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

3. Executive Summary

3.1. Background overview

3.1.1. The consultation on the Management of Inshore Special Areas of Conservation ( SACs) and Marine Protected Areas ( MPAs) and associated documents set out proposals for new management measures for protected areas in Scottish Territorial Waters.

3.1.2. The consultation ran from 11th November 2014 until 2nd February 2015; respondents were invited to submit their opinions and views on the proposed statutory management measures, including those preferred by the Scottish Government, for a selection of inshore MPAs and SACs.

3.2. Overview of Respondents

3.2.1. The consultation attracted 4,974 responses. This included:

• 52 standard responses;
• 144 single area responses (where respondents commented mainly on one MPA or SAC);
• 4,758 submissions of a campaign text promoted by Scottish Environment LINK; and
• 20 submissions of a campaign from Sunnyside Ocean Defenders.

3.3. Overview of Analysis

3.3.1. The consultation posed a series of questions on proposed approaches to management in nine SACs and 11 MPAs.

3.3.2. The standard, and single area, consultation responses were examined and key themes, which are similar issues raised in a number of responses, were identified at each question. Sub-themes; including reasons for opinions, supporting arguments, alternative suggestions or other related comments; were also noted. The key themes were then examined to identify whether any particular theme was specific to any particular respondent group or groups; for example was the theme more prominent in responses from individuals or from any organisational sub-group.

3.3.3. The SE link campaign has been addressed through analysis of standard responses. The member organisations of SE link articulated the reasoning for the campaign text in their responses. Alternative text has also been identified.

3.3.4. The responses from the Sunnyside Ocean Defenders has provided a pictorial reminder of why our protected areas and our seas need to be well-managed.

3.4. Overview of Responses & Government Position

3.4.1. The following paragraphs outline the answers given to the set consultation questions and the subsequent government responses.

3.4.2. East Mingulay SAC

3.4.2.1. We asked if you supported management approaches 1 or 2 and if you agreed with the economic, social, and environmental assessments.

3.4.2.2. You said:

• Approach 1, prohibiting the use of any demersal fishing gear on a zonal basis along with a vessel capacity restriction, was supported by 11 respondents.
• Approach 2, prohibiting the use of demersal mobile gears throughout the SAC, and any demersal static fishing gear on a zonal basis, was supported by 18 respondents.
• Opinion was divided over the economic, social, and environmental assessments with slightly more respondents disagreeing.

3.4.2.3. We intend to implement a revised version of Approach 2.

3.4.3. Loch Creran MPA / SAC

3.4.3.1. We asked if you supported management approaches 1 or 2 and if you agreed with the economic, social, and environmental assessments.

3.4.3.2. You said:

• Approach 1, prohibiting the use of suction dredges (boat or diver operated) throughout the MPA / SAC along with a spatial measure prohibiting trawling in an area containing flame shell bed (in addition to the existing management measures), was supported by ten respondents.
• Approach 2, which would prohibit the use of trawls and suction dredges (boat or diver operated) throughout the MPA / SAC (in addition to the existing management measures) was supported by 15 respondents.
• Opinions were mixed regarding the economic, social, and environmental assessments.

3.4.3.3. We intend to implement measures based on approach 2 with adjustments to the creel fishing areas within the Loch.

3.4.4. Loch Laxford SAC

3.4.4.1. We asked if you supported the management approach and if you agreed with the economic, social, and environmental assessments.

3.4.4.2. You said:

• The management approach which would prohibit the use of demersal trawls, mechanical dredge, or suction dredges (boat or diver operated) throughout the SAC was supported by 22 respondents.
• Opinion was divided over the economic, social, and environmental assessments with slightly more respondents agreeing.

3.4.4.3. We intend to implement measures as per the consultation.

3.4.5. Loch Sunart to Sound of Jura MPA (incorporating Loch Sunart MPA / SAC)

3.4.5.1. We asked if you supported management approaches 1 or 2 and if you agreed with the economic, social, and environmental assessments.

3.4.5.2. You said:

• Approach 1 would provide a site-wide prohibition of suction dredges (boat or diver operated), long lines, bottom set nets and trawl tickler chains. In addition mobile gear would be prohibited from the deep areas where mature common skate tend to reside. Three respondents supported this approach.
• Approach 2 built on Approach 1, adjoining three of the deep areas to include shallower waters and provide connective protection for transient common skate. This was supported by ten respondents.
• Most respondents disagreed with both approaches and with the economic, social, and environmental assessments of the impact of the management approaches.

3.4.5.3. We intend to implement more ambitious measures incorporating revised management of the Firth of Lorn SAC.

3.4.6. Loch Sween MPA

3.4.6.1. We asked if you supported management approaches 1 or 2 and if you agreed with the economic, social, and environmental assessments. We stated that further management consideration would be required for burrowed mud and sublittoral mud and mixed sediment communities under approach 1.

