The Isle of Gigha: An Assessment of a Sustainable Rural Community

By Brendan Craig 4t h Year BSc Environmental Technology and Management 2005 Abstract

The Isle of Gigha is a small island off the west coast of Scotland. After 20 years of population decline the inhabitants took steps to set up a trust and buy their island so that their future could be in their own hands. The problems inherited by the Trust included poor quality housing, poor employment prospects and poor infrastructure.

Since the community buy-out the Trust (Isle of Gigha Heritage Trust) has made great strides in improving the economic fortunes on the island. They have set up the UK’s first community owned windfarm, have commissioned the opening of a quarry and i mpl emented the start of a major new and refurbished housing programme. The island’s economy is largely based upon dairy farming, salmon farming, tourism and the new construction developments being undertaken.

This report looks at the island’s attempts at attainin g a sustainable future and the current environmental problems associated with the industries that operate on the island. This included interviews with those involved with industry on the island, residents and also those who are part of the planning p ro cess. Research has been required in order to understand the processes of each industry and the options available to achieve more sustainable practices in each sector. The report also has a look at the various sustainable energy schemes being implemented and at the possibilities for further renewable energy systems such as anaerobic digestion, combined heat and power an d mi cro- wind turbines.

The report has found that while the implementation of the windfarm and housing developments are an example to other rural communities, there are areas that could be improved. There are further possibilities to increase renewable sources of energy. There is a lack of management concerning land leased to farms. There are also practices undertaken by the dairy farms and the fish farm that may prove to be unsustainable in the long- term.

The lessons to be learnt from the experiences of Gigha are far reaching. Many rural communities have very similar problems and they also have economies based upon the same industries. Agri culture, fish farming and tourism are the mainstay of many rural communities not only in Scotland but also in many other parts of the world. Therefore this report looks not only at the sustainability of the Isle of Gigha but highlights the sustainable o pt io ns open to many other rural communities.

2 Contents:

1. Introduction

1.1 The Goal of a Sustainable Island

2. The Isle of Gigha – An Introduction

2.1 Location 2.2 History 2.3 Island Statistics 2.4 Industry 2.5 The Future Aims of Gigha

3. The Main Environmental Impacts Affecting Gigha

3.1 Dairy Farming 3.1.1 Current Dairy Farms 3.1.2 Impacts 3.1.3 Wastes

3.2 Fish Farming 3.2.1 Current Fish Farming 3.2.2 Impacts 3.2.3 Wastes

3.3 Construction and Renovations 3.3.1 Housing and Development 3.3.2 Quarry 3.3.3 Waste

3.4 Tourism 3.4.1 Accommodation 3.4.2 Achamore Gardens 3.4.3 Recreation 3.4.4 Biodiversity

4. Energy, Waste and Water Management

4.1 Energy 4.1.1 Current Supply 4.1.2 Windfarm 4.1.3 Housing

3 4.2 Waste 4.2.1 Solid Waste 4.2.2 Wastewater

4.3 Water 4.3.1 Potable Water Supply 4.3.2 Water Extraction

5. Discussion

5.1 Sustainable Industry 5.1.1 Dairy Farming 5.1.2 Fish Farming 5.1.3 Construction 5.1.4 Tourism

5.2 Sustainable Energy 5.2.1 Anaerobic Digestion (AD) and Combined Heat and Power (CHP) 5.2.2 Other Options

5.3 Sustainable Waste 5.3.1 Recycling Schemes

6. Conclusions

6.1 Sustainability

7. Futurity of the Project – The Next Steps

8. Appendix

9. References

10. Bibliography

11. Acknowledgements

4 List of Figures:

All photographs taken by B. Craig, 2005 unless stated.

Front Cover: Gigha windfarm

Fi g ure Ti tle 2 . 1 Isle of Gigha location 2 . 2 Map of the Isle of Gigha 2 . 3 Ogham Stone, Church of Kilchattan and The Stone of Tarbert 3 . 1 Dai ry C ows 3 . 2 Slurry tank at Druimeonmore Farm 3 . 3 Highland beef cattle 3 . 4 East Tarbert Bay Pier 3 . 5 Site of new housing 3 . 6 Refurbished housing 3 . 7 Cnoc na Croise Quarry 3 . 8 Cnoc na Croise Quarry 3 . 9 Aggregate waste 3 . 10 Rhododendron avalanche calophytum 3 . 11 Rhododendron abies kingdom ward and Rhododendron titness crimson 3 . 12 Dicksonia antartica and Gunnera manicata 3 . 13 Walled Gardens 3 . 14 The Isle of Gigha golf course 3 . 15 A grey heron and speedwell 4 . 1 The ‘dancing ladies’ of Gigha 4 . 2 Fl y t ip pi n g 4 . 3 M ill Lo ch 5 . 1 The former fish processing plant 5 . 2 A mi cro-wind turbine

List of Tables

T abl e Ti tle 2 . 1 Employment statistics for Gigha 3 . 1 Ardlamy Farm facts 3 . 2 Druimeonmore Farm facts 3 . 3 Achamore Farm facts 3 . 4 Tarbert Farm facts 3 . 5 Gu id eli n es for maximum biomass levels for fish farms 4 . 1 Gigha windfarm funding sources 4 . 2 Refurbished houses estimated energy s avi n gs 5 . 1 Dairy cattle and slurry waste data 5 . 2 Renewable technology payback periods

5 Abbreviations

AD Anaerobic Digester AIE Arg yl l and Islands Enterprise AMA Area Management Agreements AZE Allowable Zone of Effect BAP Biodiversity Action Plan BS British Standard CHP Combined Heat and Power DEFRA Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs EC European Community EU Eu ro p ean Uni on FTE Fu ll-Time Equivalent GRAB Group for Recycling in Argyll and Bute GRE Gigha Renewable Energy Ltd HIE Highlands and Islands Enterprise IGHT Isle of Gigha Heritage Trust (the Trust) ISO International Standards Organisation MAFF Ministry for Agriculture, Food and Fishing PCB P ol y- Chlorinated Biphenyls ROC Renewable Obligation Certificates SAMS Scottish Association of Marine Sciences SE Scottish Executive SCHRI Scottish Community and Householder Renewables In i t i at iv e SEERAD Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Dep artm ent SEPA Scottish Environment Protection Agency SSGA Scottish Salmon Growers Association SWH Solar Water Heating UN United Nations WFD Water Framework Directive

6 1. Introduction

While rural life can paint a romantic picture for some, the reality is that just like anywhere else, there are always issues that require attention and a natural strive for continuous improvement. This is also typical of many parts of Scotland. Full of history and a beautiful mix of mystic mountains in the north, rolling hills to the south, and accompanied by a dramatic archipelago to the west .

However, for people in these areas there are essential needs to be met to ensure the infrastructure is in place for them to continue to live and work there. In most rural areas populations are spread far and wide. The population of the West Highlands and Islands has been declining for over 20 years (IGHT, 2004). This has been attributed mainly to the lack of job opportunities for those people, post-e ducation. However, inadequate transport networks, poor access to goods and services, and below standard housing have all played their part in discouraging families to live and work in these areas.

While in the past many rural communities in Scotland have rel i ed on sympathetic landowners to ensure a sound future for themselves and families, this is no longer holds true. The role of the local landowner and their responsibility to their community has diminished; they do not employ as many people on their es tates as in previous years. This has led to a shift in responsibility to local government and also to local communities themselves. It is now widely regarded that they must work together to attain a sustainable future. This is typified by recent ev ents on the Isle of Gigha.

In March 2002, the community on the Isle of Gigha, situated off the west coast of the Mull of Kintyre, with the help of the National Lottery Land Fund, Highlands and Islands Enterprise (HIE) and others, bought their island (IGHT, 2004). The island is now under the control of its residents through the Isle of Gigha Heritage Trust (IGHT). Thus, bringing the decision making process to the heart of the community.

There have been other communities that have utilised their ‘right to buy’ option. They have set up trusts or foundations where residents are represented fairly in the decision making process concerning the development of their community. Knoydart, Eigg and Ranachan are just three that have done so (HIE, 2005).

This report assesses how Gigha as a community are aiming to achieve a more sustainable future. This will incorporate their attempts to increase the current population, improve employment prospects and generate extra income for the island without any detrimental effect on their important natural resources. The report highlights not only the good work so far under way on the

7 island but also brings to the fore areas that can be improved. There are many developments ongoing at present that have an impact on the island’s ecology. There is also economic activity that may have longer-term effects on the island. It is the aim of this report to ensure that these issues are made aware of to the trust and others in the hope that they may be dealt with in an appropriate manner as soon as is practicable.

The objective of the report is to provide a detailed written work that will prove useful to the trust and others as a guide to any impact on the island and how it may be controlled. The report will bring a fresh outlook with ideas that may no t h av e been previously considered by the trust board or anyone else connected with the island. This report will also prove to be of use to other rural communities who are striving for a sustainable future and the lessons to be learned from the Gigha experience will be valuable to them.

In compiling this work the author has spent several days on the island. This has helped immeasurably in gaining an insight into the island, its industries and other areas that are covered in the report. This includes dairy farms, the fish farm, the windfarm and also many of the sites under development. There have been many interviews with trust members, farmers, residents and others who have had dealings with the community in order to get a true reflection of not only peoples feelings on latest developments but also to help ascertain the impact and how best to achieve a sustainable future.

The following report gives an introduction to the island and its community, past and present. The report goes on to consider the i sl an d ’s two main industries on the island; dairy farming and salmon farming, and their impact on the local environment. Further to this there have been many new developments since the island came under its own guidance, the impact from improving the housing stock and instigating a quarry on the island, and the subsequent environmental issues from them are explored.

Two of the main issues of sustainability are energy and waste management, there are sections dedicated to each of these areas. These issues are synonymous with any community looking to reduce their environmental impacts. The island has set up a small windfarm and new housing is being built to high environmental specifications. The report gives a detailed account of their current status. With the amount of new development underway there are waste issues to be considered, construction waste and also current industrial and domestic wastes are investigated to ascertain their impact and how best to deal with them.

8 The report concludes with a look to the future, considering sustainability and what actions a rural community such as Gigha can do. The island has had many changes in fortune over the years and how to ensure that they endure lasting prosperity, without the downturns experienced in the past, is a challenge for any community.

In completing this report not only will the Isle of Gigha and its industry benefit but also other rural communities in a similar situation. Therefore allowing the opportunity for many to improve their environmental performance and thus not only increasing the worth of their natural capital, but also finding new avenues for raising revenue and raising their man-made capital.

1.1 The Goal of a Sustainable Island

Every rural community is looking to ensure a positive future that can continue to be passed from generation to generation. Today they are doing so under the banner ‘sustainable development’. This stems as far back as 1972 and the UN Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm. Later in 1983, the United Nations appointed a World Commission on the Environment and Development. The commission was chaired by the Norwegian Prime Minister, Gro Harlem Brundtland. Its report ‘Our Common Future’ was published in 1987 and became known as the ‘Brundtland Report’. In it was the first definition of sustainable development where it:

“Meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

While it is a phrase used almost religiously, it is seen as the best t h eo retical way forward for rural and urban communities around the world. It advocates an integral approach to planning for the future of a community. This involves combining social, environmental, political and economic matters to attain a continual system of development.

The Scottish Executive’s (SE) Rural Development Plan has been approved by the EU. Its aim is "to promote the sustainable economic, environmental and social development of Scotland’s rural areas, particularly those areas which remain heavily d ependent on agriculture”. They advocate an integrated approach “to assist in the future viability and sustainability of Scottish farming and forestry" (SE, 2003).

Whilst rural communities across the globe are separated geographically, the requirements of any rural community are the same across the world. Good health, employment, housing, education and social equity, being some of the major benchmarks. Attempts at attaining ‘sustainability’ can vary in method 9 depending on each community’s circumstances however, t h ere i s now more information available and more ideas and experiences reaching the public domain due to modern communication systems. This bears relevance to not only the many island communities around Scotland but also to other island communities elsewhere in the world. Many can often have very similar problems to those facing Scotland today.

It is inconceivable to suggest that any island community can be successfully and totally self sustainable without any outside contact. A sustainable island is one with a healthy working population and one which incorporates a healthy family orientated society. In such small communities any drop or rise in population is noticeable. Thus any island community also relies on its ability to be within reach of the rest of the world. This includes those leaving the island for e.g. university or work, and also those who may wish to bring their families to live on the i sl an d.

What is needed is the infrastructure for transport, education, employment and social welfare to flourish. This at least allows for the option of the island life or of that on the mainland. Having a healthy provision of services and employment opportunities would encourage more people to stay. Some services may undoubtedly prove to be financially diffi cult t o continue; however other areas of generating income may help to bridge that gap.

10 2. The Isle of Gigha – An Introduction

1.1 Location

The Isle of Gigha is situated about 2- ½ miles west, off the West Coast of the Mull of Kintyre (See Figure 2.1 and 2.2). The island i s rou ghl y 8-1/2 miles long and 2- 1/2 miles wide and comprises 3400 acres of land (Scotsman, 2003). There is a regular ferry service to Gigha from Tayinloan on the mainland. Tayinloan is situated on the A83 Tarbert to Campbeltown road, about 80 m il es s ou th s out h- west from Tarbet. Tarbet itself is 35 miles west of Glasgow. There are 3 coaches per day running from Glasgow to Campbeltown, via Tayinloan and 3 returning. There is access for light aircraft onto the island to the South near Leim Farm.

Island traffic is always minimal, however recent developments on the island have meant an increase in traffic. There are visitors arriving in private modes of transport such as yachts, cars, motorbikes, bicycles, speedboats and helicopters.

Fro m the island there are stunning views of other places such as Northern Ireland, Islay, Jura, Kintyre and the view north along the west coast of Scotland. There is also a great abundance of wild flora, e.g. blue speedwell, palms and rhododendrons etc and fau na, e.g. wrens, herons, eiders and dolphins etc. The island’s geology originates from marine sedimentary and volcanic rock that has been metamorphised (altered under extreme pressure and/or temperature), known as Dalradian metamorphic rock (SG, 2 0 05 ).

The Isle of

Figure 2.1: The Isle of Gigha is marked above. The A83 road to Tayinloan from Tarbet is also highlighted. Source: http://www.theaa.com/index.html

11 Figure 2.2: A map of the Isle of Gigha

Figure 2.1b: The Isle of Gigha Source: http://www.gigha.org.uk

Tarbert Farm

East Tarbert Pier Mill Loch

North Druimyeonmore Farm Upper Loch

Church Post Office New Housing The Boathouse Ardlamy Farm Hotel School Ferry to Tayinloan Cnoc Na Croise Quarry Village Hall Achamore House and Gardens Achamore Farm

Windfarm Former Fish Processing Plant

Craro Island South Pier

Cara

12 1.2 History of the Island

The original inhabitants of the Isle of Gigha were the ‘Scots’ who settled around the Hebrides and Kintyre region. The ‘S co ts ’ were originally a people from the north of Ireland. However the name ‘Gigha’ actually came from the Norse King Hakon who named the island ‘Gudey’ (the good isle). The Gaels slowly changed the name to Gigha over time. It has historically been known fo r its fertile land, and agriculture has been a mainstay in the island’s economy. The only trees on the island are situated around the gardens of Achamore House. These were planted in 1850 by the then owner after trees had been absent from the island for 15 0 years (IGHTa, 2005).

In 1493 the island came under the ownership of the family of MacNeill of Taynish. Between then and 1790 (when it was sold to another branch of the Clan Neill, the MacNeills of Colonsay), the MacNeills of Taynish had many battles and disputes with the MacLean and MacDonald Clans over the rights to the island. The rights indeed changed hands many times between them, even if in dubious circumstances, until the sale in 1790 (IGHTa, 2005).

There were many owners after 1790. In 1884, Captain William Scarlett, the 3rd Lord Abinger, purchased the estate and had the B listed Achamore House built (IGHTa, 2005).

In 1944; it was bought by Sir James Horlick. It was he who created the Gardens of Achamore as they are known today. There are 50 acres of gardens housing many rare rhododendrons, camellias, azaleas, hydrangeas and other rare plants from across the world interspersed with native plants and trees such as primula, rowan, birch and cherry. They are protected from the elements by the many trees that are planted as shelter around the perimiter(IGHTa, 2005).

Achamore House is now under the ownership of Don Dennis, a businessman from the US. Don Dennis now also owns the small island to the south, Cara, with its title, Baron of Gigha. This had previously been the title of the MacDonalds of Largie, who were the last link to the Lord of the Isles (pre- 1500’s) (IGHTa, 2005).

The gardens remain and are under the ownership and stewardship of the IGHT along with the rest of the Isle of Gigha. The community became owners in 2002, with help of the National Lottery Land Fund and the Highlands and Islands Enterprise, amongst others. The deal left the islanders with a mammoth sum of £1.25m to raise, and all monies due were duly paid off in M arch 2 00 4 through various fundraising events, the sale of Achamore House and the resident’s own funds. The trust set up has 8 members on the board, all bar one of whom are residents of the island (IGHTa, 2005).

13 Services available on the island currently comprise a post o ffi ce, hotel, boathouse, village hall, church, primary school, golf course, fire service, three Bed & Breakfast establishments and fi ve s elf- catering cottages (IGHT, 2004). There are 121 residents now living on the island and a district nurse is now also resident on Gigha (IGHT, 2005). At its peak in the late 18t h century, the population had reached 750 (IGHT, 2004). At this time peat was the main source of fuel and winter nights clouded by the smoke with families close to the fire is a scene easy to im agin e.

One of the most endearing tales concerns Craro Island off the south west of Gigha. The island has a rock formation similar to that of a bull. The tale tells of pirates boarding a local ship. A cabin boy was about to ‘walk the plank’ to his death and as k ed God to bless his mother in Gigha. The pirate asked, which direction the Craro bull faced, to prove he came from the island. The boy was saved from the shuffle and plunge, after he had correctly answered ‘to the north-east’. The pirate himself had family who lived on Gigha. The same pirate is said to have left a cache of gold somewhere near to Ardlamy Farm (The Scotsman, 2 0 03 ).

Figure 2.3: Clockwise from the top left: The Ogham Stone, the ruined Church of Kilchattan, 'Ecclesia Sancti Catani of the Register of the Privy Seal (1510) and the Stone of Tarbert - Carragh an Tairbeirt

The island has many burial sites and ruined buildings. Many are well hidden and it is often difficult to trace their origins without expert assistance.

