Huge fish farm in Seil Sound approved

There had been about 800 objections to the proposed 600,000 capacity fish farm in Ardmaddy, Argyll. Over 100 came from residents of Seil, Easdale and Luing, representing about a quarter of the adult population. 140 or so came from mid-Argyll, another 125 from the rest of Scotland and about 350 from the rest of the United Kingdom (many of the writers being holiday visitors.) 65 came from abroad, and there were also 44 letters, of which two were from Arran residents. Enough, one would think, to merit consideration.

However, this week brought a chilling chance to see Argyll-style democracy in action. Argyll & Bute Council, astonishingly (and perhaps to the surprise of the applicants themselves) decided that no Environmental Impact Assessment was needed, despite the huge disposal and pollution problems inherent in large-scale aquaculture. At a session in the Corran Halls the application was approved without a single dissenting voice.

The new fish farm was initially proposed as a ‘pilot relocation project’ by the Scottish Government when the existing site in Loch Riddon was causing such pollution that much of the wildlife there had become extinct. The site at Ardmaddy increased its capacity from 800 tonnes (200,000 fish) to 1300 tonnes (325,000 fish) but the strong tidal streams round the top of Seil Sound were carrying away huge quantities of fish waste, toxic chemicals and pesticides. Some of these were ending up in the nearby Firth of Lorn, which enjoys special protection under the European Habitats Directive, so there was a fuss about that.

In response, the operating company decided to move further South down the Sound. While they were at it, they would apply for an increase of permitted biomass to a total of 2,500 tonnes. Representing 600,000 mature salmon, this is the maximum that can currently be licensed for any farm in Scotland. The Argyll Fisheries Board demurred about the increase, but caved in.

Although pollution and waste disposal are the major problems with large scale industrial fish farming, this aspect was ignore, as the casual dismissal of any need for an Environmental Impact Assessment shows. The issue was one of jobs. Somewhat distastefully, a supporter of the application claimed that tourism employed mainly ‘folk from Eastern Europe’ and implied that fish farming was ‘real work’ that fitted the traditional perception of Argyll as a fishing and agricultural community. Underlying some councillors’ remarks was a perceptible feeling that jobs in tourism don’t count. Councillor Devon let slip her feelings in asking for figures about ‘your tourism’, as if the tourist industry was a trivial local thing. In fact, Scottish Government figures show that tourism brings in 130 times more revenue than aquaculture does.

Councillor Currie spoke strongly in support of the application although his home community of Islay had seen off efforts by a fish farm company to establish a similar operation there. Of the whole committee, not a single member found any merit whatsoever in the points put forward on behalf of the residents of Seil. The application was granted unanimously. And this week, an application goes in to SEPA for yet another 2,500 tonne installation in a proposed new site off the bay at the South west corner of the Isle of Shuna.

See http://www.saveseilsound.org.uk