Wild Salmon Strategy Implementation Plan Delivery Group minutes: May 2026

Attendees and apologies

• Nanjika Nasiiro, Marine Directorate (Chair)
• Steven Dora, Marine Directorate
• Anna Bragg, Marine Directorate
• Ken Reid, Angling Scotland
• Fiona Simpson, Crown Estate Scotland
• Kenneth MacDougall, EnviroCentre
• Alan Wells, Fisheries Management Scotland
• Julia McCarthy, Fisheries Management Scotland
• Jamie Ribbens, Galloway Fisheries Trust
• Colin Bean, NatureScot
• Brian Shaw, Ness District Salmon Fishery Board
• Alexa MacAuslan, Northern District Salmon Fishery Board
• Jamie Stewart, River Tweed Commission and the Tweed Foundation
• Roy Richardson, Scottish Environment Protection Agency
• Sarah Robinson, Scottish Wildlife Trust
• Olivia Lassiere, Scottish Canals
• Roger Knight, Spey Catchment Initiative

Apologies

• Claire Speedie, Marine Directorate
• Mark Bilsby, Atlantic Salmon Trust
• Linsey Mason-McLean, Scottish Forestry

Items and actions

Welcome and introductions

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and invited a round of introductions for the benefit of new attendees at this meeting. John Mouat was noted as the new Deputy Director for Marine Planning, Environment and Corporate and would attend some future meetings of the Group.

Minutes of the previous meeting

The minutes of the previous meeting were agreed. It was suggested that, where previous minutes were to be formally approved at meetings, they should be recirculated with the agenda and papers, or alternatively agreed by correspondence. The Chair agreed to liaise with the secretariat on the preferred approach for future meetings.

Review of action log

Prior to the meeting, the Group agreed that the following actions be marked as delivered:

• 4.5 Marine Directorate (MD) and Fisheries Management Scotland (FMS) to discuss consideration of diadromous fish in offshore wind applications and how to better ensure this within consenting process. MD/FMS taking forward steps to meet with relevant leads and establish next steps. Action marked as delivered.
• 5.4 – MD to prepare a scoping paper on how to deliver Implementation Plan action 1.25 (task and finish group on wild fish disease). A presentation would be shared and discussed with the DG at the next meeting.  Action marked as in progress.
• 7.1 – WSRF and Angling Scotland met in April to discuss concerns re non-compliant introductions of non-native fish, licensing of introductions and seal sightings. Action marked as delivered.

Scottish Canals: Summary of Fish Migration Optioneering Studies and Discussion

Scottish Canals and EnviroCentre gave a joint presentation on a Fish Migration Optioneering Study report which had been shared with Delivery Group members. The report was related directly to Action 1.17 of the Wild Salmon Strategy Implementation Plan: ‘Undertake a review of the risk to fish migration of the canal network and associated management structures’. The report, conducted by EnviroCentre, as a consultant to Scottish Canals, covered six licensed Scottish Canals abstraction or canal-related sites.

Scottish Canals gave an overview of the organisational context, explaining that it was a non-departmental public body funded through Transport Scotland, with a primary statutory duty to maintain safe navigation across a very old and complex canal network. The fish migration work was framed within Scottish Canals’ wider biodiversity, water stewardship and “Canals for the Future” commitments while recognising the need to balance these with navigation, asset management, safety, climate resilience and funding constraints.

Scottish Canals noted that further evidence on the costs and benefits of fish passage improvements would help support the business case for intervention and assist them in prioritising investment alongside other organisational commitments and asset management pressures.

The legal requirements on Scottish Canals under regulatory routes, including existing licences and River Basin Management Planning obligations, were noted.

EnviroCentre noted that in undertaking the study it had developed a structured assessment of possible fish passage and screening options for the sites, which all differed significantly and that there was no “one-size-fits-all” solution. The relative importance of each location varied locally, regionally and nationally, and the available baseline fisheries and flow information also varied considerably.

EnviroCentre raised an important prioritisation issue: regulatory compliance might require Scottish Canals to spend money in one area, while the greatest wild salmon benefit might be achieved elsewhere. They suggested that progress under the Wild Salmon Strategy and the role of the Delivery Group could help influence how investment is prioritised to deliver the greatest benefit for wild salmon.

The three priority actions presented from the report were: improving downstream fish passage at Dochgarroch weir on the Ness; improving downstream passage at the River Almond weir; and addressing fish passage at Woodhall Weir on the Monkland Canal. EnviroCentre noted that Laggan could arguably have been included as a priority action too, and that all sites were priorities for Scottish Canals to address over time.

The Ness DSFB welcomed the report as a useful starting point but raised a number of concerns, including that it did not fully reflect the available evidence on the scale and significance of smolt losses within the Ness system and that across tracking years, including 2019, 2021 and 2022, estimated losses in the canal varied from 15% to 26%. It was emphasised that the issues weren’t unsolvable here and Ness DSFB was keen to discuss ideas with Scottish Canals, Scottish Government and other stakeholders.

EnviroCentre suggested that the report should stand as a completed baseline assessment, reflecting the evidence and circumstances available when it was prepared rather than being repeatedly updated as the wider context continues to evolve. They proposed that the Ness DSFB’s comments should inform the next stage of work.

