7 Conclusion
1. The scheme as proposed is unlikely to have a significant negative environmental impact. This is because access to grant aid for relocation will be conditional on demonstration of net environmental benefit, and because any relocation to a new site will still be subject to rigorous assessment through the consents and EIA procedures.
2. In practice demonstration of "net environmental benefit" will be difficult, and in most cases there will be both positive and negative indications. The weight given to different criteria will be critical in determining overall net environmental benefit, both for individual relocations and for the programme as a whole.
3. The scientific uncertainty (relating in particular to wild fish-farmed fish interactions), coupled with the case by case nature of the programme, means that the likely environmental benefit of the relocation scheme a whole cannot be predicted.
4. More ambitious and strategic alternatives have also been considered. Relocation on a grand scale in order to minimise interaction with key representative and/or valuable salmon stocks would be more precautionary, and would be more effective at reducing the risk of any negative interactions between farmed and wild salmonids. However such an approach was considered impractical, requiring unrealistic levels of public funding, or new legislation that might cripple an already struggling industry. Such a strategy could however be implemented in the longer term by ensuring that any new developments or significant expansion took place within preferred zones, or outside exclusion zones. Such a strategy could be implemented through strategic guidance to local authorities, who will have the final say in terms of development consent.
5. Strategic environmental assessment for possible aquaculture developments within an aquatic system, followed by a relocation and rationalisation process (grant aided where appropriate) and development of effective area management agreements is currently being tested in Loch Roag, and appears to have significant merit relative to other options. However it is clear that significant costs will be incurred in developing a "system" EIA, and in facilitating agreement and coordination.
6. Less ambitious alternative approaches are already in place or proposed, and are widely agreed to be effective in generating overall environmental gains. They include area management agreements; informed "micro" relocation based on enhanced understanding of hydrodynamics and salmonid movements; and licensing of an increased range of lice treatments. It is arguable that resources should be directed at these.
7. The pilot projects currently underway began prior to the development of process and principles by the LRWG. This enabled pilots to inform programme development. In taking these pilots forward and in all new relocation exercises it is crucial to follow programme process and principles. If this is proves unworkable then the programme must be revised.
8. The final scale of the environmental benefit derived from the preferred relocation programme will ultimately be dependent upon the quality of the criteria based assessment of each relocation application. The procedure for applying and weighing a set of agreed assessment criteria (arising directly from the programme principles) must be further developed and clarified.