1
Wenche M. Kjæmpenes
Høgskolen i Finnmark, Phd-student ved Universitetet i Bergen.
Sammenfatning av forskningsarbeidet:
Fish diseases, who cares and who cures? A comparative study of
professionalisation and division of expert work in Norwegian and Scottish
fish farming industry.
The year is 2005, and the marine science milieus at the University of Bergen and the
University of Tromsø are celebrating that a 15 year long battle with the veterinary profession
has come to an end. The outcome of the battle is a new profession, found nowhere else in the
world (Nyhetstorget, Universitetet i Tromsø, 01-04-2005). After medical doctors, dentists and
veterinarians, aqua medicine biologists belong to the fourth profession in Norway to achieve
the right to prescribe medical products. The important event leading to this celebration was an
amending of an EU directive1 allowing member countries to decide whether a professional
person was qualified to prescribe veterinary medical products or not. In the earlier directive
only veterinarians was qualified. This amendment was a result of negotiations between the
Norwegian Government and the EU, where scientific staff at the universities and fish health
biologists2 had played significant roles. Central to the formation of this new profession has
been the salmon farming industry’s rapid and successful growth and with it also the need to
monitor fish diseases.
While a new profession in fish health establishes in Norway this is not the case in the
Scotland/United Kingdom (UK). Scotland,3 the second largest producer of salmon in Europe,
1
Directive 2004/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 amending Directive
2001/82/EC on the Community code relating to veterinary medical products.
2 The Norwegian authorized title is 'fiskehelsebiolog' and the English title for this Norwegian profession is
aquamedicine biologists. The University of Bergen, the University of Tromsø and the Veterinary Division,
Ministry of Agriculture agreed to use the title aqua medicine biologists as an English title in order to prevent it
from being mixed up with the already used fish health biologist term. In English-speaking countries the title fish
health biologist is used about a biologist, working in a fish health related post (Angell Killie, 2007). In this work
the title fish health biologists and the aqua medicine biologists are used in the same meaning.
3
Scotland is by far the largest producer of salmon in the UK. Around 90 per cent of the UK fish farming
industry is based in Scotland, particularly in the Highlands and Islands. I will therefore use findings from
Scotland. When it comes to the veterinary profession, however, it is necessary to include the United Kingdom
since veterinary legislation applies to the UK as a whole.
2
has no such profession as the fish health biologists. In addition, the UK is the only country
within the EU that does not use Veterinary Surgeons in surveillance and management of
disease controls. In Scotland fish health inspectors’ act as veterinary inspectors under the fish
health legislation.4 No expert group or branch of scientists has claimed any exclusive right to
the field of fish health work.
In Norway the veterinary profession involved early in fish health work (Kjæmpenes,
1988) whereas in the U.K. the veterinary profession has not been involved in statutory fish
health work. Why have Norwegian and British professionalization processes taken different
trajectories in this field? These are the starting questions for my study of professionalisation
processes and the division of expert work in a new and fast expanding aquaculture industry.
The analytical focus is on professionalization processes in the fish health field, but the
assumption is that with the focus on how occupational groups find their place within this new
industry the study might contribute with unique data about the social division of expert work
in society. The professionalisation processes (or lack of it as is the case in Scotland/U.K.)
take place in a time when public sectors in both Scotland and Norway are facing more control
of public providers and demand about more efficiency and greater competition.
The aquaculture industry has worldwide developed fast the last 50 years, and it
continues to grow more rapidly than other animal food-producing sectors (FAO, 2009). The
potential of the aquaculture industry as the world’s food supply is high, but a main challenge
for all type of aquaculture is to develop a sustainable production. Control of diseases is one
major issue in aquaculture and will continue to be a challenge for future aquaculture
development. Diseases include both infectious and non-infectious (environmental, nutritional
and genetics) problems and the infectious diseases, for instance, have a potential to threaten
whole industries (Owens, 2003).
Why compare Norway and Scotland?
Professionalisation processes and division of work in Norwegian and Scottish fish health field
have taken different paths, and that makes them interesting in its own right. It was not,
however the difference that was the reason why I wanted to compare Norway and Scotland.
My work from 1988 about the Norwegian fish farming and the division of expert work in fish
health (Kjæmpenes, 1988), revealed that there was a forthcoming conflict between the
The fish health inspectors are employed by the Marine Scotland Science’s (MSS) Fish Health Inspectorate
(http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/marine/Fish-Shellfish/FHI (23-06-2011).
