Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

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.