- Asked by: Mark Ruskell, MSP for Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish Green Party
-
Date lodged: Wednesday, 10 March 2021
-
Current Status:
Answered by Roseanna Cunningham on 24 March 2021
To ask the Scottish Government how many beavers were translocated from Tayside in the calendar year 2020.
Answer
I refer the member to the answer to question S5W–35895 on 19 March 2021. All answers to written parliamentary questions are available on the Parliament’s website, the search facility for which can be found at http://www.parliament.scot/parliamentarybusiness/28877.aspx .
- Asked by: Mark Ruskell, MSP for Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish Green Party
-
Date lodged: Thursday, 11 March 2021
-
Current Status:
Answered by Ben Macpherson on 23 March 2021
To ask the Scottish Government what analysis Marine Scotland has carried out of the impact that acoustic deterrent and startle devices within a narrow channel might have on migration and access to feeding and nursery grounds.
Answer
The Scottish Government is not aware of any published evidence establishing that the issues raised affect marine mammals in Scotland.
- Asked by: Mark Ruskell, MSP for Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish Green Party
-
Date lodged: Thursday, 11 March 2021
-
Current Status:
Answered by Ben Macpherson on 23 March 2021
To ask the Scottish Government, in light of Marine Scotland stating that its model for determining whether cetaceans can be maintained at Favourable Conservation Status within each SCANS-III block relies on the assumption that cetaceans are evenly distributed over the seabed, whether Marine Scotland has considered evidence that porpoises are not evenly distributed and that the habitats predicted to be of most importance to porpoises in the absence of acoustic deterrent devices (ADDs) are also the areas where fish farms are located with historic use of ADDs, and whether Marine Scotland will revise its model in light of any such evidence.
Answer
SCANS-III outputs represent the most recent synoptic estimates of cetacean absolute densities for UK waters (Hammond et al., 2017) and are the best available information at this time. The resolution of these estimates, in large regional blocks, is relatively coarse, but no other data source currently available can provide absolute densities for all of the areas of interest.
Should finer resolution density maps covering each SCANS-III block become available then we will carefully consider whether it is more appropriate to use these in the future.
- Asked by: Mark Ruskell, MSP for Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish Green Party
-
Date lodged: Thursday, 11 March 2021
-
Current Status:
Answered by Ben Macpherson on 23 March 2021
To ask the Scottish Government, further to the answer to question S5W-35390 by Ben Macpherson on 11 March 2021, whether Marine Scotland’s decision to make public EPS licence applications by fish farms after a determination has been made is compliant with (a) Marine Scotland’s duties under Articles 7 and 6 of the Aarhus Convention principles of public participation and (b) the requirement of the Nolan principles of public life that “information should not be withheld from the public unless there are clear and lawful reasons for so doing”.
Answer
The Scottish Government considers that making EPS licence applications by fish farms available publicly after a determination has been made is compliant with the Aarhus Convention. The Convention does not impose an obligation to involve the public in all decisions concerning activities which have the potential to harm the environment. Rather, the Convention applies in specific circumstances, to specific categories of activities.
Our decision to publish EPS licence applications has been made to promote openness and transparency in line with the Nolan Principles of Public Life.
- Asked by: Mark Ruskell, MSP for Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish Green Party
-
Date lodged: Thursday, 11 March 2021
-
Current Status:
Answered by Ben Macpherson on 23 March 2021
To ask the Scottish Government, with reference to the 2020 Marine Scotland-funded study, at what sound pressure level in decibels did bottlenose dolphins show startle responses to a low frequency simulated acoustic startle device signal; whether the magnitude of startle response increases exponentially with increasing sound pressure level; whether sounds which trigger the startle reflex disturb and displace affected mammals, and what the published sound pressure level is of the Genuswave low frequency acoustic startle device.
Answer
The Götz et al. (2020) study is available in the public domain, titled “The startle reflex in echolocating odontocetes: basic physiology and practical implications”, and the details requested can be found there.
I refer to the response to S5W-36099 on 23 March 2021 regarding sound pressure levels of devices.
