Fisheries management measures within Scottish Offshore Marine Protected Areas (MPAs): Draft fisheries assessments methodology report

3. Sources of Evidence

Best available data and evidence have been used to inform these draft Fisheries Assessments.

Evidence used in the draft Fisheries Assessments falls into two broad categories:

1. Fishing activity information. This includes VMS and logbook data from 2015-2019 and information on spatial distribution, intensity and trends of fishing activities and types of gear used.

2. Ecological information. Includes distribution, condition and sensitivity of protected features within a site.

Fishing Activity Information

Prior to the site-based screening of fishing activity, the initial scope of the fishing assessment was defined as commercial fishing gears that currently operate or could conceivably operate in the future within the Scottish offshore region. The list of gears to include within the scope of all draft Fisheries Assessments conducted was derived from analysis of logbook data recorded since 2009 to 2019, restricted to within the Scottish offshore region. This data range was utilised to align with the wider assessments undertaken as part of this policy. Table 1 outlines the gears identified from these logbook data, providing the potential fishing activities that may occur across the Scottish offshore region designated sites, and subsequently requiring consideration in the assessments.

Fishing Activity Data Sources

The initial activity screening stage utilised logbook data from 2009-2019. For the site specific screening, levels of fishing activity within the period range of 2015-2019 were assessed utilising the following evidence sources (where relevant):

• Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) and logbook data (UK and non-UK vessels); and
• Spatial footprint analysis using swept-area ratios.

The swept-area is the cumulative area contacted by a fishing gear within a grid cell over one year. The swept-area ratio (SAR, also defined as fishing intensity) is the swept-area divided by the surface area of the grid cell." The VMS intensity data and Swept Area Ratio (SAR) are derived from the 2021 ICES report; these data are for both UK and EU vessels combined. The spatial resolution of VMS data and SAR c-square grid cells in the maps (Fig. 2 – Fig. 4) is 0.05° × 0.05° (ICES, 2021). The area covered by a c-square changes with latitude; in Scottish waters the average area is 63.75 km², varying between 72.9 km² in the South and 54.6 km² in the far North. The descriptions of the VMS intensity layers and SAR data sources are summarised in Table 2.

Commercial sea fishing activity has the potential to vary in nature and intensity over time. This assessment considers fishing activity based on activity levels and type between 2015-2019. This date range was considered to provide the best available data on current fishing activity levels for the assessment. Using a five year date range provides an average view of fishing activity within the site; latter years (2020 – 2021) were not considered representative of regular fishing activity due to the Covid pandemic. The selected date range (2015 – 2019) was used consistently across all assessments within the consultation package.

VMS Data

In Scottish waters all vessels of 12 metres and over are required to be fitted with an electronic Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) which allows for more detailed information about the location of fishing activity to be recorded. Smaller vessels are currently not covered by VMS and report their catches through paper-based logs.

Vessels are classified as actively fishing from VMS data showing vessels travelling between 0-6 knots.

Fishing effort for non-UK vessels is derived from VMS data providing location and speed. Gear type and effort is available from where the vessel lands in a UK port or from the vessel type where available.

Paper log book data was also checked to determine if there was any fishing activity that would not have been picked up by analysis of VMS data. Fishing vessels less than 12 m are not required to have VMS on board. Therefore for sites close to the inshore limit (12 nm) or the sites which overlap the inshore region (0-12 nm), which were most likely to have the potential for smaller fishing vessels activity occurring, ensured their fishing activity was taken into account in the assessments.

Draft Fisheries Assessment Ecological Information

The draft Fisheries Assessments use the conservation advice packages produced by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC), and for sites that overlap with the Scottish inshore region conservation advice packages produced jointly by JNCC and NatureScot. These provide information on the features of the site, their conservation objectives and feature condition.

The exploration of feature sensitivity to fishing gears and subsequent pressures within Part B of each assessment was informed by the relevant conservation advice packages and supplemented where appropriate from wider literature, FeAST or MarLIN.

The full list of sites and site information details where Fisheries Assessments have been drafted within the Scottish offshore region is displayed in Annex A, Table A 1. The Scottish inshore region will be considered separately, except those sites that overlap the Scottish offshore region and have been scoped into the current process. The list of features found across these sites and the feature condition and conservation objectives are displayed in Annex A, Table A 1.

