FINAL

COMPLAINT TO THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

CONCERNING THE FAILURE OF THE UNITED KINGDOM (UK) TO DRAW UP AND TAKE

APPROPRIATE MEASURES PURSUANT TO THE MARINE STRATEGY FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE

IN RELATION TO THE IMPACT OF SEA LICE EMANATING FROM SCOTTISH MARINE SALMON

FARMS ON WILD ATLANTIC SALMON AND SEA TROUT

May 2016

This complaint is made by Guy Linley-Adams, Solicitor,

Second Floor Offices, 12 Castle Street, Hereford HR1 2NL, UK

+44-1432-379093

guy@linley-adams.co.uk

On behalf of

Salmon & Trout Conservation (UK)

and

Salmon & Trout Conservation (Scotland)

2

Executive summary

i. There are very long standing and widespread concerns about lack of appropriate

measures to control the impact of Scottish marine fish farms on wild salmon and sea trout,

including as a result of the production and release of juvenile sea lice at many orders of

magnitude higher than natural’ or background levels by those farms. The threat to wild

salmonids (both Atlantic salmon and sea trout) from these lice on the west coast and in the

islands of Scotland is well recognised.

ii. However, the response of the Scottish Government to these threats has been and

remains inadequate.

iii. The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) requires the UK Government to

publish, before the end of 2015, a programme of measures necessary to achieve or maintain

good environmental status in marine and coastal waters by 2020, and to put those

measures into effect by 31st December 2016. Inevitably, this requires that measures to

protect wild salmonid fish are put in place and implemented.

iv. The published United Kingdom Programme of Measures (POM) accepts concerns

over species such as salmon and sea trout, but, in respect of the impacts of fish farms on

wild salmonids, relies entirely on the UK’s membership of the North Atlantic Salmon

Conservation Organisation (NASCO) and the national Implementation Plans drawn

thereunder.

v. NASCO’s own Implementation Plan / Annual Progress Report Review Group has

identified the Scottish Implementation Plan as containing clear omissions and inadequacies

and it remains so.

vi. In late 2015, Salmon and Trout Conservation (Scotland) (S&TCS) published a detailed

report into the control of sea lice achieved on fish farms in Scotland over the years 2013-

2015, demonstrating the failure to control sea lice on Scottish salmon farms and the need

for urgent action from the Scottish Government to protect wild salmon and sea trout

3

populations. S&TCS has also petitioned formally the Scottish Parliament to seek to persuade

Scottish Ministers to increase legal protection for wild salmonids from the impact of fish

farms.

vii. However, the Scottish Government has failed to accept that wild fish are not

sufficiently protected in domestic law from fish farming activities, including by amending

Scottish law and regulation with the express purpose of protecting wild fish from this

damage.

viii. As compliance with NASCO recommendations and guidance is the only measure put

forward by Scotland to deal with sea lice from salmon farms in the POM required by the

MSFD, but Scotland’s Implementation Plan is considered unsatisfactory, then the measures

put forward are patently inadequate to comply with the MSFD.

ix. As fisheries scientists, NASCO and the conclusions of S&TCS reports all show,

Scotland has not yet developed an appropriate programme of measures to deal with the sea

lice issue and is therefore in breach of the requirement to draw up such measures by the

end of 2015 in order to achieve GES by 2020.

x. Further, if Scotland continues to fail to develop adequate measures to tackle the sea

lice issue with respect to wild fish and implement them by the end of 2016, it will then also

be in breach of the requirement of the MSFD to implement appropriate measures by the

end of 2016.

xi. S&TCS has made a number of recommendations as to the measures that should be

adopted to address the sea lice issue in Scotland, focussing on the provision of full

information on the extent of sea lice on fish farms, the need for a Scottish Government

review of the Code of Good Practice governing the fish farming industry, amending

domestic law to provide a statutory duty to protect wild salmonids from the impact of fish

farms, relaunching the relocation programme for poorly-sited farms and developing closed

containment and other more sustainable aquaculture technology.

4

Salmon & Trout Conservation UK

1. Salmon & Trout Conservation UK (S&TC UK)1 was established as the Salmon & Trout

Association (S&TA) in 1903 to address the damage done to our rivers by the polluting effects

of the Industrial Revolution. Since then, S&TC UK has worked to protect fisheries, fish stocks

and the wider aquatic environment for the public benefit. S&TC UK has charitable status in

both England and Scotland and its charitable objectives empower it to address all issues

affecting fish and the aquatic environment, supported by robust evidence from its scientific

network, and to take the widest possible remit in protecting salmonid fish stocks and the

aquatic environment upon which they depend. S&TCS is the Scottish arm of S&TC UK

1 www.salmon-trout.org, www.salmon-troutscotland.org.

5

Introduction

1. There are very long standing and widespread concerns about lack of appropriate

measures to control the impact of Scottish fish farms on wild salmon and sea trout. A key

concern is the production and release of juvenile sea lice at many orders of magnitude

higher than ‘natural’ or background levels and the impact of these parasites upon wild

salmonids fish, particularly wild smolts.

2. S&TCS believes that the current legal, regulatory and voluntary controls are clearly

inadequate and additional measures are urgently needed to be put in place to reduce the

impact of fish farm derived sea lice upon wild salmonids.

3. S&TCS and others have for several years been seeking, by direct contact with the

Scottish Government and through NASCO, to persuade the Scottish Government to put such

measures in place, but have failed to elicit a sufficiently robust response.

4. For example, all relevant District Salmon Fishery Boards (DSFBs), bodies with express

statutory functions for the protection and management of wild salmonids under the Salmon

& Freshwater Fisheries (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 2003, and relevant Fisheries Trusts,

voluntary bodies with an extensive collective resource of professional knowledge and

practical expertise, employing a broad spectrum of full time fisheries managers, biologists,

project and field staff around Scotland, and supported by an extended network of

volunteers, have recently written jointly to the Scottish Government, highlighting, inter alia,

that they are not satisfied with current efforts to manage the interactions between farmed

and wild fish and that there is a clear need for “effective and independently monitored

measures to be introduced to regulate salmon fish farms harming wild fish populations

through sea lice, escapes or other means”2. The objections raised by the DSFBs and Rivers

Trusts in withdrawing from the Scottish Government’s Interactions Management Project can

be found at Annex III.

2 See Annex III – the emailed 11

th March 2016 letter to Alex Adrian, Crown Estate and co-ordinator of the

Interactions Management Project from Craig McIntyre, on behalf of all relevant DSFBs and Rivers Trusts is reproduced in full.

6

5. Happily, European law now requires measures to be developed and implemented,

sufficient to comply with the MSFD. This Directive is an important part of the body of EU

legislation designed to achieve the priority objective of protecting, conserving and

enhancing the aquatic biodiversity or natural capital of the Union. The MSFD establishes a

framework within which Member States shall take the necessary measures to achieve or

maintain good environmental status (GES) in the marine environment by the year 2020 at

the latest. The MSFD is to be implemented in the UK by the Marine Strategy Regulations

2010 (SI No.1627).

6. It is clear that the MSFD requires the UK to implement the necessary measures to

protect wild salmonids from the impacts of sea lice from fish farms. This complaint will

explain the current situation in Scotland and the deficiencies in the current approach of

Scottish Government, as against the requirements of the MSFD.

7

The threat to wild salmonids from sea lice emanating from Scottish marine salmon farms

7. This complaint should be read in the context of the recognised threat to wild

salmonids (both Atlantic salmon and sea trout) from sea lice emanating from marine cage

fish farms, predominantly those growing farmed strains of Atlantic salmon, on the west

coast and in the islands of Scotland.

8. Over many years, there has been considerable debate over the magnitude of the

negative effects of large numbers of juvenile sea lice, produced by salmon farms, upon wild

salmonids. However, the marine salmon farming industry and public authorities have

accepted, for at least a decade, that the control of gravid (egg-bearing) adult female sea lice

on farmed fish within salmon farms is essential, at least in part to minimise the impact of

sea lice on wild salmonids.

9. For example, the Strategic Framework for Scottish Aquaculture produced by the

Scottish Executive in 20033, identified sea lice infestation as a significant factor which could

impact upon the future sustainability of both aquaculture and wild fisheries.

10. While salmon farming is conducted in sea lochs, with fish held in nets suspended

from floating cages, the risk to wild fish from large numbers of juvenile lice leaving the farms

will remain. The sea lice life cycle comprises many stages, but during its planktonic stages,

juvenile sea lice can be dispersed very long distances. Indeed, modelling scenarios suggest

that sea lice can be dispersed up to 30km from fish farms4.

11. In effect, this means that the majority of the coastal waters of the west coast and

western isles and northern isles of Scotland - and the wild salmonid populations they

contain - are potentially affected by sea lice emanating from Scottish salmon farms.

3 http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2003/03/16842/20506

4 NKG Salama, CM Collins, JG Fraser, J Dunn, CC Pert, AG Murray and B Rabe (2012) Development and

assessment of a biophysical dispersal model for sea lice. Journal of Fish Diseases Special Issue: Papers from the 9th International Sea Lice Conference Bergen, 20–23rd May 2012 Volume 36, Issue 3, pages 323–337, March 2013

8

12. The threat from sea lice is largely due to the exceptionally high numbers that can be

produced within a fish farm. An average sized salmon-farm can hold over half a million

farmed fish. Even if just a single adult female gravid (egg-producing) louse is present on

each farmed fish, this would constitute an enormous production of juvenile sea lice. An

adult female louse produces a pair of egg strings about every 20 days depending on

temperature (and produces several pairs over its lifetime) with about 150 eggs on each

string. This would mean roughly 150 million juvenile lice being released every 20 days by the

adult female lice from such a farm of half a million fish, many orders of magnitude higher

than expected ‘natural’ or background levels of such lice.

13. As has been seen in Scotland between 2013 to 2015, since aggregated on-farm sea

lice data has been routinely published, fish farming regions on the Scottish west coast are

consistently above fish farm industry thresholds (for the number of adult female lice per

farmed fish). This implies the production of tens, even hundreds of billions of mobile free-

swimming stage lice.

14. While adult wild salmon and sea trout are adapted to coping with a few sea lice, and

background levels of these parasites occur naturally in the sea, the negative impact of

unnaturally high numbers of sea lice on juvenile wild salmonids (salmon and sea trout) is

now widely accepted by fisheries scientists.

15. In 2013, the Scottish Government’s own Marine Scotland Science (MSS)5 produced a

summary of information relating to impacts of sea lice from fish farms on Scottish sea trout

and salmon, acknowledging that sea lice infest both farmed and wild salmonids to the

potential detriment of aquaculture and wild fish and summarising several then recent

reviews concerning interactions between salmon farms and wild salmonids. This is

reproduced in full at Annex A, but summarised the position thus:

5 Marine Scotland Science (2013) Summary of information relating to impacts of sea lice from fish farms on

Scottish sea trout and salmon - 4th

April 2013 – see www.standupforwildsalmon.org

9

“Scientific evidence from Norway and Ireland indicates a detrimental effect of sea lice on sea

trout and salmon populations. There is increasing scientific evidence that this is also the case

for sea trout in Scotland although scientific studies investigating the case for Scottish salmon

are lacking. Salmon aquaculture results in elevated numbers of sea lice in open water and

hence is likely to have an adverse effect on populations of wild salmonids in some

circumstances. The magnitude of any such impact in relation to overall mortality levels is not

known. However, concerns that there may be a significant impact of aquaculture have

been raised due to declines in catches of both salmon and sea trout on the Scottish west

coast.” (emphasis added)

16. Similarly, a report for the Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, Norway’s leading

institution for applied ecological research, summarises the threat this poses to wild

salmonids:

“When large numbers of farmed salmon are introduced to the marine environment in open

net cage salmon farms, three things are virtually inevitable for these fish. They will become

hosts to sea lice since these occur naturally on wild host species in the vicinity of most farms;

they will become part of a dynamic host‐parasite system involving wild hosts, because they

can produce large numbers of infective larvae in a restricted spatial area if gravid females

are allowed to develop; and because they carry sea lice, and because some of these fish may

escape from the farms, the dispersal of parasites is likely to be even more widespread on

occasion…Given the above, it may be concluded that it is next to impossible to (1) avoid

infection of farmed fish, all of which go into the pens as clean smolts, and (2) also

subsequently avoid infection of wild fish that are found in the vicinity (“infective field”) of an

open cage farm”.6

17. A burden in excess of 13 pre-adult sea lice is known to compromise severely the

survival of juvenile migratory salmonids. Sea lice feed by grazing on the surface of the fish

and eating the mucous and skin and so large numbers of sea lice soon cause the loss of fins,

severe scarring, secondary infections and, in time, death.

6Revie C, Dill L, Finstad B & Todd C D (2009) Sea Lice Working Group Report. ‐ NINA Special Report 39.

117 pp. http://www.nina.no/archive/nina/pppbasepdf/temahefte/039.pdf

10

18. Sea trout, which tend to remain in coastal waters for the whole of their marine

phase, are particularly at risk as they can pick up huge burdens of sea lice near salmon

farms. As well as causing premature mortality, infestation at sub-lethal levels can trigger

early returning behaviour in sea trout, with the fish moving back into freshwater

prematurely, in an attempt to rid themselves of sea lice.

19. In late 2015, S&TCS published a detailed report into the control of sea lice on fish

farms in Scotland actually achieved over the years 2013-2015, which brought into sharp

focus the seriousness of the problem with sea lice and the need for urgent action from the

Scottish Government to protect wild salmon and sea-trout populations7. That report is

reproduced at Annex B, but key conclusions on the control of sea lice achieved between

2013-2015 show that:

Although analysis of control of sea-lice on Scottish fish farms is severely hampered

by the lack of farm-specific sea lice data, publicly available data for 2013 to 2015

shows that the number of Scottish fish farming regions failing to keep adult female

sea lice numbers below the CoGP threshold is on an upward trend. The industry-

wide problem with sea lice is increasing and is certainly not under control.

The proportion of the total Scottish farms salmon production exceeding CoGP

thresholds shows a similar upward trend, with regions representing 60% of Scottish

production being over the CoGP threshold of 0.5 adult female lice per fish in May

2015, at the peak of the wild smolt run.

There is strong evidence that sea lice numbers on fish farms rise during the second

year of production and, in much of Scotland, average adult female sea lice numbers

per farmed fish appear to be linked to the cumulative biomass of farmed fish held on

the farms.

There is evidence of the considerable failure in some regions of available chemical

sea lice treatments to limit sea lice numbers on farmed fish to below CoGP

thresholds, strongly suggesting that resistance and tolerance to these treatments is

becoming widespread. A number of regions appear to have experienced sea lice

7 S&TCS(2015) The Control of Sea Lice on Fish Farms in Scotland 2013-2015. A Report for Salmon And Trout

Conservation Scotland December 2015

11

numbers persistently above CoGP thresholds, despite the use of wrasse as cleaner

fish on some farms.

There is some evidence of a failure by some fish farm operators to treat for sea lice

on farmed fish despite sea lice numbers being over CoGP thresholds, contrary to

CoGP requirements, and of the failure by fish farmers to treat sea lice near the end

of production cycles, both suggesting that little consideration is being given to the

consequent negative effects on wild salmonids.

Where there is evidence of early harvest or culling out of farmed fish, this appears

only to be associated with unacceptable damage being caused to the farmed fish,

causing either commercial losses or animal welfare issues for the farmed fish, rather

than this occurring in order to protect wild fish.

20. The graph below, compiled using aggregated on-farm sea lice data published by the

Scottish Salmon Producers’ Organisation (SSPO),8 shows that the % of the Scottish salmon

farming industry’s production that operates at adult female sea lice levels above the

threshold designed to protect wild salmonids, is steadily increasing and currently sits at

c.60%.

8 SSPO three monthly sea-lice aggregated data published at http://scottishsalmon.co.uk/tag/fish-health-

management/

12

21. There has been much debate about whether any of this matters to wild salmon and

sea trout at a population level, but the impact at that level is now becoming much clearer.

Research published in 2013 by a group of fisheries experts from Norway, Canada and

Scotland, re-analysing data from various Irish studies, showed that the impact of sea lice on

wild salmon causes a significant loss (34%) of those destined to return to Irish rivers9.

22. There is also strong evidence, presented in a paper co-authored by MSS’ fisheries

scientists, that both wild salmon and sea trout are in decline in Scotland’s ‘aquaculture

zone’, whereas, generally, populations have stabilized on the east and north coast where

there is no fish-farming10.

23. After examining east and west coast catch trends, fisheries scientists from the Rivers

and Fisheries Trusts of Scotland (RAFTS) also concluded that: “there is a clear trend of

declining salmon catches, compared with catches on the East coast, in areas where the

Scottish aquaculture industry operates. The assertion by SSPO [the Scottish Salmon

Producers’ Organisation] that ‘the catch statistics show salmon farming has had no effect on

wild salmon catches’ does not stand up to scrutiny. It is also apparent that the decline is

greater for those areas whose juvenile fish have to swim past larger number of salmon farms

in order to reach the open ocean”11.