All answers to written Parliamentary Questions are available on the Parliament's website, the search facility for which can be found at http://www.parliament.scot/parliamentarybusiness/28877.aspx
- Asked by: Mark Ruskell, MSP for Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish Green Party
-
Date lodged: Thursday, 11 March 2021
-
Current Status:
Answered by Ben Macpherson on 23 March 2021
To ask Scottish Government what sound pressure level in decibels Marine Scotland has determined as the threshold for disturbance for small cetaceans and what the sound pressure level output is of each model of (a) acoustic deterrent device and (b) acoustic startle device manufactured by (i) Terecos, (ii) Genuswave, (iii) Lofitec, (iv) Ace Aquatec, (v) Airmar and (vi) OTAQ.
Answer
The Government applies the threshold of 120 dB re 1 µPa (rms) for the onset of potential disturbance for non-impulsive sounds.
The sound pressure levels of the different Acoustic Deterrent Devices and Acoustic Startle Devices are available from the device manufacturers.
- Asked by: Mark Ruskell, MSP for Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish Green Party
-
Date lodged: Thursday, 11 March 2021
-
Current Status:
Answered by Ben Macpherson on 23 March 2021
To ask the Scottish Government what the sound pressure level in decibels was at which Kok et al (2017) recorded avoidance by harbour porpoises; what the sound pressure level was at which Brandt et al (2012) recorded a 96% reduction in porpoise clicks at a station 7kms away from a single Lofitec acoustic deterrent device, and what sound pressure level in decibels Marine Scotland has determined as the threshold for disturbance for small cetaceans.
Answer
The papers cited in this question are both available in the public domain. The type of Acoustic Deterrent Device used in the Brandt et al. (2012) study (Lofitech) is only used in Scottish waters as a mitigation to move marine mammals out of areas where they may be injured by construction or blasting noise. It is not in use at Scottish fish farms (Scottish Government 2021).
The threshold applied by the Government of 120 dB re 1 µPa (rms) for the onset of potential disturbance from non-impulsive sounds is based upon guidance from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ( ESA Section 7 Consultation Tools for Marine Mammals on the West Coast | NOAA Fisheries ).
- Asked by: Mark Ruskell, MSP for Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish Green Party
-
Date lodged: Thursday, 11 March 2021
-
Current Status:
Answered by Ben Macpherson on 23 March 2021
To ask the Scottish Government, further to the answer to question S5W-35394 by Ben Macpherson on 11 March 2021, whether it considers that double-skinned anti-predator nets, Seal Pro nets or equivalent are ‘satisfactory alternatives’ to the use of acoustic deterrent devices already in use in Scotland.
Answer
A licence can only be granted provided that it meets three tests, including that there must be no satisfactory alternative. Due consideration will be given to any European Protected Species licence applications that are submitted on the merits of each individual case and taking account of all relevant factors. It would be inappropriate to pre-determine any part of this process.
- Asked by: Mark Ruskell, MSP for Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish Green Party
-
Date lodged: Thursday, 11 March 2021
-
Current Status:
Answered by Ben Macpherson on 23 March 2021
To ask the Scottish Government whether Marine Scotland has considered evidence suggesting that almost all fish farms that use acoustic deterrent devices use multiple arrays of these and, if so, and in light of the reported concerns regarding how the use of these devices might impact on animal welfare, what action the agency plans to take.
Answer
Marine Scotland, which is a Directorate of the Scottish Government, published an information note and FAQs for operators of fish farms on the use of acoustic deterrent devices (ADDs) and the requirement for an EPS licence.
As required by the Animals and Wildlife (Penalties, Protections and Powers) (Scotland) Act 2020, the report submitted on 1 March to Parliament on the use of ADDs at Scottish finfish farms includes a chapter on the sufficiency of existing monitoring of ADD use. A conclusion of this report is that the Scottish Government will work with the sector and regulators to establish a more systematic process for gathering information on ADDs operated at Scottish finfish farms. This information will be used to inform future action.
- Asked by: Mark Ruskell, MSP for Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish Green Party
-
Date lodged: Wednesday, 10 March 2021
-
Current Status:
Answered by Roseanna Cunningham on 23 March 2021
To ask the Scottish Government how much (a) it and (b) NatureScot has spent on legal costs since 2016 to defend the right to kill beavers.
Answer
The Scottish Government and NatureScot have not incurred any legal costs since 2016 defending ‘the right to kill beavers’.
Since 1 May 2019, beavers have had European Protected Species status and, as such, there is no right to kill beavers in Scotland. The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 set out the circumstances in which licences may be granted to allow management of beavers, including lethal control for specified purposes. NatureScot is the licensing authority for the management of beavers in Scotland and may issue licences for the purposes set out in the 1994 regulations.