Dear Supporters,
Friends of the Sound of Jura is one of more than sixty organisations that have joined the Our Seas Coalition.
Our Seas believes that Scotland’s coastal waters are among the country’s most precious assets, and worth protecting. Our waters are extremely productive, rich in biodiversity and they can support many jobs in coastal communities if they are managed sustainably.
​
Some fishing methods damage life on the seabed, destroying nurseries for commercial fish, such as maerl beds, and harming rare seabed animals. The Scottish Government has identified 11 of these Priority Marine Features (PMF) species and habitats that are most at risk from bottom-contacting fishing (scallop dredging and prawn trawling).
In 2017, a scallop dredger devastated a bed of rare flameshells in Loch Carron.
​
Despite this being one of the best examples of this PMF, the flameshell bed was not legally protected. After a public outcry, the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for the Environment set up an emergency Marine Protected Area, within which it is hoped that the flameshells will gradually recover. She also promised to review the protection given to PMFs from scallop dredging and prawn trawling. This review was launched in 2018 but nothing has come of it so far and the Government’s ambition to protect these PMFs seems to have dwindled almost to nothing. The only tangible action is that trials have started of tracking devices on the smaller scallop dredgers, which would show where the boats are, without being admissible as evidence in court, if the boats are fishing illegally in protected areas.
​
We fear that these devices will be used to claim that PMFs can now be avoided very precisely, so the few areas where this type of fishing is not allowed, such as parts of the Loch Sunart to the Sound of Jura Marine Protected Area, might be opened up to dredging, with just small exclusions around the known PMF locations. Records of PMFs are far from complete and the unknown ones will be at risk.
Although the Government has designated 20% of our seas as Marine Protected Areas, boats using bottom-contacting methods are allowed to continued scraping 95% of Scotland’s seabed, and some boats illegally fish the remaining 5%, where they are banned. Marine Scotland Compliance seems unable to enforce the law.
​
The Scottish Government has control over the management of our inshore area within 12 nautical miles. Its agency, Marine Scotland, is obliged to follow Scotland’s National Marine Plan (NMP) and the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010, which require it to put fisheries on a sustainable footing. The National Performance Framework also commits the Scottish Government,
​
“by 2020 [to] effectively regulate harvesting and end over-fishing … and unregulated fishing and destructive fishing practices and implement science-based plans, in order to restore fish stocks in the shortest time feasible, at least to levels that can produce sustainable yield as determined by their biological characteristics”.
​
The Government has also committed to promote local, small-scale and sustainable fisheries, robust measures to protect vulnerable stocks, and “mechanisms for managing conflicts between fishermen” (Policy FISHERIES 1), so as to manage fisheries in the long-term public interest. Its marine planners must also identify marine carbon sinks and seek to avoid the “Colocaton of damaging activity”. Dredging disturbs the ability of seabed sediments to store carbon.
​
None of these obligations are being met by our Government. In fact, the Scottish Government has failed to meet 11 of the 15 indicators it uses to measure Good Environmental Status, allowing our marine environment to decline.
​
The longer Ministers stall, the more seabed habitats we lose and the harder it becomes for them and the species that rely on them to recover.
​
Our seas are a public asset and potential resource; they must be managed in a way that restores lost marine life and degraded fish stocks, and recovers the marine environment, so it can provide for us all into the future. To restore public confidence, Ministers must be guided by science and policy. We need urgent action to stop further destruction and improve the resilience of our seas.
​
So, what can be done to preserve what’s left and allow recovery?
​
The degradation can still be reversed. If we protect the seabed it will recover. If we take action, environmental and economic benefits will flow.
​
This European Environment Agency report, Marine Messages, states it clearly:
​
"Solutions for halting the loss of marine biodiversity and starting to restore ecosystem resilience, while allowing for the sustainable use of Europe's seas, are obvious and available. They just need to be implemented.”
​
But that is not happening in Scotland.
​
In the absence of any progress to protect and restore Scotland’s seabed habitats and animals, and with the laws on illegal fishing going unenforced, Our Seas calls on First Minister Nicola Sturgeon and the Scottish Government to implement their own policies and stop the chronic destruction of our seabed.
