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

West of Scotland NCMPA

Overview

Half (50%) of responses expressed support for the amended boundary for West of Scotland NCMPA. However, only 10% expressed opposition to this. A significant proportion (40%) expressed neutrality.

A higher proportion of individual responses (17%) expressed opposition than organisational (3%).

Support for the boundary amendment: benefits for management

The primary arguments made in support of the boundary amendment for the West of Scotland NCMPA were about practical management of the site and its environmental status if Scottish Government were to have full jurisdiction over the entire area included within the boundary. A number of respondents believe this will improve clarity and implementation of measures, and one respondent connected this to improvements in animal welfare:

“it ensures full jurisdictional clarity for the Scottish Ministers, which is essential for effective management and enforcement of conservation measures. This adjustment ensures that conservation efforts are legally enforceable without jurisdictional complications, leading to better protection and welfare of aquatic animals in the area. By excluding the area outside of Scotland’s jurisdiction, the management can focus on sustainable practices and welfare-centric interventions within the revised boundary to enhance biodiversity and reduce suffering among marine species.” [Organisation]

One respondent also cited that the proposed boundary amendment is in line with stakeholder discussions, which is why they are supportive of it.

Alternative management suggestions

A couple of respondents opposed this proposal and one suggested instead amending the boundary to coincide with the continental shelf boundary:

“it would make more sense, in my opinion, to move the MPA boundary to coincide with the continental shelf boundary between the UK and Denmark. Such an approach would minimise the reduction in the size of the West of Scotland MPA, whilst also ensuring that Scottish Ministers were able to regulate fishing above the MPA (subject to the limitations imposed by the Special Area in relation to vessels exclusively licensed by the Faroese fisheries authorities) as well as take other marine management measures if necessary. This approach is consistent with the 2012 Protocol between the UK and Denmark, which expressly provides for the application of 'their marine environmental protection legislation ... to the whole of the Special Area', again subject to a limitation in relation to Danish flagged vessels (2012 Protocol, art1(1)). This approach would also seem to align with the position taken for the Wyville-Thomson Ridge SAC, whose northern boundary coincides with the continental shelf boundary.” [Individual]

Others suggested that this area is split into two MPAs to achieve the best environmental protection, whilst still negotiating with the Faroese Government over the shared area:

“Then the full management measures could be implemented within the MPA within the Scottish offshore waters, and the Scottish Government could continue to attempt to implement full management measures while engaging with the other states involved in the other area.” [Organisation]

Neutral views towards the boundary amendment

Many of those who expressed neutral views towards the boundary amendment were in favour of the most environmental protection possible and suggested that the Scottish Government work with the Faroese Government to best manage this:

“We would support the widest possible extent of protection but nevertheless understand if there are existing geopolitical reasons why the site boundary cannot be extended into the special area. In that scenario, we would urge the Scottish Government to work with the Faroese Government so that they support the prohibition of mobile bottom-contact fishing gear within that special area and provide maximum deep-sea ecosystem benefit.” [Organisation]

One respondent felt they were not informed enough to make a statement as to whether they support or oppose this boundary amendment and suggested they would like more information:

“I don't fully understand - the varying levels of legislation from various policies needs to be explained in greater depth - as fishing vessel registrations and licenses differ according to the boundaries and this will have a knock on effect to shift various protected areas.” [Individual]

Another respondent shared they were also unsure about this, but do not mind either way if historic Scottish fishing in the area can continue. One respondent shared that they are neutral towards this as they do not foresee this having a significant impact on the area.

Some respondents felt neutral towards the boundary amendment as they believe restrictions should be universal to achieve conservation objectives, regardless of a vessel’s country of origin: “Applying different management measures depending on the flag underlines a flagrant inequality, which jeopardises the achievement of these objectives.” [Organisation]

Opposition to the boundary amendment: lack of perceived benefits

A couple of respondents opposed the proposed boundary amendment as they do not see the point in doing so. One responded it is, “far too complex” [Individual] and another reported they believe MPAs are “either a disaster or a waste of time” and questioned “when has Britain shown any jurisdiction with our fishing grounds” as well as “who is going to police these new restrictions” [Individual]

Another respondent said they are not supportive of this boundary amendment because it will decrease the size of the MPA, which they foresee being harmful for the marine environment as they perceive that “the Faroe Islands is not very protective of wildlife” [Individual].

One respondent opposed this proposal out of concern for how it will impact the fishing industry, particularly considering the impacts from renewable energy developments:

“Too much UK fishing areas have been lost to windfarms already, there is no need to further reduce the fishing areas.” [Individual]

Summary

Overall, most responses are positive or neutral about the boundary amendment, viewing it as a pragmatic solution to ensure effective conservation without unnecessary cross-border complications. Some suggested alternative options, such as splitting the MPA into two separate areas, citing the same reasons of easing management of the area.

Opponents of the boundary amendment either didn’t see any potential benefits from implementing this change or had concerns for marine wildlife and the fishing industry.