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

Geikie Slide and Hebridean Slope MPA

Overview

Overall, the vast majority of responses to this question indicate support for Option 2 for the Geikie Slide and Hebridean Slope 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 mixed views among both organisational and non-campaign responses to the proposals for this site are consistent with other sites and the views on full site versus zonal measures in general throughout the consultation.

Support for Option 2 (full site) measures

The vast majority of responses expressed support for Option 2, this was driven by campaign responses from the Oceana and SE Link campaigns. They argued that the primary obligation of managing this MPA is to restore the features to favourable conservation status and noted that demersal trawling poses a significant risk to this obligation. They felt that Option 2 would deliver the greater and faster achievement of these objectives:

“This [full site coverage afforded by Option 2] would help deliver recovery of the site to favourable status, quicker and more completely than if destructive demersal mobile gear was allowed in some of the areas” – [Individual].

Relatedly, those in favour of full site measures said they did not see trawling as sustainable within the MPA given the damage it can do to vulnerable habitats such as burrowing megafauna communities. They were also concerned about how monitoring and enforcement could be carried out effectively to ensure zonal approaches were being followed, and therefore saw full site measures as more robust and easier to monitor.

Potential ecological benefits of full site protection

Several respondents in support of Option 2 outlined the potential benefits of the full

restriction of mobile demersal gear within the site. Some commented that the measures presented in Option 1 (zonal measures) would provide insufficient protection for shelf break/slope between 200-400m across the MPA network:

“Characteristic features of the continental slope, including geological deposits and species such orange roughy and blue ling (which also rely on the slope habitats for spawning), as well as unique hydrodynamic properties that influence the movement of sediment and nutrients, require the full depth range to fulfil their ecological functions” – [Organisation].

Similarly, others noted that less than half of the site’s area which is shallower than 800m (hence already covered by the EU deep sea trawling regulations) would be protected under Option 1, including core areas of burrowed mud and subtidal sands and gravels. They therefore believed that continued trawl activity below that depth would not be considered a sustainable use of the MPA.

One response pointed to the particular value of full site measures for seabirds (and their prey), as the protected features of the Geikie Slide and Hebridean Slope NCMPA also act as nursery grounds for seabird prey species:

“Scotland’s seabirds are under huge pressures, including from lack of prey availability, and instating fulsome protections of these nursery grounds will help support our seabird colonies. Banning demersal mobile gear across the whole of the Geikie Slide and Hebridean Slope NCMPA may be particularly impactful for the St Kilda colonies” – [Organisation].

Consideration of Option 1

While the majority of responses supported full site measures (Option 2), many of those in support of Option 1 noted that the zonal fisheries management measures proposed for the Geikie Slide and Hebridean Slope MPA were developed as part of a lengthy and meaningful stakeholder engagement process. Indeed, one response asked that the Scottish Government take into account the pre-Brexit discussions held with the stakeholders on measures for the proposed sites, which they felt concluded it is important to give priority to localised measures.

Meanwhile, several responses from French organisations remarked on the rate of dependence for French vessels in regard to Option 1:

“In the case of option 1, the rate of dependence on this zone in terms of value per vessel per year is between 5.2% and 7.1%. the cumulative loss of turnover for certain vessels could reach €471k” – [Organisation].

Many respondents who supported Option 1 – as well as those who supported neither option - said that they did not consider Option 2 to be a ‘reasonable alternative’ to Option 1, particularly where they felt the “impact and scale of environmental benefits are assessed as of similar benefit for both options yet the financial and employment costs under Option 2 are higher” [Individual].

Summary

Again, the vast majority of responses expressed strong support for Option 2 and pointed to the primary obligation of managing this MPA. Those in favour of Option 2 felt that shelf break/slope, burrowing megafauna communities and seabird colonies would benefit from full site measures, as opposed to zonal ones.

The small number of those who supported Option 1 asked that stakeholder discussions be taken into account and did not consider Option 2 to be a ‘reasonable alternative’ to Option 1 due to its higher financial and employment costs.