A commercial fishery for razor clams using electric current gear in Scottish waters: A Scottish Government Consultation analysis, response and outcome

Part One: Analysis of Consultation Responses

We received 54 responses to this consultation.

Responses have been grouped into analytical categories, according to the identity of respondents, as well as the content of responses. This is to aid exploration of responses and narrate the main themes emerging. Grouping in this way does not imply any hierarchy of weight attributed to any response. These groups are:

• Individuals (public and unaffiliated) – responses from members of the public without a clear affiliation with any interest. We received 25 responses from this group.
• Fishing industry and representative bodies – responses from the fishing industry, this includes razor clam trial participants, non-participant fishing businesses, and representative bodies. We received 19 responses from this group.
• Environmental NGOs and conservation groups - responses from groups with an interest in conservation of marine flora and fauna. We received five responses from this group.
• Public sector scientific/advisory bodies – responses from scientific organisations with an interest in marine policy. We received two responses from this group.
• Recreational/angling groups – responses from interests associated with recreational use of the marine environment around Scotland. We received two responses from this group.
• Harbour Trusts – responses from groups responsible for the port infrastructure fishing businesses and other marine users require. We received one response from this group.

Quotes may be abridged for brevity while preserving the intent of the quotation. Full responses, where respondents gave permission to publish, can be accessed here. Where respondent numbers were small, responses were summarised rather than subject to thematic subdivision.

Question 1: Should the Scottish Government establish a commercial fishery using electric current for razor clams?

A majority of respondents, 59.3%, agreed that the Scottish Government should establish a commercial fishery. Nonetheless 37% of respondents disagreed, and a small number of respondents chose don’t know or did not answer the question directly. The core themes among respondents are explored further in the following sections.

Headline answers

Yes: 32 (59.3%)

No: 20 (37%)

Don’t Know: 1 (1.8%)

Not Answered: 1 (1.8%)

The majority of respondents agreed with the proposal. Even among supporters, unconditional support was rare, and the need to proceed with caution was a core theme, frequently discussed in the context of controlling risk of adverse environmental impact. While recognising the achievements of the scientific trial, those who opposed the proposal considered the evidence base insufficient to move to a commercial fishery at this time.

Individuals (public and unaffiliated)

Individuals were almost evenly divided, with 11 responses answering Yes to this question, and 13 responses answering No.

Supporting responses

Primary theme: low environmental impact

Among those who answered Yes, the method was perceived as having a lower environmental impact, particularly when compared with reasonable alternatives identified in the consultation paper like suction dredge. This theme was present in eight responses.

‘I believe it is beneficial for the environment in comparison to other fisheries (trawling & dredging). This fishery has a very low impact of marine environments.’ [Individual, anonymous response]

‘Its much more ECO friendly than other methods used.’ [Individual]

Secondary theme: economic and community benefits

There was sentiment among respondents that benefits would be felt to livelihoods in coastal areas. This theme was present in four responses.

‘The Length of the trial seems to show it is a viable fishery with well established safety, and low environmental impact.’ [Individual, anonymous response]

Other themes

A small number of responses raised matters such as effective regulation, both as a prerequisite to a commercial fishery, and as a standalone benefit of such a fishery. This theme was present in two responses.

‘I do believe that this should be opened commercially as it better helps provide control measures to the industry preventing 'black fish' and illegal fisheries.’ [Individual, anonymous response]

Opposing responses

Primary theme: environmental impact

Among those who answered No, the environmental impact of such a fishery was a frequent theme. Individuals expressed views that the electric current method caused more harm than the consultation paper indicated, considering the evidence presented as insufficient to establish modest impact, and referencing past experience of environmental harm associated with other fisheries. Some respondents cited particular areas of local environmental harm that they attributed to razor clam fishing. This theme was present in ten responses.

‘Environmentally damaging just to export to other countries’ [Individual, anonymous response]

‘There is no information on the impact on micro fauna in the water column and, hence, the long term impact on other shellfish stocks must be protected.’ [Individual, anonymous response]

‘Without a doubt the area will be devastated. Past experience of scallop fishing has demonstrated this.’ [Individual, anonymous response]

‘If the current is strong enough to affect something the size of a razor clam, what damage must it cause to the many smaller organisms within the sand.’ [Individual]

Secondary theme: governance concerns

Much of the sentiment against a fishery was linked to concern that, if a fishery opened, stocks would be rapidly overexploited. There was distrust that this could be effectively managed, with reference to existing prohibition of this method in law. Some respondents, while opposed, suggested governance models like area-specific authorisations to manage perceived harms. This theme was present in five responses.

‘The eu and UK prohibit it’ [Individual]

‘If razor clam fisheries are to be permitted then it will be necessary to protect the stocks … it is likely that multiple fisherman or fish in the same place regularly thereby exterminating the stock.’ [Individual, anonymous response]

Other themes

A small number of respondents raised other matters, such as putting policy resources into different areas, as well as principled philosophical opposition to fishing of any sort. These themes were present in two responses.

‘More effort and money should be put into farming seaweed instead.’ [Individual, anonymous response]

‘As a Scot by name , nature and birth, I cannot agree to the mass organised killing of a fellow mortal for profit and consumption by another.’ [Individual]

Other responses

No responses in this group chose Don’t Know, or did not answer.

Fishing industry and representative bodies

The majority of respondents were supportive, with 17 responses answering Yes, two responses answering No, and one respondent answering Don’t Know.

Supporting responses

Primary theme: commercial and environmental viability

Among those who answered Yes to this question, the electric current method was identified as commercially viable, compared favourably to dredging, described as a highly selective method, with minimal seabed disturbance. The findings of the trial were characterised as a strong evidence base for establishing a commercial fishery. This theme was present in fourteen responses.

‘The trial has now been running for a number of years and has provided a sufficient evidence base to move to a regulated commercial fishery. For young fishers like myself trying to build a future in the industry, access to a new, well-managed fishery is essential.’ [Fishing business, anonymous response]

‘The methodology has been shown to be environmentally a very low impact method, and with continued good management a sustainable Razor Clam fishery would not only contribute financially to the local community, often rural, but also to the wider support businesses and contribute to social cohesion that comes with such a typically traditional activity that fishing is to Scotland.’ [Fishing business, anonymous response]

‘Excellent scientific base for doing so and provides a potential diversification route for inshore fisheries in Scotland’ [Shetland Regional Inshore Fishery Group]

Secondary theme: effective governance

Support among fishing industry and representative bodies was not unconditional, and several responses made it clear that effective management of any fishery was an essential prerequisite to the benefits identified. Sentiment in responses covered strict control of fishing activity, as well as managing fisheries holistically so as not to inadvertently affect other fisheries. This theme was present in eight responses.

‘It is great to see fisherman working constructively with marine Scotland to build an entirely new and innovative and highly controlled fishery.’ [Fishing business, anonymous response]

‘I support the establishment of a commercial razor clam fishery using electric current gear, provided it is strictly licensed, monitored and science-led.’ [Fishing business, anonymous response]

‘… the opening of an alternative fishery should not be to the detriment of another, and this needs to be carefully considered … ongoing monitoring will prove fundamental in ensuring a well managed fishery.’ [Scottish Fishermen’s Federation]

Other themes

Some respondents highlighted the role of a razor clam fishery in supporting business diversification and resilience, particularly in the context of perceived displacement by or competition with other marine activities. This theme was present in four responses.

‘The cumulative impact of multiple offshore windfarm developments has significantly reduced access to traditional fishing grounds … a razor clam fishery would provide an important diversification route and help support long-term viability.’ [Fishing business, anonymous response]

‘Given the pressures that fleets are under, particularly the inshore fleet, the opportunity to pursue another fishery may prove crucial for fishermen to sustain a viable income.’ [Scottish Fishermen’s Federation]

‘…it would be great for there to be more opportunity of work with an extra fishing methods, it would also ease the stress on scallop diving ground if there was another shellfish diving type of fishing for divers and operators to go for.’ [Fishing business, anonymous response]

A further group of respondents referred to wider benefits, including employment, tax revenue, business confidence, and Scotland’s reputation as a source of high-quality seafood. Increased access to razor clam fishing was also advocated. This theme was present in four responses.

Opposing responses

Two respondents opposed moving to a commercial fishery. Opposition primarily reflected concerns that the trial had not sufficiently addressed residual uncertainties, and that direct fishing experience differed from the findings of the trial more generally:

‘At this time, the trial is incomplete !! Not enough science has been done on more exact spawning times, stock sustainability and bed recovery periods. Our company has found, anecdotally, contradictory conditions to that of the scientific reports.’ [Easedale Seafoods Ltd]

Other responses

One respondent answered Don’t Know.

