Aquaculture regulatory process: review

Annexes

A. Participants

B. Sector Production Data

B.1 Salmon

B.2 Rainbow Trout

B.3 Mussels

C. Aquaculture Farm Locations

C.1 Map of Active Finfish Farm Locations Around Scotland

C.2 Map of Active Shellfish Farm Locations Around Scotland

D. Planning Applications and Decision Times by Authority for 2020/21

E. Norwegian Application Process

F. Scottish Application Processes

F.1 Finfish scenarios

F.2 Shellfish scenarios

G. External Audits Data

H. The Salmon Lifecycle

I. Anonymised Comments by Theme

I.1 Formal Written Contributions

I.2 Formal in person contributions

J. Seaweed Marine Licence Applications

Annexe A Participants

Those I Met	Written Submissions (representatives)	Visits
Fisheries Management Scotland	SIFT	Scottish Sea Farms
Crown Estate Scotland	Lochaber District Salmon Fishery Board;	Organic Marine Harvest
Scottish Seaweed Association	Scottish Salmon Think Tank/ CCN/ SARNS	Shore Seaweed
Chief Planner, Scottish Government	Marine Conservation Society	Loch Fyne Oysters
Scottish Salmon Company	Grieg seafood	-
Salmon Scotland	Western Isles District Salmon Fisheries Board (WIDSFB)	-
Association of Scottish Shellfish Growers, Inverness	Citizen Scientists	-
Mowi Scotland	Wester Ross Area Salmon Fishery Board	-
SEPA	Regional Inshore Fisheries Group (RIFG)	-
NatureScot	Argyll DSFB, Argyll Fishery Trust, Fisheries Management Scotland	-
Sustainable Aquaculture Innovation Centre	RSPCA	-
Board Member Crown Estate Scotland	Scottish SPCA	-
British Trout Association	Argyll District Salmon Fishery Board	-
NASCO	Concerned individual	-
Ace Aquatec	Argyll District Salmon Fishery Board	-
Gaelforce	Orkney Fisheries Association	-
COSLA	Senior Partner, Cromarty Mussels	-
Marine Scotland	Coastal Communities Network (CNN)	-
SalScot Prescribing Vets Group	Kames	-
Highlands and Islands Enterprise	Scottish Fishermen's federation	-
Aquascot and Shore seaweed	Royal Yachting Association	-
Dawn Fresh	Skye and Lochalsh rivers trust	-
Head of Planning (Orkney)	Loch Long Salmon	-
Local Authority Planners	Orkney Island Council (written submission)	-
Isle of Skye Oysters	North Ayrshire Council Planning	-
Marine Scotland (Planning Statutory Consultee)	Fish Legal	-
Marine Scotland (Licensing)	Kyle of Sutherland District Salmon Fishery Board (KSDSFB)	-
Shetland Mussels	SGA Fishing group	-
Scottish Shellfish Marketing Group	Simply Blue	-
Marine Scotland (Director)	Humane League	-
Marine Scotland (MARLAB)	Argyll and Bute Council	-
Environment and Forestry (Director) and SG Head of Water environment team	Fidra	-
Argyll and Bute Council	Royal Town and planning	-
Callander McDowell	Cooke Aquaculture	-
Seafood Shetland	OneKind	-
Shetland Islands Council	SAMS	-
Coastal Communities Network	Maritime and Coastguard Agency	-
Marine Scotland	Northern Lighthouse Board (NLB)	-
Scottish Wildlife Trust	West Sutherland Fisheries trust	-
Fidra	Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA)	-
-	Clyde Marine Planning Partnership (CMPP)	-
-	Compassion in World Farming (CIWF)	-
-	RSPB	-
-	Orkney Trout and Fishery Association (OTFA)	-
-	Scottish Anglers National Association (SANA)	-
-	Shetland Mussels	-

Annexe B Sector Production Data

B.1 Salmon ( Scottish fish farm production surveys)

