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

North West Rockall Bank SAC

Overview

Overall, most responses to this question indicate support for Option 2 for the North West 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 the majority of organisational responses (62%) and non-campaign responses (62%) supported Option 1 for this site.

Support for the Zonal Approach Many respondents expressed support for the zonal fisheries management measures under Option 1, appreciating the collaborative development process.

This view was echoed by several others, including representatives of local fishing groups, who cited the measures' collaborative nature. However, many respondents raised concerns that these measures were insufficient to meet the conservation goals for the site.

Concerns about Incomplete Protection A key issue raised was concern from respondents that Option 1 does not fully protect the site's reef features. Respondents, including some environmental groups, argued that 5% of the reef, currently in an unfavourable condition, would still be exposed to demersal trawling.

This concern led several respondents to argue that Option 1 would not restore the site’s features to favourable condition.

Static Gear Concerns Some respondents felt that Option 1 focused too heavily on the mobile gear sector and did not adequately assess the impact of static gear, such as long lines and nets. One fishing representative stated, “In regard to the demersal static gear sector, we do not believe we were offered the appropriate engagement on the proposals.” Another respondent stated, “The assessment does not take into account the nature of all fisheries in this category reflected in the configuration of the gear or its seabed footprint.” These respondents called for a more nuanced approach to include a thorough assessment of all fishing gear.

Call for Whole-Site Closure A significant group of respondents, particularly from conservation-focused organisations, strongly supported a full site closure. These respondents, particularly those from conservation groups argued that Option 1 was insufficient to meet the conservation objectives and advocated for more stringent protections to ensure the site’s full recovery.

Another environmental respondent voiced similar support, stating, “We believe that this is the only option that is compatible with legal and policy obligations to achieve the conservation objectives of the site.” They believed Option 2 would be the most effective way to safeguard the site’s biodiversity and accelerate the recovery of its features.

General Overview and Criticism of Option 2 Many respondents were concerned about the socio-economic impacts of Option 2, specifically the potential disruptions to the local fishing industry.

Local fishing organisations shared similar concerns, with many stating, “We do not believe that this is a ‘reasonable alternative’ to Option 1.” These respondents argued that while the environmental benefits of both options are similar, Option 2 would have higher economic and employment costs.

Concerns about Displacement Despite the strong support for Option 2’s environmental benefits, several respondents raised concerns about the displacement of fishing efforts to other areas. These concerns emphasised that while Option 2 could achieve significant conservation goals, it may lead to increased pressure on other ecosystems not covered by the same management measures.

Scientific and Regulatory Considerations Some respondents questioned the scientific justification for Option 1. One respondent remarked:

“There seems no scientific justification for anything other than full site management measures without leading to damage of biogenic reefs.” [Individual]

Others, particularly from fishing groups, emphasised that Option 2 failed to reflect the extensive stakeholder consultation that shaped Option 1 and that a more tailored approach might better meet local needs.

The Case for Full Protection Proponents of Option 2 continued to stress that the full closure would best meet the conservation objectives of the SAC, arguing that Option 2 offers the best protection for this site. They argued that such an approach would fully protect vulnerable species and prevent further damage to the site’s biogenic reefs, ensuring long term ecological health.

Summary

The responses to both Option 1 and Option 2 highlighted a divide between those prioritising environmental protection and those concerned about socio-economic impacts. While Option 1 was praised for its collaborative development and partial protections, many respondents felt it was insufficient to achieve full restoration of the site’s features, advocating instead for a full site closure as proposed in Option 2. However, Option 2 faced criticism for its higher socio-economic costs and potential for displacement of fishing activities.