Fishing Quota and Brexit

The Fisheries Bill is now making its way through the UK parliament, having been introduced in the House of Lords.

In the House of Commons the former UK Environment Secretary

Theresa Villiers said:

“This new bill takes back control of our waters, enabling the UK to

create a sustainable, profitable fishing industry for our coastal

communities, while securing the long term health of British fisheries.

Leaving the EU’s failed common fisheries policies is one of the most

important benefits of Brexit. It means we can create a fairer system.”

Former UK Fisheries Minister and now UK Environment Secretary George Eustice said:

“The Fisheries Bill gives us the powers to implement our own independent fisheries policy, improve our marine habitats and make decisions based on the health of our fish stocks not vested interests.

For many people in coastal communities, taking back control and leaving the Common Fisheries Policy is at the heart of getting Brexit done, and this Bill delivers for the environment, fishermen and the Union.”

Strong words, but here is Lord  Gardiner, speaking in the House of Lords, sounding much more cautious:

“It creates the powers that the UK needs to operate as an independent coastal state and fulfil our international obligations. From 2021, the UK will be an independent coastal state, able to control who can fish in our waters. We will be responsible for setting annual total allowable catches of fish species within our waters. For stocks that are shared with other coastal states such as the EU and Norway, we will negotiate to agree fishing quotas. Currently, the EU distributes quotas between its member states using a principle called relative stability, which provides a fixed percentage of quota based on fishing patterns from the 1970s. This gives an unfair share of quota to UK fishers, not reflective of what is found in UK waters, and so we will negotiate to move towards a fairer, more scientific method for the allocation of shared stocks.

…Unilateral restriction on access to fishing in the UK EEZ would almost certainly lead to reciprocal restrictions being placed on UK vessels fishing in the EU EEZ. This would also have a profound effect both on the fishing industry in the EU and on the UK fleet that relies on fishing outside the UK EEZ. Some form of mutual access arrangements must therefore be negotiated.

The historic reluctance of Member States to renegotiate the relative stability key suggests that negotiating new quota allocations after Brexit will be difficult. Such difficulty will be accentuated if these negotiations overlap with the wider negotiations on EU withdrawal. The Government could use access to fishing within the UK EEZ as a lever for achieving a better allocation of quotas but must also bear in mind that co-operation will be crucial for the long-term sustainability of stocks.

As an independent coastal state the UK will in principle be able to ‘walk away’ from negotiations with other coastal states if the compromises reached on TACs or quota shares are not aligned to UK interests. Walking away would, by leading to unilateral management of shared stocks, risk undermining the sustainability of fish stocks. It would also invite retaliation in other areas, including trade. Consequently, walking away should be a last resort.

Trade in fish and seafood is essential to the wider seafood industry, which relies heavily on importing raw goods at reduced or zero tariffs for domestic consumption, and on exporting domestic catches and production. Any disruptions to the current 

trading patterns could have profound effects on both the catching and processing sectors. Trade with the EU in fish products will be a key factor to the future success of the UK fishing industry and fish processors. We therefore urge that the fish sector should be included in the Government’s consideration of priorities for a future trading relationship with the EU.”

The Bill has been welcomed by the representatives of the largest fishing interests, including Barrie Deas, Chief Executive of the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations, and Elspeth Macdonald, Head of the Scottish Fishermens Federation. Last week both gave evidence in the House of Lords, along with Jeremy Percy, New Under Ten Fishermens Association and Andrew Kuyk, UK Seafood Industry Alliance. 

Of the four witnesses, Ms Macdonald was the most bullish about Brexit, claiming that “getting back control” and “sovereignty” over UK coastal waters would bring enormous benefits to the UK fleet. This was effectively a continuation of what her predecessor Bertie Armstrong was preaching in the years leading up to the Referendum and led to a split in the SFF.

Mr Percy and Mr Kuyk were much less enthusiastic about the “benefits” of Brexit. They confirmed that in the last forty years fishing patterns have greatly changed, as has the distribution of the target fish themselves. In some parts fishers are unable to catch up to their quota, in others they can catch their years allowance in a couple of weeks. To redress this there are proposals to create new quota and share it in ways that reflect current patterns. Doing this will not be  easy and conflict with countless vested interests.

