Seòmar agus comataidhean

Is further research needed on introgression?

Good morning, Dr Wells. The REC Committee’s report noted scientific uncertainties regarding the impact of farmed salmon on wild salmon populations. We have heard a bit about that this morning. In every evidence session, we have asked about the uncertainties, because we know that the issue of what is impacting so greatly on wild salmon is a complex picture. Has scientific understanding improved at all since the REC Committee’s report came out?

Is the modelling iterative? If evidence is presented from the other organisations concerned, such as the fish health inspectorate, that you need to look at again, focusing your attentions on another zone, will that happen?

There is a hierarchy of the application of sanctions, which could perhaps lead to a report to the COPFS.

At that point, does the COPFS take the decision to shut down something, or do you have the powers to do that if something was really serious?

Good morning. I know that not a huge amount of time has passed since the introduction of the new regulatory framework, but has SEPA identified any evidence of significant harm to wild salmon from farmed salmon sites?

In its representation to Environmental Standards Scotland, WildFish Scotland says that the new framework focuses on the wild salmon protection zones. Obviously there need to be parameters. The zones do not include any rivers where wild salmon populations used to be but no longer are.

I have a concern about environmental degradation. SEPA is studying only eight zones at the moment—and I understand the capacity issue. There are sites operating now where nobody is monitoring the protected zone around them. If further environmental degradation has happened in the meantime, when the time comes to examine those zones, we could be at risk of losing some data and understanding because we are focusing on only eight of them. Will you respond to the allegations made by WildFish on that?

I will follow on from Beatrice Wishart’s questions. I am interested in the social contract that Professor Griggs recognised is needed to represent communities. Your report states that there is

“a lack of shared arenas for voicing concerns and dialogue which continues to fuel a perception of secrecy and misunderstandings.”

How can we help communities to have their voice and their needs recognised during the consenting process? As you have rightly identified, there are binary views out there, but there are communities that need to be heard during the consenting process. Beatrice Wishart asked about communication, the understanding of the science and the reality of the situation, but how do we address that issue?

Since the new regulatory framework has come into force, has SEPA taken any enforcement action? What enforcement action is open to you? Would you consider introducing biomass reductions or rescinding licences for serious or persistent breaches of licence conditions?

What about escapes from salmon farms and the introgression that we have seen in wild salmon populations?