14 The best known example is the ruined Church of Kilchattan (See figure 2.3), 'Ecclesia Sancti Catani in Gigha' of the Register of the Privy Seal (1510). Dedicated to an Irish missionary, St Catan, who came to Kintyre and the western isles of Scotland in the 6t h century. The church is of 13 t h century design and the main feature is its lancet windows (IGHTa, 2005). Almost the entire floor of the church is covered with graveslabs. A row of great slab s - monuments of Heads of the local House - lies across the church from side to side, immediately in front of the altar space. They have been more cared for than most and are therefore much better p res erv ed .

There is an array of standing stones on the island. Stones included are an Ogham stone that is said to be of Pictish influence and the ‘Holy Stone’ or preaching stone, which was only recently rediscovered and is nearby an ancient chapel with standing cross. There are many others, some of which the ex act origins are not known.

2.3 Island Statistics

In the 1970’s the island boasted a population of around 200, by 1998 this had declined to 98, this was proportionally the largest population decline of any island in Scotland during this time (Bro adl ey and ODS, 2004). The population of Gigha, according to Scotland’s census in 2001 was 110 (GROS, 2001) (See Appendix 1). This has since risen to 121 (IGHT, 2005), however there is no breakdown for recent population figures other than for employment (See table 2.1), thus for the purpose of this chapter all other figures are from the 2001 Scotland census. On closer inspection, there are no people between the ages of 19 and 24. There are also only 9 children of registerable age for the primary school (this has since risen to 13) and 21 under 19 years old altogether. Those of retirement age represent 27 people of the 110 on the island (GROS, 2001). There are 21 married couples on the island; 86 of the total population were born in Scotland and the remainder, bar two, from England (GROS, 2001).

There were 82 people of working age or retired on the island in 2001. Of them, 37 were under employment, self-employed made up 15, 3 unemployed, 2 students, 22 retired and 10 economically inactive other (GROS, 2001) (See App end ix 2 ).

The workforce of the island can be separated into 3 sectors; public, private and community sectors. In 2002 the workforce amounted to 55.5 full time equivalent (FTE) jobs, 44 males and 32.5 females (IGHT, 2004), a breakdown is given in table 2. 1.

15 Table 2.1: Employment Statistics for the Isle of Gigha, (IGHT, 2004)

Sector Area of Activity Principle Players Island Employees1 Public Sector Transport Cal Mac 6 FTE Education Argyll & Bute Council 3 FTE Health Health Board 1 FTE Water Scottish Water 1 FTE Post Royal Mail / P.O 1.5 FTE Housing/Soc. Work Argyll & Bute Council 0 5 FTE Sub Total 13 FTE Private Fish farming Pan Fish Scotland 92 FTE Sector Fishing Self employed 4 FTE Agriculture Farms and Crofting 9.5 FTE Retail General Store 1.5 FTE Tourism PO Guest House 0.5 FTE Tearooms 1.53 FTE Other Publishing, crafts etc 0.5 FTE Sub Total 26.5 FTE Community Estate 4 FTE Sector Tourism / hospitality Hotel / cottages etc 10 FTE Development 1.5 FTE Clerical 0.5 FTE Sub Total 16 FTE Total 55.5 FTE

As can be seen the private sector dominates employment in the area. This is largely due to fishing, the fish farm and the dairy farms o n th e island. The Trust is landlord to the agricultural land and can therefore have a significant role to play in the development of this area of the island’s economy. The IGHT also has a great deal to do with other areas of the economy. The trust is employer, landlord, facilitator and stimulator for the local economy. The trust directly employs 15.5 FTE and is the largest single employer on the island. It is hoped that with an upturn in economic activity, there will be a boost to the population and al so a ri se in the demand for services, thus creating further jobs on Gigha in all sectors.

In the past, the occupant of the Achamore Estate had dominated ownership of housing on the island. However, currently of the 67 houses on Gigha, 48 (72%) are now owned by the Trust. A further 13 (20%) are privately owned, 4 (6%) are socially rented and 2 are linked to employment. The national average for Scotland of owned housing is 65% (IGHT, 2004). The estate traditionally did little to invest in properties on the island and a Ho us in g Conditions Survey commissioned by the trust found that 75% of homes on Gigha were ‘below tolerable standards’ and the

1 Estimates are for resident island employees as of June 2002. Employment has since increased. 2 This has since reduced to 3.5 FTE (April 2005) 3 Allows for seasonality of opening 16 remainder, bar one, were in ‘serious disrepair’ as defined by the Housing Acts.

The Trust now owns any housing formerly the property of the owner of Achamore House. Since the formation of the Trust, renovations on older properties have commenced and new housing is now under construction. Current and ongoing housing developments include 11 new houses to be sold to existing and new residents, 5 new bungalows/cottages for the elderly, 9 new houses for rent and two new business units, now housing the IGHT offices and The Hebridean Toffee Co. New housing is to include passive solar, solar water heating systems and increased i ns ul ati on to reduce energy use.

2.4 Industry

There are currently 4 dairy farms on the island, Ardlamy Farm, Tarbert Farm, Achamore Farm and Druimeonmore Farm, with a total herd size of around 300 cows. The milk from each farm is collected daily by First Milk to go to the creamery in Campbeltown. Recently the road tanker was leaving the island only ¾ full however the Trust has managed to increase the number of dairy farms, which now allows a full tank to be taken each day back to Campbeltown. Many of the farms als o rai s e other livestock e.g. sheep, beef cattle. The island also has two crofts, adding some diversity to local farming.

The fish farm operates from East Tarbert Bay Pier (See Figure 2.2). There are two sites where the cages of the fish farm are s itu ated, Druimeon Bay and East Tarbert Bay. Both are to the north east of the island. The fish farm’s main product is salmon; there is no processing on the island. All fish harvested go to Cairndow at the north end of Loch Fyne.

Until a year ago the fish farm operated from the south of the island and incorporated a processing plant that is still in existence today. It was designed to store and process fish such as turbot, cod, halibut and haddock. The implications of its continued inactivity are discussed later in this report (See section 5 . 1. 2. ).

The IGHT offices are situated beside the hotel in Ardminish. There is also a quarry recently opened just north of the road to Ardlamy Farm. The Caledonian Macbayne ferry is another local employer and the aforementioned Toffee Company formerly based in Barra has just decided to introduce an Isle of Gigha toffee and run operations from the island.

17 2.5 The Future Aims of Gigha

The IGHT has a current plan in place with the clear emphasis on improving the housing on the island. This is due to the lack of investment over many years. There is a housing shortfall on the island. Good quality housing is the first major issue they have tackled. It is seen as a way to ensure housing supplies meet the current demand from the existing community and also to encourage ‘incomers’ with skills, knowledge and capital. It would also be advantageous as an attempt to increase the population by redressing the balance so that there were more children than those of retirement age (see Section 2. 3: Island Statistics). Encouraging families to stay on the island needs good housing and social infrastructure.

The Trust has also managed to get a windfarm with 3 turbines up and running. This supplies roughly the equivalent of 2/3 of the i sl and’s electricity usage to the grid, the details of which are in Section 4.1.2.

As can be seen there are a lot of new developments going on concerning housing. There have been two work units built, housing the Hebridean Toffee Company and the Trust offices . There are also workshops proposed to encourage further small businesses to be based on the island. A diverse economy is seen as key to the future of the island and ensuring there is continued employment. Proposed for South Drumachro is the possibility of having a smokehouse, micro-brewery, small scale creamery or cold storage and packing facilities. There is to be a builders yard at the same location (IGHT, 2005).

The Trust has identified other areas that are in need for the community and for improving tourist facilities. These include (IGHT, 2005):

1 . Children’s play area 2 . Isle of Gigha Trust multi- purpose building 3 . Possible tennis courts/swimming pool 4 . Improved ferry terminal 5 . Formalised camping area 6 . Bu n k ho us e 7 . Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) 8 . Upgrade of garden infrastructure of Achamore House Gard en s 9 . Village Green 1 0 . Path network around the island 1 1 . New warehouse near the village hall 1 2 . Boat moorings for yachts 1 3 . Access to, and interpretation of cultural heritage

18 Which of these projects is pipelined to be in place ahead o f an y other proposal is as yet unclear. Finances shall dictate much of this decision. The spending of the Trust does seem to rely heavily on sponsors and grants from government initiatives. The real test shall be when such funding becomes a rarity.

The Trust has yet to formulate a vision for the long term although Mr Alan Hobbit (former Chief Executive of the Trust) had stated that the island aims for a population of 200 in 10 years time. While the Trust realises the notion of sustainable development, i t is realistic enough to know that priorities have to be made. How long financial help will continue remains to be seen. It would therefore be the aim that eventually the Trust and the inhabitants of the island can secure enough of a living on the islan d to help p a y t h e u p-keep and maintenance without further financial assistance. The various initiatives such as the windfarm shall certainly help. However it is too early to say whether the Trust and the islanders will manage to find a secure long-t erm fi nan ci al footing without any outside aid. Hopefully the current input to Gigha will prove to be the boost required to ensure a sustainable future, only time will tell.

19 3.0 Main Environmental Impacts on the Island

3.1 Dairy Farming 3.1.1 Current Dairy Farms

Dairy farming has been a mainstay of the island’s economy for many years. There are currently four dairy farms operating on Gigha. In total they have around 300 cattle and 200 sheep. Information as regards each farm is given below. A full tanker of milk is collected each day and taken back to Campbeltown Creamery by First Milk. The island has a quota of 2.1 million litres per year however current production is at around 1.8 million litres (IGHT, 2004). The current price per litre received b y t h e farmers is around 17.0 p. p. litre (K. Robinson, 2005, pers. comm.). The price fluctuates on a month to month basis. The average price of milk in 2003 received by milk producers in Scotland according to the Scottish Executive was 17.45p (SE, 2 0 04 ).

F i g u re 3.1: Dairy cows are the main livestock on the island.

Until May 2003 there were 3 dairy farms on the island producing only 1.2 million litres (IGHT, 2004) however the addition of a further tenancy at Achamore Farm has since allowed production t o in crease to current levels.

All the farms are currently on old seasonal leases for arable land formerly the ownership of the laird at Achamore House. These types of leases have been detrimental to the management of the land with little incentive for the land leased to be properly looked after. This is under negotiation with the new owners, IGHT. The new leases are intended to be 15 years in duration although negotiations are ongoing and there is talk of leases as long as 25 years and possibly longer. This will allo w th e opportunity for the farmers to benefit through long term planning and care of the land they lease.

20 Current Dairy Farms – Fact s

T a b l e 3 . 1 : Ardlamy Farm

Dairy herd size - 80 cows (Dairy – 4 -7 years old, 11 year closed herd) Ot her li v est o ck - 35 sheep (Mutton – 1 8-24 months old) Land Leased: Arabl e l an d - 750 acres all year. Silage Season - Cut and baled in May/June – Lat e Au gu st Slurry Spreader - Vacuum Plate Application of - ½ ton per acre p.a. – applied early summer nitrogen phosph at e Fu el Us age - Red Diesel ~ 5000 litres p.a. Vehi cles - 3 x tractors and 1 x telehandler Bedding straw - 8 tonnes p.a. Supplementary feed - 250 tonnes p.a. - catt l e cak e

Other Information:

The farm does not require a wastewater discharge consent fro m SEPA. All liquid waste is directed into and stored in the slurry s to re.

Ardlamy Farm has a slurry store capacity of 0.95 megalitres, with an estimated annual production of slurry and other dairy wastes of around 1.36 megalitres. This is spread onto the fields at various periods throughout the year. The dry matter content of the slurry is estimated at around 10 – 1 2 %.

T a b l e 3 . 2 : Druimeonmore Farm

Herd siz e - 75 Dairy Cattle Other livestock - 10 Beef cows, 75 Black Faced Sheep Land Leased: Arabl e l an d - 172 acres (113 hectares) Summer grazing land - 1 5 0 – 20 0 acres Silage season - 1s t Cut - M ay/ J u n e, 2 n d C ut - Earl y Au gu st – Al l b al ed Slurry Spreader - Vacuum plate Application of - ½ ton per acre p.a. nitrogen phosphate Fu el Us age - Red Diesel ~ 6000 litres per annum Vehi cles - 3 x tractors, 1 x small tractor

Other Information:

Druimeonmore Farm has a silage pit/shed and slurry tank that have been passed by SEPA as consenting to environmental regulations. Bedding straw is bought in and once used is gathered and dumped at a communal stockpile for collection to be taken to landfill. There is no uplift charge for this service. All other solid 21 waste is collected as domestic waste and taken to landfill. There are no drainage systems in place on the land leased by Druimeonmore Farm and thus run-off is not controlled.

Figure 3.2: The Slurry storage tank at Druimeonmore Farm

T a b l e 3 . 3 : Achamore Farm

Herd siz e - 6 0 Size of arable land - 4 0 0 Acres Silage season - M a y/ J u ne - Lat e Au gu st

Other Information:

Silage is baled in the same manner as the other farms. The farm also has a slurry collection system in place. The tenants have only been on the island for around a year. Already it has been stated that there are problems due to the accumulation of solid waste (silage bags, oil drums etc.).

T a b l e 3 . 4 : Tarbert Farm

Herd siz e - 70 dairy cattle, Other livestock - 20 beef, 50 calves, 100 sheep Lan d Leas ed Arabl e Lan d - 5 0 0 acres Summer grazing land - 1 2 0 acres Si l age s eas on - M a y/ J u ne - Au gu st Energy Usage - Estimated 90 000 kWh p.a. W at er Us age - Estimated 615 m3 p. a.

22 Other Information:

Tarbert Farm has a slurry tank capacity of 1.1 megalitres. All liquid waste products from the dairy process is collected and th en spread onto fields when required. Most of this is during the silage season. Around 500-600 tonnes of silage is produced per year and all is used to feed the livestock. The land leased by Tarbert farm at the moment is in two separate areas of the island . The main land leased is to the North near the farm and further grazing land leased in the South. No consents for discharges to water or solid waste are required by SEPA. Bedding straw is bought in, as is a certain amount of supplementary feed.

3.1.2 Impacts

Gigha has very diverse amounts of different grades of grazing land (See Appendix 6b). Around 1850 acres of the island 3500 acres is leased to the dairy farmers. Some fields are permanently n o n- ploughed while others are well maintained and offer ex cel lent grazing. There are also areas available for temporary summer pasture and other parts that are patchy and overgrown with bracken. This suggests that with careful management and planning the amount of grazing land may possibly be increased.

High rainfall an d sh o rt- term leases have probably combined to leave parts of grazing land on Gigha at below their best possible conditions. There is no practice of fallowing for any period of time on the island. On visiting, there were areas that were severely trodden and lacking in grasses. This may have been nothing other than the time of year (late January) when rainfall is above the average. There does appear to be reasonable fencing to separate areas and limit access for any livestock to parts that they shouldn’t be able to reach e.g. rivers. However, there was evidence of livestock being in fields with little grass. Whether they were there on a short-term basis is unclear. Bales of food were being supplied yet the presence of cattle on a bare field exacerbates the problem of lack of suitable grazing. Any churning of the ground and bare patches means a lack of retention of rainfall (due to the lack of vegetation and roots), which increases ru n- off. The problem may worsen over time and not only prevent grasses from regenerating but also increase the risk of pollution ru n- off into waterways.

The main impact from dairy farming hails from the amount of slurry, dung heaps and dirty water from cattle that can wash into water sources with any rain. The high annual rainfall in Gi gh a ensures plenty of run- off. On visiting there was no physical evidence of any problems to any rivers or sea outlets in the area. Testing of any waterways for pollutants is beyond the scope of this report. There are 4 slurry stores but there are no silage tanks on the island. The slurry stores are built to current standards and

23 regulations as required by SEPA and they hold liquid waste from all dairy production processes. Therefore if any possible accumulative problem were to occur, it could probably b e so u rced to a combination of spreading practices and poor land management.

The recommended limit set by DEFRA for slurry and manure spreading is no more than 20 tonnes per acre per annum (DEFRA, 2003). That is equivalent to 36 440 tonnes being spread o nt o land per annum by the four dairy farms. Thus the potential for pollution of beaches, groundwater and surface watercourses is very real. This may be from either one- off incidents or from diffuse pollution. A full assessment of these areas and the i mp acts from slurry and manure is required. The discharge consents required under the Control of Pollution (Silage, Slurry and Agriculture) Regulations 1991 may be extended to apply to smaller farms such as those on Gigha in the near future. Knowledge of any impact would allow for a successful transition to any required consents.

Nitrogen phosphate is commonly added onto arable land in early summer. The standard amount added by farmers in Gigha is ½ ton per acre (Robinson, K., 2005, pers. comm.). The amount ad d ed and the amount of risk posed depends greatly on the ratio of nitrogen, phosphate and potash in the mix. There is always the real possibility of excess nitrogen or phosphorous reaching waters and like slurry will cause algal blooms. Nitrogen can be in the form of ammonia, nitrite or nitrate, which are all commonly used in agricultural.

In waterways, the nitrogen or phosphorous can have two effects. It acts as a nutrient to the algae allowing them to blossom. As the algae grow, the plants at the bottom of a waterway don’t receive sunlight. These plants provide vital shelter and food for other species. Later any remaining aquatic life suffers due to the lack of oxygen as the algae use up any oxygen during decay (SEPA, 1 9 99 ).

The dairy farms will have to monitor for both slurry and nitrogen phosphate run-off reaching any watercourses. The Water Framework Directive comes fully into force in 2012 in Scotland and nitrate vulnerable zones will be assigned and more stringent standards of storage and application for certain substances will apply. All the farms will have to be aware of any developments.

There is no major use of pesticides on the land thus there is no possibility of an impact from run- off or from spillage during transport or storage.

Si l age season is kept well away from spring. This allows the grass to remain as a shelter and a food source for flora and fauna, leaving them to flourish for another year (DEFRA, 2003).

24 Each farm uses red diesel fuel for farm use and is required by law u n der t he Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 to have sufficient bunding and storage in case of any spillages. All the farms in Gigha have the required standard of bunding (Robinson, K., et. al., 2005, pers. comm.). Red diesel use on the island amounts to aro un d 20,000 litres every year. This is equivalent to emissions of 53 600 kg carbon dioxide (CO2 ) (14 633 kg Carbon) (NEF, 2005). Secure and safe storage allied to more efficient use will aid in any reduction in use of this fuel and reduce possible incidents of poll ut io n .

All the cattle and sheep must be de-loused and kept clean throughout the year. Once used the diluted washing chemicals are directed to the slurry tanks for use on fields at a later date. It is important that recommended levels are followed and amou nt s used kept to a minimum to avoid adverse effects after spreading.