Draft Fisheries Assessments have assessed only protected features of SACs and NCMPAs which are categorised as habitats and mobile species. Geomorphological and large-scale features have not been scoped into these assessments. JNCC's advice supports the rationale that these protected features do not require assessment as fishing activities are unlikely to impact the conservation objectives of these features. However, this does not preclude the need for potential management in the future.

Feature Sensitivity Categorisation

The Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) and Nature Scot provides conservation advice for NCMPAs and SACs in the Scottish offshore region and inshore region respectively. These packages include advice on the possible adverse impacts that different activities can have on a sites protected features. For each offshore site, this advice is either in the form of Advice on Operations spreadsheets, or is provided through the Scottish Feature Activity Sensitivity Tool (FeAST), or the MarLIN (Marine Life Information Network) Marine Evidence based Sensitivity Assessments (MarESA).

For sites with an Advice on Operations spreadsheet available, the assessment information regarding the sensitivity relating to certain fishing activities are categorised as Not Relevant, Not Assessed, Sensitive, Not Sensitive or Insufficient evidence. The definitions for each category are displayed in Table 3, as provided by JNCC in the Advice and Operations documentation within the evidence section of sites on the JNCC website. The information in the Advice on Operations spreadsheets is sourced from either MarLIN's MarESA or FeAST, depending on the site.

For sites without an Advice on Operations spreadsheet, FeAST (Feature Activity Sensitivity Tool) was utilised directly. The associated sensitivity categories for features in this case are Associated, Sensitive, High, Medium, Low, Not Exposed, Not Assessed, Not Sensitive, and are outlined in Table 4. Sensitivity assessments on FeAST are based determined by considering the tolerance (None, Low, Medium, High) and recovery (Very Low, Low, Medium, High) of the feature to each pressure. Tolerance is the ability of the feature to absorb or resist change or disturbance; recovery is the ability of the feature to recover from disturbance or stress. For Solan Bank Reef SAC and Pobie Bank Reef SAC, following JNCC advice, the advice and operations package for Stanton Bank SAC was used in lieu of a complete advice package for Pobie Bank SAC. This was used to inform the feature sensitivity information within Part A to ensure the most up to date sensitivity evidence was used. Stanton Banks SAC was identified as a suitable proxy site due to the comparable features and site composition with Pobie Bank.

Pressures that are not relevant to the fishing activities, (pressures that are not exerted by that fishing activity: 'not relevant to the activity') do not need to be considered further in the draft fisheries assessments where these activities and pressures take place. According to the PAD methods document (Robson et al., 2018), pressures with low risk profiles (i.e. 'low' risk profile for the activity: Tables 2 & 4 within the draft fisheries assessments) generally do not occur at a level of concern and should not require consideration as part of an assessment, unless there are evidence-based case or site-specific factors that increase the risk, or there is uncertainty on the level of pressure on a receptor. Pressures with 'medium-high' risk profiles are commonly induced by the activity at a level that needs to be considered further as part of an assessment.

Another pressure which has been considered as not relevant to any of the fishing activities occurring within the Scottish offshore region is the pressure of Visual Disturbance. According to the PAD database this pressure relates to bird protected features. Those sites being taken forward in the consultation for proposed fisheries management measures in Scottish offshore waters do not include Special Areas of Protection (SPAs) or have protected features protecting bird species. Given the offshore locations, the types of fishing activities taking place and the protected habitats and species, the pressure of visual disturbance has not been assessed within these draft Fisheries Assessments.

Definitions

The following definitions have been used to inform these draft Fisheries Assessments for SACs, and are available from Nature Scot , MarLIN and FeAST.

Likely effect

A "likely" effect is one that cannot be ruled out on the basis of objective information. The 2019 European Commission guidance on Managing Natura 2000 Sites: The provisions of Article 6 of the 'Habitats' Directive 92/43/EEC (hereafter known as the 2019 European Commission guidance) advises in section 4.5.1 that the test is whether there is a 'likelihood' of effects rather than a 'certainty'. Paragraph 45 of the Waddenzee judgement (C-127/02) further states that:

"…any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site is to be subject to an appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site's conservation objectives if it cannot be excluded, on the basis of objective information, that it will have a significant effect on that site, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects."

In the light of the precautionary principle therefore, 'likely', in this context, should not simply be interpreted as 'probable' or 'more likely than not', but rather whether a significant effect can objectively be ruled out.

Significant effect

Paragraph 49 of the Waddenzee judgement states:

"…where a plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of a site is likely to undermine the site's conservation objectives, it must be considered likely to have a significant effect on that site. The assessment of that risk must be made in the light inter alia of the characteristics and specific environmental conditions of the site concerned by such a plan or project."