4
3
veterinary profession and microbiologists/marine scientists in practical fish health work and
in the research field. I wanted to investigate if similar processes were occurring in other
countries as well. Scotland was choses: First because it was a convenient travel distance and
the language were English. Second, because Scotland was the second largest producer of
salmon in Europe. Third, because I could compare salmon farming in two European countries.
I anticipated that, with two large producers of salmon, the division of expert work would have
similarities, at least the tasks that have to be done. I also anticipated that both countries were
challenged by the expanding fish farming industry and its need for fish health services.
Despite many similarities such as; both countries had an early fish diseases act, a fast
expanding industry needing fish health services, a strong veterinary profession and two large
fishery nations with experienced marine research institutions, it turned out, however, that the
two cases had different institutionalisation and professionalisation processes in the fish health
field.
Theoretical framework
The concept of professions is a troublesome concept as shown by several contributions to
professional theories (Brante, 1990; Burrage, 1990; Halvorsen, 1994; Ludvigsen, 1993;
Evetts, 2006a). Burrage, Jarausch and Siegrist (1990) state that Kocka's formulation,
although not very elegant, has the makings of a definition that works satisfactory. It is broad
and therefore possible to both to distinguish professionals and to study professionalisation
processes.
"Professions mean a largely non-manual, full time occupation whose practise
presupposes specialised, systematic and scholarly training. Access depends upon
passing certain examinations, which entitles to titles and diplomas, thereby sanctioning
its role in the division of labour. [Professions] tend to demand a monopoly of services
as well as freedom from control by others such as laymen, the state, etc. Based upon
competence, professional ethics and the special importance of their work for society
and common weal, the profession claims specific material rewards and higher social
prestige“(Conze and Kocka, 1985 sited in Burrage, Jarausch and Siegrist, 1990, p 203204).
The concept gives a checklist for the comparative analyst and it ensures awareness of the
shifts in meaning. According to Halvorsen (1994:104) the distinguishing marks in this
definition contain both the interplay and the tension between professions and relations within
where the professions find themselves.
4
I have used the four-actor model for comparative analysis of professionalisation
processes developed by Burrage, Jarausch and Siegrist (1990) as a framing theory of the
dissertation. In this model, professionalisation is seen as the potential outcome of the
strategies, resources and interactions of practicing professionals, the state, the users and the
universities providing relevant knowledge and skills. The model is a useful tool to help
systemise empirical data about actors considered to be important in any professionalisation
process. It is the unveiling of the interrelationship between the actors that is this model’s main
contribution (Froestad, 1995:35). It does not, however explain how or why practitioners, civil
servant, users and professors interact to shape modern profession (Burrage, Jarausch and
Siegrist 1990, p 218).
MODEL 1. Burrage, Jarausch and Siegrists’ (1990) four-actor model for comparative analyses
of professionalisation processes:
PRACTICING
UNIVERSITIES/
PROFESSIONALS
ADVANCED TRAINING INSTITUTIONS
PROFESSIONALISATION
THE USERS
THE STATE
Burrage, Jarausch and Siegrist could, inspired by Abbot (1988) have added other
professions as a fifth actor, but they leave this suggestion by saying that every profession
involves a relationship of some kind between their four actors, but it is by no means certain
that it entails a relationship of comparable significance and continuity with neighbouring and
competing professions (Burrage, Jarausch and Siegrist, 1990, p 207). It is my opinion,
however, that in studies of new work fields the question about divisions of labour between
neighbouring professions is crucial. It is the processes that will unveil weather professions
and expert groups will compete or not, and the theoretical perspective used, have to be open
for this. Where Burrage, Jarausch and Siegrist leave it, one can use Abbot’s work on
jurisdiction as a way to include the fifth actor. Professionalisation is according to Abbot
5
(1988) a process, which is pursued by the interrelations between professions. In the system of
professions each profession has its activities under various kinds of jurisdiction.
