Commercial fishery for razor clams using electric current gear: consultation

3. Questions for Consultation

The Scottish Government is of the view that the evidence gathered in the trial supports the establishment of a limited commercial fishery. In particular, we consider that a suitably controlled fishery using electric current with divers harvesting clams by hand is the lowest impact fishery that could be authorised for this species. In this section, we set out questions where we seek views on this proposal, and provide an opportunity to consider any alternative proposal that consultees may have.

In section 3.1 we seek views on the nature of a commercial fishery.

In section 3.2 we seek views on the prospect of a new scientific trial.

In section 3.3 we seek views on alternative suggestions.

In section 4 we seek views on matters that we would not propose to introduce in the short term, but will consider for the future. This helps us understand how to make best use of our resources when prioritising future work. These matters would likely require further consultation and impact assessment.

3.1 A Limited Commercial Fishery

Here we seek views on the establishment of a commercial fishery, where this should be permitted and what management measures should be in place. In general, our view is that if a commercial fishery is established it should have these characteristics:

• The geographic scope of the fishery is limited, to ensure individual grounds are not overexploited.
• The number of vessels able to participate is capped, to ensure the razor clam population as a whole is not at risk of overexploitation, and vessels can be effectively regulated.
• Permission to participate is granted following an application process where applicants demonstrate how they meet required criteria, to ensure effective regulation.
• Permission to participate in the fishery is granted through a time limited authorisation, to allow adaptive management of fishing effort.
• In addition to general controls on fishing activity, the fishery is controlled via bespoke technical measures including the use of REM, to ensure razor clams are not at risk of overexploitation, and risk to protected species and habitats is adequately controlled.

3.1.1 Establishing a fishery

We consider that the scientific and socio-economic evidence supports the establishment of a commercial fishery utilising electric fishing gear, recognising that there are uncertainties that remain, as there are in all fisheries. As set out below, we propose that this fishery be authorised only for electric current gear, be geographically limited, as well as with a mechanism to review and control the number of eligible vessels actively fishing for razor clams. If following consideration of responses in this consultation, we determine that there should be a commercial fishery, we would periodically review the scale, as new data and information became available to guide our decision making.

1. Should the Scottish Government establish a commercial fishery using electric current for razor clams? Please provide reasoning for your answer.

3.1.2 Vessel controls and technical measures

Razor clams are a non-quota species, meaning there is no overall total allowable catch in Scottish waters. We manage fishing for non-quota species through the use of technical measures appropriate to the particular species. In this section we set out the controls we consider necessary for a commercial fishery. These are intended to manage where vessels can fish, the level of fishing effort, and other technical measures.

During the trial, participants have received a derogation to participate that restricts their activity to a set of areas within one of the trial zones. These have been useful, for example in comparing fished and unfished population structure, however if we were to move to a commercial fishery, there would no longer be a clear rationale for keeping fishing confined to these specific areas. In some cases, concerns have been raised that the duration of the trial has concentrated fishing of the same grounds, creating a potential risk of overexploitation. In a commercial setting, fishers would seek to rotate grounds more freely than they currently can within the constraints of the trial. In concluding the trial, we would stop using the geographical limits of the trial areas to manage any commercial fishery, while maintaining spatial controls through the classification of Shellfish Harvesting Areas.

We also seek your view on the technical measures in place during the trial, and whether these would be appropriate for a commercial fishery, or if you consider different levels or different measures to be necessary. The trial currently operates with the following technical measures in place:

• A days at sea limit of 110 days within the trial year (February-January)
• A daily catch limit of 450kg
• A minimum conservation reference size of 100mm
• A seasonal closure of one month in the spring
• Area-specific closures to reduce risk of harm to protected species and priority marine features
• Fishing gear specifications, set by the Marine Directorate

Our view is the days at sea limit could be changed to run according to calendar years (January to December), the 450kg daily catch limit appears to be sustainable and could continue in a commercial fishery, the minimum conservation reference size could be raised to improve protections for Ensis siliqua while still allowing economically viable fishing to happen, the seasonal closure could continue as practised in the trial, and area-specific closed fishing areas in line with conservation and management advice in relation to the MPA network as the appropriate way to integrate conservation objectives into the management of this fishery. This would mean a commercial fishery would be subject to fisheries assessments including Marine Protected Area assessments, Habitats Regulations Appraisals and Priority Marine Feature assessments where necessary. A commercial fishery would also be subject to any further management measures in relation to fishing activity in the inshore zone more generally.

2. Do you agree with the proposal to allow commercial fishing for razor clams beyond the boundaries of trial areas? Please provide reasoning for your answer.

3. Do you agree that the technical measures outlined are appropriate for the proposed fishery? Please provide reasoning for your answer.

4. Are there any other technical measures that should be considered for introduction? Please provide reasoning for your answer.

3.2 A New Scientific Trial

In some areas, the fishing activity in the trial has been more sporadic than in others, and this has made it a challenge to gather adequate data to carry out stock assessments in every trial area. There were also research areas planned where we have not progressed our understanding as much as we had hoped, for example, of the effects of razor clam electric current gear on fish such as sandeels and flatfish. Our current understanding, based on studies from before the trial, is that sandeels are temporarily affected by electric current but seem to recover quickly^[31]. We further infer from our fisheries assessment findings that it is unlikely that this activity can affect sandeel or other non-target fauna living on and in the seabed to the extent that it adversely affects prey availability for protected mobile species like seabirds and marine mammals. Nonetheless, we recognise that deepening our understanding on this matter is a remaining information gap.

