Emamectin benzoate (EMBZ) - environmental quality standard implementation timescales: consultation analysis

Response and reaction to the consultation

We received 25 consultation responses: The responses came from the following groups:

The responses to the consultation were highly polarised. Respondents from community groups, NGOs and respondents included in the ‘others’ group, were particularly focused on the following key points:

Overall, the majority of responses supported the underlying principle of reducing the threshold for discharging quantities of emamectin benzoate into the marine environment and the adjustment of fish farm practices to meet new environmental limits.

Most respondents commented that the new EQS should be implemented immediately since its review was initiated in 2016.

Some stated that consideration could be given to implementing the new EQS in a phased approach to allow for business to make necessary adaptations prior to any action to reduce discharge limits at existing farms.

Whilst many respondents suggested that there is already a strong and demonstrable negative impact from discharging emamectin benzoate from fish farms to the environment, only a few of the aforementioned groups provided evidence in support of this view.

However, most of the respondents who supported the revised EQS did not provide a response to the second and third questions. A few responded that the questions were not relevant to their interests.

Most responses from fish farm operators and trade bodies, raised concerns, mainly around the impact of the threshold to the aquaculture business. Whilst some fish farm operators indicated a minimum timescale for the implementation of the new EQS, their response was caveated, requesting that no implementation occurs until a wider review of setting the EQS take place. They were particularly focused on the following areas:

Several/most respondents questioned the justification for the new EQS threshold, requesting its implementation be put on hold until further scientific evidence is produced demonstrating the requirement to protect the environment.

Further, some stakeholders stated that there was no evidence or not enough evidence to suggest that there is an impact on the environment from the discharge of emamectin benzoate from fish farms.

Stakeholders also raised concerns around the timing of the proposed EQS, and its proportionality specifically in terms of the potential impact this will have on the fish farm industry to supported farmed fish health and welfare, including whilst work to progress the regulatory review of aquaculture consenting and development of SEPA’s sea lice risk assessment framework are ongoing.

Most industry stakeholders requested that no implementation occurs until a wider review of access to medicines and the controls on their use has been conducted.

Not all responses followed the format of consultation questions and so direct and numerical comparison between question responses was not always possible or useful. Instead, Scottish Government has used a qualitative approach to analyse the consultation responses by collating them into recurring themes. The descriptors (e.g. few, some) used when describing the recurring themes reflect the number of responses submitted that mentioned, commented, discussed, or answered a direct question from the consultation hub, relating to that theme.

These themes and comments are briefly summarised below.

Most consultees, primarily from individuals, NGOs and community groups, indicated that the threshold should be implemented immediately. A few responses stated that there was substantial evidence of the harm done to the environment from fish farm discharges and that sufficient time had passed from the start of the review to allow time for the industry to adapt.

Some responses included in the ‘others’ group indicated that a phased-in approach could be considered and indicated that 12 months should be sufficient to account for industry’s adaptation.

A few responses from NGO’s and community groups indicated that two production cycles (48 month period) is sufficient for the introduction of the new EQS.

A few responses from the fish farming sector indicated that if the new threshold was implemented, the industry would require a minimum of 5 to 6 years prior to implementation to allow for a degree of adaptation.

No respondents provided specific evidence to underpin their answer to this question. However, in their commentary most fish farm respondents raised the following themes. No commentary was provided by non-industry respondents.

Justification for the implementation of the new emamectin benzoate EQS

There were several responses that challenged the justification for the implementation of the new EQS. Most of these responses came from marine fish farm operators and trade bodies. Specifically, the comments questioning the need for the new EQS.

Concerns about the regulatory approach and proportionality of the regime

A few of the responses raised concerns about the proposed implementation of the EQS and more particularly, its suitability as a regulatory control for the activities of marine fish farms. Most representations from the marine fish farm operators and trade bodies expressed concerns that the proposals would create controls that would be disproportionate to the environmental risks and would therefore constrain, unnecessarily, development or even create a moratorium.