The island has never had a problem with water supply. All water used by the farm is supplied from Mill Loch. Dairy farming itself is water intensive. The average amount used by the dairy farms on Gigha is around 1600 - 18 00 m 3 per year costing some farms upwards of £2000 per year (Robinson, K., et. al, 2005, pers. comm.). There are no active water efficiency measures in place on any of the farms however all equipment is of BS qualit y an d therefore efficiency of use passes legal requirements.

Water extraction is currently legal for any normal agricultural purpose under Scots Common Law (Scott, P., 2005, pers. comm.). At some point this will no doubt change and so looking into water use reduction measures now, may well help against any legal change in the future that maybe set under the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC).

As there has never been any problem with water supply on the island, it has to be assumed that currently this is not of concern. An y l o n g-term reductions in underground water sources on the island may as yet have gone unnoticed. Thus it is essential that potable water sources and water consumption is continually monitored and any measures that can be utilised to reduce use or possible pollution put in place.

Energy use on a dairy farm is centred round the milking operation and is extremely energy intensive. No figures of energy use are available for each farm however it can be estimated to be around 3 5 0 MW h p er annum in total based upon interviews with the farmers themselves. There are currently no energy efficiency measures in place on any of the farms that can contribute to reducing energy use by a significant amount. All motors and generators meet current specification regulations, but there is not an incorporated system among the dairy farms that recovers energy or heat from one process to be used in another. Efficiency

25 is vital in any business. Therefore each farm must ensure that all machinery is kept in good working order and is not oversized, inefficient or leaking. These inefficiencies cost any business money and reduce viability.

There is currently no land or agricultural factor/manager to look after the land and to liase with the Trust and the farmers. Thi s is not helping any impact from the dairy farms. It is also not helping the development of this mainstay of island life. If the farms are to reduce their impact then collective action is needed. This can only be achieved with good dialogue between relev ant parties. Otherwise any negative impact will have a knock on effect on tourism, trade and the ecology of the island.

3.1.3 Wastes

All solid farm waste is removed from the island and sent to landfill in Kintyre. All farmers on the island are well aware of the practice of not burning materials on site or for fly tipping. This is only adhered to in certain cases. There are cases of fly tipping and burning wastes on site. There is however a natural tendency for farmers to re- use items whenever possible, th us helping to reduce waste issues.

In the case of wastewater, regulations for slurry tanks were changed to stricter standards through amendments to the Control of Pollution Act 1974 (COPA) in the Environment Act 1990 (EA) stating that any such sludge tanks must be designed to specifications of no earlier than 1990. The farms have all been given permission by SEPA to operate their slurry stores, the earliest of which was installed after 1992. All wastewater from dairy production is directed towards suitable slurry stores and applied over the year onto fields as nutrients for the soil.

The island has consent from the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department (SEERAD) to have carcasses buried on the island. Meanwhile farmers on the mainland have their carcasses collected free of charge. This system applied to any carcasses on Gigha until a few years ago. However now, each farmer on the island must choose a suitable area on Gigha to dispose of a carcass and keep a record of where it is buried . There is no specific designated disposal site. Thus there is a possibility that the location of carcasses may not be recorded and each farmer may not know where others may have been buried. Instead of one disposal area that everyone can avoid and where any problem can be traced, there is a system where it can only get progressively more confusing as to where a carcass can be safely disposed of.

26 Figure 3.3: The island boasts highland beef cattle and sheep, as well as dairy cattle. Access to waterways should be restricted however in certain cases this can prove a difficult task (Source: IGHTa, 2005).

Oil drums and chemical containers are difficult to dispose of. Disposal of oil drums can cost in the region of £20 for those previously containing n on- hazardous substances and upwards of £ 8 0- 100 for those that contained hazardous substances (Shanks et. al, 2004, pers. comm.). Thus all the farmers have collected drums and containers of some sort over the years and have no other option but to stockpile them. Many re -use them for various purposes around the farm, however their condition deteriorates over time, leaks and rust develop, and can contaminate soil and water sources. There is no obvious solution however there may be the possibility that if each farm were to combine their stock of waste containers then safe disposal costs may be reduced.

3.2 Fish Farming 3.2.1 Current Fish Farming

The current fish farm on the island, run by Pan Fish Scotland, has 3 fu ll- time and one part-time employee (all of whom are Gi gh a residents). They operate from the East Tarbert Bay Pier. Previous owners were Aquascot, the farm changed hands in 2004 (Pan Fish, 2005). Pan Fish Scotland has been fully accredited in accordance with ISO 9000:2000 and are members of the Scottish S alm on Growers Association (SSGA) (Pan Fish, 2005). The company is one of the three largest producers of Scottish salmon and operates across Scotland. Their main processing plant is based in Cairndow, Argyll at the north head of Loch Fyne. Pan Fish supply salmon across the EU, USA and to Japan and harvested around 22,000 tonnes of fish in Scotland in 2003 (Pan Fish, 2005).

27 Currently Pan Fish are in the process of trying to reduce costs by restructuring the company. Thus marginal sites are being closed down and, along with authorities, they are attempting to maintain licenses and production levels but in fewer, more sustainable units (Pan Fish, 2005). In order to do this the company is reducing capacity to 14,000 tonnes of fish per annum before i n creasing to near 2003 levels again in the future (Pan Fish, 2005). This is unlikely to affect the operations in Gigha as they are running at a very low capacity at the moment. The farm also runs at a financial profit thus adding to its viability (Pan Fish, 2 0 05 ).

There is no hatchery, somewhere in the region of 420,000 smolt (8 0- 100g salmon) were acquired for this year’s harvest (Pan Fish, 2005). The farm has a consent limit of 600 tonnes of salmon or biomass at any one time. The current harvest cycle (16- 19 m on ths) is expected to produce a total of 1600 tonnes (Pan Fish, 2005) .All fish are harvested at sea by landing craft and transported to the mainland before being freighted to Cairndow by road. Adult farmed salmon weigh 8 –1 0 k g (4. 5- 5 lb.) however t h ey are often harvested at 4 -5 k g.

According to Pan Fish, they have a mortality rate of around 2-3 % to disease, although this is very variable as some diseases can affect higher numbers at different stages of a salmon’s life. This means that over this one cycle, out of 420,000 smolt, around 8 - 12k are expected to be lost through disease.

At 1600 tonnes to be harvested this represents 356,000 salmon (at 4.5kg) or 178,000 salmon (at 9kg). The remaining fish (52,000 – 234,000) from the original smolt stock must therefore be lost due to escapes or downgrading. Records with information as regards the exact amounts of salmon to escape are not available.

The farm uses roughly 2000 tonnes of feed per cycle, which is close to the industry average feed conversion ratio of 1 .2% (Skettering, 2005). It typically requires 2– 5 kg of other fish in the form of feed to generate 1 kg of salmon (Naylor et al. , 1 99 8, 2 0 00 ). Pan Fish Gigha site manager, Malcolm Henderson, stated that he aims to ensure a ratio of 2% for smolt and 1% for adul t salmon. By keeping to optimal feed ratios there is less waste and therefore less expenditure on further feed. Optimal feed ratios are also important as it reduces the possible negative effect of organic wastes on the seabed and lessens the potential imp act of any chemicals contained in the feed on other species.

28 Figure 3.4: East Tarbert Bay Pier on Gigha where Pan Fish operate.

The farm is subject to Area Management Agreements (AMA), which includes a protocol for monitoring and controlling salmo n l ou s e (L. Salmonis) . A minimum of 5 fish in at least 5 cages must be checked twice per week between May and November and once a week from December and April. Target levels are for zero (Feb – Jun) and 0.2 (Jul – Jan) ovigerous lice per fish (Pan Fish AMA, 2 0 05 ).

The protocol is part of the National Treatment Strategy for salmon louse set up mainly by the SSGA. The strategy encourages communication between salmon producers to ensure the strategy is implemented. As part of the strategy, the cage sites hav e d iv ers to inspect, monitor and record details for broken nets, seabed quality and deposition spread on a regular basis.

3.2.2 Impacts

Salmon farming has never been far from the headlines. Problems associated with its practice are well documented. Chemical pollution, organic wastes and escapees are all attributed to the decline of wild salmon stocks. Hansen (in Sattaur, 1989) reported that 20% of salmon caught by the Norwegian commercial fishing industry had escaped from fish farms. In 1987, one reported incident resulted in 90 000 salmon entering a Scottish sea loch system from a farm (Maitland, 1987). Organic carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus compounds in faecal material and uneaten food also constitute a major form of pollution from marine fish farmi n g (Ackefors and Enell, 1990).

There have been several studies into polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB’s) levels in salmon and salmon feed and many conclude that there are indeed higher levels among farmed salmon. Scientific

29 studies covering Scotland, Ireland, British Colombia and Alaska found farmed salmon contained higher levels of dioxin like PCB’s than wild salmon (Easton, M. D., et al. 2002 and Jacobs, M., et a l., 2002). Meanwhile Canadian scientists recorded farmed salmon samples contained 5.2 times more PCB’s than in wild salmon (Easton, M. D., et al., 2 00 2 ).

PCBs are said to be the source of some forms of cancer (Mayes, B.A., et al. , 1998 and ATSDR, 2000) and that they can also affect neural functions during development (Schantz, S. L., et a l., 2 0 03 ). Th ey can build up in salmon at 20- 30 times the level they can when in their natural environment or in feed (Jackson, L. J., et al ., 2 00 1 ).

In most of these cases, wild salmon were harvested from environment relatively free of industrial pollution. Farmed fish raised in that same environment ate fishmeal with higher levels of PCBs than the native fish consumed by wild salmon (Jackson, L.J., et. al . , 20 01 ).

Many farmed salmon are prone to disease and infestation. Sea lice are a common problem and treatment methods are, as yet, not able to guarantee their full eradication. The increased presence of sea lice on farmed fish has coincided with an increase in cases on wild salmon. While farmed fish numbers are ever increasing, wild stocks have suffered greatly in recent years. Thus the increase in farmed species is widely held responsible for the decline of wild salmon (Montaigne, F., 2003).

The farm has to apply to SEPA for the appropriate treatment medicines to use. There are also vaccination treatments for s almo n at pre -sea stage that are proving useful in the battle against sea lice. Through the SSGA all fish farms now have constant dialogue and where possible they plan and synchronise their treatment strategies for salmon lice to prevent any spreading of the disease, this has helped immeasurably in reducing incidents of disease in recent years (Pan Fish, 2005).

The company has a practice of a fallow cycle every 3 cycles with a minimum fallow period of 6 weeks. This helps to break up the l ife-cycle of the lic e and also allows benthic species to re- gro w on the seabed (Pan Fish, 2005).

It is required by SEPA for fish farms to have consent forms for biomass levels and nutrient concentrations. Nutrient concentrations must be monitored to ensure that hypernutrification does not occur. Biomass levels for a salmon farm refers to the amount of farmed fish in a given area and must be at a set limit to prevent any accumulation of organic wastes on the seabed (for Gigha this is 600 tonnes). This can create anoxic co nd itions and increase the amount of polluted sediments with detrimental effects on the normal benthic fauna (SEPA, 2005).

30 Bathymetry of any fish farming is dependent upon the location of other sets of cages and also the depth and current of the waters. In particular due to the possible impact of organic waste. If it is not dispersed adequately, the waste may cover the seabed in one given area. This reduces dissolved oxygen levels and smothers seabed plants reducing shelter and feeding grounds for other aq u atic species. Any site selection also requires information as regards hydrography of any area beneath cages (SEPA, 2005). This involves finding out the mean speed of the current at the seabed of the area to be affected from the cages of salmon. Table 3 . 5 below highlights the maximum allowed biomass of farmed fish per given seabed current speeds and depending on site risk.

Mean Speed of High Risk Site Average Risk Low Risk Site S eab ed No fall ow Si te Lo n g fal lo w Cu rrent p eri od Fi n e No fall ow p eri od (cm/ s) s edim ents p eri od , No C ou rs e En cl os ed cu rren t s edim ents wat ers p rob lems No cu rrent P ro bl em s p rob lems currently exist Sensitive sit es. < 3 5 0 to nn es 1 0 0 t on n es 2 5 0 t on n es 3 - > 5 2 5 0 t on n es 5 0 0 t on n es 7 5 0 t on n es 5 – 10 5 0 0 t on n es 1 0 00 to nn es 1 5 00 to nn es > 10 7 5 0 t on n es 1 5 00 to nn es 2 0 00 to nn es

Table 3.5: Provisional guidelines for maximum biomass levels for fish farms (SEPA, 2005). The farm on Gigha has a mean seabed current of b e t w e e n 5 - 10 cm/s and is situated in an average risk site.

There are models available to assess and monitor organic deposition from fish farm cages based upon local current speeds and settlement velocities. A more complex model ‘DEPOMOD’ 4 i s soon to be used by SEPA that also includes information regarding hydrographic details of the area, dispersion, settlement, re- suspension, fish growth and degradation rates of organic carbon. Organic carbon levels on the seabed allied with a complex model for dispersal can be used as to set a benchmark for the amount of benthic activity in these areas and thus what damage may be taking place (SEPA, 2005). The up dated version of DEPOMOD also predicts sea lice chemical treatment dispersion (Cromey, C. J., et al ., 2002). An Allowable Zone of Effect (AZE) can then be designated to a fishfarm based upon models and effects of organic and chemical deposition monitored in and out of the zone for sedimentation.

4 ‘DEPOMOD’ – Software developed by SEPA and the Scottish Association of Marine Sciences. 31 Consents for nutrient additions (these include feeds and medication) are set to ensure nitrogen and phosphorus levels are within safe limits. Acceptable loads from fish farming are set according to biomass consents or the quantity and quality of feed used. Other possible inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus to the relevant body of water e.g. from dairy farming, must also be taken into consideration.

The discharge from medicines and trace chemicals in feed is also a major issue. The dispersion of these once they have entered a waterway make them difficult to monitor. As for organic deposition, hydrography, dispersion and flushing periods (the t im e for the total volume of water in a given waterway to be displaced) they are all considered when assessing the effects. The difficulty is magnified by the low concentrations present of these substances. Relatively little amounts are needed to be applied yet their cumulative impact on a nearby ecosystem can h av e kn o ck-on effect s.

SEPA recommends that hydrogen peroxide be used as part of de- lousing. Currently Pan Fish use a treatment that is 50% hydrogen peroxide for their salmon; this is classed as a corrosive su bs t an ce and is commonly used by salmon fish farms. SEPA recommends that it is not to be used on fish that are under 200 grams and a safe dosage rate of 1500 ppm over a 20- minute period.

A typical feed used by Pan Fish contains vitamin’s A, D and E an d is 26% oil, 45% protein, 7% ash and 2% fibre. Excess addition of feed can imbalance the surrounding ecology by increasing the likelihood of algal blooms in summer months. There have been no reports of algal blooms in or near the Sound o f Gi gh a.

Th e wat er quality of an area being used for fish farming is continually monitored and checked for various levels of pollutants including dissolved oxygen (DO), nitrogen rich nutrients, chlorophyll and phytoplankton, medicines and other chemicals. SEPA and the Ministry for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries (MAFF) are responsible for any waters affected by a fi sh farm.

3.2.3 Wastes

All fish harvested is done at sea and the salmon is packed and transported to Cairndow swiftly in order to ensure they arrive as fresh as possible. Therefore waste levels for the current operation in Gigha are minimal. However the amount of fish lost through downgrading, disease and escapes must be considered as a major waste of the operations. High efficiency is essential in any business and th ere is always room for improvement and this is something the industry is trying to improve. Any escapees have also to be considered a waste and the possible effects they can 32 have on wild salmon stocks and to other marine life needs further investigation.

Feeds and chemicals are used at an optimum and thus waste products are in the form of containers. Empty IBC units are collected by the supplier and re-used free of charge. Oil drums and other containers are collected and a fee paid for their safe d is po s al. However the frequency of disposal for the latter is the same as the rest of the island – very infrequent.

The fish farming operation uses around 18,000 litres of red diesel per year. Each of the farms 2 boats are serviced annually. There h av e b een n o cases of any spillages or incidents involving any diesel or other chemicals over the last 3 years. As with any business appropriate bunding for red diesel is required.

3.3 Construction and Renovations 3.3.1 Housing and Development

The housing conditions survey and the housing needs study in 2002 has resulted in a major amount of housing and construction work now being undertaken. Without further accommodation being available, regeneration of the economy will be extremely difficult. On purchasing the island the Tust inherited 42 dwellings. All bar one were found to be in need of refurbishment. There was also evidence of a lack of affordable housing available for rent or purchase. ‘Hidden households’ on the island are high and many elderly residents who wish to remain at home are living in poor conditions and in isolated locations.

The Trust, Fyne Homes Housing Association and Communities Scotland have worked together and have planned an initial stage of 16 homes to be built for socially renting. A further five are under consideration for the future. There are eleven available plots for building new private housing, 2 of which have begun. There are 42 houses owned by the trust to be refurbished. These will be completed by 2011 with a conversion of property expect ed to bring the amount of dwellings to 43. A new children’s playground has already been installed.

Other developments planned for over the next 8 years include:

2 x holiday cottages at Leimm Farm 1 x bunkhouse 3 x craft units 2 x model crofts 1 x m ulti- purpose building

The estimated capital cost for all the developments is estimated at £ 8-8.5 million over a seven - year period (See Appendix 4). It is

33 expected that there will be costs to tradesmen amounting to roughly £1.76 million over the seven years of development (See Appendix 5). It is also estimated that maintenance and repairs for 43 trust houses and 16 Fyne Homes houses will require finance of nearly £30,000 per annum.

The local authority has offered a maximum housing improvement grant of £60,000 per dwelling and the trust has the option of borrowing up to £12,500 per dwelling through the bank. Alienergy, the Energy Savings Trust and the Dunfermline Building Society have provided additional funding. Average housing rents for Argyll and Bute in 2001 were £39.25 per week (M o re, A., et al ., 2003). Once completed the 59 properties would generate somewhere around £120,000 per annum in rent.

Fyne Homes, the trust and three local builders have set up a consortium to undertake the housing and development need s. Th e consortium involves monthly meetings to evaluate progress and to designate future work. There is too much work at the moment for one small company to deal with, thus the consortium ensures local contractors benefit by receiving continuity of work.

Expected savings in energy costs shall offset any rent increases. Any new housing or refurbishments shall include various passive and active energy saving measures (See Section 4.1.3.).

Figure 3.5: Site of new housing near the post office and s h o p .

All housing and development on the island is being designed in clusters dotted around the island (See Appendix 6). This is to ensure that they blend into the established community. These clusters of housing are to replicate the farm steadings cluster o f

34 buildings already in place on the island. This will ensure that the character of the island will remain closer to its origins.

