Viruses and Atlantic Salmon

“Aquaculture escapees carried the most viruses of any group we studied and frequently had multiple infectious agents present. Our study looked at returning adult wild salmon, the survivors, so we weren’t able to see how out migrating smolt were affected as they passed near sea-cages in a critically vulnerable period of their life. This type of research will help us better understand the disease risks where wild and industrial fish overlap.” – Jonathan Carr, V.P. Research and Environment, Atlantic Salmon Federation

This week we have seen an extremely important report from the Atlantic Salmon Federation confirming what campaigners have known for years, but have to date been unable to prove, the link between the presence of viral diseases in farmed salmon and the decline in the wild populations of salmon and salmonids such as sea trout. The summary reads in part:

“The results confirmed that intercontinental transmission of infectious agents is likely occurring in offshore waters near Greenland between Atlantic salmon of North American and European origin. Analysis also showed that among the groups analyzed, aquaculture escapees had the highest prevalence of viruses and multiple infections were common among both cultured and wild fish.”

There is no reason whatsoever to suppose that what has been happening on the West side of the Atlantic Ocean hasn’t also been happening on our West coast. It is also the case that the major cause of the mass mortality events that happened in mid-Argyll last Autumn were largely attributable to another, but similar, viral disease, salmon cardiomyopathy. We have written about this before; briefly it’s a new arrival in Scotland that came from Norway a few years ago, is incurable and gives no external signs of its presence until the salmon are on the point of death. When it was detected MOWI took the decision to cull all remaining stocks in most of its “farms” in mid-Argyll, before the disease took them, at which point they would have moved from being a marketable product to Category Two waste that cannot by law enter the food chain. The event has made it into the current Private Eye, see above image.

It’s beginning to look as if the problems for this beleaguered industry aren’t confined to sea lice. With this year having already seen unseasonably warm days there’s no reason for any wishful thinking that viruses won’t return. We hope that Marine Scotland and the Fish Health Inspectorate will read the study and appreciate that viruses, like salmon, don’t know about borders.

The study can be found here: Atlantic Salmon Federation

Congratulations, STCScotland and SIFT

After months in preparation and peer review the report commissioned by Salmon and Trout Conservation Scotland and SIFT is finally out and makes damning reading. To read it click this link:

Salmon and Trout Scotland

For years objectors have been trying to persuade local planning officers and committees that the claims made by the aquaculture industry, backed by Scottish Government Ministers such as Fergus Ewing, regarding jobs and other positive economic impacts are grossly exaggerated, but time and again we have been ignored and applicants have been allowed to make outrageous claims about the "benefits". We have been told, variously, that aquaculture accounts for 12,000 and more full time equivalent posts. On top of that, of course the jobs are always said to be in the most fragile areas economically.

In truth, relying on nothing other than the Scottish Government's own figures, in turn based on facts such as income tax and NI figures, the total directly employed seems to be no more than 2,600.

To hike this up to the numbers claimed it has been necessary to do a lot of constructive arithmetic. Anyone with the most basic understanding of economics knows that when jobs are created there is a multiplier effect; it's obvious that when people receive income they spend it, which in turn creates work for others to supply that demand.

We have consistently argued over the years, to planning officers, committees and others, that the industry has been claiming credit for every single job on the West coast, including public sector workers, our doctors, nurses, carers, and all involved in keeping our communities running, bins collected, roads clear, the police force etc. But they also include the numerous micro businesses, village shops, bed and breakfasts and craft shops, hotels, marinas and boatyards, canoeing, wild life tours, cruises, you name it! In short hundreds of small to medium enterprises whose very existence is threatened by the damage open cage aquaculture does to the environment and the landscape, the very things that they depend on. Remember, tourism and leisure make up the great bulk of our Scotland's private sector economy.

The report, which has been subject to rigorous peer review, demonstrates that in looking at the economic "benefits" the researchers appointed on behalf of government looked at aquaculture employment in isolation. No attempt was made to look at the negative impacts on other businesses.

There are two government studies, Imani from 2017 and Marsh from 2019. The Report shows that instead of adopting the cast iron government figures described above, the consultants accepted figures supplied by the fish farming industry itself.

The Imani report was commissioned and paid for by, among others, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and Marine Scotland, the former quasi-governmental, the latter actually a branch of the civil service within Scottish Government. It is 100% clear from the briefest look at it that one of the main objects, perhaps the main one, was supporting the policy of doubling aquaculture capacity by 2030.

The Marsh report similarly looks based on guesswork rather than in depth analysis. It's an astonishingly short 4 pages.

In the past I have described this target as an "orphan policy", because when asked directly politicians have always said it came from the industry. True, it was backed by Food and Drink Scotland, but they are technically a non-governmental organisation backed by private and public entities with a Board picked from both sides. Now we know that people like Ben Hadfield of MOWI were speaking the truth when they have denied that. Well done, Ben!

