Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have tried to reformulate my questions in my head, because a lot of them have been answered, as is always the case in round-table discussions. There is such rich, in-depth discussion going on round the table.

It is absolutely right that we are looking at the topic in the space of collaboration and co-management. Indeed, the draft “Joint Fisheries Statement” said:

“Our future vision is that industry should take a greater, shared responsibility for sustainably managing fisheries, while making a greater contribution towards the costs. This can include, for example, work to develop new management practices and contributing to fisheries science, being more actively engaged in fisheries management decisions, and co-designing future policy.”

We have just heard about joint endeavour. If we get to a space where we are doing things with people and not doing things to them, we will take all the communities with us. We have just discussed the FMAC, the regional groups and the regional marine planning partnerships. I had some questions about their effectiveness and whether the model is the right one and the one that we should be using. We have already strayed into some of that, but does anybody want to put a little more meat on the bones of that? I am not looking to hear what the future model should be; my question is whether we are, right now, realising the intention that was set out when the local partnerships were set up to feed into the wider system. What could change now, and rapidly, while we are looking forward?

I do not know who wants to answer that first. I would like to hear the views of Elaine Whyte from the Clyde Fishermen’s Association, and also the views of Alastair Hamilton, because he sits on one of the groups and is in charge of leading that. I will then open it up more widely.

Good morning. You have just painted a picture of how varied the reasons are for the possible decline in wild salmon populations. The picture is very complex. I am interested in the fact that the working group report called for the expediting of the Marine Scotland research to determine a baseline for current levels of genetic introgression—because we did not have an understanding of what the actual picture was across the country. In Ayrshire, I see the work that my father does, as a volunteer in the Ayrshire Rivers Trust, to look at the River Irvine—which flows in front of my house—to understand why the levels of wild salmon are decreasing so rapidly. Now that that report has been published, what does it reveal about the impact of interbreeding between farmed and wild salmon?

You just answered my next two questions, which were about OURO. I wanted to understand how it works in practice—how it is financed by the industry and its being compulsory for farmers to be members of it.

This my final question. Is any of the ring-fenced sanctions money going where it is supposed to go, which is into conservation?

We can see from the report that, where there is introgression, it is concentrated around where aquaculture is happening as opposed to the migration of smolts into some of the rivers, which was one major concern. Some fears may therefore be allayed, but there absolutely still is evidence of genetic introgression.

I have found everything that you have said to be quite fascinating. It has answered some of the questions that we have been asking all along.

Following the questions about escapes, I have a couple of questions about sanctions. Notwithstanding the desire to have 100 per cent containment, the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee’s report said that there are

“strict penalties ... in place in Norway ... and recommends that appropriate sanctions should be developed and introduced in Scotland.”

Do you consider the current sanctions on escapes to be appropriate, or should we have stricter measures in place?

Is further research needed on introgression?

Good morning, Dr Wells. The REC Committee’s report noted scientific uncertainties regarding the impact of farmed salmon on wild salmon populations. We have heard a bit about that this morning. In every evidence session, we have asked about the uncertainties, because we know that the issue of what is impacting so greatly on wild salmon is a complex picture. Has scientific understanding improved at all since the REC Committee’s report came out?

Good morning. I know that not a huge amount of time has passed since the introduction of the new regulatory framework, but has SEPA identified any evidence of significant harm to wild salmon from farmed salmon sites?

In its representation to Environmental Standards Scotland, WildFish Scotland says that the new framework focuses on the wild salmon protection zones. Obviously there need to be parameters. The zones do not include any rivers where wild salmon populations used to be but no longer are.

I have a concern about environmental degradation. SEPA is studying only eight zones at the moment—and I understand the capacity issue. There are sites operating now where nobody is monitoring the protected zone around them. If further environmental degradation has happened in the meantime, when the time comes to examine those zones, we could be at risk of losing some data and understanding because we are focusing on only eight of them. Will you respond to the allegations made by WildFish on that?

I will follow on from Beatrice Wishart’s questions. I am interested in the social contract that Professor Griggs recognised is needed to represent communities. Your report states that there is

“a lack of shared arenas for voicing concerns and dialogue which continues to fuel a perception of secrecy and misunderstandings.”

How can we help communities to have their voice and their needs recognised during the consenting process? As you have rightly identified, there are binary views out there, but there are communities that need to be heard during the consenting process. Beatrice Wishart asked about communication, the understanding of the science and the reality of the situation, but how do we address that issue?