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

West Shetland Shelf MPA

Overview

Overall, most responses to this question indicate support for Option 2 for the West Shetland Shelf 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 views among organisational and non-campaign responses were more mixed.

Support for Option 2: ecological benefits

Broadly, most of those who expressed support for Option 2 management measures believe it’s the best option for achieving conservation goals and meeting environmental commitments, as is reported in the environmental assessment, similar to those who believe the same for other/all sites.

A few respondents noted that this site has particular ecological and economic importance due to its subtidal sands and gravel features being identified as spawning grounds for commercial fish species, such as spawning cod. In their view, this makes it “important that these habitats are continuously protected, to allow for the long term economic and ecological benefits for Scotland’s seas.” [Organisation]

One respondent also emphasised the urgency and significance of implementing these measures, citing Oceana’s analysis of Global Fishing Watch data which, “suggests that over 400 hours of apparent bottom trawling took place in this MPA in 2023 alone, placing it in the top ten most trawled offshore sites in Scottish waters for that year.” [Organisation]

Encouraging evidence from historic closure

Moreover, some responses referenced the success of a previous closure (which has since been repealed) at this site as evidence that Option 2 measures will be beneficial for ecological recovery:

“Survey evidence of the ‘Windsock’ area several years after the adoption of the closure documented higher size and abundance of cod and other fish species within the boundary…historic closure of the site has enabled ecological benefits in comparison to the surrounding area, which for such a large site is highly significant and demonstrates the advantage of full site restrictions on mobile demersal gear.” [Organisation]

One response in support of Option 2 management measures disputed the findings from the socioeconomic impact assessment, arguing that it overestimates losses which would occur from full site measures, because “the site was only opened to trawling at the end of 2019 and there has not been an overall increase in the amount of landed value equivalent to that which now being estimated to be lost.” [Organisation]

Stakeholder engagement on Option 1 measures

Many responses in support of Option 1 management measures recap previously stated arguments, including approval of the engagement process these measures underwent and the evidence underpinning them, as well as the sentiment that Option 2 is not a reasonable alternative due to its associated socioeconomic costs.

Socioeconomic costs of Option 2

Again, a few respondents disputed the findings from the socioeconomic impact assessment. In this case, however, they argued the report underestimates the losses which would occur under Option 2 and due to the previous closure, these cannot be accurately assessed.

Support for option 1: respect for the voluntary access agreement

Building on the previous points about stakeholder engagement and socioeconomic costs from Option 2, a handful of respondents also emphasised that Option 1 measures take the voluntary access agreement between the mobile and static (crab fishers) into account, which was put into place before these measures were formally developed. They explained that the West Shetland Shelf is a particularly valuable static gear fishing area, particularly for the crab industry in Orkney, and that only Option 1 measures would respect this agreement and allow some static gear activity while still successfully achieving environmental goals.

Opposition to Option 2 measures

All of the respondents who selected they were supportive of neither of the proposed measures shared this was on the basis that Option 2 is not a reasonable alternative to Option 1 due to its socioeconomic costs. They did not provide further comments as to their opinions on Option 1 measures.

Summary

Responses in favour of full site management measures were supportive of the ecological benefits expected from this option. They also cited evidence from a previous closure of the area which resulted in ecosystem recovery. Those in favour of zonal measures again pointed to the stakeholder engagement which went into their development and concerns over the socioeconomic costs associated with full site measures. Additionally, a number of respondents highlighted the voluntary access agreement in place in this area between mobile and static gear fishers. They emphasised the importance of this for the crab industry in Orkney and explained that only zonal measurements take this into account.