Proposal to designate Red Rocks and Longay as a Marine Protected Area: consultation analysis

4 Conservation and management advice and proposed prohibited activities (Q4 and 5)

4.1 This chapter presents an analysis of the responses to Questions 4 and 5. These questions sought views on (i) the conservation and management advice prepared by NatureScot in relation to the proposed permanent MPA (Question 4), and (ii) the list of prohibited activities proposed by Marine Scotland in response to that advice (Question 5). Each of these questions is addressed below, while a final section to the chapter addresses more general views raised in response to both questions.

Conservation and management advice (Q4)

4.2 The consultation paper drew attention to the Conservation and Management Advice document (CMA) produced by NatureScot for the Red Rocks and Longay MPA. This considered the proposed protected features and conservation objectives for the MPA, the activities that could affect the condition of those features, and the management measures that might be put in place to protect these.

4.3 Question 4 – an open question with no tick-box component – asked respondents for any comments on this advice:

Question 4: Do you have any comments on the Conservation and Management Advice (CMA) for the Red Rocks & Longay Marine Protected Area (MPA)? Please explain your answer in the text box below.

4.4 A total of 43 respondents – 17 organisations and 26 individuals – provided comments at Question 4. The sections below present the views of organisations first, followed by the views of individuals.

Views of organisations

4.5 As stated in Chapter 3 (in relation to Question 1), all the organisations responding to the consultation supported the permanent designation of Red Rocks and Longay as an MPA. Those commenting at Question 4 often provided a mix of positive and negative comments on the advice from NatureScot on the creation of the site, expressing support for some aspects of the advice and concern about other aspects. The sections below present the views of environmental organisations first, before presenting the views of fishing organisations.

4.6 Environmental organisations commented on specific aspects of the advice as well as offering more general comments on the approach taken to developing advice on MPAs. Comments on specific aspects of the advice focused on the following:

• Conservation objectives: Some respondents suggested that a conservation objective of 'recover' (rather than 'conserve') for flapper skate eggs and their egg-laying habitat might be justified, given the critically endangered status of the species in the north-east Atlantic.
• Fishing: There was a range of comments from environmental organisations on different fishing activities, as follows:
  • Mobile gear (trawling and dredging): Respondents supported the recommendation to exclude bottom-contacting trawling and dredging in the MPA, but thought this should also apply to the surrounding Southern Inner Sound area on a year-round basis because of the 18-month gestation period for flapper skate eggs. It was noted that this would protect flapper skate and their habitat. In addition, there were calls from environmental organisations for restrictions to cover pelagic fishing (i.e. fishing above the seabed). Respondents argued that flapper skate have been seen at the surface of the sea so a ban on all mobile fishing at all depths was needed to protect them.
  • Static gear (including creeling): Respondents supported the distinction made between different types of static gear in the CMA, noting that NatureScot had recommended the removal or avoidance of 'fishing with long-lines, drift nets and nets set on the seabed (tangle, trammel, gill)', while stating that 'management measures to reduce or limit the intensity of creel fishing within flapper skate egg-laying habitat should be considered'. However, there was a common view that the management measures proposed by Marine Scotland did not reflect the advice with respect to creel fishing (see Question 5). There was also a call for consideration of the introduction of buffer zones for displaced lower impact fishing activities.
  • Aquaculture: Respondents expressed concern about the possible impact on water quality from fish farming activities in the area surrounding the MPA (particularly if such activities were to increase) and called for future monitoring of this issue.
• Diving: Those commenting on diving were generally supportive of the advice given (i.e. that it was classed as an activity unlikely to affect the proposed protected features). However, there was one call for a more regulated approach to this activity, including the development of best practice resources and mandatory training for recreational and commercial divers, a permit system and partnership working with diving schools.
• Military planned exercises: It was suggested (by one organisation) that the noise associated with bi-annual military exercises in the vicinity of the MPA should be covered by the MPA management plan, and that further research should be undertaken on the impact of noise on flapper skate to address current evidence gaps on this issue.

4.7 More generally respondents often wished to see a (i) a precautionary approach taken towards the development of advice and management recommendations, particularly in the light of the evidence gaps in relation to flapper skate lifecycles and behaviours and the potential impact of different activities, (ii) an approach that sought to protect flapper skate at all stages of their lifecycle within and beyond the boundaries of the proposed MPA, and / or (iii) a wider integrated spatial and ecosystem based approach to marine management, and a 'zoned approach to inshore fisheries management, with mobile-gear zones, static-gear zones and no-take zones' which took account of conservation needs and fisheries interests.

4.8 The fishing organisations that commented specifically on the conservation and management advice were content with the recommended restrictions on mobile fishing activities, but wished to see diving (recreational and commercial) similarly restricted in the MPA on the grounds that it posed a risk (albeit low) to flapper skate eggs. These organisations called for a risk-based approach to the development of advice and management measures that took account of the likelihood of an activity taking place in a protected area as well as the likely impact on protected features.

