Scottish salmon farms might be fined millions if elsewhere

The Herald Scotland

27-04-2025

The NGO found that, over the past five years, more than 350,000 salmon have escaped from underwater sea cages. Escapes of this nature can result in a spread of lice, disease, or DNA from farmed animals to wild animals. Despite over 70 escape or potential escape incidents being reported to authorities, none resulted in financial penalties for the Scottish farmed salmon industry.
Penny said: 'If these same egregious incidents had happened elsewhere, the salmon farming industry would have faced serious financial consequences."
She added: 'The Scottish Government's failure to enforce meaningful penalties allows enormous companies to cut corners at the expense of the environment and animals.'
Animal Equality UK says that, had similar issues occurred abroad, the industry would have faced greater ramifications. In total these examples add up to around £10 million.
For instance, in Scotland, 63 potential escape events (through for instance a hole or tearing of the net or other reason) in which no escaped fish were recorded, were reported since 2020 and no fines were imposed.
'In comparison,' says Animal Equality UK, 'Norwegian authorities clamped down on escapes, slapping a £60,000 fine on the salmon industry after a crane tore a hole in a net. No fish escaped during the incident.'
Similarly, there are contrasts when fish do escape. When, in Scotland, 80,000 salmon escaped from a boat; regulators stated 'It is not a legal requirement for transporters to report farmed fish escapes' and failed to issue a financial penalty.
But, says Animal Equality UK, in Iceland, 80,000 salmon escaped from a farm and the producer received an £656,000 fine.
In January 2020, Mowi reported the escape of 73,600 salmon from its Colonsay site in Scotland, following damage to a pen caused by Storm Brendan, and due to 'structural failure'. Scottish Government officials stated that 'It is not a statutory offence for a fish farm to suffer a breach of containment of farmed fish'.
54,000 fish, noted Animal Equality UK, escaped from a Mowi farm in Norway in 2018, and the company received a £347,000 sanction for violating regulations regarding escape prevention in aquaculture facilities.
Wild salmon
Over the past decade, according to fish escape data between 2014 and 2024, over 700,000 fish have reportedly escaped Scottish salmon farms; no fines have been issued.
When, in Chile, almost as many (690,000) fish escaped from a farm, it received a £4.3 million fine.
Scottish regulators do not impose fines for fish escapes as this is not considered "a statutory offence for a fish farm to suffer a breach of containment of farmed fish".
Animal Equality UK also drew attention to the lack of enforcement around mortalities.
'Soaring deaths,' the NGO said, 'within the Scottish farmed salmon industry have also been a key concern over recent years, with deaths doubling since 2018.'
Dead salmon seen from above at a Scottish salmon farm (Image: Scamon Scotland)
Again, the NGO compared with another country. In Scotland, 92,192 fish died during storms in the first two months of last year, and no financial penalties were issued; in Norway, 29,990 deaths were attributed to a storm and the company received a £102,000 fine.
The company was criticised for poor preparedness and prioritising dead fish over injured fish. "We consider the violation as particularly serious. It has involved a large number of individuals with extensive injuries and poor welfare," the Norwegian Food Safety Authority said.
Not all of these events are directly comparable, since each escape or mortality has its own causes and circumstances.
Abigail Penny, Executive Director of Animal Equality UK, said: 'There is no meaningful deterrent for companies operating in Scotland. The government is letting mass deaths and environmental damage essentially go unchecked. This cannot continue.'
Enforcement of legislation in place for aquatic animals in Scotland is overseen by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA), the Fish Health Inspectorate (FHI), and the Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA).
A freedom of information request (F0198563) revealed that SEPA, primarily responsible for environmental non-compliances, saw an average of one non-compliance every six days since mid-2023, but issued no financial fines.
"Between 1 April 2023 and the end of January 2025," it said, "there are 118 records relating to a non-compliance at finfish aquaculture sites, covering a total of 81 sites."
The FHI, whose role is primarily to prevent disease spread, saw (also revealed through FOI) a total of 55 legal violations, more than one per week throughout 2024 but imposed no financial penalties since 2021. 47 of these were for record keeping, five were for trade, two were for movement restrictions and one was for authorisation conditions.