The test of significance is therefore considering whether a plan or project could undermine the site's conservation objectives. The assessment of that risk (of 'significance') must be made in the light, amongst other things, of the characteristics and specific environmental conditions of the site concerned. Each proposal should be considered on a case-by-case basis. The 2019 European Commission guidance states at section 4.5.2 "what may be significant in relation to one site may not be in relation to another".

Either alone or in combination

Regulation 28 of The Conservation of Offshore Marine Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 makes it clear that 'in combination with other plans or projects' is a relevant consideration at this stage. Whether the proposal in question is likely to cause a threshold of significant impact to be crossed, in combination with plans or projects already completed, underway, or actually proposed (for example, in a local development plan), needs to be addressed so that combined effects on the site, over time or space, can be considered. Thus, approval given to a plan or project considered not likely to have a significant effect alone, should not set a precedent that further plans or projects of a similar type could be approved on the same basis. Examples include houses adjacent to a coastal otter site, discharge consents to a river catchment, land claim in an estuary.

Note that some plans or projects will consist of a number of different elements that may not be formally proposed at the same time. In such cases, where the different elements are essential to completion of the plan or project as a whole, they should be considered together in combination. For example, a proposed new windfarm will require a connection to the national grid, but this element may not be proposed at the same time, nor by the same applicant. However, it is legitimate to take account of the grid connection in combination with the windfarm proposal, even prior to the formal proposal of the grid connection itself, because it is an inevitable rather than a theoretical consequence should the windfarm proposal go ahead.

In terms of the other plans and projects to consider, plans or projects which have already been completed should only be taken into account if they have continuing effects on the site which could, in combination with other plans or projects, lead to a likely significant effect. Plans or projects that have already been completed prior to the site attaining European site status should not be considered as their effects should already form part of the environmental baseline. Any ongoing negative effects of such plans or projects with potential to adversely affect site integrity should be addressed via the review of consents process.

Appropriate

The term "appropriate" should be taken to mean 'fit for the task'. There is no set formula as to what the assessment should cover, nor what format it should take. The 2004 Court of Justice of the European Union Waddenzee judgement provides the following, "…all the aspects of the plan or project which can, by themselves or in combination with other plans or projects, affect the site's conservation objectives must be identified in the light of the best scientific knowledge in the field".

The implications of a proposal must be assessed in view of the conservation objectives for the site. The conservation objectives should ensure that the obligations of the Habitats Directive are met, including the obligation in Article 6(2) to avoid deterioration or significant disturbance of the qualifying interests. They will also ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained, or where necessary restored, and that each of the qualifying interests makes an appropriate contribution to favourable conservation status. The conservation objectives are available for all sites in Scotland on the Nature Scot SiteLink webpages, JNCC Nature Conservation MPA webpages and the JNCC SAC webpages, as well as in Table 3 above. The appropriate assessment should consider the effect of the proposal on each of the conservation objectives to see whether they will be undermined.

Integrity

Integrity is not defined within the Habitats Directive or the Habitats Regulations.

Revised Circular 6/95 advises that the integrity of a site is "the coherence of its ecological structure and function, across its whole area, which enables it to sustain the habitat, complex of habitats and/or the levels of populations of the species for which it was classified". The European Commission subscribes to a very similar definition as outlined in the 2019 European Commission guidance.

Mitigation

Mitigation measures are measures taken to avoid or reduce negative effects of a plan or project. Regulation 48 of The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c). Regulations 1994, as amended and regulation 28 of the Conservation of Offshore Marine Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 allows conditions, including modifications to the proposal and mitigation to avoid adverse impacts or reduce them to an acceptable level, to be considered in coming to the final conclusion of whether adverse effects can be avoided. If discussions result in modifications being incorporated, the proposal in its modified form needs to be considered again through the full assessment process.

The following additional definitions apply in relation to the draft Fisheries Assessments for both SACs and NCMPAs:

Exposure

The degree to which marine habitats and species overlap with pressures.

Pressure

Force acting upon the marine environment, for example smothering of seabed habitats and species.

Recovery

The ability to recover from disturbance or stress.

Vulnerability

A combination of the sensitivity of a feature to a particular pressure/activity and its exposure to that pressure/activity.

In-combination (cumulative) impacts or effects

Where multiple plans, projects or activities may or may not interact with each other, could have an impact on the same protected feature(s). These may or may not have a spatial and/or temporal element.