Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes, absolutely. We are engaging in specific pieces of work, and we are funding innovation, too. I am thinking of specific projects that we have funded through the likes of marine fund Scotland, for example, although that is more for industry bids.

Ultimately, this is all about identifying with industry what some of the challenges are and what we need to address. Some of that was highlighted in the key areas of focus in the “Areas of Research Interest: Marine and Freshwater” paper that was published on the back of the marine directorate’s science and innovation strategy, which sets out the key areas and questions that we will need to address in the years ahead and which, in turn, forms the background to the wider collaboration and the specific projects that are taken forward. That work is done within that framework.

I think that we are doing that work. We are facilitating that collaboration; that is what the Sustainable Aquaculture Innovation Centre does, and I would just mention again the investment that we have been looking to make in that respect.

This is a very collaborative space, and we are working with a number of different organisations. It is all about providing, through the areas of research, an overall framework in which we look at the key questions that we need to answer and the partners who are best placed to collaborate with us and deliver on that research. That is, I think, what we have been alluding to in our previous responses.

I heard the evidence from Fisheries Management Scotland a couple of weeks ago. SEPA, which is the lead regulator in relation to sea lice and interactions with wild fish, is now responsible for providing local authorities with advice, as a statutory consultee in the planning system.

You are absolutely right about the implementation of the sea lice risk assessment framework. Implementing that framework has been a key focus over the past few years, but there have been a number of appeals relating to that process, and we are waiting for those appeals to be determined before we move forward. That is standard in any process, and it is right that there is a right of appeal.

The first communication on that process is due to be published in April, and it will focus on the policy and legal elements. I am limited in what I can say about the overall framework, because it is subject to legal proceedings at the moment. However, the framework has been a key focus of our work and we hope to implement it.

Do you mean in relation to sea lice specifically?

Quite a lot of work is going on in that regard. In my previous response to the committee, I said that we were trying to prioritise that work. The issue of escapes was identified as a priority, and we said that we would work on it this year. However, we started that work earlier, when some resources became available at an earlier point. The initial engagement has started, and we are looking to progress the escapes work and consider penalties over the course of this year. I am keen for the collaboration with Fisheries Management Scotland and the sector to continue, in the hope that we can move the work forward. We prioritised the work on the technical standard for next year.

I think that Jill Barber wants to add to what I have said.

In relation to that specific incident, I would have to ask my officials whether there is more information.

Yes, absolutely. I can touch on a number of pieces of work, and I might bring in Jill Barber to provide more detail.

We have touched on the sea lice risk assessment framework. We are waiting for the outcomes of the appeals before we can fully implement the new framework, although that relates more to existing developments. The framework is working for new developments right now, and it is about guiding them to the right places or to more suitable conditions in the first place. I recognise the recommendations that came about from the previous committee’s inquiry and the reiterated call in this committee’s recommendations. A number of factors are taken into consideration when businesses are establishing sites, but part of that is work that we want to explore through our consenting task group. So far, that has been focused on the pre-application phase, and a number of pilot projects have been working their way through that aspect of the process.

It is about having a discussion with businesses to look at where there is potential to relocate, because, even if a farm wants to relocate, it is still subject to all the same regulatory processes. We are looking at whether we can consider some of those projects and have engagement through the consenting work to deal with that effectively.

We have talked at length about the sea lice risk assessment framework. Our key focus is on ensuring that we guide development to the right places, and the risk assessment framework has been doing that, notwithstanding the appeals that are on-going for the existing sites. As I touched on in my response to Tim Eagle, if farms want to move, they still have to go through the regulatory consenting process. We are considering that through the framework.

There is also the broader presumption against development in the north-east. It is set out in our national planning framework that development is not permitted there. There are measures to prevent that.

It is not as straightforward as looking at a site and dictating that it should move. A number of considerations need to be taken into account, not least environmental conditions. Consideration needs to be given to the wider impact of such a move and the wider regulation that is needed to get all of that in place.

We recognise that people will want to consider moving their sites, and we are trying to help to make that happen.

I do not think that that is necessarily a fair assessment. We have been developing that work through the processes that we have set out. We are looking to implement the new framework, but there have been appeals. People are perfectly entitled to make such appeals. We are waiting for the outcome of that process.

Action is being taken on a number of fronts. The consenting task group is looking to streamline the process so that cases are dealt with more effectively by the different regulatory bodies. It will also have an important role to play in relation to some of the work that we are talking about here.

It is not fair to say that no progress has been made. We have had to prioritise what work to progress. We are talking about significant pieces of work that have been a massive undertaking, not least because of all the engagement that we have needed to do and the number of considerations that we have had to factor in. Progress has been made. I appreciate that we will never be able to go as fast as people would like us to, but we are taking action in relation to a number of the other pressures that we know wild salmon are facing, which are identified in our wild salmon strategy.

You touched on the development of the new national marine plan. The next phase of that has been delayed because we have been considering the outcome of the consultation on the planning position statement. As part of the national marine planning process, the question has been asked whether the plan should include a spatial planning element. That is being considered for the next iteration of the plan. It has been a significant piece of work. A lot came out of the consultation, and that is being considered at the moment.

Notwithstanding the development of the national marine plan 2, which the further consultation has slightly delayed, we are still operating within the existing wider planning system. As well as the existing national marine plan, we have the Orkney and Shetland plans, which have been adopted since I last appeared before the committee, and work is still going on in relation to the Clyde.

It makes sense for us to look at further developing regional marine plans when we have the new national marine plan in place, rather than during this interim period. However, even for those areas that do not have a regional marine plan, there are still the local development plans. Spatial considerations are part of the regional marine plans that are in place in Shetland and Orkney. I emphasise that consideration of the spatial element is being factored into the future development of national marine plan 2, which, of course, will be subject to further consultation.