Seòmar agus comataidhean

Mortality is in nobody’s best interests but I struggle to see what other measures we could put in place. We cannot incentivise against action. As Charles Allan outlined, if we see a unique environmental effect that leads to mass mortalities at a fish farm, the question is how we can protect against that. The work that goes into trying to find out the causes of mortality and how we can get ahead of some of those challenges is hugely important to enabling us to try to avoid mortalities.

No one wants mortalities. You heard that clearly from the industry when its representatives gave evidence to the committee. It is in all our best interests to try to address those challenges as best we can, but another environmental factor could lead to such mortality rates. As Charles Allan outlined, it would be a concern if cases of bad husbandry were leading to mass mortalities, but that is not what we are seeing. It is the environmental effects that can lead to that.

A moratorium would not be appropriate. It would not be a means to tackle the challenges that we face. We have outlined some of them. A lot of what we have said is about what we can do to try and mitigate some of the challenges. Much work and investment is already going into that. You could set a target or introduce a moratorium but that will not change the work that needs to happen or that is already under way.

Yes, I will. On some issues, the information will be easier to provide than on others, but we will ensure that we get that to the committee as soon as possible.

I want to be clear that I do not think that it is a case of favouring one sector over another.

I return to the point that Jill Barber made about the importance of the modelling and how all of that—including the rates that are permitted and the dispersal—is determined. As Jill said, we know that there is going to be waste and discharge, so it is about how that is regulated and ensuring that it is within environmental limits. That is hugely important—and it is the case at the moment.

Over the past 20 years or so, mortality rates have stayed relatively consistent at a level of about 25 per cent. Of course, that is not where we or the industry want those figures to be, but dealing with mortality is always difficult, because it is a really complex issue to try to address.

I know that some of those issues have been discussed at length by the committee in previous evidence sessions. It is critical that we try to understand some of the causes of mortality—algal blooms, microjellyfish, the impacts of climate change and additional threats—which I hope can lead to work to try to address them.

Tackling those issues has been a significant focus in the industry. Work is being undertaken through the farmed fish health framework to get to grips with some of the real causes and main drivers of the high mortality rates, and to develop standardised reporting in relation to that.

It is not an easy problem to try to solve, but improving fish health and addressing mortalities are a key focus for everyone. It can be difficult because of the complex nature of the problem and its different causes.

That is where the processes that we have been talking about are so important. I highlight the fact that a piece of work is being undertaken not only in relation to aquaculture but on planning in general, where a variety of issues are being looked at. I would be more than happy to provide the committee with further information on that work, which is being led by colleagues. The work of the consenting task group is important here, too, because it is about bringing all the bodies together at an early stage and sharing their expertise.

That ties into a couple of points. As I said in response to Beatrice Wishart, I will write about more work that is being undertaken on planning; I know that that is not specific to aquaculture, but it is relevant. There was a recent consultation about ensuring that planning authorities have the resources and skills that they need, as well as other matters around fees.

The consenting pilots will help with that, because they are all about identifying a lead person in SEPA and the local authority to take things forward. It would be helpful if I sent more detail, because that work is being led by ministerial colleagues. I will provide more of that information, as that work will help to address some of the problems.

As Charles Allan outlined, there have been discussions about how there can be greater collaboration. If the FHI picks up particular cases when it is undertaking inspections, it refers them to APHA. However, I am always open to considering how we can strengthen the role of APHA when it comes to protecting fish welfare in Scotland.

Charles, do you want to elaborate on that?

I think that the industry is already doing everything that it can and, as I have outlined today, we are assisting in some of the work to drive down mortality as much as it is within our control to do that.

I do not think that there could be a bigger incentive to drive down mortality than there is at the moment. Having high mortality levels does not make economic sense, and we do not want to see it from a fish health perspective, either. The rate could go down, but that could change, depending on the environmental conditions. That is where the work that I talked about is critically important—it is about identifying the challenges, thinking about how to address them and trying to predict what the next challenge to come down the line might be.

Yes, you are absolutely right. It is in nobody’s interest for there to be high mortality rates, not least the industry. It is key that we try to address that.

To touch on comparisons with other countries, we are not comparing like with like. We have warmer waters in Scotland than they do in Norway and the Faroes. The challenges are sometimes similar, but they can also sometimes be very difficult.

Our levels have stayed at the consistent level of around 25 per cent, which is higher than that of other nations. However, the environment in which every nation is farming is very different, so there are a number of different causes. We work with other nations and engage with them to try to get a better understanding, and we consider where it makes sense for us to work together to try to address those challenges. Hazel Bartels will probably have more information on that.