24. In 2015, fisheries scientists from Norway, Scotland and Ireland reviewed over 300

scientific publications on the damaging effects of sea lice on sea trout stocks in salmon

farming areas, and examined the effect of sea lice on salmon, concluding that sea lice have a

potentially significant and detrimental effect on marine survival of Atlantic salmon, with

potentially 12-29% fewer salmon spawning in salmon farming areas12. The researchers

9 M Krkosek, C W Revie, B Finstad and C D Todd (2013) Comment on Jackson et al. "Impact of Lepeophtheirus

salmonis infestations on migrating Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L., smolts at eight locations in Ireland with an analysis of lice-induced marine mortality" - Journal of Fish Diseases 10

Vollestad LA, Hirst D, L’Abee-Lund JH, Armstrong JD, MacLean JC, Youngson AF and Stenseth NC (2009) Divergent trends in anadromous salmonid populations in Norwegian and Scottish rivers. Proc. R. Soc. B 2009 276, 1021-1027 11

See RAFTS paper at http://www.rafts.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/East-v-West-final-RWB.pdf 12

Thorstad , E , Todd , C D , Uglem , I , Bjorn , P A , Gargan , P , Vollset , K , Halttunen , E , Kalas , S , Berg , M & Finstad , B 2015 , ' Effects of salmon lice Lepeophtheirus salmonis on wild sea trout Salmo trutta – a literature

13

concluded that: “salmon lice in intensively farmed areas have negatively impacted wild sea

trout populations by reducing growth and increasing marine mortality. Quantification of

these impacts remains a challenge, although population-level effects have been quantified in

Atlantic salmon by comparing the survival of chemically protected fish with control groups,

which are relevant also for sea trout. Mortality attributable to salmon lice can lead to an

average of 12−29% fewer salmon spawners…Reduced growth and increased mortality will

reduce the benefits of marine migration for sea trout, and may also result in selection

against anadromy in areas with high lice levels. Salmon lice-induced effects on sea trout

populations may also extend to altered genetic composition and reduced diversity, and

possibly to the local loss of sea trout, and establishment of exclusively freshwater resident

populations.”

25. In 2015, the Scottish Government published a classification of the country’s salmon

rivers’ salmon populations. This placed all the rivers in the west Highlands and inner

Hebrides, including river systems such as the Awe and the Lochy, in the worst-performing

category, with wild salmon stocks not reaching their conservation limits, which are a

measure of the overall health of the Atlantic salmon population. No river within salmon

farming’s heartland of the west Highlands and inner Hebrides has, according to the Scottish

Government’s own scientists, a sufficient stock of wild salmon for any exploitation to be

sustainable.

26. The map below shows the outcome of the assessment procedure with categories

based upon probability of a district or SAC meeting its Conservation Limit determined using

the best available information on salmon stocks.

review ' Aquaculture Environment Interactions , vol 7 , no. 2 , pp. 91-113 . (See https://research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk/handle/10023/7295)

14

27. The contrast between western Scotland and the rest of the country is stark, with the

major or substantive distinction between east and west coast being the presence of salmon

farming in the west (there is a ‘continuing presumption against marine fish farm

development on the north and east coasts to help safeguard migratory fish species’). The

map shows that the extent of west Highland rivers where wild salmon populations are in

very poor health (category 3 are shown in brown) closely matches the extent of the salmon

farming industry (the current active marine salmon farming sites are marked in red).

Category 1 rivers (the best performing) are shown in blue and the intermediate category 2

rivers are shown in grey.

28. It is noteworthy that the Grudie / Dionard rivers, the most westerly rivers on the

north coast, are designated category 1. Migrating salmon smolts (juvenile salmon) from

these rivers are able to head north into the open sea without passing any salmon farms. In

15

contrast, all the neighbouring west-flowing rivers - where the smolts must navigate past

salmon farms - are designated category 3. The great majority of Scottish rivers to the south

of the west Highlands – for example in Ayrshire and the Solway – are also category 3.

Salmon smolts from these rivers migrate north through the main salmon farming regions,

rendering them liable to sea lice infestations.

29. Since this correlation between poor category stocks and the aquaculture zone was

first highlighted by S&TCS in the press, a revision to the modelling methodology has been

published by Scottish Government which has the effect of causing an ‘upgrade’ for six west

coast stocks (Carron, Gruinard non SAC, Inver and Kirkaig districts and the North Harris and

Langavat SACs), but the overall picture remains broadly the same as per the revised map

below13.

13

http://www.gov.scot/Topics/marine/Salmon-Trout-Coarse/fishreform/licence/status/limits

16

30. In the context of European law, the impact of sea lice emanating from fish farms on

wild salmonids populations requires appropriate measures from the Scottish Government.

Indeed, Scotland’s National Marine Plan (March 2015) already provides policy support for

the conservation of salmon and sea trout in the sea (within the outer territorial limits) and

recognises the problems of salmon farms. Salmon and sea trout in the sea (within the outer

territorial limits) are identified as being of “conservation importance to Scotland” and the

reasons for that identification refer to local wild populations of salmon as being “at risk” and

sea trout stocks as having “suffered severe declines in recent years”. Salmon farms are

mentioned in relation to both species.

17

31. The River Basin Management Plan for Scotland 2015-27 also recognises that changes

in pressures are likely to result from the expansion of aquaculture – which is clear Scottish

Government policy – with ‘key gaps’ in the understanding of the likely risks posed by

expansion of marine fish farming and how to manage them, including “understanding of the

risk of infection with sea lice of wild fish populations”14.

The Marine Strategy Framework Directive

32. However, European law now requires measures to be put in place. The aim of the

ambitious MSFD is to protect more effectively the marine environment across the whole of

Europe.

33. The main goal of the MSFD is to achieve good environmental status (GES) in EU

marine waters by 2020. The MSFD defines GES as “the environmental status of marine

waters where these provide ecologically diverse and dynamic oceans and seas which are

clean, healthy and productive”.

34. The MSFD was adopted on 17th June 2008, after several years of preparation and

extensive consultation of all the relevant stakeholders and the public, and came into force

on 15th June 2008. The MSFD was due to be transposed into national legislation by 15th July

2010.

35. Importantly, the MFSD is the first EU legislative instrument related to the general

protection of all marine biodiversity, as it contains the explicit regulatory objective that

"biodiversity is maintained by 2020"15.

36. Recital 44 to the MSFD makes it clear that “programmes of measures and

subsequent action by Member States should be based on an ecosystem-based approach to

14

Table A5.3: Pressures likely to increase over the period 2015 to 2027, page 70, Appendices to the river basin management plan for the Scotland river basin district: 2015 – 2027, published 21 December 2015 15

See for example http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/eu-coast-and-marine-policy/marine-strategy-framework-directive/index_en.htm

18

the management of human activities and on the principles referred to in Article 174 of the

Treaty, in particular the precautionary principle.” (italics added)

37. Previously, wild salmonid issues have tended to be considered at a European level

primarily in relation to the Habitats Directive which focusses on specific designated rivers.

The time has now come when the requirements of the MSFD relating to all seas surrounding

Scotland require action to be taken on a wider basis than previously.

38. Indeed, the MSFD requires measures to be taken such that Member States achieve

good environmental status (GES) in the marine environment by the year 2020 at the latest.

The UK Government was therefore required to publish, for relevant marine waters, before

the end of 2015 “a programme of measures necessary to achieve or maintain good

environmental status” and to put those measures into effect by 31st December 2016.

39. The protection and conservation of wild Atlantic salmon and sea trout in the sea -

including from the effects of sea lice infestation caused by salmon farming – falls within the

scope of MSFD and the measures proposed and due to be implemented by the end of 2016

in order to achieve GES by 2020. Of direct relevance to wild salmonids, both Atlantic salmon

and sea trout, Annex 1 of the MSFD lays down, inter alia, that achieving GES includes

securing that:

“(1) Biological diversity is maintained. The quality and occurrence of habitats and the

distribution and abundance of species are in line with prevailing physiographic, geographic

and climatic conditions”.

and

“(3) Populations of all commercially exploited fish and shellfish are within safe biological

limits, exhibiting a population age and size distribution that is indicative of a healthy stock”.

How is the MSFD to be implemented in the UK and Scotland?

19

40. The MSFD is implemented in the UK by the Marine Strategy Regulations 2010 (SI No

1627)16

41. However, implementation of the MSFD across the EU has so far been poor, as the

Commission recognises - “Member States definition of good environmental status and the

path they set out to achieve it shows overall limited ambition”17. The Commission has also

reported, in relation to transposition, that a Letter of Formal Notice has been sent to UK18.

42. The 2010 Regulations impose a general duty in Regulation 4(1), on both the UK and

devolved administrations of the UK (including Scotland):

“The Secretary of State, devolved policy authorities and each Northern Ireland body must

exercise their functions, so far as they are relevant functions, so as to secure compliance with

the requirements of the Directive, including the requirement in Article 1 to take the

necessary measures to achieve or maintain good environmental status of marine waters

within the marine strategy area by 31st December 2020.”

43. Regulation 5 requires the Secretary of State to develop a marine strategy to “(a)

protect and preserve the marine environment, prevent its deterioration or, where

practicable, restore marine ecosystems in areas where they have been adversely affected;”

and “(b) prevent and reduce inputs into the marine environment, with a view to phasing out

pollution, so as to ensure they do not give rise to any significant impacts on or risks to

marine biodiversity, marine ecosystems, human health or legitimate uses of the sea”.

44. The MSFD process required by the 2010 Regulations involves a number of stages,

including assessment (Regulation 10), determination of GES (Regulation 11), establishment

of targets and indicators (Regulation 12) and monitoring (Regulation 13).

16

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/1627/pdfs/uksi_20101627_en.pdf 17

European Commission (2014) Report from the Commission to the Council on the first phase of implementation of the MSFD - COM(2014) 97 final 18

European Commission (2014) Commission Staff Working Document - Annex accompanying the document Commission Report to the Council and the European Parliament on the First Phase of Implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008/56/EC) - The European Commission's Assessment And Guidance {Com(2014) 97 Final}

20

45. Importantly, the MSFD and the Regulations require identification by 31st December

2015 of measures and implementation of those measures by 31st December 2016.

46. In drawing up the programme of measures, it was the function of the devolved

policy authorities, including Scotland, in the development of the marine strategy, per

Regulation 6, “to assist the Secretary of State in the development of the marine strategy

under regulation 5, each devolved policy authority must provide the Secretary of State with

(a) proposals for…(ii) the determination of a programme of measures for the devolved

marine area”.

47. In short, the Scottish Government put forward a Scottish programme of measures

for incorporation into the UK programme.

48. Note that the area covered by the MSFD is UK seas within territorial waters,

including ‘coastal waters’ but not ‘transitional waters’, which are those bodies of surface

water in the vicinity of river mouths which are partly saline in character as a result of their

proximity to coastal waters but which are substantially influenced by freshwater flows. In

the Scottish context, the Scottish Government has issued a map of transitional waters19. For

the purposes of this complaint, it is important to note that most, if not all, west coast

salmon farms are not in transitional waters and are therefore directly within the scope of

the MSFD and the 2010 Regulations.

The UK Programme of Measures (POM)

49. In January 2015, Defra, the Northern Ireland Executive, the Scottish Government and

the Welsh Government sought views on the UK’s proposed programme of measures to

maintain or achieve Good Environmental Status (GES) in their seas by 202020. The

consultation covered proposals for the programme of measures for each of the 11 Marine

19

http://www.gov.scot/Resource/Doc/1057/0010062.pdf 20

https://consult.defra.gov.uk/marine/msfd-programme-of-measures/supporting_documents/20150113%20POM%20consultation%20letter%20FINAL.pdf

21

Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) descriptors, including those relating to biological

diversity and commercially exploited fish and shellfish.

50. Concerns were raised as to the measures proposed to protect fish, particularly

diadromous species such as Atlantic salmon and sea trout.

51. For example, responding to the draft UK Programme of Measures, Scottish Natural

Heritage (SNH) stated that “our key uncertainty regarding the sufficiency of the measures

stems from the absence of targets for fish in the inshore/coastal areas. Consequently, there

is no vision for what GES requires for fish in these areas, resulting in a potential over-reliance

on Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) and the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) for measures.

MPAs will contribute toward achieving GES for fish, whether as protected features of sites or

through indirect benefits, but the range of species and geographic areas benefiting will be

limited. By improving the status of particular stocks, measures under the CFP may be most

beneficial in recovering or improving the use of some of the potential nursery or spawning

ground function of inshore/coastal areas. However, it may be appropriate to further consider

any other pressures occurring in inshore/coastal areas that limit this functionality. Given

their particular sensitivities there is also uncertainty over the sufficiency of measures for

sharks, skates, rays, deep sea species and diadromous species. Evaluation of monitoring

outputs will be important to inform the need for any further measures. Nevertheless, the

identified measures will make a valuable contribution to achieving GES for these species” 21.

52. The Joint Links group of UK environmental and conservation NGOs also raised

concerns, stating that, “in particular, the UK’s Initial Assessment raised concerns about the

status of threatened and vulnerable species such as…diadromous fish such as the European

eel and salmon. It highlighted the need for improved information on …. the causes of

declines in diadromous fish populations. The Feeder Report for Charting Progress 2 identified

… dramatic declines in salmon numbers from a number of rivers in the Minches and

Western Scotland regions since the 1970s.22

21

SNH (2015) Response to Consultation on Proposals for UK Programme of Measures under MSFD, 20th

April 2015 22

Marine Strategy Framework Directive consultation: Programme of Measures

22

53. The Joint Links concluded: “We are seriously concerned that the lack of new

measures proposed for inclusion in the PoM means that the ability of existing initiatives and

programmes to deliver GES will be seriously compromised. As a result, we believe that many

gaps remain and that additional measures must be incorporated into the PoM to support the

achievement of GES by 2020 including, for example, measures to…..establish recovery and

restoration plans for a range of species and / or habitats”

54. The Joint Links recommended new measures, including “fully comprehensive

recovery plans should be developed for all diadromous fish species in decline, including

habitat recovery projects” and “designation of diadromous fish MPAs for the species for

which critical habitat is identified in UK waters as a constituent component of the ECN of

MPAs”.

Protecting salmon and sea trout from the impacts of aquaculture in the UK POM

55. The final UK Programme of Measures (POM) was published in December 201523.

56. In relation to salmonids, the POM accepts that concerns remain over diadromous

fish species such as salmon and sea trout24, and that despite the measures proposed, not all

salmonids stocks will recover because of pressures in freshwater and at sea25. Note that the

POM accepts that the MSFD obligations are relevant to both salmon and sea trout.

57. In relation to salmon farming, the POM relies entirely on the UK’s membership of the

North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation (NASCO) and the Implementation Plans

drawn thereunder.

A joint response from Wildlife and Countryside Link, Scottish Environment LINK, Wales Environment Link and the Northern Ireland Marine Task Force. April 2015 23

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/486623/marine-strategy-part3-programme-of-measures.pdf 24

POM p.23 section 1 and p.26 section 3. 25

POM p.39

23

58. The POM states that the UK (and by implication each of devolved administrations) is

expected to follow and implement NASCO recommendations and guidance26.

The North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation (NASCO)

NASCO is an inter-governmental organization established in 1984 under the Convention for

the Conservation of Salmon in the North Atlantic Ocean.

The objective of the Organization is to conserve, restore, enhance and rationally manage

salmon stocks through international cooperation, taking into account the best available

scientific information. The Convention applies to salmon stocks throughout their North

Atlantic migratory range.

NASCO’s Member Parties are Canada, Denmark (in respect of the Faroe Islands and

Greenland), the European Union, Norway, the Russian Federation and the USA. [Iceland

withdrew from NASCO with effect from 31 December 2009 because of financial

considerations, but has indicated that it intends to re-accede to the Convention when the

economic situation improves].

NASCO has welcomed participation in its work by observers from inter-governmental and

NGOs. Thirty-five NGOS currently have observer status to NASCO.

NASCO consists of a Council which provides a forum for international cooperation and

information exchange on a wide range of pressures on the resource and best management

practices; three regional Commissions (North American, North-East Atlantic and West

Greenland) which establish regulatory measures for salmon fisheries and provide a forum

for regional cooperation on salmon matters; the International Atlantic Salmon Research

Board (IASRB) which promotes cooperation on research into the causes of marine mortality

of Atlantic salmon and the opportunities to counteract it. The NASCO secretariat is based

at the administrative headquarters in Edinburgh.

26

POM p. 33

24

59. Importantly, this is the only measure put forward in the POM that is relevant to the

impact of marine open-cage salmon farming on wild salmon and sea trout.

NASCO Recommendations and Guidance and the Scottish Implementation Plan

60. NASCO recommendations and guidance relevant to the control of sea lice includes

the NASCO Williamsburg Resolution27 and NASCO Guidance on Best Management

Practices28.