During the hearing Mr Percy read out a prepared statement from the Scottish Creel Fishers Federation, so they were represented by proxy. The statement confirmed their concerns over certification and transportation of live and highly perishable catch. The Committee acknowledged bluntly that this would be a consequence of Brexit and no comfort of any sort was given.

The rest of this post attempts to answer a simple question. We know that most if not all of the smallest members of the fishing fleet, who are of course also the most important for survival of their local communities, are extremely worried about Brexit, but why are the major operators, based in the big North East ports and owning almost all the quota, not equally concerned? 

There’s a lot of mystery about how the ownership of quota is structured and the ownership of the owners themselves, where they are companies and not individuals.

In her evidence Ms Macdonald claimed that the SFF represents 80% of the Scottish fleet, and holding almost all of Scottish quota, which she said is 80% owned by Scottish owners. This ties in with what we already know about the composition of the ownership of the Scottish share of quota, that it’s almost all under the control of a few major families based in the North East. There should be a caveat here: it’s quite possible that some of the Scottish registered boats are owned by limited companies that have in turn foreign shareholders, or shareholders that are in turn companies owned by other interests. It would be a surprise if this were not so.

Mr Deas confirmed that a good part of the remainder of UK quota is no longer owned by British interests. In particular, French and Dutch investors have bought out quota over the years. Perhaps people shaking their fists at Dutch super-trawlers off the coast should be looking closer to home?

World wide fishing quota is created as part of the attempts to conserve fish stocks and share fishing opportunities by way of  permission given to an operator to catch a specified amount of a specified stock in a specified period. Available scientific data is used to work out “total allowable catch” and the result allocated on the basis of traditional fishing activity. 

In the EU it’s been part of the much derided Common Fisheries Policy.  Not all species are included, in fact most of the Scottish West coast fleet is probably fishing for non quota species, such as shellfish.

The original allocation of quota was based on what was known about the distribution of target species and the fishing patterns of the various fleets active in EU waters. Percentages were worked out and then given, without payment, to the fishing boat operators who were active at that time. 

As both the allocation within each member state’s fleet and the subsequent administration were matters for that state it seems that the rules could have required an operator on giving up fishing to surrender its quota, again without payment, in order that it could be reallocated to a new operator entering the industry. Sadly, during that period the UK was under the control of free market, neo-liberal governments which allowed quota, not just for fishing but for other commodities such as milk, to be sold. I suspect that other states took a different approach, which would have made UK quota particularly susceptible to buy-out. 

This problem isn’t just a UK one. Here’s a quote from a Canadian website:

“As it stands right now, British Columbia’s policies are different from anywhere else in Canada or Alaska in that quotas and licenses can be owned by anyone, including large, non-Canadian corporations. We often call those owners “slipper skippers” or “arm-chair fishermen” because they never set foot on a boat. BC quotas and licenses are bought and sold like hedge funds. On average, 70% of the landed value of the catch goes to these shareholders, leaving precious little income for the hard-working people trying to make a living in their coastal communities.”

I attended the Marine Scotland meeting on fishing policy in Oban last July, at which fishermen owners of quota pointed out very forcibly that there are now no longer people in the industry who got their quota for free and that current owners see it as part of their retirement funding. This means that in turn, as has also been pointed out, anyone entering the industry has to buy a share of quota, which may cost as much as the boat itself, finding in effect that the bottom two rungs have been cut off the ladder. The effect, of course, is to concentrate ownership of quota in wealthy people who quite probably don't themselves go to sea.

So, what do the owners of quota know that the rest of us don’t?

I suggest that they are aware that under the European Convention on Human Rights, which has of course absolutely nothing to do with the European Union, the owner of an item of property cannot have it removed without being given due compensation. By accident or design, successive United Kingdom Governments have allowed quota to become precisely that, property that has legal protection.