3.4.6.2. You said:

• Approach 1 would prohibit suction dredging (boat or diver operated) throughout the MPA and restrict mechanical dredge, demersal trawl, and hand gathering on a zonal basis. There was no support for this approach.
• Approach 2, had an increased level of zonal protection over the alternative that was also presented. The preferred approach also introduces a curfew on mechanical dredging in the outer part of the MPA to limit pressure on the habitats there. This was supported by ten respondents.
• 17 respondents said they did not support either approach.
• Opinion was divided over the economic, social, and environmental assessments with more disagreeing.

3.4.6.3. We intend to implement an enhanced version of approach 2.

3.4.7. Lochs Duich Long & Alsh MPA / SAC

3.4.7.1. We asked if you supported the management approach and if you agreed with the economic, social, and environmental assessments.

3.4.7.2. You said:

• The management approach presented would replace the licence condition that currently protects the reefs, in addition to the existing seasonal closure to mobile gear. More respondents (17) said they did not support this approach than said that they supported it (11).
• Opinion was again divided over the economic, social, and environmental assessments with more disagreeing.

3.4.7.3. We intend to re-designate the SAC with a revised boundary, and exclude all demersal mobile fishing methods to protect all the reef habitat that occurs in the combined MPA/ SAC.

3.4.8. Luce Bay SAC

3.4.8.1. We asked if you supported management approaches 1,2 or 3 and if you agreed with the economic, social, and environmental assessments.

3.4.8.2. You said:

• Approach 1 would prohibit the use of demersal trawls, mechanical dredges, or suction dredges (boat or diver operated) throughout the SAC was supported by 39 respondents.
• Approach 2 would be the same as Approach 1 but with a derogation to allow mechanical dredging on a seasonal basis in the inner part of the bay. Eight respondents supported this approach and 49 did not.
• Approach 3 would prohibit the use of demersal trawls, or suction dredges (boat or diver operated) throughout the SAC. Mechanical dredging would be managed on a zonal basis. This approach would require industry participation in a monitoring programme. While there was no support for this option, those respondents that indicated they supported none of the approaches felt Approach 3 is the nearest to their preferred approach but without the imposition of a 'curfew'.
• Opinion was divided over the economic, social, and environmental assessments of the impact with more disagreeing.

3.4.8.3. We intend to hold a one day stakeholder workshop to develop a final management proposal.

3.4.9. Noss Head MPA

3.4.9.1. We asked if you supported the management approach and if you agreed with the economic, social, and environmental assessments.

3.4.9.2. You said:

• The management approach would prohibit the use of demersal trawls, mechanical dredge, or suction dredges (boat or diver operated) throughout the MPA. This approach was supported by 27 respondents, one respondent did not support it.
• Opinion was more divided over the economic, social, and environmental assessments.

3.4.9.3. We intend to implement measures as per the consultation.

3.4.10. Sanday SAC

3.4.10.1. We asked if you supported the management approach and if you agreed with the economic, social, and environmental assessments.

3.4.10.2. You said:

• The management approach would prohibit the use of demersal trawls, mechanical dredge, or suction dredges (boat or diver operated) throughout the SAC. This approach was supported by 29 respondents, one respondent did not support it.
• Opinion was divided over the economic, social, and environmental assessments.

3.4.10.3. We intend to implement measures as per the consultation, enhancing them to include set nets on the list of prohibited activities.

3.4.11. Small Isles MPA

3.4.11.1. We asked if you supported management approaches 1 or 2 and if you agreed with the economic, social, and environmental assessments. We also stated that further measures would be required for black guillemot, northern sea fan and sponge communities, and possibly burrowed mud.

3.4.11.2. You said:

• Approach 1 would prohibit the use of demersal trawls, mechanical dredge, or suction dredges (boat or diver operated) within a defined area. One respondent supported this approach while 24 did not.
• Approach 2 does the same but is based on a more complex polygon to minimise the inclusion of fishing grounds. This polygon would prohibit the use of demersal trawls, mechanical dredge, or suction dredges (boat or diver operated). Ten respondents supported this approach, 55 did not.
• A majority of respondents did not support either approach, preferring an alternative which would extend the area of burrowed mud being protected while also allowing scallop and prawn fishing to continue.
• Opinion was divided over the economic, social, and environmental assessments.

3.4.11.3. We intend to implement more ambitious measures that deliver all of the fisheries management for this MPA in one step. This is in contrast to the 2 step approach advocated in the consultation.

3.4.12. South Arran MPA

3.4.12.1. We asked if you supported management approaches 1,2 or 3 and if you agreed with the economic, social, and environmental assessments. We also stated that under approach 1 further measures would be required for burrowed mud.