This respondent did not object in principle to a commercial fishery, but argued that insufficient evidence had been published to justify a definitive view on the proposal at this stage. While acknowledging benefits of the trial approach, this respondent set out the conditions they identified as necessary for a commercial fishery, and in particular sought more detailed information, which they felt was required to give an informed view on the consultation paper.

‘In principle, SCFF could support a limited commercial fishery using electrofishing, but only where it is spatially bounded, limited entry, subject to mandatory REM, mandatory biological sampling, clear catch and effort limits, regular independent stock assessment, and precautionary closure or reduction mechanisms where evidence indicates concern.’ [Scottish Creel Fishermen’s Federation]

No respondent did not answer the question.

Environmental NGOs and conservation groups

Responses were mixed, with two responses answering Yes, three responses answering No.

Supporting responses

Primary theme: conditional support under a precautionary, evidence-led framework

Support was firmly expressed as conditional on the nature of any fishery, for example its footprint, the regulatory regime and the degree of precaution applied. The electric current method was seen as preferable to reasonable alternatives such as suction dredge, but this did not amount, in respondents view, to the method being inherently low-impact. This theme was present in two responses.

‘I support the establishment of a limited commercial fishery only under a strict precautionary and adaptive management framework. The available scientific evidence suggests that razor clam stocks … can support a controlled level of harvesting … uncertainties remain regarding long-term ecological impacts ... Electric fishing methods may reduce physical disturbance compared to dredging, but this does not eliminate ecological risk.’ [Merman Conservation Expeditions]

‘In principle, an electric current fishery for razor clams could be established in Scottish waters. However it is vital that this fishery is subject to strict management measures, which can be adapted as new evidence is obtained about the fishery and its impacts. Additional resources must be provided to ensure that compliance, monitoring and data gathering are transparent and objective.’ [Sustainable Inshore Fisheries Trust]

Secondary theme: strict constraints and transparent governance

Responses highlighted uncertainties in the evidence base, emphasising that any commercial fishery would need to be limited in size and scope, as a safeguard. Stock assessment was identified as an important factor to guide any decision-making, with respondents critical of any move to open commercial fishing in areas that lacked completed assessments. Respondents identified greater data sharing as essential to building credibility. Respondents, either in principle or directly referencing law, stressed the importance of proper application of the precautionary principle. This theme was present in two responses.

‘SIFT believes that the opening of a significantly wider commercial fishery operating outside the current trial boundaries would be in breach of the Precautionary Objective of the UK Fisheries Act 2020.’ [Sustainable Inshore Fisheries Trust]

‘… any commercial fishery should remain tightly regulated, limited in scale, and subject to continuous scientific monitoring, with the ability to adjust or suspend activity if negative impacts are detected.’ [Merman Conservation Expeditions]

‘Regular, publicly accessible stock assessments must be published and acted upon.’ [Merman Conservation Expeditions]

Other themes

While supportive in principle, the concept of an indicator that Ministers should use to reduce or halt authorised fishing was raised as an essential component of managing a new fishery.

‘Any commercial fishery must be subject to suspension or scaling back if stock indicators deteriorate.’ [Merman Conservation Expeditions]

Opposing responses

Primary theme: insufficient evidence to justify a fishery

Respondents outlined several concerns, articulated as firm opposition to the proposal of a commercial fishery, given the remaining knowledge gaps. Frequently described areas of ongoing concern were: adequacy of evidence of impacts on non-target species, seabed habitats and cumulative impacts of sustained fishing pressure; the number of trial areas that still did not have completed stock assessments; and risks to the Marine Protected Area network and Priority Marine Features. This theme was present in three responses.

‘A decade after concerns were first raised, there is still no robust, long-term research on the sub-lethal and ecosystem-level effects on non-target species like sandeels, flatfish, and elasmobranchs’ [Our Seas Coalition]

‘…stock assessments have only been completed for a subset of trial areas and that further data is still being gathered to understand population dynamics across Scotland. This is not a sufficient basis for a national commercial authorisation.’ [Seawilding]

‘Understanding of the impact on non-target species has to include field survey in the fishery areas over time and to consider the impact on a much wider range of species (including impact on larval and juvenile stages) that comprise the wider marine community’ [Community of Arran Seabed Trust]

Secondary theme: governance concerns

Respondents considered proposals did not carry sufficient fisheries management safeguards. Responses made reference to policy and Ministers obligations in the Fisheries Act 2020, characterising the proposal as in breach of furtherance of these objectives. This theme was present in three responses.

‘Proceeding to a commercial stage … without clear safeguards for Priority Marine Features (PMFs) like seagrass—would breach the Precautionary Objective of the UK Fisheries Act 2020’ [Our Seas Coalition]

‘if a commercial fishery is allowed on the basis of the information provided to date, we consider that this would be in breach of the Ecosystem Objective of the UK Fisheries Act 2020.’[Community of Arran Seabed Trust]

‘Scottish policy and the Blue Economy Vision commit to ecosystem-based, precautionary management. The strategic environmental assessment (SEA) screening for this consultation has already concluded that an environmental assessment is required for the anticipated policy outcomes. Proceeding to a commercial fishery … would be inconsistent with that approach.’ [Seawilding]

Other themes

Within the responses were area-specific examples of alleged environmental harm in razor clam trial areas. This theme was present in one response.

‘Divers … have observed electrofishing boats operating directly over known seagrass and maerl habitat … and have subsequently noted new damage … Electrofishing should not be taking place anywhere near it.’ [Seawilding]

Other responses

No respondents answered Don’t Know or did not answer the question.

Scientific and advisory bodies

Two respondents in this group responded to the consultation. One answered Yes to this question, while another did not answer the question, but did provide a text response.

Supporting responses

The respondent who answered yes declared an interest, having been heavily involved in the trial. While supportive, they highlighted continuing knowledge gap as a reason to proceed with some caution.

‘Based on the evidence I have seen, including conducting research on the fishing vessels, I support the establishment of a commercial fishery following the research trial.

However, there are still some gaps in knowledge so a cautious approach moving forward is required.’ [Scottish Association for Marine Science]

Other responses

One respondent in this group did not answer this question with Yes, No or Don’t Know. They did provide a written response, which outlined that a commercial fishery would be possible, subject to appropriate controls:

‘We are of the opinion that it would be possible to establish a restricted commercial fishery using electric current for razor clams. However, due to the nature of the fishery, biology of the target species and the problems encountered in the fishery prior to the trial, it is essential that by whichever means razor clam fishing is administered, effective sustainable management measures are necessary.’ [NatureScot]

A central point raised in this response was that the measures in place for the scientific trial are appropriate to the trial, and would require review to ensure they remain effective if a commercial fishery was established:

‘The current restrictions limit the effort and footprint of the fishery and mitigate for any unintended consequences of the fishing activity associated with the remaining evidence gaps. Changes to these restrictions may reduce the efficacy of those mitigations.’ [NatureScot]

Angling groups

Two responses were received from angling interests. Both respondents answered No to this question, however the trial itself was recognised as having materially improved outcomes:

‘The Angling Trust accepts that the body of work undertaken since 2018 represents a serious and credible effort to bring a previously illegal, unreported and unregulated activity into a regulated framework, and that this has yielded real benefits in terms of compliance, data quality and the safety of crews and consumers.’ [The Angling Trust]

One respondent considered the trial to have under-delivered on its goal to gather further information on non-target species impacts, and given their particular interests, the lack of progress on understanding effects on fish species was identified as a core issue.

‘We would support a phased transition to a strictly limited commercial fishery only once specific outstanding evidence gaps are addressed … the consultation document is explicit that the trial did not complete its planned work on two of the species groups most relevant to recreational sea angling - flatfish and sandeels’ [The Angling Trust]

Another respondent held more straightforward opposition to the method, considering the risks unacceptable:

‘‘Electrofishing causes physical trauma to marine life and damages seabed habitats … we conclude that electrofishing is incompatible with sustainable inshore fisheries management.’ [Ardrossan & District Sea Angling Club]

Both respondents highlighted concerns relating to effective fisheries management, either as an unmitigable risk, or seeking commitments relating to management as prerequisites to changing opposition to support, such as time limited authorisations with an overall cap in vessel numbers, ongoing assessment of risks of environmental harm, and a clear trigger mechanism based on an indicator that would lead to intervention to reduce or halt fishing activity.

Harbour Trusts

A single harbour trust responded to the consultation and answered Yes to this question. Their reason centred on potential local economic benefits, subject to appropriate management controls being in place:

‘As a Trust we are committed to supporting our inshore fishing fleet, and would fully support any initiative to conserve stock while maintaining a sustainable income for our fishers. Plus we currently have berths available that could be utilised by Razor Clam Vessels without pressurising our Creel Vessels.

