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

East Rockall Bank SAC

Overview

Overall, most responses to this question indicate support for Option 2 for East Rockall Bank SAC. 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.

It should be noted that there are mixed views among both organisational and non-campaign responses to the proposals for this site. This again emphasises a divide between industry stakeholders, concerned about economic impacts and job security, and conservation advocates.

Support for Option 2 (full site) measures

The majority of responses expressed support for Option 2, with one response summarising the removal of demersal and static gear from 100% of East Rockall Bank SAC as necessary to restore the site’s features to favourable condition.

Again, those in support of Option 2 pointed out that the primary obligation of managing the East Rockall Bank SAC is to restore the features to favourable conservation status, and that demersal trawling poses a significant risk to this obligation. They therefore felt that Option 2 would deliver the greater and faster achievement of these objectives.

Potential ecological benefits of full site protection

Several respondents in favour of Option 2 felt that full site management measures would facilitate recovery of the site and reefs more quickly, helping Scotland attain Good Environmental Status.

They pointed out that a full site approach may safeguard particularly long lived species at East Rockall, such as cold water coral reef habitats which can take a long time to recover from damage. A couple of respondents provided further details on the types of species that could benefit:

"Option 2 would provide full protection to other habitats listed under Annex I of the Habitats Directive, Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems and OSPAR-listed Threatened and/or Declining habitats, such as deep-sea sponge aggregations and coral gardens, that are known to occur within the SAC and at risk from fishing pressures" – [Individual].

“Lophelia pertusa occurs on Rockall Bank principally at depths between 200-400 m, but also in certain areas deeper than 500 m on the slopes of the bank. The water currents that flow in this area are important for wider connectivity and reef growth of L. pertusa” – [Organisation].

Commentary on the conclusions of the environmental assessment

Oceana’s response noted disagreement with the conclusions of the environmental assessment that the displacement impacts on static gear would deliver a lower overall environmental outcome under Option 2. They emphasised that the additional static gear restrictions attached to Option 2 are designed to protect the vital coldwater coral reef habitats at East Rockall Bank SAC, that do not exist elsewhere:

“Given that the main activity in this site is demersal trawling anyway, this should not be used as an excuse to weaken management for static gear and overcomplicate management and enforcement” – [Organisation].

Consideration of Option 1

Although the majority of responses supported full site measures (Option 2), those in support of Option 1 noted that the zonal fisheries management measures proposed for the East Rockall Bank SAC were developed as part of a lengthy and meaningful stakeholder engagement process and should be respected.

Indeed, one respondent felt that, as well as being the product of constructive discussions between different stakeholders, Option 1 is grounded in evidence and account for the actual likely interaction between fishing activity and the marine feature present within the area.

Views of those who support neither option

As noted in the above table, a very small proportion (n=19) of respondents expressed a preference for neither Option 1 nor Option 2. They wrote that “although demersal trawl representatives were consulted on the proposals no such process was afforded to the static gear sector therefore our views on these proposals have not been taken into account when drafting the measures” [Individual].

Summary

There is overwhelming support for Option 2, with the removal of demersal and static gear from 100% of East Rockall Bank SAC seen as necessary to restore the site’s features to favourable condition.

Several of those in favour of Option 2 felt that full site management measures would facilitate recovery of the site, particularly its cold water coral reefs, more quickly, helping Scotland attain Good Environmental Status.

Oceana’s response disagreed with the conclusions of the environmental assessment of the site, while the small number of those in support of Option 1 noted that the zonal fisheries management measures proposed for the East Rockall Bank SAC were developed as part of a lengthy and meaningful stakeholder engagement process and should be respected.

A sense that the views of the static gear sector were not taken into account when drafting the measures led some respondents to express support for neither Option 1 nor Option 2.