If this is correct we are likely to see over the next few months a considerable rowing back from extreme “taking back control” positions, perhaps the creation of some new quota to pacify some interests, business as usual for the major players and disaster for much of our West coast fleet.

Post script: for another take on this problem has already highlighted by Greenpeace, see the link here: Unearthed - the Millionaires hoarding UK fishing Rights

Freedom Food Limited

On 3 February Save Seil Sound wrote to the Scottish Charity

Regulator, OSCR, raising issues about Freedom Food Limited,

as follows: 

“(We are) … a campaign group consisting of ordinary citizens in mid Argyll concerned about the damage that is being caused to our local environment and wild life by the massive expansion of aquaculture. I am writing on behalf of the group to ask that you investigate and review the charitable status of Freedom Food Limited (“FFL”), a limited company incorporated in England and Wales (02723670), but which is registered with you as a Scottish Charity under SC038199. According to its published accounts the company is beneficially owned by the RSPCA, whose charitable activities seem to be confined exclusively to England and Wales.

For convenience I quote the sole object registered by FFL with you, as follows:

“To prevent cruelty to Animals by the promotion of humane farming. transportation, marketing and slaughter of farm animals, In particular but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, by Implementing a set of rearing and handling standards approved from time to time by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals ("the RSPCA)”

As far as can be determined from the information published in their accounts and on the RSPCA website the sole activity carried on by FFL is running a scheme now known as “RSPCA Assured”, in terms of which companies operating various forms of battery farming are able to acquire a badge that eventually appears on the products retailed in supermarkets.  To quote from the website:

“RSPCA Assured, previously Freedom Food, is the RSPCA’s farm assurance and food labelling scheme.

It aims to improve the welfare of animals farmed for our food. RSPCA Assured assesses farms, hauliers and abattoirs to the RSPCA’s strict welfare standards. If they meet every standard, the RSPCA Assured label can be used on their product.

RSPCA Assured allows free range, organic, indoor and outdoor farms to join its scheme as long as the RSPCA’s welfare standards can be met. 

The only way of knowing if a product is RSPCA Assured is if it has the label on it. If it doesn't have the RSPCA Assured label then it is unlikely to have been reared to RSPCA welfare standards.”

In relation to aquaculture it can be estimated from analysis of the accounts that about two thirds of the aquaculture companies operating in Scotland are currently members of the scheme. Payments from these companies are a mixture of membership fees plus a sort of royalty based on the tonnages in the farms. (In recent years an average of 25% of the total stock in Scottish fish farms has died of disease, or has been lost through escapes and it’s not clear if the payments include these.) However there is no published list of members and thus no possibility for members of the public to know from which “farm” a particular product has come. Indeed some retailers have made up false names, such as Marks & Spencer’s “Lochmuir”.

This lack of transparency about the source means that it is impossible for anyone to know if the product he or she is buying has been produced by methods involving the deliberate infliction of cruelty, whether on the actual salmon or on other living creatures. Those opposed to industrial fish farming are so on a number of grounds. Those relevant to animal cruelty include the following:

1 Caging many thousands of salmon, a migratory species, can be  said to be intrinsically cruel. This is evidenced by the totally unnatural behaviour patterns, with the stronger fish on the surface constantly jumping to escape, while the weaker ones below gradually suffocate. This applies to each and every unit.

2 An inevitable consequence of the close confinement is that sea lice are now rife on the West coast. Almost all units are carrying burdens of lice in excess of limits set by the regulatory bodies. Plumes of sea lice eggs are emitted, drift long distances on the tides and attach themselves to wild salmon and sea trout. Individual campaigners have produced photographic evidence showing fish in serious distress, some with gaping holes where flesh has literally been eaten away. Again this problem is endemic.

3 On discovery of excess lice levels operators are required to take action, including in serious cases to cull the fish and put them out of their misery. There have been cases where this has only happened after visits from campaigners. 

4 Companies are now “delicing” salmon by pumping them through tubes into vats of hot water in wellboats, that then discharge the residual waste directly into the sea. On occasions salmon have not survived this process, which seems fundamentally a form of animal cruelty.

