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

3 PRIORITY MARINE FEATURES

3.1 The overall main purpose of the consultation was to assess whether or not respondents agreed with the recommended list of Priority Marine Features ( PMF) as a basis for targeting future marine conservation action in Scotland's seas. It also sought to seek what amendments respondents would recommend to the list if relevant. Question 1 asked:

Q1. Do you agree with the recommended list of Priority Marine Features as the basis for targeting future marine conservation action in Scotland's seas?

If your response includes a suggestion to amend the list, please indicate the specific species and habitats that your comments apply to and, where possible, provide or reference any evidence or data sources which have influenced your comments.

3.2 As can be seen in the table below, 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. All but one local authority agreed as did two out of three aquaculture organisations and the same proportion of energy organisations. One of three recreation/tourism organisations agreed as did the individual academic/scientific, public sector and 'other' organisations represented and one of the individuals.

Table 2.1 Question 1

Respondent group	Yes	No	No Reply
Individuals (4)	1	2	1
Academic/scientific (1)	1	-	-
Aquaculture (3)	1	2	-
Energy (3)	2	-	1
Environment/Conservation (4)	-	4	-
Fisheries (4)	-	1	3
Historic/heritage (1)	-	-	1
Local Authority (6)	5	1	-
Public Sector (1)	1	-	-
Recreation/tourism (3)	1	-	2
Other (1)	1	-	-
Total (31)	13	10	8

3.3 The table shows that ten of the 31 respondents said 'no' to the question, comprised of all four environment/conservation organisations (two of whom sought to declare their broad support for the PMFs in principle), two individuals and two aquaculture organisations, one fisheries organisation and a local authority.

3.4 Three of the four fisheries organisations did not give a definitive answer though did provide comments (detailed later in this chapter). Two recreation/tourism organisations declined to answer or comment as did one energy organisation and one individual.

Summary of Yes Responses

3.5 Of the 13 positive responses, there were a wide range of additional comments made by respondents including some in support of PMFs generally or referencing specific elements. Several respondents also added some concerns despite their overall support for the measures.

3.6 In terms of positive additional comments, nine respondents made comments to show their support for PMFs generally. One local authority commented generally that:

"The list will be used to support advice on marine biodiversity, guide future research priorities and help deliver marine planning and licensing systems set out in the Marine (Scotland) Act. The Council supports this approach."

3.7 Others highlighted support for PMFs on the basis of the process undertaken together with broad support for the idea. As another local authority commented:

"As the recommended PMF list is drawn from existing lists of habitats and species that are identified as priorities for conservation and they have clearly undergone a rigorous selection process. No additions or deletions are proposed."

3.8 The Association of Salmon Fishery Boards highlighted their particular support for the inclusion of Atlantic salmon and sea trout on the basis that there is widespread recognition of their decline in recent years.

3.9 The remaining three respondents who answered yes to the first question on the consultation added a series of caveats and/or concerns which they felt needed to be addressed. An aquaculture organisation expressed concerns over the management of some mobile species listed as PMFs but felt that these would be more appropriately voiced in the Marine Protected Areas ( MPA) consultation running alongside this one. An academic/scientific organisation made a similar remark in that they felt it was unclear how mobile commercial species would be affected and indeed what effects the PMF list would have on 'commercial exploitation' of such species.

3.10 An individual commented that they felt all areas were well covered and that the PMFs were comprehensive; however stated that there was a need to consider how the list would evolve in light of climate change and warming seas.

Summary of No Responses

3.11 As shown in the table above, ten responses to the consultation stated that they did not agree with the recommended list of Priority Marine Features as the basis for targeting future marine conservation action in Scotland's seas. A wide range of detailed reasons for this response was offered and the following summarises the reasons given for this response. Two environmental/ conservation organisations sought to declare their broad support for the PMFs in principle and commented that they were pleased with the spread of marine species and habitats represented. Particular support was mentioned for the inclusion of grey and harbour seals.

3.12 As for the others, there was considerable disparity in the range of responses given and their reasons for doing so. Six responses to the consultation specified specific features which should be removed from the list of PMFs, and six listed specific species which should be added to the list of PMFs. Five responses highlighted concerns over how the PMFs would be implemented.

Species requested for removal from the PMF list

3.13 As mentioned, six responses in total referenced the desire to see specific species or groups to be removed from the list of PMFs - comprised of two fisheries organisations, two aquaculture organisations, one local authority and one individual. The most common requested removals were those with a commercial significance, though the justification for removal was mostly on the basis of thriving stock levels. The most frequently cited species recommended for removal was Atlantic Mackerel (five mentions), which according to one individual is certified by the Marine Stewardship Council.

3.14 Similar numbers of respondents felt that Atlantic halibut did not merit inclusion in the list (four mentions) - a local authority felt that at a local level, there were sufficient stocks.

3.15 The table below highlights the specific species mentioned and which have a commercial significance. All species were mentioned by at least two separate organisations, most commonly fisheries organisations.

Table 2.2 Species with commercial relevance requested for removal from PMFs

Species	Mentions
Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus)	5
Atlantic halibut	4
Cod (Gadus morhua)	3
(Migratory) Brown Trout (Salmo trutta)	3
Saithe	3
Spiny Lobster	2
Anglerfish	2
Atlantic herring	2
Black Scabbardfish	2
Blue Ling	2
Blue Whiting	2
Greenland halibut	2
Horse mackerel	2
Ling	2
Norway Pout	2
Sandeels	2
Sandy Ray	2
Round-nose grenadier	2
Whiting	2

3.16 Brown trout specifically was singled out by two aquaculture organisations on the basis that it is believed to be ubiquitous in Scotland's freshwater areas - one also commented that sea trout are not genetically distinct from brown trout and therefore these should be considered and treated collectively.