​
Reinstating a coastal limit on bottom-trawl and dredge fishing seems to be the only way for this to be enforceable, so Our Seas calls for the Scottish Government to act urgently on this.
​
Our Seas is campaigning to Bring Back the Fish - Bring Back Scotland's #InshoreLimit
Please help this to happen by signing and sharing the Our Seas petition here
Please join us in supporting this petition:-
https://ourseasscotland.eaction.org.uk/bring-back-the-fish
Friends of the Sound of Jura have recently added their name to support a Global Call for the United Nations Human Rights Council to recognise without delay the human right to a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment.
In this time of climate emergency and COVID-19 crisis, we have come together as civil society organizations, social movements, local communities, and Indigenous Peoples to address the attached letter, calling on the United Nations Human Rights Council to recognize without delay the human right to a safe, clean, healthy, and sustainable environment. We respectfully ask you to join with us, support this call, and share it with other organizations that might be interested in joining this call.
Details can be found on the following link:
bit.ly/Right2Environment_SignOn
Friends of the Sound of Jura
www.friendsofthesoundofjura.org.uk
Community Group Member of
The Coastal Communities Network, Scotland
Friends of the Sound of Jura is a Scottish Charitable Incorporated Organisation: SC049740
​
​
Dear Supporters,
Friends of the Sound of Jura is one of more than sixty organisations that have joined the Our Seas Coalition.
Our Seas believes that Scotland’s coastal waters are among the country’s most precious assets, and worth protecting. Our waters are extremely productive, rich in biodiversity and they can support many jobs in coastal communities if they are managed sustainably.
​
Some fishing methods damage life on the seabed, destroying nurseries for commercial fish, such as maerl beds, and harming rare seabed animals. The Scottish Government has identified 11 of these Priority Marine Features (PMF) species and habitats that are most at risk from bottom-contacting fishing (scallop dredging and prawn trawling).
In 2017, a scallop dredger devastated a bed of rare flameshells in Loch Carron.
​
Despite this being one of the best examples of this PMF, the flameshell bed was not legally protected. After a public outcry, the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for the Environment set up an emergency Marine Protected Area, within which it is hoped that the flameshells will gradually recover. She also promised to review the protection given to PMFs from scallop dredging and prawn trawling. This review was launched in 2018 but nothing has come of it so far and the Government’s ambition to protect these PMFs seems to have dwindled almost to nothing. The only tangible action is that trials have started of tracking devices on the smaller scallop dredgers, which would show where the boats are, without being admissible as evidence in court, if the boats are fishing illegally in protected areas.
​
We fear that these devices will be used to claim that PMFs can now be avoided very precisely, so the few areas where this type of fishing is not allowed, such as parts of the Loch Sunart to the Sound of Jura Marine Protected Area, might be opened up to dredging, with just small exclusions around the known PMF locations. Records of PMFs are far from complete and the unknown ones will be at risk.
Although the Government has designated 20% of our seas as Marine Protected Areas, boats using bottom-contacting methods are allowed to continued scraping 95% of Scotland’s seabed, and some boats illegally fish the remaining 5%, where they are banned. Marine Scotland Compliance seems unable to enforce the law.
​
The Scottish Government has control over the management of our inshore area within 12 nautical miles. Its agency, Marine Scotland, is obliged to follow Scotland’s National Marine Plan (NMP) and the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010, which require it to put fisheries on a sustainable footing. The National Performance Framework also commits the Scottish Government,
​
“by 2020 [to] effectively regulate harvesting and end over-fishing … and unregulated fishing and destructive fishing practices and implement science-based plans, in order to restore fish stocks in the shortest time feasible, at least to levels that can produce sustainable yield as determined by their biological characteristics”.
​
The Government has also committed to promote local, small-scale and sustainable fisheries, robust measures to protect vulnerable stocks, and “mechanisms for managing conflicts between fishermen” (Policy FISHERIES 1), so as to manage fisheries in the long-term public interest. Its marine planners must also identify marine carbon sinks and seek to avoid the “Colocaton of damaging activity”. Dredging disturbs the ability of seabed sediments to store carbon.