Year	Tonnes produced	Producing sites	Active sites	Value (£mill)
1990	32351	-	-	-
1991	40593	-	-	-
1992	36101	-	-	-
1993	48691	-	-	-
1994	64066	-	-	-
1995	70060	-	-	-
1996	83121	-	-	-
1997	99197	-	-	-
1998	110784	-	-	-
1999	126686	-	-	-
2000	128959	-	346	-
2001	138519	238	320	-
2002	144589	197	328	-
2003	169736	201	326	-
2004	158099	293	315	-
2005	129588	166	278	-
2006	131847	157	252	-
2007	129930	158	247	-
2008	128606	139	257	-
2009	144247	104	254	-
2010	154164	140	249	-
2011	158018	148	254	£691
2012	162223	142	257	£622
2013	163234	145	257	£769
2014	179022	143	260	£801
2015	171722	139	254	£701
2016	162817	136	253	£835
2017	189707	133	226	£1,119
2018	156025	121	221	£919
2019	203881	146	226	£1,099
2020	192129	131	232	£932
2021	236000*	-	232	-

*- correct as of September 2021

B.2 Rainbow Trout ( Scottish fish farm production surveys)

Year	Tonnes produced	Active sites
2000	-	-
2001	-	-
2002	-	-
2003	-	-
2004	-	-
2005	-	-
2006	7492	-
2007	7414	-
2008	7670	-
2009	6766	-
2010	5139	-
2011	4619	33
2012	5670	34
2013	5611	30
2014	5882	31
2015	8588	30
2016	8096	32
2017	7637	28
2018	6413	29
2019	7405	28
2020	7576	32
2021	9303	-

B.3 Mussels ( Scottish shellfish farm production surveys)

Year	Tonnes Produced	Value (£)
2002	3236	-
2003	3632	-
2004	4223	-
2005	4135	-
2006	4219	-
2007	4806	-
2008	5869	-
2009	6302	-
2010	7199	-
2011	6996	9759420
2012	6277	8,687,368
2013	6757	9,203,034
2014	7683	10,279,854
2015	7270	9,734,530
2016	7732	10,963,976
2017	8232	10,742,760
2018	6874	8,186,934
2019	6699	6,303,759
2020	5661	5,049,612

Annexe C Aquaculture Farm Locations

Annexe D Planning Applications and Decision Times by Authority for 2020/21

Location	Number of applications not subject to processing agreements	Average Time [Weeks]	Number of applications subject to processing agreements	Percentage of applications with processing agreements concluded within agreed timescales [%]	Total Number of Decisions
Scotland
Freshwater Fish Farming	3	26.8	1*	1*	4
Marine Finfish Farming	25	14.0	0	-	25
Marine Shellfish Farming	14	13.1	0	-	14
Argyll and Bute
Freshwater Fish Farming	0	-	0	-	0
Marine Finfish Farming	4	8.7	0	-	4
Marine Shellfish Farming	2	9.1	0	-	2
Highland
Freshwater Fish Farming	3	26.8	0	-	3
Marine Finfish Farming	7	19.4	0	-	7
Marine Shellfish Farming	4	12.1	0	-	4
Na h-Eileanan Siar
Freshwater Fish Farming	0	-	0	-	0
Marine Finfish Farming	5	15.7	0	-	5
Marine Shellfish Farming	3	21.8	0	-	3
Orkney Islands
Freshwater Fish Farming	0	-	0	-	0
Marine Finfish Farming	2	20.0	0	-	2
Marine Shellfish Farming	1	18.9	0	-	1
Shetland Islands
Freshwater Fish Farming	0	-	0	-	0
Marine Finfish Farming	7	8.6	0	-	7
Marine Shellfish Farming	4	8.1	0	-	4

Notes

* = North Ayrshire council had a single major development application subject to a processing agreement under "Marine finfish farming" but no developments for any finfish or shellfish farming.

Annexe E Norwegian Application Process

Note: Taken from NASCO implementation plan for the period 2019-2024 (Norway), 2020

Annexe F Scottish Application Processes

Notes:

App = Application

EIA – Environmental impact assessment

LOA = Lease option agreement

CAR = Controlled activity licence

PP = Planning permission

ML = Marine Licence

APB = Aquaculture production business licence

SBL = Seabed lease

Notes:

App = Application

EIA – Environmental impact assessment

PAC = Pre application consultation

LOA = Lease option agreement

PP = Planning permission

ML = Marine Licence

APB = Aquaculture production business licence

SBL = Seabed lease

Annexe G External Audits Data

Auditing Body	Number of Visits	Time taken (hours)
Charity	34	226
International Body	8	28
International Body	5	40
International Body	2	16
Consortium	36	309
Retailers	18	208
Government	35	305
Total	138	1132

