Shellfish Water Protected Areas: consultation analysis

3. Part two: de-designations

Q5: Do you agree with the proposed de-designations of the 29 existing SWPAs based on the outlined criteria? If not, please identify which, give a reason, and if possible, provide evidence e.g. of future plans.

Responses to this question were mixed. The majority of respondents agreed or partially agreed with the proposals; however, several of those who partially agreed and disagreed, identified specific proposed de-designations that they did not support. Some of those disagreeing did so more generally with the proposed de-designations, including the criteria used to identify sites for designation.

Where stakeholders disagreed with the de-designation of specific sites, the reasons given included ongoing investment, production or work to support future production.

In addition, there were several sites highlighted to contain other activities such as oyster hatcheries and restoration projects. There were also other sites highlighted based on the presence of benthic features sensitive to water quality and/or being located in a region with active or planned restoration of sensitive features.

More general objections to the proposed de-designations, were particularly around the need for the criteria used to identify sites for de-designation to consider:

• aquaculture development timelines and future investment and development plans, noting that mussel farming requires a multi-year development period, often extending to eight years from initial lease to first commercial harvest especially when reactivating fallow sites or establishing new operations.
• non-harvest activities, such as spat collection, as indicators of site use.
• Crown Estate Licences in place where there has been no production.
• Reasons for de-designation, particularly if there are any deteriorations in water quality.

Q6: Are you aware of any additional sites that should be considered for de-designation based on the relevant criteria? Please provide any relevant evidence.

Few responses answered that they were aware of additional sites but did not specify site names or supporting evidence.

Q7: Can you provide evidence of any potential benefits from the proposed de-designation of the existing SWPAs?

Few responses noted potential benefits from the proposed de-designations. These were primarily around operational and regulatory efficiencies.

Scottish Water highlighted that de-designation could allow reassessment of discharge licences to align standards more closely with environmental needs and net zero goals. However, stakeholders also questioned if this was in line with the polluter pays principle and whether carbon savings should be considered a benefit if discharges are having an impact on the marine environment.

SEPA noted that designations increased resource requirements, such as for classification and stricter permitting, which may be unnecessary if the area is not actively used for significant shellfish production.

Q8: Can you provide evidence of any potential negative impacts from the proposed de-designation of the existing SWPAs, including spat collection for example?

Several respondents highlighted potential negative impacts from the proposed de-designation of existing SWPAs. These included concerns around: the risk that sites may be left unmanaged with no restoration strategy in place; a reduction in water quality; impacts on benthic organisms and seabed habitats; the impacts on wild harvesters and other stakeholders dependent on clean water; and the viability of shellfish production.

Other responses criticised the assumption that lack of FSS classification equates to non-use, overlooking smaller production and other activities such as spat collection that still depend on SWPA protections. In addition, responses noted how de-designation could reduce the commercially viability of a site and jeopardize years of investment where future production plans are in place.

Others suggested that de-designation could further erode accountability and undermine public confidence in Scottish shellfish, with reference to SEPA’s statutory water quality monitoring (see below) with adverse effects on investment and market stability.

A few respondents raised concerns about the costs associated with the proposed de-designations. For example, some stakeholders suggested that de-designating sites may lead to higher, long-term costs associated with preparing and re-designating the site compared to the administrative costs of leaving sites in place. In addition, some stakeholders suggested a natural capital approach should be taken to assessing costs and benefits which includes wider benefits, such as community resilience, not just production-driven metrics.

3.1 Government response: De-designations

Having considered the feedback from stakeholders we will not make any de-designations until we have reviewed the criteria used for de-designations. This decision is based on several factors, including the concerns raised about the criteria used to identify sites for de-designation, and about stakeholder engagement with the process. While the numbers of responses to the consultation were similar to previous reviews, a respondent noted that some stakeholders had not responded due to concerns about being identifiable, even where their response would not be published. Conducting a review of the relevant criteria before making any de-designations also allows for further engagement as we work with the sector to ensure that the criteria continue to support the aims of Shellfish Water Protected Areas.

We will aim to review these criteria as soon as possible. Our consultation noted that we intended to review the criteria before the next review of SWPA designated areas (before 2031). However, we note that around half of stakeholders who responded supported the proposed de-designations. While some stakeholders considered there was little burden associated with SWPAs where there was no economically significant production, others considered there were both administrative and operational impacts, which may be unnecessary if there is no production. It is, therefore, important that a review of the criteria is undertaken as quickly as possible to minimise the risk of any potential impacts.

For the 29 sites identified for possible de-designation, where relevant FSS data is available within defined classification timescales, SWPAs will continue to be classified. However, where there is no relevant production and associated FSS data within the defined classification period set by SEPA (i.e. within previous 6 years) the SWPAs will no longer be classified until production and associated FSS sampling resumes.

Stakeholders sought clarity on the scope of the purpose of SWPAs in relation to what constitutes ‘production’. We recognise that there has been a significant increase in restoration efforts, involving native oysters in particular, and support these efforts. The designation of SWPAs has previously been undertaken largely based on the production of shellfish for human consumption. This would not typically include activities such as hatcheries or restoration projects and there maybe other, drivers and policies that could better support these activities. These include, for example, broader River Basin Management Planning (RBMP) as well as measures set out in our Marine and Coastal Restoration Plan^[3]. We consider how to ensure integration across regulatory and policy drivers.

We do note the importance of spat collection to some shellfish production sites. Further consideration and evidence of whether sites used for spat collection alone, i.e. with no production, would benefit from SWPA classification is needed and this will be considered as part of a review of the criteria.