61. Article 5 of the Williamsburg Resolution on measures to minimise impacts of

aquaculture etc requires that each Party shall take measures, inter alia, “to minimise the risk

of disease and parasite transmission between all aquaculture activities, introductions and

transfers, and wild salmon stocks”.

62. The Best Management Practice guidance requires “100% of farms to have effective

sea lice management such that there is no increase in sea lice loads or lice-induced mortality

of wild salmonids attributable to the farms”, to be achieved by, inter alia “strategic timing,

methods and levels of treatment to achieve the international goal and avoid lice resistance

to treatment”.

63. However, Scotland’s current NASCO Implementation Plan29 does not contain

measures that will achieve compliance with NASCO recommendations and guidance.

64. Prior to the 2014 NASCO meeting, NASCO’s own Implementation Plan Annual

Progress Report Review Group30 had identified the Scottish Implementation Plan as

containing clear omissions and inadequacies.

27

NASCO Williamsburg Resolution CNL (06)48 (as amended in June 2006) http://www.nasco.int/pdf/agreements/williamsburg.pdf 28

SLG(09)5 Guidance on Best Management Practices to address impacts of sea lice and escaped farmed salmon on wild salmon stocks (Adopted in June 2009 and Revised in June 2010) http://www.nasco.int/pdf/aquaculture/BMP%20Guidance.pdf 29

NASCO Implementation Plan for 2013 – 2018 (CNL(14)60 updated March 2014) http://www.nasco.int/pdf/2014%20papers/CNL_14_60.pdf

25

65. When asked “what progress can be demonstrated towards the achievement of the

international goals for effective sea lice management such that there is no increase in sea

lice loads or lice-induced mortality of wild stocks attributable to sea lice?”31, the Scottish

Government reported that “one of the key health challenges for the Atlantic salmon farming

industry is the continued management and control of sea lice on farmed salmon. Through

appropriate and proportionate regulation, proactive compliance activity, and the adoption

of best practice, by industry, the potential impacts of sea lice on the wider marine

environment can be managed effectively” and went on to describe the range of existing

measures.

66. The NASCO Review Group considered that all parties and jurisdictions with salmon

farming, including Scotland, should have presented quantitative data in their

Implementation Plans to provide a baseline for demonstrating progress towards the

international goals for sea lice and containment in the NASCO Guidance on Best

Management Practices to Address Impacts of Sea Lice and Escaped Farmed Salmon on Wild

Salmon Stocks, but the Group reported that Scotland had not provided these data.

67. In relation to Scotland, the Review Group specifically noted that, “it is difficult to

evaluate progress… because the planned activities to ensure that farmed and wild fisheries

and their interactions are managed effectively are not clear”32.

68. Even though the Scottish Implementation Plan was updated in December 2014 ,

since the 2014 Annual Meeting, the Review Group checked again to see if any new

information had been provided that would affect the Group’s assessment and lead to a

satisfactory evaluation; the Group concluded that this was not the case33.

30

NASCO Report of the Meeting of the Implementation Plan/Annual Progress Report Review Group 2015 (CNL(15)12) http://www.nasco.int/pdf/2015%20papers/CNL_15_12.pdf 31

NASCO Implementation Plan for 2013 - 2018 (CNL(14)60 updated March 2014) http://www.nasco.int/pdf/2014%20papers/CNL_14_60.pdf page 19, section 4.2 32

NASCO Report of the Meeting of the Implementation Plan/Annual Progress Report Review Group 2015, CNL_15_12, at page 36 33

NASCO Report of the Meeting of the Implementation Plan/Annual Progress Report Review Group 2015, CNL_15_12, at section 4.7, page 4

26

69. In its 2015 Written Response to the specific question raised by the Review Group –

that Scotland should have presented quantitative data in its Implementation Plan to provide

a baseline for demonstrating progress towards the international goals for sea lice and

containment in the NASCO Guidance on Best Management Practices to Address Impacts of

Sea Lice and Escaped Farmed Salmon on Wild Salmon Stocks - Scotland reported only that:

“Of a total 267 active seawater fish farm sites during 2014, sea lice inspections were

conducted at 86 (32.2%) and enhanced sea lice inspections were conducted at a further 29

(10.9%). All farms inspected were found to have effective sea lice management in place for

the aquaculture animals under their care, which met the requirements of the regulatory

regime under the Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Act 2007. No reports of increased sea

lice loads or lice-induced mortality of wild salmonids attributable to the farms was reported

to the Marine Scotland’s Fish Health Inspectorate during 2014”.

70. However, these Fish Health Inspectorate (FHI) inspections, carried out under the

2007 Act, demonstrably have not contained the sea-lice problem, as the S&TC report at

[Annex C] shows.

71. Further, that there have been no lice-induced mortalities in wild fish reported, that

are “attributable to the farms”, does nothing other than demonstrate both the practical

scientific difficulties of showing such mortalities, with heavily-liced and moribund wild fish

highly likely to be predated easily, and the lack of proper surveillance by the Scottish

Government.

72. At the NASCO meeting in 2015, the supposed progress in Scotland was challenged by

the complainant’s Mr Andrew Graham-Stewart, for S&TCS: “Mr Andrew Graham-Stewart

(Salmon and Trout Association (Scotland)): indicated… that this wording gives the impression

that all is well with sea lice control in Scotland which he considered to be very far from the

truth. He noted that last year, for example, Marine Harvest had lost control at sites in

Wester Ross. The situation became progressively worse and by the time the fish were

eventually harvested, the average number of adult female lice per farmed fish was 40. He

27

added that in the north-west Highlands, salmon farms of the well-known company Loch

Duart (supplier of farmed salmon to royalty and celebrity chefs) recently exceeded the

industry's Code of Good Practice thresholds for sea lice treatment for an astonishing 24

months out of 27. He noted that just before this year's wild smolt runs, lice numbers were 16

times over the threshold. He stressed that these were not isolated incidents and billions of

sea lice larvae spread from salmon farms to infect wild fish. He added that just two weeks

prior to the Annual Meeting, two post-smolt sea trout carrying over 500 sea lice were caught

during sweep net monitoring. He noted that no enforcement action is taken against farms

when they breach sea lice guidelines. As long as they continue to treat against lice, when

they are above the industry's thresholds, the farmers are not committing any offence. In the

meantime, he believes that wild fish have no protection whatsoever. He asked the Scottish

Government to confirm that this situation is untenable and indeed intolerable and, if so,

when does the Scottish Government intend to bring forward and/or employ measures to

ensure that wild fish have statutory, legal protection when lice numbers on farms are out of

control? He indicated that he was referring to a statutory requirement for farms to

immediately cull out all stock when sea lice levels exceed a certain limit and treatment, as

happens all too often, is having no effect”34.

73. Mr Willie Cowan of Marine Scotland replied for the Scottish Government and “noted

that the issues referred to were disappointing as the Scottish Government is working with

both sectors to address the interactions between farmed and wild salmon. There has been

much activity and investment both in relation to research and the practical management of

sea lice, including the use of cleaner fish (wrasse) which are proving to be successful in most

areas where they are being deployed. He referred to the Scottish Government-funded

Aquaculture Innovation Centre whose priority is the management and control of sea lice.

The work with both the salmon farming industry and the wild fish sector is ongoing to

manage interactions”.

74. Note that the Scottish Government has repeatedly suggested to NASCO that the remedy to

the sea lice issue lay partly in joint working between the wild fish and aquaculture sectors - “the

34

NASCO (2015) Summary of the Discussions during the Special Session on the Evaluation of Annual Progress Reports under the 2013 - 2018 Implementation Plans CNL(15)51 , at page 2

28

work with both the salmon farming industry and the wild fish sector is ongoing to manage

interactions”. However, all relevant DSFBs and Fisheries Trusts have recently written jointly to the

Scottish Government, highlighting, inter alia, that they are not satisfied with current efforts to

manage the interactions between farmed and wild fish and that there is a clear need for “effective

and independently monitored measures to be introduced to regulate salmon fish farms harming wild

fish populations through sea lice, escapes or other means. See Annex III.

75. For the purposes of this complaint, reliance upon the hoped-for positive outcome of

future research and an ‘interactions’ project with wild fish interests that has patently

delivered very little, and from which all wild fish bodies have withdrawn in protest at its

failure, is insufficient to comply with the MSFD.

76. As the Scottish statement to NASCO also confirms, the Scottish statutory systems,

based upon the 2007 Act, only empowers inspectors to manage sea-lice on the farmed fish

- “all farms inspected were found to have effective sea lice management in place for the

aquaculture animals under their care, which met the requirements of the regulatory regime

under the Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Act 2007” (underline added).

77. The statutory regime in Scotland does not have any mechanism specifically designed

to protect wild salmonid fish from sea-lice infestation from fish-farms.

78. The 2007 Act needs amending to give the FHI a statutory duty to inspect and

otherwise enforce sea lice control on marine cage fish farms for the express purpose of

protecting wild salmonid fish from juvenile sea lice infestation from marine cage fish farms,

and provide the FHI with statutory powers to order immediate culls and/or early harvest of

any marine cage fish farm where average adult female sea lice numbers of farmed fish

remain persistently above CoGP thresholds.

79. In this vein, the S&TCS has raised a formal Petition to the Scottish Parliament, calling

upon the Scottish Government to accept that wild fish are not sufficiently protected in

domestic law and asking Scottish Ministers to amend the 2007 Act with the express purpose

29

of protecting wild fish from potential damage caused by fish-farms, with inspectors given a

legal duty to control sea lice on fish-farms, again expressly in order to protect wild fish

populations35.

80. The most recent submission to NASCO36 by the Scottish Government, reporting on

the year 2015, does little to improve on matters, largely points, as before, to more research

and voluntary industry-led reporting of sea lice figures.

Conclusions

81. As compliance with NASCO recommendations and guidance is the only measure put

forward by Scotland to deal with the admitted issue of sea lice from salmon farms in the

POM, but Scotland’s Implementation Plan is unsatisfactory, then the measures put forward

must be inadequate to comply with the MSFD.

82. As fisheries scientists, NASCO and the conclusions of S&TCS reports show, Scotland

has not yet developed an appropriate programme of measures to deal with the sea lice

issue and is therefore in breach of the requirement to draw up such measures by the end of

2015 in order to achieve GES by 2020.

83. Further, if Scotland then continues to fail to develop adequate measures and

implement them by the end of 2016, it will then also be in breach of the requirements of

the MSFD and the 2010 Regulations to implement appropriate measures by the end of

2016.

35

Petition on behalf of Salmon & Trout Conservation Scotland calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to strengthen Scottish legislative and regulatory control of marine fish farms to protect wild salmonids of domestic and international conservation importance. 26

th February 2016.

https://www.scottish.parliament.uk/GettingInvolved/Petitions/PE01598 36

NASCO (2016) Annual Progress Report on Actions Taken under the Implementation Plan for the Calendar Year 2015 - EU-UK (Scotland)

30

Recommendations

84. There are a number of steps that S&TCS believes that the Scottish Government can

now take to address the sea lice issue with respect to wild salmonids rectify the failure to

comply with the MSFD. These have all been put to the Scottish Government previously,

including most recently in the Recommendations of the S&TCS Report reproduced in Annex

II and in the S&TCS Petition to the Scottish Parliament, but they cover five areas:

- the provision of full information on sea lice on fish farms;

- a review by Scottish Government review of the Code of Good Practice;

- amending Scottish law to provide a statutory duty to protect wild salmonids;

- relaunching the relocation programme for poorly sited fish farms; and

- developing closed containment and other more sustainable technology.

Provision of full information

85. The major barrier to proper scrutiny of the fish farms - the lack of published farm-

specific sea lice data - needs to be addressed.

86. The Scottish Government should amend The Fish Farming Businesses (Record

Keeping) (Scotland) Order 2008, which is drawn under the 2007 Act, to require such records

- that must already be kept by fish farmers under that Order- to be published online, for

example, on the Scotland’s Aquaculture database.

87. The full publication of farm-specific parasite counts and full details of all sea lice

control methods employed at each fish farm (to include the use of hydrogen peroxide, well-

boat treatments for sea lice, the stocking of wrasse or lumpsuckers or other fish as cleaner

fish) would enable proper scrutiny of operations and would assist in developing a solution

supported by all parties.

31

Scottish Government review of the Code of Good Practice

88. S&TCS would also support a Scottish Government-led review of the CoGP, to be

undertaken with the express purpose of protecting wild salmonid populations from

potential harm caused by marine cage fish farming.

89. Specifically, the sea lice obligations of the CoGP must be reviewed to ensure that it is

no longer possible for fish farmers, where sea lice numbers have effectively gone out of

control on their farms, to assert, as they currently can do, that they remain in compliance

with the CoGP. This currently gives a false impression that the sea lice issue is under control.

90. The Scottish Government should also include, within a revised statutory CoGP, an

upper tier sea lice threshold above which an immediate cull or harvest of farmed fish is

mandated, as practiced in Norway, to be set on a precautionary basis at a level that will be

sure to protect wild fish.

91. The Scottish Government should also make the revision a statutory code, as

provided for in the 2007 Act, to ensure that the CoGP is adhered to by all operators.

Amending domestic law to provide a statutory duty to protect wild salmonids

92. More generally, the Scottish Government should amend the domestic legislation

that governs aquaculture with the express purpose of protecting wild fish from potential

damage caused by fish farms. Specifically, the FHI should be given a legal duty to control sea

lice on fish farms expressly in order to protect wild fish populations.

93. The FHI requires to be given a statutory duty to inspect and otherwise enforce sea

lice control on marine cage fish farms for the express purpose of protecting wild salmonid

fish from juvenile sea lice infestation from marine cage fish farms, and must be provided

with the statutory powers to order immediate culls and/or early harvest of any marine cage

32

fish farm where average adult female sea lice numbers of farmed fish remain persistently at

levels that threaten wild fish.

94. Scottish Ministers should also give much stronger guidance to the FHI requiring it to

enforce proper sea lice control on fish farms more robustly.

Relaunching the relocation programme

95. The Scottish Government needs to routinely examine all the data available to it

under the Record Keeping Order and that information collected by SEPA, local authorities,

FHI and others in order to identify those farms that are consistently failing to control sea

lice.

96. Such farms should then be examined closely with a view to closure and / or

relocation away from wild salmonid populations or migration routes. A relocation

programme was first made a priority issue by the Strategic Framework for Scottish

Aquaculture back in 2003 but was allowed to falter. The programme requires a re-launch

and political backing to expedite the identification and relocation of poorly-sited marine

cage fish farms for the express purpose of protecting wild salmonid populations from

potential harm caused by marine cage fish farming and restoring them where damage has

already occurred.

Developing closed containment and other sustainable aquaculture technology

97. At the same time as those measures above, Scottish Government should focus on

closed containment technologies, such as Marine Harvest’s ‘egg’37 or ‘doughnut’38

technologies and other more sustainable production methods, with the ultimate objective

37

https://www.undercurrentnews.com/2016/02/11/marine-harvest-bets-on-egg-closed-farm-technology/ 38

https://www.undercurrentnews.com/2016/04/19/marine-harvest-hopes-to-farm-salmon-offshore-in-marine-donut/

33

of moving to full closed containment of farmed salmon production in Scotland to eliminate

the biological interaction between farmed and wild fish.

.

34

Annex I

Marine Scotland Science 04/04/2013 Summary of information relating to impacts of sea lice from fish farms on Scottish sea trout and salmon. Sea lice infest both farmed and wild salmonids to the potential detriment of aquaculture and angling interests. Several reviews have recently considered information concerning interactions between salmon farms and wild salmonids (e.g. Revie et al. 2009; Costello 2009; Whelan, 2010). Here, the evidence available to assess the likelihood and scale of impact of sea lice from salmon farms on Scottish wild salmonids is summarised. The aim is not to repeat extensive review but to focus on key issues relevant to locating fish farms in the Scottish coastal zone. Are salmon farms a significant source of lice? Yes, salmon farms have been shown to be a more important contributor than wild fish to the total lice in the environment (Penston & Davies, 2009; Revie et al., 2009). Is there an association between levels of lice on salmon farms and in the surrounding environment? Yes, there is a strong correlation between levels of lice on fish farms and in the local environment (Penston et al., 2008). Is there an association between levels of lice on salmon farms and on sea trout? Yes, stage of farm cycle relates to level of lice infestation on sea trout with higher levels of infestation during the second year of production (Butler 2002; Hatton-Ellis et al. 2006; Middlemas et al. 2010), when lice numbers are known to be greater on farms (Revie et al. 2002; Lees et al. 2008). Examination of data collected throughout the West Coast during 2003-2009 showed that the proportion of individual sea trout with louse burdens above a level known to cause major physiological stress increased with the mean weight of salmon on the nearest fish farm (a measure of where they are in their production cycle), and decreased with distance from that farm (Middlemas et al. in press). Is there an effect of sea lice on wild trout at the individual level? Yes, individual wild trout sampled on the west coast of Scotland have been shown to have infestations above a level known to cause major physiological stress (Well et al. 2006; Middlemas et al. 2010, in press). Is there evidence of the scale of effect of sea lice on wild trout at the population level? No. It is difficult to extrapolate from lice levels of the wild sea trout examined as sampling may not be representative of the whole population. Therefore, the scale of any impact at a population level cannot be determined from existing published information.