The Group noted the written comments previously submitted by the Ness DSFB and the potential for greater coordination between the various players including statutory bodies. Scottish Canals and EnviroCentre agreed to provide a response to those comments, and members agreed that the comments should help inform future work arising from the report. Other relevant Boards and Trusts should also be afforded an opportunity to comment. The Group agreed that the report outcomes must show and deliver demonstrable benefits for wild salmon.

The Group agreed that the Scottish Canals action under Implementation Plan Action 1.17 could be marked as delivered, on the basis that the EnviroCentre report represents a “point-in time” assessment, but it was important that the minutes of this meeting record the need for further action, consideration of stakeholder feedback, and continued support for implementation to deliver benefits for wild salmon.

• action 8.1 - Provide a response to the comments submitted by Ness District Salmon Fishery Board on the Scottish Canals report
• action 8.2 – Scottish Canals to consider how the report and stakeholder comments can be used to inform a structured next-stage process / action plan for fish passage improvements, including in the River Ness / Caledonian Canal system
• action 8.3 - Delivery Group and other key stakeholders to be given a further opportunity to comment on the report, in case there are additional site-specific issues that were not captured

Wild Salmon and Recreational Fisheries Team Update

Marine Directorate’s Wild Salmon and Recreational Fisheries (WSRF) team updated the Group on the following:

The Science and Evidence Board’s (SEB) work on beavers and large wood additions remained active but was progressing at a slower pace. In the meantime, no new work would be initiated until the Chair of the SEB was able to return to the role following the completion of other priority Scottish Government work.

Following the election, the appointment of new Ministers was awaited and briefing on the policy area and on the work of the Strategy and the Delivery Group was being prepared.

The Scottish Government was working to meet the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation’s (NASCO) November 2026 deadline to submit a Conservation Commitment Report to report on actions addressing stressors faced by wild salmon despite not meeting the April deadline to submit a draft due to other urgent priorities and the pre-election period.

Following an unsuccessful procurement round in January, work was continuing to commission the socio-economic study under Theme 6 in the Implementation Plan, with alternative funding mechanisms and exploration of the possibility of FMS leading this work.

Annual Progress Report

The Group discussed the status of several actions within the Implementation Plan for input into the drafting of the Annual Progress Report (APR).

The Group agreed that Action 1.20, on completing the review of the seal licensing system, could be marked as complete. It was requested that the report clarify that FMS and its members were consulted.

The Group agreed that Action 1.21 [to support efforts by fisheries managers to protect salmon from seal predation by continuing to investigate, develop and test non-lethal methods (etc)] should remain ongoing. Members noted that work to investigate, develop and test non-lethal methods of seal control remains active and should not be marked complete at this stage.  This reflects the long-term nature of the action rather than a failure to progress it.

The Group agreed that Action 5.1 [to establish a task and finish group of stakeholders to undertake a broad review of the current policy framework (etc)] could be marked as complete, recognising that the task and finish group had produced and submitted a report. Members noted that further work was still required to consider and deliver the recommendations arising from that work.

• action 8.4 - Draft APR to be issued to members for comment

The Group noted the importance of demonstrating progress and outcomes arising from Wild Salmon Strategy actions throughout the year, rather than relying solely on the Annual Progress Report. Members suggested that organisations responsible for delivering actions could provide periodic updates to the Delivery Group, including evidence of implementation and, where available, measurable benefits and impacts. Examples discussed included updates from Scottish Forestry on riparian management actions and from other delivery partners on progress against ongoing actions.

Members highlighted actions 1.8 and 1.9 as examples where future reporting on outcomes and impacts would be beneficial. It was suggested that Scottish Forestry could provide an update at a future meeting on progress with riparian management measures and the associated grant scheme.

Any other business and agreement of actions

Recent pollution incidents on the Spey and Dee were discussed emphasising the importance of prevention.

It was asked that the Group have the opportunity to input into development of the targets within the Natural Environment Act to ensure that they are relevant to the needs of wild salmon and the freshwater and marine environment.

• action 8.5 – Chair to facilitate discussions between the Delivery Group and the Natural Environment Act team, with potential for their attendance at a future meeting

An update was provided on the draft brand-use guidance and logo versions. Members were broadly content. An action was taken to recirculate the guidance and logos with a deadline for final comments, after which the guidance would be considered signed off.

• action 8.6 – Recirculate logo and guidance for users for any final comments

Angling Scotland highlighted a potential communications opportunity involving a filmed riverside podcast on wild salmon and salmon governance on which they had recently corresponded with the Wild Salmon team in Marine Directorate.

Actions taken from this meeting

8.1 - Scottish Canals/EnviroCentre to provide a response to the comments submitted by Ness District Salmon Fishery Board on the Scottish Canals report.

8.2 - Scottish Canals to consider how the report and stakeholder comments can be used to inform a structured next-stage process / action plan for fish passage improvements, including in the River Ness/Caledonian Canal system.

8.3 - Delivery Group and other key stakeholders to be given a further opportunity to comment on the report, in case there are additional site-specific issues that were not captured.

8.4 - Draft APR to be issued to members for comment.

8.5 - Chair to facilitate discussions between the Delivery Group and the Natural Environment Act team, with potential for their attendance at a future meeting.

8.6 - Recirculate logo and guidance for users for any final comment.