Aquaculture regulatory process: review

Conclusions

I believe that these are a sensible set of recommendations that will allow sustainable aquaculture development in Scotland.

Prudent management and timely delivery is key, although if primary legislation is required this will hinder the speed at which it can be delivered.

My final recommendation is that a short term project board is established which oversees, drives, and guides all the varying parts, so that all the above can be put in place, where possible, within a 12 month period.

The project board should contain representatives from industry, regulators, Local Authorities, and other interested parties including someone to represent the communities involved. It should be chaired by someone who is independent and understands how to make new processes work. The new multi-lateral consultation process should be able to be put in place very quickly.

The contents of this report relate to process and consensus. The work recommended will need to be driven by someone who understands the challenges and can steer the direction required even when others try to defend the status quo when it has been agreed it no longer exists.

References

Åm, H., 2021. A critical policy study on why introducing resource rent taxation in Norwegian salmon aquaculture failed. Marine Policy 131, 104692

CES. 2021. Seaweed asset profile.Crown Estate Scotland.

DoF (Directorate of Fisheries). 2021. Aquaculture Fund. Directorate of Fisheries

Iversen, A., Asche, F., Hermansen, Ø and Nystøyl, R. 2020 Production cost and competitiveness in major salmon farming countries 2003-2018. Aquaculture 522, 735089