Initiatives such as clear limits on the number of vessels (controlled by legislation), defined and monitored fishing areas, creel number limits and effort restrictions (maximum number of days fished / rotating conservation areas), could be carefully monitored.’ [St. Andrews Harbour Trust]

Question 2: Do you agree with the proposal to allow commercial fishing for razor clams beyond the boundaries of trial areas?

Headline answers

Yes: 31 (57.4%)

No: 21 (38.8%)

Don’t Know: 1 (1.8%)

Not Answered: 1 (1.8%)

The majority of respondents agreed with this proposal. As with Question 1, this was rarely unconditional support; while expanded fishing areas were seen as an operational necessity by supporters, a consistent theme in responses was that any new areas should be chosen with care and consideration of both razor clam stocks and the wider marine environment. Those who disagreed reiterated their views that the evidence gathered so far in the trial was insufficient to consider new areas, instead frequently arguing that stock assessments and area-appropriate safeguards across trial areas were preferable to opening new areas. Opposing responses considered the risks of extrapolating trial conclusions to new areas to be too great.

Individuals (public and unaffiliated)

Individuals were almost evenly divided, with 11 responses answering Yes to this question, and 13 responses answering No.

Supporting responses

Primary theme: stock sustainability

A frequent point raised by respondents was that allowing for fishing outside of trial boundaries would reduce the risk of overfishing, and allow rotational practice, giving grounds time to recover. Some responses framed this as essential to avoid overexploitation of existing grounds, while others supported the proposal but only conditional on new areas being scientifically surveyed and determined to be appropriate for the purpose of fishing. This theme was present in five responses.

‘It would allow rotation of fishable areas - making better environment to produce health sustainable stock.’ [Individual, anonymous response]

‘If the trial has ran for 7 years now, continued fishing in the same areas would surely be detrimental to the environment’ [Individual, anonymous response]

Secondary theme: economic benefits of expansion

Respondents identified fishing beyond trial boundaries as enabling economic benefits. This theme was present in four responses.

‘It brings in income for Scotland as a whole and provides jobs for fishermen.’ [Individual]

‘There are many areas around scotland, in particular in the northern isles that are all virgin fishing grounds.’ [Individual, anonymous response]

Opposing responses

Primary theme: environmental impact

Respondents who answered No considered removing trial boundaries as likely to lead to overfishing of razor clams, or impacts on non-target species. This theme was present in five responses.

‘As above as with scallop fishing those actually fishing will strip the stock bare’ [Individual, anonymous response]

‘It is impacting other species’ [Individual, anonymous response]

Secondary theme: governance concerns

Respondents considered this proposal to be vulnerable to misreporting abuses, or gold-rush behaviour without proper controls.

‘Prior to the trial there was widespread non-compliance with vessels making spurious claims about where catches were made in order to suit water classification legislation.’ [Individual, anonymous response]

‘If it is to be allowed, it should only be allowed in certain areas, and not be a free for all.’ [Individual]

Other themes

Some respondents mentioned the environmental benefit of closing areas to fishing, and suggested rather than expanding fishing areas, all forms of razor clam fishing should be prohibited.

Other responses

One response answered Don’t Know. No respondent in this group did not answer the question.

This respondent indicated a preference for restricted stewardship of an area to maintain economically viable local stocks.

‘a fisherman's own area that he can manage and conserve for an ongoing fishery without that area being destroyed by over fishing as a free for all.’ [Individual, anonymous response]

Fishing industry and representative bodies

The majority of respondents were supportive, with 18 responses answering Yes and two response answering No.

Supporting responses

Primary theme: operational viability

Respondents consistently referred to the principle of rotating grounds to spread effort and let stocks recover as an essential component of fishing operations. This was also discussed in terms of risk overexploitation by continuing to fish the same areas over several years. Several respondents expressed surprise in retrospect that stocks appeared to be so resilient to repeat fishing, albeit while still considering this to be a risk to stock health. This theme was present in fifteen responses.

‘Fishers must have the opportunity to seek out the most advantageous fishing grounds especially given the days at sea allocations being weather determined as to where fishing may be possible.’ [Ross, Sutherland, Skye & Lochalsh Fisherman's Association]

‘Many of grounds worked have shown good restocking after approximately 3 years rest so more ground opened will help maintain rest period for ground recovery.’ [Fishing business, anonymous response]

‘Yes definitely as a scallop diving operator, i work a nomadic principle, moving around the coasts and islands, we take the good pick and leave the rest for the ground to recover quicker so the following year the ground is as good as it was the year before, some places recover better than others but I decent fishing boat k own which bits to leave for longer after afew seasons.’ [Fishing business]

‘There are vast stocks of the species outwith the current designations, allowing the dispersal of activity will benefit local stocks by reducing fishing pressure and allow for more efficient operations leading to better outcomes for all involved.’ [Fishing business, anonymous response]

Secondary theme: cautious expansion

Some respondents raised concern about rapid or uncontrolled expansion, noting for example that not every ground is equivalently productive, meaning a degree of caution is merited. There were also views in favour of, and in opposition to, using shellfish harvesting areas as a spatial management measure rather than another area. On one hand, shellfish harvesting area classification is a lengthy process that builds slow expansion into the proposal, but there is an operational cost to obtaining classification that would fall disproportionately on business seeking the initial classification compared to other vessels that may subsequently seek access to the area. This theme was present in six responses.

‘I agree with the proposal to allow commercial fishing for razor clams beyond the current trial boundaries, provided this is done on a science-led and precautionary basis.’ [Fishing business, anonymous response]

‘It would help dilute effort in certain areas, and additionally, classification of the grounds will also act as a control measure.’ [Fishing business, anonymous response]

‘If a number of zones are created, with each zone having a set number of vessels, this would assist in preventing over-fishing of any one area.’ [Fishing business]

Other themes

Aside from the primary and secondary themes from responses, community benefits were identified, articulated as fishers and divers remaining near home ports and having a better family life, in comparison to a more nomadic existence following the work. This theme was present in two responses.

Opposing responses

One respondent answered No but provided no written context, the other respondent in this group answering No opposed expanding fishing into new areas without evidence of the sort gathered during the trial.

‘The trial areas are where the available evidence, monitoring and fishing history have been concentrated. Expansion beyond those areas should not be permitted unless robust area-specific baseline surveys, stock assessments, habitat assessments and stakeholder engagement have been completed.’ [Scottish Creel Fishermen’s Federation]

Other responses

No respondent in this group answered Don’t Know. No respondent in this group did not answer the question.

Environmental NGOs and conservation groups

The majority of respondents in this group disagreed this proposal, with one respondent answering Yes and four respondents answering No.

Supporting responses

One respondent agreed with the proposal, but warned that this required to be implemented in a cautious , evidence-led manner. While agreeing that enabling rotation would benefit stocks and reduce the risk of overexploitation, they had misgivings that this could be effectively managed informally by fishers, and sought for this to become a formal component of management of a fishery. They also suggested a presumption against fishing in or adjacent to the MPA network.

‘We agree that allowing access beyond the current trial areas may reduce concentrated fishing pressure and help prevent localised overexploitation … We strongly urge that any expansion be governed by the Shellfish Harvesting Area classification system in a rigorous and precautionary manner’ [Merman Conservation Expeditions]

Opposing responses

Primary theme: insufficient evidence to support removing boundaries

Respondents considered the evidence gathered in the trial as insufficient, as a basis for authorising fishing activity outside trial areas. Respondents set out the criteria viewed as essential before the Scottish Government should consider amending the spatial limits of razor clam fishing, mentioning baseline environmental surveys, stock assessments, a fuller understanding of population dynamics, and the risk of drawing inference of a stock assessment in one area and applying it to a new area. The likelihood of regional variation on razor clam life history and ecosystem function was consistently emphasised in this theme. This theme was present in four responses.

‘Razor clam population dynamics are likely regional; findings from a few sites cannot be scientifically extrapolated to all Scottish waters’ [Our Seas Coalition]

‘Whilst it is recognised that the opportunity to move to new fishing grounds could alleviate fishing pressure on the existing trial areas … No extended fishing should be permitted until proposed additional areas have been extensively mapped, and subject to ongoing monitoring.’ [Sustainable Inshore Fisheries Trust]

Secondary theme: governance concerns

Respondents raised several concerns relating to how the Scottish Government has administered the trial, and the fisheries management implication of the proposal. Some respondents were expecting the consultation to contain area-by-area proposals; the regional nature of razor clam populations prompted calls for region-specific management measures. Some respondents considered the assessment of likely environmental effects of possible consultation outcomes to be too narrow in scope. This theme was present in four responses.