​
None of these obligations are being met by our Government. In fact, the Scottish Government has failed to meet 11 of the 15 indicators it uses to measure Good Environmental Status, allowing our marine environment to decline.
​
The longer Ministers stall, the more seabed habitats we lose and the harder it becomes for them and the species that rely on them to recover.
​
Our seas are a public asset and potential resource; they must be managed in a way that restores lost marine life and degraded fish stocks, and recovers the marine environment, so it can provide for us all into the future. To restore public confidence, Ministers must be guided by science and policy. We need urgent action to stop further destruction and improve the resilience of our seas.
​
So, what can be done to preserve what’s left and allow recovery?
​
The degradation can still be reversed. If we protect the seabed it will recover. If we take action, environmental and economic benefits will flow.
​
This European Environment Agency report, Marine Messages, states it clearly:
​
"Solutions for halting the loss of marine biodiversity and starting to restore ecosystem resilience, while allowing for the sustainable use of Europe's seas, are obvious and available. They just need to be implemented.”
​
But that is not happening in Scotland.
​
In the absence of any progress to protect and restore Scotland’s seabed habitats and animals, and with the laws on illegal fishing going unenforced, Our Seas calls on First Minister Nicola Sturgeon and the Scottish Government to implement their own policies and stop the chronic destruction of our seabed.
​
Reinstating a coastal limit on bottom-trawl and dredge fishing seems to be the only way for this to be enforceable, so Our Seas calls for the Scottish Government to act urgently on this.
​
Our Seas is campaigning to Bring Back the Fish - Bring Back Scotland's #InshoreLimit
Please help this to happen by signing and sharing the Our Seas petition here
Please join us in supporting this petition:-
https://ourseasscotland.eaction.org.uk/bring-back-the-fish
Friends of the Sound of Jura have recently added their name to support a Global Call for the United Nations Human Rights Council to recognise without delay the human right to a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment.
In this time of climate emergency and COVID-19 crisis, we have come together as civil society organizations, social movements, local communities, and Indigenous Peoples to address the attached letter, calling on the United Nations Human Rights Council to recognize without delay the human right to a safe, clean, healthy, and sustainable environment. We respectfully ask you to join with us, support this call, and share it with other organizations that might be interested in joining this call.
Details can be found on the following link:
bit.ly/Right2Environment_SignOn
Friends of the Sound of Jura
www.friendsofthesoundofjura.org.uk
Community Group Member of
The Coastal Communities Network, Scotland
Friends of the Sound of Jura is a Scottish Charitable Incorporated Organisation: SC049740
​
​
Discussions with Argyll & Bute Council
Correspondence between Friends of the Sound of Jura and Argyll & Bute Council (ABC) is listed below.
​
​
From: Friends of the Sound of Jura
To: Executive Director of Development Policy Planning, Housing and Regulatory Services Policy Lead, Argyll and Bute Council
Date: 24 April 2018
​
Dear Mr Kinniburgh
​
We were interested to read the Argyll and Bute Council’s Planning Protective Services and Licensing Committee Development Policy document (18th April 2018), framing the council’s likely response to the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee - Salmon Farming in Scotland - Call for evidence.
​
​
We were particularly struck by the passage that explains that the council has to assess fish farm proposals in the light of:
​
‘…the conflicting advice from consultees, unreliable science, haphazard coverage by EMP’s and significant public concern about the consequences of fin fish farming on the declining numbers of wild fish, planning authorities are required to arrive at decisions that involve weighing up the balance of wild salmonids interests as material planning considerations. In terms of technical knowledge and scientific expertise neither officers, nor councillors are best placed to address wild fish issues ‘
Please could you explain, given this unreliable and conflicting evidence and lacking the necessary technical knowledge and scientific expertise, how the council’s officers’ advice to proceed and the councillors’ decisions to grant planning permission for any new fish farm, or for any increase in the biomass at existing farms, can be consistent with your duty to protect biodiversity in the form of wild salmonids by applying the precautionary principle?
