LOCATION AND RELOCATION WORKING GROUP
NOTE OF 6TH MEETING OF LOCATION AND RELOCATION WORKING GROUP, PITLOCHRY, 17 March 2005
Present:
Laura Bateson, SE LINK
Phil Gilmour, SEERAD, Chair
Dr Jean Balfour, Scottish Quality Salmon (SQS)
Dr Malcolm Beveridge, Fisheries Research Service (FRS)
Dr Kenny Black, Scottish Association for Marine Science (SAMS)
Stuart Cannon, British Marine Finfish Association (BMFA)
Dr Trevor Hastings, Fisheries Research Service (FRS)
David Hay, Fisheries Research Service (FRS)
Ian Pritchard, The Crown Estate (CE)
Professor Randolph Richards, University of Stirling (US)
Andrew Wallace, Association of Salmon Fishery Boards (ASFB)
Dominic Counsell, Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH)
Graeme Dear, Scottish Quality Salmon (SQS)
Iain Sutherland, Highlands & Islands Enterprise (HIE)
Douglas Sinclair, Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA)
Dr Amanda Currie, SEERAD
Mark Bilsby, Association of West Coast Fisheries Trusts (AWCFT)
Alan Anderson, Western Isles Aquaculture Association (WIAA)
John Hambrey, Hambrey Consulting (HC)
Secretariat
Andy Rosie, Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA)
Paul Haddon, SEERAD
1. The Chair (Phil Gilmour) welcomed everyone to the meeting and informed the group that he was deputising for Gordon Brown, who was unable to attend due to an urgent business matter. The chair introduced John Hambrey (Hambrey Consulting) and Alan Anderson of the Western Isles Aquaculture Association (WIAA), who would be presenting papers at the meeting.
2. Apologies for absence were received from; Gordon Brown, SEERAD; David Ferguson, SEDD; Steve Dowell, SEDD; David Sandison, Shetland Salmon Farmers Association (SSFA); Colin Wishart, CoSLA; George Hamilton, CoSLA.
3. The group was asked to note that the minute of the last meeting had been agreed by email and placed on the Executive's website in February 2005.
4. The group then discussed matters arising from the previous meeting.
AZE's/Farm sizes
SEPA updated the group on progress with the new deposition model and AZE policy. The related consultation paper was circulated in December and is also available on the SEPA website. LRWG members were not included in the circulation. SEPA invited the views of the group and promised to send group members a link to the consultation paper (Action: SEPA). Updates to the DEPOMOD software are ongoing and it is hoped the new model should be finalised by late April. SEPA is also running training forums to promote the tool. SEPA informed the group that they want the model to be in use and aiding the decision making process to amalgamate sites. Industry welcomed this but suggested that local planners need to come on board also. SEPA agreed to run training forums for wider interested parties such as SNH, NGO's and LA planners to explain "this is better science" (Action: SEPA). SEPA also acknowledged the support of SAMS/Dunstaffnage in developing the tool.
Farm Sizes
FRS updated the group following the Aquaculture Health Joint Working Group (AHJWG) meetings in December and March, from which a draft paper on farm size has been tabled. The paper is yet to be agreed by AHJWG and is still under discussion. However, FRS updated the LRWG on the main points. There is a general trend of increasing farm size but with that comes potential health implications. With larger farms there are increased numbers of fish which could lead to potential disease risks. Large farms may attract greater numbers of scavenging wild fish which can become potential vectors in the transmission of disease in the wild. With improved cage construction and better management there is also the possibility of fewer escape incidents but larger numbers involved in the event of an escape. However, if there are fewer, larger farms there should generally be a greater distance between sites. It is probable that this would lead to reduced risk of disease transmission between sites. In summary, this is a complex issue with limited hard evidence available. There are advantages and disadvantages but FRS suggested that a well managed large farm is preferable to a poorly managed small farm. FRS also confirmed that AHJWG members are not yet fully agreed on these issues.
CoSLA paper - CoSLA were unable to attend the meeting. The group agreed that comments on the updated paper should be made to CoSLA, (Action: All) and CoSLA should be prepared to update the group at the next meeting if necessary. (Action: CoSLA)
Sea lice dispersal model
FRS informed the group that it has developed a sea lice dispersion model. However the model currently applies to Loch Torridon only. It was suggested that the group should consider whether this model could be further developed as a tool to inform decisions on potential relocation sites, e.g the Loch Roag proposal. The group agreed that this should be further investigated, although funding would be an obstacle, and suggested using SARF. It was agreed that SEERAD/FRS should set up a meeting to discuss next steps. (Action: SEERAD/FRS)
Sites of Interest/Locational Criteria
SNH informed the group that it is still considering this issue but does not have resources to produce a definitive list of sites that it believes, urgently need to be relocated from a natural heritage perspective. Natural heritage sensitivity is most likely in designated areas (Natura, NSAs). Since Appropriate Assessments form part of the current regulatory process, developments needing to be relocated because of any adverse impact upon Natura sites will be picked up in this way.
5. Site Optimisation in the Western Isles.
Alan Anderson informed the group that the site optimisation process had stalled. However the WIAA want to facilitate the optimisation initiative. The various bodies involved believe it would be best to take forward a demonstration project and have chosen Loch Roag. The proposed site is in a sensitive area. There are 4 finfish operators in this area, which does not have an AMA presently because there is a potential stocking regime problem. There have also been difficulties with local planning authorities. The larger finfish operations have access to resources but the smaller ones are unable to fund EIAs to facilitate relocation. Mr Anderson suggested that Loch Roag could be used as a demonstration of a loch-wide EIA, and asked whether funding could be made available. The group was informed that money may be available to pump prime the process, and this could be considered further. AWCFT informed the group that it favours a loch-wide approach over an ad-hoc individual EIA project approach. SEPA informed the group that a SEA may in any case be required for the Location/Relocation proposal in due course. SEPA along with other agencies will play their full part in any such assessment as expected under the Regulations.
