2014 Consultation on the management of inshore Special Areas of Conservation and Marine Protected Areas - Consultation analysis report

15. Sanday SAC

15.1. Introduction

15.1.1. Sanday was designated as a SAC for its reefs and other habitats. A large population of common seals are also protected by the SAC. One management approach was presented which would prohibit the use of demersal trawls, mechanical dredge, or suction dredges (boat or diver operated) throughout the SAC.

15.2. We Asked

15.2.1. The consultation asked: 'Do you support the management approach for this protected area?'

15.2.2. The consultation also asked 'Do you agree with the economic, social, and environmental assessments of the impact of the management approaches?'

15.3. You Said

15.3.1. In reply to whether respondents supported the management approach, 29 respondents answered 'yes' and only one local group answered 'no' without making further comment. Table 15.1 summarises the responses received.

Table 15.1: Sanday SAC - Support for management approach

15.3.2. One static fishing respondent commented without giving an indication of support or otherwise and this response is shown in the 'other comments' column in the table above. The respondent simply stated: "we support proportionate conservation measures with minimum impact on commercial fisheries".

15.3.3. The main theme in the additional comments from those answering 'yes' was outright support for prohibiting the use of demersal trawls, mechanical dredge, or suction dredges throughout the SAC and some specific comment that this meets the conservation objectives.

15.3.4. An environment /conservation respondent and two mobile fishing respondent both commented that creels as a potential pressure should be removed from the table of risks given that creel use has not compromised the features to date.

15.3.5. Another environment /conservation respondent commented: "We also request the Common Skate (Flapper Skate) Dipturus intermedia (previously D.batis) be included in this MPA [sic] as a key species. We have records of this IUCN critically endangered fish including egg case in situ from this area and this should be included in your outline."

15.3.6. Seven respondents answered 'no' and nine respondents answered 'yes' in response to whether they agreed with the economic, social, and environmental assessments of the impact of the management approach.

15.3.7. Four environment /conservation respondents, a local group and two mobile fishing respondent answered 'no'. Three of the environment /conservation respondents and one of the mobile fishing respondents went on to comment that the assessment has failed to consider the benefits that the proposed measures may bring to the area over time.

15.3.8. One of the environment /conservation respondents added: "The dependence of the north isles of Orkney on fishing as a primary source income stream is fundamental to islands resilience, self-sufficiency and food security which cannot be measured by data analysis created for larger land masses or the mainland of the UK."

15.3.9. Another environment /conservation respondent suggested a need to assess use of static gear in the site and consider precautionary safeguards against any increase in effort or scale of static gear use in future.

15.3.10. The second mobile fishing respondent that answered 'no' noted that the environmental report on management measures was not available at the beginning of the public consultation. Two other respondents in the mobile fishing group that had not answered 'yes' or 'no' also commented on lack of time to review the environmental report as well as referring to queries raised over the relevance and completeness of data provided in the economic and social assessments.

15.3.11. An environment /conservation respondent that answered neither 'yes' nor 'no' commented "we support the continuation of hand diving for scallops, a successful and sustainable industry in and around Orkney, and static fishing by creeling, provided that it is operated at environmentally sustainable levels and is closely monitored for physical environmental impacts". The same respondent added "We note that harbour seals (Phoca vitulina) are also a qualifying Annex II feature of the Sanday SAC (and a Priority Marine Feature) and we suggest that this species should also be considered as part of the management for this site." The respondent suggested a need for further research to investigate the foraging range of seals around colonies or haul out sites and the impacts of static gear on seals in their foraging areas.

15.4. We Did

15.4.1. Please see broad issues section regarding the environmental report, creel fishing, and benefits.

15.4.2. The Scottish Government welcomes the support for the proposed measures. The vital importance of creel fishing to the surrounding communities has been noted.

15.4.3. It wouldn't be possible to add common skate to the designation of this site directly because they are not a qualifying interest under the EU Habitats Directive. The MPA network only has one common skate site at present and therefore in the future at least one replicate site would be desirable. Double badging an existing SAC could be an option subject to there being a suitable evidence base. In the meantime these measures will assist in their conservation.

15.4.4. This SAC also protects common seals. Rather than revisiting management of this site at a later date we intend to include a precautionary prohibition of set nets in the SAC.

15.4.5. We intend to implement the following measures by an Order under the Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Act 1984;

• To prohibit the use of the following fishing gears - suction dredge, mechanical dredge, beam trawl, demersal trawl, and set nets - throughout the SAC.

15.4.6. The measures and their ecological value are shown in appendix 15.