5 Salmon farmers routinely obtain government licences to shoot seals. In exchanges on social media representatives of the RSPCA have acknowledged that this happens on at least some of the farms they certify.

6 Accoustic Deterrent Devices, otherwise known as seal screamers, are routinely used to frighten off local seals, despite it’s being known that they damage the hearing of non-target species such as whales, porpoise and dolphins.

7 Companies are now routinely trapping wrasse and lumpfish, “cleaner fish” whose natural function is to keep the shallow inshore waters clear. They are then added to the fish cages to predate on the sea lice on the salmon. On conclusion of the growing cycle these are killed along with the salmon.

All of the foregoing processes are intrinsically cruel and some or all are practised on farms licensed by FFL. It can be argued that instead of preventing cruelty the company is promoting it.

One would expect a genuine certification process to have at least three components, (1) truly independent monitoring, (2) a proper system of inspection and (3) publication of results. Examination of what the RSPCA place on the public record suggests that each is lacking.

Regarding (1), monitoring is via a list that can be accessed here:

https://science.rspca.org.uk/sciencegroup/farmanimals/standards/salmon

It can be seen that the vast majority belong to fish farm companies operating on the West coast. Regarding (2) and (3) no details of inspections are given and nothing is published.

I respectfully suggest that rather than operating as a charity in Scotland, certainly as far as aquaculture is concerned, FFL are operating a licensing scheme to raise money for their sole shareholder, which does not operate here. I suggest that you ask them if any of the companies on the list participate in the scheme, if there have been actual inspections of sites in Scotland, if so for details of the results and to explain why nothing is published. Further it would be useful to know if they have ever refused an application from a fish farm company to join the scheme.”

We were surprised to find that OSCR do not get involved in charities regulated in both Scotland and England. They passed our complaint to the Charity Commissioners, who have now replied as follows:

“Thank you for your email which was referred to us by OSCR for our consideration, in which you raised concerns about FREEDOM FOOD LIMITED - 1059879.

Thank you for taking the time to notify the Charity Commission of your concerns relating to the charitable status of the above named organisation

Your concerns have been assessed by a senior case worker.  We have decided to keep the information you have provided on the charity’s records.  This means that we will reassess this matter should further information come to light.

I would also like to reassure you that the information you have provided will be used by the Commission to highlight particular areas of concern to the public and to drive improvements across the charity sector. We review all matters of concern that come into the organisation on a regular basis to inform our regulatory work and to identify issues or threats of harm to the sector as a whole.

We will also use this information to inform our proactive work with charities to address issues of concern.  This can result, for instance, in a spot check on a charity, a letter to trustees, or a regulatory alert to a particular group of charities

At the Charity Commission we want to ensure that charity can thrive and inspire trust, so once again I appreciate the time you have taken to contact us.”

So, to paraphrase the reply, 

“Thanks for trying Jimmy, now just shove off!”

Our response to the SEPA Consultation on the proposed new regime for polluting the seabed.

Response by Ewan G Kennedy on behalf of the saveseilsound Campaign Group to the SEPA DZR Consultation

Introduction

About us

In 2011 a  planning application to relocate and expand a failed fish farm at Ardmaddy at the North end of Seil Sound to a point further South created considerable concern locally and further afield, resulting in over 800 objections. A group of local residents decided to form saveseilsound as a campaign group to carry out research and inform ourselves about what was going on under the surface in order to ensure that our contribution to the debate was based on science and not emotion. While we value our area very highly for the quality of its environment, wildlife and scenic beauty, our concerns were not solely about ecology, but also for our local micro-economy, which in common with most of mid-Argyll is almost entirely dependent on tourism and leisure.

The saveseilsound campaign group now includes a central core of technical specialists, including marine biologists, experts in water flows and hydrology, some scientists now retired from government service and thus free to assist us and myself, a lawyer with some experience of litigation matters, who serve as honorary secretary to the group. We are totally unfunded and beholden to no person and nothing apart from the environment that we respect.

