Firing on all cylinders: In an election party political broadcast Kate Forbes is seen talking to party leader John Swinney in which she says that ‘Get the economy firing on all cylinders and it will power a better future’ She added that ‘our approach is to deliver economic growth’. According to Salmon Scotland, salmon farming already adds over £760 million GVA to the Scottish economy but clearly has the potential to increase this aiding the Scottish Government’s aims to increase economic growth.
Unfortunately, whilst the Scottish Government is keen to boost the Scottish economy, it is at the same time also hindering potential growth of the salmon farming sector. This is due to the introduction of SEPA’s sea lice risk framework. Although SEPA are keen to impose this regulation on the salmon industry, it is the Marine Directorate’s approach to sea lice science that is driving the move to regulate salmon farms based on the potential hazard to wild fish. As I have written many times previously, the Marine Directorate are unwilling to discuss the science claiming the science is settled, when clearly it is not.
If the salmon farming industry can have a proper and meaningful discussion with the Marine Directorate and SEPA, they might realise that the sea lice risk framework is a total waste of time in that it will do nothing to help protect wild salmon and sea trout whilst limiting industry growth and harming economic growth.
Based on economic growth alone, it may be considered that the Scottish Government might be interested in at least hearing the concerns but no it seems that the Marine Directorate’s version of the science is untouchable and there is no room for any discussion at all.
There is a slight glimmer of hope in the current head of Marine Directorate’s science has just completed his last day in the job and a new incumbent takes over next week. Hopefully, the new post holder will be more open to discussion instead of protecting their science from scrutiny.
The Rural Affairs & Islands Committee salmon inquiry has shown to date that those whose complaints have fuelled the inquiry come mainly from the wild fish sector. Despite extensive evidence, it is clear that the problems with wild fish declines lie well away from salmon farms. In common with the Marine Directorate, none of the wild fish organisations are sufficiently concerned about the declines to want to listen to anyone who might shed some light on what is happening to wild fish. As I have heard many times over, only anglers really understand wild fish which why wild fish populations are now heading towards extinction.
The other complainants who are hindering economic growth are the coastal communities with their NIMBY approach. It was therefore pleasing to hear the new UK Government saying that the days of NIMBYism are numbered as the UK moves to a YIMBY approach to development.
If Scotland is to move towards improved economic growth it must be more receptive to discussion rather than rely on the views of those who don’t seem to want a Scotland that is firing on all cylinders.
Similar fats: A new study from the Institute of Marine Research in Norway has found that the longer that salmon that have escaped from salmon farms survive, the more that the fatty acid profile of the fish becomes similar to that of wild salmon. This is really of not of any surprise. Farmed salmon and wild salmon are effectively the same fish, despite claims about genetic differentiation.
Most anglers will identify an escaped farmed salmon by the look of its fins and its deeper body shape. The deep body shape is likely to be the result of an endless supply of food making the fish grow much quicker than their wild counterparts. However, should the fish escape the net pens, they are deprived of their food, and most are unlikely to adapt to finding natural food especially in the coastal locations. As a result, they starve and die. Yet some manage to adapt and as the amount of, and type of food changes, there flesh changes accordingly. Thus, the fatty acid profile changes too.
IMR also conclude that as the fish become more like the wild fish, they also have an increased chance of successful breeding with their wild equivalents. The IMR researchers found that escaped farmed salmon that had successfully adapted to life outside the farm were sexually mature when they migrated up the local rivers. IMR say that this is a signal that farmed salmon have become more adapted to life outside the pens and will have an improved chance of a spawning success.
What the researchers do not address is whether these adapted fish will contribute to the claimed genetic introgression or are they now considered a wild fish with no discernible impact. Of course, most farmed salmon are identified by genetic markers rather than differences in the genetic makeup and thus will rely on Darwinian evolution to dictate how successful they really are.
Whose fault? Øyvind André Haram of Seafood Norway has written a commentary for Intrafish in which he asks why the salmon farming industry has become the root of all evil. Are we worse than Coca-Cola? What about the oil industry? He says that after 14 years working for the industry in communications, he wondered if he has had enough? He says that some evenings after a rough day he does think about it, especially after taking phone calls from yet another journalist who has found another aspect of the industry to criticise.
During his time in the industry, Øyvind says that he has often criticised the industry himself. He suggests that the sector has been far too unskilled in defending itself. The sector has often just put up the shutters and said that those who criticise simply don’t understand the issues. Yet at the same time, he is ready to criticise the fishing press and former journalist colleagues who demand immediate answers whatever the time. He is also disappointed when the industry press does not respond to more mainstream journalists when they clearly have got the story wrong.
Øyvind says that we do have to admit our mistakes but at the same time acknowledge that a lot has been done right over the last fifty years. At the time he wrote his commentary, he says that the latest criticism in circulation is the eternal question of how much responsibility the salmon industry has for the decline in wild salmon and although the subject can be made into long documentaries, he believe s that we need to be more open and engage with the people around us and of course we need more people to standup for what we do. Øyvind says he is proud to be an ambassador for the industry, which includes so many brilliant people, who get up every day and do a great job producing fabulously fine fish. He ends by saying that salmon is important for Norway, but salmon is also important to Øyvind André Haram.
I can very much relate to what Øyvind says. The salmon industry internationally is subject to so much criticism, most of which is unfounded. We do need to engage more and defend the criticism, but in my experience the problem is that those who criticise don’t want to know the truth, especially if it undermines their criticism. After offering to speak to the Coastal Communities Network about sea lice science the offer was rejected with the statement that anything that might be said would not help their aim of removing salmon farming from Scottish waters. They were not interested in whether the narrative they peddled was true or not. At the same time, the industry seems happy to engage with recognised organisations and even Government in order to be seen to be doing the right thing yet appear unwilling to directly challenge them to provide hard evidence to support their claims. Despite long term claims that salmon farming impacts wild salmon populations, I have yet to see a shred of evidence that these impacts actually exist. Too much reliance is placed on theoretical modelling which is then used as ‘proof’. As I mentioned in the first part of this reLAKSation is there any evidence that the new sea lice risk framework will actually protect a single salmon? It still seems that the only reason that SEPA are progressing the framework is because they have been told to.
Like Øyvind, I care deeply about this industry which is why I continue with this important work, but I would argue that the industry must also help itself too. If the industry is accused of something, we should demand to see hard evidence supporting the criticism. It is not enough just to be seen as the easy and accepting target of those who are pursuing their own agenda.