Seòmar agus comataidhean

We are in the middle of the consultation process at the moment. It is important that we see that through. I am more in favour of that process because we ask people whether they want a national park within their area but we also get wider, qualitative information out of that.

I understand what you say about the boundaries, but boundaries are proposed in the consultation to get people thinking about what a park could look like. However, it is also open to people to suggest what they would like to see in their area otherwise. Therefore, to pose the question in a binary way would not be helpful. It is important to be able to conduct the consultation in the way that NatureScot is doing so that we get the quality of information that it is getting and pick up a wide variety of opinion in considering all those matters.

Yes.

It is important to recognise that the Galloway and Southern Ayrshire Biosphere is in the area, too, and I have heard from other stakeholders about the roles of other organisations and how that sort of thing can be used. That information is really important, as is hearing what people think about everything else that is happening in their area at the moment.

You are absolutely right to touch on the issue of the budget, as it is an important consideration that we will have to factor into our decision making. As you have said, resources are finite at the moment. We do not have a specific budget allocation for the national park, because we do not know what that proposition might look like; its composition could be entirely different from that of the current national parks. If a proposal were to proceed, it would have to do so in as efficient and streamlined a way as possible, recognising the financial situation that we are in.

Again, I cannot outline today what the trigger mechanism would be. All I can say is that they are all going to be important factors in our overall decision making.

Absolutely. I will touch on the Cairngorms Connect programme, which is part of the work that the Cairngorms national park is doing. Our national parks can be leaders by working at the landscape scale in trying to make an impact. The Connect programme is the UK’s largest habitat restoration project, and it is backed by about £4 million of investment. Sixty members of staff are employed through that work, which concerns how the national park can deliver on planting more woodland and on peatland restoration.

Similar projects are being pursued in the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs park through its future nature programme, and the national park directly provides grants to communities for enhancing biodiversity.

The national parks work with farmers in their areas: there are schemes that work directly with farmers to do everything that we would all want to see—ensuring food production, ensuring that farming works for climate and nature and helping farming businesses to become more resilient. The Cairngorms national park is pursuing a future farming pilot to do exactly that.

Different aspects and elements of funding are available to farms within the national parks that are not available elsewhere. Both national parks have a strong leadership role in tackling the climate and nature crises. I believe that they are taking that action at park level to address the climate and nature crises that we know we are in. The work that I have mentioned is just a fraction of what is going on in both areas.

I appreciate that point, and I appreciate the challenges that exist. That is where the initial engagement that NatureScot undertook was really important, as it informed proposals that are now in the consultation, where a few alternatives have been put forward for people.

I completely understand the frustration in that regard. I have met representatives of various groups and bodies and different stakeholders to discuss the proposals that have been put forward. Those proposals can be completely open to interpretation in some ways, and I understand that criticism that people do not know what they are voting for. At the same time, however, it is good to get the sense that, if people in Galloway want something, it is up to them to build it. It is not necessarily a case—in fact, it is not a case—of replicating the existing two national parks, which are different from each other. A national park in Galloway would be a very different proposition, by its very nature. It is ultimately up to people to design what it could look like.

The consultation that we have put forward provides different options for people to respond to, as well as asking for other ideas as to what a proposal could look like. That could include a different boundary or, if people do not want a national park, suggestions for how else we could work to improve the economy in the south of Scotland, in addition to addressing various other issues.

There is definitely now more information in the consultation, and there are different options for people to address and consider when they are responding to it.

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.