After the Ardmaddy application was granted unanimously, followed by several other grants processed by officials without going to committee, we decided that our resources would be better used in trying to compel the agencies charged with looking after our health and environment simply to comply with the regulatory regime that they, including yourselves at SEPA, are supposed to be working under. To date we have had some success with our complaint to the EU in relation to the Animal Waste By-Products Directive, which produced a welcome legislative change in 2015.

We have in preparation a further Complaint in respect of the failure of governmental bodies properly to comply with the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive. The Directive specifies a number of elements that statements should contain, including that they should be comprehensive. This has never happened in our area, indeed many applications have been granted without any assessment.

About our area

Visitors come to the area from all over to enjoy the beauty of this still largely unspoiled wild fringe of Europe and the numerous still visible pieces of history, the duns and castles, the standing stones, the islands which among other things roofed the world, contributed to religious thought and had impacts throughout the world from America to Australia. Recently films created against a Scottish backdrop, art trails such as Artmap Argyll, wild life cruises to see cetaceans and raptors plus the Argyll Sea Kayak Trail (http://www.paddleargyll.org.uk/kayaktrail.html) have intensified this interest and created more demand for local facilities and services.

There is scope for visitor numbers to be considerably increased by publicising what rural Scotland has to offer, but this is directly threatened by fish farming. Bays that are  hosting a fish farm are effectively out of bounds to kayakkers and in hard conditions could even present a threat to life. Argyll & Bute Council failed to commission an archaeological survey at Ardmaddy South, with the result that a Viking boat noust on the shore was not spotted. Visitors now see a huge industrial installation next to prehistoric Dun Fada and the legendary Castle of the Dogs on Torsta.

The employment figure in the policy statement by the Scottish Government cannot go without challenge. The industry has for years quoted figures for employment created far in excess of the official statistics produced by central and local government, occasionally admitting that it claims the benefit of all employment in local services. It is absolutely certain that the jobs created in the most fragile micro-economies total far less than 8300. For example, how many are resident on Seil? Or Luing?

The area will continue to depend on tourism and leisure long after the fish farm owners have sold out and taken their profits to tax havens.

Question 1 – Do you support the principle of trying to make it easier and more attractive for fish farm businesses to develop in exposed, deep waters with strong tides?

This question conceals what seems to us to be a complete reversal of the approach to handling the enormous pollution produced by industrial fish farming, by abandoning a policy of containment and allowing the oceans to become effectively a gigantic dustbin.

Going back to an earlier period in the history of the industry, when guidelines were produced by Strathclyde Regional Council, the principle was to keep fish farms to a size that seems miniscule by today’s standards, just a hundred tonnes or so. It was acknowledged that installations would pollute, so leases were limited to ten years with a presumption that they would not be renewed on the same site. Ideally they would be sited in areas of limited tidal flow, to keep the poisonous debris confined to an “allowable zone of effects” that would be sacrificed but would hopefully recover when the farm moved.

As we all know this approach proved aspirational only. Leases were renewed without being moved, AZEs were relentlessly increased and this powerful industry, largely driven by foreign entrepreneurs who were subject to strict environmental laws back home, found that Scottish politicians of all colours could be seduced by talk of creating employment in fragile communities,  “producing animal protein and … food security” - this despite the ration of wild fish required to produce the salmon, formerly about 10 to 1 and now down to about 4.5 to 1, with Agriprotein (using insects) now being discussed!

To make matters worse the Crown Estate changed the rules to allow long leases of the seabed effectively creating rights of property which would be very difficult to cancel.

Anecdotal evidence began to come in from divers that the seabed was being progressively ruined under the farms. I do not dive, but have spoken to some divers who have worked for fish farms and many recreational ones, who have confirmed this. I was present on the dive boat when the following video was made at Pol na Gille and will testify if necessary to its authenticity.

Video of the seabed at Pol na Gille

What is absolutely clear is that allowing industrial fish farming in inshore sea lochs and voes is deadly to local wildlife, poisons the sea bed and ruins the prospects for small local businesses.

