From: Sinclair, Douglas Sent: 22 July 2016 11:56 To: 'Richard Slaski'; ?Alastair Mitchell Adrian, Alex; 'Craig Burton'; 'David Sandison George Lees; 'lain Sutherland'; 'John Webster?; 'Nick Lake'; 'Oliver Routledge'; 'Piers Hart Cc: 'William Ritchie'; 'Anton'; Subject: RE: SARF098 PAMP Refresh Hi Richard As discussed at the weekend, I have struggled a bit to get to this report following some annual leave and 1 am actually about to go on leave again at the end of today it is summer time I guess. It?s good to see we are getting towards the end of this piece of work, it has been a long road. As to the specific questions: 1 Our preference would probably have been to have seen the ?wrapper" or preface published as a stand alone report accompanying the final SAMS document but I think it was clear at the SARF Board meeting and again in the correspondence in response to your e-mail that there is a general acceptance that they be published as a single unit and have no desire to make an issue about the form of the final document. I should however point out that there are two lines of text on p54 of the attached version which have yellow highlighting. 2 I read the emails from SAMS with interest . SEPA would wholeheartedly support the standard SARF position that the identity of formal referees be kept confidential. I guess the point made by SAMS, which mirrors my own view expressed firmly during meetings of the SARF 098 Steering Group is that there is a difference between conventional SARF referees and the consultants which Merck, the owners of Slice, hired to critique the interim SARF 098 report. Plainly, I have no sight of the contractual arrangements put in place between Merck and the consultants but It might be reasonable to expect that they were asked to be fairly firm in their examination and criticism of the report and indeed a number of the points raised by these consultants were either rather harsh or based on a lack of understanding of the realities of the regulatory and monitoring framework surrounding the sector here in Scotland. This is different from the posture normally adopted by conventional referees who are by definition impartial or at least have most likely not been paid to adopt a particular view. Thus SEPA would have an in principal position that agrees with that put fonivard by SAMS but again at this late stage and given that ours is likely to be lone voice, its not something that we will make an issue of and thus we would adopt the view expressed by other Directors that the identity of those involved should not be published by SARF. 3 On the issue of press releases, clearly SEPA may potentially face the harshest criticism in the media at the time that this report is published. The conclusion that the environment is not adequately protected by the existing regulatory framework is a damning one, though not one that we are afraid to address. The entire point of SEPA asking SARF to commission this work was to provide us with an insight as to whether the regulatory framework was effective. We will therefore have some degree of media interaction following publication. There was some discussion in the Steering Group about joint press releases or other similar approaches. We are not opposed to that approach albeit that we would not normally take that route. I am not certain that there is a requirement for SARF to be proactive in relation to media interaction, SARF is publishing research and it isn?t easy for me to see the route by which SARF would provide comment on that research beyond directing journalists to the content of the research report itself or explaining the general route by which SARF commissions research work of this type. This general type of background is probably already covered on the SARF website. Best regards Douglas Sinclair Specialist I (Aquaculture) SEPA Orkney Of?ce Norlantic House KIRKWALL Orkney KW15 Tel: 01856 871080 Mob: 0797 9245513 Fax: 01856 871090 SEPA Exm: 2729 E-mail: douglas.sindair@sepa.org.uk I no longer work on Mondays, normally available Tuesday - Friday. Durinq absences from the of?ce. my emails may be read and you may receive a response from Anne Mitchell. Senior Admin Of?cer in the SEPA Orkney Of?ce. 5% Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. From: Richard Slaski [mailtozr.slaski@sarf.org.uk] Sent: 01 July 2016 12:05 To: 'Alastair Mitchell 'Alex Adrian'; 'Craig Burton'; 'David Sandison Sinclair, Douglas; 'George Lees'; 'Iain Sutherland'; 'John Webster'; 'Nick Lake" 'Oliver Routledge'; 'Piers Hart Cc: 'William Ritchie'; 'Anton'; Subject: Re: SARF098 PAMP Refresh Dear Colleagues, There are several issues concerning the SARF098 PAMP Refresh project for your consideration: 1. The ?nal complete report document This is attached as a PDF file with three components: a revised PREAMBLE for your consideration/approval, the SARF Review, and the original SAMS 2016 Report. Changes will have to be made to the inner front page eg ISBN etc. Subject to your approval, this "package will be published on our website. 2. The emails received from SAMS These are attached in a single Word document. It seems that there are two main issues for the SARF Board to consider: 0 SAMS seem to be requesting the ability to add some further 'comment text?. Please let us have your thoughts on this, but we would point out that SAMS had an opportunity to amend their report after its first draft. We would also be concerned whether, once the Board saw any new ?comment? from SAMS, it would feel the need to then add its own further ?comment on the comment?. - SAMS is concerned about clarity on the identity of some of the referees, but on this point rules are very clear: the identity of all referees is always strictly protected. If details about referees do emerge in the fullness of time, it will be because someone has broken that fundamental SARF rule. 3. Press Release Tom asks about a joint press release. SARF does not ordinarily get involved in such matters, and we wouldn?t know who to send a ?press releasecreate one. Nevertheless, we are very happy to take advice and instruction from the Board on this: many of you will have much more experience on such matters within your organisations. It might be seen as helpful if a suitable joint press release i.e. SARF and SAMS is produced. 2 At this stage we would ask Directors for their feedback: 0 Your approval of the text amendments to the Preamble section. If you wish to suggest further amendments to the text, please cc. all colleagues in order to facilitate the subsequent adeption of any changes 0 Your thoughts on the issue of a Press Release, Specifically: 0 Does SARF need to prepare one If so, should it be a joint one with SAMS 0 Can your organisation assist with suggestions about what the Release should contain 0 Please let me have any further comments to both this covering email and any aspect of the proposed publication of the "package" on our website. If you could respond by Wednesday 11?? July, that would be most helpful. The final stage of consultation relating to this project will involve the final approval of the Board to publish the full report "package? if necessary as amended by this current consultation exercise. Kind regards, Richard ?nuacuiiu re Research 1 Forum .. a? a? C. Richard Slaski Secretariat Scottish Aquaculture Research Forum (SARF) PO Box 7223 Pitlochry PH16 9AF Tel: 01738 479486 Company Registered in Scotland - SC267177 Charity Registered in Scotland - SC035745 EU State Aid Registration No: X939 2009 Website: Confidentiality This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from the disclosure under law. If you are not the intended recipient (5) please note that any form of distribution, copying or use of this communication or the information in it is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. if you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.