35

Rod catches of sea trout on the west coast are currently at historically low levels. This is also the case for the Moray Firth and North East region of Scotland, while catches in the East and North Regions are both at historically high level. The underlying causes of these regional differences are not known and the influence of aquaculture, if any, is unclear. Is there an association between levels of lice on salmon farms and on wild salmon? Although this has been shown in Norway no information is available for Scotland. Is there an effect of sea lice on salmon at the individual level? No information is available for Scotland. Is there an effect of sea lice on wild salmon at the population level? Experiments undertaken in Norway and Ireland have shown that sea lice caused a loss of on average 39% of adult salmon recruitment (Krkosek et al. in press). No such direct information exists for Scotland. There is evidence that declines in catches of wild salmon have been steeper on the Scottish west coast than elsewhere in Scotland and Norway (Vollestad et al. 2009) although the authors stressed that this did not prove a causative link. Ford & Myers (2008) compared indices of salmon abundance on the East and West coasts of Scotland together with farm production data. They found a reduction in the catches and counts of salmon associated with increased production of farmed salmon. In addition Butler & Watt (2003) showed that rivers with farms had significantly lower abundances of juvenile salmon than those without farms. Over what distance do farms influence lice levels? Gillibrand & Willis (2007) produced a general sea lice dispersal model that showed that infective sea lice levels peaked 7 to 12km seawards of the source. However, it is clear that site specific factors such as prevailing wind and currents, and local topography can have a large impact on the direction and distance of lice dispersal (Amundrud & Murray 2009). Middlemas et al. (in press) found a significant relationship between sea lice infestations on sea trout and the distance to the nearest salmon farm. Infestation levels were highest when sea trout were sampled close to a salmon farm and dropped off as the distance to the nearest farm increased. There is considerable scatter around the general relationship found by Middlemas et al. which likely reflects unknown site specific factors. Do we understand the dispersal patterns of sea trout and salmon? Salmon smolts depart rapidly from home rivers but there is no knowledge of their subsequent distribution in relation to the Scottish coast. In general sea trout remain near shore for their first two months at sea and then disperse more widely, although some move further afield after entering the sea. There is no understanding of the scale of dispersal or whether it is uniform in direction relative to the home river. SUMMARY Scientific evidence from Norway and Ireland indicates a detrimental effect of sea lice on sea trout and salmon populations. There is increasing scientific evidence that this is also the case for sea trout in Scotland although scientific studies investigating the case for Scottish salmon are lacking. Salmon aquaculture results in elevated numbers of sea lice in open

36

water and hence is likely to have an adverse effect on populations of wild salmonids in some circumstances. The magnitude of any such impact in relation to overall mortality levels is not known. However, concerns that there may be a significant impact of aquaculture have been raised due to declines in catches of both salmon and sea trout on the Scottish west coast.

37

References Amundrud, T.L. & Murray, A.G. 2009 Modelling sea lice dispersion under varying

environmental forcing in a Scottish sea loch. Journal of Fish Diseases 32, 27-44. Butler, J.R.A. 2002 Wild salmonids and sea louse infestations on the west coast of Scotland:

sources of infection and implications for the management of marine salmon farms. Pest Management Science 58, 595-608.

Butler JRA & Watt J. 2003. Assessing and managing the impacts of marine salmon farms on wild Atlantic salmon in western Scotland: identifying priority rivers for conservation. Pp. 93-118 in: Mills D (ed.). Salmon at the Edge. Blackwell Science, Oxford. Costello, M.J. 2009 How sea lice from salmon farms may cause wild salmonid declines in Europe and North America and be a threat to fishes elsewhere. Proc. R. Soc. B 276, 3385–3394 . Ford, J. S., & Myers, R. A. 2008. A global assessment of salmon aquaculture impacts on wild salmonids. PLoS biology, 6(2), e33.. Gillibrand P.A. & Willis K.J. 2007 Dispersal of sea louse larvae from salmon farms: modelling the influence of environmental conditions and larval behaviour. Aquatic Biology 1, 63–85, doi: 10.3354/ab00006. Hatton-Ellis, M., Hay, D., Walker, A.F. & Northcott, S.J. 2006 Sea lice Lepeophtheirus salmonis infestations of post-smolt sea trout in Loch Shieldaig, Wester Ross, 1999–2003. In: Sea Trout: Biology, Conservation and Management (ed. by G.S. Harris & N.J. Milner), pp. 372–376. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford. Krkosek, M., C. Revie, P. Gargan, O. Skilbrei, B. Finstad, & C. Todd. In press. Impact of parasites on salmon recruitment in the Northeast Atlantic Ocean. Proceedings of the Royal Society B. Lees F., Gettinby, G. & Revie, C.W. 2008 Changes in epidemiological patterns of sea lice infestation on farmed Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L) in Scotland between 1996 and 2006. Journal of Fish Diseases 31, 251-262 Middlemas, S. J., RaffelL, J.A., Hay, D.W., Hatton-Ellis, M. and Armstrong, J.D. 2010 Temporal and spatial patterns of sea lice levels on sea trout in western Scotland in relation to fish farm production cycles. Biology Letters 6, 548–551 Middlemas, S.J., Fryer, R.J., Tulett, D. & Armstrong, J.D. in press Relationship between sea lice levels on sea trout and fish farm activity in western Scotland. Fisheries Management & Ecology. Penston, M.J. and Davies, I.M. 2009 An assessment of salmon farms and wild salmonids as sources of Lepeophtheirus salmonis (Krøyer) copepodids in the water column in Loch Torridon, Scotland. Journal of Fish Diseases 32, 75-88. Penston, M.J., Millar, C.P., Zuur, A. & Davies, I.M. (2008) Spatial and temporal distribution of Lepeophtheirus salmonis (Krøyer) larvae in a sea loch containing Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L., farms on the north-west coast of Scotland. J. Fish Dis. 31, 361-371. Revie C.W., Gettinby G., Treasurer J.W., Rae G.H. & Clark N. (2002) Temporal, environmental and management factors influencing the epidemiological patterns of sea lice (Lepeophtheirus salmonis) infestations on farmed Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) in Scotland. Pest Management Science 58, 576–584. Revie, C., Dill, L., Finstad, B., and C.D. Todd. 2009 “Salmon Aquaculture Dialogue Working Group Report on Sea Lice” commissioned by the Salmon Aquaculture Dialogue available at http://wwf.worldwildlife.org/site/PageNavigator/SalmonSOIForm.

38

Whelan, K. 2010 A Review of the Impacts of the Salmon Louse, Lepeophtheirus salmonis (Krøyer, 1837) on Wild Salmonids. Atlantic Salmon Trust, Perth. Vøllestad, L. A. et al. 2009 Divergent trends in anadromous salmonid populations in

Norwegian and Scottish rivers. Proc. Roy. Soc. B 276, 1021-1027.

39

Annex II

40

B

41

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Fisheries scientists are increasingly firm in their conclusions that sea lice produced on fish-farms harm wild salmonids, both at an individual and at a population level, making the proper control of sea-lice on fish-farms essential to protect wild fish. Although analysis of control of sea-lice on Scottish fish-farms is severely hampered by the lack of farm-specific sea lice data, publicly available data for 2013 to 2015 shows that the number of Scottish fish-farming regions failing to keep adult female sea lice numbers below the CoGP threshold is on an upward trend. The industry-wide problem with sea lice is increasing and is certainly not under control. The proportion of the total Scottish farms salmon production exceeding CoGP thresholds shows a similar upward trend, with regions representing 60% of Scottish production being over the CoGP threshold of 0.5 adult female lice per fish in May 2015, at the peak of the wild smolt run. There is strong evidence that sea lice numbers on fish farms rise during the second year of production and, in much of Scotland, average adult female sea lice numbers per farmed fish appear to be linked to the cumulative biomass of farmed fish held on the farms. There is evidence of the considerable failure in some regions of available chemical sea lice treatments to limit sea lice numbers on farmed fish to below CoGP thresholds, strongly suggesting that resistance and tolerance to these treatments is becoming widespread. A number of regions appear to have experienced sea lice numbers persistently above CoGP thresholds, despite the use of wrasse as cleaner fish on some farms. There is some evidence of a failure by some operators to treat for sea lice on farmed fish despite sea lice numbers being over CoGP thresholds, contrary to CoGP requirements, and of the failure by fish-farmers to treat sea lice near the end of production cycles, both suggesting that little consideration is being given to the consequent negative effects on wild salmonids. Where there is evidence of early harvest or culling out of farmed fish, this appears only to be associated with unacceptable damage being caused to the farmed fish, causing either commercial losses or animal welfare issues for the farmed fish, rather than this occurring in order to protect wild fish. Action by Scottish Government is required urgently to address the sea lice issue as it affects wild fish. The major barrier to proper scrutiny of the fish farms - the lack of published farm-specific sea lice data - needs to be removed and further information concerning newer control methods for sea lice should be recorded and published to ensure that a complete picture is obtained of the sea lice control methods used. The voluntary CoGP should be made a statutory code, as provided for in the 2007 Act, and an upper tier sea lice threshold should be introduced, above which an immediate cull or harvest of farmed fish is mandated. It should not be possible for fish-farmers, where sea lice numbers have effectively gone out of control on their farms, to assert that they remain in compliance with the CoGP merely because they have instigated treatment, regardless of its efficacy in reducing lice numbers.

42

The Scottish Government should amend legislation with the express purpose of protecting wild fish from potential damage caused by fish-farms, with inspectors given a legal duty to control sea lice on fish-farms expressly in order to protect wild fish populations. Those farms consistently failing to control sea lice should be identified for closure and / or relocation. In parallel, Scottish Government should focus on alternative more sustainable production methods with the ultimate objective of moving to full closed containment of farmed salmon production in Scotland to eliminate the biological interaction between farmed and wild fish.

43

Contents

Page

1. The threat to wild salmonids from sea lice emanating from fish-farms 4

2. Sea lice controls on fish-farms – legal and voluntary 8

3. How do fish-farms seek to control and treat sea lice? 10

4. Available data on sea lice on Scottish fish-farms between 2013 and 2015 12

5. Analysis of sea lice control on Scottish salmon farms 2014 to 2015 14

5.1 Inchard to Kirkaig North 16

5.2 Badachro to Applecross 18 5.3

Loch Long and Croe 21

5.4 Fyne 23

5.5 Isle of Lewis West 26

5.6 Harris 29

5.7 The Uists North 32

5.8 The Uists South 34

6. Discussion and conclusions 38

7. Recommendations 40

Annexes 42

44

1. The threat to wild salmonids from sea lice emanating from fish-farms Over many years, there has been considerable debate over the magnitude of the negative effects of sea lice, produced by salmon farms, upon wild salmonids. Despite this, the marine-cage salmon farming industry has accepted, for at least a decade, that the control of gravid adult female sea lice on farmed fish within salmon farms is essential, at least in part to minimise the impact of sea lice on wild salmonids. For example, the Strategic Framework for Scottish Aquaculture produced by the Scottish Executive in 2003, identified sea lice infestation as a significant factor which could impact upon the future sustainability of both aquaculture and wild fisheries. As Figure 1 shows, sea lice have both a free-swimming and a fixed parasitic stage in their life cycle. As they grow throughout these stages, they continue to molt.

While salmon farming is conducted in the open sea, with fish held in nets suspended from floating cages, the risk to wild fish from large numbers of juvenile lice leaving the farms will remain. The sea lice life cycle comprises many stages, but during its planktonic stages, juvenile sea lice can be dispersed very long distances. Indeed, modelling scenarios suggest that sea lice can be dispersed up to 30km from fish-farms39. In effect, this means that the majority of the coastal waters of the west coast and western isles of Scotland - and the wild salmonids populations they contain - are potentially affected by sea lice emanating from Scottish salmon farms. An average sized salmon-farm can hold over half a million farmed fish. Even if just a single adult female louse is present on each fish, this would constitute an enormous production of juvenile sea lice. An adult female louse produces a pair of egg strings about every 20 days depending on temperature (and produces several pairs over its lifetime) with about 150 eggs on each string. This would mean roughly 150 million juvenile lice being released every 20 days by the adult female lice from such a farm of half a million fish. If, as has been seen in 2013 to 2015, fish-farming regions on the Scottish west coast are consistently over CoGP thresholds for a whole year, this implies the production of tens, even hundreds of billions of mobile free-swimming stage lice.

39

NKG Salama, CM Collins, JG Fraser, J Dunn, CC Pert, AG Murray and B Rabe (2012)

Development and assessment of a biophysical dispersal model for sea lice Journal of Fish Diseases Special Issue: Papers from the 9th International Sea Lice Conference Bergen, 20–23rd May 2012 Volume 36, Issue 3, pages 323–337, March 2013

45

A report for the Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, Norway’s leading institution for applied ecological research, summarises the threat this poses to wild salmonids: “When large numbers of farmed salmon are introduced to the marine environment in open net cage salmon farms, three things are virtually inevitable for these fish. They will become hosts to sea lice since these occur naturally on wild host species in the vicinity of most

farms; they will become part of a dynamic host‐parasite system involving wild hosts,

because they can produce large numbers of infective larvae in a restricted spatial area if gravid females are allowed to develop; and because they carry sea lice, and because some of these fish may escape from the farms, the dispersal of parasites is likely to be even more widespread on occasion. Given the above, it may be concluded that it is next to impossible to (1) avoid infection of farmed fish, all of which go into the pens as clean smolts, and (2) also subsequently avoid infection of wild fish that are found in the vicinity (“infective field”) of an open cage farm40.” While adult wild salmon are perfectly adapted to coping with a few sea lice, and background levels of these parasites occur naturally in the sea, the negative impact of too many sea lice on wild salmonids (salmon and sea trout) is now widely accepted by fisheries scientists including the Scottish Government’s own Marine Scotland Science (MSS)41. A burden in excess of 13 pre-adult sea lice is known to compromise severely the survival of juvenile migratory salmonids. Sea lice feed by grazing on the surface of the fish and eating the mucous and skin and so large numbers of sea lice soon cause the loss of fins, severe scarring, secondary infections and, in time, death. Sea trout, which tend to remain in coastal waters, can pick up huge burdens of sea lice near salmon farms. As well as causing premature mortality, infestation at sub-lethal levels can trigger early returning behaviour in sea trout, with the fish moving back into freshwater prematurely, to rid themselves of sea lice. There has been much debate about whether any of this matters to wild salmon and sea-trout at a population level, but the impact at that level is now becoming much clearer. Research published in 2013 by a group of fisheries experts from Norway, Canada and Scotland re-analysing data from various Irish studies, showed that the impact of sea lice on wild salmon causes a very high loss (34%) of those returning to Irish rivers42. There is also clear evidence that both wild salmon and sea trout are in decline in Scotland’s ‘aquaculture zone’, whereas, generally, populations have stabilized on the east and north coast where there is no fish-farming. After examining east and west coast catch trends, fisheries scientists from the Rivers and Fisheries Trusts of Scotland (RAFTS) concluded that: “there is a clear trend of declining salmon catches, compared with catches on the East coast, in areas where the Scottish aquaculture industry operates. The assertion by SSPO

40

Revie C, Dill L, Finstad B & Todd C D (2009) Sea Lice Working Group Report. ‐ NINA Special Report 39. 117 pp.

http://www.nina.no/archive/nina/pppbasepdf/temahefte/039.pdf 41

Marine Scotland Science (2013) Summary of information relating to impacts of sea lice from fish farms on Scottish sea trout and salmon - 4

th April 2013 – see www.standupforwildsalmon.org

42 M Krkosek, C W Revie, B Finstad and C D Todd (2013) Comment on Jackson et al. "Impact of Lepeophtheirus salmonis

infestations on migrating Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L., smolts at eight locations in Ireland with an analysis of lice-induced marine mortality" - Journal of Fish Diseases

46

[the Scottish Salmon Producers’ Organisation] that ‘the catch statistics show salmon farming has had no effect on wild salmon catches’ does not stand up to scrutiny. It is also apparent that the decline is greater for those areas whose juvenile fish have to swim past larger number of salmon farms in order to reach the open ocean”43. Fisheries scientists from Norway, Scotland and Ireland reviewed over 300 scientific publications on the damaging effects of sea lice on sea trout stocks in salmon farming areas, and examined the effect of sea lice on salmon, concluding that sea lice have a potential significant and detrimental effect on marine survival of Atlantic salmon with potentially 12-29% fewer salmon spawning in salmon farming areas44. The researchers concluded that: “Salmon lice in intensively farmed areas have negatively impacted wild sea trout populations by reducing growth and increasing marine mortality. Quantification of these impacts remains a challenge, although population-level effects have been quantified in Atlantic salmon by comparing the survival of chemically protected fish with control groups, which are relevant also for sea trout. Mortality attributable to salmon lice can lead to an average of 12−29% fewer salmon spawners. Reduced growth and increased mortality will reduce the benefits of marine migration for sea trout, and may also result in selection against anadromy in areas with high lice levels. Salmon lice-induced effects on sea trout populations may also extend to altered genetic composition and reduced diversity, and possibly to the local loss of sea trout, and establishment of exclusively freshwater resident populations.” In 2015, the Scottish Government published its latest classification of the country’s salmon rivers’ salmon populations. This places all the rivers in the west Highlands and inner Hebrides, including river systems such as the Awe and the Lochy, in the worst-performing category, with wild salmon stocks not reaching their conservation limits, which are a measure of the overall health of the population. No river within salmon farming’s heartland of the west Highlands and inner Hebrides has, according to the Scottish Government’s own scientists, a sufficient stock of wild salmon for any exploitation to be sustainable. Figure 2 below shows the outcome of the assessment procedure with categories based upon probability of a district or SAC meeting its Conservation Limit determined using the best available information on salmon stocks.

