Highly Protected Marine Areas (HPMAs): consultation analysis - final report

8 Other comments and suggestions (Q19)

Summary of key points:

• Respondents often suggested additional, complementary and / or alternative approaches to the conservation of Scotland’s seas. Suggestions were made both by those who opposed HPMAs, and those who supported HPMAs.
• Both groups repeatedly called for a strategic, evidence-based approach to the conservation and protection of Scotland’s seas based on a coherent spatial marine management plan or framework.
• Both groups emphasised the importance of:
  • Collaboration and partnership working with local communities and stakeholders in developing ‘bottom up’ approaches to marine and environmental management;
  • Building on the local knowledge and values of people who live by and work on the sea and respecting local sustainable fishing practices;
  • Greater consideration of socio-economic impacts (and consideration of the views of affected communities) alongside environmental impacts.

8.1 A final question asked respondents for any other thoughts they had on the Scottish Government’s commitment to introduce HPMAs to at least 10% of Scottish waters.

Question 19: Do you have any further thoughts on the Scottish Government’s commitment to introduce HPMAs to at least 10% of Scottish waters?

8.2 Most often, respondents used this question to reprise their general support for or opposition to the creation of HPMAs. Those who supported HPMAs said they offered the potential to protect vital habitats and species by enabling the recovery and regeneration of marine ecosystems. This group often said they wanted to see more than 10% of Scotland’s seas allocated to HPMAs. Those who opposed HPMAs said that any positive conservation effects would be far outweighed by negative impacts on local communities. This group called for the Scottish Government to urgently reconsider the policy. A discussion of these views is not repeated here – see Chapter 4 for details.

8.3 A second very common theme in the responses at Question 19 related to respondents’ concerns (and criticisms) about the lack of accessibility of the consultation documents and consultation process. These views and other similar comments made in response to questions throughout the consultation have been gathered together and are discussed in Annex 5 and are not repeated here.

8.4 A third theme, raised predominantly by those opposed to HPMAs but also by some supporters, was that the Scottish Government had not engaged adequately with stakeholders in formulating their proposals. These respondents said this issue would have to be addressed in any future policy development.

8.5 Finally, a fourth theme related to respondents’ suggestions about additional, complementary and / or alternative approaches to the conservation of Scotland’s seas. Many of these suggestions were made by those who opposed HPMAs. However, some additional or complementary suggestions were also offered by respondents who supported the concept of HPMAs. The importance of better and more comprehensive community engagement was a key underpinning feature of the suggestions for how this policy should be developed in going forward. The remainder of this chapter focuses on this theme.

Preferred approaches to marine conservation

8.6 As discussed in Chapter 4, respondents who opposed HPMAs frequently emphasised their commitment to marine conservation and ecosystem protection. This group not only said they supported conservation, but also highlighted specific, practical conservation initiatives that they had been involved in. However, they did not agree that the proposal to establish HPMAs in 10% of Scottish seas – as proposed in the Scottish Government’s draft policy framework – was appropriate, and / or they questioned whether the available evidence indicated the need for such an extensive and restrictive approach.

8.7 Key to this group’s opposition was a perception that: (i) the proposal to set aside 10% of Scotland’s seas was an arbitrary and disproportionate target, based on a political agreement rather than scientific evidence, and (ii) the proposal would have ‘devastating’ impacts on local communities who had not been properly consulted on the matter. Respondents in this group – including fishing and aquaculture organisations, community groups, public sector organisations, and some individuals – often discussed alternative approaches to marine conservation which they viewed as preferable.

8.8 Respondents who supported the aims and purposes of HPMAs did so because they thought urgent action was needed to regenerate Scotland’s seas and because they believed that HPMAs could be effective in achieving this. However, respondents in this group – including environmental organisations and some individuals – were concerned that the effectiveness of HPMAs was not guaranteed and would depend to a great extent on how they were implemented in practice.

The importance of a strategic approach

8.9 Those who supported and those who opposed HPMAs repeatedly called for a strategic, evidence-based approach to the conservation and protection of Scotland’s seas based on a coherent spatial marine management plan / framework. Respondents also said that such a plan or framework should take account of the values and needs (social and economic) of island and coastal communities. They contrasted this type of approach with the current situation in which (they perceived) competing spatial management procedures were being developed in parallel. As part of a co-ordinated, strategic framework, respondents who proposed alternatives to HPMAs thought there should be greater use, and enforcement, of commercial fisheries management measures. More specifically, those who raised this point wanted to see (i) a prohibition in specified areas on fishing methods perceived as being most damaging to the marine environment (e.g. bottom trawling and dredging), and (ii) the use of ‘no-take zones’ where appropriate.

8.10 Respondents who opposed HPMAs often suggested that such a plan should be developed instead of HPMAs, or that HPMAs should only be developed once such a plan was in place. Respondents who supported HPMAs often said that HPMAs could only achieve their conservation aims if they were set within such a plan – thus implying that the strategic plan should be developed before HPMAs are designated.

Other specific suggestions

8.11 Other specific suggestions made by respondents are set out below.

Pilot sites

8.12 One recurring suggestion from respondents who opposed HPMAs was that, instead of setting aside 10% of Scotland’s seas for HPMAs, the Scottish Government should pilot a small number of (carefully chosen) HPMA sites in Scottish waters which could be monitored in relation to their implementation and impacts. These pilots should be co-produced with local communities. This type of approach would provide the necessary evidence to allow informed decisions to be taken about any further roll-out in other areas. It was noted that DEFRA had adopted such an approach in introducing HPMAs in England.

Local approaches

8.13 The need for local approaches to marine protection and conservation was repeatedly highlighted in contrast to the blanket approach proposed by the draft policy framework. Respondents who opposed HPMAs argued that decisions about fishing and the marine environment should be taken in collaboration with local stakeholders using locally devolved powers. This would allow decisions to be informed by local knowledge and expertise and would also avoid significant adverse impacts on communities. Respondents who supported HPMAs agreed that community buy-in would be necessary if HPMAs were to be successful.

8.14 Some respondents suggested that responsibilities for local management of the seas should lie with local authorities, community groups or specially established coastal authorities. Those who offered such suggestions drew attention to what they saw as successful approaches including:

• The work done by Shetland Council’s Marine Planning Team – and the establishment of the Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation to oversee devolved responsibilities for shellfish fisheries around the islands.
• The involvement of the local community in the development and management of the Lamlash Bay no-take zone in South Arran.

8.15 There was a specific suggestion for an approach involving the development and use of bespoke measures to address issues identified through local ‘ecological gap assessment’ exercises. This suggestion again reinforces the importance respondents placed on having an evidence-based approach to marine conservation.

Building on existing approaches

8.16 There were also suggestions from those who opposed HPMAs that existing marine protection arrangements could be improved and built upon to achieve the objectives set for HPMAs. Respondents noted this would require detailed evaluation to be undertaken of current arrangements. Those who offered these suggestions thought that existing protections could be enhanced through better policing and enforcement of current restrictions, and the introduction of additional targeted restrictions on activities where necessary.

Learning from elsewhere

8.17 Some respondents argued that it was important to learn from experience elsewhere.

8.18 Those who opposed HPMAs generally drew attention to approaches to marine conservation in other parts of the UK, with the following specifically mentioned:

• Both England and Wales have adopted approaches to meeting their conservation obligations without resorting to blanket bans on all human activities across 10% of their seas.
• In Wales, proposals to introduce HPMAs were abandoned in 2012 in favour of a full-scale review of the existing MPA network. The review found the existing measures to be generally effective in protecting the marine environment, although some gaps were identified. Consultation is now being undertaken on further MPA designations to address these gaps – but there are no plans at present to re-introduce HPMA proposals in Wales.

8.19 Those who supported HPMAs often pointed to international experience – with New Zealand and California (in the USA) given as examples.

8.20 Finally, both groups cited the approach taken at Lamlash Bay (on the Isle of Arran) as a model which provides useful learning.

Underpinning principles for alternative approaches

8.21 Across the varying approaches suggested, respondents (both those who opposed HPMAs and those who broadly supported their aims and purposes) emphasised the need for:

• Collaboration and partnership working with local communities and stakeholder organisations in developing ‘bottom up’ approaches to marine and environmental management
• Building on the local knowledge and values of people who live by and work on the sea, and respecting local sustainable fishing practices – respondents involved in the fishing and aquaculture sectors repeatedly emphasised that they used sustainable, low-impact methods and that they recognised that their livelihoods depended on continuing to protect the marine environment
• Greater consideration of socio-economic impacts (and consideration of the views of affected communities) alongside environmental impacts.