Phase 2 MPA measures and PMF review minutes: Dundee - 6 December 2021

Attendees and apologies

Attendees

• Fishing Sector representatives of the East Coast- Prawns and Scallops
• Fishermen’s Mutual Association Pittenweem
• Mallaig and North West Fisheries Association
• Scottish Fishermen’s Federation
• Scottish White Fish Producers Association
• North and East Coast Regional Inshore Fisheries Group
• Marine Scotland
• NatureScot

Items and actions

Meeting agenda

• welcome and introductions
• update on recent Scottish Government commitments on Marine Protected Areas
• outline of the process to develop MPA and PMF fisheries management measures so far
• discussion on proposed PMF fisheries management measures
• discussion on proposed MPA fisheries management measures
• conclusions and next steps

Welcome and introductions

Marine Scotland welcomed everyone to the meeting to with fisheries stakeholders to discuss the proposed inshore management measures for Priority Marine Features (PMFs) and Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) on the East coast. This meeting was arranged to be held in Dundee in person, but due to the new variant of COVID-19 had to be rearranged to be online and after the festive break.

Introductions were made by Marine Scotland and NatureScot colleagues and general introductions were made by attendees.

Update on recent Scottish Government commitments on Marine Protected Areas

Outline of the process to develop MPA and PMF fisheries management measures so far

Marine Scotland and NatureScot presented a powerpoint presentation to give an overview of the background, process and updates occurring on the Inshore MPA and PMF project.

Feedback/questions from attendees on this presentation:

• clarification required by attendee as to the differences in management measures announced in the cooperation agreement between the mobile and static gear, as they stated PMFs are also susceptible to static gear damage
  • Marine Scotland confirmed that proposed management measures for PMF sites are currently restricted to mobile bottom-contacting gear, that is due to the difference in perceived risk to the features from each activity as highlighted in the conservation advice
  • NatureScot added that the evidence base for the damage of static gear is smaller in comparison to mobile bottom-contacting gear, however there are a number of ongoing projects to address this
• stakeholder stated the intensity of fishing effort of static gear needs to be taken into consideration in these discussions for PMF sites, intensity is key for this type of activity, especially if mobile fishing gear is restricted in an area and static gear fishing may therefore increase, this may actually increase the overall fishing intensity in an area and have a large impact of PMF features and should therefore be taken into account in the research which is ongoing and fed into the advice

Action

• Marine Scotland to investigate impact of static gear fishing intensity on features within MPA/PMFs with the removal of bottom contacting 

Discussion on proposed PMF fisheries management measures

Marine Scotland and NatureScot presented slides and maps on the Loch Erriboll site and the fisheries management measures and opened up the discussion.

Marine Scotland highlighted the importance and use of plotter data in order to provide evidence for changes to proposed management measures.