‘To extend the fishing area boundaries without having even introduced effective management measures within the trial areas would be a failure of fisheries management.’ [Sustainable Inshore Fisheries Trust]

‘Extending boundaries without having introduced effective management measures within existing trial areas risks damaging sensitive habitats outwith current zones’ [Our Seas Coalition]

‘Regional population dynamics require site-specific management. If populations are structured regionally, then fishing mortality that is sustainable in one area may be unsustainable in another. In addition, localised extirpation of the target species could occur without being visible in broad-scale assessments.’ [Seawilding]

Other themes

Some respondents interpreted this proposal as lifting all spatial constraints in comparison to the REM-led compliance framework in the trial, and were strongly opposed. Other respondents raised specific concerns relating to particular areas.

‘spatial management in the razor fisheries trial has been heralded by MD as a success. It is therefore wholly counterintuitive for it to now be discontinued. It must continue so that area-specific management measures can be maintained or introduced including the limited entry by vessels, spatially bound catch limits.’ [Sustainable Inshore Fisheries Trust]

‘Case studies in Gott Bay and Knoydart demonstrate that electrofishing has occurred directly over sensitive seagrass and maerl habitats, even within supposedly controlled trial areas’ [Our Seas Coalition]

Scientific and advisory bodies

There were two responses in this group. One answered Yes, and one did not answer, but did provide a text response.

Supporting responses

This response suggested rotation would be a useful management tool, requiring the opening of new areas. They recognised that trial participants already do move between areas within their derogations to fish in the trial in response to razor clam density, but suggested this may require to be a formal management component with defined triggers, rather than reliance on informal behaviour among fishers.

‘Despite evidence that the present harvest levels are sustainable, I believe that some form of rotational spatial management allowing grounds recovery periods may be required. Such an approach would require opening of additional areas.’ [Scottish Association for Marine Science]

Other responses

One respondent did not answer Yes, No or Don’t Know, but did provide a written response. This emphasised that were there to be fishing authorised beyond current areas, that would require revised advice and assessment, cautioning that inferring advice applicable to trial fishing may not be appropriate.

‘If a commercial fishery were to be introduced which extended outside the trial boundaries, further consideration would need to be given, based on location and fishing effort … It would also be important to ensure that these areas are discrete in order to ensure activity can be effectively managed and potential impacts controlled for the expansion of the fishery footprint’ [NatureScot]

Angling groups

There were two responses in this group, both of which answered No. Both respondents considered opening fishing before stock assessments were complete in each area was premature. Instead, one respondent advocated for the core trial areas with completed stock assessments to form the first phase of a commercial fishery. One respondent did not consider using shellfish harvesting areas to be appropriate as a fisheries management tool, noting they were ultimately the responsibility of Food Standards Scotland.

‘… several trial areas still lack a completed Length Cohort Analysis. Opening grounds outside the trial areas to commercial extraction before the analogous data exist for those grounds is not consistent with a precautionary approach.’ [The Angling Trust]

‘Stock and habitat impacts remain unresolved.’ [Ardrossan & District Sea Angling Club]

Harbour Trusts

One harbour trust responded, answering Yes to this question. They considered a specific area of seabed within their area of operations to be appropriate for commercial fishing or razor clams, and articulated this with reference to the local MPA network, and the needs of other fishing interests.

‘…the proposed area is away from the SPA and SAC, and adjacent to the southern rocky margin of the Bay. This is the area that supports the inshore creel fleet. However the two fisheries are not in competition as one operates on a rock seabed and the other a sand seabed.’ [St. Andrews Harbour Trust]

Question 3: Do you agree that the technical measures outlined are appropriate for the proposed fishery?

Headline answers

Yes: 25 (46.3%)

No: 19 (35.2%)

Don’t Know: 8 (14.8%)

Not Answered: 2 (3.7%)

A plurality of respondents agreed that the technical measures proposed in this section were appropriate for a commercial fishery, citing the track record of the trial as proof they worked well. Respondents who disagreed commonly considered the package of measures to be a starting point but generally viewed them as requiring strengthening; the direction appeared to align with priorities of these respondents, but they disputed the adequacy of the measures.

Core themes that emerged were the necessity of REM, adaptive management with clear trigger mechanisms, and area-specific measures reflecting local considerations. Several respondents interpreted Question 3 as removing REM as a management tool, as it was not included in the list of measures in the consultation paper. This is not the case and REM would remain core to any commercial fishery. Nonetheless these concerns are set out below to underline respondents view of the centrality of REM as a prerequisite for any fishery.

Individuals (public and unaffiliated)

A plurality of responses disagreed with this proposal. Eight responses answered Yes, 12 responses answered No, and four responses answered Don’t Know.

Supporting responses

Primary theme: technical measures support sustainable fishing

Respondents agreeing with this proposal considered the technical measures, as applied in the trial, to have demonstrated they were appropriate for sustainable fishing. This theme was present in six responses.

‘These measures have been proven via the trial to be sustainable and beneficial for both the respawning & grounds preservation.’ [Individual, anonymous response]

Other themes

Some respondents in this group considered technical measures best decided by fisheries management professionals and did not feel like they could give a view. Others had suggestions for liberalising measures, for example setting an overall total allowable catch, instead of a daily catch limit.

‘I'd suggest an annual quota 450kg x 110 days - 49500kg, to be attained within 11 months would be a more sensible option. Given the unpredictability of the weather, and market concerns fishermen undergo, each year, This provides a more dynamic and proactive working platform for fishermen.’ [Individual, anonymous response]

Opposing responses

Diverse reasons to oppose this proposal were expressed. Some respondents framed their response in the context of their view on Question 1, restating opposition to a commercial fishery. Few respondents went into detail on any of the proposed technical measures, while one respondent questioned if it was possible to effectively manage a fishery according to the proposed measures. One response maintained a philosophical objection to commercial fishing as the basis of their answer. No consistent theme emerged from these responses.

‘Do you honest think this is practicable’ [Individual, anonymous response]

‘More research needs to be done’ [Individual, anonymous response]

Other responses

Four respondents answered Don’t Know. Only one respondent gave any context, indicating that they felt this was best determined by professionals rather than consultation respondents.

‘You need to ask a scientist rather than a consumer.’ [Individual, anonymous response]

Fishing industry and representative bodies

The majority of respondents in this group agreed with the proposal. 14 respondents answered Yes, two respondents answered No and four respondents answered Don’t Know.

Supporting responses

Primary theme: effective and practical measures

Respondents who agreed with this proposal considered the technical measures to be a workable and enforceable framework for a sustainable fishery. The application of analogous measures in the trial was referenced by respondents, characterising them as a tried and tested package of measures, appropriate for a commercial fishery. Some respondents qualified agreement by stressing such measures should be reviewed to ensure they’re still appropriate in a commercial setting. This theme was present in 12 responses.

‘I agree that the technical measures outlined are broadly appropriate for the proposed fishery, as they provide a necessary balance between enabling commercial activity and maintaining control over fishing pressure and environmental impacts.’ [Fishing business, anonymous response]

‘The technical measures are in line with the trial & have proven to be successful during the trial period. Further assessment of technical measures should take place during the initial years of a commercial fishery, should the proposal of a commercial fishery proceed.’ [Fishing business]

‘Yes as a participant on trial and vessel skipper since start I feel the vessels are extremely well monitored and controlled by marine Scotland and also health and safety executive who have kept a careful watch over vessels participating and offered good recommendations regarding safe practice.’ [Fishing business, anonymous response]

Secondary theme: introduction of adaptive measures

Some respondents, while agreeing with the core proposal of Question 3, highlighted that there may be scope to inject adaptability into aspects, according to razor clam biology, fisher behaviour and regional fishing activity. The concept of a more flexible catch limit regime, either a total allowable catch, or multi-day catch limits was proposed. This theme was present in three responses.

‘These measures are individual focused, when it may be more appropriate to consider on a wider scale. For example, if there are few vessels targeting the fishery in any given region, it may be possible for an increase in allocated catch and days allowance for individuals. Whereas if the limit of vessels has been reached, it may be more appropriate to have stricter measures, depending on the state of the stock.’ [Scottish Fishermen’s Federation]

‘Is strongly agree with the raising of the sizes and let any juveniles to be returned to the water, again same as scallops you take everything its a sure way to kill the ground i would like to see king scallop sizes increased to.’ [Fishing business]

The seasonal closure in operation in the trial was criticised as a crude implementation that did not recognise razor clam spawning activity varies between regions. A more dynamic closure scheme was proposed as an alternative.

