Commercial fishery for razor clams using electric current gear - consultation: strategic environmental assessment report

8. Consultation Log

The scoping report for this assessment was shared with our statutory consultees, offering them the opportunity to respond within the statutory time set out in Section 15 of the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005. We received responses from NatureScot, Historic Environment Scotland and SEPA. Below is a list of points raised by each consultee, and the action we have taken in relation to each.

8.1 NatureScot

8.1.1 General Approach

NatureScot stated: “The Scottish Government intends to seek views in a public consultation on the future status of fishing for razor clams in Scottish inshore waters at the end of the trial in January 2027. Before the trial took place, razor clam fishing was regulated by The Razor Clams (Prohibition on Fishing and Landing) (Scotland) Order 2017^[14]. The trial set up best practice and management goals. NatureScot have provided advice at the beginning of the trial and provided further advice on 21/08/2025 when Scottish Government sought to extend the trial. Our advice highlights the trial’s interactions with relevant Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) including European marine sites and Nature Conservation MPAs, as well as Priority Marine Features (PMFs) found outwith these sites. It is our understanding that Marine Directorate has considered our advice and included further licence conditions to reduce the potential impact from the trial. We share the biological and ecological goals set out in the report to gather local level information on razor clam populations and stocks, including accurate data gathered by trial participants to supplement stock survey work, to ensure sustainable harvesting levels and to gather further information about the impacts of the electrofishing method on target and non-target species.”

We note and agree with this summary of the approach. No changes have been made to the assessment in relation to this point.

8.1.2 Setting the Context

NatureScot stated: “NatureScot support the responsibility and decisions of Marine Directorate as a competent authority under the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 and a public authority under the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010. If the razor clam fishery will become a regulated fishery rather than a limited trial, it would be covered by Inshore Fisheries Management Improvement programme (IFMI) and regulations related to the Shellfish Harvesting Areas. Further consultation is planned on the regional model to be used in inshore fisheries management in Scotland”

In our scoping report we have made mention of IFMI, however we do not think it is necessary to make explicit link to this programme, which is subject to further consultation. Instead, the appropriate regional management model will be determined following advice of our fisheries scientists, taking into account the connectivity of different areas and the relevance of stock assessments completed during the trial.

8.1.3 Baseline information

NatureScot stated: “Marine Directorate has identified protected featured, species and habitat for each Scottish Marine Region, SMR. For each region pressures were identified as removal of target species, surface abrasion, removal of non-target species, sub-surface abrasion/penetration and underwater noise and how they would impact the conservation objectives of MPAs and PMFs. Changes to management of fishing has occurred following HRA for European sites, appropriate assessment for NCMPA and PMF assessment in order to reduce the risk, with reference to the conservation and management advice for each area and PMF advice provided by NatureScot. Marine Directorate has also conducted fisheries assessment which NatureScot has not seen to date.”

The Fisheries Assessment for the razor clam trial extesion has now been published. We have included relevant aspects of the assessment in this document.

8.1.4 Significant issues

NatureScot stated: “NatureScot has identified issues arising from the report we would like Marine Directorate to consider in their fisheries assessment and SEA to make sure the future of the fishery aligns with the sustainability goals:

1) “Lack of consideration in the SEA scoping report of the fishery’s impact within SPAs and their connectivity, and consequent monitoring implementation arising from the lack of understanding of marine bird interactions with the electro fishing. NatureScot has been made aware of interactions of eider duck attracted by the undersize discarded razor clam. Further investigation is needed to understand the interaction and impact on razor stock population.”

2) “Since the beginning of the trial data have been collected to understand the fishing activity within the trial, but the cumulative impacts have not been considered and further investigation and monitoring is needed to understand the pressure the activity is exerting on prey availability. Changes in the spatial extent of the fishing will have a different impact on prey availability related to the foraging range of mobile species and potential impact on their success.”

3) “The scoping report does not consider to the appropriate level the impact the razor clam fishery might have on mobile species. We have provided comments on the disturbance for mobile species assessing it against the scale of the trial. Further consideration will need to be made on the impact of the fishery on the mobile species within protected areas boundaries or outside those areas with connectivity, with particular focus on basking sharks, skate and rays, birds and marine mammals.”

4) “The original advice produced by NatureScot in 2018 pointed out the lack of knowledge on the impact of the electrical current on infaunal and epifaunal species and the potential communities’ alteration. We have acknowledged that such study is challenging but we evidenced a lack of progress towards the understanding of such impacts and lack of consideration in the report. If the fishery might continue in any form this evidence gap will need to be addressed with further scientific evidence and monitoring.”

