Scroll Top

reLAKSation no 1136

Vision: The Scottish Government has finally published its vision for aquaculture and whilst welcoming its environmental principles, the Coastal Communities Network has criticised an absence of clear targets and interim deadlines. According to the Ferret website, CCN have said that the vision fails to address the industry’s environmental impact five years after a Scottish Parliament committee expressed concerns. At the time, the committee had said that there were significant gaps in the knowledge about the adverse risk the sector poses to the environment. What they really meant was that critics, such as CCN, claimed there to be a risk, yet could not provide any hard evidence. This is why the committee said that there needed to be more monitoring and research. It is now five years on and CCN are still unable to fill in these supposed gaps in the knowledge and have yet to offer any specific evidence of where the salmon farming industry has had a direct impact on the environment. In fact, they certainly never mention the salmon farm at Lamlash Bay on the Isle of Arran, an area that has been subjected to much recent scrutiny which I will discuss later in this issue of reLAKSation. Instead, CCN has asked the Scottish Government for more detail about the current environmental impact of the salmon farming industry. Having listened to their representative speaks at SEPA workshops, CCN appear to promote the idea that they are experts on these issues.

Also, according to the Ferret, CCN say that the salmon farming industry has lost its social licence in many coastal communities along the west coast who want the open net pens to be phased out and coastal waters revived. CCN are especially concerned about planning proposals for new farms which they say are usually overturned on appeal by Government reporters who have no knowledge of aquaculture, leaving local communities with expensive court proceedings as the only way to challenge these new farms. CCN want a more democratic decision making process in which the local communities would have the power to reject any new farms. As CCN have already made it clear that they want all salmon farms to be taken out of the sea, such local democratic decisions would always be a forgone conclusion. It is nothing else but pure NIMBYISM.

Perhaps, if CCN want local communities to be totally democratic in their decision-making processes then perhaps, local communities should also vet anyone from outside the area who wants to settle locally. Questions that could be asked might be whether new residents will bring any economic benefits to the area or are they simply looking at the west coast as a retirement home. Will they be buying housing that could be bought by locals who live and work in the area and whether once resident whether they plan to undermine the local economy by trying to close down anything that doesn’t match their expectations of the west coast?

 

Fish Falsehoods: The Shetland Fisherman’s Association has published a 24-page report as part of their Fishy Falsehoods series. This is titled ‘Lamlash Bay: the evidence.’

The report begins by stating that the Lamlash Bay No-Take Zone that has been widely cited as providing evidence of the benefits of no-take zones to fish stocks and the fishing industry. It is also claimed that the creation of HPMA’s or similar conservation measures are justified because of the benefits shown by the no-take zone.

In their report, the SFA state six facts that show that these claims are unjustified. These are:

The evidence from Lamlash Bay is extremely limited and in particular there is no evidence of any benefits to fish stocks or fisheries.

Lobsters are the only commercial species that has increased within the no-take zone but larger individuals have suffered more damage and injuries.

The abundance of brown crabs and juvenile lobsters has fallen inside the no-take zone.

The abundance of scallops has increased in the no-take-zone but has increased more outside.

There is no evidence that the Lamlash Bay no-take zone has had any effect on the abundance of fish either inside or outside the no-take zone.

There is little evidence of spillover from the no-take zone and no evidence that it has benefited commercial fisheries in the surrounding area.

The report, which is available from the SFA website, explains their reasoning backed by a total of 24 scientific references. Their rationale appears extremely plausible.

In response, the Arran Coast has published an open letter they sent to MSPs saying that the FSA report is misleading and runs counter to scientific opinion and is without merit. The big question for me is why write this letter? Why not contact the Shetland Fishermen’s Association and invite them down to discuss the findings face to face? The simple answer is that this is not how they work. In my experience, the various coastal community groups do everything possible to avoid contact with those that question their evidence. Instead, they prefer to talk to those who they perceive know less than they do, whether that is MSPs or media. Their letter to the MSPs includes the line – ‘We look forward to the opportunity to discuss the research of Lamlash Bay with you. Please contact us to organise a meeting or a visit to Arran’.

In the past, I have contacted the Coastal Community Network which includes Arran Coast to offer to speak to their aquaculture group about sea lice research; an offer which was immediately rejected out of hand.

In 2020, the Scottish Salmon Producers Organisation invited various community groups to a workshop but their offer was rejected through a press release which can be read at https://www.arrancoast.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/CCN-Press-Release-on-SSPO-Invitation-270120.pdf in which they claimed the workshop was a PR exercise rather than a serious attempt to improve industry sustainability. The first named person in the press release was the executive director of Arran Coast.

The letter was accompanied by just 4 scientific references of which two were also cited by the SFA. Of course, the letter counters all the statements made by the SFA but there was one short statement that caught my eye. This is attributed to one of the scientific references.