Opposing responses

Two respondent answered No, but outlined several ways in which measures could be adjusted. This included more investigation of regional spawning or area-specific reporting, linking catch limits and rotating grounds in response to vessel numbers and stock indicators, establishing a levy to fund fisheries science, and increasing the minimum conservation reference size.

‘In the main, the answer is "Yes" however they could be tweaked in order to make the proposed fishery better.’ [Fishing business]

Other responses

Respondents who answered Don’t Know mostly adopted a neutral position, underlining similar points to other groups that regional considerations and practicality were important considerations, with one respondent indicating the conception and implementation of technical measures was a job for specialists.

Environmental NGOs and conservation groups

The majority of respondents disagreed with the proposal. One respondent answered Yes, and five respondents answered No.

Supporting responses

One respondent indicated broad agreement with the proposed measures, but made several recommendations to strengthen them, recommending effort and catch measures be reduced, MCRS be increased and review of any seasonal closure in light of difference in razor clam spawning activity in different regions. They further recommended that where relevant, assessment of impacts relating to features of the MPA network and Priority Marine Features be independently overseen.

Opposing responses

Primary theme: insufficiently protective measures

Respondents considered the measures presented to be inadequate to ensure sustainable, low impact fishing. Lack of evidence, or inconsistencies in evidence used to inform measures, was highlighted; for example the duration of spawning activity in Scotland in comparison to the duration of the seasonal closure. These measures were generally not rejected out of hand, but instead discussed as an unsatisfactory starting point. This theme was present in four responses.

‘Lack of adaptive, site-specific management. The measures are largely generic. Given regional population dynamics and habitat variation, a ‘one size fits all’ approach is inappropriate.’ [Seawilding]

‘The current one-month closure is inappropriate. Evidence suggests spawning occurs in April and May, requiring at least a two-month closure’ [Our Seas Coalition]

‘Current measures do not explicitly prohibit fishing within seagrass meadows or maerl beds.’ [Our Seas Coalition]

Secondary theme: remote electronic monitoring

Some respondents interpreted the technical measures in this question as excluding the ongoing use of REM and opposed the proposal strongly on this basis. In some cases they sought an immediate implementation of a more expansive suite of REM sensors than currently operates in the trial, with reference to the call for evidence section. This theme was present in three responses.

‘Every vessel must have mandatory Remote Electronic Monitoring (REM), including CCTV and sensors, to ensure catch accountability and transparency’ [Our Seas Coalition]

‘there must be comprehensive and mandatory REM and VMS on every vessel participating in the fishery. The REM must comprise of CCTV equipment and other sensors …’ [Sustainable Inshore Fisheries Trust]

Other themes

Some respondents advocated for continued scientific trial study to resolve remaining uncertainties, while others sought to contextualise the proposal with reference to broader trends in the status of Priority Marine Features.

‘Insufficient safeguards for non-target species (such as a well-resourced scientific trial on the long-term physiological impacts).’ [Our Seas Coalition]

Scientific and advisory bodies

One respondent answered Yes to this question, while another did not answer, but did provide a text response. This response underlined their view of the importance of technical measures covering the range of matters proposed.

‘In order to ensure that exploitation of razor clams is appropriately managed and monitored it is necessary to maintain measures which restrict this activity including effort controls, spatial management, gear specification and seasonal restrictions.’ [NatureScot]

REM featured in both responses: the supportive response stated REM systems had been effective as a management tool. The other response noted that REM was not explicitly included in the list of measures and highlighted this issue.

‘REM has not been specifically mentioned in the list of technical measures. This tool is vital for monitoring and understanding the fishing activities, their footprint and effort and it should remain a mandatory technical measure for the fishery.’ [NatureScot]

Angling groups

One respondent answered No to this question, and one did not answer the question, but did provide a text response. Opposition focused on these being national rules when region-specific measures may be more appropriate, as well as misgivings about enforceability.

‘There is not enough robust, region specific science to show these measures will protect stocks or habitats. Proposals rely on rules on paper without the monitoring and enforcement capacity to ensure compliance.’ [Ardrossan & District Sea Angling Club]

The other response acknowledged the proposed measures as a starting point but recommended strengthening several aspects: linking effort limits to fleet size, reviewing the daily catch limit against the status of stocks, raising the MCRS to 125mm, moving to a dynamic seasonal closure informed by razor clam spawning indicators, continuing review of area-specific closures and a commitment to greater transparency in measures.

Harbour Trusts

This respondent answered Yes to this question, noting that the measures were essential to maintain the sustainability of a commercial fishery.

Question 4: Are there any other technical measures that should be considered for introduction?

Headline answers

Yes: 27 (50%)

No: 13 (24.1%)

Don’t Know: 12 (22.2%)

Did not answer: 2 (3.7%)

The responses to Question 4 proposing additional measures reflect the clear division in views on the proposed fishery seen elsewhere in consultation responses, however the substance of what respondents considered to be necessary measures surfaced the same cross-cutting themes repeatedly.

Whatever their overall position on the principle of a commercial fishery, many respondents consistently emphasised adaptive management backed by robust and transparent monitoring, precautionary controls on fleet size and effort levels, and spatial management backed by an enhanced role for REM.

This suggests a degree of underlying consensus on the necessary components of an appropriate fisheries management framework, even where there is fundamental disagreement on whether a commercial fishery should proceed at this stage.

Individuals (public and unaffiliated)

Seven respondents answered Yes, eight respondents answered No, and nine respondents answered Don’t Know.

Proposed new measures

No consistent theme emerged from respondents. Two respondents made similar proposals to lease areas of seabed to particular fishing businesses for exclusive use.

‘…Fish stocks would be protected and preserved by those who had paid good money for the right to fish their patch. Every body wins and the fishery becomes self policing, self protected and fish stocks will be sensibly conserved.’ [Individual, anonymous response]

Another respondent suggested an expanded role for REM, while another sought protected designation for a particular area.

‘Full REM monitoring including real time electronic catch reporting and vessel tracking.’

‘Establish a marine protected area in loch Nevis and loch hourn’

Reasons for no new measures

Respondents who answered No were divisible into three groups: those who considered the current trial measures to be adequate (four responses), those who answered No to reiterate opposition to any fishery (two responses) and two responses that gave no context to their answer.

Other responses

One respondent who answered Don’t Know indicated that they expected fisheries scientists to be able to design appropriate measures, other responses gave no context to their answer.

Fishing industry and representative bodies

11 respondents answered Yes, five respondents answered No, three respondents answered Don’t Know. One respondent did not answer.

Proposed new measures

A broad range of additional measures were proposed:

• Capping fleet numbers (three responses)
  • Respondents viewed this as necessary for sustainable fishing.
• Increased MCRS (three responses)
  • Respondents recommended a larger MCRS, and formal reporting of landings in size classes to aid monitoring of stock health.
• Adaptive management (three responses)
  • Respondents recommended use of clearly defined trigger points that would engage fisheries management action if stock indicators deteriorated.
• Transparent eligibility criteria (three responses)
  • Respondents proposed clear access criteria to obtain an authorisation to fish for razor clams, linking this to accreditation of divers.
• Catch limit flexibility (two responses)
  • Respondents highlighted strict daily catch limits made fishing more remote and island areas less economically viable and proposed multi-day catch limits as a way to resolve this equity concern.
• Publication and review of monitoring data (one response)
  • One respondent suggested more intensive reporting of monitoring data and independent review of the stock assessment method.
• Quality assurance of regulatory data (one response)
  • One respondent suggested modernisation of catch reporting and particular quality assurance steps in analysing regulatory data.
• Industry levy (one response)
  • One respondent proposed a levy to ring-fence fisheries science funding to work on residual uncertainties.
• No take zones (one response)
  • One respondent proposed a portion of every razor clam ground be totally closed year round to safeguard stock resilience.
• Conventional gear prohibition (one response)
  • One respondent sought an unambiguous prohibition on fishing for razor clams with conventional dredge gear.

Reasons for no new measures

Respondents who answered No viewed existing measures as sufficient, but considered it necessary for there to be a review mechanism to ensure they remained effective.

‘The SFF believe the proposed technical measures are sufficient at this time, but … there should be plans put in place to allow a review of measures.’ [Scottish Fishermen’s Federation]

Other responses

Respondents who answered Don’t Know gave no reason in two cases, and in one case indicated they did not have the specialist knowledge to give an answer. The one respondent who did not answer Yes, No or Don’t Know did provide a text response, giving the view that whatever measures were implemented in a razor clam fishery should apply to all inshore fisheries.

Environmental NGOs and conservation groups

All five respondents in this group contributed diverse proposals for new measures.

