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

Norwegian Boundary Sediment Plain MPA

Overview

Overall, most responses to this question indicate support for Option 2 for the Norwegian Boundary Sediment Plain 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 (61%) and non-campaign responses (66%) supported Option 1 for this site.

Support for Option 2 (full site) measures

As is the case for other sites, an overwhelming majority of responses expressed strong support for Option 2, with one response summarising the removal of demersal gear “from 100% of the Norwegian Boundary Sediment Plain NCMPA as necessary to restore the site’s features to favourable condition” [Organisation].

Relatedly, those in support of Option 2 pointed out that the primary obligation of managing this MPA is to restore the features to favourable conservation status and they argued that demersal trawling poses a significant risk to this obligation. They therefore felt that Option 2 would deliver the greater and faster achievement of policy commitments, including Good Environmental Status.

Potential ecological benefits of full site protection

Several respondents in favour of Option 2 highlighted the potential benefits of full site measures in protecting ocean quahog and its habitat, with one noting that the ocean quahog aggregations in the Norwegian Boundary Sediment Plain NCMPA are in unfavourable condition and spread out across the whole site.

Ocean quahog were also mentioned in regards to disagreement with conclusions in the supporting environmental assessment, where respondents felt that the environmental impacts of Options 1 and 2 were misrepresented as identical:

“Option 2 would restrict all demersal gear as well as static gear from the whole site. It would also be much clearer and more cost-effective to limit all bottom towed gear, given that quahog features are sensitive to all forms of seabed disturbance by bottom towed fishing” – [Organisation]

Respondents outlined the value of full site measures at this MPA for fish species such as cod, given that the site’s environment is a ‘shallow sandy gravelly area’, and cod have been found to be in close proximity to the site. They also recommended reviewing the presence of cold water corals, including Lophelia pertusa larvae, at the site, given its potential importance for cold water coral connectivity across the MPA network.

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 Norwegian Boundary Sediment Plain NCMPA were developed as part of a lengthy and meaningful stakeholder engagement process and should be respected.

Many respondents who supported Option 1 also 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

The responses to the proposed measures for the Norwegian Boundary Sediment Plain MPA reveal a strong consensus in favour of comprehensive, full site protection. Respondents looked to the potential ecological benefits of full site measures on site-specific species like ocean quahog, cod and cold water corals.

Meanwhile, the small number of respondents who supported Option 1 pointed to previous stakeholder discussions and did not consider Option 2 to be a ‘reasonable alternative’ to Option 1 due to its higher financial and employment costs.