Pilot Pentland Firth and Orkney Waters Marine Spatial Plan. Consultation Analysis and Modifications Report.
The Pentland Firth and Orkney Waters Marine Spatial Plan is a pilot process undertaken by a working group consisting of Marine Scotland, Orkney Islands Council and Highland Council in advance of statutory regional marine planning. This report presents an
26. Sectoral Policy 1: Commercial Fisheries
26.1 Summary of responses received
| Stakeholder | Count |
|---|---|
| Commercial | 2 |
| Fisheries and aquaculture | 3 |
| Individual | 1 |
| Non-governmental organisation | 1 |
| Public sector | 5 |
| Recreation | 1 |
| TOTAL | 13 |
26.2 Main themes
26.2.1 Some respondents noted that this policy is very long and seems at odds with the format of the other policies within the Plan. There were several suggestions for changes to the text and some respondents provided corrections to the wording.
26.2.2 Two respondents (public sector and non-governmental organisation) noted that the policy needs to be clear that fisheries can be a pressure on target (and non-target) species and their habitats. One example provided was bycatch of non-target species including seabirds and marine mammals. One of these respondents provided text in relation to an ecosystem based approach based on Article 2.3 of the Common Fisheries Policy.
26.2.3 One of these respondents (public sector) noted that there is currently some uncertainty about how statutory regional marine plans and fisheries management will integrate in the future. This respondent felt this issue should be dealt with under the 'Future considerations' section of this policy to recognise potential conflicts and synergies between commercial fisheries activity and biodiversity conflicts.
26.2.4 A recreational sector respondent noted that there was a lot of science and legislation behind the control of fisheries to maintain sustainability but had concerns about how this was implemented at a local level in terms of issues such as e.g. risk to navigation, loss of anchorages and floating creel lines.
26.2.5 Scottish Water noted that access to public drinking supply and collection and treatment of wastewater may need consideration if ports are to develop or expand to facilitate the commercial fishing industry. It was noted consent would be required from Scottish Water with regard to the capacity of the receiving wastewater treatment works to treat the load.
26.2.6 Another respondent welcomed the importance placed on consultation with local fishermen and the relevant organisations prior to any proposed developments.
26.2.7 A respondent from Marine Scotland Licensing Operations Team noted that a Commercial Fisheries Working Group would normally be formed as part of the consent conditions for a development. This Group would generally be regional or area groups rather than individual groups for each consent.
26.2.8 A fisheries stakeholder noted that fishing is the longest established human industry and also noted that fishing displacement and stock habitat damage or juvenile stock damage needs to be properly understood as this is a significant data gap.
26.2.9 A letter from a fisheries stakeholder raised concerns that some text did not accurately reflect the National Marine Plan in terms of involvement of Inshore Fisheries Groups, or any proxy. This stakeholder felt there had been a lack of involvement of these groups in the development of this Plan and that this highlighted a potential issue for how they would be involved in future Marine Planning Partnerships.
26.2.10 The same respondent felt the use of Scotmap was insufficient as it only represents the activity of 72% of the relevant fleet and that further consultation as suggested by the Plan is essential to assess the impacts on displacement and habitat damage.
Table 26.1 Sectoral Policy 1 Commercial Fisheries - Table of suggested modifications
| No. | Suggested modification | Action taken | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| 252 | Suggestions to shorten policy by e.g. splitting into 2 or 3 separate policy statements. | None. | Policy will not be shortened as was based on extensive stakeholder discussion and agreement. |
| 253 | Provide text that is more simple and 'ensures developments don't cause significant damage to important fishing or spawning areas or navigational problems and alternatives don't exist'. | None. | Policy will not be shortened as was based on extensive stakeholder discussion and agreement. |
| 254 | The third bullet point needs rewording as it doesn't follow on from the opening sentence of the policy - what are developers required to demonstrate? | POLICY TEXT: Third bullet point has following text added 'consideration has been given to protection for vulnerable…..' | Clarity. |
| 255 | Change 'existing fishing opportunities and activities will be safeguarded wherever possible' to 'The Plan will support proposals for developments where it can be demonstrated that existing fishing opportunities and activities will be safeguarded and that: [items within box missing out first bullet] | None. | Suggested wording could be interpreted as requiring more than National Marine Plan. |
| 256 | Clarify what 'developments' means in first sentence of policy - developments other than commercial fisheries such as aquaculture or renewables? | None. | Development(s) are defined in Section 2 of the Plan. |
| 257 | Add text to 'Future considerations' section on integration of regional marine plans and fisheries management and how this will be achieved. | None. | Lessons Learned report - will acknowledge that the Plan has not addressed how fisheries has an impact on the environment and how Regional Marine Plans can address the policy framework for the management of fisheries. This was outwith the scope of this Plan but will is an important aspect that can be dealt with by future statutory regional marine plans. |
