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.
North-East Faroe-Shetland Channel MPA
Overview
Overall, the vast majority of responses to this question indicate support for Option 2 for the North-East Faroe-Shetland Channel 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.
| Responses | Option 1 (zonal) | Option 2 (full site) | Neither |
|---|---|---|---|
| Excluding campaign responses (n=57) | 32% | 32% | 37% |
| Total Including campaign responses (n=3,756) | 1% | 98% | 1% |
It should be noted that the mixed views among both organisational and non-campaign responses to the proposal for this site are consistent with other sites.
Many of the responses given to the qualitative component of support for this option for this site reiterated arguments made in the initial questions regarding full or zonal management measures or for other sites.
Support for Option 2: ecological benefits
The primary motivations behind support for Option 2 over Option 1 measures is ecological protection. Many supporters of Option 2 felt Option 1 is insufficient to achieve conservation goals and commitments.
More specifically, many supporters of Option 2 measures for this site agree with the proposition that full site measures are the best option to support conservation objectives for a number of marine features, such as:
“offshore deep-sea muds, offshore subtidal sands and gravels, and deep-sea sponge aggregations, by removing the pressures that impact these features (i.e. bottom towed gear).” [Organisation]
Additionally, one respondent emphasised the importance of conserving these features, particularly deep-sea sponges, for the ecosystem services which support species whose populations have been damaged from overfishing, including:
“The characteristic fish fauna of the continental slope, such as Atlantic halibut (Hippoglossus hippoglossus)… for some species the decline has occurred within less than a generation, such as orange roughy (Hoplostethus atlanticus). It is highly likely that this is related to changes in ecosystem functioning, prey availability and habitat structure at scales relevant to the fish.” [Organisation]
Multiple respondents also mentioned benefits for carbon storage in the MPA from full site exclusion, citing the 2024 Blue Carbon Report, which reported that:
“this MPA contains 1.92 million tonnes of organic carbon…it is vital that these stores are protected from demersal fishing activities site wide.” [Organisation]
And responses again reflected consideration and support for adopting the precautionary principle in the face of uncertainty, stating that zonal measures do not fulfil this:
“The rationale for the [zonal] management measures is again based on the “known distribution” of the protected features, and so does not take into account the precautionary principle. Even using fishing gear in a small part of the MPA, as is suggested for this site, will not allow for giving the priority features the full protection that is so long overdue, and undermines the MPA as a space for recovery and restoration. It is also highlighted in the documentation that the impacts static fishing gear “at high levels of fishing activity are less well understood”. As with all the sites we would advocate for an ecosystem-based approach, taking into account the precautionary principle and support full site management measures.” [Organisation]
Support for Option 1: stakeholder engagement and socioeconomic impacts
Similar to responses for other sites, many of those who voiced support for the zonal management measures under Option 1 for this site cited the participatory approach which produced them, recognising that these measures were developed and agreed through stakeholder engagement and workshops.
Another sentiment shared by a few respondents who support Option 1 is that it offers adequate environmental protection without the added socioeconomic costs associated with the full site measures under Option 2:
"The impact and scale of Environmental benefits are assessed as the same for both options yet the fisheries implications under Option 2 are higher." [Organisation]
Support for neither Option 1 nor Option 2 measures
As reflected in Table 12, a significant proportion (37%) of non-campaign responses were in support of neither option proposed at this site. The majority of these restated concerns regarding the demersal static sector, disputing that demersal static gear should not be included in these restrictions, as they do not feel they were included in engagement on the proposed measures and also believe the assessment did not accurately report on the seabed footprint of fisheries in the static gear sector.
Summary
Support for full site management measures was based on ecological benefits, including for a number of marine features as well as evidence of carbon storage in the site. Support for zonal management measures was largely due to stakeholder engagement and socioeconomic impacts. For those who supported neither proposal, this was largely due to concern for impacts on the static gear sector.
Contact
Email: Marine_biodiversity@gov.scot
There is a problem
Thanks for your feedback