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

Pobie Bank Reef SAC

Overview

Overall, most of responses to this question indicate support for Option 2 for the Pobie Bank Reef 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 the majority of organisational responses (60%) and non-campaign responses (61%) supported Option 1 for this site. This again demonstrates a difference in opinion among industry and those advocating for full site management for environmental reasons.

Support for Option 2: ecological benefits

Comments in support of Option 2 management measures can largely be categorised into concerns about ecological protection, with a couple of respondents sharing the opinion that Option 1 is insufficient to achieve conservation goals, and a number of others supporting Option 2 believing it will, “deliver the greater and faster achievement of these objectives.” [Organisation]

Moreover, one respondent emphasised potential economic as well as ecological benefits for Shetland from these measures:

“There are a series of large trawlers (probably each costing millions of pounds and often using crew from outwith Scotland) which plunder Shetland seas. It would be really good to have some (limited) areas where these boats are prevented from fishing in order to protect the marine environment.” [Organisation]

Static gear management

Even amongst respondents who agreed that Option 2 provided the best protection for this site, there were diverging opinions on whether static gear should be included in the restrictions. One respondent advocated for application of the precautionary principle, which would entail banning static gear due to uncertainty about the damage it may be doing, asserting that,

“Due to the slow nature of many deep-sea processes in the offshore region, it is urgent that action is taken to prevent damaging activities that may take significantly more time to recover than other habitats.” [Organisation]

A couple of others, however, urged that the impacts of static gear should be closely monitored to determine if it is damaging the site, and if it is, only then should it be banned through adaptive management, as “more research is needed to understand the impact of static gear on site integrity.” [Organisation]

Support for Option 1: stakeholder engagement and socioeconomic impacts

Similar to responses for other sites, many responses in favour of Option 1 measures identified the stakeholder engagement which informed their development as positive, comprehensive and something which should be abided by.

However, others in support of this option argue that updated engagement is warranted due to the time which has passed and the changed landscape/ecosystem, particularly due to impending offshore wind developments.

A handful of respondents also expressed support for Option 1 because while it provides adequate protection for the areas which need it, it also allows for fishing vessel access in areas without the priority marine features, which they believe strikes a better balance between achieving conservation goals and fishing interests:

“The removal of an isolated patch of reef to allow tows in a clear area of ground is unlikely to impact the conservation feature and trawlers are likely to have detailed information to allow them to avoid the isolated reef.” [Individual]

In tandem with that sentiment, supporters of Option 1 argue that the socioeconomic harm associated with Option 2 makes it an unacceptable alternative to them, particularly considering that:

“The impact and scale of environmental benefits are assessed as of similar benefit for both options” [Organisation]

Support for neither Option 1 nor Option 2 management measures

Only a few respondents selected that they support neither of the proposed site management measures. The primary arguments were that closing off this site is bad for food security in Scotland and will harm local fishers, without certainty for conservation achievements. Moreover, some mentioned harm from renewable energy developments that they feel is being overlooked, and stated that the marine features in question are inaccessible for anthropogenic viewing, making conserving them less important:

"This is prime fishing grounds that whitefish boats fishing with demersal gear will be prohibited from … these features have not been enjoyed and revered by anyone up to now and are unlikely to be in the future considering they're pretty unaccessible to human view. This is next to the proposed windfarm site, perhaps a greater concern is the impact of these and the vibrations they cause. Research has shown these decimate everything in the surrounding area, not fishermen. The consultation document states that stopping demersal fisheries MIGHT help, so surely this is a huge area to close off in the hope that it will result in the possible improvement/preservation. Fishing in local waters with low food miles is surely something that should be encouraged and promoted in our current eco climate…surely ensuring we can feed ourselves as a nation is something we should aim for.” [Individual]

Summary

Similar to other sites, support for Option 2 focussed on the asserted ecological benefits and support for Option 1 centred around socioeconomic impacts and positive views on the stakeholder engagement which went into those measures. A few respondents in favour of Option 2 differed on whether they believed static gear should be included in management measures and a few others considered both options too restrictive and unwarranted.