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

Firth of Forth Banks Complex MPA

Overview

Overall, most responses to this question indicate support for Option 2 for the Firth of Forth Banks Complex 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.

It should be noted that the majority of organisational responses (57%) and non-campaign responses (61%) supported Option 1 for this site.

This again emphasises a divide between industry stakeholders, concerned about economic impacts and job security, and conservation advocates.

The consultation on the management measures for the Firth of Forth Banks Complex Marine Protected Area (MPA) has generated a range of responses from various sectors. This analysis reflects the feedback provided by respondents regarding the two primary options under consideration: Option 1, which proposes zonal fisheries management, and Option 2, which suggests a full closure to demersal mobile gear. The responses reflect both support for the options and concerns about their potential implications.

General Support for Option 1

Many respondents, particularly from the fishing industry, expressed general support for Option 1, which involves a zonal approach to fisheries management. This option has been viewed by respondents as a balanced compromise that considers both the conservation objectives of the MPA and the operational realities of fishing. Organisation representing fishers and fisheries among others, highlighted the collaborative nature of the zonal approach, noting that it was developed with substantial input from a variety of stakeholders. This sentiment was echoed by several respondents who believe that the measures provide a reasonable balance, enabling sustainable fishing while achieving necessary conservation outcomes.

Concerns Regarding Changes in Fishing Conditions

Despite this general support, many respondents raised concerns that the fishing conditions in the area have changed significantly since the initial discussions and proposals were made. Key concerns highlighted include the evolution of the Cod Avoidance Plan and the expansion of renewable energy projects, such as wind farms, which have altered fishing patterns. Some respondents stressed that these changes may affect the future viability of fishing activities in the area and could require the management measures to be revisited. Therefore, there was a call from several respondents for further consultation to ensure the zonal management remains appropriate in light of these developments.

Specific Concerns About Zonal Exclusions and Protection Levels

Some respondents raised concerns about the specific exclusions in the zonal management approach. For example, one issue raised questioned the decision to allow seines but exclude other forms of demersal mobile gear, arguing that all demersal gear interacts with the seabed in some way.

Additionally, while the proposed measures were considered to provide adequate protection for known quahog aggregations, some respondents expressed concern that areas without known aggregations might not receive sufficient protection. In these cases, some suggested that no restrictions should apply in such locations to avoid unnecessary constraints on fishing activities.

Impact on Scallop Fishing

The scallop fishing industry, in particular, expressed significant concern about some of the proposals on fishing operations. The Firth of Forth Banks Complex is home to some of the most productive scallop beds in the UK, and many scallop fishers depend on these areas, particularly during the summer months when yields are highest.

Despite acknowledging that some areas, like the Wee Bankie, would be closed for a month each year, respondents from the scallop sector voiced concerns about potential displacement and the loss of access to key fishing grounds. They called for further refinement of the zonal measures to reduce the potential impact on these historically important areas.

Displacement and Environmental Protection in Option 1

Another important concern raised by respondents, particularly from conservation-focused groups, was the potential for Option 1 to fail in providing sufficient protection for the MPA's marine features. Some respondents highlighted that leaving over 40% of the site open to demersal mobile gear, including bottom trawling, could impede the site’s recovery to a favourable conservation status.

This has led many to support Option 2, which proposes a full closure to demersal mobile gear, arguing that it would better meet the MPA’s conservation objectives by providing more comprehensive protection for key habitats like offshore subtidal sands and gravels, which are vital for species such as sand eels and grey seals.

Conversely, respondents from the fishing industry raised concerns about the displacement of fishing activities due to the proposed closures. They argued that displaced fishing fleets might move to other areas of lower ecological value, potentially leading to minimal environmental benefit. Many respondents, particularly from the scallop industry, stressed that current management measures have already resulted in positive outcomes for species like sand eels, demonstrating that fishing can coexist with environmental protection.

Support for Option 2 and Socio-Economic Impacts

Option 2, which advocates for a full site closure to demersal mobile gear, found support from several environmental groups. Respondents who backed Option 2 argued that a full closure would be more effective in meeting the MPA's long term conservation goals.

Proponents of Option 2 argued that banning bottom trawling and dredging across the entire site would help mitigate the environmental risks posed by these activities and ensure the integrity of the ecosystem.

However, many respondents expressed concerns over the socio-economic impacts of a full closure. Particularly for the scallop industry, respondents feared the closure would create additional pressures on already overstretched fishing areas. One respondent highlighted:

"We cannot support a full site closure given the cumulative impact of this policy along with other policies dramatically reducing available fishing grounds. Marine spatial squeeze poses a significant threat to fishing and therefore coastal communities, local economies, and UK food security." [Organisation]

There was particular concern that the displacement of fishing activity to other areas would exacerbate pressures on those grounds, potentially damaging both the fishing industry and the broader marine environment.

Summary

The responses to the consultation on the management measures for the Firth of Forth Banks Complex MPA reveal a complex debate between conservation goals and the socio-economic needs of the fishing industry. Option 1 is seen by many as a reasonable compromise that balances the need for marine conservation with the realities of fishing activities. However, concerns remain about the adequacy of protection for the MPA's marine features, as well as the potential for displacement and unintended consequences for fishing communities.

Option 2, which proposes a full closure to demersal mobile gear, has strong backing from environmental groups who argue that it would provide more comprehensive protection for the MPA. However, a significant concern for many respondents from the fishing industry was economic implications of a full closure, particularly the displacement of fishing activities and the cumulative impact of other policies.