43

See RAFTS paper at http://www.rafts.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/East-v-West-final-RWB.pdf 44

Thorstad , E , Todd , C D , Uglem , I , Bjorn , P A , Gargan , P , Vollset , K , Halttunen , E , Kalas , S , Berg , M & Finstad , B 2015 , ' Effects of salmon lice Lepeophtheirus salmonis on wild sea trout Salmo trutta – a literature review ' Aquaculture Environment Interactions , vol 7 , no. 2 , pp. 91-113 . (See https://research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk/handle/10023/7295)

47

The contrast between western Scotland and the rest of the country is stark, with the major or substantive distinction between east and west coast being the presence of salmon farming in the west. The map at Figure 2 shows that the extent of west Highland rivers where wild salmon populations are in very poor health (category 3 are shown in brown) closely matches the extent of the salmon farming industry (the current active marine salmon farming sites are marked in red). It is noteworthy that the Grudie / Dionard rivers, the most westerly rivers on the north coast, are designated category 1. Migrating salmon smolts (juvenile salmon) from these rivers are able to head north into the open sea without passing any salmon farms. In contrast, all the neighbouring west-flowing rivers - where the smolts must navigate past salmon farms - are designated category 3. The great majority of Scottish rivers to the south of the west Highlands – for example in Ayrshire and the Solway – are also category 3. Salmon smolts from these rivers migrate north through the main salmon-farming regions, rendering them liable to sea lice infestations.

48

2. Sea lice controls on fish-farms – legal and voluntary Given the sea lice threat to wild salmonids posed by marine cage fish farms, it is highly regrettable that most EU, UK and Scottish legislation, including the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act (2006) and the Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Acts (2007 and 2013), is focussed on the health and welfare needs of the farmed fish, rather than their wild counterparts. Although fish health inspectors have inspection powers under the 2007 Act, the detail of sea lice control, as practiced on Scottish salmon farms, is set out in the Code of Practice for Scottish Finfish Aquaculture (the CoGP), which is a voluntary code without statutory backing. With reference to wild salmonids, the National Treatment Strategy (NTS) for the Control of Sea Lice on Scottish Salmon Farms, which forms part of the CoGP, includes “recognition by the industry of the importance of minimising ovigerous lice at times of the year critical for wild salmonid populations”. The NTS sets, as a primary objective of the strategy, a target of zero adult female lice on the farmed fish in the spring period when wild salmonids are migrating. The North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation (NASCO) Best Management Practice Guidance also requires “100% of farms to have effective sea lice management such that there is no increase in sea lice loads or lice-induced mortality of wild salmonids attributable to the farms”45.NASCO also sets a target of zero ovigerous lice on all salmon farms. The SSPO also acknowledges that the purpose of treatment is “to prevent lice from reproducing. It is good farming practice and common sense to target and kill female lice before they reach the stage where they are able to reproduce. Indeed the main focus of the National Treatment Strategy is to control sea lice by targeting them before they reproduce. By closely monitoring the numbers of lice on their fish, farmers are able to intervene and treat fish before female lice produce viable egg strings. Both the NTS and the Code of Good Practice suggest treatment thresholds for the application of medicines to achieve this. The suggested thresholds are 0.5 adult female lice (Lepeoptherius salmonis) per fish between February and June and 1.0 adult female lice (L. salmonis) per fish between July and January”46. The aim of the reduced threshold for treatment during February to June inclusive is that this is the period within which the great majority of wild salmon and sea trout smolts are emigrating to sea and hence are at their most vulnerable to sea lice infestation from fish-farms. However, these variable thresholds in the CoGP do not take into account the presence of sea trout in coastal waters all year round. While the thresholds within the CoGP are designed to protect wild fish, the thresholds take no account of overall biomass and number of fish held on fish-farms. The larger the farm and/or the number of fish held, the greater the production of juvenile mobile stage lice will be at any given average adult female lice number. At lice levels well below the CoGP treatment thresholds but still above zero, the production of juvenile sea lice from a salmon farm is likely to be way in excess of any local natural background production.

45

NASCO (2010) Guidance on Best Management Practice to address impacts of sea lice and escaped farmed salmon on wild salmon stocks (Adopted in June 2009, Revised in June 2010) 46

SSPO Fish Health Management Report July to September 2014

49

Indeed, MSS acknowledges that compliance with the CoGP thresholds is not necessarily sufficient to ensure that juvenile sea lice emanating from the fish farms do not damage wild fish47 - “it should be noted that adherence to the suggested criteria for treatment of sea lice on individual farm sites stipulated in the industry Code of Good Practice may not necessarily prevent release of substantial numbers of lice from aquaculture installations. Additionally, it should be borne in mind that sea trout are present in these inshore waters all year, not just at the spring smolt migration therefore the control of lice build-up should be practiced throughout the year”. The CoGP remains a voluntary code, and even though the 2007 Act would allow Scottish Ministers to introduce a statutory code, the Scottish Government has not pursued that option. However, salmon farmers are required by law to monitor their fish for sea lice weekly and are regulated to this effect by the Fish Health Inspectorate (FHI) which inspects sea lice records and assesses the measures in place to prevent, control and reduce parasites on farms under the Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Act 2007 and the Fish Farming Businesses (Record Keeping) (Scotland) Order 2008. While the FHI’s formal position is that unsatisfactory control measures or records may result in a further enhanced inspection of the farm, issuing of advice and/or recommendations, or implementing enforcement action, the regulation of the Scottish salmon farming industry is largely based upon self-monitoring and self-reporting of sea lice numbers, benthic pollution and discharges. Enforcement action leading to formal proceedings is extremely rare indeed.

47

For example, see Marine Scotland’s response to the planning consultation - New Marine Finfish Farm – Atlantic salmon - comprising 10 x 120m plastic circular cages, mooring grid and 220 tonne capacity concrete feed barge - NW Of Calaman Cave, Loch Slapin 2014

50

3. How do fish-farms seek to control and treat sea lice? According to the SSPO, all Scottish fish-farms apply what are termed ‘integrated sea lice management strategies’. The SSPO state that “these strategies take a holistic approach to lice management and control, based on the use of licensed and approved medicines, single year class production, area management, synchronisation of production, and fallowing at the end of the production cycle”. While single-year class production, area management and fallowing may indeed go some way to preventing sea lice becoming a problem – to what extent is not clear - once a farm has a sea lice problem, with numbers of gravid adult female lice rising, the farms resort largely to chemical treatment to remove the lice. These are administered either as a bath or in feed treatment. Bath treatments are applied using full enclosure, in a tarpaulin, at a marine cage site, or in a well-boat adjacent to the marine cages. Bath treatments include azamethiphos (Salmosan), deltamethrin (Alphamax), cypermethrin (Excis). Emamectin benzoate (Slice) or teflubenzuron (Calicide) can be administered as in-feed treatments. Hydrogen peroxide is also used to control sea lice as well as other diseases of farmed salmon, such as Amoebic Gill Disease.

Azamethiphos is an organophosphorus pesticide, which works by interfering with the transmission of nerve impulses. It has been used in a spray form to control insects such as cockroaches and flies in buildings, warehouses and intensive farming installations48. Azamethiphos is highly toxic to birds and aquatic invertebrates and moderately toxic to fish49. Deltamethrin is a pyrethroid insecticide and is highly toxic to humans and other mammals and is a neurotoxin. It is relatively non-toxic to birds and earthworms although it presents a high risk to most aquatic organisms and honeybees50. Cypermethrin is an insecticide and is considered a serious marine pollutant. It is moderately toxic to mammals and there is some concern regarding its potential to bioaccumulate. It is highly toxic to most aquatic species and honeybees51. Emamectin benzoate is a pesticide which works by interfering with nerve impulses in the body. It is used in agricultural settings to control insects amongst vegetable crops such as cabbage and broccoli and on cotton plants. Emamectin benzoate is toxic to birds, mammals, fish and other aquatic organisms (particularly those living on the sea bed)52. Teflubenzuron is used to control a wide range of insect pests and mites in fruit, vegetable, cereal and seed crops. It works by interfering with the synthesis of insect chitin, which is essential to their growth and development. Teflubenzuron is classed as having low toxicity for mammals, fish and birds. Other aquatic organisms (particularly crustaceans and those living in sediments) may however suffer adverse effects if exposed53.

The range of sea lice medicines available to the salmon farming industry is limited, with continuous use of these chemicals likely to lead to the development of resistance and

48

http://apps.sepa.org.uk/spripa/Pages/SubstanceInformation.aspx?pid=169 49

http://sitem.herts.ac.uk/aeru/ppdb/en/Reports/48.htm 50

http://sitem.herts.ac.uk/aeru/vsdb/Reports/205.htm 51

http://sitem.herts.ac.uk/aeru/ppdb/en/Reports/197.htm 52

http://apps.sepa.org.uk/spripa/Pages/SubstanceInformation.aspx?pid=171 53

http://apps.sepa.org.uk/spripa/Pages/SubstanceInformation.aspx?pid=173

51

reduced efficacy54. Indeed there are increasingly strong indications that some of these medicines have become less effective and attention has focussed on finding alternative lice control methods55. Some degree of biological control, involving the use of cleaner fish, including various species of wrasse and lumpsuckers, is now being used in some farms, but with varying degrees of success.

54

Treasurer J (2013) Use of wrasse in sea lice control - Project Final Report SARF068 Prepared for The Scottish Aquaculture Research Forum by Viking Fish Farms, Ardtoe Marine Laboratory 27

th January 2013

55 Treasurer J (2013) Use of wrasse in sea lice control - Project Final Report SARF068

Prepared for The Scottish Aquaculture Research Forum by Viking Fish Farms, Ardtoe Marine Laboratory 27th January 2013

52

4. Available data on sea lice on Scottish fish-farms between 2013 and 2015 Within the constraints of the available data published by the Scottish Government, the various statutory bodies and the industry itself, some analysis of how successful the actual control of sea lice has been in particular regions of the west coast and islands of Scotland between 2013 and 2015 is now possible. The Scotland’s Aquaculture database, launched following repeated freedom of information requests submitted under the Environment Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004 to MS, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) and the FHI by Salmon & Trout Conservation Scotland and others, now provides some farm-specific detailed information. Launched in October 2013, the database provides information about industry location and performance under the Controlled Activities Regulations (CAR)56 licenses issued by SEPA, including detailed information on monthly biomass on each licenced farm and the use of sea lice treatments as reported to SEPA. It also contains summary information about benthic sea-bed pollution surveys that must be conducted every two years under fish-farms and reported to SEPA by fish-farmers. At the time of publication, SEPA fish-farm biomass and chemical treatment data is only available for the period to end June 2015. However, the Scotland’s Aquaculture database does not record treatments using hydrogen peroxide, treatments conducted in well-boats, nor does it record whether wrasse or lumpsuckers may be being used as cleaner fish on any of the sites listed. The three-monthly Fish Health Management Reports, published by the SSPO since the end of 2013 provide aggregated monthly adult female sea lice data for farmed fish from 30 regions of Scotland and the Islands. Those regions can contain a single farm, such as Loch Ewe, to 44 farms, as in Shetland (East). A list of the farms located in each region, supplied by Marine Scotland is appended at Annex 1. The regional codes used by the SSPO are shown in Annex 2. At the time of publication, SSPO sea lice data is available for the period to end September 2015. Despite strong support for the publication of farm-specific sea lice data being given by all west coast local authorities, SEPA, the District Salmon Fisheries Boards, Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) and all west coast Scottish rivers trusts, in the run-up to the Aquaculture and Fisheries Bill in 2013, the Scottish fish-farming industry still declines to publish farm-specific sea lice data and the Scottish Government has not used its powers to make that data available. Evidence given to the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee of the Scottish Parliament in 2013 records that effectively only the SSPO and the Scottish Government considered that aggregation of sea lice data would be sufficient. In 2013, the Minister described the decision not to require the publication of farm-specific sea lice data thus: “The Scottish Government received a commitment from the Scottish Salmon Producers’ Organisation (SSPO) for enhanced voluntary reporting of sea lice data for 30 areas based on recognised wild fish catchments. There have now been three quarterly reports published by the SSPO. Scottish Government supports these voluntary Management Reports and regards them as balanced, proportionate and helpful as regards public transparency. In addition, the SSPO agreed that they would provide Marine Scotland Science with access to sea lice information at farm management area level to support defined research projects”57.

56

The Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 (as amended) 57

Letter from Paul Wheelhouse MSP to Rob Gibson MSP, Convenor of Rural Affairs Climate Change and Environment Committee 17

th December 2013 at

53

The Scottish Government and its various agencies appear also to have adopted a deliberate policy of not keeping any such farm-specific sea lice data, in order to keep such data out of the reach of the public right of access to environmental information under Directive 2003/4/EC on Public Access to Environmental Information and the Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004. Farm-specific sea lice data must already be kept by the fish-farmers themselves under The Fish Farming Businesses (Record Keeping) (Scotland) Order 2008 and it would only require a very simple amendment to that Order for the Scottish Government to require that information to be submitted centrally and added to the Scotland’s Aquaculture database. In effect, the decision taken by Scottish Government in 2013 not to require publication of this data has created a barrier to proper public scrutiny of fish-farm environmental performance. As is clear, averaged or aggregated data can and does effectively disguise from scrutiny the worst-performing fish farms, a situation which the Scottish Government chose in 2013 to accept, Some further information on sea lice control is found in case reports of inspections of farms carried out by the FHI and published online58. These reports include information relating to the inspection and operational activities of the FHI, a summary of case inspections and outcomes per region, along with summary information relevant to enhanced inspections conducted under the Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Act 2007. Individual case information is also available. While these reports do not necessarily follow a strict timetable, most farms will be inspected over a two to three year period and those farms at which problems are identified may be inspected more regularly. FHI reports often reveal information of significance to the protection of wild fish from sea lice, escapes and other fish farm related threats.

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4_RuralAffairsClimateChangeandEnvironmentCommittee/General%20Documents/2013.12.17_-_Minister_sea_lice_issues_Aquaculture_and_Fisheries_(Scotland)_bill.pdf 58

At http://www.gov.scot/Topics/marine/Fish-Shellfish/FHI/CaseInformation/.

54

5. Analysis of sea lice control on Scottish salmon farms 2014 to 2015 When the SSPO volunteered to extend the scope of reporting to provide more detail about sea lice numbers and control on salmon farms in 2013, the industry undertook to provide data in 30 regions, covering the west coast, western and northern isles. Figure 3 below is a simple analysis of the performance of those 30 regions between 2013-2015 as against CoGP sea lice thresholds and shows that the number of regions failing to keep adult female sea lice numbers below CoGP thresholds is growing over time, The industry-wide problem with sea lice is increasing and is certainly not under control.

Unfortunately, there is great disparity within the regions as to the number of farms and proportion of Scottish production each region represents. The number or farms per region ranges from a single active farm (eg the Ewe region) to over forty farms (eg Shetland East). However, an analysis of the proportion of the total Scottish farms salmon production as against CoGP thresholds shows a similar upward trend. Figure 4 below shows the percentage of total Scottish farmed salmon production over CoGP threshold for each month from 2013 to 2015.

55

This report analyses in depth eight of these 30 regions, which appear to have had serious lice problems over the last two years, drawing on the datasets and information described above, to reach what conclusions are possible concerning the level of sea lice control being achieved in practice. The eight SSPO regions analysed below are: Inchard to Kirkaig North Badachro to Applecross Loch Long and Croe Fyne Isle of Lewis West Harris The Uists North The Uists South Collectively, these eight regions account for c.40% of the farmed production of mainland Scotland (excluding Orkney and Shetland). For each region, the operators of the farms in the region are identified, on-farm sea lice data is analysed as against cumulative biomass of farmed-fish, across all the fish farms in each region, and where possible, conclusions are drawn as to the efficacy of sea lice treatments that have been used in the region and on specific farms. For each region, the analysis identifies whether average adult female sea lice numbers per farmed fish were over CoGP thresholds for treatment and for how long. If there is any evidence of early harvesting or culling of fish, including where sea lice numbers have been unresponsive to sea lice control used on any farm, this is highlighted, as is any additional information available in FHI inspection reports.

