A tale of two reports 

A critical view

A second report into the economic impacts of Scotland’s salmon farming industry, ‘Assessing the Economic Impact of Salmon Farming in Skye & Lochalsh: An Exploratory Scoping Study’, offered a counter view, however. 

This study, by analysts Dr Andrew Moxey and Dr Angela Tregear of the University of Edinburgh, which uses Skye and Lochalsh as a case study, argued that “the industry overplays its economic benefits and downplays its costs”.

The report was commissioned by the Sustainable Inshore Fisheries Trust (SIFT) and WildFish, a UK charity campaigning for wild fish and their environment.
Charles Millar, Executive Director of SIFT, summarised: “The salmon industry operating in Scotland may tout itself as a success story, but we now have data on the jobs it costs in other sectors. 

“All too often the benefits don’t stay in Scotland, the profits flow overseas, and local communities are left with both the bills and the environmental consequences.”

Giving further details, a WildFish spokesperson added: “Across Scotland as a whole, official statistics show that salmon farming production jobs have fallen in the last decade. In Skye and Lochalsh, the report estimates that approximately 137 people currently work in the industry, some 2% of the local workforce.

Negative impact

“However, the report estimates that the negative impacts of salmon farming have cost between 12 and 38 jobs locally in other sectors, including in mussel farming, creeling and marine tourism, all of which have markedly lower environmental impacts than open cage salmon farming.

“Multinationals, which own most of Scotland’s salmon farms, also receive substantial UK tax credits and grants, in some years receiving more than they pay in tax.
“Moreover, the industry requires extensive government oversight, which is funded from the public purse, while salmon farms have been exempt from local business rates since 1981.”

Andrew Moxey, co-author of the report and former Chief Agricultural Economist for the Scottish Government, added: “Published official guidance for economic appraisals emphasises the importance of estimating net effects accounting for costs as well as benefits. 

“Doing so for salmon farming is hindered by a lack of data, but our findings from Skye and Lochalsh confirm that headline figures exaggerate the net benefit to Scotland and host communities. Better data and more routine analysis would help to inform debate about the magnitude and distribution of net benefits and their relevance to achieving different policy objectives.”

Calling for an “independent, Scotland-wide” analysis, SIFT’s Executive Director Charles Millar concluded: “At the very least, this industry should now be required to pay its way and make a fair contribution to the parts of Scotland where its harmful effects are most widespread. 

“The Scottish Government has spent far too many years touting the benefits of salmon farming and ignoring its costs: we need an independent Scotland-wide economic analysis of this sector before the multinationals get a penny more in state funding or any new planning approvals.”

A year on from the Holyrood salmon inquiry, where are we now?

It has been a whole year since Holyrood concluded its critical inquiry into fish farming in Scotland, and dished out an ultimatum for urgent improvement, so now seems a good time to catch up on progress.

Last January, nine MSPs on the Rural Affairs & Islands Committee (RAIC) concluded their follow-up inquiry focusing on four themes of fish health and welfare, environmental impact, interactions between wild and farmed salmon, and the location of fish farm sites.

The committee was checking up on progress from an earlier inquiry in 2018, conducted by its predecessor the Rural Economy & Connectivity Committee, which ruled urgent action was needed to improve regulation and address fish health and environmental challenges. It set out 65 recommendations.

Six years later the follow-up inquiry revealed its findings, which could be summed up in a single word: “disappointment”. 

The RAIC’s overarching conclusion was that “the slow rate of progress in improving the regulation and enforcement of the Scottish salmon farming industry needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency, to future-proof the industry and enable it to grow sustainably”.

The committee rejected calls for a moratorium on new and expanded sites – for now – unless the Scottish Government could show progress on its recommendations, and those from the earlier inquiry, within a year. So how has it been going?

We had two interim updates in September, first from the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands, Mairi Gougeon MSP, and then from the chief executive of the trade body Salmon Scotland, Tavish Scott.

The minister’s update, Ms Gougeon said in a letter to the RAIC, “represents six months of concentrated activity by the government”. Here we focus on a few of their key commitments, and how and when they are being met.

On the Scottish Government’s commitment to “explore how the presentation and accessibility of existing data collections can be improved”, the minister reported that the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) had updated the Scotland’s Aquaculture website to ensure it has “secure infrastructure and that it is more intuitive and accessible for users”.

Transparent

SEPA, she said, had also secured funding “to undertake scoping work for the design and delivery of a digital platform to support efficient, effective and transparent marine fish farm regulation, including the roll-out of streamlined and integrated consenting, and modernised access to comprehensive multi-agency information about aquaculture in Scotland”.

On another government commitment to “analyse mortality data, exploring thresholds for ‘persistently high mortality’, and whether fish farms with ‘persistently high mortality’ exist”, Ms Gougeon updated: “We have developed a robust analytical framework to determine whether there is ‘persistently high mortality’ at Scottish production sites. The framework employs qualified parameters for ‘elevated’, ‘recurrent’ and ‘persistent’ mortality to design a modelling approach that can help identify sites that potentially show ‘persistent elevated mortality’.

“Quality assurance is being undertaken on the preliminary analytical model with a view to generating initial results later [in 2025]. 

“Where there are sites screened as having ‘persistent elevated mortality’ under the analytical framework, we will engage with those operators to explore what actions are already taken by producers to prevent issues causing mortality persisting from year to year.

“By spring 2026 we will provide a project report to the RAIC detailing both the finalised methods, the results of analysis, and the planned Scottish Government response to these.”

The Scottish Government had also committed to a new Environmental Quality Standard for emamectin benzoate, an insecticide used to control parasitic sea lice on salmon. 

Ms Gougeon updated the RAIC: “SEPA have taken account of the most up-to-date science and have had an interim standard in place since 2019. All new and significant changes to emamectin benzoate discharges since then have been permitted in accordance with the interim position.

 
“SEPA are committed to reviewing all permits for existing operations to ensure that all sites are required to operate under the new standard by June 2028.”