³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

It is important to recognise that the Galloway and Southern Ayrshire Biosphere is in the area, too, and I have heard from other stakeholders about the roles of other organisations and how that sort of thing can be used. That information is really important, as is hearing what people think about everything else that is happening in their area at the moment.

You are absolutely right to touch on the issue of the budget, as it is an important consideration that we will have to factor into our decision making. As you have said, resources are finite at the moment. We do not have a specific budget allocation for the national park, because we do not know what that proposition might look like; its composition could be entirely different from that of the current national parks. If a proposal were to proceed, it would have to do so in as efficient and streamlined a way as possible, recognising the financial situation that we are in.

Again, I cannot outline today what the trigger mechanism would be. All I can say is that they are all going to be important factors in our overall decision making.

Absolutely. I will touch on the Cairngorms Connect programme, which is part of the work that the Cairngorms national park is doing. Our national parks can be leaders by working at the landscape scale in trying to make an impact. The Connect programme is the UK’s largest habitat restoration project, and it is backed by about £4 million of investment. Sixty members of staff are employed through that work, which concerns how the national park can deliver on planting more woodland and on peatland restoration.

Similar projects are being pursued in the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs park through its future nature programme, and the national park directly provides grants to communities for enhancing biodiversity.

The national parks work with farmers in their areas: there are schemes that work directly with farmers to do everything that we would all want to see—ensuring food production, ensuring that farming works for climate and nature and helping farming businesses to become more resilient. The Cairngorms national park is pursuing a future farming pilot to do exactly that.

Different aspects and elements of funding are available to farms within the national parks that are not available elsewhere. Both national parks have a strong leadership role in tackling the climate and nature crises. I believe that they are taking that action at park level to address the climate and nature crises that we know we are in. The work that I have mentioned is just a fraction of what is going on in both areas.

I appreciate that point, and I appreciate the challenges that exist. That is where the initial engagement that NatureScot undertook was really important, as it informed proposals that are now in the consultation, where a few alternatives have been put forward for people.

I completely understand the frustration in that regard. I have met representatives of various groups and bodies and different stakeholders to discuss the proposals that have been put forward. Those proposals can be completely open to interpretation in some ways, and I understand that criticism that people do not know what they are voting for. At the same time, however, it is good to get the sense that, if people in Galloway want something, it is up to them to build it. It is not necessarily a case—in fact, it is not a case—of replicating the existing two national parks, which are different from each other. A national park in Galloway would be a very different proposition, by its very nature. It is ultimately up to people to design what it could look like.

The consultation that we have put forward provides different options for people to respond to, as well as asking for other ideas as to what a proposal could look like. That could include a different boundary or, if people do not want a national park, suggestions for how else we could work to improve the economy in the south of Scotland, in addition to addressing various other issues.

There is definitely now more information in the consultation, and there are different options for people to address and consider when they are responding to it.

I do not know whether it will be helpful, but I can provide you with more information on the work that is being done in relation to that.

I am sorry, Jill. Were you going to come in on that?

As I outlined, the work that is critical is ensuring that we try to get ahead of those challenges where we can. An example of that is the work that the Sustainable Aquaculture Innovation Centre has done on trying to predict algal blooms.

It would not be fair to say to the industry that it could not establish a business. We set out in our vision for aquaculture that we want to see sustainable growth of aquaculture in Scotland, but we cannot penalise the industry for issues that are outwith its control.

Again, we are dealing with issues and mortality events that are complex to address. I do not think that it is necessarily fair to say that there should be no expansion where there are high mortalities or to penalise fish farms where that has happened, depending on what the cause of that might be, as the issue could be completely outwith the farmer’s control or the control of anybody at that site.

Again, because of the nature of the issue, some of the events that have led to the high mortality rates are ones that we could not have predicted and are now trying to address.

I realise that Edward Mountain is picking out evidence that was given to the REC Committee at that time, but we would need a fuller understanding of exactly where the figure came from to know whether we are comparing like with like in terms of data. We are getting into a discussion about figures that are not necessarily comparable.

Jill Barber touched on that. The previous technical standard was introduced in 2015, and we are starting the initial work.

That was one of the key recommendations in the report, and it has been a key focus of our work since the recommendations were published. In a second, I will hand over to Jill Barber, who will be able to provide more detail.

The work has been taken forward in phases. The key reason for the work is to streamline the process. As we have heard today, a number of different bodies are involved, and the picture is quite complex, particularly for those looking in from the outside, given the different requirements that are expected of fish farming businesses. It is really important that we streamline the process and make it as efficient as possible, and that we learn and improve through that process.

That comes back to the points that Jill Barber made about the work that we set out in the vision and the overall work that needs to be done.

I know that that consideration that has been raised. The convener mentioned wind farms and community benefits. We always need to be careful, but it is a reasonable expectation that, when communities host fish farms, there is a benefit to be seen from that. We have already talked about what the industry provides within its local communities, as well as the coastal community benefit more widely that is delivered through local authorities and the funding.