As part of the Fisheries Assessment for the trial, we have assessed the potential for razor clam fishing to affect sandeel abundance to the extent that it adversely affects prey availability for seabirds and marine mammals, and have concluded that the scale of the trial is such that this activity does not constitute a significant risk. Since the establishment of the trial, commercial fishing for sandeels in Scottish waters has been prohibited, meaning there is a greatly reduced fishing pressure on sandeels now compared to prior to the closure of that fishery.

If we were to establish a commercial fishery, we would conclude the current trial, however we would continue to require co-operation from fishers to provide data to continue to undertake stock assessments. Recognising the benefits of the trial approach, we are interested in views on whether there is a rationale for a new trial to be established following the conclusion of the current trial. If so, this trial would likely be more limited in size and scope. As a new trial established after the coming into force of regulation 2019/1241, provisions in Article 25 of that regulation relating to the number of participants would apply.

5. Should a new trial be established? Please provide reasoning for your answer.

3.3 Alternative Suggestions

Here we seek views on alternative suggestions as a way forward for fishing for razor clams in Scottish waters. It is our view that fishing with electric current is preferable to alternative methods of fishing. However, we are interested in views on alternative approaches, such as establishing a fishery using other methods, for example, a fishery using suction dredge as operated in Ireland and the Netherlands. We have summarised the particular issues we see with dredging in relation to this potential fishery in the Strategic Environmental Assessment that is published alongside this consultation, however we summarise the issues below.

3.3.1 Suction dredging

Suction dredging, also called hydraulic dredging, is the only fishing method that would be economically viable at the same scale as fishing with electric current. While not in use today, suction dredging using either water^[32] or air ^[33] has been historically practised in fisheries targeting razor clams in Scotland. This mechanism injects water or air into the seabed, fluidising the sediment which is pumped aboard and sorted on deck. Methods using air pumps guided by divers can be highly selective, while hydraulic dredging with water is associated with high levels of bycatch^[34].

We do consider this method likely to have a higher risk of a negative effects on biodiversity, flora and fauna. This is because of the high level of bycatch in the case of hydraulic dredge which would likely increase the risk of this fishing method affecting prey availability to the extent of having an adverse impact on protected species in some areas. When assessing the potential impacts of razor clam activity with reference to the conservation and management advice of relevant Natura sites and MPAs, the advice relating to suction/hydraulic dredging is that the pressure associated with this activity be removed or avoided. Adopting this method of harvesting would make it significantly harder to integrate fisheries and conservation management priorities, plausibly resulting in closure of areas that could accommodate fishing with electric current without compromising site integrity.

We also consider this method likely to have a higher risk of a negative effect on sustainable harvesting. This is because this method can have a higher catch efficiency (approximately 90%^[35] compared to 82% per tow with electric current gear^[36]), increasing the risk of overexploitation, as razor clams are slow-growing species. Dredging is associated with shell margin breaks in clams that are subject to repeated dredge attempts, and undersized clams discarded from dredging take longer to reburrow compared to electrically stunned clams (on average approximately 14 minutes³³ compared to 7 minutes^[37]). This is considered to create a higher risk of mortality from damage and predation, with potential effects on razor clam populations.

The Inshore Fishing (Prohibition of Fishing and Fishing Methods) (Scotland) Order 2004 bans the use of this method in some parts of the inshore. With reference to areas that were included in the trial, if the consultation outcome was a commercial fishery that uses this method instead of electric current, no fishing could proceed in the Outer Hebrides, and there would also be limits on fishing in the Firth of Clyde and in the Solway Firth^[38], as well as likely closures elsewhere following appropriate assessment. Future work on inshore marine protection areas may expand areas with relevant gear restrictions.

3.3.2 Salt harvesting

Intertidal hand gathering is often achieved by depositing salt or brine solutions on exposed burrows, waiting for the clam to respond by being repulsed by the hypersaline conditions and exiting its burrow where it can be collected. In a similar way, there has historically been commercial subtidal gathering by divers using bottles of salt or brine which they could use to achieve the same result^[39].

We do not consider this method likely to have materially different effects on food safety or worker safety compared to fishing with electric current gear.

We do consider this method to increase the risk of waste and circular economy outcomes as there is a greater potential for marine litter to enter the environment, dependent on the scale of uptake of such an activity. This would be in the form of salt containers and the salt itself.

Were there to be a consultation outcome that salt harvesting be an authorised mode of fishing for razor clams, this activity has the effect of discharging a substance into the environment that would require such impacts to be scoped in for further Strategic Environmental Assessment. This would possibly require Controlled Activities Regulations authorisation, with associated resourcing implications for SEPA.

As this is not an activity that has been widely practiced in Scotland for some time, we do not understand the risk that this might pose to biodiversity, flora and fauna or razor clam populations as it would depend very much on scale of activity. We may expect localised hypersalinity associated with repeat harvest visits to increase the risk of negative effects on these objectives, but this is assessed at a low level of confidence. We include detail here simply to reflect that it has been a method for commercial harvesting in the past.

6. Should a commercial fishery be established that uses conventional gear instead of electric current? Please provide reasoning for your answer.

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

3.4 General Comments

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