Planning Scotland's Seas: Priority Marine Features - Analysis of Consultation Responses

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Background

1.1 In light of its three pillar approach to conservation - species conservation, site protection and wider seas policies and measures - Marine Scotland has developed a draft list of Priority Marine Features. The concept of Priority Marine Features ( PMFs) is not intended to replace existing lists, but rather to provide a new focus for marine conservation activities.

1.2 The intended purpose of the list is to support advice on marine biodiversity, guide future research priorities and help deliver marine conservation, planning and licensing systems set out in the Marine (Scotland) Act and other statutory processes.

1.3 Marine Scotland ran a consultation exercise between 25 July and 13 November 2013 seeking comments on the draft Priority Marine Features list. The consultation involved 2 core questions - Do you agree with the recommended list of Priority Marine Features as the basis for targeting future marine conservation action in Scotland's seas? and Are there any other issues that have not been highlighted in this consultation that you would like to mention?

1.4 A total of 31 consultation responses were received; four from individuals and 27 from organisations.

Priority Marine Features

1.5 Question 1 asked Do you agree with the recommended list of Priority Marine Features as the basis for targeting future marine conservation action in Scotland's seas?

1.6 Of those who definitively answered the question, a slight majority (13) stated that yes, they agreed with the PMF list as the basis for targeting future marine conservation action in Scotland's seas. Ten of the 31 respondents said 'no' to the question and eight did not answer definitively.

1.7 In terms of positive additional comments, nine respondents made comments to show their support for PMFs generally. Others highlighted support for PMFs on the basis of the process undertaken together with broad support for the idea.

1.8 Three respondents added additional caveats related to how mobile commercial species would be affected and questioning how the PMFs would evolve in light of climate change.

1.9 Ten responses stated that they did not agree with the recommended list of Priority Marine Features, although two environmental/conservation organisations who disagreed sought to declare their broad support for the PMFs in principle. As for the others, there was considerable disparity in the range of responses given and their reasons for doing so.

1.10 Six responses in total referenced the desire to see specific species or groups to be removed from the list of PMFs. The most common requested removals were those with a commercial significance. The most frequently cited species recommended for removal from the list was Atlantic mackerel and Atlantic halibut which were argued to have sufficient stocks. Brown trout was also singled out on the basis that it is believed to be ubiquitous in Scotland's freshwater areas.

1.11 With respect to commercially relevant species there was some recognition of the need for regulation. However, one fisheries organisation commented that the targeting of commercial species is currently managed by the Common Fisheries Policy and therefore additional regulation is unnecessary.

1.12 Two environmental/conservation organisations praised the inclusion of grey seals, whilst others respondents argued that in fact they should be removed from the list on the basis that they are predatory and in fact represent in themselves a threat to other PMFs.

1.13 Six responses answered no to the consultation on the basis, at least in part, of their desire to see specific additional species or groups added the list of PMFs. The most widely cited group requested for inclusion was seabirds. Those citing the need to include seabirds referenced widespread evidence to suggest that populations are declining and that they can be proven to meet the criteria used in the identification of PMFs.

1.14 Aside from seabirds, a number of other species were suggested for inclusion. Two environment/conservation organisations put forward the suggestion that there is a need for a wider range of cetacean species. An individual argued that there is a need to add more chondrichthyes.

1.15 Five of those who said 'no' to the first question on the consultation highlighted concerns about the implementation of PMFs.

1.16 Two fisheries organisations stated that they were unable to agree or disagree with the consultation - one because the purpose lacked specificity and the other as they were unclear on the management measures. They felt that advice from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea ( ICES) should be sought as is done by the European Commission.

Additional Comments

1.17 Twenty-one consultation responses provided additional comments to Question 2. Four respondents added comments which were broadly supportive of the process and six made some form of suggested amendment or improvement to the PMF list and process. The remainder were comments expressing a need for clarification.

1.18 Suggested improvements / amendments to the PMFs included:

• It is important to ensure threatened or declining species which were not included in the PMF list are not ignored altogether;
• Outputs from the Marine Protected Areas ( MPA) network need to be fed back into the PMF list;
• A need for the National Marine Plan ( NMP) to define the status of PMFs;
• A need to ensure balance so that all activities having the potential to have a significant impact on PMFs can be considered at licencing stage.

1.19 In terms of points for clarification, the most notable related to the purpose and/ or intention of the list and the status of protection, highlighted in five separate consultation responses. Other points included:

• A lack of clarity on the benefits of inclusion of some PMFs which are already protected;
• Clarification on the licensing process;
• Clarification on how PMFs relate to Marine Protected Areas ( MPA) and whether management measures will be extended to areas outside of the MPA;
• Clarification on how the three pillar approach should be addressed in marine plans;
• Clarification on the regulatory status of PMFs;
• Clarification on the process of features being added to or removed from the list;
• Clarification on the risks / pressures to PMFs;
• Clarification on whether PMFs are already in force or in draft;
• More information required on implications on fisheries and angling on account of commercial and recreational species.