Key discussion points on Loch Eriboll proposed PMF management area

• request to explain the additional PMF data points shown on the map and the difference between the purple and yellow management boundaries (original and possible revised site boundary were shown)
• a stakeholder requested on having the boundaries as near as possible to features to minimise closures and allow for mobile bottom contacting gear and fishing activity as much as possible, there is a risk of just over simplifying the boundaries and due to discussions being not definitive there needs to be outputs from meetings that take into account the views of the fishers
  • Marine Scotland explained the outer boundary was the option for discussion to protect the maerl bead however the boundary line could be potentially moved further into the loch (the yellow line was one example of a possible change)
  • this potential boundary could still protect the PMFs of interest whilst permitting fishing activity in the northern end of the site, it was highlighted that this yellow line is only a suggestion for discussion and not a final decision
  • Marine Scotland highlighted that these discussions will inform development of proposals which will subsequently go out to public consultation, to enable them to provide further feedback before advice is prepared for Scottish Ministers
• question raised if there is a sprat fishery in that area and can the boundary be moved to allow this to continue?
  • Marine Scotland took this as an action point and highlighted if there is and industry data that could be submitted as evidence of a fishery to be sent into the team
  • Marine Scotland use a precautionary approach when developing site boundaries and try to match these with the evidence for fishing activity in a site, as part of the consultation and assessment processes a series of options will be considered and a balance between allowing protection of the features and fishing activity is what Marine Scotland are aiming for
• request to explain other seabed habitats and PMF species listed on the map as green triangles and why these are not included in the 11 PMFs highlighted in the presentation and clarification over what requirement there is to project them
  • Marine Scotland confirmed these other points on the map are other PMF species and habitats which are not included as the 11 PMFs of interest which are being protected in this site
  • there is still a requirement to protect them under the National Marine Plan to ensure that development or activities do not impact their status, however they are not the main features of this site which are at risk from fishing gear and activity and these other PMFs are not used to inform the boundary setting of the management areas
  • the full list of PMFs includes features which are either internationally protected or important to Scotland and therefore Marine Scotland have an obligation to protect them
• a stakeholder stated the requirement of consistency between site management approaches is required between the PMF sites
  • NatureScot stated that they have a statutory obligation to provide advice on development and licencing/consents for all PMFs
  • Marine Scotland provided clarity that within this project, Marine Scotland are specifically considering additional protection for the 11 PMFs most sensitive to mobile bottom contacting fishing gear and not the full list of PMFs, although in some cases other PMF records may exist within a site, these are not the focus of these proposals
• carification required over the types of fishing being proposed within this management area
  • Marine Scotland clarified that within proposed PMF management areas no mobile bottom-contacting fishing gear is permitted
  • Marine Scotland are having these discussions in order to determine how these sites will impact fishing activity and discuss what boundary amendments to proposals can be taken to reduce the impacts to the fishers whilst providing protection for the features
• Marine Scotland reinforced that it is important to understand all information/data about the footprint of existing fisheries to consider how amending the boundaries may reduce the impact on fishers whilst still protect the 11 PMFs, it should be again highlighted that these discussions are not final decision and a series of options will be presented to the minister to make the final decision
•  a stakeholder requested on having the boundaries as near as possible to features to minimise closures and allow for mobile bottom contacting gear and fishing activity as much as possible, there is a risk of just over simplifying the boundaries and due to discussions being not definitive there needs to be outputs from meetings that take into account the views of the fishers
•  a stakeholder stated on the importance of knowing and understanding what these additional PMFs are, as it is important to evaluate vulnerability to fishing, the knowledge of the fishers can also help to find potential interactions and assess these interactions, it would be useful to have intermediate maps with fishing tracks that may help modify boundaries and help to protect features
• an industry representative it should be recognised that PMFs are outside of the MPA network, for PMFs site designations and management measures are both being implemented at the same time and therefore is important to get right, as they are not two staged process, therefore without the knowledge of the full list of PMFs it is hard to come to conclusions of what needs to happen to allow change of boundaries and fishing effort
  • Marine Scotland reiterated that designations for PMF sites are based on the 11 priority features and other PMFs within the area the management measures are not the focus
  • Marine Scotland will be happy to receive fisheries activity, particularly smaller vessels for locational fishing data
  • outcomes of the process will be looking to develop alternative site options for fishing activity and through the SEA assessments, to give ministers options for MPA and PMF management measures, along with assessments for consideration, these discussions are designed to help us develop options that have a lesser impact on the fishing industry, options will be developed and through public consultation stakeholders will be able to provide views on all of them
• a stakeholder raised a question over how accurate FISH1 data are, as certain fishers feel they are not being accurately reported, particularly with regard to the number of creels and landings, it was highlighted that fishers feel that compliance are more heavy handed towards trawlers for misinformation and there is a lack of due diligence for the creeling vessels
  • Marine Scotland stated that these forms are legal requirements and should be reported correctly, and that it is a compliance issue if these are being submitted with intentional errors
  • Marine Scotland are aware that there is some deficiencies within the data and these are taken into account when the data is used for assessments
  • Marine Scotland stated that it is in the fishermen’s interest to accurately report since these assessments contribute to the development of advice for ministers
  • Marine Scotland are therefore engaging with Regional Inshore Fisheries Groups (RIFGs) to consider this issue and develop regionally appropriate solutions, the recent Bute House Agreement, especially in relation to considering Vessel Monitoring Systems (VMS) across the inshore fleet ,may provide useful information to help us manage our inshore static fisheries
• a stakeholder stated that if there is no data or evidence for the impact of creels on some PMFs, it is difficult to see why the precautionary principle is not being used in this situation and is being used on one sector over another
  • Marine Scotland have understand these concerns about PMFs and creeling and they will be taken into account as we develop proposals, ultimately it will be the ministers decision on the future management and at the moment they are currently seeking to manage bottom contacting gear
  • NatureScot have taken the action to provide and share information on the research which is currently being conducted into the effects of creels through the RIFGs

Actions

• Marine Scotland to review the northern boundary of the Loch Eriboll site to be moved further south

• Marine Scotland to investigate if there is a sprat fishery within the Loch Eriboll PMF site

• Marine Scotland to produce and distribute maps highlighting fishing intensity for the Loch Eriboll PMF site

• Marine Scotland to feedback to Fisheries colleagues about the issue raised regarding creel management

• NatureScot to provide and share information on the research which is currently being conducted into the effects of creels through the RIFGs

Discussion on proposed MPA fisheries management measures

Marine Scotland resumed the meeting.