Annexe H The Salmon Lifecycle

Annexe I Anonymised Comments by Theme

I.1 Formal Written Contributions

Themes from written submissions
Why the sector needs regulation in the first place	Why has that regulation to be in the form of legislation rather than self regulation by the industry	What are the issues with the current regulatory framework	What could be done to improve the current framework and importantly the process	Are there any examples that might provide useful insight on how this is done elsewhere
Environment	Guarantee compliance	Too complex	Coordinated approach/Streamline the process/Simplify the process/Introduce a coordinator	Norway
Other marine stakeholders	Accountability	Lack of resources	Clarify responsibilities/ More accountability/Have a clear framework/ Have clear guidelines	Faroes
Wild Fish	Enforcement	Lack of accountability	Increase resources/ Appropriate resourcing/Investment	Electricity Act
Fish Welfare	Confidence for trade	Limited expertise	Increased transparency	Offshore wind
Society	Encourage innovation	Fragmented/ duplication of information/ Lack of coordination	Increase knowledgebase/Build expertise/Increase research and development	USA, Canada, Denmark, Australia (Phasing out open net farms)
Public resource	Ensure equal weighting of wild fish	Lack of knowledge (science)	Increase monitoring/ Apply EIA/ Utilise Marine Spatial planning/ Investigate carrying capacity of marine areas	Argyll and Bute
Rural economy	Fairer industry	Lack of monitoring	More robust enforcement/More powers of enforcement/ Tangible sanctions	Canada*
Reputation	Fish Welfare	Sanction and enforcement inadequate	Implement SIWG recommendations	Denmark*
Social responsibility	Instil trust	Wild fish not accounted for	Use adaptive management/Allow disused licences to lapse	Australia*
communities	Legislation is there	Cost	Apply the precautionary principle	-
Socio-economic	No suitable legislation for seaweed	Lack of transparency	Implement a feedback mechanism/ More local democracy	-
Visual	Public perception	Time taken	Strengthen regulation around welfare for slaughter and transport/fish welfare	-
Environmental/ economic balance	Reputation	Doesn't account for cumulative effects/ carrying capacity	Separate frameworks for each sector	-
public health	Self Defence	Lack of clarity of remit (regulators)	Move to single licence approach	-
Fair usage	To deal address excessive fees	Duplication of information	Encourage innovation	-
-	-	Lack of protection for slaughter and transport	Centralise database	-
-	-	Not sector specific	Move to closed containment	-
-	-	System not adaptive	Use pre application consultation	-
-	-	Fish welfare not front and centre	Have and appropriate/single body for wild fish	-
-	-	Anchorages not accounted for	Cut fees	-
-	-	Failure to use Precautionary principle	introduce independent regulator	-
-	-	Gaps in legislation	Regulation should be strengthened	-
-	-	Irregularity in planning process	Include the supply chain	-
-	-	Lack of information available to decision makers	Protect anchorages	-
-	-	Light touch	Have an international review of impacts and monitoring	-
-	-	No statutory code for welfare of fish	-	-
-	-	Permanence of licences	-	-
-	-	Town and Country planning act not suitable	-	-

