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

Stanton Banks SAC

Overview

Overall, most of the responses to this question indicate support for Option 2 for the Stanton Banks 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 (63%) and non-campaign responses (61%) supported Option 1 for this site, consistent with several other sites.

Support for Option 2: conservation goals and ecological benefits

The majority of comments in favour of Option 2 management measures restate responses given to the same question asked of other sites: Option 1 is insufficient for the achievement of conservation goals, or if not entirely insufficient, a less efficient mode of attainment. Many believe Option 2 measures are also in line with the precautionary principle for the protection of deep sea mud habitats, the twin climate change and biodiversity crises.

Ease of monitoring and enforcement

One respondent shared that they support Option 2 because Option 1 measurements would require more complex and resource intensive monitoring and enforcement to ensure compliance, and these efforts would be better spent on research and other data collection.

Opinions on static gear management

However, amongst those who support Option 2 measures, opinions about static gear management differ. One respondent argued that static gear measures are necessary for whole-site ecological protection and stated:

“We see no practical or scientific justification for keeping open a small North Eastern portion of the SAC when other similar parts of the site with similar levels of fishing intensity are to be excluded from demersal gear.” [Organisation]

Others believe full site management measures should be implemented excluding a ban on static demersal gear.

However, some respondents who expressed support for Option 1 measures also noted concern about static gear interests not having been involved in any stakeholder engagement:

"We acknowledge that the zonal fisheries management measures proposed for this SAC were developed with the support of the Stakeholders who took part in the relevant workshops. No discussions took place with static gear interests." [Organisation]

Support for Option 1: stakeholder engagement and sufficient protection

Responses in support of Option 1 management measures repeated arguments from support for Option 1 measures at other sites, such as that this option was developed with good stakeholder engagement and will provide adequate ecological protection whilst allowing fishing in areas free of protected features. These ideas were stated in contrast to Option 2 measures, which respondents felt stakeholders were not properly consulted on and are over restrictive in areas where trawling will not harm priority marine features, whilst imposing additional socioeconomic costs onto the fishing industry. One respondent also suggested that the application of zonal approach decreases the likelihood of fishing activity displacement into inshore waters.

Raising and re-deploying gear

Other reported reasons in favour of Option 1 measures include that zonal management prevents vessels from having to raise and re-deploy their gear, which could be dangerous and is unnecessary in areas where sustainable fishing can occur.

Support of neither Option 1 nor Option 2 management measures

Amongst those who responded they support neither of the proposed options, only one provided further comment. One respondent questioned what the definition of a favourable condition for the site is, and whose interests are being considered:

“What is a favourable condition, I am totally perplexed who makes the decision what is a favourable condition? Have you spoken with the fishermen that fish the area as the fishing has been lucrative on the Stanton Banks of late.” [Individual]

Summary

Those in support of Option 2 measures cite ecological benefits, whilst those who expressed support for Option 1 measures were appreciative of the stakeholder engagement underpinning them, as well as its ecological impacts which are sufficient to achieve environmental commitments and conservation objectives.

On static gear management, some believed this gear should be included in Option 2 measures and excluded from use in the area; others were in favour of Option 2 measures which allow static gear activity to continue. Some supporters of zonal management measures noted concern about static gear stakeholders not being consulted as well as potential safety issues from fishers having to raise and redeploy gear.