The rethinking of professions found in new research literature indicates that there are
still many questions to be asked about professions and professionalisation processes. The two
directions that crystallises (organisational professionalism and occupational professionalism)
do not exclude each other or the possibility to use earlier research on professions. New
directions in research on professions do combine perspectives from different stages in the
profession theory’s history. Common challenges for all directions are the new policy reforms
that aim to steer public activities with economic incentives inspired by New Public
Management. Professions in different sectors, not only in public health are challenged. The
reforms, although they have a common system of thoughts (management thought), take
different direction in the national context they are implemented. The reforms aims are to
provide increased efficiency in the provision and delivery of services and greater
responsiveness to user demands (Kuhlmann and Saks, 2008, p 4). Do these changes mean the
decline of professions or a revitalisation of the profession’s role in society?
Rather than definite hypothesis I have built this work on a few general conceptions
that have been deduced from the four-actor model and additional professional theory
perspectives. The four actor model is used as a framing theory of the study and
professionalisation is seen as a potential outcome of strategies and interaction of practicing
professionals, the state, the users and the universities providing relevant knowledge and skill.
The first conception is that a new work field that requires new scientific knowledge is
open for any universities and research institutions to involve, and if there are no professions
already involved in the field then the field is open for a new profession.
Second conception is that the possibility for a profession to develop under circumstances
described in conception one may not be present if there is a tradition in the country that
professionalisation has been practitioner led. Then it will be less likely for a new profession to
develop. It is known that in England, professionalistion has, almost invariably, been
practitioner led. And according to Burrage, Jarausch and Siegrist has “the British state played
a rather passive role in the development of the professions, and the universities have hesitated
to assert their interest in professional knowledge or in training of future members of the
profession” (Burrage, Jarausch and Siegrist, 1990, p 219). Presumably the state and the
universities continue to play a rather passive role for professionalisation in the U.K.
The third conception is that if the state-profession relationships change due to reforms in the
public sector, new relationships are established in the field and the division of expert work
6
may change. The fourth conception is that if professions do not manage to meet the demand
for knowledge in the practical field, new professions will challenge the established profession.
It is well known that there is a close connection between development of welfare states and
professions but is it possible to trace similar tendencies in a new industry?
The aim in this work is that, by exploring theoretical and empirical the four conceptions
presented above, I will be able to answer the question why a new fish health profession
develops in Norway and why there has not been any professionalisation in the Scotland/ U.K.
Gathering of data
The sources for data are a combination of reading of texts and interviews. I have used public
documents, articles in newspapers, journals such as the British Veterinary Record, the
Norwegian Veterinary Record (Norsk Veterinærtidsskrift), the Fish Veterinary Journal, the
journal Fiskehelse (Fish Health), annual reports and secondary literatures such as social
science studies of the aquaculture industry. I have interviewed central informants from public
services, from universities and research institutions, fish farmer organisations and professions.
The informants are chosen because they had or have a central role in administration or policy
field of fish health. Their assignment to the field either because of their function in an
organisation, in a Ministry, a Directorate, in Universities or as researchers has been an
important criteria for selection.
In Scotland the volume of secondary research literature is less than in Norway, and
information from interviews is therefore more used in the Scottish case. The interviews have
been open, thus concentrated around the public fish health policy, public fish health
administration, knowledge about fish diseases and division of work in the fish health field.
First, I found the informants through written sources, thereafter from names these informants
gave me. I have tried to balance between different interests, but of course there is a possibility that
there are some persons I have left out. The interviews gave me background and informed me in such a
way that I could find written sources and broaden my understanding of the field.
This work has been delayed for several reasons, and for many years I did not work on it at
all. The result is that I have interviews spread over a 20 year long period and that brings up a
challenge in the interpretation. When I use the interviews I have to separate between the old
one and the new one and bear in mind that I am interpreting both my informants telling their
stories about the field and my own understanding of the field at the time I made the interview. It is
7
not a planned to be longitudinal, but the time period for this work has turned out to become both a
challenge and enrichment.
Empirical data and analysis (see the models attached to get a view of
actors involved)
States are both regulators of professional life and the instrument of professional advancement
(Burrage, Jarausch and Siegristet, 1990). Two state institutions, with their own knowledge
experts, became involved in the process of professionalisation and division of work in the
Norwegian fish health field. In Norway, the Diseases of Fish Act 1968 was the first act to
regulate the aquaculture industry as a whole. The Government saw the need to regulate the
fish health field to avoid importing infectious diseases before they saw the need of any
regulation of the industry. It was biologists, veterinarians and the pond fish farmers that took
the first initiative to regulate the fish health field, but the Ministry of Agriculture used only
veterinarians as expert consultants. Veterinary scientists investigated the work leading to the
fish diseases act. It was however, a major limitation in this act as it did only apply to fresh
water fish. The management of diseased marine fish and wild fish was left out in the Diseases
of Fish act of 1968. Diseases on fresh water fish were related to the pond fish farming and the
Diseases of Fish act did not directly affect the fishery interests. The act was seen closely to
the animal health act and incorporated in the veterinary service. The relationships between
the state and the veterinary profession was close, and since the fish diseases act was based on
the animal health act, diseases on freshwater fish became, without any dispute, part of the
veterinary profession’s responsibility. The Ministry of Agriculture played an important role in
the veterinary profession’s first involvement in the fish health field.