| 258 | Para. 349 - Substitute "Owing to..." with "Given...". Add "adverse" after ".... avoid displacement or...." | PARAGRAPH 349 (now 348): Changed to 'Given the nature….' And '…careful planning to avoid displacement or adverse socio-economic impacts on fishermen'. | To accommodate request. |
| 259 | Para. 351 - Substitute ".....owing to..." with "...grounds are. However, given that....." | PARAGRAPH 351 (now 350): Changed to '…important fishing grounds are. However, given that fishing may change over time….'. | To accommodate request. |
| 260 | Pages 136 and 137 Sectoral Policy 1 - In the final bullet point it is not clear how a requirement to create a 'Fisheries Management and Mitigation Strategy' could be reflected in conditions on a planning permission for a fish farm, given the requirements of Circular 4/1998 'The Use of Conditions in Planning Permissions'. | None. | Conditions requiring a Fisheries Management and Mitigation Strategy are already used, where applicable, within marine licences. The policy test requirements of Circular 4/1998 for imposing conditions on planning consents can in principle be satisfied in relation to the use of Fisheries Management and Mitigation Strategy for fish farm applications, where significant impacts on commercial fisheries are identified and follow the requirements of Circular 4/1998. |
| 261 | The Key Legislation and Policy Guidance section of Sectoral Policy 1 must make clear the requirement to implement the ecosystem based approach to fisheries management to minimise the impact of fisheries on the wider marine environment, for example minimise the bycatch of non-target species including seabirds and marine mammals. | PARAGRAPH 349 (now 348): Added a sentence at the end of the paragraph 'There is also potential for pressures from fishing to have an environmental impact on the seabed and target and non-target species'. | To explain the pressures from fishing activities on the seabed and marine species. |
| 262 | Amend second bullet based on text from Article 2.3 of the Common Fisheries Policy to read: The Plan will support proposals for developments where it can be demonstrated that:
|
PARAGRAPH 338 (now 337): Changed to 'Within the UK finfish fisheries are managed through the EU Common Fisheries Policy ( CFP) which, in Article 2.3, shall implement an ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management so as to ensure that negative impacts of fishing activities on the marine ecosystem are minimised, and shall endeavour to ensure that aquaculture and fisheries activities avoid the degradation of the marine environment. There are further requirements......' | Do not wish to reiterate Common Fisheries Policy in bullet point as it has wider implications that this one issue. Additional background text added. |
| 263 | Para. 340 Provide a reference to the appropriate documentation in relation to the legal recognition of the right to fish. | None. | The right to fish largely stems from the development of cases under common law so there is no single statutory provision which outlines this right. |
| 264 | Page 137. Policy Box - we welcome the formalisation of the Fisheries Management and Mitigation Strategy within the National Marine Plan | None. | Noted. |
| 265 | Para. 348. Description of Caithness and Sutherland as a landing port should be Scrabster is a landing port. | PARAGRAPH 348 (now 347): Changed to 'In Caithness and Sutherland there is a different type of industry in that Scrabster is traditionally a landing port….'. | To accommodate request. |
| 266 | Para 339. The Inshore Fisheries Group equivalent in Orkney is Orkney Sustainable Fisheries Ltd. (not simply chaired by this organisation). | PARAGRAPH 339 (now 338): Changed to ' …and Orkney Sustainable Fisheries Ltd is the Orkney Management Group, which is the equivalent of an IFG'. | Correction in response to request. |
| 267 | The first bullet point in the policy box 'existing fishing opportunities and activities will be safeguarded wherever possible' should be regarded as the gold standard for Marine Spatial Planning. | None. | Noted. |
| 268 | Para. 339 on page 132 does not accurately reflect the paragraph 2.10 of the National Marine Plan. | PARAGRAPH 339 (now 338): Changed last sentence to 'The National Marine Plan notes that inshore fishing interests should be represented on Marine Planning Partnerships by Inshore Fisheries Groups (or equivalent) whose management plans will inform and reflect the regional plan.' | Clarification. |
| 269 | Para. 2.2.1 from the UK Marine Policy Statement 'A key principle will be to promote compatibility and reduce conflict' is essential in terms of Para. 341 in the Plan. | None. | Noted. The Plan conforms with the UK Marine Policy Statement and provides background text in paragraphs 86-88 and a specific requirement for efficient and multiple use of marine space in General Policy 1A. |
| 270 | Paragraph 342 needs rewording as this will not apply to all marine licences. Paragraph 352 needs text to ensure this captures those developments with an impact on fisheries. Opening heading policy text needs clarification. | PARAGRAPH 342 (now 341) first sentence changed to 'Any objections raised regarding a development that is likely to have an impact on fishing will be given consideration when making a determination'. POLICY TEXT heading changed to 'Taking account of the relevant EU policies and Directives marine planners and decision makers should aim to ensure'. FIFTH BULLET IN POLICY TEXT changed to read 'that appropriate consultation regarding proposed development....' |
Clarity and to ensure policy wording is relevant to remit of the Plan. |
Contact
There is a problem
Thanks for your feedback