Where is cost analysis?

Sir,

We have an opportunity once again to consider a proposal by the ‘Scottish’ Salmon Company (SSC), now owned by the Faroese Bakkafrost, to install an industrial open cage salmon-farming complex off our north east coast.

Although slimmed down in size, most other key elements of the proposal remain the same, with the exception of the feed-barge which contains accommodation, galley and an operations hub. Gone are the ‘revolutionary innovations’. Effluent output is now reduced to the equivalent of a town of 6,000 people. Interestingly, the site area is little changed, which might present the opportunity to grow capacity to the original 5,000 tonne proposal at a future point.

But what about the economics which for some might be an inducement? It is quite clear that open cage aquaculture, as practised in Scotland, can be harmful and intrusive to the inshore marine environment but how do you assess the impact of this versus the positive economic contribution?

Under circumstances such as these, economists typically like to use ‘cost benefit analysis’ in order to weigh up a proposal and present a clear and reasoned basis to aid decision making, a boon one might imagine if you were interested in winning the support of island residents and the wider North Ayrshire community.

Alas, in scrutinising the 40-page submission to NAC planners’ social and economic impacts of the SSC North Arran aquaculture development’ we see no such analysis. In fact, the document, in spite of it being compiled by two economists, makes no numerical attempt to present any impact on Arran’s existing economy and as for local economic ‘benefit’ there is mention of a staff requirement of up to six individuals but most likely sourced from existing mainland bases. What is presented is a rather difficult to substantiate discussion of ‘value chains’, ‘OPEX’ and ‘CAPEX’.

However, in the absence of any sensible and objective approach to what we might gain versus what this might cost, we can apply some common sense of our own.

We know the island attracts in excess of 400,000 visitors a year delivering more than £60million of revenue, which supports very significant round-the-year employment plus seasonal employment, as well as providing the basis for support of the island’s essential public, health and infrastructure services.

What is the likely economic impact of undermining the reputation of the island as a clean, wild and beautiful location by association with the proposed environmental intrusion and pollution?

Just five per cent loss of opportunity would amount to £3,000,000/annum – which by comparison to the mention of six jobs-equivalent to be based elsewhere looks to be a deal firmly weighed in favour of Bakkafrost.

Perhaps that’s why there is no ‘cost benefit analysis’ presented?

Yours,

Rob Cowieson,

Whiting Bay.