A few years later the successful farming of fish in sea beds had created another
situation and the field became an interesting field for research and education institutions from
both the agriculture and fishery sector. The Lysø Committee, a governmental committee that
was appointed in 1972 and submitted its report in April 1977, had the mandate to examine
the possibilities to develop fish farming to an industry, how to organise the industry, the need
of research and regulation of law (NOU 1977:39). In this committee representatives from the
two sectors fought to gain entry into this new administrative field and their knowledge experts
became involved in the battle. The Government followed the majority’s recommendation and
settled that the Ministry of Fisheries was allocated responsibility for management of the
Aquaculture Act. Management of fish disease legislation for fresh water fish, however, was
8
still the Ministry of Agriculture’s responsibility. The disputes about the fish health field
continued and became the frontier between agriculture and fishery interests, and between the
veterinary profession and the marine science milieu. The fish farming industry involved in
this discourse with a pragmatic view demanding researchers to cooperate in the knowledge
development at the same time as they was demanding a professional veterinary service. The
Government settled the jurisdictional discourse about management of the new diseases of fish
act in 1997 with a divided allocated responsibility for management of diseased fish;
agriculture for fresh water fish and fishery for wild marine fish. In this case, the government
takes into consideration the complexity of the management of the fish health field and decides
on a division of responsibility. The division of responsibility between the Ministry of
Agriculture and the Ministry of Fisheries leaves the door open for fishery scientist. In Tromsø
and Bergen there are several institutions involved in public fishery research and these
institutions did not want to be left out of this new knowledge field. Without the initiative from
the universities and their scientists this new profession would never have been established. It
is also a fact that the politicians wanted the fish health field to be open for multidiscipline,
because it was the drive of the research milieu that resulted in successful vaccine development
in the 1980s. It is the historical shaping of a matrix of structures and social relations in the
aquaculture field, which lays the groundwork in which the universities can work for their
interests. Institutional changes in the 1990s did weaken the agriculture sector, especially the
loss of control of agricultural and veterinary education. However this change did also weaken
the interrelationships between the veterinary profession and the state, a change that opened an
opportunity for the universities to challenge the veterinary professions’ monopoly in the fish
health field. The universities were the driving forces in the Norwegian professionalisation
process.
In Scotland the microbiologists at the Medical School Department of Bacteriology
served the Furunculosis Committee5 with scientific knowledge in such a convincing way that
fish disease legislation was the main solution in order to get control of fish diseases in salmon
rivers and in 1937 the fish diseases bill was enacted. This act did not exclude any expert
5
The Furunculosis Committee was a governmental committee appointed "To investigate the origin,
predisposing causes and mode of dissemination of Furunculosis and similar infectious diseases among
salmon, trout, and other freshwater fish in England and Scotland, and to conduct experiments with a
view to ascertaining methods of combating the disease, and to report the results of their proceedings
(Interim report, 1930:5)."
9
groups and simultaneously the veterinary surgeons act did not include fish. In the 1960s, there
were some members of the veterinary profession that worked for the inclusion of fish in the
Veterinary Surgeons bill. Lord Champion, that introduced the bill, argued that the reason why
they did not want to include fish was that the field should be open both for fishery scientists
and veterinarians. In, other words, the politicians were not interested in closing the work field
for just one expert group as they might have done with the inclusion of fish in the Veterinary
Surgeons Bill.
Historically two research institutions have had a central role in monitoring fish
diseases in Scotland; the Institute of Microbiology in Edinburgh and the Marine Laboratory in
Aberdeen. Today, in Scotland/UK there is no professionalisation of the fish health work field,
it is a multidisciplinary field. Monitoring work is taken care of by fish Health Inspectors
appointed by the Scottish Ministers to act as veterinary inspectors under the fish health
legislation (in England and Wales the fish health inspectors work under the Centre for
Environment, Fisheries & Aquaculture Science). Although, fish health inspectors are
responsible for monitoring work in Scotland, only veterinarians can prescribe medicine for
fish in the UK. Therefore the veterinary profession is involved in the field by their role in
diagnostic work and treatment.