The letter states that “in 2020, surveys exploring attitudes of residents and visitors on Arran recorded that a majority of respondents to the survey believed that Arran’s marine protected areas had had a positive impact (no take zone 96.7% and Marine Protected Area 88.4%) (Howarth -Forster 2020)”. In my opinion, there is a massive divide between what residents and visitors believe and the scientific evidence. Using the same logic, Coastal Communities Network will no doubt claim that there is no support for salmon farming from communities along the west coast simply because a few residents, who have been repeatedly told negative stories about salmon farming now don’t want it.

According to the SFA, the major flaw in the research on the no-take zone is that no survey took place prior to the introduction of the measure so there is nothing available to measure against how the zone has performed but it seems that this doesn’t matter as long as those who implemented the no-take zone believe that it has worked.

If the Arran Coast is correct and that the no-take zone and surrounding marine protected area has brought benefits to the marine environment, then perhaps they could also explain how these have occurred when a salmon farm has been operating on its doorstep for nearly forty years?

 

Scare(mongering): The Times newspaper reports that Nature Scot has issued a research licence for a new seal scarer to be trialled at a salmon farm, but campaigners claim that using any scarer will disturb whales and dolphins. The licence is intended to trial new technology (TAST – Targeted Acoustic Startle Technology) which is said to be harmless against non- target species. Of course, those campaigners who have expressed an opinion to the newspaper object to the whole idea of salmon farming so this new technology is irrelevant to them as they don’t believe that salmon farms should be using any technology to deter the local wildlife.

As a side issue, it is interesting that anglers who commented on the article online appeared to express the view that such deterrents are not enough and that seals should be culled to protect wild salmon.

In the report, marine biologist and founder of a wildlife and whale watching company, David Ainsley, is said to have told the news outlet, the Ferret, that he believed that Nature Scot had acted beyond their powers.  Mr Ainsley has been a long-term critic of salmon farming. I often wonder how given all the damage to cetaceans that salmon farming is said to cause, how Mr Ainsley still manages to run his whale watching business? By comparison, I have seen videos posted by those working in the salmon farming sector of whales and dolphins swimming in close proximity to salmon farms without showing any signs of distress.

I also wonder whether Mr Ainsley extends his scientific reading beyond that offering criticism of salmon farms. I recently came across a paper published in the Elsevier journal Marine Policy (vol 134) 2021 by Patricia Arranz and her colleagues from universities in Tenerife, Denmark and Australia. The paper is about whale watching tourist boats and their impact on whale populations. The researchers examined 13 whale watching boats from the Canary Islands and Australia and found that the noise from these vessels was the primary driver of disturbance of whales. Perhaps, Mr Ainsley should examine his own impact on west coast cetaceans rather than attack those who are trying to maintain a minimal impact on all wildlife. However as usual, salmon farms are the scapegoat for the failings of others.

 

Attack the messenger: Hakai magazine has published an article about a new paper which levels new criticism of the scientific rigor adopted by Canada’s Department of Fisheries and Oceans (https://cdnsciencepub.com/doi/10.1139/cjfas-2022-0286) The paper’s authors say that DFO has a legal duty to protect and conserve fish for Canada, but this legal duty is not being met. They also allege that the DFO’s ability to provide vital scientific advice is weighed down by systematic industry and political interference.

Of course, when the authors say that DFO are not protecting Canada’s fish they mean wild salmon and not surprisingly, the new paper uses salmon as a case study. The seventeen-page paper can be simply summed up by saying that DFO’s findings about the impacts of salmon farming do not agree with those of the authors and as the ‘science’ promoted by the authors has not convinced DFO to amend their views, the new paper is simply an attack on DFO with the aim of undermining the science.

The paper suggests that DFO is not impartial, that they ignore evidence, they are not transparent and that there is no independent review.  Of course, if DFO agreed with the author’s narrative about salmon farming then it is likely that this paper would not exist, but DFO have adopted a different position. This is not surprising since the author’s primary affiliation is to Alexandra Morton’s Salmon Field Coast Station. Readers of reLAKSation might suggest that I also hold a different view to the paper’s authors, and they may be right. However, I would be more than happy to engage in a discussion with the authors about the impacts of salmon farming on wild salmon. I have in fact previously written to the three lead authors, as well as some of their associated science colleagues and I can report that none have replied. It seems that whilst they are keen to promote their views, they are less willing to discuss them with those who hold a differing or opposing view.

Two of the authors are directors of the Salmon Coast Field Station and I have pointed out to both that the sea lice data collected by the research station since 2002 does not support their claims.  Seemingly they are not interested in this aspect of their science. Instead, they prefer to attack DFO because of their failure to agree that salmon farming is responsible for the declines in wild salmon numbers.

There does seem to be a common theme from those who blame salmon farming for impacts on all aspects of the environment and this is a continuous unwillingness to discuss the issues with those who hold a different opinion to themselves. I, for one, would be more than happy to discuss the issues. If they feel so strongly about their narrative, why won’t they be equally willing to stand up and defend it?