56

5.1 Inchard to Kirkaig North The Inchard to Kirkaig North reporting region is in the north-west Highlands of Scotland, extending from Cape Wrath to Cluas Deas. The region includes sea lochs and bays that contain salmon farms, including Loch Laxford, Loch a Chairn Bhain, Badcall Bay, Eddrachillis Bay and Clashnessie Bay. SSPO reports record that from 2013 to 2015 there were on average eight active salmon farm sites in the region, all operated by Loch Duart Limited, although the Scotland’s Aquaculture database records that fish were stocked under the following licences for some period during 2013- 2015: Badcall Site 9 (North Rubha Geisgil) Badcall Site 10 (North Eilean na Bearachd) Badcall Site 11 (Eilean Riabhach) Calbha Site 5 (Calbha Beag) Clashnessie (Oldany) Drumbeg (Loch Dhrombaig) Eilean a Mhadaidh (Laxford Site 2) Eilean Ard (Laxford Site 3) Droighniche Torgawn (Loch A Chairn Bhain) Nedd Figure 5 below shows the relationship between on-farm cumulative biomass at the Loch Duart sites (per SEPA data) and regional sea lice counts reported by SSPO.

As against the CoGP thresholds for treatments, the aggregated data shows that these farms have been collectively above threshold for 31 out of the last 33 months. During that period, lice numbers rose to a peak of 9.42 adult female lice per fish in September 2013 and then again to 8.13 in March 2015. It is clear that periods of high lice counts per farmed fish coincided with high cumulative biomass on the farms, with a close correlation between rising biomass and rising average adult female sea lice counts per farmed fish. Between 2013 and 2015, only when the

57

biomass of farmed fish held across Loch Duart’s sites in the north Highlands dropped below a total of 600 tonnes were the CoGP’s lice thresholds achieved on a regional basis. Between January and September 2013, there were three area wide co-ordinated treatments for sea lice, although as this region covers six Farm Management Areas (FMAs), it is unclear which areas were involved. There were also 26 other ‘targeted’ treatments, usually single-farm treatments. Chemicals used across the stocked farms included between January and September 2013 included emamectin, deltamethrin, azamethiphos and cypermethrin, but this failed to keep average lice numbers from peaking at 9.42 adult female lice per fish. Following a report to the SSPCA made by a canoeist of numerous dead farmed salmon in fish-farm cages in Loch Laxford, an FHI inspection of Loch Laxford on 27th September 2013 reported that the farm had a heavy lice infestation despite using emamectin, deltamethrin and hydrogen peroxide to treat sea lice. As sea lice numbers rose above CoGP threshold between January 2014 and June 2015, peaking at 8.13 per fish, there were 34 treatments for sea lice at Loch Duart farms, including one area-wide treatment. Records published by SEPA covering the same period, showing monthly use of sea lice chemicals across each of the farms in this region, record deltamethrin use 19 times, emamectin 15 times, azamethiphos 26 times and cypermethrin use once. The FHI inspected Torgawn farm on 25th September 2014 and recorded the use of 12,500 wrasse on the farm carrying 140,000 salmon. Despite the use of wrasse, the FHI recorded that “harvest is going to be brought forward due to gill damage and lice”. Worryingly, an FHI inspection of Loch Duart’s Badcall site on 12th November 2014 records that “fish came on site with high lice load” suggesting that farmed fish with lice are being moved between fish-farms. The FHI also records that 8,212 wrasse were on site, with the farm carrying 180,000 salmon, but the presence of wrasse at Badcall does not appear to have prevented lice numbers going and staying over CoGP thresholds. The FHI recorded that the “company have reviewed cycle to harvest fish earlier”. Due to the aggregated nature of the sea lice data and the number of FMAs in this region, it is difficult to draw farm-specific conclusions, but it is clear that the widespread and regular use of the full suite of sea lice treatment chemicals, and at least some use of wrasse as cleaner fish by Loch Duart Ltd, did not prevent average adult female sea lice numbers aggregated across its farms in this region going over the CoGP threshold in 2013 and staying over that threshold for 31 out of the last 33 months to September 2015.

58

5.2 Badachro to Applecross The Badachro to Applecross region is in the Wester Ross region of the Scottish Highlands, extending from North Erradale down to Applecross, encompassing Loch Gairloch and Loch Torridon. There are four active salmon farm sites in the region, operated by two companies. The Scottish Salmon Company has sites at Aird (Aird Ardheslaig), Kenmore (Loch Torridon) and Sgeir Dughall. Marine Harvest has a site at Camas an Leim (Torridon). Figure 6 below shows the relationship between on-farm cumulative biomass at the four sites (per SEPA data) and regional sea lice counts reported by SSPO.

As against the CoGP thresholds for treatments, the aggregated data shows that these farms have been collectively above threshold for 17 out of the last 32 months, including continuously from October 2014 to August 2015. During that period, lice numbers rose to a peak of 11.76 adult female lice per fish in January 2015. Again, periods of high lice counts coincided with very high biomass on the farms. During the periods of high sea lice numbers, the farms were treated with a range of sea lice chemicals. When lice levels went over threshold in May 2013, those levels did not drop back below threshold until all four farms were effectively harvested out in autumn 2013. In May to October 2013, the pattern of treatment at these four farms is shown below, with lice counts and all-farm biomass.

K’more Sgeir D’hall Torridon Aird Lice Biomass

Mar 13 - - - - 0.31 4424

Apr 13 - - delt - 0.24 4502

May 13 - delt, em delt delt, em 0.61 4630

Jun 13 - - - - 0.7 4464

Jul 13 delt delt - delt 0.92 4858

Aug 13 azm azm delt azm 2.24 4300

59

Sept 13 - azm delt azm 12.1 2889

Oct 13 - azm, delt - azm, delt 5.18 1024

[delt = deltamethrin (Alphamax), em = emamectin benzoate (Slice), azm = azamethiphos (Salmosan)] The SSPO Fish Health Management reports showed that between mid-January 2013 and mid-October 2013, there were no fewer than ten all-farm co-ordinated treatments for sea lice and a further nine ‘targeted’ treatments at individual farms. It appears therefore that the range of treatments deployed (emamectin, azamethiphos, deltamethrin) in 2013 across all four farms, including in area-wide co-ordinated treatments, did not prevent the average adult female lice numbers per fish rising through the year to 12.1 in September 2013. Indeed, the lice numbers only dropped as all-farm biomass started to fall during harvesting. In September 2014, on-farm sea lice levels rose again to just below CoGP threshold and went above threshold in October, increasing to a peak of 11.76 in January 2015. Levels have remained above CoGP threshold for January to August 2015.

K’more Sgeir D’hall Torridon Aird Lice Biomass

Jun 14 - em em em 0.08 771

Jul 14 - delt em delt 0.04 1161

Aug 14 - em em em 0.32 1772

Sep 14 - azm - delt 0.97 2421

Oct 14 - em em em, delt 3.66 3169

Nov 14 - - em - 7.57 3672

Dec 14 em em delt, em em 11.55 4321

Jan 15 - - azm, delt - 11.76 4794

Feb 15 - - azm, delt - 7.53 4976

Mar 15 - - azm, delt - 10.3 5017

Apr 15 - azm azm, delt - 6.02 5045

May 15 - - azm - 7.96 4815

June 15 - delt azm delt 5.41 4118

[delt = deltamethrin (Alphamax), em = emamectin benzoate (Slice), azm = azamethiphos (Salmosan)] A FHI inspection of Kenmore (Loch Torridon) on 20th November 2014 shows that the site had 4% wrasse on site (in 830,000 salmon). It is not known which other sites in this region used wrasse. As in 2013, it appears that the range of treatments deployed (emamectin, azamethiphos, deltamethrin) from June 2014 to January 2015 across all four farms - and the use of wrasse at at least one of the sites - did not prevent the average adult female lice numbers per fish rising to 11.76 in January 2015. The SSPO Fish Health Management reports showed that between mid-June 2014 and early June 2015, there were no fewer than nine all-farm co-ordinated treatments for sea lice and a further 20 ‘targeted’ treatments at individual farms, but this did not prevent average adult female sea lice numbers going over threshold in October 2014 and staying way over that threshold until June 2015.

60

5.3 Loch Long and Croe The Loch Long and Croe reporting region extends from the Kyle of Lochalsh to Garbhan Cosach at the head of Kyle Rhea. The region includes Lochs Alsh, Long and Duich. There are three salmon farms in the region operated by Marine Harvest at Loch Alsh (Sron), Loch Duich and Ardintoul. Figure 7 below shows the relationship between on-farm cumulative biomass at the three sites (per SEPA data) and regional sea lice counts reported by SSPO over the last two years.

As against the CoGP thresholds for treatments, the aggregated data shows that these farms were collectively above the CoGP threshold for treatment for nine months, from December 2013 to September 2014 (with a slight dip to 0.96, fractionally below the threshold in February 2014). During that period, lice numbers rose to a peak of 41.7 adult female lice per fish in September 2014. The period of rising lice counts coincided with high biomass on the farms. Loch Alsh was empty of fish by June 2014 - this included the culling of all wrasse at the end of the cycle - but the other two farms were not harvested out to zero biomass until October 2014. The farms were treated on numerous occasions for sea lice, with the full range of chemicals being deployed, but without apparently achieving control of sea lice. The FHI inspected Loch Alsh on 5th December 2013 and recorded the presence of 23,000 wrasse on site, although an inspection of Loch Duich on 5th February 2014 suggested no wrasse were on site there at that stage. Key FHI inspections of Loch Duich and Ardintoul on 4th November 2014 have not yet been published (as at 1st October 2015), so it is not clear what use of wrasse if any occurred at those farms. SSPO Fish Health Management reports showed that between mid-July 2013 and mid-August 2014, there were no fewer than 11 all-farm co-ordinated treatments for sea lice and a further ten ‘targeted’ treatments at individual farms.

Treatments Co-ordinated treatments Other targeted treatments

61

Jul Sept 13 2 (mid-Jul late-Sept)

Oct Dec 13 10 2 (early-Oct mid-Dec) 4

Jan Mar 14 8 2 (late-Jan late-Feb) 2

Apr Jun 14 10 3 (late-May, early- and late-Jun) 4

Jul Sep 14 4 2 (mid-Jul, mid-Aug)

Reported use of sea lice chemicals in 2013/2014 shows multiple use of sea lice treatments for many months:

Loch Duich Ardintoul Loch Alsh

Dec 2013 az, em delt, em delt

Jan 2014 delt delt delt

Feb 2014 delt, em delt, em -

Mar 2014 - delt delt

Apr 2014 delt delt -

May 2014 delt, az, em delt, az, em -

Jun 2014 delt, az, em delt, az, em -

Jul 2014 delt delt -

Aug 2014 delt delt -

Sept 2014 - - -

[delt = deltamethrin (Alphamax), em = emamectin benzoate (Slice), az = azamethiphos (Salmosan)] It appears that, by July 2014, treatments were being scaled back despite the sea lice counts on farm rising rapidly. In July and August 2014, regional lice counts (which must have been the aggregate of only two stocked farms) went to 11.94 and 17.99 adult female lice per fish respectively. By September 2014, when no SEPA-recorded treatment chemicals were used at all on any farm, the counts went to 41.7 adult female lice per fish.

62

5.4 Fyne The Fyne reporting region, in the Argyll and Bute region of Scotland, includes Loch Fyne, from Skipness Point on the Kintyre Peninsula around the shoreline to Tighnabruaich. There are ten active salmon farm sites in the region, all operated by The Scottish Salmon Company in one Farm Management Area: Meall Mhor Furnace Quarry Glenan Bay Gob a Bharra Quarry Point Tarbert South Ardcastle Bay Ardgadden Rubha Stillaig Strondoir Bay Figure 8 below shows the relationship between on-farm cumulative biomass at these sites (per SEPA data) and regional sea lice counts reported by SSPO.

As against the CoGP thresholds for treatments, the aggregated data shows that these farms have been collectively above threshold for the ten months to June 2015. Adult female sea lice numbers per farmed fish began to rise in May 2014.

Treatments Co-ordinated treatments Other targeted treatments

Apr Jun 14 7

Jul Sep 14 21 2 (early-Aug, early-Sept) 1

Oct Dec 14 34 2 (late-Oct, mid-Nov) 14

Jan Mar 15 31 1 (early-Jan) 21

Apr Jun 15 10

63

Chemicals used are:

Meall Mhor Furnace Qry Glenan Bay Gob a Bh’ Quarry Point

Mar 14 - - - - -

Apr 14 - - - - -

May 14 em em em em em

Jun 14 - - - - -

Jul 14 - - - - -

Aug 14 delt delt delt delt delt

Sep 14 delt delt delt delt delt

Oct 14 delt, az delt, az delt, az delt, az delt, az

Nov 14 delt delt delt delt delt

Dec 14 - az - - az

Jan 15 em, az em, az em, az em, az em, az

Feb 15 - - - - delt

Mar 15 - - - - -

Apr 15 - - - - -

May 15 - - - - -

June 15 - - - - -

Tarbert S Ardcastle Bay Ardgadden Rubha Stillaig Strondoir Bay

Mar 14 - - - - -

Apr 14 - - - - -

May 14 em em em em em

Jun 14 - - - - -

Jul 14 - - - - -

Aug 14 delt delt delt delt delt

Sep 14 delt delt delt delt, az delt

Oct 14 delt, az delt, az delt, az delt, az delt, az

Nov 14 delt delt delt delt delt

Dec 14 - az em - em

Jan 15 em, az em, az az em, az az

Feb 15 - - - - -

Mar 15 - - - - -

Apr 15 - - - - -

May 15 - - - - -

June 15 - - - - -

[delt = deltamethrin (Alphamax), em = emamectin benzoate (Slice), az = azamethiphos (Salmosan)] The FHI inspected Meall Mhor on 28th January 2015 and recorded that despite the treatments lice numbers rose in November 2014 and that current levels (peaking at 3.9 adult female lice per fish in January 2015) were not reducing below CoGP thresholds at that site. Ardcastle Bay was inspected the following day and reported a similar picture with treatments not bringing lice under CoGP thresholds, Ardcastle peaking at 9.57 adult female lice per fish.

64

It is worth noting that, as elsewhere where farms have on-going sea lice control failures, both farms were recorded by FHI as satisfactory with regards to parasite control, per section 3 of the Aquaculture and Fisheries Act 2007. Most importantly, the intense use of sea lice treatment chemicals across Fyne between July 2014 and March 2015 did not control sea lice numbers, which rose over that period from almost zero adult female lice per farmed fish to a peak of 11.36 in February 2015.

65

5.5 Isle of Lewis West The Isle of Lewis West reporting region, in the Western Isles of Scotland, encompasses the shoreline and lochs to the west of the Isle of Lewis, from the Butt of Lewis to Islivig. The region includes sea lochs that contain salmon farms, such as East Loch Roag and West Loch Roag. Over the period of this report there were seven active salmon farms in the region, all operated by The Scottish Salmon Company. The region contains two FMAs. Vuiabeag Taranaish Kyles of Vuia Gousam Vacasay Vuia Mor Eughlam Figure 9 below shows the relationship between on-farm cumulative biomass at these sites (per SEPA data) and regional sea lice counts reported by SSPO.