Mr Anderson informed the group that a plan is in place which just needs a kick-start. There is an opportunity to do this in 2005-6, but due to stocking issues, this window would be lost until 2007-8. Crown Estate informed the group that they have formally offered to facilitate the process, but would find difficulty in funding the expense of an EIA. The group agreed, in principle, to fast track this proposal as another pilot, which could be included in relocation proposals for the end of 2005.
6. Location-Relocation Policy Paper
SEERAD presented a draft policy paper. The group were informed this was a "work in progress" document and they will have ongoing opportunities to comment. The paper will be used to update the Ministerial Working Group for Aquaculture (MGWA) on the Location-Relocation priority action. Main issues covered were:
- Beneficial policy development;
- Policy concerns such as a need for spatial planning;
- The availability of improved carrying capacity assessment tools; and
- The need to consult/undertake SEA on relocation proposals.
Main comments from other bodies were:
Spatial planning- SNH informed the group that a range of initiatives are in place to take forward this.
Developing Assessment Tools - SEPA informed the group that tools/techniques are being improved not being developed. SARF has commissioned research on Environmental tools, SNH have issued guidance on landscape capacity and SEPA have updated DEPOMOD.
Wildfish interests - TWG should be the driver of this process. And perhaps relocation is only one solution to inappropriately sited farms.
SEA Process - SEPA suggested that the group need to engage specific assistance on strategic environmental assessment (SEA) as soon as possible. Any location-relocation policy should be developed alongside the conducting of a SEA.
SEERAD confirmed that final content of the Location/relocation policy paper must be agreed by everyone in the group. The group was asked to provide ongoing comments to SEERAD as the paper develops. (Action: All)
7. Relocation Pilot
SEERAD presented a relocation pilot paper which updated the group on progress. The aim is to establish a local one shop stop approach to help facilitate discussions between regulators and the developer, and to produce a focused EIA and consenting approach. The SE has drafted a decision-making matrix which can be used as a simple tool to indicate potential benefits and drawbacks of a proposed relocation project. It is proposed that this pilot study will be used to test the decision-making matrix. The group was also informed that it is the intention to bring in a consultant who will facilitate discussions between regulators and stakeholders and seek to test the decision making framework. Funding is available and a draft specification has been drawn up. The group agreed to take this approach. The group were reassured that a facilitator will not slow down the process but would operate alongside, observing the processes, pooling information and testing the decision-making matrix. The group were invited to comment on the decision-making matrix and feed comments back to SEERAD (Action: All).
The group was reminded of the urgency of progressing the pilot to meet the proposed deadline of October 2005. Progress has been slow following on from the recent relocation pilot meeting. Crown Estate informed the group that delays are due in part to the Local authority's insistence on the developer submitting a full EIA in support of the relocation project. The group suggested that this highlights the local authority's discomfort when making decisions on aquaculture developments. This could be critical to relocation policy implementation, especially once decision making powers are transferred from the CE. SE Link asked the group how the pilot ties in with CoSLA's EIA review & the work on PA 328 commitment to reduce regulatory burden.
8. Relocation pilot tender specification
SEERAD informed the group that a tender specification to facilitate the pilot had been drafted. The group was invited to feed comments back to SEERAD (Action: All).
9. ROAME Proposal
FRS presented the proposal to the group. This is an environmental scoping study will be help to highlight information gaps in the decision making process of relocation. BMFA suggested that new species & trout had been omitted from the proposal, and suggested their inclusion, considering the importance of introducing new species onto a site. FRS also stated that the aim of relocation must be specified before the benefits of relocation can be measured. The group were invited to agree the aim of this proposal (Action: All). The group agreed that SARF should pick up hard rock reef issues, SEPA are already dealing with benthos/water column issues and that ROAME should therefore be confined to wild salmonids & sea lice. SEERAD invited SNH & FRS to consider marine ecosystem issues not covered by SEPA (Action: SNH, FRS)
10. Site Optimisation for Aquaculture (SARF project)
John Hambrey presented a site optimisation scoping study which has been approved by SARF. The study will investigate how criteria can be used practically in the decision making process, including local authority strategic planning, relocation policy, SEA and EIA. This will be a concise & thorough desk review of factors to be considered when siting aquaculture developments, considering Socio-economic and environmental factors. This will involve meetings with stakeholders and will look at cost-effective future research to plug knowledge gaps. The group was invited to feed into the study by providing any information they believe would be helpful (Action: All). The group agreed that whilst this will inform relocation work we should guard against overlap. Crown Estate suggested this study should be about developing criteria to identify optimal sites.
11. Next Steps
The group were invited to consider what should be reported back to Ministers in late October Main issues should include:
- Progress to date;
- Relocation pilot;
- Western Isles demonstration project (Loch Roag);
- FRS/ wild salmonids scoping study;
- Changes to Assessment tools and consenting policies (encouraged by LRWG, SNH & SEPA);
- Requirement for improved guidance for local planners;
- A need to identify major hurdles to progress/success;
- A need to form better linkage with wild fish interests/fisheries trusts at the local level;
- SEERAD to update draft policy paper incorporating views of group. (Action: All).
12. Date of next meeting
The group provisionally agreed to hold the next meeting on 27/06/2005. This has been postponed. The group will next meet on Monday 15th August at the FRS, Freshwater Laboratory at 11am.