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

Part Two: Scottish Government Response and Consultation Outcome

Summary of Outcome

Following consideration of the evidence gathered during the scientific trial, the responses received to this consultation, and the Scottish Government's wider fisheries management objectives, Ministers have concluded that the next phase of razor clam fishing in Scotland should be the establishment of a limited and tightly controlled commercial fishery using electric current gear. This reflects the majority view expressed by consultation respondents, whilst recognising the concerns raised regarding environmental protection, remaining evidence gaps and the need for effective compliance and monitoring arrangements.

The Scottish Government considers that the trial has demonstrated that a regulated fishery can operate within a robust management framework. However, commercialisation will not represent a move away from precaution, and we recognise evidence gaps remain. The future fishery will retain strong controls on fishing activity, including limits on vessel numbers, effort restrictions, spatial management measures, remote electronic monitoring (REM), stock assessment requirements and adaptive management arrangements designed to respond to new evidence as it emerges.

Implementation of these proposals will require changes to legislation and further operational development. These processes will be informed by continuing engagement with stakeholders, scientific advice and assessment of environmental, social and economic impacts. The Scottish Government will publish further information on implementation arrangements as policy development progresses.

Response to Question 1

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

The majority of respondents thought that the Scottish Government should establish a commercial fishery. Nonetheless, there remains a tension between those who think the trial has proven that this would be a selective and low environmental impact fishery, and those who consider the trial to have fallen some distance short of making this case. Opposing views were most commonly, but not exclusively, expressed by environmental NGOs and recreational fishing interests.

Regardless of respondents ultimate view on whether a fishery should be established at this time, the need to proceed with caution, and be led by the evidence was a consistent theme. A central point of difference in responses is in the controls necessary to safeguard against undesirable adverse effects on the environment. These are framed in terms of the appropriate degree of precaution, rather than fundamental disagreement on fisheries management principles. We cover these issues in our combined response to Questions 2, 3 and 4.

Taking into account the evidence gathered during the trial, as well as consultation responses, our conclusion is that the next phase for razor clam fishing in Scotland should be a carefully controlled commercial fishery. This will require changes to the law, and these would be subject to Parliamentary scrutiny.

Such a fishery is expected to provide valuable jobs and income for coastal communities, contribute to the diversification of our inshore fleet, and place Scotland at the forefront of developing innovative, lower impact fishing methods.

This will be a tightly controlled, limited commercial fishery. We accept and agree that this fishery must be introduced with proper regard to the potential environmental and enforcement risks and uncertainties. These are real concerns, and how we intend to address these matters is covered in our combined response to Questions 2, 3 and 4.

Some respondents referenced the Ecosystem Objective and the Precautionary Objective of the Fisheries Act 2020, both in supportive and opposed responses, characterising establishing a fisheries as risking committing the government to a decision that breaches these objectives. The Scottish Government does not agree with this framing. We achieve the fisheries objectives through the appropriate implementation of our collective fisheries policies. Committing to tackle evidence gaps in future, for example completing further stock assessments, forms part of work to contribute to achieving the Precautionary Objective^[1]. Ministers embed the Ecosystem Objective in fisheries policy by authorising activity in the marine environment with reference to conservation objectives set out in relevant advice produced by statutory nature conservation bodies. This approach has been applied in the scientific trial and will continue to underpin the adaptive management of any commercial fishery.

Response to Questions 2, 3 and 4

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

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

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

These questions all prompted responses that dealt with fisheries management measures, according to respondents’ views of what were essential components of any management programme. Rather than presenting responses to each in isolation, we have combined our response to all three questions, given the overlap in how respondents considered matters raised.

The majority of respondents agreed that the Scottish Government should consider authorising commercial fishing beyond trial area boundaries. A plurality of respondents considered the suite of technical measures proposed in the consultation paper to be appropriate to ensure sustainable harvesting and to reduce or avoid adverse impacts on protected species and habitats. The majority of respondents had suggestions for further technical measures.

As noted in our response to matters raised in Question 1, we are clear that any commercial fishery should be limited in nature, recognising that while we gather further evidence it is necessary to have precautionary safeguards. Having considered what has worked well during the trial, and reviewing responses to these questions, we conclude that the fishery should have the following characteristics:

• Trial area boundaries will not continue in a commercial fishery, but spatial management conditions will apply:
  • Vessels will be issued with an authorisation to fish within specific classified shellfish harvesting areas.
  • Authorisation to fish for razor clams will be conditional on completion of a locally relevant stock assessment within three years that demonstrates populations of razor clams are maintained above levels capable of producing maximum sustainable yield (MSY), or a suitable MSY proxy.
  • Fishers will be required to contribute necessary data for stock assessment, in line with the approach used in the trial.
• Fishing will only be authorised where our assessment indicates doing so is consistent with the conservation objectives of the MPA network, and without adversely affecting the national status of PMFs.
• Remote electronic monitoring will continue in a commercial fishery.
  • Some respondents interpreted the consultation as proposing cessation of REM – this is not the case and the current arrangements will continue to ensure fishing is happening within authorised areas.
  • We will examine how to introduce additional elements to REM, balancing clearly defined regulatory and scientific purpose with costs, and fishers reasonable expectations of privacy.
• Vessel numbers will be capped.
  • There will be an overall cap to vessel numbers authorised to fish for razor clams across Scotland.
  • In addition, there will be a cap on vessels authorised to fish in specific areas.
  • The vessel cap and authorisation to fish for razor clams, will be subject to periodic review.
  • Authorisation to participate in the fishery will be subject to an objective and transparent application process.
• The MCRS will be increased.
  • An increase in MCRS from the current 100mm to 130mm will be introduced. This will further protect juvenile razor clams and allow more clams to spawn.
• The daily catch limit and days at sea will be the same as during the trial. While we understand views that the daily limit should be relaxed to allow more flexible fishing in island locations, this presents compliance enforcement challenges that require further consideration.