As sea lice numbers started to increase in the region from October 2013, adult female sea lice numbers on the farmed fish rose steadily, peaking at 3.47 in August 2014 only dropping below threshold as farm biomass was massively reduced across the region. Between October 2013 and September 2014, there were a total of 76 treatments for sea lice, including 13 co-ordinated area treatments:

Treatments Co-ordinated treatments Other targeted treatments

Oct Dec 13 11 3 (mid-Oct, 2 in late-Dec) 2

Jan Mar 14 21 4 (early-Jan, 3 in March) 6

Apr Jun 14 27 5 (2 in late-Apr, 3 in Jun) 10

Jul Sep 14 17 1 (mid-Jul) 14

Oct Dec 14 0 0 1

66

Jan Mar 15 0 0 0

Apr Jn 15 11 3 (late Apr, 2 in mid-Jun) 1

Chemicals used were:

V’beag T’nish Kyles G’sam V’say Vuia Mor E’ham

Oct 13 em em - - em em em

Nov 13 - - - - - - -

Dec 13 em em az em - em em

Jan 14 - - em az, delt - delt -

Feb 14 delt - - - - - -

Mar 14 em em em em em em em

Apr 14 delt delt delt delt delt delt delt

May 14 az - delt az - - -

Jun 14 em em,delt em,delt az,em delt,em az,em delt,em

Jul 14 delt delt delt delt delt delt delt

Aug 14 - - - az az - delt

Sep 14 - - - az - - -

Oct 14 az - - - - - -

Nov 14 az - - - - - -

Dec 14 - - - - - - -

Jan 15 - - - - - - -

Feb 15 - - - - - - -

Mar 15 - - - - - - -

Apr 15 em - em - - - - -

May 15 - em - em - em em

June 15 em em em em em em em

[delt = deltamethrin (Alphamax), em = emamectin benzoate (Slice), az = azamethiphos (Salmosan)] The FHI inspected Vuiabeag, Taranaish, Kyles of Vuia, Gousam, Vacasay and Eughlam over 1st to 2nd October 2014, recording that lice peaked at Vuiabeag at eight adult female lice per fish in August and at 11 in September 2014. Taranaish peaked at ten in August and seven in September, and was harvesting by October. Kyles of Vuia peaked at six at the end of August, Gousam at 11 in mid-July and nine in September, becoming fallow by the end of October. Vacasay lice counts had risen to ten. At Eughlam lice numbers peaked at 12 in September. Importantly, the intense use of sea lice treatment chemicals between October 2013 and August 2014 did not control sea lice numbers, which rose over that period from almost zero adult female lice to 3.47 per fish, three and half times CoGP threshold. The FHI also inspected Taranaish, Eughlam and Vacasay on 29th October 2014, raising significant issues of concern. For all farms the FHI report that “since lice numbers began increasing in July, treatments were initiated ASAP when required. In last 4 weeks treatments have not been administered despite lice numbers above suggested criteria for treatment. This is due to previous treatments resulting in high mortalities (fish have been affected by

67

PGD), the site is currently being harvested and due to be completed in the next three weeks”. (underline added). Taranaish was reported to be at 12 adult female lice per farmed fish, Vacasay at ten per fish and Eughlam at eight, all well of CoGP thresholds. At each of the sites, the FHI reported that the farmed fish “appear to be coping with the current lice load”. Despite acknowledging that treatment had not been given when CoGP threshold were being exceeded at each of these farms, the FHI nonetheless concluded for each farm that “the site meets the requirement of current Scottish industry best practice, however, the sea lice levels on site were above the suggested criteria for treatment as stated in A Code of Good Practice for Scottish Finfish Aquaculture (CoGP). Therapeutic treatments were undertaken when lice numbers exceeded the suggested criteria for treatment without the sea lice numbers being reduced below the suggested criteria for treatment”.

68

5.6 Harris The Harris reporting region, in the Western Isles of Scotland, encompasses the Isle of Harris and the southern part of the Isle of Lewis, from Ardvourlie in the south east to Islivig in the north west. It covers several sea lochs that contain salmon farms, including East Loch Tarbert, West Loch Tarbert and Lochs Stockinish and Grosebay. Note that fish farm sites within Loch Seaforth, which were previously included in the Harris region, are now included within the Isle of Lewis East region. This change was effective from January 2014. There are now eight ‘active’ salmon farm sites in the region. The region contains four FMAs. The Scottish Salmon Company has farms at Stockinish, Plocrapol and Scadabay (although no biomass is reported for that farm 2013-2015). Marine Harvest has farms at Scotasay, Soay Sound, Eilean Raineach, West Loch Tarbert (no biomass reported for 2013-2015) and Meavaig (Ghille Beidhe) (no biomass reported for 2013-2015). Figure 10 below shows the relationship between on-farm cumulative biomass at these sites (per SEPA data) and regional sea lice counts reported by SSPO.

As biomass started to increase in the region from October 2013, prior to which all farms were fallowed, adult female sea lice numbers on the farmed fish rose steadily, peaking at 12.94 in November 2014 but not dropping below threshold until June 2015 after farm biomass was massively reduced across the region. In that period, there were a total of 71 separate treatments for sea lice, including 11 co-ordinated area treatments:

Treatments Co-ordinated treatments Other targeted treatments

Oct Dec 13 6 2 (both mid-Dec) 1

Jan Mar 14 4 1 (mid-Feb) 1

Apr Jun 14 14 3 (mid-Apr, late-May, early-Jun) 5

Jul Sep 14 26 4 (early-Jul, late-Jul, mid-Aug, mid-Sep) 12

Oct Dec 14 7 1 (mid-Nov) 4

Jan Mar 15 9 0 9

69

Apr Jn 15 5 0 5

According to SEPA data, sea lice treatment chemicals used were:

St’nish S’say Soay P’pol R’each

Oct 13 - - - - -

Nov 13 - - - - -

Dec 13 - em - em em

Jan 14 - - - - -

Feb 14 - em em em em

Mar 14 - em - - em

Apr 14 - em - delt,em em

May 14 - em em em em

Jun 14 - az - delt az

Jul 14 delt az, em az,em az az,em

Aug 14 em az - em az

Sep 14 delt az, em az, delt, em az az, delt, em

Oct 14 - az, delt az, em em az,delt

Nov 14 - az az - az, delt

Dec 14 - - delt - -

Jan 15 - - az, delt - -

Feb 15 - - az, delt - -

Mar 15 delt - az, delt - -

Apr 15 - - az, delt - -

May 15 - - - - -

June 15 - - - - -

[delt = deltamethrin (Alphamax), em = emamectin benzoate (Slice), azm = azamethiphos (Salmosan)] The FHI inspected Plocrapol on 20th March 2013 and recorded a “significant issue with sea lice”, the site having used deltamethrin, emamectin and azamethiphos since November 2012. Two years later, Plocrapol was inspected again, on 4th February 2015 and the farm again appears to have had a problem, recording that the farm was “harvesting out earlier” due to the cumulative effect of jellyfish blooms, poor weather and sea lice. Azamethiphos used in early November 2014 did not reduce lice below CoGP thresholds. Nonetheless, the FHI recorded that the site was satisfactory with respect to parasite control, per section 3 of the 2007 Act. The FHI inspected Stockinish on 29th January 2013 and recorded the use of 700 wrasse on site, some wild-caught, some farmed. The farm was inspected again on 18th November 2014, recording treatment mortalities among the farmed fish and a level of six to seven adult female lice per fish. The level is recorded as having peaked at 14 adult female lice per fish. The September 2014 use of deltamethrin did not clear sea lice. The site is recorded as having 4,000 wrasse on site (in 89,000 salmon) but the FHI notes that “wrasse have not had a significant impact on lice”, reporting “severe lice damage” to some farmed fish. The FHI inspected Scotasay on 19th November 2014 and recorded that the farm was due to cull three of five cages due to sea lice damage despite multiple treatment through the cycle.

70

The FHI recorded that the farm “have locally caught wild wrasse in the cages, but [these] have not been effective”, despite there being 60,000 wrasse on site in 303,295 farmed salmon. Adult female lice numbers were noted as being between five and 20 per farmed fish. The site was inspected again on 4th February 2015, which recorded 192,000 mortalities on the farm since October 2014, due to lice and treatment damage, with a further 123,600 culled. The farm was harvested out by January 2015. The FHI inspected Raineach on 4th February 2015 and reported that “from the start of October to fallow there were 297,000 mortalities and 25,600 fish culled. In addition, 407,000 fish were harvested from Scotasay and Raineach in this time period. Mortalities due to sea lice and treatment damage. one cage was culled out in November 2014. Harvest completed at end of January and site now fallow”. Across this region, it is clear that the intense use of the full suite of sea lice treatment chemicals between April 2014 and November 2014 did not control sea lice numbers, which rose over that period from 0.29 adult female lice to 12.94 per fish, requiring some culling out and causing lice-related mortalities on the farms, but not before sea lice levels had been above CoGP thresholds for some months.

71

5.7 The Uists North The Uists North reporting region, in the Western Isles of Scotland, encompasses the island of North Uist and its associated smaller islands. The region includes sea lochs that contain salmon farms, including Lochmaddy and Loch Eport. SSPO reports record that from 2013 to 2015 there were five active salmon farm sites in the region, operated by three companies, with each company’s farms in its own Farm Management Area. SEPA records on Scotland’s Aquaculture Database records that fish were stocked at various times at the following licences sites (with operator) during 2013- 2015: Treanay The Scottish Salmon Company Lochmaddy Loch Duart Limited Groatay Marine Harvest Grey Horse Channel Marine Harvest Outer Eport The Scottish Salmon Company Sound of Harris Loch Duart Limited Figure 11 below shows the relationship between on-farm cumulative biomass at these sites (per SEPA data) and regional sea lice counts reported by SSPO.

As against the CoGP thresholds for treatments, the aggregated data shows that these farms have been collectively above threshold for 21 out of the last 33 months. Since September 2013, adult female sea lice numbers per farmed fish have closely tracked total region biomass. As Figure 12 below shows this is most closely linked with the two Marine Harvest farms, with The Scottish Salmon Company and Loch Duart farms fallow or at very low biomass relative to the Marine Harvest farms from May 2014.

72

As sea lice numbers started to rise again above CoGP threshold from late 2014 through to June 2015, the Marine Harvest farms reports to SEPA show treatment with emamectin in August 2014, but not again until February 2015 (emamectin), March 2015 (emamectin and deltamethrin) and May 2015 (deltamethrin). Additionally the FHI inspected Grey Horse Channel on 26th November 2014 and recorded the use of 10,638 wrasse in 578,800 salmon. The FHI inspected Lochmaddy on 15th December 2014 and recorded the use of 2,500 wrasse in 297,000 salmon. The FHI inspected Groatay on 26th November 2014 and recorded the use of 15,000 wrasse in 585,000 salmon. The SSPO Fish Health Management reports record that between January 2015 and early June 2015, there was one area-wide co-ordinated treatment for sea lice and a further 13 ‘targeted’ treatments at individual farms in Uists North. However, these treatments, and the presence of wrasse, failed to bring sea lice counts below threshold between February and June 2015. No use of any sea lice treatment chemicals is reported to SEPA at any Uists North farm in June 2015, despite the sea lice numbers being three and half times the CoGP threshold for treatment and, as the graph shows, although the two Marine Harvest farms have begun to reduce biomass, they had not, at this stage, harvested out.

73

5.8 The Uists South The Uists South reporting region encompasses the islands of Benbecula, South Uist and Barra, and associated smaller islands, including a number of sea lochs that contain salmon farms including Lochs Carnan, Uiskevagh, Kilervagh, Skipport and Boisdale. SSPO reports record that from 2013 to 2015 there were between ten and 12 active salmon farm sites in the region, operated by three companies, The Scottish Salmon Company, Marine Harvest and Loch Duart Limited. SEPA records on the Scotland’s Aquaculture database report that fish were stocked at various times at the following licences sites (with operator) during 2013-2015: Bagh Clann Neill (Grimsay) The Scottish Salmon Company Petersport South (Kilerivagh) The Scottish Salmon Company Petersport North The Scottish Salmon Company Skipport Outer (Ornish) Marine Harvest An Camus Marine Harvest Marulaig Bay Marine Harvest Uiskevagh North The Scottish Salmon Company Stulaigh Island Marine Harvest Hellisay Marine Harvest South Ford (Gashernish) Loch Duart Sandavaig (South Ford) Loch Duart South Ford East (Gashernish East) Loch Duart (the above three collectively known as Loch Carnan) Greanamul The Scottish Salmon Company Figure 13 below shows the relationship between on-farm cumulative biomass at these sites (per SEPA data) and regional sea lice counts reported by SSPO.

. As against the CoGP thresholds for treatments, the aggregated data shows that these farms have been collectively above threshold for 26 out of the last 27 months.

74

Since January 2014, adult female sea lice numbers per farmed fish have tracked increasing total region biomass. Average adult female sea lice numbers per farmed fish began to rise in May 2014.

Treatments Co-ordinated treatments Other targeted treatments

Jan Mar 13 2 (mid-Feb)

Apr Jun 13 2(early-Apr, mid-May) 4

Jul Sep 13 2 (early Jul, mid-Sept) 7

Oct Dec 13 8 1 (late-Nov) 6

Jan Mar 14 10 2 (late-Jan, late-Mar) 6

Apr Jun 14 10 1(mid-May) 8

Jul Sep 14 18 3 (mid- and late-July, late-Sept) 12

Oct Dec 14 8

Jan Mar 15 16 2 (mid-Feb, mid-Mar) 12

Apr Jun 15 16 5 (early-Apr, 2 mid-May, 2 mid-Jun) 6

Jul Sep 15 13

Chemicals used are:

Bagh CN P’port S P’port N S’port/Ornish An Camus

Jan 13 - - - - -

Feb 13 - delt delt - delt

Mar 13 - - - - -

Apr 13 - delt delt - -

May 13 - em em - delt

Jun 13 - - - - -

Jul 13 - delt delt - -

Aug 13 - - - - -

Sep 13 - - - - -

Oct 13 - - - - -

Nov 13 - - delt - -

Dec 13 - - - - -

Jan 14 - - - em -

Feb 14 - - - - -

Mar 14 - - - em -

Apr 14 - - - em -

May 14 - em - em -

Jun 14 - - - - -

Jul 14 - em - - -

Aug 14 - delt - - delt

Sep 14 - delt,em - delt -

Oct 14 - - - - -

Nov 14 - - - delt -

Dec 14 - - - - delt

Jan 15 - - - delt -

Feb 15 - - - delt delt, azm

75

Mar 15 - - - delt -

Apr 15 - - - delt -

May 15 - - - - -

June 15 - - - - -

Marulaig Uiskevagh N Stulaigh Hellisay

Jan 13 - - - -

Feb 13 delt delt delt delt

Mar 13 - - - delt

Apr 13 - delt - -

May 13 - em - -

Jun 13 - delt - -

Jul 13 - - - -

Aug 13 - delt - -

Sep 13 - - - -

Oct 13 - - - -

Nov 13 - delt - -

Dec 13 - - - -

Jan 14 em - em -

Feb 14 - - - -

Mar 14 em - em -

Apr 14 em - - -

May 14 - em em -

Jun 14 - - - -

Jul 14 em em - em

Aug 14 - em -

Sep 14 - em - -

Oct 14 - - - -

Nov 14 - delt - -

Dec 14 delt - - -

Jan 15 - - - -

Feb 15 delt - - -

Mar 15 delt delt azm -

Apr 15 delt - azm -

May 15 - - - delt

June 15 - - azm -

South Ford Sandavaig South Ford East Greanamul

Jan 13 - - - -

Feb 13 - - - -

Mar 13 - - - -

Apr 13 - - - -

May 13 - - - -

Jun 13 - - - -

76

Jul 13 - - - -

Aug 13 - - - -

Sep 13 em em - -

Oct 13 azm azm azm -

Nov 13 delt delt azm, delt -

Dec 13 em em em - -

Jan 14 - - - -

Feb 14 - - - -

Mar 14 - delt delt -

Apr 14 - delt - -

May 14 delt - delt em

Jun 14 azm, delt azm, delt azm, delt -

Jul 14 azm, delt azm, delt azm, delt em

Aug 14 azm, delt - azm, delt -

Sep 14 - azm,delt - em

Oct 14 delt - azm, delt -

Nov 14 - - azm, delt -

Dec 14 - - - -

Jan 15 - - - -

Feb 15 - - - -

Mar 15 - - - -

Apr 15 - - - -

May 15 - - - -

June 15 - - - -

[delt = deltamethrin (Alphamax), em = emamectin benzoate (Slice), azm = azamethiphos (Salmosan)] The FHI inspected North Uiskevagh on 20th November 2013 and recorded that the farm had been unable to conduct sea lice treatments over the last few weeks due to weather and tides - with the last treatment on 2nd October- despite elevated sea lice numbers. The FHI also recorded that an August 2013 treatment with alphamax had not reduced lice numbers (although SEPA data records no use of alphamax that month). Despite recording that lice levels were above the CoGP threshold, there was “minimal damage observed from lice”. The FHI inspected the Loch Carnan farms on 27th November 2013 and recorded sea lice levels had been above the CoGP threshold, “with treatments not reducing lice levels (<50%) in some life stages, but overall treatments have reduced lice levels to just over 50% in all treatments”. Again, the FHI recorded “lice > suggested criteria but no damage observed as a result of parasite infestation”. The FHI inspected the Loch Carnan farms again on 24th October 2014 and noted a small number of wrasse at the South Ford cage group only, but that lice levels at this group were the highest. Sea-lice levels had been elevated since autumn 2013. Across this region, it is clear that the intense use of the full suite of sea lice treatment chemicals between February 2013 and September 2015 did not control sea lice numbers, which rose to 13.14 per fish in September 2015.

6. Discussion and conclusions

77

6.1 Fisheries scientists increasingly support the view of wild fish conservation groups that sea lice production on farmed fish in open marine cages harms wild salmonids (Atlantic salmon and sea trout) both at an individual and at a population level.

6.2 The analysis in this report was severely hampered by the lack of farm-specific sea lice data, which is currently aggregated into regions rather than being provided on a farm-specific basis as previously recommended by all wild fish bodies, SEPA, SNH and all relevant local authorities

6.3 Nevertheless, it is clear that between 2013 and 2015, the number of regions failing to keep adult female sea lice numbers below the CoGP threshold is on an upward trend. The industry-wide problem with sea lice appears to be increasing and is certainly not under control.

