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

Views on proposed full site fisheries management measures for offshore MPAs

Overview

Overall, most responses to this question indicate support for proposed full fisheries management for Offshore MPAs. This is significantly influenced by responses from the Oceana and SE Link campaigns which support these measures while responses from the SWFPA campaign oppose them. When campaign responses are removed the figure for opposition is 57%.

Notably, 36% of organisation responses express support for these measures while 59% oppose.

Support for the proposed full site management measures

Whole ecosystem approach

Many respondents who support Option 2, the full site management measures, cited biodiversity conservation and climate change mitigation as the primary reasons behind their support. The most common arguments surrounded the importance of protecting marine mammals (e.g. dolphins and seals) as well as seabirds, and allowing for habitat and ecosystem recovery in offshore MPAs:

“The pressures on both predator and prey species due to fishing activities and bycatch may result in significant ecological repercussions for populations, community structure and the marine food web… undermining the integrity of the entire marine ecosystem within each site.” [Organisation]

Furthermore, respondents believe taking a ‘whole ecosystem approach’ will lead to additional positive impacts such as protecting and increasing blue carbon stores, critical given the state of the climate emergency:

“Rising sea temperatures and ocean acidification threaten the very ecosystems these areas were established to protect. Healthier ecosystems will be more resilient to the effects of climate change and will help ensure the availability of ecosystem services, including climate mitigation... by option for full site fishery management measures we can help protect the precious organic carbon stores within these sites.” [Organisation]

Environmental targets and obligations

Relatedly, responses mentioned obligations to meet specific national and international environmental and conservation targets, such as achieving Good Environmental Status under the Marine Strategy Regulations (2010) and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and suggested Scotland is much more likely to be able to do so with full site management measures, with many also arguing that zonal limits are not enough to do so effectively or quickly enough. A number of respondents also cited the importance of applying the precautionary principle to fisheries management, and state that in the absence of complete evidence, full management measures are the only option suitable to comply with this.

Community and economic benefits

Respondents also highlighted benefits for Scottish people and coastal communities from implementing these measures, particularly for local jobs and sustainable economies:

“Small scale fisheries are significant providers of activity and employment for these communities – providing up to 3 times more jobs than industrial fishing practices – yet are being greatly impacted by offshore industrial fisheries” [Organisation]

The potential for economic benefits from increased wildlife tourism were also mentioned by one respondent if ecosystems were protected from high impact fishing.

A handful of respondents highlighted the potential for ‘positive overspill’ effects in the surrounding areas if full site measures were implemented:

“Off the Isle of Arran in Scotland, for instance, fishers are catching more and larger lobsters near a highly protected area which acts as a much-needed haven for wildlife.” [Organisation]

A number of responses in support of full site exclusion also emphasised the need for stringent monitoring and enforcement to ensure adherence and the realisation of the aforementioned benefits from implementation.

Opposition to the proposed full site fisheries management measures

Socioeconomic costs

Responses which expressed opposition towards the proposed full site fisheries management measures largely centred around the socioeconomic costs associated with this option, specifically those for local fishing industries and communities. The primary arguments were that the additional environmental benefits from full site measurements are not sufficient to outweigh the socioeconomic costs incurred from this option relative to the zonal measures.

“I believe that the much increased financial and employment loss to our industry under Option 2 is totally unacceptable, particularly when it appears that in most cases, there appears to be no additional (or very limited) environmental and ecosystem benefits.” [Individual]

Lack of stakeholder engagement

Moreover, a significant number of responses in opposition to these measures emphasised that the zonal option is sufficient to achieve conservation objectives, making full site measures unnecessary for these purposes. Opponents of full site measures also cited that the zonal option measures went through a comprehensive stakeholder engagement process, whereas the full site option measurements did not. This sentiment was particularly strong from organisations from EU member states who will be impacted by these measures, as after Brexit, they were no longer included in consultation for the proposed management measures.

“During the intensive stakeholder engagement before the UK left the EU, full site protection for each zone was not considered an option for discussion…consultation with EU member states ended following the announcement of Brexit, with the consequence that [our organisation] were no longer in consultation on the proposed management measures…as our members are fully aware of the environmental situation and are the first to be impacted by these changes, they are more than willing to cooperate in developing appropriate and alternative fisheries management measures.” [Organisation]

Displacement effects

Additional issues mentioned by many of those who oppose Option 2 include concerns about displacement of fishing activities e.g. to inshore waters and harm to national food security. Respondents emphasised that these impacts are compounded by existing pressures on the fishing industry, namely those by the renewable energy developments which are already placing restrictions on the industry. One response connected all of these concepts:

“Such proposals would result in greater levels of displacement of human activities, increased spatial conflict among all maritime sectors and within the fishing industry… along with the drive to net zero and expansion of offshore wind farms is contributing to an unprecedented threat to the access of fishing grounds supporting coastal fishing communities and providing an important source of sustainable food production and food security to the nation.” [Organisation]

Insufficient evidence

A few respondents felt there was a lack of evidence supporting the implementation of these measures and argued they were brought about by anti-fishing campaigners or green politics.

Neutral views on the proposed full site fisheries management measures

A few respondents expressed neutrality towards these measures, underscoring that regardless of which management measures are taken, these need to be well-supported by scientific evidence and thorough evaluation of social and economic impacts for all relevant parties.

Summary

These perspectives indicate a divide between industry stakeholders, concerned about economic impacts and job security, and conservation advocates, focused on comprehensive environmental protections to enhance resilience against climate change, protect marine wildlife and achieve conservation targets.

Many respondents in opposition of this option argued that full site management measures would result in significant economic harm to the fishing industry, particularly affecting mobile bottom-gear fisheries without substantial environmental benefits.

Meanwhile, supporters of full site closures claimed it is necessary to implement full site closures to comply with Scotland’s obligations to maintain ecosystem health and restore MPAs to a favourable environmental status, while critics argued that zonal management already meets these obligations without additional socioeconomic harm.