Proposed new measures

• Evidence and monitoring (four responses)
  • Respondents identified ongoing monitoring of stocks, ecosystems and risk of impacts, coupled to regular reporting, to be a beneficial measure.
  • One respondent recommended independent oversight of aspects of monitoring.
• Adaptive management (three responses)
  • Respondents expected any commercial fishery to have clearly defined ‘circuit breaker’ triggers that would reduce or halt fishing activity, for example if stock health or ecosystem indicators deteriorated.
• Mandatory REM (two responses)
  • Respondents considered REM to be essential, in one case recommending expanding the scope as outlined in the call for evidence section of the consultation paper.
• PMF bans (two responses)
  • Respondents proposed that interaction with PMFs be managed through prohibition of fishing where these were confirmed to be present. Particular attention focused on avoiding interactions with seagrass and maerl.
• No take zones (two responses)
  • Respondents proposed establishment of no take zones as buffers to enable spawning to proceed, and to act as reference areas to assess ecosystem health.
• Increased MCRS (two responses)
  • Respondents recommended a larger MCRS to allow more spawning activity among razor clam populations. One respondent suggested this be changed from 100mm to 125mm. One respondent suggested region-specific MCRS, informed by local razor clam size at maturity data.
• Capping fleet numbers (two responses)
  • Respondents recommended a cap on fleet numbers to ensure stocks were not overexploited.
• Effort limits (two responses)
  • Overlapping with adaptive management, respondents recommended implementation of a rotational harvesting system, and linking authorised effort to stock and ecosystem health indicators.
• Regional technical measures (two responses)
  • Respondents recommended area-specific measures such as regionally varying catch and effort limits, with respondent recommended a regional TAC rather than a daily catch limit. One respondent proposed area-specific closures informed by local information about razor clam and non-target species spawning and recruitment activity.
• Information transparency (one response)
  • One respondent recommended transparent eligibility criteria to receive authorisation to fish for razor clams.

Scientific and advisory bodies

Both respondents in this group contributed proposed additional measures.

Proposed new measures

• REM (two responses)
  • One respondent suggested REM could be deployed to automate razor clam size to give real time information, and reduce the effort currently required to do this manually and quality-control any measurement errors.
  • Another respondent suggested a broader implementation of REM as outlined as possibilities in the call for evidence section of the consultation paper would aid in adaptive management of a fishery.
• Rotational harvesting (one response)
  • One respondent suggested that rotational harvesting be linked to any expanded fishing areas, implying one area could be closed to fishing for a period while a new area is opened.

Angling groups

Both respondents in this group contributed proposals for additional measures.

Proposed new measures

• Gear and vessel controls (three responses)
  • One respondent suggested tighter controls on gear specification.
  • One respondent suggested vessel speed limits near seabirds and marine mammals.
  • One respondent proposed mandatory reporting and recording of gear interactions with finfish to build the evidence base on this matter. CCTV on fishing gear was proposed as a method to gather such information.
• Evidence and monitoring (two responses)
  • Respondents proposed regular publication of reports on monitoring of fishing activity.
• Effort limits (two responses)
  • Respondents recommended effort limits to avoid overexploitation, with one respondent proposing these limits be region-specific.
• REM (two responses)
  • Both respondents proposed continued REM tracking of vessels, with independent oversight and a new application to record finfish observations as noted above.
• Adaptive management (one response)
  • One respondent proposed all technical measures be linked to scientific monitoring with clear triggers for reducing or halting fishing activity.
• No take zones (one response)
  • One respondent suggested prohibiting fishing around known fish spawning and nursery grounds.
• Bycatch standards (one response)
  • One respondent suggested formal bycatch protocols, for example a code setting out proper handling and return of stunned non-target and juvenile razor clams.

Harbour Trusts

The respondent in this group recommended all vessels have a functioning AIS system to enable monitoring.

Question 5: Should a new trial be established?

Headline answers

Yes: 18 (33.3%)

No: 29 (53.7%)

Don’t Know: 5 (9.3%)

Not Answered: 2 (3.7%)

The majority of respondents did not support the establishment of a new trial. Across both respondents who answered Yes and those who answered No, there was nuance in the underlying rationales. Some respondents maintained that continued scientific research was essential, but were neutral on whether a formal trial was the appropriate mechanism.

Those supporting a scientific trial generally considered the existing trial findings to be an insufficient basis for a commercial fishery. These respondents had clear views on where gaps remained, and consistently advocated for a smaller, focused trial to address these. A new trial was seen as a necessary precursor step before consideration of a commercial fishery, though a minority among supporters saw no issue with a trial operating in parallel with a commercial fishery. This distinction was often linked to the specific concerns highlighted by respondents.

Those who opposed a new trial, particularly within the fishing industry, considered the existing trial to have demonstrated that razor clam fishing is a sustainable and low-impact method. While these respondents did not generally oppose further scientific research, they disagreed that additional evidence gathering should take place through a separate trial phase prior to commercialisation, instead emphasising that monitoring and data collection could continue within a regulated commercial framework.

Individuals (public and unaffiliated)

The majority of this group did not think a new trial should be established. Seven respondents answered Yes, 14 respondents answered No, two respondents answered Don’t Know, and one respondent did not answer.

Supporting responses

Respondents that answered Yes to this question considered a new trial as beneficial for gathering more information on fishing for razor clams, or as a mechanism for phased expansion of fishing into areas not covered by the scientific trial.

‘I am in favour of science in all things and another trial would provide more information and data for a better informed decision.’ [Individual, anonymous response]

‘A new trial featuring areas where no data has been yet collected should be established.’ [Individual, anonymous response]

Opposing responses

Several respondents remarked on the duration of the trial, considering it to have delivered its conclusions and did not see value in any new trial. This was both expressed from the perspective of support for a commercial fishery, and from those who disagreed with a commercial fishery and did not think further study would have findings that could change their view.

‘Data will continue to be provided by fishers, after 9 years of the current trial, a fishery should now be established.’ [Individual, anonymous response]

‘the current trial has lasted about 8 years, how much more time do you need. I am opposed to electro-fishing’ [Individual]

Other responses

Respondents who answered Don’t Know, or did not answer the question, gave little context. One respondent suggested this was a decision for scientists and did not think they had any useful input.

Fishing industry and representative bodies

The majority of respondents in this group did not think a new trial should be established. Four respondents answered Yes, 14 respondents answered No, and two respondents answered Don’t Know.

Supporting responses

The small number of respondents supporting a new trial suggested it could be used to investigate specific evidence gaps, explore new fishing areas, or maintain a controlled regulatory framework. One respondent considered commercial fishing and trial fishing to be possible to manage in parallel where clear objectives justified the approach.

Opposing responses

Respondents generally considered the trial had fulfilled its purpose and that remaining evidence gaps could be addressed through ongoing monitoring and research within a commercial fishery. Several regarded a further trial as an unnecessary delay to commercialisation.

‘While the SFF is not against further scientific trials taking place, it is our belief that the outstanding questions such as the regional variation and information on spawning behaviours would be addressed via ongoing monitoring of the established fishery.’ [Scottish Fishermen’s Federation]

A minor theme was the need to better understand interactions with other marine users, including competition with other fisheries, displacement by other sectors, and fisher behaviour if effort became more dispersed. Some respondents also considered a six-vessel trial too small to deliver evidence at an acceptable pace.

Other responses

Respondents who answered Don’t Know were not necessarily opposed to a trial but required specific proposals to form a view.

Environmental NGOs and conservation groups

The majority of respondents in this group agreed that a new trial should be established. Four respondents answered Yes, while one respondent answered Don’t Know.

Supporting Responses

Respondents had a variety of views on what a new trial should seek to include as objectives. In the main, these reflected this group of respondents view that the trial had not improved understanding of wide-scale ecosystem effects. A frequent reference within responses was that these matters required long-term study.

Respondents generally considered any further trial should focus on remaining evidence gaps, particularly cumulative ecosystem effects, non-target species, stock recovery, interactions with sensitive habitats, and climate resilience of any fishery.

Respondents consistently emphasised that any new trial should be developed with independent input. Several respondents considered it essential that any new trial be explicitly time-limited, and smaller, involving no more than six vessels. Resourcing required to build further scientific study programmes was noted, and the prospect of an industry levy was suggested as a means to deliver this.

‘This trial should be independent, transparent, and precautionary in nature. Its purpose should be to reduce uncertainty, not to justify expansion.’ [Merman Conservation Expeditions]

Other responses

The respondent who answered Don't Know broadly shared the concerns of those supporting a new trial, particularly regarding remaining evidence gaps and the design of the current trial.

