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

East of Gannet and Montrose Fields MPA

Overview

Overall, most responses to this question indicate support for Option 2 for East of Gannet and Montrose Fields MPA. This is significantly influenced by responses from the Oceana and SE Link campaigns which support these measures while responses from the SWFPA campaign prefer Option 1.

Many of the responses in favour of either full or zonal management measures for this site reiterated arguments made in the initial questions. This again emphasises a divide between industry stakeholders, concerned about economic impacts and job security, and conservation advocates.

Ecological benefits from Option 2 measures

Arguments in support of Option 2 measures largely emphasised the significant environmental benefits it provides over Option 1, particularly in meeting environmental objectives and targets, such as Good Environmental Status.

“We believe that this is the only option that is compatible with legal and policy obligations to achieve the conservation objectives of the site.” [Organisation]

More specifically, a number of responses cited specific habitats and species such as the ocean quahog, the sea pen, deep sea mud habitats and offshore subtidal sand gravel features. With regards to the ocean quahog, a couple of responses emphasised the need to apply the precautionary principle, due to uncertainty about how where ocean quahog aggregations are and how large the area to support a minimum population of the species is, requiring maximum protection for the site.

Double standards: renewable energy developments

Additionally, one respondent in support of Option 2 measures noted that because renewable energy developments have not been allowed within the area due to potential damage from the infrastructure, any and all harmful fishing activity should be banned from the area.

Stakeholder engagement

Most of the responses in support of zonal measurements reiterated points from the initial questions and responses to questions about other sites. Namely that the development of Option 1 measures underwent good and comprehensive stakeholder engagement and that they are sufficient to achieve conservation objectives, whilst minimising socioeconomic costs to the fishing industry. However, many organisations’ responses also emphasised that while they support Option 1, they believe additional stakeholder engagement is required, due to the amount of time which has passed and changes which have occurred over the last seven years, including notably, the Cod Avoidance Plan and expansion of renewable energy sites.

Opposition to Option 2 (full site) management measures

There was also a fairly high volume of responses in support of Option 1 measures which primarily expressed opposition to Option 2 measures due to the additional socioeconomic costs and insignificant environmental benefits associated with full site restrictions.

"I do not believe that this is a “reasonable alternative” to Option 1. The impact and scale of Environmental benefits are assessed as the same for both options yet the financial and employment costs under Option 2 are significantly higher." [Individual]

Support for neither Option 1 nor Option 2

There were also many responses supporting neither Option 1 nor Option 2 measures, all of whom cited that any implemented measures need more recent stakeholder engagement:

"This option was developed over 7 years ago and much has changed in relation to access to fishing opportunities through issues such as: evolution of Cod Avoidance Plan, huge expansion of Renewable Energy sites." [Individual]

Summary

Responses in support of Option 2 measures for this site emphasised the ecological benefits it would provide the area, including protection of the ocean quahog, the sea pen and deep-sea mud habitats. Those in favour of Option 1 cited their approval of the stakeholder engagement process which informed them and its sufficient environmental outcomes. There were also a few respondents who mentioned renewable energy developments, either due to perceptions of double standards around what is allowed in a protected area, or as evidence that updated stakeholder engagement is required.