Seòmar agus comataidhean

I suppose that I am asking why nothing has been done since 2020, when NatureScot published its initial report.

On the technical standards, where are we on emamectin benzoate when it comes to international comparisons? Are we allowing more discharge of emamectin into the environment now? In the future, will our standards be ahead of or behind what is happening elsewhere?

One solution might be to consider the similar work that is carried out in communities in relation to onshore wind farm development, where there is a community benefit fund through which people can carry out work to make their communities more sustainable and so on.

Would the Scottish Government consider publishing a good practice guide on community benefits in relation to aquaculture, similar to those in relation to onshore wind?

Good morning, and welcome to the 28th meeting in 2024 of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee.

Before we begin, I ask members to ensure that all electronic devices are switched to silent.

The first item on our agenda is to decide whether to consider a draft report on our follow-up inquiry into salmon farming in Scotland in private at future meetings. Do we agree to do so?

Members indicated agreement.

That is slightly different from how the community benefit funds in relation to onshore work. Local authorities do not deal with that money; it comes directly to communities through an agreement that is set up between the community and the wind farm developer.

The Government publishes a good practice guide in relation to that. It is not really about the Crown Estate or COSLA, but about building up confidence among communities in relation to the aquaculture industry. Are you considering a good practice guide in relation to that, similar to that which exists for onshore?

Before we move away from the economic and social benefit theme, I note that some witnesses suggested that we had to be careful that offering money, along the lines of the community benefit funds, was not seen as money in exchange for putting up with the status quo. How does the Government ensure that that is not perceived as some sort of bribe?

I think that the biggest concern is about consumer and public confidence. The fact that the information is currently provided on a voluntary basis has given rise to some concerns about the accuracy of the figures.

What is to prevent the Government from laying out some of the issues that you have just raised in your answer, and suggesting that a legal requirement to report on the basis that you describe would be helpful and that progress should be made towards that?

The committee has found confidence in the data to be lacking. Prior to the aquaculture industry representatives appearing in front of the committee, we were all aware of issues around the reporting of mortalities, and some of the questions that we put to them were about the accuracy of their data. If reporting were a legal obligation, rather than something that is done on a voluntary basis, would there be more confidence in the information?

We go back to Shetland and Beatrice Wishart.

My apologies, Elena, for interrupting you. Please continue with your line of questioning.

On the 48-month timescale, four years is a long lead-in time for the new standards. Was that timescale chosen, in conjunction with industry, to address their capacity to introduce new thermolicer boats or freshwater treatment? What discussions were held with the industry and what was said about its inability to respond more quickly? Four years seems like quite an extended period.