Yours sincerely
Friends of the Sound of Jura
From: Angus Gilmour, Argyll & Bute Council
To: Friends of the Sound of Jura
Date: 2 May 2018
​
Dear Friends of the Sound of Jura
I refer to your email of 24/04/18 regarding the above which has been passed to me for attention and response.
The Council’s position on the responsibility for wild fish interactions arising from marine fish farms is that this is not best placed with planning authorities given that consideration is only prompted at the time of planning applications being submitted, and in response to the details of the application at hand, without any opportunity to address issues associated with other operational sites in the same water body. The Council’s view is that wild fish issues would be best addressed on a water body wide basis, having regard to cumulative effects of the fish farm development. To that end the Council will be pressing for wild fish responsibility to be transferred to Marine Scotland as part of any review of the consenting process which may be prompted by the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee’s deliberations in the matter.
Notwithstanding this position, in the current consenting regime, the Council is responsible for the determination of planning applications having regard to likely impacts on wild fish, and these interests will be one of a range of material considerations being weighed in the planning balance during decision-making. There is a presumption in favour of approving planning applications unless there are sound and clear cut reasons for refusal, which would be defensible in the event of appeal. There can be no certainty as to the extent of likely effects of fish farming on wild fish, and the attribution of cause and effects is particularly challenging in an environment populated by multiple farms (not always in the control of the applicant) and with salmonids subject to a range of environmental factors, including river conditions and other influences in the marine environment, and not just those arising from escapes and lice at fish farms.
It is generally accepted that lice produced on farms pose a threat to the health of wild fish and that this threat will increase with numbers of fish being farmed. The Council will therefore consider the extent to which credible mitigation is available in considering any applications for new or extended farms, and the extent to which this could be capable of offsetting additional adverse effects. Views expressed by consultees will contribute to conclusions in this regard, although in the absence of reliable science, they will not necessarily be determinative. The precautionary principle is invoked sparingly in planning, as in many cases decisions have to be founded upon anticipated rather than definitive outcomes. It would be exercised in cases where the receiving environment is particularly sensitive, such as within European Natura nature conservation designations where significant adverse impacts are anticipated, or in cases of ‘reasonable scientific doubt’. In other cases it is incumbent upon planning authorities to arrive at decisions having had regard to the full range of information available. It would not be appropriate to routinely refuse applications on a precautionary basis simply because definitive information was not available. To do so would impose an unjustifiable moratorium upon the fish farming industry and thus risk based judgments necessarily have to be made. The officers’ report will summarise the issues and will recommended a course of action. It is for individual decision-makers to apportion what weight they see fit to the various material considerations in arriving at their decision. It should be borne in mind that government policy has on the one hand has imposed a presumption against fish farming on the north and east coasts of Scotland, whilst on the other encourages planning authorities to facilitate expansion of the sector where environmental conditions allow. In effect a precautionary stance has already been invoked in respect of the north and east coasts, which suggests that the government’s view is that wild salmon interests on the west coast should be afforded a lesser degree of protection than elsewhere.
Until such time as any change is made to the consenting regime or to national policy, the Council will continue to exercise it duty to determine planning applications for fish farming having regard to the promotions of the development plan and other material considerations, and will arrive at risk based conclusions having regard to wild fish interests and the full range of information available from applicants, consultees, third parties and other sources.
Yours sincerely
Angus Gilmour
Head of Planning, Housing and Regulatory Services
Kilmory
Lochgilphead
Argyll
PA31 8RT
Planadh, Taigheadas is Seirbheisean Riaghlaidh
Argyll and Bute - Realising our potential together
From: Friends of the Sound of Jura
To: Angus Gilmour, Argyll & Bute Council
Date: 11 May 2018
Dear Mr Gilmour
Thank you for your detailed reply to our email of 24th April, about the council’s application of the precautionary principle while discharging its biodiversity duties with respect to wild salmonids and sea lice from salmon farms.
