Seòmar agus comataidhean

I appreciate that it seems like a long time. However, again, a consultation on the new standard had been held in relation to that. The timescale that was set was believed to be a reasonable timeframe within which to allow the industry to adjust.

As the convener mentioned, other innovations and technologies can be considered as part of that. However, given the impact of the new standard, it was felt that that would be the appropriate timeframe.

I hope that I illustrated in my opening comments just how important the salmon industry is to our economy. I mentioned the GVA figure of more than £300 million, and the around 12,000 jobs that it provides throughout the supply chain. I do not think that there is a constituency across Scotland that does not have some element of either an aquaculture business or its wider supply chain within it. The extent of that is very broad in its impact.

The industry provides well-paid jobs in some of the most rural parts of Scotland, particularly in our island communities. I know that some of those points came through strongly when the committee heard from the industry about the impact of that that it sees locally. The industry provides a huge amount of value through those jobs and the wider supply chain. It is of great economic value and it provides a lot of community benefit for rural and island communities across Scotland.

Again, we support the industry in its efforts to reduce mortality—that is a given—including through the scientific work that we undertake. I have talked already about some of the examples of the funding that we have provided and the work that is under way. Of course we work with industry to do that.

With regard to downsizing, as the committee heard in the response from Charles Allan, the causes of the mortalities that we have seen recently do not relate to the stocking or the biomass, so why would farms be downsizing? It always comes back to the cause of the mortality and how that can best be addressed. I do not think that downsizing or closing businesses would address the causes, when we are dealing with the wider environmental challenges.

I would be happy to provide the committee with that information as soon as it becomes available. I appreciate the concerns that Rhoda Grant expresses about the potential timescales, but this is a new process that we are working through, so it is important that we take the time to get it right, to do the evaluation and to see what further roll-out could potentially look like from there.

I cannot comment on that, because I do not deal with that area. I presume that that would be led by the planning minister, who will make a determination. Again, it is not for me to comment.

I will hand over to Hazel Bartels, who will be able to say a bit more about that.

To touch on your initial point first, I absolutely agree with what you say in respect of how we are supporting the wider industry. There is the farmed fish health framework and the work that we are taking forward through that, which includes work on mortalities. I have touched on the work that SAIC has done in relation to algal blooms; that was an important piece of work. We are providing SAIC with funding of £1.5 million up to 2026, and fish health priorities are key in the work that it will be taking forward and focusing on.

In relation to microjellyfish, I am aware that there are other technologies being used elsewhere that could be used in Scotland to try to help alleviate the issues in that respect. Hazel, would you like to add any more information on that?

First, we need to make sure that regulation is proportionate to what we need. I believe that the information that we get right now is suitable for those purposes and is provided in an open and transparent way. As far as I am aware, the information on mortality that is published by the industry in Scotland is more transparent, and there is more of it, than is the case in any other nation.

Earlier, I mentioned the work that was undertaken through the farmed fish health framework on trying to identify the causes of mortality. It identified ten overarching categories, with a view to standardising the reporting across farms. As a result of that important work, there has been an improvement in the data that is collected, because it has ensured that there is consistency in reporting.

I recognise that further improvements could still be made in how the overall data is presented. Right now, we are still presenting the data in four different ways: the industry presents its mortality levels, the marine directorate publishes our information annually, the FHI reports information, and SEPA does so, too. That is something that we have discussed, and I think it would be helpful for us to provide an explainer of how all the different categories of information are used. I recognise that further work needs to be done there.

Mortality is in nobody’s best interests but I struggle to see what other measures we could put in place. We cannot incentivise against action. As Charles Allan outlined, if we see a unique environmental effect that leads to mass mortalities at a fish farm, the question is how we can protect against that. The work that goes into trying to find out the causes of mortality and how we can get ahead of some of those challenges is hugely important to enabling us to try to avoid mortalities.

No one wants mortalities. You heard that clearly from the industry when its representatives gave evidence to the committee. It is in all our best interests to try to address those challenges as best we can, but another environmental factor could lead to such mortality rates. As Charles Allan outlined, it would be a concern if cases of bad husbandry were leading to mass mortalities, but that is not what we are seeing. It is the environmental effects that can lead to that.

A moratorium would not be appropriate. It would not be a means to tackle the challenges that we face. We have outlined some of them. A lot of what we have said is about what we can do to try and mitigate some of the challenges. Much work and investment is already going into that. You could set a target or introduce a moratorium but that will not change the work that needs to happen or that is already under way.