Our actions in response to these points in turn are:

1) In our fisheries assessment we have determined that the scale and scope of razor clam fishing activity is such that it is not considered to undermine the conservation objectives of the relevant SPAs, with some exceptions. This point makes specific mention of eider duck. In our fisheries assessment, we recognise eider ducks in some areas appear to be making use of clams that are brought to the surface by electric current gear, but we do not consider that this amounts to razor clam fishing activity undermining relevant site-specific conservation objectives where relevant. We have inserted our assessment of the impacts of razor clam fishing activity on this species into the relevant sections of this assessment. Consequently we do not identify that monitoring of these interactions are a prerequisite to a commercial fishery. We do acknowledge that were a commercial fishery to be established, this would require to be appraised against the relevant SPA conservation objectives, with the advice of NatureScot.

2) In our fisheries assessment, we considered the distribution of a variety of prey species using a variety of sources, concluding that these were widespread and unlikely to be affected by razor clam fishing to the extent that it had an adverse effect on mobile species. We agree that a commercial fishery would require its own appraisal as a separate activity to the scientific trial. We envisage commercial fishing to be similar in scale to the scientific trial in the first instance, and would assess any scope to increase activity with the advice of NatureScot. We do not agree that any change in the scope of activity would necessarily affect prey availability, in advance of making such an assessment. In the fisheries assessment, we included information on the relative footprint of razor clam fishing compared to other fishing within SPAs, and we have adopted a similar approach here, to allow better understanding of the relative scale of authorised fishing activity in each SMR in this assessment.

3) In our fisheries assessment, we have completed Habitats Regulations Appraisals, following advice received from NatureScot on where this was required. The outcome of those appraisals were changes to management in the trial: seasonally closed areas where we identified potential for risk of disturbance of seabirds by razor clam fishing activity, and speed restrictions in the vicinity of vulnerable species in all areas. NatureScot have advised care must be taken to avoid basking sharks in Coll and Tiree, and since the trial’s inception there have been speed restrictions and instructions to be vigilant for sharks and whales. Following our fisheries assessment, we have expanded these requirements to all trial areas. Any future commercial fishery, should that be the consultation outcome, will be carefully planned with the input of NatureScot. In the above context we do not identify any additional assessment necessary in relation to this point.

4) In the trial, a PhD study at the Scottish Association for Marine Science has demonstrated short term and recoverable effects of electric current on shore crabs and starfish. Planned work on other fish species was not possible to complete during this project and we recognise that this remains an evidence gap. However our fisheries assessment does not identify any case where razor clam fishing is considered capable of affecting prey species in the seabed to the extent it adversely affects mobile species. We accept and agree that more study would be beneficial, but we consider the risk a small scale fishery constitutes to seabed communities, in terms of significant disruption and adverse effects, to be low. We agree there is benefit in increasing the confidence with which we can make such an assessment and state in the SEA objectives that we will explore avenues to research this area, should the consultation outcome be a commercial fishery. This could alternatively or in parallel form part of a further scientific trial, should this be a consultation outcome.

8.1.5 Any effects on Natura sites/species

NatureScot stated: “NatureScot provided advice to assist in determining whether a Habitats Regulations Assessment or MPA assessment is required to ensure that the fishery will not result in an adverse effect on site integrity or hinder the achievement of the conservation objectives of relevant sites, or if the fishery has the potential to have a significant impact on the national status of PMFs. We have provided advice on the assessment required within the set trial area but if the fishery’s [spatial] extent will change, NatureScot advice will need to be sought.

Guidance recommends that plan-making bodies can consider opportunities to combine the earlier stages of SEA and appropriate assessment, where appropriate, even though the differing requirements mean that the two assessments cannot be fully integrated. One option is to conduct the earlier stages in parallel, such as environmental information gathering, prediction of plan effects, and some early consultation stages.

If the appropriate assessments we have indicated are undertaken in parallel with SEA, it is important that the findings of both appraisals are separately and clearly documented and that the record of the HRA, MPA assessment and PMF assessment uses the correct terminology, applying them appropriately. In practice, it is easier to set out separate records, and where appropriate provide a cross-reference to it in the Environmental Report.”

We agree that NatureScot would be consulted for further advice following consultation outcome, should the outcome be continued fishing for razor clams after the trial. We have made this explicit under the relevant SEA objective.