There are several other benefits from using this system. The cluster model allows for energy efficiency to be built into th e design by maximising solar gains. It also gives some owners the opportunity to expand properties to incorporate workshops, storage etc. The cluster model also disperses traffic, parking and encourages walking and cycling.

Housing will be available in several forms to provide a selection of different types. Full ownership, shared ownership and tenanted dwellings shall all be available. There is also to be a selection designed specifically for the elderly.

Figure 3.6: The house on the right is a near completed refurbishment. The house to the left shall be up graded to the same standard.

3.3.2 Quarry

The Trust has taken the decision to open a quarry on the island to supply aggregate for any developments on the island. The construction of houses by Fyne Homes will require an estimated 4000 tonnes of aggregate. The foundations for the wind turbines and access roads to the windfarm needed 2500 tonnes of aggregate. Other developments such as road improvements, a warehouse, a bunkhouse and possibly three small business/ light industrial units will mean further demand for sand, gravel and aggregate. These extra developments are expected to require a further 13,500 tonnes of Aggregate. Thus a total of 20,000 tonnes of aggregate is estimated as required for the island to meet its development goals (IGHTb, 2004). An initial 10,000 tonnes has been commissioned for extraction by the Trust.

Importing type 1 aggregate involves a cost of £360 per 20 tonne delivered. Over a two- week period it is expected that the qu arry will produce 6700 tonnes (3360m3 ) in its first phase of excavation, worth an estimated market value of £120,000. The 35 cost of excavation over two-weeks and ensuring future access to stockpiles is around £6000. The aggregate will therefore be ex cav at ed and delivered at a cost of about £1.10 per tonne. By quarrying materials on the island there is also expected to be a significant decrease in heavy vehicle traffic.

The quarry provides blue whinstone that a selected specialist contractor is extracting, crushing and stockpiling. The operation includes the creation of an access road to the quarry, preparation of the site, drilling, blasting, crushing and stockpiling over a fi ve- week period.

The site of the quarry is to the west side of Cnoc na Croise, the glen, Isle of Gigha and covers around 0.98 acres. Access to the site is from Ardlamy road, a non-adopted farm road, which serves Ardlamy Farm and Cuddy Port Cottage only. The site is not visible from any residential property on the island thus reducing any visual impact. Movement of vehicles along access roads will only be visible from the west and south west.

Figure 3.7: The quarry on the west side of Cnoc na Croise.

The quarry contractor is legally bound to use dust suppression equipment that is ‘authorised’ and ‘permitted’ by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA). Dust suppression equipment generally relies on water spray as a means of control. This will lead to surface run- off, therefore the quarry contractor has provided for surface water collection in the form of a settlement pond with all surface water from the site being drained to the pond. The settlement pond is fenced off within the quarry s it e.

The water is recycled and continually used for dust suppression and any clear discharge from the pond leaving the site via a

36 suitable drainage ditch. The contractor is required to show to the satisfaction of the trust and any statutory bodies that surface water will not permeate through the surface and contaminate ground water.

F igure 3.8: Stockpiled blue whinstone and a drainage pond leading to a d i t c h .

There is no timescale set as yet for the length of quarry operations, this will depend on demand. The first stage of 6700 tonnes has been extracted, yet it is unclear whether the ful l 20,000 aggregate that is needed will be from Cnoc na Croise. Members of the Trust will decide on this matter at a later date. Once the quarry has been fully utilised it will be reinstated to match with local surroundings. The quarry floor will house wast e aggregate from construction underneath a soil covering and planted with native woodland. Trees proposed include birch (betula pubescens), h az el ( carylus avelena), pedunculate oak (quercos robur ), scots pine (pinus sylvestris ) and eared willow (s ali x a uri ta). The quarry shelves are to have a mixture of wild flowers and scrub.

3.3.3 Waste

The most noticeable impact from the new developments in housing and construction are based upon increased traffic levels. There have been heavy vehicles due to the opening of the quarry and other vehicles from e.g. delivery of supplies from the mainland adding to the entire goings on. This will not continue in the long term but does add to the current optimism in the air surrounding the change in fortune since the commun it y b u y -o u t . The traffic levels are less than they could have been if any aggregate had come from the mainland.

Waste from housing and construction is currently piling up in a yard leased by the building consortium at South Druimachro. This h as b een s eparated and awaits collection whereby any usable 37 materials will be recovered, recycled or re- used. Any remaining waste shall be sent to landfill on the mainland.

There is also a considerable amount of aggregate waste situated behind the hotel (see figure 3.9). This is likely to increase as developments continue and require further space. The intention is to use this waste material for the floor of the quarry once the quarry is being reinstated.

Figure 3.9: A stockpile of aggregate waste.

3.4 Tourism 3.4.1 Accommodation

The following is a list of current available overnight visitor facilities:

Na me T yp e Gi gh a Hot el Ho tel Ardailly House Self Catering Ferryman’s House Self Catering Ferry Crofts x 2 Self Catering South Ardminish S el f C at erin g S out h Lo d ge Self Catering Achamore House B&B Post Office Guest House B&B Tighnavinish B&B

There are plans for an official campsite and a bunkhouse is part of the housing developments. Where and when the campsite will b e introduced is currently being debated. Both the bunkhouse and the campsite would help to give the island an extra dimension in terms of attracting visitors.

38 The hotel has a licensed restaurant and licensed bar for refreshments. There is also the licensed Boathouse near the ferry pier, which also offers food and drinks.

It is clear from the figures above that there is ample available accommodation. It also enforces the importance of tourism to Gigha. If all the accommodation were booked simultaneously t h en the population of the island would raise by almost a further 50%. The impact of tourism is not so much an environmental concern but more that of an economic concern. Visitors are a very important source of income to Gigha and its inhabitants.

3.4.2 Achamore Gardens

Sir James Horlick started the gardens in 1944. The main idea was to have a place for him to grow his selection of rare rhododendrons. The gardens are still home to many different species of rhododendrons including, Humming Bird, Mayday and Elizabeth, Gigantum, C.F. Coates, Inspiration and Barbara Hillier to name but a few. There is also a wide selection of herbaceous plants around the gardens, varieties of Hostas, Gunnera, Astilbes and Primulas all add to the colourful setting (IGHTa, 2005).

Figure 3.10: Rhododendron Avalanche Calophytum

39 Figure 3.11: Above: Rhododendron Abies Kingdom Ward. Right: Rhododendron titness crimson.

There are flowers, trees and shrubs from all over the world, including the Japanese Katsura Tree (cercidiphyllum japonicum), Tasmanian Laurel (anopterus glandulosa), Tree of Heav en (ailanthus altissima) from China, the Chilean Firebrush (ermbothruim coccineum) and the Himalayan Birch (betula utilis) to name but a few (IGHTa, 2005).

Figure 3.12: Left: Dicksonia Antartica. Above: Gunnera Manicata

The gardens are undoubtedly one of the main attractions for many o f t he t ou rists and are also a source of great pride for those who live on Gigha. Currently the gardens are under the stewardship of the Trust. The current head gardener is due to retire in 18 months; an assistant is urgently required to take over the task.

40 Th e t rees surrounding the gardens belong to the trust and will need to be maintained. They were originally planted as protection for the gardens. They prevent sea spray and high winds disrupting plant growth. The trees on the periphery of the gardens are m ai nl y S ilv er Bi rch (betula pendula) , Ro wan (sorbus aucuparia), Beech (Fagus sylvatica) and a selection of conifers. The area of gardens and surrounding trees covers a total of 50 acres (IGHTa, 2 0 05 ).

Figure 3.13: Part of the walled gardens including a z a l e a h o l l a n d i a , rhododendron Elizabeth Creeping Jenny a n d metasequoia glyptostroboides.

3.4.3 Recreation

Those who arrive in Gigha whether for a day visit or a longer stay are generally there to enjoy the scenery, fresh air and the peace and quiet. Day visitors can have a stroll, picnic, cycle about the island or maybe for some lunch at the hotel. Archaeological sites are littered around the island and they also attract a great deal of interest. Ancient sites on the island such as the medieval chapel, the Ogham stone and various standing stones are evidence of the island’s historical inhabitants going back some 4000 years (IGHT, 2005).

The Trust has recently managed to set-up a path network around the island. The 10 paths incorporate the main archaeological s it es , viewpoints and places of interest on the island. It is unclear whether a cycle path will accompany the footpath however cycling is already well catered for. There are around 20 bikes of various sizes and types that can be rented from the post office (5 m inutes walk from the ferry). The road network on the island allows a cyclist to access the very north and southern tips of the island without getting off their bike. A trip to the highest point on the island, Creag Bhar, is not far from Mill Loch and only 5 minutes walk to the top from there. Once on Gigha, the whole island is easily accessible, its small size dictating its accessibility. 41 Figure 3.14: There is a 9-hole golf course on the island just south of Druimeonmore Farm (Source: IGHTa, 2005).

Sea fishing is another option open as an activity for visitors. Any demand for this is in the summer months. This could be a good way for generating extra income and can be incorporated into eco-tourism of the surrounding marine life such as dolphins etc.

Gigha has recently started a music festival in the summer. This, in time could help immensely in attracting tourists o nt o t h e i sl an d.

There is plenty of access for sailing and boating with many piers placed on the shores of Gigha. There has previously been fishing on the Upper Loch. This appears to have been some time ago and the loch would require re-stocking. Wha t species is to be chosen to restock the loch is currently under consideration. While wild brown trout would be more expensive and would require feeding grounds to prevent further restocking, there is also the option of annually restocking with farmed brown or rainbow trout.

Like so many parts of the Scottish coast there are numerous beaches.What are not wanted are the problems of those experienced at Ettrick Bay in Bute. The beaches at Ettrick Bay have suffered due to the effects of agriculture and the run- o ff experienced during wet weather. This has meant they have failed to meet regulations set under EC Bathing Water Directive (76/160/EEC) every year since 1999 (SEPA, 2005b). This relates to recreational waters and any waterway failing to meet these s tandards will be likely to experience reduced tourist numbers as a consequence. Any failure to meet bathing water regulations will also mean a failure to meet WFD targets of surface and groundwater quality. This is on top of the danger such pollution p os es to bathers themselves.

42 3.4.4 Biodiversity

Gigha has an abundance of wildlife that attracts many visitors. A Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) is something that the trust wishes to undertake. Unfortunately this cannot be done at the moment due to other priorities. It is imperative that when it is undertaken, not only the main Isle of Gigha is considered but that the surrounding waters are also included.

There is a wonderful array of wild flowers and wild birds to be seen and a wide variety of aquatic life, in and around the island. W ren s (Troglodytes troglodytes ), grey herons ( Ardea cinerea), cormorants (Phalacrocorax carbo), gan n et s ( sula bassana), s p eed well (Veronica officinalis), seaside centaury (C ent au ri um l itt or al e), risso’s dolphin ( Grampus griseus ) etc all add a colour and vibrancy to the rural scene.

There are wastewater outlets from domestic and agriculture purposes that may affect water quality and have a knock on effect on species. There is also the continued threat from agricultural ru n- o ff. While all wastewater goes through sceptic tanks and slurry stored in suitable tanks, there is still the risk that there may be a build up of pollution affecting some wildlife on or around the island. Continual monitoring is required to ensure no i n cid ents occur. It is also important start logging data concerning which species and habitats there are on and around Gigha.

Figure 3.15: Two of the species commonly found on Gigha Left: A grey heron (Ardea cinerea) ( S o u r c e : http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/heron,%20reflected%20i n%20water%20180_tcm3-38309.jpg)

Above: speedwell ( Veronica officinalis ) ( S o u r c e : www.ryenats.org.uk/ detail1a.htm)

43 4. Energy, Waste and Water Management

4.1 Energy 4.1.1 Current Supply

The island depends entirely upon electricity supplied by th e national grid system. There is no gas supply to the island. The windfarm on the island generates enough for 2.1 GWh electricity, which is 2/3 of the islands total usage (GRE, 2004). Thus the total island electricity demand is around 3.15 GWh electricity. An average household uses 1960 kg of oil equivalent of energy per year (NS, 2005). This is equal to an average consumption of 22.79 MWh of electricity per household on Gigha (67 houses). Thus households consume an estimated total of 1.527 GWh per an nu m (47% of island total). The remaining 1.724 GWh (53%) being mainly used by the dairy farms, but also the fish farm and other smaller operations on the island.

This figure will rise as new houses are built, however if they are built to high efficiency specifications then their impact shall be minimised. As older dwellings are refurbished then average household energy consumption on Gigha should decline.

4.1.2 Windfarm

One of the most visible changes to Gigha since the Trust take- over, are the 3 wind turbines that now stand to the south of the island. Argyll, Lomond and the Islands Energy Agency set up an anemometer for wind tests. An environmental statement and a Visual Impact Analysis were carried out. The trust set up a trading company called Gigha Renewable Energy Ltd (GRE). Th ree pre- commissioned wind turbines were purchased, connected to the grid and are now in full operation. The turbines were previously being used in Cumbria (for 10 years) and have 8 years remaining on their parts. All other infrastructure (e.g. cables, transformers etc) are new.

44 Figure 4.1: The ‘dancing ladies’ of Gigha.

Some facts about the turbines are given below (Vestas, 1990):

M od el - 3 x Vestas V27 C apacit y - 2 2 5 kW Total energy per annum - 2 . 1 GW p. a. Blade length - 1 3 .5 m S wep t area - 5 7 2. 6 m2 Hu b h ei ght - 3 1 .5 m Blade material - Fibreglass reinforced polyester To wer bui ld - 3 section rolled steel Average windspeed - 7 m /s St art-up windspeed - 3 . 5 m /s C ut- out windspeed - 2 5 m/ s

The amount of energy these turbines produce is equivalent to 2/3 of the islands electricity needs (GRE, 2004). The 2.1 GW produced per annum is equivalent to savings of 0.9 megatonnes of carbon dioxide.

The project was financed through a variety of public and private i nit i atives and the IGHT. Details of the costs and funding involved in setting up the windfarm are given in table 4.1.

45 Table 4.1: Funding sources of the ‘dancing ladies’ (GRE, 2004).

Type of Funding Source of Funding Amo un t (£ ) Grant National Lotter y 5 0 ,0 00 administered by Forward Scotland Grant Scottish Executive 8 2 ,0 00 administered by Highlands and Islands Enterprise Commercial Loan Social Investment 1 4 8, 00 0 Fi n an ce S cotl an d Equity Holdings Highlands and 8 0 ,0 00 Islands Enterprise Eq uit y Ho ldi n gs Isle of Gigha 4 0 ,0 00 Heritage Trust Total Capital Cost 4 0 0, 00 0

The loan received from Social Investment Scotland is repayable at a fixed rate of interest over 5 years. The turbines have a life span remaining of 8 years. Until then there will be a capit al reinvestment fund continually accumulating enough funds for the approximated £160,000 cost, to replace any parts of the turbines (GRE, 2004). Vestas have a manufacturing plant located in Campbeltown and are contracted to service and repair the t u rbines in Gigha.

Green Energy buys any electricity generated. So far the turbines have been turning for 3- 4 months. The going rate for electricity bought by Green Energy is 2.4 p.p.kWh. Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROC’s) are also sold to Green Energy at a variable rate, currently at £31.39 pMWh. Over a ten-day period in December 2004, the windfarm generated 67 MWh. Therefore the income form ROC’s constitutes the major part of any income.

The turbines will produce approximately 2100 MWh per annum. At 2.4 p.p.kWh that generates income of around £50,400 per year. ROC’s at £31.39pMWh will therefore provide £65,919 income for GRE per annum. Thus, total annual income from the wind turbines will be around £116,319. The payback period is therefore ro u ghl y 3.4 years. This does not include the fact that £132,000 of the capital cost was provided in the form of a grant. Taking this into account gives a reduced payback period of 2.3 years.

46 4.1.3 Housing

As mentioned any increase in rent for tenants is expected to b e offset by savings in energy. New houses and refurbishments are to use best possible environmental practice. The design for the new houses was chosen from a short list of 4 architects, each of whom presented their designs to the members of the Trust. All had energy efficiency at the heart of their work.

Passive and active solar measures will be used. New housing will include solar water heating panels, solar porches and sunspaces. Roof coverings will utilise solar plates to pre-heat ventilation ai r and to lightly pressurise the house. This will reduce heat demand and prevent condensation occurring. Each house will have wood burning stoves for space and water heating. They will also have underfloor heating systems in place. The new houses have an average SAP rating of 65, however these do not include the installation of solar panels. This is due to the fact that the heating systems are as yet not fully developed.

There are 6 houses to be refurbished that have had calculations completed as regards possible energy savings after various energy efficiency measures were installed:

Creamery Cottage North Drumachro Wo od end Woodside No. 3 Woodside No. 4 Burnside No. 3

The calculations are based on each house receiving the following energy efficiency measures:

Installed sunspace Super Insulation (walls, internal walls, roof and floor) Solar hot water plates Solar ventilation

The total cost of these improvements is expected to amount to around £100,000. Details of energy savings per house are given i n tabl e 4 .2 .

47 Table 4.2: Refurbished homes on Gigha energy savings data (Source: Prof. MacGregor, K., Scottish Solar Energy Group on behalf of IGHT).

Pro p erty k Wh p .a . k Wh p .a . - % S avi ngs - Bef o re After C ream ery 6 3 0 72 1 6 2 34 7 4 .2 6 C ott . Bu rns id e 6 4 1 28 2 3 5 04 6 3 .3 5 C ott. Wo od end 2 7 5 52 4 81 4 8 2 .5 3 Woodside (3) 3 3 8 83 5 95 0 8 2 .4 4 Woodside (4) 3 6 5 98 7 52 6 7 9 .4 4 No rt h 6 2 9 76 1 9 4 19 6 9 .1 6 Drum achro T o tal 2 8 8 20 9 7 7 4 47 7 3 .1 2 Av erage 4 8 0 35 1 2 9 08 7 5 .2 0

The energy savings made reduces carbon dioxide emissions by 90,627 kg per annum.

If these measures cost £100,000 to install then the payback period can be calculated.

Total kWh saved = 21 0 76 2 R at e p er kWh = 2. 4p Total saved p.a. = £5 ,0 58 Payback Period = 19 .8 Years

This would still be considered a worthwhile exercise. Capital costs have partly been funded through initiatives such as Communities Scotland and the houses are planned to be available for rent only. Thus the properties will remain ownership of the Trust for the full payback p eri od .

4.2 Waste 4.1.1 Solid Waste

Housing and construction waste is being collected at South Drumachro Farm. The yard is under a lease agreement with the building consortium and the IGHT. It is separated and awaits collection for re-use or disposal. Aggreg ate waste is to be used as refill for the quarry once the site is to be reinstated.

