Full consultation?

Sir, Following the letter published by Craig Anderson CEO of the Scottish Salmon Company last week’s

Banner, I felt compelled to respond to debunk and expose his lack of detail, some might say honesty, and unsubstantiated claims and promises. I have highlighted eight of the most obvious and dealt with these in turn as they appeared in his letter.

1. An offer of a full consultation process. To what end? Mr Anderson acknowledges the level of local opposition but shies away from a commitment to abide by the results of such a consultation. Bottom line – we will listen then ignore the local community because we have our plans and we want to make more money.

2. Mr Anderson claims that SSC is 100 per cent Scottish based. This is deliberately misleading. SSC is registered in Jersey (not even a UK tax payer) and listed on the Oslo Stock Exchange. A review of the top 20 shareholders reveals a list of large Scandinavian banks and large companies. Profits do not stay in Scotland and do not benefit the local community. Profits benefit big business in Norway. In reality there is nothing Scottish about SSC apart from its name.

3 Mr Anderson states that he is ‘...fiercely proud of its [SSC] heritage’. Exactly what heritage is that? SSC is a documented polluter. Exposed by SEPA data and labelled amongst the ‘filthy five’ fish farms in Scotland by environmental campaigners. The Lamlash site has breached EU environmental standards in the past and neurotoxins continue to be used there in a failing bid to rid the salmon of flesh eating sea lice. Further the net cages also allow large quantities of raw sewage and other waste being dumped into our bay within our MPA and close to our NTZ. Let’s be clear – SSC has no interest in either because they make no money from either. ‘Fiercely proud’? What an affront to our island and our community.

4. Mr Anderson is very canny about the size of the proposal to be lodged and implies that there is very little difference in scale and hence what’s all the fuss about? Well let me explain. SSC intends to increase the size of the net cages to accommodate the maximum amount of fish allowed under current regulations – 2500 tonnes to be precise (see previous Arran Banner article of 9 Sept 2017 and also the letter from Dr Sally Campbell published on 23 Sept 2017). From her letter just take a moment to absorb the staggering amounts of pollutants being dumped untreated into our seas by fish farms in Scotland – including Lamlash Bay – at no cost to the fish farms. His reference to ‘investing in modernising the equipment’ was used to placate concerns about the known problems of marine aquaculture but there was no mention of land-based closed containment, a proven and viable technology, which eliminates all of the problems of sea net cages. The reason is obvious. Cost. Closed containment requires the polluter to pay. With net cages the polluter can dump and pollute at no cost. It’s all about profit.

5. Regarding the environmental impact of the proposal notice the vague promises made and significantly an undertaking to only minimise any additional impact. What on earth does minimise mean? Is that as an absolute? No, of course not it’s more a ‘we’ll pretend to try and then fail?’ And what of the current levels of pollution? Purposefully ignored in his statement. SSC are documented polluters who have had scant regard for our delicate marine environment in the past and nothing concrete to say about the future. How about a commitment to clean up every ounce of fish faeces and other pollutants which they have dumped in the bay? At this point the letter is at its most nauseous referring to the MPA and NTZ Mr Anderson says ‘...we operate with utmost consideration and appreciation for this surrounding natural environment’. The reality is quite different. Below net cage fish farms lies a layer of un-

treated rotting fish faeces and other pollutants covering the sea bed in an anoxic blanket which exterminates everything under it and n-one actually knows how far this detrimental effect extends. Not to mention the pesticides used in ever increasing amounts in a vain attempt to combat the sea lice which plague fish farms in Scotland.

6. We as a community cannot, must not accept in any way an environmental impact assessment produced unilaterally by SSC and without rigorous scientific scrutiny. Elsewhere (eg Loch Eishort in Skye) our government has shown itself willing to hide information from the public which it considered detrimental to the interests of fish farmers and regulators have also shown themselves unwilling to act and woefully incapable or even unwilling to understand and critically analyse an EIA produced by the fish farming industry. A study framed to suit their own agenda. The fact that guide lines were flouted was ignored, shoddy construction and bad science were not commented upon leading to skewed and possibly wrong conclusions being drawn in the Eishort case. SEPA and SNH have been entirely culpable in sacrificing the environment for the benefit of big business. To rework an old adage for SSC ‘with enemies like these who needs friends!’ The Screening and Scoping process at North Ayrshire Council is the point where we as a community – private individuals and organisations – must note interest and be registered as recognised consultees to the process. This will ensure community involvement in the procedure. Our voices must be heard.

7. Another myth to debunk is the boastful claim by Mr Anderson that fish farms are a vital driver of the Scottish economy. There is no evidence to support such a claim and of course the statement ignores the negative impact of the industry on local fishing, recreational and tourist activities, as well as long-term damage to the local environment. Fish farms have no interest in a clean environment because it would cost them money – the polluter should pay principle. Anderson conveniently ignores such uncomfortable truths. For the local community this flies in the face of our MPA and NTZ which have long-term community-based strategic objectives. Do not be deceived. The fish farming industry desires one thing – profit – and that profit does not stay in Scotland.

8. Finally, and perhaps the most morally cynical part of Mr Anderson’s letter – when their bad science and profit motives are exposed they use the morally reprehensible tack of ‘we’re your friends in the community routine’.

Do SSC really think they can buy our acquiescence with a few ‘alms for the poor’? Just what work are they doing in local schools and who is supervising the content? Are they teaching our children about the pollution they cause? How much untreated sewage they are dumping in the bay or the neurotoxins being used in the waters they use for recreation?

I believe our children are more globally aware than previous generations and so I’m sure they’d be interested to learn about the unregulated ‘bait fish’ catch from poorer parts of the world which goes not to feed a poor local population but which goes into making fish meal to be fed to salmon for the luxury western market. It may be nice but we don’t need farmed salmon and certainly not at the expense of poorer local communities in the developing world who use this bait fish as their basic source of fish protein.

Given the whole story of SSC and their ilk I have confidence that decisions the younger generation make would be more environmentally sound. SSC have good reason not to share the whole truth.

To conclude. It is our duty and in our interests to educate ourselves about fish farming and what is happening beneath the waves of our seas.

Let the battle to SOS (Save our Seas) commence and let us stand up for our delicate eco-system and for our clean water against those who would pollute it for profit.

This is a battle we must win. SSC have made it clear if they are successful in Lamlash they will look to expand their operations around the shores of Arran causing further pollution and environmental degradation. We must not stand idly by and allow this to happen. Not on our watch.

I would urge Arranites to contact our local MP and MSP to demand support for our cause; to voice concerns at local meetings and not to be bought off and to resist the expansion plans of SSC to the best of our abilities.

We are not in this for profit but SSC are.

Yours,

Stephen Brown Kildonan