Even without fish farming the sea loch system comprising Seil Sound, Shuna Sound, Loch Shuna and Loch Melfort (Seil/Shuna/Melfort) would be under pressure from shore-based developments and visitors. Apart from several hundred domestic properties, some with but many without proper septic tank facilities, there are two failed public systems installed by Scottish Water at enormous expense, two commercial boatyards doing pleasure and fishing boat repairs, a marina and several mooring areas together hosting several hundred yachts, two substantial hotels and several working farms.

All of the foregoing discharge into what is truly one single, moderately-sized sea loch in all but name. As is well known, tidal flows on the West coast run from South to North and with virtually no exit to the North via Clachan Sound and only minimal flushing via the Cuan essentially the same water is moving back and forth in each tide.

This argument was developed more fully, with a detailed analysis of the seabed and tidal flows, in the comment which we submitted to you in response to application no CAR/L/1000800. In line with our usual experience SEPA did not engage with us and duly allowed the increase that was sought.

Subsequently Mike Russell MSP lodged written questions regarding the possible redesignation of Seil/Shuna/Melfort as one sea loch, to no effect. Here is the exchange:

Question S4W-28411: Michael Russell, Argyll and Bute, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 11/11/2015

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will designate the Seil/Shuna/Melfort loch system as a single sea loch for the purpose of better regulating fish farming in the area.

Answered by Aileen McLeod (24/11/2015):

The Scottish Government has designated Disease Management Areas based on separation distances, tidal excursions and other epidemiological disease risk factors. Disease management area 16d includes the Seil/Shuna/Melfort loch system as well as the Loch Craignish system. This is considered as one single area for the purposes of disease management.

The Seil/Shuna/Melfort loch system forms part of a Farm Management Area, area M40 as designated in the Scottish Salmon Producers Organisation’s Code of Good Practice. The Aquaculture and Fisheries Act 2013 requires fish farmers to be party to a farm management agreement or to maintain a farm management statement which must contain provisions about the following matters – fish health management, management of parasites, live fish movements, harvesting and fallowing.

To ask the Scottish Government, further to the answer to question S4W-28411 by Aileen McLeod on 24 November 2015, whether it will designate, for planning purposes, the Seil/Shuna/Melford loch system as a single entity and ensure that it is treated as such at all levels of the planning process.

Answered by Alex Neil (17/12/2015):

The protection that the planning system affords these waters would be a matter for Argyll and Bute Council to consider through the development planning process. The council's current development plan largely takes a criteria based approach to guide proposals to the most appropriate locations. The impacts that any specific proposal might have on these areas will be a material consideration when determining any planning application. The Scottish Government will monitor the situation closely.

To ask the Scottish Government, further to the answer to question S4W-28816 by Alex Neil on 17 December 2015, in light of Argyll and Bute Council being bound by guidance on the inshore sea lochs and voes set out in Marine Scotland maps, whether it will move the southern boundary line on those maps for the Seil/Shuna/Melfort lochs from its present location to a line between Ardluing and Craignish.

Answered by Alex Neil (13/01/2016):

There is currently no intention to amend the areas to which the Locational Guidelines for the Authorisation: Marine Fish Farms in Scottish Waters apply.

You will note that the Minister Alex Neil appeared to be in ignorance of the legal requirement for Argyll & Bute to follow the guidance of Marine Scotland. This is typical of the situation that has arisen with a divided system of control, enabling the various public bodies, local authorities, Marine Scotland, SEPA and the Crown Estate to pass the buck, unhindered by Ministers who do not understand the system.

There are now about ten current installations in Seil/Shuna/Melfort hosting hundreds of thousands of caged salmon in an area that any sane person (and indeed the industry, but seemingly not the Scottish Government) can see is effectively one single, largely enclosed sealoch. The evidence we have assembled to date confirms that such things should not be placed inshore. Moving them offshore would certainly help to solve our local problems, assuming they could be moved and the leases cancelled without the claims about expropriation of property that the operating companies would inevitably make.