CONCLUDING COMMENTS
By bringing in time, place and sequences interrelationships between actors unveil.
Professionalisation is an outcome of strategies and interaction of practicing professionals, the
state, the users and the universities. Individual actors play important role for the development
of new professions, but the interrelationships between actors defines their room for action.
The general dispute between two Norwegian ministries (the Ministry of Agriculture
and the Ministry of Fish), a weakened tie between the veterinary profession and the Ministry
of Agriculture, users need for help to solve disease problems and universities
(microbiologists) drive to establish a new education are factors that explains the formation of
a new and unique profession, the aquaculture medicine biologists.
Although, in Scotland, fishery and agriculture were in the 1970s under the same roof
(Department of Agriculture and Fisheries Scotland and in the UK Ministry of Agriculture
Fishery and Food) it is not possible to trace any regulation of the field in favour of the
veterinary profession. There is no initiative to establish a new profession. Since the Marine
10
Laboratory in Aberdeen and its scientists very early had a role in fish health work field, there
were no political interest to keep them out of this field. It was, as in Norway, an outspoken
political interest to keep the fish health field open for several disciplines. Universities and
research institutions have not taken part in any professionalisation of the field.
Through these two contrasting cases, I have had the opportunity to study what factors
that affect professionalisation processes and division of expert work in a new and fast
expanding aquaculture industry. In 2010, the main difference between Norway and Scotland
concerning the division of expert work in fish health care can be summed up as follow;
1.
In Norway;
a) Both veterinarians and aqua medicine biologists employed by the
Norwegian Food Safety Authority and private veterinarians and
Aquaculture medicine biologists carry out the monitoring programme
for specific fish diseases.
b) Veterinarians and aqua medicine biologists can prescribe medicine for
fish.
2)
In Scotland;
a) Fish health inspectors on behalf of the Fish Health Inspectorate, carry
out inspection and testing of fish and shellfish farms. A majority of
them holds a Bachelor of Science degree (BSc)
(http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/marine/FishShellfish/FHI/Personnel, 18-10-2010).
b) Only veterinarians can prescribe medicine for fish.
References
Abbot, A., 1988. The System of Professions. An Essay on the Division of Expert Labor. The University
Chicago Press.
Angell, Killie, J.E. (7. november 2007). ‘Programsensorrapport del 1.5 årig integrert masterprogram
i fiskehelse’, Institutt for biologi, Universitetet i Bergen.
Burrage, Jarausch and Siegrist (1990) An actor-based framework for the study of the professions. In
Burrage, M., & Torstendahl, R. (Eds.) Profession in Theory and History. Rethinking the Study
of the Professions. Sage publication Ltd.
Burrage, M. (1990) Introduction; the profession in sociology and history. In Burrage, M., &
Torstendahl, R. (Eds.) Profession in Theory and History. Rethinking the Study of the
Professions. Sage publication Ltd.
11
Brante, T. (1990) Professional types as a strategy of analysis. In Burrage, M., & Torstendahl, R. (Eds.)
Profession in Theory and History. Rethinking the Study of the Professions. Sage publication
Ltd.
Evetts, Julia. (2006 a) The Sociology of Professional Groups: New Directions. Current Sociology
2006;54;133.
FAO ( 2009). The state of the World Fisheries and Aquaculture, 2008. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture
Department, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rome
Froestad, J. (1995). Faglige diskurser, intersektorielle presmissstrømmer og variasjoner i offentlig
politikk. Døveundervisning og handikapomsorg i Skandinavia på 1800-tallet. Institutt for
adminstrasjon og organisasjonsvitenskap. Universitetet i Bergen. Rapport nr.34.
Halvorsen, T.(1994). Profesjonalisering og profesjonspolitikk. Den sosial konstruksjon av tekniske
yrker. Dr.polit avhandling. Institutt for administrasjon og organisasjonsvitenskap og Gruppe
for fleirfagleg arbeidslivs forskning (Arbeid, Historie, Samfunn - AHS). Universitetet i
Bergen.
