Seòmar agus comataidhean

It is a model that we have put forward. We have been trying to work at pace on the definition of “persistently high mortality” to ensure that we could present that to the committee. As I have said, that is still working its way through the peer review process. It is about the modelling to identify what “persistently high mortality” means and whether we have sites that would meet the definition.

There has been an awful lot of work on that. The committee initially recommended that the Scottish Government almost carry out its own specific research project, but we see our role more as providing strategic direction and enabling that sort of collaboration to take place.

To that end, a wide range of research is under way. We do a lot of work with the Marine Alliance for Science and Technology in Scotland, or MASTS, and work has been undertaken through the farmed fish health framework as well as the Sustainable Aquaculture Innovation Centre. I should say that the Scottish Funding Council’s funding for the centre was coming to an end; £1.5 million was made available for the transition to new arrangements, and we hope to be in a position—over the coming weeks, actually—to announce what that new vehicle will look like and some of the work that it will engage in.

We have also been involved in an awful lot of work and partnerships in relation to the climate challenges that you have mentioned. For example, we have been working with the Marine Climate Change Impact Partnership to understand the impacts of climate on aquaculture. A number of pieces of work are going on in that respect, but I do not know whether there are any particular projects that Jill Barber or Hazel Bartels would want to focus on or highlight.

More broadly, we need to recognise that that kind of international collaboration is a really important part of our science and innovation strategy. As I have outlined in previous responses, we are not necessarily comparing like with like when we look at other salmon producing nations, but there are similar things that we can look to address, such as changing sea temperatures and different climatic conditions. That collaboration is an important element of our work.

As Jill Barber outlined, monitoring of existing sites is still taking place through the EMP process. As has been said, EMPs were meant to be an interim measure while the new sea lice framework was implemented. SEPA is undertaking monitoring at the new sites, too. Our key focus had been on delivering the sea lice framework as it was, but it cannot be implemented while appeals are under way. If any issues were raised or highlighted during this period, we would try to address them. That is the position as it stands.

We are looking to have the digital platform for the environmental performance assessment scheme up and running next year, and it will pull together all the information. In the meantime, information on the environmental monitoring surveys is still published on the Scotland’s aquaculture website. That information outlines the monitoring method, the survey type and the classification. However, the new system that we are looking to implement will provide more comprehensive information.

It has been subject to development over years to ensure that it addresses the risks and challenges and that it can adapt over time. That is the model that is being appealed at the moment. It has been a significant undertaking and we hope that it can be implemented. The focus of the work has been on tackling the interactions between sea lice and wild fish.

Again, you would not need a regional marine plan to be in place to enable that to happen. What I was talking about—

That is what we hope to do with the consenting task group work. Through the pilots, there have been a number of projects that have worked through the consenting process. We need to have that discussion to see how we can streamline the process and have the engagement with industry to assist in that regard. We are looking at how we can use the mechanism of the consenting work that we are taking forward to do that.

First, I point to the increase of 1.5 per cent in rents that has been implemented this year. That goes to Crown Estate Scotland and then, ultimately, to coastal local authorities, so it is about that coastal community benefit. That point—that perspective—is, of course, a bit more general. However, as Jill touched on, we made a commitment to scope out work on a community benefit package. That work has been progressing; we have been looking at a wide range of evidence, including international comparators and academic papers, as well as doing our own research. The wider engagement in relation to that work that we are looking to have is still to commence. We will then look to deliver some of that new package into next year; again, there will be wider consultation with stakeholders on that.

Yes.