You have explained that you feel it is only correct to apply the precautionary principle in very limited circumstances,even though you have inadequate information to make safe decisions (‘There can be no certainty as to the extent of likely effects of fish farming on wild fish, and the attribution of cause and effects is particularly challenging in an environment populated by multiple farms…’), and when: ‘It is generally accepted that lice produced on farms pose a threat to the health of wild fish and that this threat will increase with numbers of fish being farmed.’
Please find attached our response.
​
​
​
​
​
​
As you will see, we would be grateful for further clarification; in particular as to why ‘It would not be appropriate to routinely refuse applications on a precautionary basis simply because definitive information was not available.’
This is precisely the situation in which the precautionary principle is supposed to apply. It is immaterial whether doing so ‘would impose an unjustifiable moratorium upon the fish farming industry’.
Yours sincerely
Friends of the Sound of Jura
From: Friends of the Sound of Jura
To: Angus Gilmour & Richard Kerr, Argyll & Bute Council
Date: 23 June 2018
​
Subject: Proposal: wild salmonid information workshop
Dear Mr Gilmour and Mr Kerr
We have received your letter of 15th June about the precautionary principle, Mr Gilmour, and are in the process of replying to you. In the meantime we have a question for you and a suggestion.
The question is this: which officer within Argyll and Bute Council is responsible for advising the planning department on the risk of aquaculture developments causing significant harm to wild salmonids?
Our suggestion springs from the planning committee’s decision this week to grant planning permission for the biomass increases at BDNC Loch Shuna and Pol na Gille, and the opinions voiced by councillors (paraphrasing) that a lot of money has been spent on experts so we should trust them, that when a community group complains that flags up problems but we should trust parliament and scientists. “Don’t trust lay persons” and “We do have experts for a reason” were also said.
No matter how much better informed we lay people are than the councillors, or that we have been carefully following the parliamentary inquiry into the environmental impact of salmon farming, and were indeed invited to give evidence to the ECCLR parliamentary committee, it is clear that our views will be disregarded.
The crux of the problem is that you receive non-commital and ambiguous advice from Marine Scotland about the severity of this problem, that you always seem willing to disregard the usually more robust opinions of the District Salmon Fishery Board, and that SNH are not permitted to express any opinion on the impact on wild salmonids. The council’s officers and councillors seem unable or unwilling to keep up with the latest science, or to have seriously considered the report commissioned from SAMS by the Scottish Parliament, or to give due weight to the ECCLRC’s report to the RECC (except to say that because a moratorium has not been applied then all must be well) even though that report said in the clearest possible terms that ‘the status quo is not an option’.
To make some constructive progress and to encourage you to believe that the Argyll communities, represented by our group and others, do know what they are talking about, we suggest that the council and Friends of the Sound of Jura jointly organise a workshop to consider the latest knowledge on the threat to wild salmonids.
The councillors of the planning committee would of course be invited to attend (indeed we would suggest that their attendance is essential), as would the council’s coastal policy officer and the responsible people in the planning department, and those community groups in Argyll and Bute with concerns about this.
Marine Scotland Science and Dr Alan Wells of Fisheries Management Scotland, who gave evidence to the REC committee’s inquiry, would be best placed to give us all the latest information.
The meeting would be convened by a mutually agreeable, non-partisan chair - the head of the Forestry Commission locally for instance.
Fish farming representatives could also be involved, but the emphasis should be on fact-finding from the experts, about the science and the severity of risk to wild salmonids.
Are you willing to help make this happen, so we can all be better informed in future?
