a definition but it is about when we apply the principle. It states:

“Decision makers should apply the precautionary principle when there is both a good reason to believe that serious or irreversible environmental damage could occur, and a lack of scientific certainty around the consequences or likelihood of the hazard and associated risk.”

In this case, we are talking about the risk to our endangered wild salmon. My understanding is that the SEPA sea lice framework is about taking data but not about taking any action and that there will be a five-year process of looking at data while our wild fish are on the endangered species list. Is SEPA taking an approach that really addresses the risk that we might see the end of wild salmon in Scottish waters?