OVER the next week or so, the third parliamentary committee inquiry in six years into the caged salmon industry will hold its last two evidence sessions. First with the industry and lastly with the Cabinet Secretary, Mairi Gougeon. The purpose of the inquiry is to assess how far the previous recommendations have been implemented.
The industry will make the usual claims about sustainability, jobs, nutritious food, and carbon emissions. It’s all unfounded PR. Jobs are few and far between and reducing, as the industry introduces more automation. Salmon is not a vital component of any diet – ask the millions of vegans around the world, whose “overall nutritional status” (a pet phrase) is usually very good. It’s odd that an industry that uses so much energy in transportation (of live fish, staff, feed and end product), lighting, running pumps, manufactured medicines etc, can claim to be a low carbon emitter. Except it doesn’t: it only compares itself to other meat production (excluding Highland cattle and venison, though). If you are really wanting to reduce carbon emission in food production, eat less farmed meats, or farmed fish.
READ MORE: Scottish fish farm firm removes 'tonnes' of dead fish before MSP visit
However, the important session is with the government, which, with its pressurised and underfunded agencies, is meant to regulate the industry. However, ministers are much better at subsidised PR for the industry rather than acting in the best interests of the animals, or the environment.
Like the industry, government preaches how sustainable the open net fish farms are. But, no matter how frequently this word is used, you won’t come across any definition of what it means in practice for the farm operations, nor any hint about how it could be measured and monitored (hostage to fortune).
What are we left with? Local jobs in remote parts of the country. Good idea. But more jobs in parts of the country struggling to house people already there? Expansion of this industry is often opposed by local communities, who see negative impacts for other enterprises such as marine tourism.
What about the overall positive/negative economic impacts? Good question. But you won’t find an answer, because government has never commissioned an independent study to assess the negative costs of the industry – no cost/benefit analysis. What other actions could be carried out to help such communities? Plenty – sufficient affordable housing so that other enterprises can attract staff and skills, improving digital access, supporting low-impact fishers by re-imposing a modified three-mile limit, for example.
READ MORE: Scottish Highlands estate owned by Forth Bridge designer up for sale
What about the fate of wrasse and lumpsuckers (the “cleaner fish”) put into cages with thousands of salmon, to try to reduce levels of sea lice infestation, because other methods can’t do the job? They die due to various causes, or are killed, in their millions each year (normally all are killed when no longer needed).
This is an industry that exploits one animal to help it exploit another animal. All because the Atlantic salmon is probably the least suitable candidate fish you could choose. Most of the issues concerning this industry stem from the fact that due to its biology, physiology and life stages, the Atlantic salmon should not be used in intensive food production. It should roam the Atlantic and not be confined in open net cages with thousands of its species, unable to escape the threats that such an environment creates.
As there is a distinct prospect that this industry will be no more in the medium term, I suggest two actions without delay. The government and industry should fund a study of how to properly dismantle, dispose of (recycle) the offshore and onshore equipment used by farm operators, together with necessary restoration/remediation. The conclusions, including estimated costs and recommendations should be open for public consultation. Thereafter, operating businesses should be required to set aside sufficient funds into an account held by an official accountable body, to ensure that when the time comes, funding is available to carry out this work, even if firms claim bankruptcy.
If you’re up to it, you can watch the Rural Affairs & Islands Committee proceedings (on Wednesday October 2 and Wednesday October 9) on Scottish Parliament TV.
Roddie Macpherson
Avoch
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here