Scientific and advisory bodies

One respondent answered Yes to this question, while another did not answer, but did provide a written response.

The respondents outlined a series of potential research areas that a new trial could have as a research focus. Both respondents in this group recognised the potential to carry out research in a commercial setting but emphasised the formal trial status had encouraged commitment to cross-party cooperative work, yielding valuable data and insights and had improved joint working with the fishing industry. This was viewed positively, considered to be a highly beneficial aspect of work done to date.

‘Although such research can be undertaken outwith of a formal trial structure, the trial has proven useful in providing an overarching co-ordinating framework for the research.’ [Scottish Association for Marine Science]

‘Whichever route is explored, continuation of this level of co-operation and joint working with industry should be retained in order to address ongoing evidence gaps.’ [NatureScot]

Respondents in this group considered that regardless of how, attention should particularly focus on exploring new areas, non-target species effects, stock recovery, fisher behaviour and expanded use of REM.

Angling groups

This group was divided, with one respondent answering No, and one respondent answering Yes. While one respondent answered No, they in effect advocated for continuation of the trial and continued work on the existing goals. The prospect of a new trial was considered an unnecessary complication.

The respondent answering Yes strongly linked this to a smaller trial with a core focus on fish interactions. While agreeing the likely impact of razor clam fishing at the scale envisaged would be unlikely to adversely affect sandeel and flatfish populations, they saw value in establishing this through experiments and field studies, rather than drawing inference from available evidence. They considered it appropriate to run such a trial in parallel with a commercial fishery.

‘together these arrangements would deliver both the operational and the scientific outcomes the Scottish Government has identified.’ [The Angling Trust]

Harbour Trusts

This respondent answered Yes, but disagreed with sequencing a further trial before consideration of opening a commercial fishery.

Question 6: Should a commercial fishery be established that uses conventional gear instead of electric current?

Headline answers

Yes: 3 (5.6%)

No: 42 (77.8%)

Don’t Know: 8 (14.8%)

Not Answered: 1 (1.8%)

Responses to Question 6 demonstrated a high degree of consistency across respondent groups, with the majority emphatically opposing the establishment of a commercial fishery using conventional gear. This position was primarily driven by concerns about the adverse environmental impacts respondents associated with dredge-based methods.

While the strength of opposition and underlying reasoning varied between groups, there was broad agreement that conventional gear represented a higher-risk and less selective method compared to electric current fishing. As a result, respondents generally characterised the proposal as incompatible with a sustainable and well-managed fishery, although a minority of respondents indicated that alternative methods could be considered provided this was achievable within acceptable environmental limits.

Individuals (public and unaffiliated)

The majority of respondents in this group were opposed to a conventional gear fishery. Two respondents answered Yes, 18 respondents answered No, and four respondents answered Don’t Know.

Supporting responses

One respondent considered small scale hand-gathered commercial harvesting to be low impact, and advocated for this to be legalised. Another respondent that answered Yes did so because they considered the environmental impact of electric current gear to be unacceptable, referring to mass mortalities of marine fauna that they had observed and attributing this to razor clam fishers.

Opposing responses

The dominant theme in responses opposing a conventional gear fishery was the view that the adverse environmental impacts of dredging in particular would be too high. Some respondents highlighted specific local concerns of the environmental impact.

‘The only viable option of the ones suggested would be suction dredging, which represents a much higher risk to habitats already poorly understood. Low impact fishing methods like diving and electro fishing should be the norm not the exception.’ [Individual, anonymous response]

Several respondents opposed a conventional fishery but were clear that this did not mean they supported a fishery using electric current.

‘Even worse than electro fishing’ [Individual]

Minor themes raised by respondents were the risk of a return to widespread IUU fishing, safety considerations of methods that involved a significant amount of diving, and principled objection to all forms of fishing.

Other responses

Respondents who answered Don’t Know expressed mixed views on harvest methods, including hand gathering, dredging and the importance of controlling adverse impacts, rather than specific methods.

Fishing industry and representative bodies

The majority of respondents in this group opposed the establishment of a conventional gear fishery. One respondent answered Yes, 15 respondents answered No, three respondents answered Don’t Know, and one respondent did not answer.

Supporting responses

The respondent who answered Yes diagnosed the barrier to diversification among fishers to be the cost and expertise needed to begin using particular fishing gear. This response instead recommended gear-neutral adaptive management in response to any issues as they arise.

‘We do not foresee this to be a heavily targeted fishery via the use of electric equipment which will largely be due to the lack of resources available to fishermen … to allow the pursuit of this fishery. This may lead to a need of utilising whatever gear they may already have.’ [Scottish Fishermen’s Federation]

Opposing responses

Respondents in this group strongly opposed a conventional fishery due to the environmental harm such methods were perceived to cause. These methods were seen as a backwards step and contrary to the findings of the scientific trial.

‘Having personally seen the after affects on the seabed from hydraulic Razor Clam dredging, I do not see how this can be supported with a good conscious! The particular seabed substrate that supports the main populations of Razor Clams in Scotland, is a 'tight' fine sand that once disrupted by hydraulic jets, particularly as deep as 2 feet required to catch Razor Clams, can take many years to recover fully.’ [Fishing business, anonymous response]

‘SCFF’s view is informed by direct fishing experience. Hydraulic or suction dredging can leave long-term marks in sedimentary habitats and cause significant seabed disturbance. It is not a credible alternative for a modern, well-managed inshore fishery.’ [Scottish Creel Fishermen’s Federation]

Several respondents considered that any alternative method of fishing would create conditions that led to IUU fishing in the past.

‘Establishing this method would likely give illegal operators using small scale electrical gathering a loop hole and support IUU fishing.’ [Fishing business, anonymous response]

Other responses

Respondents who answered Don’t Know or did not answer gave responses that were agnostic on the merits or drawbacks of any particular gear, focusing instead on whether sustainable low impact fishing could be achieved in any case.

Environmental NGOs and conservation groups

Respondents in this group were unanimously opposed to establishing a commercial fishery using conventional gear as an alternative to electric current gear.

Dredge-based harvesting was consistently associated with unacceptable impacts that could not be mitigated. Establishing a commercial fishery with conventional gear was considered a regressive step. Respondents’ framing made it clear that this did not subtract from their criticisms of the findings of the current trial, and several respondents made it clear they did not consider the choice in front of Ministers to be either a conventional or an electric current fishery.

Several respondents made the case that the questions and risks raised by a conventional fishery applied to the proposed electric current fishery. Rather than considering the matter as a choice between electric current and conventional gear, these respondents emphasised the importance of addressing identified evidence gaps through the trial.

‘the fact that conventional methods may be worse does not justify premature commercialisation of electrofishing; instead it strengthens the case for maintaining a strictly controlled, precautionary trial for electrofishing and avoiding any expansion of more damaging conventional methods.’ [Seawilding]

Scientific and advisory bodies

Both respondents in this group answered No to this question. Conventional gear was recognised as likely to have an unacceptable impact, particularly in relation to the MPA network. They also cautioned that the findings of the trial were relevant to the electric current method, and the trial framework was identified as a model to use if looking to explore fishing with conventional gear as an alternative.

‘Suction and hydraulic dredging will have higher impacts and cause more damage to discarded razor clams and by-catch. The electric method appears to be highly selective and minimises environmental impacts.’ [Scottish Association for Marine Science]

‘…We would not be supportive of this approach being explored as an alternative, in particular within protected sites or where it may interact with sensitive habitats.’ [NatureScot]

Angling groups

One respondent opposed a fishery with conventional gear, while another answered Don’t Know, citing lack of evidence.

Dredging for razor clams was considered to have unacceptable environmental impacts, particularly through bycatch effects, contrasted with the electric current method, which they viewed as having avoided the overexploitation seen in the Irish dredge fishery.

Harbour Trusts

This respondent opposed a fishery using conventional gear, referencing adverse environmental impacts and lack of up to date research.

Question 7: Is there any other alternative status for fishing for razor clams that has not been considered in this consultation?

Headline answers

Yes: 15 (27.8%)

No: 18 (33.3%)

Don’t Know: 20 (37%)

Not Answered: 1 (1.8%)

This question attracted a mix of suggestions, reflecting differing views on the core proposals of the consultation paper set out in earlier sections. Several respondents stated they did not understand this question, which may have been a factor in the plurality of respondents who answered Don’t Know.

Individuals (public and unaffiliated)

Seven respondents answered Yes, six respondents answered No and 11 respondents answered Don’t Know.

Respondents who answered Yes raised a variety of alternative approaches, including stronger action against IUU fishing, area-based stewardship arrangements, alternative harvesting methods, and greater consideration of non-target species. One response reiterated opposition to all forms of fishing. Respondents who answered No generally considered alternative methods likely to cause seabed damage, while those answering Don’t Know provided little additional information, suggesting some uncertainty about the purpose of the question.