We do not have the expertise to offer a view on the likelihood of offshore locations succeeding in overcoming huge logistical problems. On the face of things we suppose that the pollution would still end up somewhere, just not, we hope, on our doorstep. Taking things to extremes, if installations were moved many miles offshore the problems would become international and the seabed would be too deep to monitor.

We have the following detailed observations:

It makes no sense to allow the industry to expand offshore unless this results in a corresponding reduction in biomass in the existing inshore locations.

Offshore must mean well offshore, at least outside the 3 mile limit. We would strongly oppose any farms in areas of offshore islands such as Garvellachs, Slate Isles, Sounds of Jura and Sound of Luing, which are areas of high conservation importance.

There must be no farms in or close enough to impact on MPAs and SACs and existing farms must be moved out of these protected areas.

The use of ADDs must not be allowed within the porpoise SAC, because they exclude porpoise from important habitat for around 7.5 kilometers from the ADD.  Double nets should be fitted to any farms where there remains a problem with seals and shooting of seals should only be allowed  “as a last resort” when a seal is actually inside the net.

Question 2 – What are your views on our proposal to remove the current cap of 2,500 tonnes on the maximum fish biomass that a farm can stock?

This looks suspiciously like an acknowledgement that SEPA is in fact unable to control what is going on and intends to surrender to the demands of the industry, supported by Ministers blinded by the prospect of a quick solution to the problems of fragile coastal economies.

For several years we have been following the lack of activity by SEPA in enforcing existing limits in a system that relies on companies to self-report any misconduct. You will be aware, as we have discovered by examining the figures reported on your website, that there have been many hundreds of failures to keep within permitted limits. Recently we engaged with you by way of FOI requests in relation to what appeared to be clear breaches at Pol na Gille, in an attempt to find out if SEPA had reported matters to the Crown Office. As you will be aware we were unsuccessful, as a blanket exemption was applied. It seems that in the whole history of the CAR there has not been one single case brought to court.

We can understand the difficulty in using reports filed by junior employees of a company, often no doubt working in adverse weather conditions, to produce evidence of a sufficient standard to establish criminal liability, given difficulties of authentication and the privilege against self-incrimination. We can fully understand the embarrassment no doubt felt in the Crown Office and its reluctance to disclose the reasons for its decisions not to prosecute.

Given current restrictions on finance it does not seem likely that resources will be made available to provide an underwater police force to produce evidence to a proper standard. Efforts must be made to enforce the present system before allowing much larger installations in sites which it seems will be even more difficult to police.

Question 3 – Do you support our proposal to allow fish biomass to increase by up to 10% per production cycle, provided compliance with the proposed seabed standards is not threatened?

No

Question 4 – What are your thoughts on our proposal that, for DZR sites, we will take on responsibility for monitoring the effects of the farms on the seabed?

Of course you should, see our Answer 2 above. You should do this for all sites, not just new ones and must lobby for resources to do so.

Question 5 – What are your views on our proposal that there should be a break in production if seabed standards are breached to allow the seabed to recover?

The original policy referred to in Answer 1 was sound and it is tragic that it has been ignored.

If, in the case of a land-based installation, the tenant commits a serious breach of the terms of the lease the landlord has the legal power to irritate (i.e. cancel) the lease and recover possession. This could be an effective way to ensure compliance with, for example biomass rules, leaving the site fallow for however long it proved necessary for the seabed to recover.

Question 6 – What are your views on our proposal that, under DZR, the maximum area of seabed that can be affected by the deposition of farm wastes would be standardised to 0.5 km2?

We have no views on this. In a deep water site monitoring would be impossible anyway.

Question 7 – Are there any other comments or suggestions you would like to make about the proposals?

The public detest self-regulation, whether it be in the police, the legal profession or the doctors, and for good reason. Land-based agriculture is subject to external regulation, as is the entire food production chain, but fish farming is for some reason exempt, whether it be in relation to compliance with CAR regulations or shooting seals. The single best thing that could be done to enable SEPA to do its work effectively would be to give it the resources to enforce existing regulations.

This response has necessarily been kept short, but we shall be happy to expand on any issues when you engage with us.

