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

22. Wyre & Rousay Sounds MPA

22.1. Introduction

22.1.1. Wyre and Rousay Sounds MPA was designated to protect its maerl beds and kelp and seaweed communities.

22.1.2. One management approach was presented; this would prohibit the use of demersal trawls, mechanical dredge, or suction dredges (boat or diver operated) throughout the MPA.

22.2. We Asked

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

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

22.3. You Said

22.3.1. Almost all of the respondents who commented on this area said that they supported the management approach (25 out of 27). A full breakdown of the responses can be seen in Table 22.1.

Table 22.1: Wyre and Rousay Sounds MPA - Support for management approach

22.3.2. Sixteen respondents commented further:

• Twelve respondents reiterated their support for the approach in this MPA or for prohibiting demersal trawl, mechanical and suction dredging in all MPAs.
• Four voiced support for the approach purely due to the fact that demersal trawl, mechanical and suction dredging are not, in any case, used in the area.

22.3.3. Other comments from these respondents included:

• A request for common skate to be "included in this MPA as a key species" (environment /conservation).
• The need for further research into the impact from any salmon farm developments close to the site. This respondent, from the mobile fishing group, added: "We believe that development adjacent to the MPA and affecting the connectivity of the biological ecosystem outwith the MPA should be included as a management measure and we would highlight the recent planning application granting a salmon farm site close to the boundary of the MPA at Stromness Taing as an example. This area is a highly productive juvenile commercial scallop site but is unprotected. Our view is that a management 'buffer' zone at this site should be established to further protect the communities which will enjoy the protection of the maerl."
• An environment /conservation respondents commented on the need for ongoing monitoring to determine the impact that the designation and management has had on the area.
• A request, from a mobile fishing organisation, for weight to be given to any comments from fishermen working in the area.

22.3.4. Only one, a local group, said they did not support the approach; this respondent felt that management should be in the hands of the local community. One other respondent, from the static fishing group, again said they support "proportionate conservation measures with minimum impact on commercial fisheries" without giving an indication as to whether they consider this proposed approach to be proportionate.

22.3.5. Finally, in this section seven respondents, from the individual, environment /conservation, static fishing and local groups, said 'yes' that they agreed with the economic, social, and environmental assessments of the impact of the management approach. Only one commented; an environment /conservation respondent said that they support the continuation of the use of static fishing gear provided it is subject to an environmental impact assessment and is also then closely monitored; should it become apparent that damage is being caused they would wish to see static gear prohibited.

22.3.6. Six, including four from the environment /conservation group along with a mobile fishing and local group respondent, said 'no'. Five of these respondents commented further. The main theme to emerge was that respondents felt the assessments do not take into account the economic, social, health and/or environmental benefits that will accrue over time; in particular those that are not easily converted into measurable data.

22.3.7. One environment /conservation respondent was concerned that the assessment does not include information on the current levels of static fishing in the area. They felt that safeguards to ensure these methods do not cause any future damage should be considered. Another environment /conservation respondent who did not specify a yes /no response made similar comments.

22.3.8. Three respondents from the mobile fishing group did not specify an answer, instead reserving judgement as they have not had time to evaluate the Environmental Report which was not available at the start of the consultation. In addition, there were queries over the relevance and completeness of some data included in the social and economic assessments.

22.4. We Did

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

22.4.2. The Scottish Government welcomes the support for the proposed measures. The vital importance of creel fishing to the surrounding communities has been noted. We do not agree that there is any need for restrictions on creel activity in this MPA. The excellent condition of the maerl beds are testament to the sustainable fishing undertaken by the local communities.

22.4.3. Concerns about aquaculture development in the vicinity of the MPA have been passed to the relevant authorities.

22.4.4. It may be possible to add common skate to the designation at a later date The MPA network only has one common skate site at present and therefore in the future a replicate would be desirable. Re-designating an existing MPA could be an option subject to their being a suitable evidence base. In the meantime these measures will assist in their conservation.

22.4.5. 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, and demersal trawl - throughout the MPA.

22.4.6. The measures and their ecological value are shown in appendix 22.