Fishing industry and representative bodies

The majority of respondents in this group answered No to Question 7. Five respondents answered Yes, 11 respondents answered No, and four respondents answered Don’t Know.

Respondents who answered Yes primarily suggested hand gathering by divers without electricity as an alternative approach, while one response referred to electric dredge technology. One respondent answering Yes advocated for a transitional arrangement combining aspects of the scientific trial approach and a commercial authorisation, in recognition of remaining evidence gaps. Those answering No generally considered the consultation had already covered the realistic options. Respondents who answered Don’t Know either provided no further detail or suggested the Scottish Government remain open to other alternatives, but without suggesting any themselves.

Environmental NGOs and conservation groups

Three respondents in this group answered Yes and two respondents answered Don’t Know.

One respondent proposed a transitional, evidence-led authorisation as an alternative to full commercialisation. This would allow tightly controlled fishing in areas with the strongest evidence base, supported by enhanced management measures and future expansion only where evidence justified it.

Two respondents advocated small-scale hand gathering by divers without electricity, emphasising community involvement and low-impact harvesting.

Respondents who answered Don’t Know either provided no further context or indicated uncertainty about the purpose of the question.

Scientific and advisory bodies

Respondents either answered Don’t Know, indicating they did not understand the purpose of the question, or No, indicating they had no further suggestions to contribute.

Angling groups

One respondent answered Don’t Know, giving the reason that more evidence was required before being able to give suggestions. One respondent did not answer, but gave a text response. This suggested two areas for further consideration:

• Hand gathering by divers without electric current
• Ranching/aquaculture to cultivate razor clams rather than wild harvesting

Harbour Trusts

This respondent answered Don’t Know and gave no further detail to support their response.

Question 8: Do you have any other comments to make in relation to matters raised by this consultation?

This was an open text question and so did not afford respondents the opportunity to answer Yes, No or Don’t Know. Few comments contained novel contributions; rather many respondents used this section to summarise their responses to the preceding questions, bringing together their previously articulated concerns and priorities into one narrative. Across all groups there was a consistent expectation that any fishery, were Ministers to establish one, should operate within a controlled, transparent and evidence-led framework.

Individuals (public and unaffiliated)

Respondents raised a range of issues, most commonly calling for greater protection or control of any future fishery on environmental, safety or economic grounds. Other comments related to access for fishers outside the trial areas, support for a commercial fishery, monitoring seabird interactions with fishing vessels, directing benefits to Scottish employment, and the questioning the value of the consulting on this matter. Ten respondents either indicated they had no further comments or left this section blank.

Fishing industry and representative bodies

Respondents in this group contributed a variety of comments. These were mainly expressed from the position of agreeing that a commercial fishery should be the next step, but this was not a unanimous position, a minority considered there to be reasons for further trial fishing.

Common themes included access and eligibility arrangements, evidence-led fisheries management, interactions with other marine users, and the benefits of using the trial as a model for collaborative fisheries development. Respondents also highlighted the importance of diversification opportunities, market development, tackling IUU fishing, and avoiding unnecessary delays to commercialisation. A small number of respondents maintained that further evidence gathering was still required before moving beyond the trial stage.

Environmental NGOs and conservation bodies

Comments from this group largely reiterated concerns raised elsewhere in the consultation. Respondents frequently argued that important evidence gaps remained, particularly relating to razor clam population biology and non-target species, and called for greater transparency in the publication of trial data and supporting research. Several responses cautioned against drawing firm conclusions from incomplete evidence. A small number of respondents reiterated support for a further trial in place of commercialisation or referred to the existing EU prohibition as an example of a precautionary approach that should continue to inform policy development.

Scientific and advisory bodies

Respondents highlighted the importance of continuing evidence gathering alongside any future fishery, including regular surveys to complement stock assessments and improve understanding of population dynamics. Progression of planned work on interactions between electric current gear and species such as sandeels and flatfish was identified as a remaining work area that should be prioritised. One respondent also provided comments on the fisheries assessment of the trial extension, recommending a number of revisions and additions.

Angling Groups

Respondents highlighted the importance of effective compliance enforcement, continued evidence gathering on cumulative and sector-wide impacts, and involvement of recreational fishing interests in future fisheries policy development. One respondent also noted that support for alignment with EU approaches was contingent on addressing remaining evidence gaps.

Harbour Trusts

This respondent highlighted potential employment benefits from expanded fishing activity and suggested port limits as a form of spatial management. They also advocated involvement of St Andrews University in future research and monitoring.

Question 9: Should we seek to expand the scope of REM in razor clam fishing?

Headline answers

Yes: 28 (51.8%)

No: 16 (29.6%)

Don’t Know: 10 (18.5%)

Not Answered: 0 (0%)

The majority of respondents were in favour of an expanded role for REM in any commercial fishery. While the particular themes among groups reflected their different perspectives, the consensus was that expanding REM data gathering in ways that delivered genuine fisheries management improvements were welcomed. There were some concerns relating to privacy and cost that would require careful consideration, however assuming these could be satisfactorily addressed, every group was broadly in favour of this proposal. We note that this question did not form part of the core consultation and was a call for evidence, likely subject to further consultation should it be something Ministers wish to introduce.

Individuals (public and unaffiliated)

A plurality of respondents disagreed with an expanded scope for REM. Eight respondents answered Yes, 11 respondents answered No, and five respondents answered Don’t Know.

Among respondents who answered Yes, views differed on how REM should be expanded. Some favoured more detailed monitoring of divers rather than CCTV, while others considered expanded REM beneficial but did not identify specific measures. One respondent suggested REM could also assist in tackling alleged illegal fishing activity.

‘If there is to be any razor clam fishery there should be full REM which shows all the dive teams locations and activities at all times to ensure that all dives are carried out according to HSE regulations and that no non-approved electrical generating equipment is being used.’ [Individual, anonymous response]

Respondents answering No generally considered the existing REM arrangements sufficient. Those answering Don’t Know tended to focus on other priorities, including access arrangements and the likely scale of any future fishery.

Fishing industry and representative bodies

A plurality of respondents in this group were in favour of an expanded role for REM. Ten respondents answered Yes, five respondents answered No, and five respondents answered Don’t Know.

Respondents who answered Yes generally supported expanding REM, particularly where it improved catch accountability, compliance monitoring and public confidence in the fishery. However, support was often qualified by concerns that any new requirements should be proportionate, deliver clear management benefits, and avoid creating excessive costs or privacy impacts for fishers.

‘… this must be introduced in a proportionate and practical way. The cost, complexity and ongoing requirements of more advanced REM systems should not become a barrier to entry or continued participation, particularly for small inshore operators.’ [Fishing business, anonymous response]

Respondents who answered No generally considered the existing REM arrangements sufficient and questioned whether the benefits of further expansion would justify the costs and privacy implications. Those answering Don’t Know were not opposed in principle to additional monitoring but raised similar concerns about proportionality, cost and privacy, emphasising that any expansion should deliver clear fisheries management benefits.

‘To consider, for example, CCTV, would be an invasion of privacy on what are generally small craft, with fishers frequently changing their attire and toileting without the use of private rooms.’ [Fishing business]

Environmental NGOs and conservation groups

All respondents in this group supported expanding the scope of REM. Respondents generally viewed REM as a valuable tool for improving catch accountability, transparency and public confidence in the fishery, including through more comprehensive recording of landings and other fishing activity. Views differed on the significance of implementation costs, with some respondents emphasising proportionality and support for smaller operators, while others considered the potential costs justified by the anticipated benefits. A small number of respondents also argued that enhanced REM requirements should be applied more widely across fisheries rather than being limited to the razor clam sector.

‘The case for CCTV is straightforward. Vessel position and generator activity monitoring establishes a baseline of spatial and effort data, but it cannot verify what is actually being caught, retained, or discarded. CCTV closes that gap.’ [Merman Conservation Expeditions]

Scientific and advisory bodies

Both respondents supported expanded REM, particularly where it improved catch accounting, scientific understanding and compliance monitoring. Respondents also noted that enforcement activity should remain alert to possible illegal fishing outside the highly monitored fishery.

Angling Groups

Both respondents in this group answered Yes to this question.

Benefits as a compliance enforcement tool and in gathering more data for scientific analysis were highlighted. Catch accountability, real-time closures and non-target interactions were particular points noted in responses. Cost was acknowledged but considered manageable given the nature of the existing fleet.

Harbour Trusts

This respondent agreed with expanded scope of the REM as a fisheries management tool.