Notes

EIA = Environmental impact assessment

SIWG = Salmon interactions working group

* = phasing out the use of open net pen aquaculture

I.2 In Person Contributions

Themes from meetings
Why the sector needs regulation in the first place	Why has that regulation to be in the form of legislation rather than self regulation by the industry	What are the issues with the current regulatory framework	What could be done to improve the current framework and importantly the process	Are there any examples that might provide useful insight on how this is done elsewhere
Environment	Accountability	Limited expertise/experience	Coordinated approach	Norway
Safeguard Reputation	Guarantee compliance	Limited resources/ Limited Funding	Increase resources/ Increased funding	Shetland
Sustainability	Safeguard local democracy	Time	Build expertise	Faroes
Other marine users	Markets miss things	Fragmented/ duplication of information/ Lack of coordination	Add flexibility/ Use adaptive management/ Options for innovation	Orkney
Public resource	Level playing field	Inconsistency	One stop shop (single consenting)/ One stop shop (document not licence)	Offshore wind
Trust	Enforcement	Science out of date/ Lack of clear data/ limited science/ Conflicting Science	Better enforcement/ utilise continuous monitoring/ have and auditing system/ FHI inspections to include more regulatory issues	-
Wild fish	Build trust in industry	Too complex	Increased transparency/ Clear and transparent decision making/ Introduce a feedback system	-
Local democracy	Safeguard seaweed from finfish	Inflexible	Use up to date science/ Use independent science	-
Brand enhancing	Defence from anti-aquaculture lobby	Lack of clear guidance (applicants and regulators)	Quicker responses	-
Communities	Public perception	Lack of transparency	Clear accountability (Industry and regulators)	-
Disease management	To protect wild salmon	No accountability	Separate frameworks for each sector	-
Impacts	Legislation not required	Doesn't address historic siting of farms/ Carrying capacity not accounted for	Introduce a coordinator/ Utilise pre-application consultation	-
Improve reputation	Industry can't be trusted	Precautionary principle applied with little experience	Licences not permanent permission	-
Instil confidence	Ensure public health	Regulation not tailored to each sector	Clear remit for regulators/ Definitive framework for decision makers	-
level playing field	-	No plan or vision/ No clear remit for regulator	Disused sites brought back into use/ tidy up redundant marine sites/ consolidate industry	-
local economies	-	Permanent consents with no accountability	Use regional management plans/ Use SEA	-
Not required	-	TCPA not fit for aquaculture	Reduce the process	-
public health	-	Wild salmon falling through gaps	Local presence	-
sector growth	-	Limited local democracy	Go digital/ Clear information for applicants	-
Social Licence	-	PDR cost too low	Use precautionary principle/ Factor in true sustainability	-
Social responsibility	-	Anti fish farming lobby having larger voice	Limit requirement for public consultation on farms under a certain size	-
Traceability	-	Cost to high	Centralise planning, Local Authorities as Statutory Consultees	-
-	-	Connectivity	Economic case should be made	-
-	-	Applicants not supplying the correct data	Risk assessment over precautionary principle	-
-	-	No feedback mechanism	Social licence should be included	-
-	-	-	Bring marine licence in line with crown estate licence	-
-	-	-	Introduce a code of conduct	-
-	-	-	Have clear vision for growth	-

Notes

FHI = Fish Health Inspectorate

SEA = Strategic environmental assessment

TCPA = Town and Country Planning Act

Annexe J Seaweed Marine Licence Applications

Seaweed Licence Applications
Account Name	Licence Start Date	Site of Application	Status
Scottish Sea Farms Ltd (change of use to shellfish farm)	17/02/2017	Sandsound South, Shetland	Licence Active
58 N Scottish Seaweeds	23/08/2017	Outer Loch Broom, Wester Ross	Licence Active
Muckairn Mussels Ltd	09/05/2018	Site 1, Loch Etive, Argyll	Licence Active
New Wave Foods	12/10/2018	Aird na Cuile, Site A & B, South East Kerrera, Argyll & Bute	Licence Active
Michael Francis George Walford and James Anthony Walford (Partnership)	30/04/2019	Camas Na Fisteodh, Isle Of Scalpay	Licence Active
Scottish Association for Marine Science	24/09/2019	Cutter's Rock, Port An T-Struthian	Licence Active
The Highland Seaweed Company	08/01/2020	Covesea Skerries, Hopeman	Licence Active
Jack MacGregor & Sons	18/06/2020	East Balvicar Bay, Seil Island	Licence Active
The Highland Seaweed Company	01/08/2020	Burghead Bay, Findhorn	Licence Active
The Highland Seaweed Company	01/08/2020	Culbin, Findhorn	Licence Active
Sea02 Ltd	14/12/2020	Dubh Thob, Loch Erisort, Isle of Lewis	Licence Active
Hebridean Wildfoods Ltd	16/12/2020	Sgeir na Muirsgian, Loch Erisort, Isle of Lewis	Licence Active
GreenSea Solutions Ltd	22/01/2021	Loch Sunart, Lochaber	Licence Active
KelpCrofting Ltd	16/02/2021	South of Pabay, Isle of Skye	Licence Active
Southwest Mull and Iona Development	15/06/2021	Aird Fada, Mull	Licence Active
Kilchoan Management Ltd	13/10/2021	Kilchoan Bay, Loch Melfort	Licence Active
Sgurr Services	18/12/2021	Lochalsh, Sgeir na Caillich	Licence Active
Scottish Association for Marine Science	-	Port-A-Bhuiltin, Lynn of Lorn	Application
Stronsay South Limited	-	Mill Bay, Stronsay	Application
Stronsay South School Trust	-	Bay of Holland, Stronsay	Application
Lochnell Seaweed	-	Lynn of Lorn, Sgeir Liath Point to Eilean Riabhach	Application