I make no apology for a long read on the important subject of why Scotland tolerates the fish farm industry putting the lives of endangered species at risk by the unlicensed use of Acoustic Deterrent Devices, also known as Seal Scarers.
My letter to member of the Scottish Parliament’s Environment Committee sent 4 June:
“I am sending this to members of the Committee who took part in the meeting on 3 June, with reference to the discussion on seal shooting and ADDs.
I watched the session online with some relief that steps are at last being taken, but also sadness that it has taken so long to get to this stage. There was no sign of irony in the opening remarks of Mike Palmer about the measure being to “enhance the welfare” of seals: surely it shouldn’t have taken years to conclude that a good start is to stop shooting them?
It is extremely disappointing that Marine Scotland have taken no steps to consult with the public. They are well aware of the large number of citizen groups along the West coast who are actively involved in researching, collecting views among local populations and engaging with governmental bodies. A consultation, over the brief period that is now often customary, would not have delayed matters unduly, would have gathered useful views and information and would have been in the spirit of governmental openness. It would not have been difficult to arrange; almost all coastal groups are now in regular communication with each other via Coastal Communities Network and/or SARNS. Michael McLeod mentioned “stakeholders” but did not identify them. I am grateful to the Committee members who raised this and who also pointed out the lack of involvement of MSPs due to the amendment coming so late in the process. What follows covers some points that might have been made in such a consultation.
As Mark Ruskell pointed out, the American position reflects on both shooting and the use of ADDs. One can assume that banning the former will increase the use of the latter, however ineffectual they may be.
Regarding ADDs, the position, stated bluntly, is that (first) their use in Scotland is illegal in the absence of a licence from Marine Scotland and (second) licences cannot be granted, because their use inevitably “harasses or disturbs” protected species such as whales, dolphins or porpoise.
On 25 November 2019 I was part of a group of representatives of CCN who met with Marine Scotland to present our concerns and explore these issues. We got no answers to the foregoing questions, but did discover that apparently ADDs are not used in Shetland, because the companies there took advice from SNH. It seems that along the remainder of the aquaculture coast these devices are in use without licences, Marine Scotland are aware of this and nothing is being done. I annex the text of the letter I sent to the Lord Advocate following that meeting, the papers sent therewith and the reply, which came not from him but from Marine Scotland. Condoning apparent illegality is an extremely bad look for a progressive government.
There is a very simple, environmentally sound and totally effective way to resolve the issue of seal predation and consign both shooting and ADDs to history. For years campaigners, such as the marine biologist and wild life expert David Ainsley, have been arguing for the fitting of double, or properly tensioned, nets. There is no reason for these not to be used, apart from the cost to an industry that is driven mainly by greed.”
Following this the Scottish Parliament met on 17 June and I wrote to the Minister, Marie Gougeon as follows:
“First of all I wish to congratulate you on your handling of yesterday's hearing, which produced a number of much needed and important reforms.
As I think you know I've been engaging with Mike Russell over the years on a variety of marine issues, most recently on ADDs. I've had the benefit of reading the email sent to you by my friend Russ Cheshire of COAST and am writing to add some further comments. I'm copying both in on this.
Russ and I were among a group of environmentalists who met with Marine Scotland on 25 November last year, when Jane Rougvie had just taken charge.
We spent a couple of hours emphasising that it is clear that the use of ADDs currently does require to be licensed, also that in terms of the regulations about injuring and harassing wildlife such licences cannot be granted. This means that, strictly, Mark Ruskell's amendment was not required,
as the law is already there, just not enforced. This was confirmed by the person from SNH, who confirmed the non use of ADDs in Shetland, because the companies there had raised the issue.
You will know that about 50 licences are currently in force re harbour and wind farm construction etc, just not fish farms. Turning an official blind eye to lawbreaking is a very bad look.
We got the impression that Ms Rougvie was rather surprised at the line her predecessors had taken.
I duly wrote to the Lord Advocate drawing his attention to this issue, but regrettably he passed the matter to MS, who issued a reply that bypassed the legal problem.
I suggest that, just as with seal shooting, MS have been letting Scottish Ministers down. Re the former they've known the American position since 2017 at latest. Perhaps they felt a derogation could be obtained, who knows? Re the latter there is an issue which is now in the public domain and unresolved.
There is no need to take time to collect data, as was suggested yesterday. There are only a few companies involved and they know what they're using. The science is there, per SNH and academic work paid for by Scottish Government over at least ten years.
They should be told to stop using ADDs forthwith and apply for licences if they think they will be granted.”
Yesterday a reply came from Mark Palmer of Marine Scotland as follows:
“Thank you for your email of 18 June 2020 to the Minister for Rural Affairs and the Natural Environment about the regulation of Acoustic Deterrent Devices (ADDs) in Scotland. Ms Gougeon has asked me to respond on her behalf as I lead the policy division responsibly for these matters.
On 17 June 2020 the Animals and Wildlife (Penalties, Protections and Powers) (Scotland) Bill passed its final stage in its passage through the Scottish Parliament. The Bill as passed by Parliament also places a statutory commitment (passed by an amendment endorsed by the Scottish Government) on Scottish Ministers to lay a report before the Scottish Parliament on the use of acoustic deterrent devices at fish farms no later than 1 March 2021.
The report must include—
1. information on the use made of acoustic deterrent devices on Scottish fish farms, 2. any known impacts that the use of acoustic deterrent devices has on marine mammals, 3. consideration of whether the use of acoustic deterrent devices on Scottish fish farms is sufficiently monitored, 4. consideration of whether existing provision on protection of animals and wildlife in relation to the use of acoustic deterrent devices on Scottish fish farms is sufficient, and 5. any future plans for regulation of the use of acoustic deterrent devices.
Scottish Government welcomes this commitment and is already actively progressing an element of this work through an ongoing review of the current management and regulation of ADD use at fish farms. We will set out further details of our future approach when this work has completed.
As an initial part of this work, I can confirm that Marine Scotland will be writing to the aquaculture industry on the operation of ADDs at fish farms with regard to provisions in the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 in relation to the protection of European Protected Species (EPS). I hope that you find this information helpful and that it provides reassurances on this matter.”
Today I have replied as follows:
“Apart from attending a long meeting with Marine Scotland on 25 November 2019 I observed the recent deliberations of the ECCLR Committee and the recent parliamentary debate. I regret that I am not alone in feeling part of a parallel world in relation to the issue of the legality or otherwise of the use of ADDs on fish farms. I cannot state the issue as it is seen by ordinary citizens like myself more clearly than I put it in my email to members of the ECCLR Committee sent on 4 June, from which I extract the following:
“Regarding ADDs, the position, stated bluntly, is that (first) their use in Scotland is illegal in the absence of a licence from Marine Scotland and (second) licences cannot be granted, because their use inevitably “harasses or disturbs” protected species such as whales, dolphins or porpoise.”
It remains a complete mystery why, for example, a company carrying out necessary works of repair on an oil rig or a pier routinely complies with the law by applying for an EPS licence, which will be granted on the grounds that harassment or disturbance cannot be avoided, whereas fish farm companies simply go ahead with deploying hundreds of ADDs without bothering to apply for licences.
I have been trying very hard to think of a respectable reason why Marine Scotland has not already, as soon as you discovered that ADDs were routinely in use without licences, reminded operators of the need to apply. Can you explain why this is the case, please?”
Further developments will be reported.