Interim Report, March 1930, Furunculosis Committee. Appointed by The Rt.Hon. William
Adamson, One of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State and by The Rt.Hon. Noel
Buxton, Minister of Agriculure and Fisheries. HMSO:Edinburgh
Kuhlmann, E. and Saks, M. (Eds.) (2008). Rethinking professional governance. The Policy
Press, University of Bristol. UK.
Ludvigsen, K.(1993). Definisjonsproblemet i profesjonsforskningen. Notat nr.10 i notatserien til
Institutt for administrasjon og organisasjonsvitenskap, Universitet i Bergen
Kjæmpenes, W.M. (1988) "Fiskedoktoren", - veterinær eller biolog? Ein studie av aktører og
interesser i havbruksnæringa”. Hovudoppgåve ved Institutt for administrasjon og
organisasjonsvitenskap, UiB.
Nyhetstorget, Universitetet i Tromsø.(01-04-2005)’Fiskehelsebiologer får reseptrett’.
http://uit.no/nyheter/903/2231 (read 06-11-2009).
NOU 1977:39. Fiskeoppdrett
Owens, L. (2003) Diseases. In Lucas, John.S. and Southgate, Paul C. 2003. Aquaculture. Farming
Aquatic Animals and Plants. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
12
Attachments
Model: 1. Actors involved in professionalisation processes in the Norwegian field of fish
health6.
State institutions
The fishery sector:
The Ministry of
Fisheries and Costal Affairs
The Directorate of Fisheries
Universities/
The Institute of Marine Research
Research institutions:
The Agriculture Sector:
The Fishery Sector:
The Ministry of Agriculture and
Food
University of Tromsø/The
Norwegian College of Fishery
Science (NFH)
University of Bergen, The
Department of Biology
(originated in 2004 through a
merger of the former Botanical
Department, Department of
Fisheries and Marine Biology,
Department of Microbiology and
Zoological Department).
The Agriculture Sector:
The Norwegian School of
Tek
Veterinary
Science.
The Norwegian Agriculture
School (from January 2007 the
Norwegian University of Life
Science).
The Norwegian Food and Safety
Authority
The National Veterinary Institute
Professions/occupational
Groups:
Den norske
veterinærforening (DNV)
(The Norwegian
Veterinary Association)
Akvaveterinærenes
forening.(The Aquaculture
Veterinary Society).
The fish farming industry:
---------------------
FHL Aquaculture
Tekna Fiskehelseforeningen (the fish health
biologist’s Association)
(The Norwegian
Fish Farmers
Association
(NFF) joined the Norwegian
Seefood Federation (FHL) in
1994 and became a branch)
6
Some of the public institutions are renamed several times and there have been changes of responsibilities
through the period of study.
13
Model.2. Actors involved in the Scottish fish health field of work 7
State institutions:
Scottish Executive Environment and
Rural Affairs Department
(SEERAD
Fisheries Research Services (FRS)
(earlier the Marine Laboratory in Aberdeen, on
April 1 2009, Fisheries Research Services (FRS)
was merged with the Scottish Fisheries
Protection Agency (SFPA) and the Scottish
Government Marine Directorate to form Marine
Scotland - Scotland’s new marine management
organisation.
Universities and
research institutions:
FRS Fish health Inspectorate
Professions/
Scotland:
UK Ministry of Agriculture
Fisheries and Food (MAFF) (merged
University of Stirling/
Institute of
Aquaculture
with with part of the Department of
Environment, Transport and the Regions
(DETR) and with a small part of the Home
Office in June 2001 and formed the Department
for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
UK:Veterinary
Schools
occupational groups:
The British Veterinary
Association
the Fish Veterinary
Society
Marine scientists
The fish farming
Industry:
Scottish Salmon
Farmers Association
(In 2006 integrated in the
Scottish Salmon Producers’
Organisation SSPO).
The Fish health
inspectors employed at
the FRS
Fish Farmers/
Multinational Concerns
7
The Scottish Government (SG) is the executive of government of Scotland. It was established in 1999 as the
Scottish Executive,-which remains its legal name in accordance with the Scotland Act 1998. Following the
change of administration in May 2007, a restructuring exercise led to most SEERAD functions being continued
under the new Scottish Executive Environment Directorate. In April 2009 the directorate of Marine Scotland was
established combining the functions and resources of the former SG Marine Directorate, Fisheries Research
Services and the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency.