Seòmar agus comataidhean

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?

My question is about recommendation 22 in the REC Committee’s report, which urges

“enhancement in the way sea lice data ... is presented”

and calls for

“a comprehensive, accessible reporting system”.

I am interested in your thoughts about the way in which the data is currently presented and whether you think it is comprehensive and accessible.

Whom could we talk to who could give a definitive answer on that?

What would make it more accessible?

Our wild salmon are endangered and SEPA has an approach of monitoring that there is no deterioration. However, I understand that that is about no deterioration of farmed fish rather than of wild fish, and I think that we should be addressing the fact that we are going to be seeing deterioration of wild fish.

That forum is the formal mechanism that you are asking for. Who should take that forward?