Why is this important? Simply because a government policy with such massive, very obvious impacts both on the economy and on the environment should have in term of correct process the fullest Strategic Assessments into the negative effects of both.

The truth is now out and STCS and SIFT are to be congratulated for doing what government should have done long ago!

Covid 19 and Brexit

It’s clear that the fishing community on our West coast is facing a crisis from which many businesses will never recover.

Even before the virus arrived there were no indications that anything serious was being done regarding the fisheries negotiations between the UK and the EU. Today the reliable Tony Connelly of RTE has confirmed that nothing whatsoever has been done to date. Remember, the UK’s self-imposed time scale of 30 June is just eleven weeks away - eleven weeks ago we were celebrating Rabbie Burns; it seems like yesterday. There’s no sign of either side seeking an extension.

The issues peculiarly affect the smaller, inshore fishing fleet and the non quota fishery. This page has already explored questions regarding quota - see the post from 16 February, for example. In the absence of anything radical happening very soon my guess is that the big companies that currently own quota will see very little change after 30 June. Most, perhaps 80%, of English quota and a fair percentage of the Scottish is owned by entities from outside the UK, also many vessels are owned by limited companies that are in turn owned by other companies registered abroad and often in anonymous tax-haven jurisdictions. Legally their holdings of quota have effectively become rights of property and we can assume that the owners won’t have them interfered with readily.

Oddly, given the enthusiasm some hard line Brexiters have for rejecting everything “foreign” one avenue of recourse would be under the European Convention on Human Rights:

“Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – Right to property

1. Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law. 2. The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.”

Subsection 2 means that you are entitled to receive proper compensation if your rights are taken away in pursuance of the policy of a State.

For the West coast fleet matters are very different. Prior to the arrival of Covid 19 it was already clear that the great majority of inshore vessels were facing supply chain disruption and costs due to Brexit. Those issues have all been rehearsed before on this page and elsewhere. Briefly, they include the costs and practical problems with certification and problems freighting highly perishable fresh fish and shellfish to the markets around the Mediterranean and elsewhere.

Because there have as yet been no negotiations the position regarding re-registering and shifting your boat to Northern Ireland seems to remain a feasible option, for anyone willing to move, but it’s unlikely to be taken up until matters are finalised - there’s too much upheaval and any deal may change things.

Two weeks ago the Scottish Government announced the rescue package for the under 12 metre fleet. A total of £5 million is available and, it seems, has mostly been allocated on the basis of a payment of one half of two months wages/profit based on last year’s fishing, full time fishers only, with a maximum of £27,000 per business. Split among 650 businesses the average payment would be just over £7,500. A further £10 million is apparently available for fish processors. Scottish Government can only distribute the money allocated from the total UK fund and it’s obvious that these payments won’t hold off starvation for very long. Families are already suffering, desperately.

It doesn’t look as if anything will change soon and as noted above for fishing Brexit is settled on 30 June. It seems unlikely that the boats currently tied up, with crews in many cases looking for other work or having returned home, will return to sea anytime soon.

There are signs on social media of attempts being made along the coast of cottage distribution networks being established. Owners of some vessels are trying to set up local sales operations, while residents in some areas are setting up joint purchasing efforts. With the best of intentions these efforts can only nibble at the problem.

For decades almost all of our most precious shellfish has gone to Spain and France. Will we all start to change our eating habits and start eating lobsters on a regular basis? Will we see velvet crabs, a major export to Spain, as a food stuff? Prices are said to have plummeted; will they revive to levels that make fishing worthwhile?

Please feel free to comment on these issues. It’s important that all ideas are aired.

Finally, it seems that the aquaculture industry may not suffer as much as its owners are currently suggesting. Certainly there’s been a catastrophic drop in exports to places like China, but these will recover post Covid 19 and will be unaffected by Brexit. Domestic sales will be booming, especially if the collapse in the seagoing fleet makes salmon the only fish on supermarket shelves.

The companies concerned, almost all hugely wealthy Norwegian or multi-national owned, will assuredly survive. Almost nothing has been published by Scottish Government about the extent to which these non-taxpayer giants may also benefit from any rescue money going.

SEPA has awarded the fish farms relief from the maximum biomass limits that are in place currently to restrict the amounts of waste material that can be dumped on our seabed. Perhaps more worryingly a number of farms are also being allowed to use more of the deadly Emamectin Benzoate, that SEPA has been anxious to see removed entirely from the water column and seabed. It’s used to kill the sea lice that predate on the salmon, but is also fatal to lobsters and other crustaceans and stays active for many years.

We could be looking eventually at a seascape that’s devoid of activity apart from industrial level aquaculture, taking place over a polluted, toxic seabed devoid of wildlife.