3.17 In addition, one fisheries organisation commented that: "We are all interested in the conservation of marine species, we cannot have a sustainable fishery, a sustainable economy and a sustainable community without some element of conservation. Continued access to all mobile marine species must be maintained and only withdrawn following scientific ICES (advice), however we require more information on the end purposes of this."

3.18 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 as such there was concern that 'The Member State has no authority to regulate the uptake of non-territorial waters for nature conservation purposes'. Another argued that all commercially important species fall under the remit of the European Commission, who base their regulations on the scientific evidence generated by ICES, suggesting that an extra level of regulation and bureaucracy is in fact superfluous to needs.

3.19 Indeed two responses specifically stated concerns about how the evidence process for the PMFs was generated and requested more information on how this was achieved.

3.20 Three responses (two from aquaculture organisations and one from a local authority) commented on the fact that there should more consideration made for local issues and levels and that the PMFs were not necessarily relevant for all areas. As the relevant local authority stated:

"It is clear that the PMF list has been developed at a national level reflecting habitats and species of marine conservation importance across Scotland. However at a local level, from an Outer Hebrides perspective, many of the identified species, especially the mobile species which are also commercial fish stocks, represent stocks considered healthy and abundant relative to fishing activity."

3.21 Whilst two responses praised the inclusion of grey seals, three respondents argued that in fact they should not be added to the list on the basis that they are predatory and in fact represent in themselves a threat to other PMFs even though this was not a criterion for rejecting features from the list.

3.22 Two other species were given mention for removal by one respondent each - monkfish was mentioned by a local authority and one individual highlighted an inconsistency in that certain species of whales and dolphin listed have been identified as of 'least concern' by the International Union for Conservation of Nature ( IUCN) e.g. Phocoena phocoena.

Species requested for inclusion in the PMF list

3.23 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 - four from environment/conservation organisations and two from individuals. The most widely cited group requested for inclusion by three of the environment/ conservation organisations and one individual, was seabirds.

3.24 Seabirds were the group most commonly considered to be missing from the list of PMFs. 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. One environment/ conservation organisation argued the rationale for exclusion:

"We remain concerned that seabirds were excluded from the very beginning of the process and were never considered against the criteria, principally due to the range of protection initiatives already underway, including Special Protection Areas . This reasoning is inconsistent as there are other EU protected species that have European Marine Sites that are on the PMF list-bottlenose dolphins and both seal species, for example."

3.25 Another conservation organisation highlighted the risks of ignoring seabirds creating the risk of falling between two stools of regulation, stating that 'Omitting seabirds from the PMF list will disadvantage Scotland's important populations as seabirds may not benefit from protection either by area based mechanisms available under the Marine (Scotland) Act, or by wider seas measures'. The organisation continued to mention that of the 13 Scottish breeding seabird species, four were classified as rare and seven as in significant decline by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee's Nationally Important Marine Features.

3.26 One individual specified the need to include guillemots, razorbills, kittiwakes, fulmars, gannets and puffins. With respect to puffins, these were mentioned in the context of their iconic status and the affection for them from the general public. Another conservation organisation simply stated that the addition of all Natura 2000 species would be sufficient coverage.

3.27 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 - specifically blue whales and humpback whales. One of these organisations continued to say that seahorses should also be included, specifically the spiny seahorse and short snouted seahorse.

3.28 An individual argued that there is a need to add more chondrichthyes, stating that the Squantina squatina is on the IUCN list as 'critically endangered' and that the blue shark is 'near threatened'.

Concerns about implementation

3.29 Five of those who said 'no' to the first question on the consultation highlighted concerns about the implementation of PMFs. For two respondents there were concerns about how protection measures for commercially caught species would be implemented (one individual and one fisheries organisation). A conservation organisation wished to see more information on the level and extent of habitat and species protection generally as this was considered to be unclear. Similarly, a local authority wished for clarification on how Scottish Marine Area listing works in practice stating that "Clarification is needed over whether the species only occurs in the listed area, generally occurs in the listed area or is only a PMF in the listed area."

3.30 Finally another environment/conservation organisation expressed concerns regarding the distinction between features suitable for protection within nature conservation MPAs and those on the wider PMF list.

Habitats for Inclusion in the list of PMFs

3.31 Two environment/conservation organisations specified a need to add certain habitats to the list of PMFs, most notably related to Kelp. The suggested habitats were:

• Kelp with cushion fauna and/or foliose red seaweeds.
• Kelp and red seaweeds (moderate energy infralittoral rock).
• Sediment-affected or disturbed kelp and seaweed communities.

3.32 The reasons given by one conservation organisation for including these in the PMFs were as follows:

"… kelp on infralittoral rock is underrepresented on the recommended list. These habitats play an important role in coastal protection, supporting biological communities and carbon fixing. There is currently considerable interest and activity for commercial seaweed harvesting in Scotland which could place kelp communities at risk. Interactions with marine energy devices could also raise conservation concern."

Summary of indefinite responses

3.33 A fisheries organisation stated that they were unable to agree or disagree on the basis that the definition and purpose intended of 'targeting future marine conservation action' was unclear and lacked specificity. They were keen to see more information about how conservation would apply to mobile species and felt that some mobile species should be excluded from the list - in line with those already mentioned. They and one other fisheries organisation felt that advice from the ICES should be sought for the reasons previously mentioned.

3.34 An energy organisation commented that they doubted the PMF list generally was the most appropriate way of conserving future sites and that these should be identified on a case-by-case basis, based on scientific evidence available.

3.35 Another fisheries organisation also stated that they could not conclude whether the list was fully comprehensive or not and wished to see more information on the management measures. Similarly, they agreed with the local authority who disagreed with the question on the basis that more information at a local level needs to be considered.