There is no landfill site on the island and so all domestic waste is sent to landfill on the mainland. There is a bottle collection bank at the ferry pier and a waste paper collection point in Tayinloan. There are recycling facilities in Campbeltown and Tarbert that can accommodate paper, cardboard, cans, textiles, plastic bottles, engine oil, white goods (e.g. electrical equipment, bicycles etc.)

48 and car batteries. There is a high proportion of re- use among the co mmu ni t y.

The lack of facilities on the island and its remote location has dictated that waste collection is expensive, time consuming and therefore loads are generally packed to their limit. This is a p rob lem that faces every island community in Scotland. The result of which are fly tips appearing in various locations and Gigha is no exception (See figure 4.2).

Figure 4.2: Three recent examples of fly tipping on Gigha.

When the Trust took over the island there was a consignment of scrap metal taken off the island and a clean up of many areas. However the consignment was either not large enough or the l on g-term problem has not been fully solved. There are several areas on the island that have been used for fly tipping and for dumping scrap metals.

4.1.2 Wastewater

All sewage and wastewater is discharged out to sea via sceptic tanks before being directed to reed beds, which help further filtration of any wastewater. A full map of drainage and wast ewater systems has never been completed. Such details would be extremely useful for future reference and could also be integrated with global information systems and aid in the full implementation of the WFD. This will involve completing flood risk assessment strategies and setting microbiological standards in fresh and marine waters in relation to discharges. Both will require detailed knowledge of any drainage systems on the island – domestic and non- d om es ti c.

There are new sceptic tanks being installed at new housing, refurbished houses and also at the hotel. All sceptic tanks collect scum that requires removal, a process necessary every 12–1 8 months. This scum is transported to landfill.

49 There are no processes on the island that require a water d is charge consent from SEPA. All wastewater from milking processes on the dairy farm are directed to and collected in slurry t ank s.

4.2 Water 4.2.1 Potable Water Supply

Potable water is supplied to the residents from Mill Loch. This is south west of the island’s highest point Creag Bhar (168m). The water is owned by the Trust and monitored by Scottish Water who are contracted to ensure the water is safe for use.

Figure 4.3: Mill Loch with Upper Loch to the right where freshwater fishing is being proposed.

M ill Loch is situated in an area that is fortunate enough to be surrounded by land that is largely unsuitable for grazing (See figure 4.3). A wall of hills that are covered in bracken, heather and rock protects the loch. This greatly reduces any possible i mp act from field run- off affecting potable supplies.

4.2.2 Water Extraction

Under Scots Law any extraction of water is free for normal domestic and agricultural purposes. There will undoubtedly be a change in the legal framework for the extraction of water, which will possibly affect the dairy farms and any other business operating on the island. Pricing policies are due to be introduced in 2010 as part of Article 9 of the WFD (2000/60/EC) (SEPA, 2005a). As part of the new Water Environment and Water S erv ices (Scotland) Act, extraction of water will require a consent (Scott, P., 2005). This means water use and discharge 50 will be regulated. The benefits of forward planning for such matters help immeasurably.

There has never been a recorded year for water shortages o n t h e island. While the fish processing farm is not being utilised, water extraction is unlikely to affect supplies. This does not mean that monitoring is not necessary. The dairy farms will have to be aware of forthcoming changes in legislation, as this will affect them most on the island.

51 5. Discussion

5.1 Sustainable Industry 5.1.1 Dairy Farming

In recent years dairy farming across the UK has been going through a period of change. While herd sizes and yields per cow have increased, farmers have been leaving agriculture as costs have risen and price per litre has dropped for milk reducing any potential for profits. In 1996 the price per litre was over 25p (Brigstocke, T., 2005) yet the farmers on Gigha now only receive 17ppl. Dairy farming has evidently seen healthier days on the open market.

On speaking with some of the farmers on the island, it seems that some may prefer a move to beef and lamb production instead of dairy. In the light of the current situation surrounding dairy farming this may yet be the only option. There is also the fact that the only demand for dairy milk from the island, comes from the creamery in Campbeltown. If the creamery were to suffer financial trouble then the farmers would be forced into producing beef and lamb. There is a slaughterhouse on Islay and some of the farmers utilise this to supplement income. All of the farms on the island have some stock of beef cattle. This diversity in operations is crucial to the future of the farms. It does seem however that the current dairy situation and its future is not as solid as could be hoped. It would only take one of the dairy farms to revert to beef and lamb to reduce the amount of milk collected daily by the tanker to below a sustainable capacity. The creamery in Campbeltown may also go through financial hardship at some point in the future and contingency plans should be in place for every eventuality. Clearly the dairy farmers have to work together to ensure they each have a collective goal and therefore a sustainable future.

To improve farming practices does not mean that they must be organic practices however it does include reducing any potential impact of pollution from agriculture. Each farmer has received guidance from SEERAD and DEFRA in the form of leaflets and h av e had visits from SEPA and should therefore be well aware of the various measures for limiting environmental impacts.

The dairy farms will also have to be aware of all changes to regulations that may affect them as a consequence of the WFD. Water use and discharges should be closely monitored as well as ru n- off and the possible impact this may have on groundwater. SEPA is bound by a groundwater protection policy and run-o ff from agriculture is the main risk to groundwater sources on the i sl an d.

M an y o t h er suggested alternatives to standard practices can also prove profitable and of benefit to the environment. The use of 52 nitrification inhibitors can not only reduce leachates of nitrogen, calcium and magnesium but can also increase pasture production b y 1 / 3 (Di, H. J., and Cameron, K. C., 2005). It may be some time before there are robotic milking systems on the island but don’t rule them out of appearing in the future. Robotic milking is nothing new and those such as the ‘biomimetic system’ are becoming ever more sophisticated (Peacock, A., and Boyce, R., 2 0 03 ).

The key however to good sustainable practices in dairy farming, is to improve fertiliser, grazing and livestock management. This can include the use of maize silage, refined nitrogen based fertil iser application or to use clover instead of nitrogen (Velthof, G. L. at a l. , 1998). It is apparent that dairy-far m in g practices can be improved and there are many areas that can be ex pl ored.

Organic farming may not be the way that the farmers on the i sl and may want to go however there is an ever-increasing market for organic milk in Europe (Rosati A., Aumaitre, A., 2004). If t h e demand is there and it can ensure the future of livelihoods then that will be a worthwhile option. The same amount of milk can be produced organically compared to conventionally, but requires a greater area of land (Rosati A., Aumaitre, A., 2004) . Th ere are also suggestions that organic farming may have the same problems as conventional methods when producing nitrogen based l each at es (Hansen, B., et al ., 2000). Thus emphasising the need for an economic, and not moralistic, stance on the prospect of introducing organic farming on the island.

There are at least options available should the current dairy market run into trouble. Beef and lamb have been a mainstay in the past and this way of farming can return. However, with careful planning it may be possible to utilise a space in the market by incorporating organic farming and producing goods locally. This is obviously a long- t erm p l an, yet it is something that can be attained using today’s methods.

5.1.2 Fish Farming

The fish farm has been at the centre of the island’s economy for many years. While the amount of people currently employed is very small, Pan Fish are looking to increase th e amo unt o f employees at the farm in Gigha. The salmon market has been steadily increasing over the last twenty years (Therivel, R., et a l., 1992). This is unlikely to change in the near future. While Pan Fish plan to restructure their company this will not affect operations on Gigha. Thus the economic future of fish farming in the area is relatively secure.

53 Fish farming provides income for remote rural communities and also reduces pressure on wild fish stocks, which are seriously depleted. These are serious considerations and the industry is a very worthwhile addition to the economy. It is unfortunate that so far, legislation and planning has not included ‘environmental accountability’ (Thompson, S., et al . 1995). The fish farming industry is becoming increasingly under the spotlight concerning its possibly harmful effects.

The amount of fish lost to disease, downgraded or escaped is a major concern. The effects of escaped farmed salmon on wild stocks is as yet totally unclear however it is widely accept ed th at their presence in open waters will reduce population fitness and productivity of wild salmon (McGinnity, P., et. al ., 1997). The actual effect of farmed fish on wild stocks is extremely difficult to quantify and trace (McVicar, A. H., 2003). The effects o f escapees on wild stocks can be overcome by farming sterile fish (Laird, L., 1997). However, this poses its own serious problems due to the unknown affect this may have on the food chain.

Organic wastes from faeces and uneaten food are a major pollutant from salmon farming (Ackefors, H., and Enell, M., 1990). Feeding losses are said to vary between 5-20 % (NCC , 1988) and together with faeces can cover seabeds and seriously affect benthic flora and fauna.

Fallow periods between cycles or even longer are a method to h elp th e re-growth of seabed species. This can also be helped through moving the site of the cages. Alternative site choices are limited as tidal flow characteristics; sea depth and seabed currents all have to be considered when choosing a site. A further consideration is that consent for moving the cages can only be done so through the Crown Estate.

S ea- lice treatment has its own connotations. Many of the chemicals used are classified as corrosive (e.g. hydrogen peroxide) and the long-term damage to other species may be far reaching. However not all reports suggest this is true. A recent Scottish based study has found that in two types of de-l ous e chemical treatment there is no adverse effect upon zooplankton (Willis, K., J., et. a l., 2005). The two chemicals were from the slice and excis brands; both are used by Pan Fish.

These treatments are cypermethrin based. A study was completed in 2001 by Ernst,W., et. al . on cypermethrin. It looked at its dispersal and toxicity to non-t arget species from its use as a de - louser on salmon farms. It concluded that cypermethrin had the ‘potential to cause toxic effects over areas of hectares from a single release’. The report had noted that it had found toxic levels of cypermethrin up to 5 hours after its initial release. The positives and negatives of the use of cypermethrin clearly need further investigation.

54 There are other treatment chemicals that should be avoided e.g. ivermectin (Burridge, L. E., 2003) and dichlorvos (Thompson, S., et al. 19 9 5 ). Selective breeding can help by ensuring a high natural resistance to sea lice and reducing the use of chemical treatments (Kolstad, K., et . al ., 2005). There are also alternatives that may reduce dependence upon chemical methods such as the u s e o f wrasse (cleaner fish) to eat the lice off younger salmon (Bjordal, A., 1991).

In utilising good management practices any potential risk can be minimised. In doing so also means that those using standard practices, that are possibly under regulated, will be forced to take the brunt of any legal change. Those that are ahead of the pack will be already prepared; this makes good business sense.

There are two other areas of fishing that concern Gigha that merit i n clu si on .

There are 3 shell- fishermen that operate from the island. Areas of fishing are to the south-west and off the south- east of Islay. Fishing for clams and similar species is done so using the old dredging system. This is a practice that is likely to become under increasing pressure due to the damage to sea bottom dwellers. The Sound of Gigha is closed to shell fishing. Reasons for this are as yet unclear and further research into the reasons for this is n ecess ary.

The second area is concerning a former fish processing plant at the south of the island, just north of the south pier (See figure 5.1). This was operating until last year and was used by Aquascot. The former owner of Achamore House (Mr Derek Holt) owns the land of the site. The site lies unused and there are no p l an s fo r re- opening the pl an t.

The plant is designed and built to process mainly flatfish. Turbot (Scophthalums maximus), co d ( Gadus morhua) and halibut (Hippoglossus hippoglossus ) were commonly processed. Salmon requires a slightly different process that is fully catered for at Cairndow. Pan Fish have no plans to utilise the site in Gigha.

There is a newly opened cod hatchery with marine laboratories for marine research at Machrihanish. Whether they can utilise the processing plant is something that will require further i nv estigation. There may be a time in the future when there is a need for the processing plant although it would require considerable investment to restore the facilities.

While the plant employed up to 9 people, all have found alternative employment on the island except 2. One has left and is working on the mainland and the other is still resident in Gigha but is working on the mainland. Those involved with the

55 development of the island see a large single employer as problematic to sustainability. Therefore current plans are emphasising upon diversity in business and not dependency.

If there were not the possibility that the plant may be re-o p en ed then scrapping the facilities and restoring the site to its natural status would be a costly business. This is something that Derek Holt, the local authority and the Trust should be addressing and attempting to resolve.

Figure 5.1: The fish processing plant now no longer in use.

5.1.3 Construction

The main difference that Gigha residents are noticing abo ut t he island at the moment is the activity. Much of this is to do with the construction of new housing and the refurbishment of others. The manner in which this has been undertaken, by all concerned, the Trust, Fyne Homes, HIE, AIE and the consortium DPC h as t o be applauded. The task has been completed in a very thorough and transparent manner with a clear and common goal for the sustainable future of the island and those nearby.

From the cluster planning of new sites for housing to the guaranteeing of work to local contractors, the steps taken have been integral to the success so far achieved. There is the possibility of offering apprenticeships for young residents, which does add longevity to the project. With continual planning and annual maintenance there will always be a need for tradesmen on t h e i sl and .

The plans set for the houses on the island has got to be commended also. The full use of energy efficient measures will prove to be an example to many. While the payback period in some cases e.g. refurbishment, may be lengthy, there are obvious

56 benefits, e.g. reduced electricity use, which are good for the co mmu ni t y.

Waste management of construction materials is another area that the consortium has resolved in a highly satisfactory manner. The storage of materials for collection removes the visual impact and also ensures that as much as possible can be recycled, re- u s ed o r disposed of in the best practicable means.

Every attempt has been made to limit the impact of construction on the island. Yet the most noticeable characteristic of the residents upon visiting is the up- beat and positive outlook everyone has from seeing these developments materialise. Much of the planning and development has been based upon the experiences of Eigg. This has to be seen as a further positive example to other rural communities.

5.1.4 Tourism

Tourism is a major part of the economy and this can be seen in the amount of accommodation available on the island (almost able to house 50% of the island’s current population). Th ere is an obvious attraction to visiting such a remote location. While many arrive to ‘get away from it all’, the availability of recreational facilities can only enhance the amount of visitors.

Already the island has ten path networks in place covering important sites of interest. There is also a new children’s play area. There are plans for a heritage centre at the boathouse by the ferry pier. This is to include historical information and could be used as to house and collect information as regards lo cal fl ora an d faun a.

Also planned is a new bunkhouse providing basic and affordable accommodation to cater for an increase in backpackers. Camping at the boathouse will also be incorporated into the plan to increase the amount of overnight staying option s.

The organisation of a BAP (Biodiversity Action Plan) has the possibility of involving children and tourists in the collating of data. This would be a useful educational tool for the children, or an added part of the memorable experience of visiting a sustainable island, visitors could help by logging their finds and spottings in a public logbook.

To include the school children in the BAP was, after discussions with the schoolteacher Lorna McAllister, deemed problematic. Each trip or venture outside of school premises requires a document of parental consent. The current curriculum is also extremely busy and to find time would be very difficult. There is the possibility of arranging a club of some sorts that meets on a 57 weekl y o r bi-weekly basis. This is something that would have to be discussed and arranged between parents and whoever can be found to organise it. A summer club is also an option however this would leave the remaining part of the year still to be monitored. Any positive step would help and every avenue should be explored.

Th e lo n g-term plan for Achamore Gardens could prove vital in attracting tourists. This includes a possible tea-room and venue for plant and merchandise sales and a nursery for the propagation o f p lant s.

The gardens also require an Assistant Head Gardener to help implement these plans and to learn about all the species of plants that are there. A major part of the task includes the re- establishment of the ‘Horlicks Collection’ and also to improve the signage and interpretation of the plant collection in the gardens. These are major undertakings considering the variation of species and the area they cover. The Trust has also identified the need for a reinstatement of the former drainage system and a l on g-term plan for the shelterbelt of woodland surrounding the gardens, which are now under the ownership of the Trust.

The gardens are of major importance to the island and to the world of botany. Someone who is committed to the task in the l on g-term can only do the job of k eeping the gardens and ensuring they are sustainably managed with any justification.

In the spring of 2003, specialist holiday retreats for artists were organised and there is the possibility for photography breaks as well. To add to these is the re- st o cking of the Upper Loch with trout. An Angling Club has been formed and a proposal for stocking the loch being put forward. There is also the opportunity to explore the possibility of boat trips and sea fishing.

The main part of any plan must be to ensure there are as many options available as possible. While some options may only be taken up sporadically throughout the year e.g. sea fishing, this can be a useful tool for increasing the appeal of the island.

It appears that some of the ideas proposed will only be requested for short periods of the year. This does not detract from the legitimacy and purpose of each possible avenue. Each separate idea on offer should still be made available where possible. To be at the top of everyone’s list of holiday destinations is not an easy task. To do so will need a wide variety of activities to be on offer covering the interests of many different age groups. There is a limit to what can be done considering the size of the island and its population however with careful planning there is no reason why all the proposals currently on offer cannot be made a reality and to become part of the Gigha brand.

58 5.2 Sustainable Energy

With the community owned windfarm producing 67% of island electricity use, is there is now the opportunity for Gigha to reach 100% and to possibly become a net exporter of energy? The following section outlines the possibility of further renewable energy systems being installed on the island.

5.2.1 Anaerobic Digestion (AD) and Combined Heat and Power (CHP)

Anaerobic digestion involves collecting organic materials and allowing them to ferment in an oxygen free environment, in a sealed container. This produces a gas (biogas) with a high methane content that can be used to provide heat, electricity or b ot h. The organic materials to be used in this case are from the slurry accumulated by the dairy farms. The AD would be accompanied by a CHP unit to utilise the gas and distribute to homes or businesses on the island.

There are several benefits to this form of energy extraction. It acts as a treatment process for wastes that can be difficult to dispose of safely. Using biogas displaces carbon dioxide emissions that would otherwise occur from the use of fossil fuels. It is a system that is very energy efficient, involves little pre - treatment of the gas and it is a technology that is ever improving. Methane is a stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide; anaerobic digestion with a heat recovery system converts methane into carbon dioxide, thus rendering the gases from the waste less harmful. There are also by- products of AD that can be used as compost or as liquid fertilisers (PAN 45, 2002).

The feasibility of such a project depends upon the amount of slurry supplied and its quality. The concentrations of volati l e solids, nitrogen, and the moisture content of any slurry mix are all important considerations.

Below are figures for slurry content (See Table 5.1) and calculations to the theoretical feasibility of introducing an AD for utilising dairy cattle waste.

Table 5.1: Dairy cattle and slurry data (Burek, Dr. S., 2004).

