Seòmar agus comataidhean

I appreciate that point, and I appreciate the challenges that exist. That is where the initial engagement that NatureScot undertook was really important, as it informed proposals that are now in the consultation, where a few alternatives have been put forward for people.

I completely understand the frustration in that regard. I have met representatives of various groups and bodies and different stakeholders to discuss the proposals that have been put forward. Those proposals can be completely open to interpretation in some ways, and I understand that criticism that people do not know what they are voting for. At the same time, however, it is good to get the sense that, if people in Galloway want something, it is up to them to build it. It is not necessarily a case—in fact, it is not a case—of replicating the existing two national parks, which are different from each other. A national park in Galloway would be a very different proposition, by its very nature. It is ultimately up to people to design what it could look like.

The consultation that we have put forward provides different options for people to respond to, as well as asking for other ideas as to what a proposal could look like. That could include a different boundary or, if people do not want a national park, suggestions for how else we could work to improve the economy in the south of Scotland, in addition to addressing various other issues.

There is definitely now more information in the consultation, and there are different options for people to address and consider when they are responding to it.

I do not know whether it will be helpful, but I can provide you with more information on the work that is being done in relation to that.

I am sorry, Jill. Were you going to come in on that?

As I outlined, the work that is critical is ensuring that we try to get ahead of those challenges where we can. An example of that is the work that the Sustainable Aquaculture Innovation Centre has done on trying to predict algal blooms.

It would not be fair to say to the industry that it could not establish a business. We set out in our vision for aquaculture that we want to see sustainable growth of aquaculture in Scotland, but we cannot penalise the industry for issues that are outwith its control.

Again, we are dealing with issues and mortality events that are complex to address. I do not think that it is necessarily fair to say that there should be no expansion where there are high mortalities or to penalise fish farms where that has happened, depending on what the cause of that might be, as the issue could be completely outwith the farmer’s control or the control of anybody at that site.

Again, because of the nature of the issue, some of the events that have led to the high mortality rates are ones that we could not have predicted and are now trying to address.

I realise that Edward Mountain is picking out evidence that was given to the REC Committee at that time, but we would need a fuller understanding of exactly where the figure came from to know whether we are comparing like with like in terms of data. We are getting into a discussion about figures that are not necessarily comparable.

Jill Barber touched on that. The previous technical standard was introduced in 2015, and we are starting the initial work.

That was one of the key recommendations in the report, and it has been a key focus of our work since the recommendations were published. In a second, I will hand over to Jill Barber, who will be able to provide more detail.

The work has been taken forward in phases. The key reason for the work is to streamline the process. As we have heard today, a number of different bodies are involved, and the picture is quite complex, particularly for those looking in from the outside, given the different requirements that are expected of fish farming businesses. It is really important that we streamline the process and make it as efficient as possible, and that we learn and improve through that process.

That comes back to the points that Jill Barber made about the work that we set out in the vision and the overall work that needs to be done.

I know that that consideration that has been raised. The convener mentioned wind farms and community benefits. We always need to be careful, but it is a reasonable expectation that, when communities host fish farms, there is a benefit to be seen from that. We have already talked about what the industry provides within its local communities, as well as the coastal community benefit more widely that is delivered through local authorities and the funding.

I do not think that it is the case that we are pinning all of our hopes on one sector. The point that I am trying to illustrate is that salmon production is a very economically important sector for Scotland in terms of the food produced and the jobs supplied throughout the supply chain.

You are absolutely right about the figures that were produced, and you have outlined some of the reasons for them. Most businesses are trying to move towards automation, introduce new technology and innovate, and that does not necessarily lead to an increase in jobs. Nonetheless, the sector has an important footprint in our rural and island communities, as well as across Scotland through the wider supply chain, as I have mentioned. I do not think that that takes away from the importance of the industry as a whole.

As you have heard me say in the committee a number of times, across all the areas of my portfolio, industries like agriculture, forestry and fisheries, more widely, are all hugely important to rural Scotland. It is not necessarily the case that we are focusing on salmon production more than on other areas. We want to make sure that we have sustainable industries that, as a whole, are providing valuable employment.

First, I want to respond to your line about there being a lack of urgency. I hope that I demonstrated in my opening comments the amount of work that has been undertaken since the initial REC Committee report was published. Also, we cannot forget that, for a couple of years between then and now, there were the significant challenges of dealing with Covid and exiting the EU in the midst of everything.

However, it is important to remember that—touching on what I said previously—SEPA introduced its new framework in 2019, to help to guide farms towards higher dispersal locations. There is also the fact that, if there were a concern about waste removal, a licence would not be issued in the first place. When a licence is given to a business, it is given on the basis that the business operates within environmental limits.

SEPA is also working with developers who are focusing on innovations such as waste collection removal systems. SEPA has also implemented a new charging regime, to incentivise the use of those new technologies. It is important to recognise the work that has taken place and that is still on-going. All of the farms are due to be on the new framework by the end of this year.