The Scottish Government agrees with respondent views that the long-term success of the fishery will depend on maintaining a strong link between scientific evidence and management decisions. We therefore intend that monitoring, stock assessment and wider environmental evidence gathering will remain components of the future management framework, supporting adaptive and proportionate decision-making as new information becomes available. In particular, we will work to address remaining evidence gaps in relation to stock assessments, and interaction between electric current gear and sandeels and flatfish.

Response to Question 5

Question 5 asked: Should a new trial be established?

We acknowledge that there are remaining evidence gaps. This does not place a potential razor clam fishery in a different situation to other fisheries; fisheries are managed according to the best available evidence, which continually evolves. As with the management of all fisheries, there are some evidence gaps and some unknowns but it is our view that policy development and evidence gathering to be two processes that can occur in parallel. Fisheries management decision-making is supported by the best available evidence, while seeking to build that evidence base particularly where there are gaps in our knowledge^[2].

We identified potential uses for a trial in completing further stock assessments, or to gather further information on interactions between fishing vessels and non-target species. Having considered consultation respondent views, and findings of the trial to date, we think these can be as effectively addressed through a limited commercial fishery.

Consultation respondents in favour of continued trial fishing point to uncertainties that require long-term study, however any new trial established in future would be subject to the obligations in Article 25 of assimilated regulation 2019/1241. Specifically, unless there was a justified scientific reason to be larger, this would be limited to the participation of six commercial fishing vessels. When considering the practicalities of overseeing both commercial fishing and scientific research fishing, we think this approach risks the emergence of a two-tier regulatory regime and challenges in interpreting the relevance of trial findings to commercial fishing happening elsewhere.

For this reason, we do not propose to establish a new trial under Article 25 of assimilated regulation 2019/1241 at this stage. We recognise respondent views that a formal trial has had the benefit of implicitly committing all parties to the same common task, but our view is the remaining evidence gaps can be addressed in the context of a limited commercial fishery. Should we subsequently identify a research question that we believe is best addressed through a limited trial, we may revisit this decision.

Response to Question 6 and 7

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

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

Respondents were strongly against a conventional fishery, with particularly strong opposition to dredging for razor clams. The Scottish Government is required to consider reasonable alternatives, however having considered the potential for greater adverse environmental impact of a conventional fishery, alongside consultation responses, we will not introduce such a fishery. Commercial fishing will be authorised only for vessels using electric current gear.

We received suggestions for alternatives covering hybrid electric dredge gear as had been experimented with in the past, subtidal gathering by divers without electricity, and consideration of farming of razor clams. We will not be progressing with any of these alternatives at this time. This is because we consider it essential to allocate resources to establishing the proper regulatory framework for electric current fishing in the first instance.

Response to Question 8

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

We received varied responses to this question, both new proposals, and several responses going into greater detail in support of points made in responses to earlier questions in the consultation.

Having considered these responses, we do not propose to introduce any further measures at this time, but we will consider the suggestions made in response to this question should there be a need to do so in future. Several proposals in responses to this question related to REM, which we discuss further in the response to Question 9.

Response to Question 9

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

The responses to this call for evidence indicated broad support for REM where it delivers a clear and transparent fisheries management benefit. We currently monitor vessel position, and generator activity that indicates fishing operations are underway, but we do not have cameras on board or on fishing gear. Taking account of the views expressed, the Scottish Government considers there is scope for a targeted expansion of REM within any future commercial razor clam fishery. In particular, we see the greatest value in REM uses that improve catch accountability, improve understanding of razor clam density, and that generate information on interactions with non-target species.

At this stage, these areas have the strongest link to fisheries management objectives. Improved catch accountability and improved knowledge of razor clam density could support stock management, compliance monitoring and adaptive decision-making, while information on non-target interactions could help address remaining evidence gaps and support our ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management. Based on the experience of managing REM in the trial, and elsewhere in other fisheries in Scotland, the Scottish Government does not anticipate that a proportionate expansion of REM in these areas would introduce insurmountable costs for operators, nor would these applications raise significant privacy concerns for fishers operating from small vessels, as any cameras would be positioned to record interactions with gear, for example by being mounted in a rear facing position and not filming the deck area as a whole.

As outlined in the consultation paper, any proposal to expand REM beyond the current arrangements would be subject to further dialogue and impact assessment, ensuring that the costs and operational challenges of any measures introduced are proportionate to the risks they seek to mitigate, and clearly linked to defined management outcomes. Reviewing REM data is resource intensive, and any expanded role for REM can only be introduced if there is capacity to do so. The views expressed in this consultation will contribute to decision-making on future resource management within the Scottish Government Marine Directorate in this regard.