APHA, which oversees animal welfare, received 22 complaints of welfare abuses since 2022 but has never issued a formal warning letter, Care Notice, or escalated a case related to fish welfare to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.
Twenty of these complaints were investigated and 12 resulted in action which either included verbal advice, written advice or follow-up visits.
Environmental non-compliances can also spark substantial fines internationally, with salmon companies in Chile receiving a £3.4 million sanction after exceeding 'permitted production' by 11% and crowding cages with too many animals.
The company allegedly exceeded by 782 metric tons the amount it is annually allowed to produce at the site in the protected Kawesqar National Reserve between May 2017 and June 2019.
Drone footage of diesel leak from sunken vessel, Sound of Mull (Image: Jamie Moyes)
By way of comparison, a Loch Garry salmon farm in Scotland exceeded 'permitted production' by 40% (according to data in a SEPA inspection report), receiving no fines. Further, in Canada, a fuel leak of 600 litres saw regulators impose a £301,000 fine, while a Scottish Sea Farms vessel sank in Scotland, pouring 200 litres of fuel into the country's lochs, and was not given a government fine.
Loch Garry Freshwater Pen Fish Farm self-reported the production exceedance to SEPA in 2021 and measures to prevent a reoccurrence were put in place by the operator.
Read more:
A Scottish Government spokesperson said: 'Fish farming in Scotland is a robustly regulated sector which is subject to a wide range of environmental, fish health and planning controls, all with appropriate and robust enforcement in place.
'Our Vision for Sustainable Aquaculture, published in July 2023, outlines the Scottish Government's ambitions for the sustainable development of the aquaculture sector. This vision emphasises operating within environmental limits and acknowledges the significant social and economic benefits the sector provides today and can continue to deliver in the future.
'Our response to the recent Scottish Parliament committee inquiry on salmon farming details the extensive actions we are taking- collaborating with industry and regulators - to build on the significant progress already made on our key priorities. These include reducing environmental impact, strengthening the escapes framework, and improving fish health.'
A spokesperson for Salmon Scotland said: 'Salmon farming in Scotland has one of the most stringent regulation regimes in the world, overseen by several government agencies. The consenting regime for new farms in Norway, for example, is far quicker than Scotland, despite the salmon sector growing at a much faster rate.
'What Scotland needs is better and more streamlined regulation, not less.
'Salmon farmers constantly work towards zero escapes and have a very good record on containment. On very rare occasions when escapes do occur, the scientific evidence indicates there is no long-term impact on wild salmon in Scotland.
'Survival is at a four-year high, down 36% in a year as a result of £1 billion investment by salmon farmers.'
The Fish Health Inspectorate reviews each non-compliance on its own merits, at the time of detection taking into consideration other circumstantial information. The majority of the non-compliances detected are not considered significant, with many associated with minor record keeping anomalies or similar, which are easily rectifiable and present no obvious direct detrimental impact to aquatic animal health.
A spokesperson for the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA), said: 'Through our regulatory work we set conditions to protect the environment, check compliance and intervene swiftly and effectively where necessary.
'We expect all regulated operators to understand their impact on the environment and to comply with their obligations in legislation and conditions set out in authorisations. Where we identify non-compliance, we choose the most effective intervention and enforcement action to achieve the swiftest and most effective environmental outcome. There will always be circumstances where enforcement action is required, and we have a number of options available to us including final warning letters, statutory notices, civil penalties and reports to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS).
'The form of enforcement action used, alone or in combination, will differ depending on the nature and impacts of any breach.
'Our experience is that most of those we regulate respond to our advice and guidance and come into compliance preventing repeated patterns of behaviour.
'We remain dedicated to tackling non-compliance and ensuring those we regulate to meet their environmental obligations.'
Penalty figures quoted in this piece are subject to exchange rate and may vary accordingly.