One of the key concerns expressed by marine fish farm operators, and trade bodies respondents was that the regime would not be proportionate to the scale of risk. This was linked to specific scientific questions but also to industry’s belief that SG and SEPA should consider a regulatory approach that recognises the environmental differences in marine and transitional waters.

Challenge to Underpinning Science

In general, those fish farm operators who responded believed there is insufficient scientific evidence of emamectin benzoate discharge from fish farms having a significant impact on wild crustaceans in Scotland to warrant the introduction of the proposed new EQS. Whilst, there was a recognition from some in the sector that regulation of marine fish farms should encompass discharging limits, they believed that the proposed approach went beyond the evidence and would be overly precautionary.

Scottish Government response

This consultation sought opinion on the implementation timescales of the scientific recommendations made by UKTAG for a new EQS for emamectin benzoate in order to take account of any wider implications of the new threshold for fish farm operators. Standard protocol is for the Scottish Government to adopt UKTAG recommendations and therefore this consultation as focussed on the implementation timetable.

We use EQSs to control the risk to the ecological quality of Scotland’s water environment, to protect and improve water quality and to ensure waters achieve or return to Good Environmental Status.

The setting of an EQS is focussed on establishing a safe level of use of a pollutant such that there is no adverse impact on the environment. Any change to an EQS for reasons beyond that of the scientific evidence has the potential to undermine environmental protection more widely. By controlling the quantities of medicines that can be administered, we limit medicine discharges to levels calculated not to breach environmental standards. It is important that the environmental standards we use are based on the best scientific evidence available.

Responses from industry are suggesting that thought be given to deriving different EQS for different situations and marine environments to take into account dispersion. The UKTAG EQS derivation process is based on consideration of available toxicity data. However, SEPA already use dispersion models in their exposure assessment. They use their site models to model dispersion of emamectin benzoate after its use, and from that calculate how much emamectin benzoate can be used at each fish farm to treat fish such that the EQS will not be breached.

Q2 - Please provide any evidence on how long it might take to implement any adjustment to sea lice management which may be required as a result of these changes.

Fish farmers use a range of tools to control sea lice. Their preferred option is the use of emamectin benzoate as an in-feed medicine as it is easy to administer and does not require fish to be crowded or handled, therefore avoiding physical damage, stress or increased mortality in comparison to bath or physical treatments.

Most consultees, including those from fish farm operators and trade bodies, were unable to provide specific evidence on how long it might take to implement any adjustment to sea lice management as a result of the change. However, all industry responses focused on the operators ability to control sea lice effectively, the long-term health and welfare of farmed fish and its potential to impact business.

The sector is concerned that the application of the new standard is likely to reduce the number of treatments that can be made in a cycle, and therefore limit their ability for interventions on fish that would otherwise be considered too small to handle. It is widely accepted that this will likely result in poorer outcomes for farmed fish health and welfare and has the potential to impact business.

Scottish Governments Response

Scottish Government acknowledges that the application of the new EQS is likely to reduce the number of treatments that can be made in a cycle. Emamectin benzoate is persistent in the environment, breaking down slowly, therefore, to avoid exceeding the environmental standard, sufficient break down is necessary before more can be accommodated or increased waste capture is required.

A change on the permitted pattern of use of emamectin benzoate is one of the areas which the Farmed Fish Health Framework (FFHF) is already exploring, in order to achieve better control earlier in the production phase and avoid parasite resistance.

Q3 - Where appropriate, please provide any available information about the socio-economic impacts of implementing the new emamectin benzoate EQS.

The majority of the consultees were unable to provide an accurate response about the socio-economic impacts that may occur from the implementation of the revised environmental standards set out in our recent consultation.

A few responses however, primarily from NGOs and community groups, stated that there was substantial evidence of the long term harm to the environment asserting that the degradation of ecosystems due to excessive discharges from fish farms can have both direct and indirect socio-economic impacts.

Scottish Governments Response

Uncertainty around the socioeconomic impacts of the new EQS threshold features in most responses from industry as well as from other groups. All respondents made assertions of an anecdotal nature that are difficult to verify.