Seòmar agus comataidhean

The convener raises an important point.

It is important to recognise the benefits that flow from the sea bed leases that Crown Estate Scotland receives. At the moment, all of that is given to local authorities to determine how to distribute, so that is for coastal community benefit. However, I understand that using that mechanism—that is, whatever mechanism local authorities use to distribute the funding—does not necessarily make most transparent the direct relation between aquaculture businesses and the funding that directly reaches communities.

A number of different discussions need to be had in relation to that. That funding was discussed last year. We have an opportunity to discuss it further with Crown Estate Scotland in 2026 and to review how the operation has been going so far.

Another key body in relation to that discussion is of course the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, because that money goes to local authorities. If we were to look at potential changes to that mechanism, or to the use of that funding, it would need to be discussed with local authorities as well as Crown Estate Scotland.

It is also important to highlight that—as the committee also heard about from the industry in its evidence sessions—the industry also contributes to funds in local communities that are separate to that funding. However, the main mechanism is through the lease of the sea bed and the funding that is received through Crown Estate Scotland.

We are open to considering and having future discussions on that.

I completely appreciate the point that the convener has made. We are not talking at cross-purposes. I set out the initial arrangement, because I think that the links between it and the community benefit could be made more tangible.

Again, if the committee thinks that we should consider any particular recommendations or points in relation to community benefits or community funds, I will do so.

Absolutely. We have to do that if we are to have any hope of trying to address the challenges that we face as we move forward. It is a high priority.

With regard to the wider challenges, we know that we will face more of those going down the line. We are all aware of the situation in our marine environment with warming waters and trying to get ahead of the challenges that climate change presents.

As an example of some of that work, we have been engaging with the Marina Climate Change Impacts Partnership to improve understanding of climate impacts on aquaculture. Working with our stakeholders is important, but working across the piece, and internationally, is also important so that we can share that knowledge and ensure that we are using the most up-to-date science. We are engaged in that work to try to tackle these challenges as best we can.

Yes.

Cost benefit analysis is, ultimately, done on an application basis and undertaken by the planning authorities, because they have to consider all of the different issues in the round: the economic, social, and environmental impacts all have to be considered and adequately balanced. Environmental impact assessments also have to be undertaken as part of that work.

It is also important to recognise that, in relation to the environmental impact of any applications that come forward, SEPA simply would not permit or grant a licence for an application to proceed if it was felt that there would be an adverse environmental impact.

It is done on a case-by-case basis, because there are really important factors that have to be weighed up by local authorities when they are considering those applications.

I am not considering undertaking that piece of work because, as I have outlined, we have the information about the impact on our overall economy. We want a sector that operates within environmental limits and, given the regulations that we have in place, I believe that it does so. I therefore do not see the need for a holistic exercise to be undertaken. Again, all those considerations have to be factored in at the application stage.

Overall, that would be a question for the local authorities to look at. As I outlined in my response to the previous question, they consider the economic, social, and environmental impacts. However, in considering the industry as a whole, I absolutely recognise Rhoda Grant’s point—we can see that benefit. I know that the committee also heard in evidence from the industry itself about the local impact of the well-paid jobs that it provides in island and rural communities.

I do not think that that is the case.

I do not want to get into that—the committee asked me during my previous appearance about what an optimum target would be, but I do not think that that is a helpful conversation to have. We are not content with where we are, and everybody is striving to do better to see the situation improve.

Again, we have to be optimistic about our ability to try to address some of those challenges. That is why the investment in the science and the work that is being taken forward in that regard is so important.

I mentioned the work that SAIC is undertaking on algal blooms to try to predict where that might happen again. There is investment in technology in relation to microjellyfish, which has been used more widely in other countries, and which we can use in Scotland to try to address some of these challenges.

It is also important that we look ahead and try to get in front of whatever is coming next, because there will always be another challenge coming down the line.

There are a few points in there. I would touch on Jill Barber’s earlier response about all the various packages of work that are under way. I also touch on the point that Emma Roddick raised about the appropriateness of sites and how that could be looked at. Again, there is a package of work under way in relation to that.

On your point about requiring farms to reduce mortalities, I struggle to see what the purpose of that would be. If, for example, an environmental challenge arises that could not be predicted, how does a farm deal with that? How does a farm deal with a situation that could lead to an increase in mortalities that is outwith its control?

Again, I stress that there is no bigger incentive than already exists for the industry to reduce mortalities. Mortalities are not good, not least in terms of fish health impacts but also for the business overall, from an economic point of view. It is in everybody’s best interests to address mortalities, and—as Hazel Bartels said—to ensure that we are doing everything that we can to tackle mortalities and, through scientific work, to address the causes. In that way, we can try to get ahead of some of the challenges that we know will continue to come down the line.