Seòmar agus comataidhean

First, I want to respond to your line about there being a lack of urgency. I hope that I demonstrated in my opening comments the amount of work that has been undertaken since the initial REC Committee report was published. Also, we cannot forget that, for a couple of years between then and now, there were the significant challenges of dealing with Covid and exiting the EU in the midst of everything.

However, it is important to remember that—touching on what I said previously—SEPA introduced its new framework in 2019, to help to guide farms towards higher dispersal locations. There is also the fact that, if there were a concern about waste removal, a licence would not be issued in the first place. When a licence is given to a business, it is given on the basis that the business operates within environmental limits.

SEPA is also working with developers who are focusing on innovations such as waste collection removal systems. SEPA has also implemented a new charging regime, to incentivise the use of those new technologies. It is important to recognise the work that has taken place and that is still on-going. All of the farms are due to be on the new framework by the end of this year.

We talk in the vision about the potential for sustainable growth of the industry within environmental limits. Earlier in the session, we touched on the monitoring that is undertaken, and the surveillance of that is very much part of the work that SEPA undertakes as part of its 2019 framework.

In relation to animal welfare in particular?

It is important to remember that any work has to be done within environmental limits, so all of that is modelled at the outset of the process, before any licences are given. However, I completely understand the importance of the point that you are raising.

It is not for me to set a target, because I am not an expert in that field and I cannot say how long that work would take. It is SEPA’s role to undertake that work, and I would expect it to do so as efficiently as possible. It outlined in its evidence to the committee why the process takes the length of time that it does, and there is nothing further we can add to that.

I will touch on a point that I made earlier. APHA is increasing its capacity in that area. If my understanding is right, it is adding a couple of members to its team, to ensure that it can undertake more work in that regard.

Environmental management plans are ultimately a matter for local authorities; it is up to them to monitor and enforce those. Environmental management plans were designed to be an interim measure until the delivery of the sea lice framework, which has just been implemented. As I said, that work will continue over the next few years. There are discussions about what that transition will look like where environmental management plans are in place but, ultimately, it is up to local authorities to enforce the plans.

If it would be helpful, I am happy to contact APHA and furnish the committee with that information.

We are not considering that at the moment. As I said, I think that we have the right measures, policies and legislation in place, but we are happy to consider any new evidence that emerges.

I highlight the fact that some significant pieces of work have been done in the area of wild salmon. The delivery of the sea lice framework is a critical piece of work that represents a positive step forward in managing those interactions and identifying the lead regulator in that work. SEPA is taking forward that work.

Since the salmon interactions working group produced its report, we have introduced a wild salmon strategy and, on the back of that, a wild salmon implementation plan. The strategy outlined 61 different actions that identified the different pressures that wild salmon are facing, and the implementation plan is about setting out the actions that we are taking in response to the identification of the different challenges that we know our wild salmon face. We have also published an update on the first year of the implementation of that strategy. Action has been taken in relation to 50 of those 61 actions.

I recognise the criticism that the progress is not fast enough, but I highlight the fact that we have taken significant steps forward. It has been critical that we have driven forward those pieces of work, because we recognise the pressures that our wild salmon are under. Of course, a number of factors contribute to that, which we identified in the strategy—we identified about 12 different pressures—and it is important that we take action against each of those in order to boost the populations as best we can.

As a general point in relation to comparisons with other nations, I note that it is not always the case that we are comparing like with like. Different nations have different challenges, which they address in different ways, and they operate in completely different environments. That point came through in evidence as well.

Nonetheless, when it comes to environmental standards and what we see in relation to discharges in Scotland, I believe that we have tighter regulations in place here than exist elsewhere.