What happens to the dead fish?

Our greatest failure to date was our campaign against an application to plant a huge industrial fish farm Port na Morachd, the lovely bay in the above image. Although there were over 800 objections the application was duly rubber-stamped by Argyll & Bute Council.

That process led to our greatest success to date, our complaint to the European Union, which led directly to a change in the law regarding the disposal of dead fish.

In the course of campaigning against the applications at Ardmaddy members of saveseilsound discovered that 82,663 mature salmon had perished at Ardmaddy over a few months, ending in December 2011. 

The total waste created thereby was reported by the operators as 256 tonnes.

Ardmaddy is an extremely remote site, with no road access. Residents were alarmed at the possibility that this enormous quantity of waste might simply have been dumped at sea. Even worse, what if the dead fish had been recycled into fish food for fish farms?

We decided to find out and were astonished to discover that nobody in officialdom knew!

Argyll & Bute Council didn’t even know that this disaster had happened. 

SEPA had learned some months after the event, when Lakeland Marine Farm sent in its mortality figures, but they hadn’t bothered to do anything. 

Nobody outside of Lakeland knew the cause of death.

We then found that this was all entirely within the law as it then stood, because the UK had negotiated a special derogation from the Animal By-Products Waste Directive exempting almost the entire aquaculture coast from environmental protection.

The Directive was brought in after the BSE “mad cow” scare and of course at that the fish farming industry was much smaller than it is today.

Strictly this belonged to the field of public health and safety and we took our complaint to the section of the EU Commission in Brussels with specific responsibility for this.

The Complaint was lodged in April 2012 and we didn’t hear much until we got a message on 24 June 2015 as follows:

“Extensive correspondence has taken place between the Commission services and the UK authorities in the context of the EU Pilot investigation which was triggered by your complaint. I can inform you that the UK authorities have in this context presented an action plan which includes an envisaged amendment to the Animal By-Products (Enforcement) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 and improvements to the official control activities, in particular in relation to contingency planning for large scale fish mortality disposal. In order to maintain the necessary trust-based cooperation between the Member State and the Commission during the pending EU Pilot investigation, further details of the action plan submitted by the UK authorities cannot be explained at this stage. However, the timeline provided by the UK authorities shows, inter alia, that the legislative amendment is envisaged to enter into force by the end of year 2015. The Commission services are closely following up with the commitments of the UK authorities in this context.”

Success dressed up as failure

In April 2016 we learned that the law had now been changed, as we were told that the Complaint had been shut down on the basis that it was no longer necessary!

We hadn’t spotted that in late 2015 the Scottish Government had held a “public consultation” on the Animal Waste Regulations. This was plainly our fault, but it might have been courteous for the government to have informed us and given us the opportunity to comment. Instead the invited consultees were virtually all from the industry.

Among the options given was for the law to be left unchanged and in continuing breach of the EU Directive, which would have involved the UK constantly breaking the law and being fined. It’s odd that this was even considered, but it seems that a cost benefit analysis showed that it could be more expensive to pay the fines than to dispose of the waste safely. 

And also a threat to health and safety maybe?

In the event the safe option was chosen and the new law came into effect in January 2016. As a result all waste has to be treated by a process called ensiling, basically the dead fish are put in a vat of formic acid which turns them into smelly slush that can be safely disposed of in landfill. Small amounts can be handled on site, while larger quantities are dealt with industrially.

Incredibly, there is still no supervision. As in all its operations the industry is self-policing and companies are trusted to behave.

We decided to find out who had taken part in the Consultation and what  they had said. We sent a Freedom of Information Request to the Scottish Government and have now received copies of the consultation responses.

The majority of responses were from either local authorities or land-based industries. SSPO agreed that the law should be changed, as did Dawnfresh, who operate in Loch Etive. One of the currently operating companies, who  insisted on their identity being withheld, sent the following gem:

So, this company were actually happy that the consequences of some catastrophic repeat of Ardmaddy in future would just be dumped on a local landfill site, whose workers and an  unwitting local population would be left with the consequences!