As the consultation has not yet delivered an outcome, in our view it would be premature to conduct an appropriate assessment at this stage, and we have therefore elected not to combine these processes. We would seek NatureScot’s advice on what assessment was required, should there be continued fishing after the trial. Our existing fisheries assessment and the trial findings in general form a good basis for proceeding with a commercial fishery. We would seek advice on updating assessments, or undertaking new assessments if the consultation outcome resulted in a decision that changed the scale of fishing in a particular area.

8.1.6 SEA Objectives

NatureScot stated: “The SEA objectives will need to include pressures, potential pathways of impact and consideration of mitigation measures. We have already provided the pathways risk but we would suggest strengthening the focus on benthic impact, prey availability, disturbance of mobile species. The SEA objectives will also need to consider monitoring regimes to address science knowledge gap and considerations will need to be made on the wider fishery sustainable, including landings per unit effort (LPUE) trends across the years evidencing a healthy population and sustainable exploitation in each area, without evidence of local depletion.”

We have made it clear in the SEA objectives that better quality data will allow us to make higher confidence assessments of the level of impact of a potential fishery. This will be important, should there be a fishery, in regional management. The SEA objective on biodiversity, flora and fauna is that this fishery can be implemented while protecting PMFs and meeting conservation objectives of MPAs, SACs and SPAs where relevant. Implicitly, this includes pressures and potential pathways of impact. Our fisheries assessment has determined where we consider there to be a level of potential impact that requires a change in management, and this demonstrates the objective appropriately integrates these considerations, as we make it clear that this is the approach that would be taken if there was a commercial fishery, or new scientific trial.

As the consultation has not delivered an outcome, we do not consider it appropriate, at this stage, to commit to a monitoring regime in relation to this potential fishery. Resourcing decisions in relation to monitoring activity for one fishery or another are the product of our overall fisheries management strategy and local intelligence on particular environmental or enforcement concerns. We have made this clear in the material assets objectives.

8.1.7 Report structure

NatureScot stated: “We would recommend using the Schedule 3 of the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005. The Act sets out information to be included in the Environmental Report,”

We agree and have included information per schedule 3 of the Act.

8.2 Historic Environment Scotland

Historic Environment Scotland note that effects on the historic environment were scoped out of this assessment, and agreed that significant effects on the historic environment resulting from the options under consideration were unlikely.

8.3 Scottish Environment Protection Agency

SEPA noted that they will not provide a detailed assessment of this Environmental Report.

8.3.1 Scope of the assessment

SEPA stated: “We agree with the proposed scope of the assessment to scope out all SEA topics apart from; biodiversity, flora, and fauna, population and human health and material assets. We are also satisfied with the proposed geographical scope of the assessment.”

We note this comment and make no changes to the assessment as a result of this view.

8.3.2 SEA objectives

SEPA stated: “We support the use of SEA objectives as assessment tools as they allow a systematic, rigorous and consistent framework with which to assess environmental effects. It would have been useful if the report had included an example of the proposed assessment matrix.

When it comes to setting out the results of the assessment in the Environmental Report please provide enough information to clearly justify the reasons for each of the assessments presented. It would also be helpful to set out assumptions that are made during the assessment and difficulties and limitations encountered.

It is helpful if the assessment matrix directly links the assessment result with proposed mitigation measures.”

We note that an example assessment matrix rather than a narrative description would have been helpful. The objectives are assessed in a matrix in this report.

We note that an example matrix would have been helpful. The assessment matrices against each SEA objective and include text that describes the assumptions and limitations as relevant.

We have described the approach to mitigation in this assessment, but consider it premature to link the SEA outcome assessments to mitigation, as that requires certainty on the nature of the activity being authorised. If the consultation outcome is that a commercial fishery is established then this is the point at which we will consider required mitigations. These would take the form of the technical measures and management to reduce pressures that carry a potential risk of undermining conservation objectives of the MPA network, as has been the approach during the scientific trial.

8.3.3 Approach to monitoring

SEPA stated: “Although not specifically required at this stage, monitoring is a requirement of the Act and early consideration should be given to a monitoring approach particularly in the choice of indicators. It would be helpful if the Environmental Report included a description of the measures envisaged to monitor the significant environmental effects of the plan.”

Our approach to monitoring is set out in the Monitoring Framework section. We have set out the methods we would use, and following this feedback have added further detail on the indicators we anticipate would be used.