Containment – Education
Qualifi cations for industry in farmed fi nfi sh containment WORK BASED
QUALIFICATIONS IN ‘FARMED FINFISH CONTAINMENT’ WILL BE AN INVALUABLE TOOL FOR DRIVING UP STANDARDS ONSITE, AND WILL GET
FARMS AHEAD OF THE GAME BEFORE THE STS BECOMES MANDATORY
MARTYN HAINES W
hen the Scottish Gov- ernment’s Containment Working Group (CWG) chair, Steve Bracken,
asked me if I could develop a formal qualifi cation in ‘farmed fi nfi sh con- tainment’ informed by the group’s work, I was delighted. Staff development is integral to the ‘twin track’ strategy devised by the CWG for tackling the containment issue nationally. In summary, the establishment of standards for the equipment supplied to the Scottish fi nfi sh farming sector will minimise the risk of future equipment failure, in tandem with staff development to ensure that competence pervades the industry regarding containment, minimising the number of escapees resulting from ‘human error’. Although much of the responsibility
for fi sh containment onsite sits at managerial level, it was agreed to develop husbandry level qualifi cations initially. Two discrete ‘farmed fi nfi sh containment qualifi cations’ will be available through the Scottish Qualifi - cations Authority (SQA). The fi rst, titled ‘Pen farmed fi nfi sh containment’, has been approved following extensive industry con- sultation. A similar Unit addressing
containment within the context of land based freshwater facilities is to follow, ensuring that all fi nfi sh husbandry staff can access an SQA qualifi cation that refl ects their daily work, whether marine or freshwater based. These new ‘stand alone’ qualifi cations will be rolled out ahead of the Scottish Technical Standards (STS) for containment, giving the industry time to fully prepare their husbandry staff be- fore the STS becomes mandatory.
VIRTUOUS CYCLE So, how will all of this help the industry to demonstrate its STS compliance and more importantly minimise containment failures, or dare one say eliminate them all together? There have been a number of uncer- tifi cated courses delivered to industry in the past to address the ‘high profi le issue of the day’, but I believe there are several important differences at the heart of this initiative.
First, the signifi cance of the
collaboration underlying the CWG should not be under estimated. Three of Scotland’s major salmon producing companies, the salmon and trout farming producer organ- isations, equipment suppliers and public sector offi cials have worked
www.fishfarmer-magazine.com
closely together to agree the STS. Secondly, before the STS are launched and active, the SQA qualifi cations in containment will be available, defi ning the knowledge and skills required by husbandry staff, and mirroring the future STS, offering industry a well prepared and timely staff development pathway towards compliance, regarding their working practices.
Thirdly, a virtuous cycle of ongoing improvement can be
fostered, driven by the SQA quality assurance process governing the assessment of practical competence in the work place.
This is how it could all work. To achieve a containment qualifi cation husbandry staff would need to have their knowledge and competence as- sessed with regards to containment as defi ned by the appropriate SQA Unit. To satisfy the SQA, qualifi ed assessors from a college or alternative SQA cen- tre would need to work closely with fi sh farm managers planning to enter staff for the qualifi cation, and support them as they prepare. Verifying that their company’s standard operating procedures (SOPs) relating to contain- ment satisfi ed the standards within the SQA Unit would be a prerequisite to registering their work based learners.
Following verifi cation, manag- ers would be able to use routine observations of staff applying the company SOPs correctly to derive witness testimonies, confi dent that an assessor would accept them as valid assessment evidence. This quality assured assessment process shifts the staff development game line well beyond training
course attendance. As well as sharp- ening up farm working practices, it could also put some polish on to the industry’s SOPs and their working partnership with their colleges and other SQA registered training pro- viders, ‘locking in’ any improvements needed to sustain ongoing STS com- pliance, whilst progressively reducing the level of ‘policing’ required. By fully exploiting the full align- ment of the STS with company SOPs and SQA quality assured qual- ifi cations, the industry can imple- ment that vital component of the CWG’s strategy; the minimisation of human error. I look forward to seeing this project bear fruit to the benefi t of the aquaculture industry and the Scottish environment and perhaps become an exemplar to guide the future modernisation of aquaculture work force develop- ment practices in Scotland. FF
13
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84