Yours
Friends of the Sound of Jura
​
From: Angus Gilmour, Argyll & Bute Council
To: Friends of the Sound of Jura
Date: 13 July 2018
​
Dear Friends of the Sound of Jura
​
PROPOSED WILD SALMONID INFORMATION WORKSHOP
I am responding to your request of 23rd June 2018 that the Council should be party to a workshop convened to consider the issue of the interaction between marine fish farming and wild salmonids. I appreciate your concerns about this issue and the extent to which officers and elected Members are properly acquainted with available knowledge in the matter of wild fish interactions. Planning Authorities have to address a range of material considerations in adjudicating all planning applications, including in some cases, matters of a scientific or technical nature. The system acknowledges that this might pose the need for expertise outwith the Council and regulations provide that prior to reaching decisions Planning Authorities must consult with prescribed consultees in reaching decisions. In the context of fin fish farming, statutory consultees with nature conservation interests comprise Marine Scotland, Scottish Natural Heritage and the District Salmon Fishery Board. The Council is required to have regard to views expressed by these bodies in decision-making, and will consider comments received in the round with other material considerations influencing the outcome of applications. In circumstances where there is conflict between views expressed, it will be for individual decision-makers to apportion what weight he/she feels appropriate to those views in reaching a conclusion in the matter.
The government has identified that wild fish interactions are a material consideration in determining fish farm applications and have, as a matter of policy, established a presumption against fish farms being located on the north and east coasts of Scotland, ostensibly to address risk to the most valuable fisheries on a precautionary basis. In terms of development elsewhere, Marine Scotland is the government's nominated consultee with a responsibility for wild fish interests and for the control of escapes and the management of sea lice on marine farms. I am well aware that the Scottish Parliament's Environment Committee have been critical that wild fish impacts have not thus far been given sufficient weight in fish farm decision-making, and that in their opinion, the status quo is unacceptable. That may well be the case, but in the absence of a change in policy by the government, or a shift in consultation advice provided by Marine Scotland, it would not be appropriate for the Council to adopt its own position in the matter which departs from national policy, or which adopts a position contrary to the body identified by the government as being best placed to advise on this issue.
I acknowledge the role which your organisation has in campaigning for tighter control over fish farms in the face of declining wild fish numbers, but I do not think that this would be best advanced by seeking to influence the opinion of officers and Members via the type of workshop you have suggested. In my opinion, your interests would be best served by seeking to influence Ministers and Marine Scotland, as it is a matter to be addressed on a sectoral basis, rather than a battle to be fought via successive planning applications. It is for the government to establish policy and to provide advice, which influences the Council's development plan policy, and in turn, the outcome of planning applications. I would not wish to see your energies misdirected towards effort to influence planning decisions at local level, whilst the position at national level remains unchanged. The Scottish Parliament’s Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee Inquiry into Salmon Farming in Scotland would, to my mind, be the most appropriate vehicle for you to pursue your interests, as that has the greatest potential to be an agent for change in the manner in which fish farming is carried out in Scotland in the future.
As to the matter of which officer in the Council has the responsibility for advising on matters relating to the interest of wild salmonids, the position is this. An application is handled by a case officer who has access to the Council's Marine and Coastal Officer and to the Local Biodiversity Officer. As I have indicated above, primary advice concerning wild fish interactions would be expected to come from Marine Scotland who are the lead agency in this regard, although it is open to SNH to make comment in respect of wild fish should they choose to do so. Beyond that, wild fish interests are also expressed as you know by the District Salmon Fishery Board, who also have the status of a statutory consultee. By virtue of their contentious nature, most fish farm applications involving biomass increases are reported to Committee for a determination, in which case a report and recommendation is issued in my name, in my capacity as Head of Service.
I hope that you do not construe my unwillingness to be party to a local workshop as being unhelpful. My intention is to redirect you to the avenue which I feel offers the best prospects of advancing your cause and where any strategic change in policy is likely to emanate from.
Your sincerely
Angus Gilmour
Head of Planning, Housing and Regulatory Services
Kilmory
Lochgilphead
Argyll
PA31 8RT
Planadh, Taigheadas is Seirbheisean Riaghlaidh
Argyll and Bute - Realising our potential together
Response
From: Friends of the Sound of Jura
To: Angus Gilmour, Argyll & Bute Council
Date: 16 July 2018
​
Please click PDF to read our detailed response.
​
​
​
​
​
From: Angus Gilmour, Argyll & Bute Council
To: Friends of the Sound of Jura
Date: 31 July 2018
​
Please click PDF to read Mr Gilmour's detailed response.