6.4 The proportion of the total Scottish farms salmon production as against CoGP thresholds shows a similar upward trend, with regions representing 60% of Scottish production being over the CoGP threshold of 0.5 adult female lice per fish in May 2015, at the peak of the wild smolt run.

6.5 Patently, the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation (NASCO) Best Management Practice Guidance requirement that “100% of farms to have effective sea lice management such that there is no increase in sea lice loads or lice-induced mortality of wild salmonids attributable to the farms” is not being met.

6.6 Analysis of SEPA, SSPO and FHI data for 2013 to 2015 provides further strong evidence that adult female sea lice numbers on fish farms rise during the second year of production at sea on salmon farms. This pattern is observable, to a greater or lesser degree, across all the regions analysed.

6.7 In all regions analysed, average adult female sea lice numbers per farmed fish appear to be linked to the cumulative biomass of farmed fish held on the farms, in some regions, extremely closely indeed. As the biomass rises through a production, so sea lice counts per fish follow upwards, often to levels well above CoGP thresholds, including during the February to June period which is critical for wild salmonids.

6.8 All regions analysed show considerable failure of available chemical sea lice treatments to limit aggregated adult female sea lice numbers on farmed fish in these regions to below CoGP thresholds. This strongly suggests resistance and tolerance to these treatments is widespread in sea lice populations. This trend is likely to continue.

6.9 A number of the regions analysed appear to have experienced average adult female sea lice numbers persistently above CoGP thresholds, despite the use of wrasse as cleaner fish on some farms.

6.10 In a number of regions, there is evidence of a failure to treat for sea lice on farmed fish despite adult female sea lice numbers per fish being over CoGP thresholds, contrary to CoGP requirements. Additionally, there is evidence of the failure by fish-farmers to treat sea lice as the farm nears the end of a production cycle, contemplates or begins harvesting. The evidence appears to suggest that decisions are being made that, as near-harvest adult farmed fish can tolerate a moderate lice burden, treatment is not required to prevent damage to the farmed fish. This in turn suggests that insufficient consideration is being given in such circumstances to the potential for very large juvenile sea lice production during the last few months of a production cycle, and the consequent negative effects on wild salmonids up to 30km away from the farms concerned.

78

6.11 In some regions, there is evidence of early harvest or culling out of farmed fish, but this appears only to be associated with unacceptable damage being caused to the farmed fish causing either commercial losses or animal welfare issues for the farmed fish. There is no evidence that early harvest or culling out has occurred at any site in order to protect wild fish from unacceptable levels of juvenile lice leaving the farms.

79

7. Recommendations

7.1 The major barrier to proper scrutiny of the fish farms - the lack of published farm-specific sea

lice data - needs to be removed. The Scottish Government should amend the Record Keeping Order 2008 to require the records - that must already be kept by fish farmers under that Order- also should be published online, for example, on the Scotland’s Aquaculture database.

7.2 SEPA or another statutory body needs to record the use of hydrogen peroxide and well-boat treatments for sea lice and publish those records on the Scotland’s Aquaculture database, to ensure that a complete picture is obtained of the sea lice control methods used at any particular farm.

7.3 The Scotland’s Aquaculture database should also record whether or not wrasse, lumpsuckers or other fish are used as cleaner fish, during each of the months for which the fish farmers must report biomass of farmed fish held at any farm under their CAR licences.

7.4 A review of CoGP sea lice obligations, to be led by Scottish Government, is urgently required. Inter alia, the review must ensure that it is no longer possible for fish-farmers, where sea lice numbers have effectively gone out of control on their farms, to assert, as they currently can do, that they remain in compliance with the CoGP. This currently gives a false impression that the sea lice issue is under control.

7.5 The Scottish Government should make the CoGP a statutory code, as provided for in the 2007 Act.

7.6 The Scottish Government should include, within a revised statutory CoGP, an upper tier sea lice threshold above which an immediate cull or harvest of farmed fish is mandated, as practiced in Norway59.

7.7 The Scottish Government should consult on the trigger level beyond which immediate harvest or cull is mandated, but this should be set on a precautionary basis to protect wild fish.

7.8 More generally, the Scottish Government should amend aquaculture legislation with the express purpose of protecting wild fish from potential damage caused by fish-farms. Specifically, the FHI should be given a legal duty to control sea lice on fish-farms expressly in order to protect wild fish populations.

7.9 The FHI should also be given stronger guidance requiring it to enforce proper sea lice control on fish farms more robustly. This may require an amendment to the 2007 Act to require those inspectors to examine farms with respect to the threat from fish farms to wild fish, as well as the current requirements to examine the welfare of the farmed animal.

7.10 MS needs to routinely examine all the data available to it under the Record Keeping Order and that information collected by SEPA, local authorities, FHI and others in order to identify those farms that are consistently failing to control sea lice. Such farms should then

59

Five Norwegian salmon producers were informed by the Norwegian Food Standards Agency in 2013 that they would have to slaughter all their salmon in the area, after all measures to counter lice infestation failed in Vikna, one of the busiest salmon farming regions in Norway. Three producers had levels of five to six mature female lice per fish in the area affected, which is not unusual in Scotland, but was far above the Norwegian national limit of 0.5/fish. The NFSA ordered the producers to slaughter all their fish, or face a fine of approximately NOK 100,000 per day, for every day extending beyond the deadline. Undercurrent News, 2 Oct 2013: Salmon farms rushing to slaughter 8,000 tonne of fish due to high lice levels

80

be examined closely with a view to closure and / or a relocation programme as was first made a priority issue by the Strategic Framework for Scottish Aquaculture back in 2003.

7.11 In parallel to the above, Scottish Government should focus on alternative more sustainable production methods with the ultimate objective of moving to full closed containment of farmed salmon production in Scotland to eliminate the biological interaction between farmed and wild fish.

81

Annex 1 List of Scottish salmon farms with SSPO region60 Site Name Site No SSPO area Dury Voe FS0033 62-E Bastavoe South FS0074 62-E Wadbister Voe FS0140 62-E Bight of Foraness FS0292 62-E West Voe FS0310 62-E East Voe Laxfirth FS0333 62-E Swining Voe 2 FS0377 62-E Uyea Isle FS0382 62-E Wick of Vatsetter FS0407 62-E Poseidon FS0408 62-E Stringa Voe FS0439 62-E Baltasound Harbour FS0449 62-E Turness FS0451 62-E Wick of Belmont FS0472 62-E Bow of Hascosay FS0477 62-E Taing of Railsbrough Catfirth FS0501 62-E Vidlin North FS0608 62-E Pier FS0624 62-E Djubawick FS0656 62-E Rockfield FS0662 62-E Loura Voe FS0699 62-E Sandwick FS0710 62-E Balta Island FS0717 62-E Kirkabister FS0802 62-E Swarta Skerry FS0814 62-E Winna Ness FS0871 62-E Mula FS0896 62-E Swining Voe 3 FS0903 62-E North Voe FS0946 62-E East of Holm Heogland (Burkwell) FS0960 62-E South Holm of Heogland FS0962 62-E Collafirth 3 FS0999 62-E Linga (Setterness) FS1027 62-E Ness of Copister FS1043 62-E Fish Holm FS1045 62-E Vee Taing FS1057 62-E Wick of Garth FS1060 62-E Bomlo FS1076 62-E Gletness FS1099 62-E Baltasound Pier FS1102 62-E Bight of Bellister, Dury Voe FS1121 62-E Hamnavoe FS1144 62-E Flaeshins FS1275 62-E Bastaness FS1279 62-E Pobie Sukka FS0039 62-W Cloudin FS0088 62-W Holm of Gruting FS0166 62-W

60

Marine Scotland 12th May 2015.

82

Mid Taing FS0167 62-W South Sound FS0183 62-W Crooie FS0213 62-W Selivoe (High Banks) FS0228 62-W Brunaness FS0230 62-W Setter Voe FS0316 62-W Coleness FS0378 62-W Brindister Crossroads FS0386 62-W Snaraness FS0400 62-W Langa Isle (East) FS0433 62-W Punds Voe FS0446 62-W Papa FS0447 62-W North of Hoy FS0481 62-W Cole Deep FS0489 62-W Olna North FS0512 62-W North Papa FS0515 62-W Lea Trondra (East of Trondra) FS0548 62-W Breigeo (Offshore) FS0607 62-W Stead of Aithness FS0637 62-W Burrastow FS0666 62-W East of Hildasay FS0673 62-W North Havra FS0674 62-W Sound of Hoy FS0691 62-W Brindister Linga FS0715 62-W Holms Geo FS0749 62-W Olna South FS0764 62-W Spoose Holm FS0785 62-W Binnaness FS0791 62-W Lippie Geo FS0850 62-W East Kallee Ness FS0905 62-W Breigeo Inshore FS0915 62-W Flotta FS0935 62-W Foreholm FS0936 62-W West of Burwick FS0937 62-W Score Holms FS0948 62-W Marine Hatchery FS0991 62-W East of Merry Holm FS0996 62-W Slocka Ronas Voe FS1018 62-W Hogan FS1053 62-W Inner Mangaster FS1058 62-W Teisti Geo FS1093 62-W Hamar Sound FS1114 62-W Geo of Valladale FS1115 62-W East of Papa Little FS1278 62-W Pegal Bay FS0031 61 Lyrawa Bay FS0054 61 Bay of Ham FS0122 61 Carness Bay FS0390 61 Bay of Cleat (South) FS0595 61 Meil Bay FS0597 61 Kirk Noust FS0645 61 Puldrite FS0813 61 Noust Geo FS0823 61 Shapinsay FS0860 61

83

Quanterness FS0908 61 Chalmers Hope FS0993 61 Fara West FS1017 61 Bay of Vady FS1020 61 Bring Head FS1023 61 Toyness FS1024 61 Opus Maxim Ltd FS1028 61 Bay of Cleat (North) FS1080 61 South Cava FS1198 61 Ouseness FS1209 61 Vestness FS1210 61 Wyre FS1294 61 Bagh Chlann Neill FS0051 60-S Kilerivagh / Petersport FS0340 60-S Ornish Island FS0531 60-S Loch Boisdale (An Camus Calvay) FS0841 60-S Marulaig Bay FS0865 60-S North Uiskevagh FS1255 60-S Stulaigh FS1259 60-S Hellisay FS1261 60-S Loch Carnan FS1280 60-S Greanamul FS1282 60-S Loch Meanenvagh FS0494 60-N Vaccasay FS0480 60-N Treanay FS0796 60-N Lochmaddy FS0853 60-N Groatay FS1083 60-N Grey Horse Channel FS1122 60-N Outer Eport FS1254 60-N Sound of Harris FS1260 60-N Loch Stockinish FS0190 59 Scotasay FS0502 59 Soay FS0646 59 Ob Meavag FS0817 59 Seaforth FS1042 59 Trilleachan Mor FS1118 59 Plocrapol FS1256 59 Raineach FS1263 59 Reibinish FS1277 59 Scadabay FS1293 59 Vuiabeag FS0411 58-W Taranaish FS0752 58-W Kyles of Vuia FS0927 58-W Gousam FS0998 58-W Vacasay FS1091 58-W Vuia Mor FS1103 58-W Eughlam FS1233 58-W Loch Odhairn FS0242 58-E Sgeir Bhuidhe FS0954 58-E North Shore FS1033 58-E Caolas A Deas FS1291 58-E Ardyne FS0559 43 Strone Point FS1056 43 Sgian Dubh FS1281 43

84

Evanachan Salt Water FS0001 42 Meall Mhor Loch Fyne FS0091 42 Furnace Quarry FS0567 42 Glenan Bay FS0590 42 Gob a Bharra Loch Fyne FS0683 42 Quarry Point FS0698 42 Tarbert South FS0767 42 Ardcastle Bay FS0818 42 Evanachan Marine Hatchery FS0843 42 Ardgadden FS0851 42 Rubha Stillaig FS0894 42 Strondoir Bay FS1019 42 Lamlash FS0423 41 Eilean Grianain FS1176 41 Colonsay FS1296 40 Loch Spelve (B) FS0253 39 Inch Kenneth FS0593 39 Loch Tuath FS0617 39 Loch Spelve (A) FS0634 39 Geasgill FS0839 39 Gometra FS1267 39 Ormsary Broodstock Unit FS0090 38 South Drumachro FS0335 38 Druimyeon Bay FS0336 38 East Tarbert Bay FS1010 38 Larval Rearing Unit FS1046 38 Quarantine Facility FS1100 38 North Moine FS0356 38

Bagh Dail Nan Cean FS0805 38 Shuna Castle FS0465 38 Poll Na Gille FS0629 38 Eilean Coltair FS0777 38 Port Na Cro FS0859 38 Shuna SW (Rubh'an Trilleachain) FS1290 38 Kames Bay (west) FS0271 37 Kames Bay (east) FS0462 37 Ardmaddy FS0464 37 Inverawe (West) Etive 1 FS0040 37 Ardchattan Bay FS0197 37 Scallastle FS0209 39 Invasion Bay FS0212 35 Gorsten FS0237 36-N Linnhe FS0240 36-N Kingairloch FS0241 36-N Loch Leven (1) FS0244 36-N Dunstaffnage FS0299 37 Camas Glas FS0413 35 Loch Creran (B) FS0426 36-S Fishnish (A) FS0427 35 Scottish Marine Institute (SAMS) (Fish) FS0469 37 MacLean's Nose FS0599 35 Kerrera B FS0663 37 Fishnish (B) FS0694 35

85

Shuna FS0695 36-S Fiunary FS0696 35 Lismore North FS0745 36-S Walters (East Lismore) FS0875 36-S Lismore West FS0914 36-S Bloody Bay FS0964 35 Loch Creran (D) FS1047 36-S Inverawe (East) Etive 2 FS1067 37 Glencripesdale FS1094 35 Etive 3 (Port na Mine) FS1101 37 Etive 4 FS1112 37 Etive 6 FS1288 37 Loch Greshornish FS0015 34-S Loch Harport FS0247 34-S Leinish FS0800 34-S Gob na Hoe FS1175 34-S Corlarach FS1287 34-S Cairidh FS0252 34-N Maol Ban FS0519 34-N Sconser FS0602 34-N Portree FS0708 34-N Sgeir Mhor FS0880 34-N Ardnish FS0249 33 Marine Farming Unit FS0869 33 Loch Ceann Traigh FS1131 33 Muck FS1286 33 Nevis A FS0430 32 Nevis C (Ardintigh) FS0546 32 Creag an T'Sagairt (Loch Hourn) FS0605 32 Nevis B FS0616 32 Loch Alsh (Sron) FS0016 31 Ardintoul FS0245 31 Loch Duich FS0248 31 Strome FS0570 30 Kishorn A (South) FS0709 30 Kishorn B (North) FS0804 30 Kishorn West FS1274 30 Kenmore Loch Torridon FS0050 29 Torridon FS0234 29 Aird FS0594 29 Sgeir Dughall FS1262 29 Isle Ewe FS1084 28 Ardmair FS0056 27 Corry Farm FS0057 27 Ardessie A FS0517 27 Tanera FS0549 27 Ardessie B FS0675 27 Fada FS0858 27 Loch An Sal FS0266 26-S Poll Loisgann FS0431 26-S Ghlas Mhor FS0883 26-S Loch Laxford FS0065 26-N Badcall Bay FS0067 26-N Calva Bay (Calbha Beag) FS0068 26-N

86

Nedd FS0129 26-N Drumbeg (Loch Dhrombaig) FS0487 26-N Loch A Chairn Bhain FS0621 26-N Outer Bay (Loch Droighniche) FS0671 26-N Clashnessie Bay FS0933 26-N Kempie Bay FS0359 25 Sian Bay FS0361 25

87

Annex 2 SSPO regional codes Hope and Grudie 25 Inchard to Kirkaig North 26-N Inchard to Kirkaig South 26-S Kennart to Gruinard 27 Ewe 28 Badachro to Applecross 29 Kishorn and Carron 30 Loch Long and Croe 31 Glenelg to Kilchoan 32 Morar to Shiel 33 Skye and Small Isles North 34-N Skye and Small Isles South 34-S Sunart and Aline 35 Sanda to Creran North 36-N Sanda to Creran South 36-S Awe and Nell 37 Add and Ormsary 38 Island of Mull 39 Islay and Jura 40 Carradale and Iorsa 41 Fyne 42 Ruel and Drummachloy 43 Isle of Lewis East 58-E Isle of Lewis West 58-W Harris 59 The Uists North 60-N The Uists South 60-S Orkney 61 Shetland West 62-W Shetland East 62-E

88

Annex III

89

Legal services for the environment, conservation, fisheries and freedom of information. Second Floor Offices, 12 Castle Street, Hereford HR1 2NL Telephone: 01432 379093 Mobile: 07837 881219 guy@linley-adams.co.uk Guy Linley-Adams is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority (524741) and the Law Society of Scotland (30663)