3.4.12.2. You said:

• Approach 1 would prohibit the use of suction dredges throughout the MPA and prohibit the use of demersal trawls or mechanical dredges within ¹/ ₂ NM of land. Four respondents voiced support for this approach.
• Approach 2 would prohibit the use of suction dredges throughout the MPA and create scallop permit areas with a strict management scheme for mechanical dredging. In addition designated fishing areas for trawlers under 100 Gross Registered Tonnage would be created. There was no support for this approach.
• Approach 3 would prohibit the use of suction dredges throughout the MPA and have the same trawl management as Approach 2. For mechanical dredging a designated fishing area would be created that would be the subject of additional controls. The approach was supported by seven respondents. 102 said they did not support it.
• A large majority of those who commented on this area did not support any of the management approaches put forward and instead wanted to see a complete ban on dredging and trawling across the MPA.
• More respondents said they did not agree with the economic, social, and environmental assessments than agreed.

3.4.12.3. We intend to implement measures based on a much simpler and more ambitious zonal approach. This includes a prohibition on mechanical dredging from the whole MPA to further the recovery of the maerl beds.

3.4.13. St Kilda MPA

3.4.13.1. We asked if you supported the management approach and if you agreed with the economic, social, and environmental assessments.

3.4.13.2. You said:

• The management approach would prohibit the use of demersal trawls, mechanical dredge, or suction dredges (boat or diver operated) throughout the SAC. Twenty-nine respondents supported the management option proposed for this SAC, one did not.
• More respondents said they agree with the economic, social, and environmental assessments than did not.

3.4.13.3. We intend to implement measures as per the consultation and also include a prohibition of set nets.

3.4.14. Treshnish Isles SAC

3.4.14.1. We asked if you supported management approaches 1 or 2 and if you agreed with the economic, social, and environmental assessments.

3.4.14.2. You said:

• Approach 1, which would prohibit the use of suction dredges, demersal trawls and mechanical dredges throughout the site was supported by twenty-four respondents.
• Approach 2 which would allow limited demersal trawling and mechanical dredging on a zonal basis was supported by four respondents.
• Opinion was somewhat divided over the economic, social, and environmental assessments although more respondents agreed than disagreed.

3.4.14.3. We intend to implement management approach 1 and also include a prohibition of set nets.

3.4.15. Upper Loch Fyne & Loch Goil MPA

3.4.15.1. We asked if management approaches 1a or 1b for the flame shell beds and 2a or 2b for other habitat types were supported and if you agreed with the economic, social, and environmental assessments. All approaches would prohibit the use of suction dredges (boat or diver operated) and there would be a vessel capacity restriction of 75 Gross Registered Tonnage.

3.4.15.2. You said:

• Approach 1a (flame shell bed) proposes that no fishing should take place or the deployment or removal of anything onto/ from the seabed within the recovery area. More respondents (18) did not support this approach than did support it (11).
• Approach 1b (flame shell bed) provides the same protection but with a different spatial extent. More respondents (12) said they did not support this approach than did support it (6).
• Approach 2a (rest of habitats) would prohibit the use of demersal trawls or mechanical dredges on a zonal basis. More respondents (23) did not support this approach. Seven said they did support it.
• Approach 2b (rest of habitats) would create designated fishing areas for the use of demersal trawls or mechanical dredges. Eighteen respondents did not support this approach, five said they did support it.
• Opinion was divided over the economic, social, and environmental assessments.

3.4.15.3. We intend to implement a completely revised zonal management approach. This includes a prohibition on mechanical dredging from the whole MPA to further the recovery of the flame shell beds.

3.4.16. Wester Ross MPA

3.4.16.1. We asked if you supported management approaches 1 or 2 and if you agreed with the economic, social, and environmental assessments. We stated that further measures would be required for burrowed mud and circalittoral muddy sand communities under approach 1.

3.4.16.2. You said:

• Approach 1 would deliver a site wide prohibition of suction dredges, a capacity restriction of 150 gross registered tonnage, and zonal management prohibiting the use of demersal trawls or mechanical dredges. Five respondents supported this approach.
• Approach 2 would deliver a site wide prohibition of suction dredges, a capacity restriction of 150 gross registered tonnage, and prohibit the use of demersal trawls or mechanical dredges on a zonal basis for all habitats. Eleven respondents supported this approach while 29 did not.
• While a minority of respondents supported the preferred management option for this MPA, a larger number supported an alternative approach to those put forward in the consultation document.
• Opinion was divided over the economic, social, and environmental assessments.

3.4.16.3. We intend to implement a completely revised zonal management approach. This includes a prohibition on mechanical dredging from the whole MPA to further the recovery of the maerl beds and flame shell beds.

3.4.17. Wyre & Rousay Sounds MPA

3.4.17.1. We asked if you supported the management approach and if you agreed with the economic, social, and environmental assessments.

3.4.17.2. Respondents said:

• The management approach would prohibit the use of demersal trawls, mechanical dredge, or suction dredges (boat or diver operated) throughout the MPA. Twenty-five respondents supported the management option proposed for this MPA, one did not.
• Opinion was divided over the economic, social, and environmental assessments.

3.4.17.3. We intend to implement measures as per the consultation.