No.of dairy cattle - 3 0 0 Daily solid waste per cow per day - 5 . 5 k g Slurry waste per cow per day - 72 litres (inc. washings) % Recoverable waste available - 7 0 % Moisture content of wast e - 9 3 % Volatile solids (v.s.) content - 8 5 % Average nitrogen produced per cow per day - 0 . 04 k g da y Carbon/Nitrogen Ratio (C:N) - 1 7: 1 59 Th erefo re:

72 litres x 300 cattle = 21 600 litres 70% x 21 600 litres = 15 120 litres waste p.d.

Feasibility depends upon the nitrogen content of the slurry and it should not be higher than 3000 mg/l (Burek, Dr. S., 2004)

Th erefo re:

0.04 kg x 300 cattle = 12 kg nitrogen per day Nitrogen conc. = 1 2 x 1 06 mg/15 120 litres Or 7 9 4 m g/l

Thi s is well below the recommended limit of 3000 mg/l nitrogen concentration.

There is a minimum capacity requirement of 200m3 o f vo l ati le solids for a feasible operational AD plant (Burek, Dr. S., 2004). The amount of volatile solids collected must therefore exceed th is figure on a daily basis if a plant is going to work on the island.

Th erefo re:

5.5 kg x 0.93 x 0.85 = 4 . 35 k g 4.35 kg x 300 cattle = 1 305 kg of volatile solids per day

If the farms were producing 1 305 kg of volatile solids per day t h en at an average loading of 2.8 kg/m 3 per day, a digester that can hold (1 305 kg/2.8 kg/m3 = 46 6 m 3) around 500 m 3 i s required. This is above the minimum volume (200m3 ) n eed ed to operate a successful AD plant.

It is now possible to calculate the operational retentio n ti mes. These can vary for waste in AD between 10 and 40 days. Retention periods above or below these times will deem any AD plant on the island as inoperable (Burek, Dr. S., 2004). The retention period in this case is (500 m3 / 15 .1 2 m3 = 33) 33 days; within the given parameters.

A further consideration is the content of any dairy cattle slurry. Moisture content and the ratio of carbon to nitrogen must also be within certain limits for an AD to operate successfully. As a general rule moisture content should be between 90- 98 % an d a carbon to nitrogen ratio of between 20- 30:1. This must never be above 30:1 but can still be satisfactory at below 20:1 (Burek, Dr. S., 2004). In this case the figures meet both criteria.

60 It is estimated that organic cattle waste can produce 0.22 m 3 of gas per kilogram of organic material volatile solids (Burek, Dr. S. 2004). Therefore an AD supplied by the dairy farms will produce (0.22 m3 x 1 305 kg v.s. = 287.1 m 3 ) 28 5 m 3 of gas p er d a y.

The calorific value of biogas is around 21.48 MJ/m 3 (Monnet, F., 2003). Therefore an anaerobic digester on Gigha utilising the slurry on all 4 dairy farms would produce about (285 m3 x 21 .4 8 MJ /m3 = 6 122 MJ) 6 122 MJ per day of biogas. This is equivalent to roughly 1.7 MWh per day or 621 MWh per annum.

There are many different types of anaerobic digester systems. One that may suit the scenario on Gigha would be a ‘plug- fl o w’ digester (See Appendix 7). These can be horizontal or vertical digesters. They operate well with continual flows of agricultural waste that contain 5- 15% solids. They require occasional mixing and have an operating temperature of 30- 35ºC. They have a typical retention time of 30- 60 days and methods of control are relatively simple. One drawback is that operations can be m ess y during loading and during scum removal of the system (Burek, S., 2004). They also have a larger footprint as the height is reduced to prevent compaction in the reactor as this inhibits digestion (Monnet, 2003).

Waste products from the anaerobic digester that can be processed for further use include composts and fertilisers. There is therefore the opportunity to gain further income from an AD.

There are of course many other issues that are in need of addressing before any feasibility can be confirmed. In winter the dairy cattle will be kept in barns meaning recovery of slurry will be simple and there will be a plentiful supply. In summer this will not be the case as most cattle will be out to pasture. Thus an annual average of 70% was used in the above example.

Furthermore there is only one road that connects the north and south of the island. There are two dairy farms situated one at either end of the island. Thus a single AD would prove troublesome to justify due to the excess road traffic. Spil lages and odour problems will occur at the heart of the island especially during periods of wet weather. On- site odour problems will also occur and this further limits the possibility of an installation on the island.

On top of this AD plants have the pathogenic content of the feedstock as a further downfall. The operating temperatures of an AD plant (~ 35º C) does not prevent the survival of certain pathogens such as Escherichia coli and Salmonella typhi (Kum ar, R., et. a l., 19 99 ).

61 AD plants in general have high capital and operational costs. They are unlikely to work as an energy source alone and should be installed as part of an integrated waste management plan (Monnet, 2003). To estimate a cost for an AD on the island would require much more detailed information as regards engineering, plant size, location and waste slurry content. Every case is slightly different even if the processes are broadly similar. However an on- farm AD that can process 3000 tonnes p.a. of waste slurry (roughly the amount from 300 dairy cattle) would have capital costs of around £100,000 - £200,000 (Monnet, 2003). The lifespan of an AD plant is generally 15- 20 years (Lusk, P. D. , 20 03 ).

The next area to be considered is how to best use the gas generated. The most efficient way to utilise the gas that is produced would be through a Combined Heat and Power (CHP) unit. CHP is the practice of on-site electricity generation and the recovery of any waste heat to be utilised in other areas such as heating or industrial/production processes. While power stations generally have an efficiency of around 35%, CHP units can reach up to 90% efficiency (Carbon Trust, 2004).

It is a very diverse form of energy management and is used for many purposes. Universities, hotels, hospitals, car manufacturers, paper mills, leisure centres, offices and museums are just a few of the examples where CHP is currently being implemented. CHP is also diverse in the fact that it is not limited by the type of fuel used. Natural gas, coal, biomass, solar and wind are just some of the fuels used by CHP plants.

However CHP does have some limitations. All CHP systems require a conventional boiler and an interchangeable connection to the national grid, as back up. In general CHP will only be financially viable if it can operate for more than 5000 hours per year (14 hours per day) (Carbon Trust, 2004). This will unlikely to be able to met by housing on Gigha alone and will probably require the system to be extended to business use to increase the hours per day of electricity and heat demand. Installation costs are also increased due to the necessary addition of soundproofing, as most CHP systems are very loud.

An anaerobic digester that produces the equivalent of 621 MWh per annum would require a CHP unit with a capacity of 100kWe (EEA and EPC, 2004). This is known as a microturbine due to its relatively small size.

A similar example of a microturbine CHP plant in the UK is at Southbury Leisure Centre in London (Carbon Trust, 2004). They have an 80kWe gas turbine that provides space heating, swimming pool heating and electricity for the site. The plant has a heat to power ratio of 1.9:1. This project had a capital cost of £72,000

62 and generated £12,000 per annum in savings. This gives a projected payback period of around 6 years (Carbon Trust, 2004).

It can be assumed that a CHP unit for Gigha would have similar capital costs. The financial benefits that an AD and CHP plant would be through the reduced use of electricity from the grid and also from ROC’s. The amount of savings and income can be calculated.

A typical Combined Heat and Power Plant (CHP) would have an efficiency of around 80%. This, on average, supplies 50% heat and 30% electricity (AFMTIT, 2005). There would therefore be around 497 MWh p.a. available from the 621 MWh produced by the AD. This is equivalent to the energy use of 22 households each year at an average consumption of 22.79 MWh p.a. (NS, 2005). Current Scottish Power electricity rates are 8.036 p.p.kWh, therefore the AD plant would save £39,9 40 p . a. o n electricity. The plant would also generate about £15,600 from ROC’s at £31.39 p.p.MWh. The annual income and electricity savings amount to about £55,540. The cost of installing the AD and CHP plants together amounts to around £180,000 – £3 0 0, 00 0, thus giving a payback period of between 3.2 - 5.4 years. This does not include maintenance costs.

The capital costs of such a project may indeed be higher than the £300,000 suggested. However it is difficult to be precise as every case is different. The figure above does indicate that the implementation of an AD and CHP would be superb investment with large returns and a short payback period. Even at double the capital cost this appears to be a great proposal. However there are drawbacks to be considered.

The main problems to such a proposal on Gigha are the impacts of traffic and odour. The island only has one main road connecting the south and north of the island. Currently there are two dairy farms at either end of the island. Thus farm traffic collecting and delivering waste to a single AD plant will have to pass through the very heart of the community.

This may well be overcome in the future. There are some AD plants in Germany that do operate at volume sizes as low as 1 0 0m 3 (Weiland, P., 2000), which suggests that the technology and economics may be sufficient in the near future to consider implementing AD on the island at each farm. Thereby reducing any visual or odour impacts to inhabited parts of the island. It is a proposal that is worthwhile monitoring.

Costs for such a project will undoubtedly rise for two other reasons. Firstly, the current grid connection to and from the island is at full capacity and would require upgrading. Secondly, the location of the AD will have to be a considerable distance from residents due to smell, noise and emissions; allied to cluster

63 housing this means any distribution costs will also increase. The cost of increasing the capacity and distribution of heat and power generated is unfortunately out with the confines of this report.

If capital costs were to double then this would still be a worthwhile proposal. If the price of ROC’s rises further then it will turn out to be even more worthwhile, even at much inflated capital costs.

There are many manure based AD plants in Europe and East Asia, yet they are far less common in the UK. This is due to economics and government policy, which is beyond the scope of this report (Lusk, P. D., 2003).

5.2.2 Other Options

An extension to the wind turbines from 3 to 5 turbines is worth considering. The grid connection is at its capacity and there would have to be an entire new connection to accommodate any further turbines. This option may be useful in the event of simultaneously installing AD and CHP on the island thereb y increasing their financial viability. Even if increasing the windfarm were to cost as much as the original 3 turbines to install, at £400,000 this would still give a very profitable payback period of 5.2 years (See table 5.2). This is based on 2 t u rbi n es of similar size to those installed. There is every possibility that more modern or larger turbines could be installed with a larger electricity generating capacity, thus giving a much shorter payback period.

There is always the possibility that capital costs reduce or that income to be generated can increase. The finance from ROC’s is already proving a major source of income for GRE. The potential income from AD and CHP together with 5 wind turbines is substantial and could benefit the residents of Gigha fo r man y years. It would also prove to be a great source of pride to the community if they were to be the first to have 100% electricity and heating needs supplied from renewable sources.

Areas that have been highlighted as important to the success of a community owned project such as this is fair and easy access to information, specialist knowledge, markets and finances (Leaney, V., et a l. , 2001). The windfarm project has certainly been put in place with these points in mind. The community has been i nv olved throughout the decision making process and are kept well informed of developments and how the windfarm operates. There are similar windfarms in Wales (Leaney, V., at al., 2 00 1) and Jordan (Abderrazzaq, M.H., 2004) that have managed to succeed. There is strength to be gained from the fact that these examples are from far different locations yet have managed to continue seemingly unhindered.

64 There are other possible avenues to introduce further renewable technologies to the island. These need not be restricted to being installed in housing but can include business and agriculture as well. The installation of solar panels and micro wind turbines would help to reduce electricity and heat demand from non- renewable sources. Solar water heating systems are sim pl e and effective. A typical system can produce the equivalent of 1000kWh per annum and costs around £3000 to install (Solar Twin, 2005). There are 30% grants for installation costs available through the Scottish Community and Householder Renewables In itiative (SCHRI) which is funded by the Scottish Executive and managed by the Energy Saving Trust (Solar Twin, 2005).

Thus a payback period can be calculated. A 1000kWh at a typical rate of 8.036p/kWh would save £80.36 per annum. Installation costs inclusive of a 30% grant would total £2100, thus a rather lengthy payback of 26 years would be expected. Grants through the same scheme are available for community organisations e.g. community trusts, of up to 50%. This reduces the payback to around 18.5 years. A typical solar water heating system would expect to have a lifespan of up to 20 years (McGregor, Prof. K., 2 0 04 ).

There is the option also of installing micro wind turbines. Renewable Devices Ltd. are one such company that supply these energy generating systems. They cost around £4600 to install and can generate about 4200 kWh of electricity, see figure 5.2 (RD, 2005). This gives an estimated payback period of 13.5 years. These systems can include a battery bank for off- grid st an d- alo n e applications or can be connected to an immersion water heating s ys t em.

Figure 5.2: Renewable Devices Ltd. Swift Rooftop Wind Energy System, the world’s first silent, building - mountable wind turbine (Source: RD, 2 0 0 5 ) . 65 The Trust has also looked into the possibility of utilising ground source heat pumps however quotes proved to be too expensive and therefore not considered as a worthwhile venture. The viability of all the above energy systems will change in time and their progress must be continually monitored.

Tabl e 5.2 summarises the payback periods of all the renewable projects highlighted in the report.

Table 5.2: Payback periods for renewable energy sources on Gigha.

Ren ewabl e Cap ital Electricity Pa y ba ck O th er T echn ol og y Co st (£ ) s av ing s Period Considerations a nd in co me (Yea rs ) g enera ted (£ ) AD a nd CH P 1 8 0 - 5 5 ,0 00 3 . 2 – 5. 4 Site location, 3 0 0, 00 0 increased costs for required grid connection and increased co st s fo r en erg y distribution not i n clu d ed Mi cro- win d 4 , 60 0 3 4 0 1 3 .5 SWH 3 , 00 0 1 2 5- 16 5 1 8 -2 4 Inclusive of 30- 5 0 % grant W indfa rm 4 0 0, 00 0 1 1 6, 31 9 3 . 4 Payback period o f 2 .3 years discounting any grants received W indfa rm 4 0 0, 00 0 7 7 ,5 45 5 . 2 Increased costs Extension (2 for required Tu rb in es ) grid connection not included

Any renewable technology that can pay for itself over its lifetime has got to be worth considering. All the above technologies have a lifespan of around 15-20 years. The above table shows that only SWH may exceed this. If GRE were to increase the windfarm and introduce AD and CHP then the island would generate a total of 4.12 GWh of electricity and heat. Currently the island has a total demand of around 3.15GWh. Even with the expected increase in population and housing, the addition of further renewable technologies would allow Gigha to be the fully responsible community and be supplied by 100% renewable energy.

66 5.3 Sustainable Waste

The farms on the island all have different farming practices. This is not unexpected or surprising. However with respect to waste, there should be a uniform practice of disposal. Some are stockpiling waste, some are burning waste on-site and some are including some of it in domestic waste for landfill. The practice of burning waste is illegal, as is disposing of agricultural waste as domestic waste. Stockpiling is the only solution until such time when it can be uplifted and disposed off in the most appropriate manner. If all the farms were to stockpile waste, then the charge for uplift would be spread between them. The building consortium has managed to lease a yard for their waste to await collection. There is a common goal here between the farms and any other economic activity on the island. There is no reason why this cannot be resolved to include waste from all sectors; domestic, agricultural or business.

A coll ect ive strategy for waste management is needed and this will need to involve discussions between all parties concerned.

5.3.1 Recycling Schemes

While there is only a glass- recycling scheme on Gigha, there are opportunities to recycle a great many other waste pro du ct s i n Tarbert and Campbeltown. Wastes that can be collected include; glass, paper, cardboard, cans, textiles, plastic bottles, engine oil, white goods (e.g. electrical equipment, bicycles etc.) and car batteries. Ideally, a system similar to that currently in operation concerning building wastes should be put in place. Dry storage with separate skips or holding vessels for each type of waste to be collected at periods throughout the year.

There are obvious problems from such a solution. Costs to be considered include dry storage facilities, transport and separation of the wastes at source. Much of this will be dependant upon the will of the residents themselves as any such scheme will unlikely to be able to cover wages for overseeing the project. Howev er there may be possibilities in joining or collaborating with the scheme currently in operation in Campbeltown. Campbeltown Wastewatchers Ltd. is a charitable organisation and there may be the possibility that funding can be attained to ensure such a system is feasible. Funding may be available through Transforming Waste Scotland, the Co-operative Action Scheme, t h e C o- op’s Community Dividend and also through European based schemes such as the European Social Fund and the European Regional Development Fu nd .

67 Campbeltown Wastewatchers also sell square baled paper bedding for agricultural purposes at £1.82 per bale. Such a system helps to reduce paper waste from reaching landfill sites.

GRAB (Group for Recycling in Argyll and Bute) promotes rec ycl i n g, waste minimisation and anti- litter projects in the Argyll and Bute area. They make several recommendations to red u ce, re-use and recycle waste.

To reduce waste:

Avoid overly- packaged products Buy products in bulk Buy reusable containers C ho os e lo n g- lasting products Us e re-chargeable batteries Us e re-useable nappies Reduce junk mail – register with the mailing preference service on 08457 0345999

R e-use waste products whenever possible:

White goods, computers & bicycles can always be refurbished Clothing, toys and books can be sent to charity shops In the office use both sides of paper before recycling it Use refillable ink cartridges Reuse plastic shopping bags Plastic pots & glass jars are useful storage containers and plant p ot s

Th ey al so recommend that everyone recycles and composts whenever possible.

While many of these suggestions are obvious they are not always carried out and this will be no different in many households in Gigha. There may be little in the way of opportunities at th e moment for recycling on such a small scale however if every avenue is explored then there may yet be a full recycling scheme on the island that can be mirrored elsewhere.

68 6. Conclusions

6.1 Sustainability

There has,undoubtedly, been great strides made by the community on Gigha. In little under 3 years they have installed the first community owned windfarm in the UK and ensured that housing issues are dealt with in an appropriate manner. It is a great tribute to all that have been involved that such progress has been made in such a short period of time. This however does not mean that there are no other areas that can be improved or indeed that there are no other areas worth exploring. This is something that those involved with the island’s future do appreciate.

Agriculture is clearly a major part of the island economy. The full risks from run-off are not clear and the possibility of experiences such as those at Ettrick Bay where beaches have regularly failed to meet bathing standards [EC Bathing W at er Directive (76/160/EEC)] due to excess run- off from agriculture are very real (Burns, G., 1999).

Each farm has been identified as having different practices and some do not take environmental factors into consideration. This is exactly the kind of attitude and experience that can lead to further problems similar to those seen at Ettrick Bay. Until there is a full assessment of the bathing waters around Gigha then the problems from run-off will never be fully known. This still does not justify any poor agricultural practices.

There are solid waste issues that have been identified. The problem of fly tipping, burning of silage bags and the use of domestic waste uplift for agricultural wastes are not practices that should be undertaken. These are issues that need to be addressed. If sustainable solutions can be agreed upon then these problems can be resolved and hopefully will never resurface.

One area that seems to have been overlooked by the Trust since buying the island has been that of land management. There is no factor or land manager in place to ensure sustainable practices are undertaken by those using the land and to also liase between the farmers and the Trust. The farms lease over 1/2 of the land on Gigha for agriculture. Failing to designate a manager or representative to oversee the management of the land is akin to buying a classic sports car, giving it some go- faster stripes and never having it serviced or MOT’d.

However not all blame should be placed upon the Trust for this. It i s i n the best interests of the farmers themselves to ensure that sound environmental practices are carried out. It is also in their best interests to have regular communication on agricultural matters. There is no reason for the farmers not to set up their own network group to meet regularly and discuss any relevant issues. 69 Indeed this may have helped to speed up the process of renegotiating the leases that currently seems to be taking some time. In setting up a group network, not only will there be a co mmo n go al found but also an improvement in responsibility and leadership, which are a prerequisite for effective and collective action (Oerlemans, N. and Assouline, G., 2004).

While renewable technology has been a major part in recent developments concerning new and refurbished housing (not to mention the windfarm) there appears to be little so far suggested for the farms or businesses on the island. The farms are undoubtedly the largest energy consumers on the island yet there is little in the way of energy efficiency or renewable technology being suggested for them. If the leases are to be extended to 25 years then surely it would make just as much sense to implement renewable energy options such as the AD and CHP system and the m icro- wind turbines suggested in section 5.2. The payback period makes them a more than viable option.

The fish farming industry has become increasingly underneath the spotlight concerning its possibly harmful effects. The fish farming industry has reacted to this and there is now much more dialogue between farms and more stringent checks on sites than ever before. This is a sign that the fish farming industry is trying to improve and in time will surely succeed.

Currently there are several areas that have been identified by this rep o rt as being of concern. They are matters that affect fish farms across the world and are not confined to Gigha. The levels of PCB’s in farmed salmon are undoubtedly above that experienced in wild stocks. This is almost certainly through feeds currently in u se in many fish farms (Jackson, L. J., et al . , 2001). Further investigation on the actual feed used by Pan Fish is required before any real conclusion can be made however it can be said with some degree of certainty that the feed used in Gigha is not an y d ifferent to that of other farms across Scotland. Thus the possible problems associated with organic carbon, nitrogen and phosphorous compounds in faecal material and uneaten food and the effect this may have on benthic species is a very real concern.

A further concern highlighted is that of the use of the cypermethrin based de-louser. While SEPA has granted its use in salmon farms across Scotland (SEPA, 1997) there are other conflicting reports over its effects on other aquatic species. Willis, K., J., et. al., reported in 2005 that there were no effects on zooplankton yet a study completed in 2001 by Ernst, W., et. a l. found the product to have potential toxic effects over large areas. There is clearly a need for this position to be clarified before any irreversible damage is done to the aquatic environment.

70 A disturbing figure that has surfaced in this report is that of fish lost to escapees, downgrading and disease. Figures from the operations in Gigha show an alarming lack of accountability concerning these matters. A rough estimate shows that somewhere between 52,000 – 234,000 smolt or salmon are lost over an average cycle. This is an obviously large amount of stock being lost and the impacts on other species cannot be underestimated or overlooked. This is especially so when you consider the possible damage of PCB’s entering the food chain.

All these concerns do not solely affect Pan Fish Scotland and their operations in Gigha. Many fish farms suffer the same troubles. Having had in depth conversations with those concerned with salmon farming in Gigha there is an obvious want to improve the reputation that salmon farming currently has. Much has been done to minimise impacts and the industry is doing everything it can to ensure a sustainable future. There are su rel y lessons to be learned from organic salmon farms that have managed to successfully farm salmon and these should be given full consideration. The shift to organic salmon farming has been s aid to b e ‘relatively easy, unproblematic and not too expens iv e’ (Georgakopoulos, G., and Thomson, I. , 2 00 5).

The former fish processing plant is something that is another matter of importance. There appears to be no plans for the site, no immediate possible users of the equipment or site and even l ess in t he way of negotiations or talks going on between the local authority, the land owner or the Trust. Whether the site is t o b e re-opened as a processing plant or de -commissioned and used for further housing or any other purpose is something that should be decided as soon as possible. If the equipment is to be re-used on site or whether it is to be sold for use elsewhere, there is no difference. The sooner it is sold off the more likely any money may be recouped and also the more likely that any equipment will actually still be usable and not just to be s crapp ed .

One of the most impressive steps shown since the community b u y-out has been the manner in which the construction and housing developments have been undertaken. The setting up of the building consortium, the energy efficient measures to be put in place and waste management shows great planning with sustainability in mind. The opening of the quarry makes economic sense and with the possibility of apprenticeships for those on the island this is an area that should be an example to any other community looking to improve housing.

Tourism is a major contributor to the island economy and there are further areas that can be improved that may boost this important sector. Achamore Gardens are crucial to tourism an d t h e l on g-term future currently depends on the appointment of a head gardener. This is no easy task. Someone with a vast

71 knowledge of botany and the will to live and work in a remote location will not be easy to find. It may require further funding an d also more volunteers before someone can be found. The gardens may also improve their appeal by possibly organising such projects as open days/weekends with some form of botanical festival or competition. Currently the only organised events on the island are the recently started music festival and the annual b u y-out anniversary celebrations. Further events should be considered to boost the tourist trade in the area.

Other areas include organised boat and fishing trips from the island. There is also loch fishing that is yet to materialise. These are currently in the pipeline and the sooner they are available the b ett er.

Gigha is a place that is known for its natural beauty and array of wildlife. The implementation of a Biodiversity Action Plan would h elp to attract those that are interested in witnessing such marvels. This can be done by enlisting the help of local school children, residents and tourists to compile the necessary information. This can be collated at a single location e.g. the boathouse, where a visitor centre is planned.

The windfarm is a further area that is an example to other communities. It not only generates renewable energy but also brings in much needed income for the Trust. While the project is still in its early days, the benefits are there for all to see and it is only surprising that other communities have not yet put similar plans into motion.

The possibility of becoming the first 100% renewable energy community is not that far off. The economics and waste products for implementing an anaerobic digester and combined heat and power plant are there. There are issues still to be resolved. With the grid connection to the mainland currently at full capacity, this means that any further major energy production schemes are handicapped. The siting of such a scheme is a further consideration. However, even if the capital cost of the installation of AD and CHP or that of extending the windfarm were doubled due to grid connection and distribution then this would be an excellent proposal, so it is fully worth further investigation. Ideally any AD and CHP plant would be planned in conjunction with any housing, business or agricultural developments to minimise any disruption and costs.

There are trials for AD plants currently being completed in Ayrshire through the Scottish Executive and a company called Greenfinch. The results of these trials should be watched with extreme interest. Renewable technologies are ever improving and the income they can generate from ROC’s can help to make such s ch emes very viable.

72 Other renewable energy opportunities also exist. The installation o f mi cro-wind turbines proves to be a much better payback than solar water heating. These can be put in place in farms, businesses and homes with little visual impact and a p os iti v e return for investment. There is clearly the opportunity for the island to attain 100% electricity and heat from renewable sources and for a very favourable return of capital. This would not only be an example to all other communities but also a great wa y t o ensure that there is guaranteed funds available to re-i nv est i n other areas of the community for many years to come. This is an opportunity that has never been available in the past and is an area that should be fully explored and utilised wherever possible. If done so then the island will have a real opportunity to ensure that it will not have to rely on public funding for any future development.

Like many rural communities the issue of waste is a common problem. Fly tipping, as has been seen in Gigha, is an all too common practice. This is not something that will not be solved easily however with improved recycling facilities in Campbeltown and Tarbert there may yet be the possibility of a solution. Funding should be seeked for the implementation of a l on g-term integrated waste management plan on the island. If completed successfully then this would be a further example to many other communities with similar problems.

There are other areas of island life that are extremely important t o su st ai nable development. Health, education, the role of the church and other socio political issues have only been mentioned in passing in this report. The holistic nature of sustainable development means that a full study on the Isle of Gigha would include these matters in depth. Unfortunately, time constraints and a lack of resources have meant this report could still benefit from further work.

As rural communities go, the Isle of Gigha has experienced nothing short of a miracle. In such a short period of time, s o much has been achieved. This has to be applauded and seen as an example to any other rural community. Many, but not all, of the problems facing Gigha are out of the direct control of the Trust. Therefore it is often up to individual farms and businesses t o ensure that these areas are dealt with in the best possible manner.

The island is certainly being regenerated with sustainable development in mind. There is community involvement in every decision making process and this can be seen as an important contributor to the current positive vibe that is enveloping the island. As long as this remains and there is continued involvement and support from outside sources then the island will indeed be able to look forward to a sustainable future.

73 7. Future of the Project – The Next Steps

The following recommendations are directed at several different organisations. The Trust is advised to be involved in as many of these proposals as possible. Even if this meant just raising awareness, keeping an eye on or voicing concern over their developments. Some of the points put forward are directly under the control of the Trust while others will require assistance from the local authority and other organisations e.g. Fyne Homes Housing Association. Recommendations such as the surveys into agricultural run-off, the impact of PCB’s from salmon feeds or the impact of cypermethrin can only be completed by organisations like SEPA or any other relevant bodies e.g. SSGA, SEERAD or SAMS and in close liaison with the dairy an d fis h farms .

There are areas that are in need of immediate attention and planning such as the fish processing plant and a system for recycling, re- using or safely disposing of wastes. Longer- t erm strategies to change to organic farming systems will requi re careful planning and a collective will. Dialogue is the key to any success in achieving such targets and this is an area that can be improved between the dairy farms and their landowners, the Trus t.

The measures for putting in place micro- wi nd tu rbi nes can be started immediately while installing an AD plant and CHP unit clearly deserves a more in-depth assessment. A possible extension to the windfarm should also be considered as this may help to pay for any grid connection and also increase revenue for GRE. Both have positives and negatives that have to be fully explored by those involved with Gigha and its development.

There has been a remarkable change of events on Gigha over the last few years and hopefully this will continue. It certainly shall do if the same dedication and collective effort that has been evident in recent years is carried forward into the future.

The following is a list of recommendations for future work:

Dai ry Farm s

- A full survey into the impacts of agricultural run-o ff - Th e setting up of a farmers network with regular group meetings and dialogue with the Trust - The introduction of micro- wind turbines on all the farms - A lo n g-term strategy to the possibilities of implementing organic dairy farming

74 Salmon Farming

- A full investigation into the amount of salmon lost through downgrading, disease and escapees and their possible effects on the aquatic environment - A full investigation into the impacts of feeds used and the effects of PCB’s in the aquatic environment - Further scientific and marine based research into the true impact of cypermethrin based de-lo us er - Assessment of the possibility of increasing the amount of sites available for cages, to limit seabed damage and ensure their recovery by allowing longer fallow periods through alternating between sites - A lo n g-term strategy into the possible implementation of organic salmon farming

Construction and Development

- To make available the information as regards the extremely successful implementation of all construction related issues for the benefit of other rural communities

To urism

- To ensure a full- time head gardener at Achamore Gardens is in place for the long- t erm - Look into the possibility of staging a botany based event (festival/competition) on the island during the s um mer mo nt hs - Ensure the availability of all possible recreational facilities for visitors - The implementation of a Biodiversity Action Plan with the inclusion of school children, tourists and local residents alike - The completion of the heritage/visitor centre on t he i sl an d

En erg y

- To install micro- wind turbines on farms and housing on the island - To complete a full study into the installation of an anaerobic digestion plant and combined heat and power unit on the island as an integrated energy and waste management strategy - To complete a survey into extending the windfarm to 5 turbines in conjunction with AD and CHP

75 W ast e

- Set up a waste management team - Look into a long- term waste management plan for domestic, agricultural and business wastes to help red u ce fly tipping and other poor waste management p ract i ces - Open dialogue with Campbeltown Wastewatchers Ltd to the possibility of involvement in the above waste management strategy - Look into possible areas of funding for such a waste s t rat eg y

Further Recommend atio ns

- To start dialogue between Mr Derek Holt, the Trust and the local authority on plans for the site of the former fish processing plant - A survey into increasing the available power transferable to the national grid for incorporating AD an d CHP and also for extending the windfarm - To draw up a map of all wastewater and drainage systems on the island (domestic and non- d om es ti c) including details on receiving bodies of water (fresh, marine and ground water)

76 8. Appendix

Appendix 1

Population spread of Gigha 2001 (GROS, 2001).

M ale Fem al e Tot al 0 - 4 4 3 7 5 - 9 4 3 7 1 0 - 1 4 1 4 5 1 5 - 1 9 2 0 2 2 0 - 2 4 0 0 0 2 5 - 2 9 2 4 6 3 0 - 3 4 7 5 1 2 3 5 – 3 9 5 2 7 4 0 - 4 4 4 2 6 4 5 - 4 9 2 7 9 4 9 - 5 4 5 4 9 5 5 - 5 9 7 5 1 2 6 0 - 6 4 1 5 6 6 5 - 6 9 3 2 5 7 0 - 7 4 6 2 8 7 5 – 7 9 1 4 5 8 0 - 8 4 1 2 3 8 5 – 8 9 1 0 1 9 0 - 9 4 0 0 0 Tot al 5 6 5 4 1 1 0

77 Appendix 2

Economic Activity in Gigha (GROS, 2001): Table CAS028 Sex and age by economic a c t i v i t y

Table population : All people a g e d 1 6 t o 7 4 Geographical level : Inhabited Island : Gigha ALL E c o n o m E c o n o m E c o n o m i c a E c o n o m i E c o n o m i E c o n o m i E c o n o m i O t h e r PEOPLE i c a l l y i c a l l y l l y A c t i v e c a l l y c al l y c a l l y c a l l y E c o n o m i c A c t i v e A c t i v e - - S e l f - A c t i v e - A c t i v e - I n a c t i v e I n a c t i v e a l l y T o t a l E m p l o y e m p l o y e d U n e m p l o F u l l - t i m e T o t a l - R e t i r e d I n a c t i v e e e y e d s t u d e n t ALL T o t a l 8 2 5 7 3 7 1 5 3 2 2 5 1 5 1 0 PEOPLE ALL 1 6 t o 1 1 - - - 1 - - - PEOPLE 1 7 ALL 1 8 t o 1 1 1 ------PEOPLE 1 9 ALL 2 0 t o ------PEOPLE 2 4 ALL 2 5 t o 1 8 1 5 1 0 3 2 - 3 - 3 PEOPLE 3 4 ALL 3 5 t o 3 1 2 8 1 7 9 1 1 3 - 3 PEOPLE 5 4 ALL 5 5 t o 1 2 1 0 7 3 - - 2 - 2 PEOPLE 5 9 ALL 6 0 t o 6 1 1 - - - 5 4 1 PEOPLE 6 4 ALL 6 5 t o 1 3 1 1 - - - 1 2 1 1 1 PEOPLE 7 4 M a l e s T o t a l 4 4 3 4 1 9 1 1 2 2 1 0 7 3 M a l e s 1 6 t o 1 1 - - - 1 - - - 1 7 M a l e s 1 8 t o 1 1 1 ------1 9 M a l e s 2 0 t o ------2 4 M a l e s 2 5 t o 9 9 6 2 1 - - - - 3 4 M a l e s 3 5 t o 1 6 1 5 7 6 1 1 1 - 1 5 4 M a l e s 5 5 t o 7 7 4 3 - - - - - 5 9 M a l e s 6 0 t o 1 - - - - - 1 - 1 6 4 M a l e s 6 5 t o 9 1 1 - - - 8 7 1 7 4 F e m a l e s T o t a l 3 8 2 3 1 8 4 1 - 1 5 8 7 F e m a l e s 1 6 t o ------1 7 F e m a l e s 1 8 t o ------1 9 F e m a l e s 2 0 t o ------2 4 F e m a l e s 2 5 t o 9 6 4 1 1 - 3 - 3 3 4 F e m a l e s 3 5 t o 1 5 1 3 1 0 3 - - 2 - 2 5 4 F e m a l e s 5 5 t o 5 3 3 - - - 2 - 2 5 9 F e m a l e s 6 0 t o 5 1 1 - - - 4 4 - 6 4 F e m a l e s 6 5 t o 4 - - - - - 4 4 - 7 4

78 Appendix 3

Calculations for energy use and carbon dioxide emissions are based upon conversion factors from the following sources:

National Energy Foundation (NEF), 2005, [Online] Available from : http://www.natenergy.org.uk/convert.htm#calc , Acces s ed: 1 7/ 04 /0 5.

79 Appendix 4

Estimated housing and development capital costs for Gigha Source: (Broadley, C. R., ODS, 2004).

Project Year 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 IGHT Rehab Phase 1 (6No.) 313000 Rehab Phase 2 (6No.) 313000 Rehab Phase 3 (6No.) 313000 Rehab Phase 4 (6No.) 313000 Rehab Phase 5 (6No.) 313000 Rehab Phase 6 (6No.) 313000 Rehab Phase 7 (6No.) 313000 Childrens Play Area 40000 Leimm Farm Holiday Accom. 200000 200000 Multi-purpose Building 250000 Bunkhouse 100000 Sub-Total 353000 513000 513000 563000 413000 313000 313000

Fyne Homes 10No. Rented New Build 600000 200000 6N0. Amenity New Build 300000 200000 Gro-grant (5No.) 500000 Sub-Total 900000 400000 500000

Private RHOG 1 75000 RHOG 2 75000 RHOG 3 85000 Private 1 120000 Private 2 120000 Private 3 120000 Private 4 120000 Private 5 120000 Private 6 120000 Private 7 120000 Private 8 120000 Private 9 120000 Private 10 120000 Craft Units (1No.) 125000 Craft Units (1No.) 125000 Craft Units (2No.) 150000 Model Crofts Phase 1a (2No.) 250000 Model Crofts Phase 1b (3No.) 375000 Model Crofts Phase 2a (2No.) 250000 Model Crofts Phase 2b (3No.) 375000 Self-build Phase 1 (4No.) 500000 Sub-Total 555000 690000 975000 490000 375000 500000 0

Total 1808000 1603000 1988000 1053000 788000 813000 313000 8366000

80 Appendix 5

Estimated Isle of Gigha House Condition Estimated Expenditure by Trade and Value Source: (Broadley, C. R., and ODS, 2004)

T rad e Annu al T o tal % of T otal E xpendi tu re Expenditure J oin er 7 9 ,6 22 5 5 7, 35 0 3 1 Ro ofer 5 5 ,7 90 3 9 0, 53 2 2 1 Bu ild er 4 1 ,8 05 2 9 2, 63 5 1 7 Pl u mb er 3 4 ,6 11 2 4 2, 27 8 1 4 Pa i nter 1 1 ,3 34 7 9 ,3 40 5 Electrician 1 1 ,6 92 8 1 ,8 43 5 Specialists 9 , 96 8 6 9 ,7 75 4 Landscapers 6 , 82 5 4 7 ,7 75 3 T o tal 2 5 1, 64 7 1 , 76 1, 52 8 1 0 0

Appendix 6 a ) The cluster model of buildings on Gigha. Source (ABC, 2005)

Farm steading

Ruined/previous farm steading

Other building type

81 Appendix 6 cont. b ) Land use on Gigha. Source (ABC, 2005)

Not suitable for cultivation Rough grazing/ previous cultivation Good quality farmland Woodland/ gardens

82 Appendix 7

Typical anaerobic designs including a ‘plug- flow’ digester (Source: http://ohioline.osu.edu/b604/images/b604_23.jpg), and a photo of a 2 1 0 m 3 ‘ p l u g- flow’ digester in Northern Ireland. ( S o u r c e : http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/terrace/ae198/digesters.html).

83 9. References

Abderazzaq, M.H., 2004, Energy Production Assessment of Small Wi nd Farms , Renewable Energy , 2 9, 2 2 61-2 27 2

Ack efors, H. and Enell, M., 1990, Discharge of nutrients from Swedish fish farming to adjacent sea areas. Ambi o 19 , 28 – 35 .

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), 2 0 00 , Toxicological Profile for Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PC B’s ), Atlanta, GA : U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service.

Anderson, Bell and Christie, 2005, The Isle of Gigha Masterplan, IGHT.

Austrian Federal Ministry for Transport, Innovation and Technology (AFMTIT), 2005, [Online], Available from: http://www.energytech.at/(en)/kwk/portrait.html, Acces s ed : 1 4/ 03 /0 5.

Bjordal, A., 1991, Wrasse as cleaner- fish for farmed salmon. Progress in Underwater Science 16 , 17 – 28 .

Brigstocke, T., 2005, The Future Strategy for Dairy Farming in t h e UK, Royal Association of British Dairy Farmers.

Broadley, C. R. and Organisational Development Support (ODS), 2 0 04 , Harnessing Construction Opportunities on the Isle of Gigha: Final Report,IGHT.

Bu rek, Dr. S., 2004, Anaerobic Digesters, Renewable Energy Technologies BNEE336, Glasgow Caledonian University, 0 1/ 04 /0 4.

Burns, G., 1999, West Region Bathing Water Quality in 1999, Scottish Environment Protection Agency.

Burridge, L. E., and Haya, K., 2003, The lethality of ivermectin, a potential agent for treatment of salmonids against sea lice, to the shrimp Crangon septemspinosa, Aquaculture, Vol. 117, Issue 1- 2, 1 November 1993, Pages 9-14 .

Campbeltown Wastewatchers Ltd., 2005, [Online] Available from: http://www.campbeltownwastewatchers.co.uk/, Access ed: 1 0/ 05 /0 5.

Carbon Trust, 2004, Action Energy Good Practice Guide GPG388: Combined Heat and Power for Buildings, Queen ’s Printer and Controller of HMSO.

84 Community Recycling Network, 2005, [Online] Available from: http://crn.org.uk/index.shtml, Accessed: 10/05/05.

Cromey, C. J., Nickel, T. D., and Black, K. D., 2002, DEPOMOD - Modelling the deposition and biological effects of waste solids from marine cage farms. Aquaculture 2 1 4: 21 1- 2 39 .

Danish Wind Industry Association (DWIA), 2003, [Online] Available from: http://www.windpower.org/en/stat/unitsenv.htm#co2, Acces s ed: 1 0/ 03 /0 5.

Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), 2003, Codes of Good Agricultural Practice: Water, Air and Soil Codes, Crown Copyright.

Development Department, 2002, Planning Advice Note (PAN) 45 (Revi s ed 2002): Renewable Energy Technologies , Cro wn C op yri gh t .

Development Department, 2000, National Policy and Planning Guideline (NPPG) 6: Renewable Energy Developments, C rown C op yri gh t .

Di, H. J., and Cameron, K. C., 2005, Reducing environmental i mp act s of agriculture by using a fine particle suspension nitrification inhibitor to decrease nitrate leaching from grazed p ast ures, Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 2 00 5 M ar.

Easton, M. D., Luszniak, D., Von der G. E., Preliminary examination of contaminant loadings in farmed salmon, wild salmon and commercial salmon feed. Chemosphere , 20 02 Feb;46(7):1053- 74 .

Energy and Environmental Analysis Inc. (EEA) and Exergy Partners Corp. (EPC), 2004, The Energy Solutions Centre DG Applications Guide: Microturbines , Energy Solutions Centre.

Ernst, W., Jackman, P., Doe, K., Pages, F., Julien, G., Mackay, K. and Sutherland T., 2001, Dispersion and toxicity to non- t arget organisms of pesticides used to treat sea lice on salmon in net pen enclosures, Marine Pollution Bul leti n, Vol. 42, No. 6, p p .4 33-4 44 .

General Register Office for Scotland (GROS), 2004, [Online] Available from: http://www.scrol.gov.uk/scrol/common/home.jsp, Accessed: 10/11/04.

Georgakopoulos, G. and Thomson, I., 2005, Organic salmon farming: risk perceptions, decision heuristics and the absence of environmental accounting, Accounting Forum, 29 (2005) 49–7 5.

85 Gigha Renewable Energy Ltd (GRE), 2004, The Dancing Ladies of Gigha: Frequently Asked Questions about the Gigha Windmills , Gigha Renewable Energy Ltd.

Group for Recycling in Argyll and Bute (GRAB), 2005, [Online] Available from: http://www.grab.fsbusiness.co.uk/index.htm, Accessed: 10/05/05.

Han sen, B., et. a l . , 2 00 0, Nitrogen leaching from conventional versus organic farming s ys t ems — a systems modelling approach, European Journal of Ag ro no my 13 , 20 00 6 5 –82 .

Highlands and Islands Enterprise (HIE), 2005, Scottish Land Fu nd Gra nts Approved to Date , [Online] Available from: http://hie.co.uk/slf- ap p ro vals- j an-20 05 .x ls, Accessed: 08/03/05.

Isle of Gigha Heritage Trust, The (IGHT), 2005, T h e Is le of Gigha Masterplan,IGHT.

Isle of Gigha Heritage Trust, The (IGHTa), 2005, [Online] Available from: http://www.gigha.org.uk , Accessed: 09/02/05.

Isle of Gigha Heritage Trust, The (IGHT), 2004, Development Pla n 4,IGHT.

Isle of Gigha Heritage Trust, The (IGHTb), 2004, N ew Qu ar r y – Isle of Gigha Planning Statement,IGHT.

Jackson, L. J., Carpenter, S. R., Manchester-Neesvig, J., Stow, C. A., PCB congeners in Lake Michigan coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) salmon, Environmental Science Technology. 2001 Mar 1; 35(5):856-62 .

Jacobs, M., Ferrario, J., Byrne, C., 2002. Investigation of polychlorinated dibenzo- p- dioxins, dibenzo- p- furans and selected coplanar biphenyls in Scottish farmed Atlantic salmon (Salmo s alar), Chemosphere , 2002 Apr; 47(2):183-91 .

Kolstad, K. T., Heuch, P. A., Gjerde, B., Gjedrem, T., Salte, R., 2005, Genetic variation in resistance of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) to the salmon louse Lepeophtheirus salmonis, Aquaculture, x x 2 00 5 x x x– x xx .

Kumar, R., Gupta, M. K. and Kanwar, S. S., 1999, Fate of bacterial pathogens in cattle dung slurry subjected to anaerobic d i gesti on , World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology , vol . 15, no. 3, pp. 335-3 3 8(4 ).

Laird, L., 1997, Salmon and Trout Farming, Nutrition and Food S ci en ce, Volume 97 Number 3 1997 pp. 101-1 04 .

86 Leaney, V., Jenkins, D., Rowlands, A., Gwilliam, R., Smith, D., 2001, Local and community ownership of renewable energy power production: Examples of wind turbine projects, Wi n d Engineering, 1 July 2001, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 215 -2 26 (12)

Lusk, P. D., 2003, Anaerobic Digesters in Manure Management, Bio Cycl e, 44, 11; ABI/INFORM Global pg. 55.

Maitland, P., 1987, The Impact of Farmed Salmon on the Genetics of Wild Stocks, NCC, Peterborough.

M a yes, B. A., McConnell, E. E., Neal, B. H., Brunner, M. J., Hamilton, S. B., Sullivan, T. M., Peters, A. C., Ryan, M. J., Toft, J. D., Singer, A. W., Brown, J. F, Jr., Menton, R. G., and Moore, J. A. 1998. Comparative carcinogenicity in Sprague-Dawle y rat s of the polychlorinated biphenyl mixtures Aroclors 1016, 1242, 1254, and 1260. Toxicological Science, 41 (1 ): 62- 76 .

McGinnity, P., et al . , 1 99 7, Genetic impact of escaped farmed Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) on native populations: use of DNA profiling to assess freshwater performance of wild, farmed, and hybrid progeny in a natural river environment, ICES Journal of Marine Science, 5 4: 9 98 - 10 08 . 19 97.

McGregor, Prof. K., 2004, Solar Water Heating, Renewable Energy Technologies BNEE336, Glasgow Caledonian University, 1 8/ 02 /0 4.

McVicar, A. H., 2003, Disease and parasite implications of the coexistence of wild and cultured Atlantic salmon populations, ICES Journal of Marine Science, Volume 54, Issue 6, December 1997, Pages 1093-11 0 3.

Monnet, F., 2003, An Introduction to Anaerobic Digestion of Organic Wastes, Remade Scotland.

Montaigne, F., 2003, Everybody loves Atlantic salmon; Here’s t h e cat ch, National Geographic , p g. 10 0 -123, July 2003.

More, A., Findlay, J., Gibb, K., Kasparova, D., Mills, C., 2003, Determine Differences: Rent Structures in Scottish Social Ho usi ng, Department of Urban Studies, University of Glasgow.

National Energy Foundation (NEF), 2005, Energy to Carbon Dioxide Converter, [Online] Available from: http://www.natenergy.org.uk/convert.htm#calc, Acces s ed: 1 5/ 04 /0 5.

National Statistics, 2005, Domestic energy consumption per household: by final use, [Online] Available from: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/Expodata/Spreadsheets/ D7 28 7.x ls, Accessed: 15/04/05.

87 Nature Conservancy Council (NCC), 1988, Fishfarming and the safeguard of the natural marine environment of Scotland.NCC, Peterborough.

Naylor, R., Goldburg, R., Primavera, J., Kautsky, N., Beveridge, M., Clay, J., et al. 2000, Effect of aquaculture on world fish s up pl ies, N atu r e, 40 5 , 10 17 –1 02 4.

Naylor, R., Goldburg, R., Primavera, J., Kautsky, N., Beveridge, M., Clay, J., et al. 1998, Nature’s subsidies to shrimp and salmon farmi n g, Sci en ce, 28 2 , 88 3– 88 4.

Oerlemans, N., and Assouline, G., 2004, Enhancing farmers’ networking strategies for sustainable development, Jou rna l of Cleaner Production,12 (2004) 469– 47 8.

Pan Fish Area Management Agreement, 2005, Protocol for Monitoring and Control of Salmon Louse (L. salmonis), P an Fi sh S cotl an d.

Pan Fish Scotland, 2005, [Online] Available from: h tt p:// www.panfish.com/newsread/news.asp?WCE=level2Scotland &D=2&N=5010&L=2, Accessed: 08/03/05.

Peacock, A., and Boyce, R., 2003, Biomimetic robotics heralds new era in dairy farming, Industrial Robot: An International Jo ur na l, Volume 30 Number 5 2003 pp. 414 -4 16 .

Renewable Devices Ltd., 2005, [Online] Available from: http://www.renewabledevices.com/swift/index.htm, Access ed: 1 0/ 05 /0 5.

Rosati, A., and Aumaitre, A., 2004, Organic dairy farming in Eu ro p e, Livestock Production Science, 90 (20 04 ) 4 1– 51 .

Ross, J., 2003, US Buyer Brings Business to Gigha, T h e S cot sman, 24t h October 2003.

Rural Housing Service, 2002, Isle of Gigha Housing Needs Study: A Report to Isle of Gigha Heritage Trust, Argyll and Isl es Enterprise and Communities Scotland,RHS.

Sattaur, O., (1989), The threat of the well-bred salmon. N ew S ci ent ist 29, April, 54 – 58 .

Schantz, S. L., Widholm, J. J and Rice, D. C., 2003, Effects of PCB exposure on neuropsychological function in children , Environmental Health Perspectives, 111 (3): 357- 5 76 .

Scott, P., 2005, The Law of Water, Water Quality and Treatment EETC404, Glasgow Caledonian University, 14/03/05.

88 Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA), 2005, Fi sh Farming Manual, [On lin e] Available from: http://www.sepa.org.uk/guidance/fishfarmmanual/manual.asp, Accessed: 15/04/05.

Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA), 2005a, Wa t er Framework Directive: Timetable for Scotland , [Online] Available from : http://www.sepa.org.uk/wfd/timetable/index.htm , Access ed: 2 3/ 04 /0 5.

Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA), 2005b, Bat hi ng Water Data: 2004,[O nline] Available from: http://www.sepa.org.uk/data/bathingwaters/bw2004/result.asp?id= 1 2 48 17, Accessed: 23/04/05.

Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA), 1999, Eutrophication of Surface Waters,SEPA.

Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA), 1997, Ch emi cal Treatments for S ea- Lice Infestation in Farmed Salmon , Press Release, 11 t h J un e 1 9 97 .

Scottish Executive, 2004, Economic Report on Scottish Agriculture,[O nline] Available from: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library5/agri/ersa04-0 0. asp, Accessed: 09/03/05.

Scottish Executive, 2003, Rural Development Plan for Scotland , [Online] Available from: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library5/rural/srdpv4-0 0. asp, Accessed: 08/12/04.

Scottish Geology (SG), 2005, [Online] Available from: h tt p://www.scottishgeology.com/, Accessed: 08/03/05.

Skettering, 2005, Nutreco Aquaculture: Responsible Practices for Marine Raw Materials, [Online] Available from: http://www.skretting.com/web/SkrettingGlobal/InterWeb.nsf/wPrI d/3478C5EBFDBB9B87C1256CA300504161/$File/Responsible_pr actices.pdf, Accessed: 24/04/05.

Solar Twin, 2005, [Online] Available from: http://www.solartwin.com/index.htm, Accessed: 10/05/05.

Therivel, R., Wilson, E., Thompson, S. Heaney, D. (1992). Environmental Impact Assessment: Application at the strategic level. Report to RSPB.

Thompson, S., Treweek, J. R., Thurling, D. J., (1995), Th e Potential Application of Strategic Environmental Assessment

89 (SEA) to the Farming of Atlantic Salmon (S al mo s ala r L. ) i n Mainland Scotland, Journal of Environmental Management (19 95 ) 4 5 , 21 9– 22 9 Weiland, P., 2000, Anaerobic waste digestion in Germany – Status and recent developments, Biodegradation 1 1: 41 5 –4 2 1, 2 0 00 .

Willis, K., J., Gillibrand, P. A., Cromey, C. J. and Black, K. D., 2005, Sea lice treatments on salmon farms have no adverse effects on zooplankton communities: a case study, Marine Pollution Bulletin xxx (2005) xxx–xxx .

World Commission on the Environment and Development, 1987, Our Common Future, United Nations.

Velthof, G. L., Beusichem M. L. van, and Oenema, 0., 1998, Mitigation of nitrous oxide emission from dairy farming systems, Environmental Pollution, 102, Sl, 1998, 173- 1 78 .

Vestas, 1990, Technical Specification of Vestas V27/225, Vest as.

90 10. Bibliography

Carbon Trust, 2004, Action Energy Good Practice Guide GPG388: Combined Heat and Power for Buildings , Queen ’s Printer and Controller of HMSO.

Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), 2 0 04 , The Governments Strategy for Combined Heat and Power to 2 0 10, Crown Copyright.

Eden G., and Haigh M., 1994, Water and Environmental Ma nagement in Europe and North America , Ellis Horwood Li m i t ed .

Gardner, G., et al. , 2 00 3, The State of the World 2003: A worldwatch institute report on progress towards a sustainable s o ci et y, New York, W. W. Norton and Company Inc.

Hill, R., O’Keefe, P., Snape, C., 1995, The Future of Energy Use , Earthscan Publications.

Johansson, T. B., 1993, Renewable Energy: Sources for Fuels and Electricity, Earthscan Publications.

Kirkby, J., O’Keefe, P., Timberlake, L., 1995, Sustainable Development, Earthscan Publi cati on s.

McDowell, E., McCormick, J., 1999, Environment Scotland: Prospects for sustainability, Ashgate Publishing Company.

McDowell, E., and Mooney E, 2003, A Heaven on Earth’ or Another St Kilda? Islay: The Challenge of Sustainability in Remote Island Communities, Glasgow Caledonian University.

Meadows, D., et al. , 1 97 2, The Limits to Growth: A Report to the cl ub of Ro me, New York, Universe Books.

Roberts, A. E., 2000, Water Quality Control Handbook , M cGraw- Hil l.

Shepherd, A., 1998, Sustainable Rural Development , P al grav e Publishing.

Tebbutt, T., H., Y., 1992, Principles of Water Quality Control , Pergamon Press Ltd.

Tietenberg, T., H., 1998, Environmental Economics and Policy, Ad dis on-Wesley Educational Publishers.

91 Walsh, F., and Brand, J., 1998, Strathclyde Papers on Planning, Environmental Appraisal in Scotland: Local authority experiences, University of Strathclyde.

World Commission on Environment and Development, 1998, Ou r Common Future, United Nations.

92 11. Acknowledgements

Many thanks to:

My family and friends

Lorna Andrew, IGHT Eleanor Logan, IGHT Willie McSporran, IGHT Lorne MacLeod, Highlands and Islands Enterprise Kenny and Betty Robinson, Ardlamy Farm John and Fiona Earnshaw, Achamore Farm Emma Rennie, Tarbert Farm Sarah McDonald, Druimeonmore Farm Russell and Caroline, Post Office Guest House Malcolm Henderson, Pan Fish Scotland Dale Hill, Pan Fish Scotland Peter MacDonald, Fyne Homes Housing Association Calum McKinven, McKinven and Colville Caroline Gallagher, Glasgow Caledonian Univ ersi t y Lorna and Archie McAllister Alan Hobbit, Gigha Renewable Energy Ltd Annie Ward, West Coast Energy Mr McNeill, Achamore Gardens

93