Shellfish Water Protected Areas: consultation analysis

2. Summary of responses to the consultation and Scottish Government response

The consultation was structured in two parts. Part one (Questions 1–4) focused on the proposed designations, and part two (Questions 5–8) the proposed de-designations. Both sections sought views on the proposals and their potential benefits and negative impacts.

We received 17 consultation responses from the following groups:

Numerical comparison between question responses was not always possible, for example, due the format of responses and to prevent identification of respondents who wished to remain anonymous. Where this was the case, a qualitative approach was taken to analyse the consultation responses with comments summarised by the relevant question and theme where possible. Stakeholders raised a range of broader but related issues, which are summarised in in the Other Issues section below. The full responses can be found with the consultation here: Published responses for A review of Scotland's shellfish water protected area designations - Scottish Government consultations - Citizen Space

The descriptors (e.g. few, some) below are used to reflect the number of responses submitted that mentioned, commented or discussed a theme or answered a direct question from the consultation.

Table 1 shows the descriptors and the corresponding number of responses.

2.1 Part one: Summary of SWPA Consultation Responses about the proposed designations

Q1: Do you agree with the proposed designations of new Shellfish Water Protected Areas (SWPAs) and the proposed boundaries? If not why, and what specific changes to the proposed sites would you suggest?

There were several respondents to this question and all agreed or mostly agreed^[2] with the proposed new SWPAs.

The majority of responses did not comment on specific designations but commented on the designation criteria and process. One respondent who ‘Mostly agreed’ with the designations noted that the proposed sites should be considered for designation but noted that there should also be further consideration of suitability, which takes into account the current Food Standard Scotland (FSS) classifications. One response also noted the designation process ‘simply identifies such areas where businesses have already determined to be appropriate to establish shellfish cultivation operations’ (Association of Scottish Shellfish Growers), noting that shellfish cultivation business will be required to continue to identify areas for future production.

Sector representatives also raised wider issues, including the delivery and effectiveness of environmental monitoring and actions for the protection of water quality to deliver the Scottish Government’s ambitions for the improvement of coastal water bodies.

Q2: Are you aware of additional sites, not included above, that would meet the proposed criteria for designation? Please provide details of the sites and any relevant evidence.

Some respondents provided feedback to this question. One noted specific sites for designation, the Firth of Lorne and Loch Linnhe, based on ongoing production.

Without specifying geographic areas, respondents suggested that the designation criteria should include activities wider than mussel and oyster production. These included harvesting of species such as Razor Shell Clams, Surf Clams, and Cockles, which sustain economic activities and, like mussels and oysters, are subject to Food Standard Scotland Official Controls (FSS OC) classification monitoring. Some responses also referenced other production activities such as seaweed farming, which do not require FSS OC classification but may still benefit from an SWPA designation due to their role in indicating water quality and supporting regenerative aquaculture.

Q3: Do you foresee any benefits from the proposed changes to SWPA? Can you provide evidence to support this?

Several responses highlighted benefits from the proposed designations particularly to water quality and the shellfish industry, including from potential protection from future discharges.

However, several responses also noted scepticism around the realisation of some of the benefits. This was related to concerns around monitoring, regulation, and planning, and offered suggestions to make sure benefits are realised (see Other Issues).

Q4: Do you foresee any negative impacts from the proposed changes to SWPAs? Can you provide evidence to support this?

The majority of responses noted potential negative impacts. A few of these were noting negative impacts of de-designations rather than only designations, which have been included in consideration of questions 5 to 8 (See Part two: de-designations).

A few responses addressed specific issues in detail. FSS noted the potential financial burden resulting from increased aquaculture operations and its legal obligations to monitor shellfish waters for E. coli and biotoxins but also noted that this was not a reason not to designate.

Scottish Water also noted the potential cost implications of any feasibility studies and infrastructure upgrades to both public and private sewerage systems that may be required to enhance water quality.

Responses also noted concerns around planning. These included potential negative impacts if National Marine Plan 2 includes an assumption that new shellfish farms should be located within an SWPA. In addition, the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation (SFF) noted their concerns around unintended bias during the planning application process that may arise when shellfish farms are proposed within SWPAs: “We have observed from marine licence applications how proposing a farm within an SWPA may be interpreted as a reason to grant the licence. However, there are many other factors such as fishing activities, which need to be taken into consideration when granting new licence requests, and the presence of an SWPA should not bias these decisions. The SFF emphasise that SWPAs should not be put in place to the exclusion of any pre-existing and established fishing activity”.

2.2 Government response: Designations

The consultation showed strong support for the designation of new SWPAs and no specific objections were raised regarding the proposed new sites or their boundaries. However, we do note the potential additional burdens and implications of designating these sites highlighted by stakeholders, as well as the potential need for further actions to mitigate sources of pollution.

Of the 14 proposed new SWPAs, there are some with production areas that do not regularly achieve a year-round Class A classification. While these areas may not all require further investigation and actions in the future, it is likely that some will. It is not possible from the available information to accurately predict the costs of any necessary improvements or whether improvements are possible. However, SEPA ensures that any potential future actions to improve water quality are based on robust prioritisation exercises, to identify areas for investigation, and cost-benefit analyses to ensure the costs of actions are proportionate to the benefits they can deliver.

Two additional SWPA designations were proposed. We undertook further analysis following the suggestion to consider additional SWPAs in Loch Linnhe and the Firth of Lorn. Analysis of Loch Linnhe focused on assessing whether the existing production areas within Loch Linnhe warranted extending the proposed designation to cover the wider loch. The analysis confirmed that several production areas are present at both sites; however, these relate to species not included within the scope of this review, such as pullet carpet shells, common cockles and carpet clams, and therefore do not meet the criteria for designation. The proposed designation of the “Camas a’ Chuilinn: Loch Linnhe” site, which contains mussel production, remains unchanged.

Following careful consideration of the responses, we will designate 14 new SWPAs and expand one existing area. This will be done using Ministers’ designation powers in section 5A of the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003. It should be noted that where new designations incorporate existing SWPAs we will adjust the names to better reflect the geographical extent of the new designated area and the existing designation will be revoked at the same time as the new area is designated. Alongside this, we will use stakeholder feedback and engage further with stakeholders to update the Business and Regulatory Impact Assessment.

We will continue to ensure that SWPAs deliver their purpose of protecting and supporting the development of economically significant shellfish production. We note comments on the designation criteria used to identify sites for designation and will consider these as part of a review of the criteria, as set out in our consultation, to ensure they continue to be appropriate and support the purpose of SWPAs. We also note the broader concerns around monitoring, regulation and planning, which are discussed briefly in the Other Issues section.