Information

Fisheries management measures within Scottish Offshore Marine Protected Areas (MPAs): consultation analysis

Analysis of responses to the consultation on proposed fisheries management measures within Scottish Offshore Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). The consultation sought input on implementing management measures across 20 MPAs and amending the boundary of the West of Scotland MPA.


Executive Summary

Overview

This report presents an analysis of responses to the consultation on proposed fisheries management measures within Scottish Offshore Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). Conducted from August 19 to October 14, 2024, the consultation sought input on implementing management measures across 20 MPAs and amending the boundary of the West of Scotland MPA.

Stakeholder Engagement and Responses

The consultation received 3,881 valid responses, with 97% submitted by individuals and 3% by organisations. Campaign responses accounted for 95% of submissions. The consultation included a mix of closed and open-ended questions, addressing general policy views, site-specific measures, and the socio-economic and environmental impacts of the proposals.

Key Findings

The discussion surrounding zonal (Option 1) versus full site (Option 2) management measures revealed divergent views from consultation respondents.

Respondents preferring zonal measures argued that these approaches were informed by extensive stakeholder collaboration and designed to balance environmental objectives with the continuation of fishing activities.

Zonal measures were characterised by these respondents as cost-effective, achieving targeted conservation outcomes while minimising disruption to the fishing industry. This approach was also viewed as vital for maintaining economic resilience and food security. However, critics of zonal measures warned of potential fragmentation in protection, arguing that leaving certain ecological features unprotected could compromise conservation goals and fail to adequately address the pressures on sensitive habitats and species.

Advocates for full site measures stressed the necessity of comprehensive protection to restore ecosystems to favourable conservation status. These respondents argued that full site approaches better align with international conservation obligations and enhance resilience to climate change by preserving biodiversity.

Full site measures were seen by these respondents as crucial for mitigating cumulative ecological impacts and supporting long term recovery. Conversely, opponents expressed concerns over the socio-economic costs of full site closures, questioning whether the additional environmental benefits justified the financial and social trade-offs. Risks such as displacement of fishing activities, increased spatial conflicts, and adverse impacts on coastal communities reliant on fishing were frequently cited.

In terms of sustainability, respondents favouring robust conservation measures prioritised long term ecological gains, including biodiversity restoration and climate resilience. Industry stakeholders, however, critiqued the sustainability appraisal for underestimating socio-economic impacts and oversimplifying economic benefits.

Similarly, the socio-economic impact assessment drew concerns from some respondents over the disproportionate burden on vulnerable fishing sectors, particularly mobile demersal fisheries, with calls for more nuanced evaluations of economic benefits and the costs of inaction.

The strategic environmental assessment prompted discussions about balancing ecological and socio-economic considerations, with some respondents emphasising the need for deeper analysis of displacement and spillover effects. Gaps in assessing the welfare of marine species and long term environmental outcomes were also noted.

Takeaways

The consultation revealed a fundamental divide between advocates of conservation and industry stakeholders when it came to zonal or full site measures. Proponents of full site measures underscored the importance of environmental issues and long term recovery, while supporters of zonal measures argued for stakeholder inclusivity and a proportionate approach which also allowed for industry to continue to operate in these areas while achieving environmental goals.

Contact

Email: Marine_biodiversity@gov.scot

Back to top