Comment
After more than 40 years in operation there have been no Braer type incidents
Martin Jaffa
WHAT a way for the salmon farming industry to begin a new year! Even before the month of January had expired, the industry was being investigated by the Scottish parliament’s Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee. The MSPs decided to become involved in the process leading to the parliamentary inquiry that has been promised by the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee.
The investigation did not get off to auspicious beginnings. The Scottish parliament’s Information Centre (SPICe) commissioned the Scottish Association of Marine Science (SAMS) to produce a review of the science relating to the various impacts of salmon farming on the environment.
The problem with this investigation, as I see it, is that the salmon industry is a working, living and functioning entity not a scientific study. Science has a role, but it should not govern everything the industry does.
One of the points raised in the discussion between MSPs and SAMS was the lack of data showing how the industry has impacted on the environment. I would argue that the reliance on such data is unnecessary as the industry has been in operation for more than 40 years and there is no specific evidence of any adverse impacts in Scottish waters.
Certainly, there have not been any major incidents of a Braer type nature due to salmon farming.
The biggest complaint is that a few anglers are not catching and killing the same number of fish as their forebears. Even then, they are unable to actually prove that salmon farming is to blame.
I repeat, where is the evidence that salmon farming has had a major negative impact on the environment It seems that the current concern is over a truck that spilled some liquid when transporting dead fish.
The discussion during the committee’s evidence session raised the point that science has shown eleven adult sea lice will kill a salmon smolt. The problem is that quoting a paper in a report does not provide the full story.
The work quoted involved a laboratory based experiment, rather than what is actually happening in the wild.
In addition, what the review failed to mention was that this specific work also exposed the fish to abrupt salinity changes as well as to louse infestation. Exposure to such abrupt salinity changes would never happen in the wild so its inclusion is questionable.
The abrupt salinity changes clearly stressed the fish, made them more susceptible to the lice and subsequently caused their deaths.
The science is littered with questionable research, which may add to the wider picture, but should not be seen as definitive proof of anything.
The MSPs questioned the SAMS team expecting simple answers but the scientists evaded most questions by saying that there are so many potential variables that they could not really draw any conclusions.
They said they had been asked to compile a review of peer reviewed literature and this is exactly what they had done but, unfortunately, they found little data that relates to Scotland.
The next evidence session was due to include representatives from the industry and also from a community group. It will be interesting to see what they bring to the table other than repeating the same old mantras as spread by the usual critics.
The specific group called to give evidence has argued in the past that salmon farming in the local area will destroy the good fishing available on the River Add. Interestingly, several years ago I contacted a leading industry critic, the late Bruce Sandison, who claimed that salmon farming had destroyed the fishing in many Scottish rivers.
I asked him to give me examples of rivers which have been destroyed by salmon farming as he claimed. The River Add was top of the list, so the river has either recovered to offer good fishing, despite the presence of local aquaculture, or the claims made by the community group are wrong.
Actually, the answer is that this grade 3 river was already in trouble long before salmon farming came to the west coast, but this is
typical of the accusations made against the salmon industry.
Of course, salmon farming has impacts on the environment, but they are minor in relation to the benefits they bring to the local area and communities.
However, this parliamentary investigation and the forthcoming inquiry are the consequence of a vocal minority who have managed to get excessive media coverage, painting the industry in the worst possible light.
The reality is very different and as long as the inquiry is conducted in a fair manner, the industry should have nothing to fear.
Yet the way the ECCLR investigation is being conducted does heighten concerns, not least because anyone responding to the 196-page
SAMS report is being limited to just a few days to digest what has been written and only four pages with which to reply.
If the combination of a bad press and limited opportunity to reply taints the views of the MSPs then the real losers will be the west Highland communities that depend on salmon farming for their economy and jobs. Is this what the MSPs really want
Where is the evidence that salmon farming has had a major negative impact on the environment