Marine Scotland and NatureScot presented slides and maps on the sites for discussion and opened up discussed the following MPA sites:

• Dornock Firth and Morrich Moore and Moray Firth
• Forth and Tay and Eden Estuary
• Isle of May
• East Caithness Cliffs

Marine Scotland highlighted the importance and use of plotter data in order to provide evidence for changes to proposed management measures.

Key discussion points on Dornoch Firth and Morrich Moore and Moray Firth

• a stakeholder stated that a lot of effort has already gone into discussion of this site at earlier meetings and feel there is no noticeable changes have occurred to the map

A stakeholder stated that tows for squid are currently undertaken in this site near to the coast, almost as close as half a mile from the shore for squid and further down into Brora. Fisher outlined that, generally where there are shoals of squid, there are a lot of scallopers as well. They also highlighted that squid fishing uses demersal trawls and beam trawls which they confirmed would make contact with the seabed. They expressed that the hatched area on the map at the northern end of the site would be a loss to fishing grounds for fishers targeting squid. Vessels working this area range from 10 to 25m in length and is quite a variable fishery working anywhere from June up until December. The fisher confirmed plotter data could be provided to confirm the exact area.

• Marine Scotland marked the fishing locations for squid on map – squid trawls currently go into the blue hatched area, further plotter data will also help inform this

Key discussion points on East Caithness cliffs

• no points/comments raised

Key discussion points on Forth and Tay and Eden Estuary

• a stakeholder stated that there is a surf clam fishery inside the proposed management area, they have previously shared coordinates with Marine Scotland for this sites from previous discussions, they highlighted that three or four small vessels target this fishery, and highlighted that although this would affect a small number of vessels, the impact to those individuals would be large
• a stakeholder stated that there is a proposed seaweed farm within the MPA around the Fife Ness part of the site, a question was raised regarding why management of fishery activity affecting the seabed was proposed, but seaweed farms which will have permanent structures can be considered within the site
  • Marine Scotland have taken note of the surf clam fishery and requested plotter data if available, this in addition to information shared during previous discussions for this site will help us to consider potential impacts
  • any development within or outside an MPA will be subject to assessment by the relevant regulator (e.g. Local Authority) and will take into account relevant NatureScot advice
  • NatureScot highlighted that resumption of historic fisheries might be restricted depending on what fisheries management measures are ultimately put in place
  • Marine Scotland will be attending the North and East Coast RIFG meeting on 13 December to highlight the inshore PMF/MPA management process, and that future meeting (previously planned to be in Inverness which will now be held online) will be held to discuss these sites again
• clarification required over the boundary area for closed area contains a large proportion on no features and question why this remains closed to fishing, it seems that the line has been drawn for easier administrative purposes rather than based on evidence

Marine Scotland will action this point and look into why the line was drawn this particular way and liaise with compliance colleagues.

Key discussion points on Isle of May

• clarification required over the dimensions and scale of this site as they were not clear for the map
  • Marine Scotland provided clarification using the portal to demonstrate the site’s dimensions and scale
• fishers confirmed that they were not concerned by proposed fisheries management of this site
• a concern raised was whether Marine Scotland were focusing on first getting trawlers out of the area, with intent to bring in measures for creels at a later date
  • Marine Scotland clarified that the management measures for this site are needed to protect the feature of reefs, there is currently no intention to consider any other fisheries management measures for this site and would only consider additional measures if future evidence indicated that it was necessary in order to protect the reefs
  • NatureScot added that there is a local voluntary creeling agreement in place which has been successful in protecting seabirds during the breeding season

Actions

• Marine Scotland to make contact with squid fisher for the Dornoch Firth and Morrich Moore and Moray Firth MPa to gather plotter data
• Marine Scotland to investigate surf clam fisheries and their coordinates within the Forth and Tay and Eden Estuary MPA
• Marine Scotland will re-consider the management boundary for the closed area of Forth and Tay and Eden Estuary which does not contain any features

Conclusions, next steps and close

No additional sites were raised for discussion and no additional comments or questions were raised.

Marine Scotland requested plotter data be provided by fishers to feed into the process going forward. The fisheries data is important for the sites in order to understand impacts and try to mitigate these as much as possible.

Reminder was made that there will be another meeting for the east coast sites scheduled, most likely to be online in January covering these sites again, and that Marine Scotland will be present at the North and East Coast Regional Inshore Fisheries Group meeting on 13 December.

The socioeconomic and environmental assessments will be going ahead next year. The public consultation will be launched by early 2023. The final measures will be put in place by March 2024.

Marine Scotland chair thanked attendees for their time and input in tonight’s meetings discussions.

Meeting adjourned at 8:55pm.