4.9 Additionally, one fishing organisation (representing the static fishing sector) raised the same point as that raised by environmental organisations in arguing that Marine Scotland had not followed the advice provided by NatureScot with respect to fishing activities (creel fishing, trawling, and dredge fishing in particular) in developing the management measures for the MPA. This issue is discussed further at Question 5.

Views of individuals

4.10 The individuals who answered Question 4 generally made brief comments with a range of different viewpoints expressed. Most commonly, individuals offered one of two positions, and either:

• Endorsed the management and conservation advice, describing it as, for example, 'well thought through and effective' and 'appropriately detailed and covering relevant activities', or
• Echoed the points raised by organisations – e.g. calling for a year-round ban on dredging and trawling in the area surrounding the MPA to protect adult and juvenile flapper skate entering or leaving the area; and expressing concern that NatureScot's advice on fishing activities had not been followed.

4.11 The remaining small group of individuals offered two contrasting views:

• One respondent proposed that activities in the MPA should be restricted solely to those with a scientific purpose in order to protect the flapper skate nursery.
• Two individuals queried the classification of the flapper skate population as endangered or the justification for the creation of the proposed MPA.

4.12 Finally, some individuals who commented at Question 4 did not address the specific aspects of the advice for the proposed site. Rather, they indicated their general support for marine protection, and the use of MPAs to achieve this, and / or called for more robust management of designated areas, and a more ambitious and proactive approach to this issue.

Prohibited activities (Q5)

4.13 A draft MCO published on the Scottish Governments consultation hub was issued alongside the consultation paper which set out the management measures proposed for the Red Rocks and Longay permanent MPA by the Scottish Government. The measures included the prohibition of the following main activities:

• Fishing – dredging
• Fishing – creels
• Fishing – demersal trawling or seine
• Fishing – gill / trammel nets
• Recreational sea angling
• Marine deposit sites / waste disposal
• Aquaculture
• Marine infrastructure
• Anchoring

4.14 A full list of proposed prohibited activities was included in the draft MCO.

4.15 The consultation paper highlighted the inclusion of creel fishing in the list of prohibited activities. NatureScot had advised consideration of limiting or reducing creeling. However, in the absence of advice on what would constitute an acceptable level of creel fishing, the draft MCO proposed prohibition.

4.16 The consultation paper also highlighted the omission of diving (recreational and commercial) from the list of proposed prohibited activities. Diving is prohibited under the urgent MCO currently in place, but NatureScot have advised that this activity is unlikely to have a significant effect on the protected features. However, diving for scientific survey purposes will, under the provisions of the currently proposed MCO, require a permit.

4.17 Question 5 asked respondents if they agreed with the list of prohibited activities included in the draft MCO:

Question 5: Do you agree with the list of prohibited activities included in the draft Marine Conservation Order (MCO) which may impact flapper skate eggs? [Yes / No / Undecided / Don't know] Please explain your answer in the text box below.

4.18 A total of 58 respondents answered Question 5. Table 4.1 shows that, overall, the majority of respondents (38 out of 58) agreed with the list of prohibited activities included in the draft MCO. However, there was a clear difference in the views of organisations and individuals. Two-thirds of organisations (10 out of 15) disagreed with the list of prohibited activities; this included each of the three fishing organisations (two representing the mobile fishing industry and one representing the static fishing industry) that answered this question. In contrast, four-fifths of individuals (34 out of 43) agreed with the list of prohibited activities.

4.19 Altogether, 44 respondents – 17 organisations and 27 individuals – made comments at Question 5. This included two respondents who did not answer the closed part of the question. The sections below present the views of those who expressed general support for the list of prohibited activities and those who expressed concerns about activities included in, or excluded from, the list of prohibited activities. A final section summarises other related comments made by respondents at this question.

Views of those expressing general support for the list of prohibited activities

4.20 Around a quarter of those who commented at Question 5 (all of whom had ticked 'yes' at the closed part of the question) expressed their general support for the list of prohibited activities. This group of respondents was largely made up of individuals who made relatively brief comments stating, for example, that they 'fully support' or 'strongly approve' of the proposed list, or describing the measures as 'essential' or 'appropriate' to protect the flapper skate eggs and nursery habitat. Organisational respondents who expressed broad support for the list of prohibited items generally also went on to call for (i) an integrated spatial approach to marine management, informed by further research that took account of conservation priorities and fishing interests, and / or (ii) effective enforcement of MPA management measures, and monitoring of the impact of the measures. Some individuals also noted the importance of enforcement and monitoring.

Views of those expressing concerns about the list of prohibited activities

4.21 The remainder of the respondents who commented at Question 5 expressed concerns about the list of prohibited activities. This group was largely made up of those who selected 'no' or 'undecided' at the closed question but also included some who had answered 'yes' but went on to qualify their overall response by expressing concerns about one or more of the specific activities included on (or excluded from) the list.

4.22 With the exception of the occasional call from individual respondents for all activities to be banned, the concerns expressed by respondents largely focused on two specific activities – fishing and diving – each of which is addressed below.

Fishing

4.23 Respondents addressed several different types of fishing in their comments: creel fishing, mobile trawl and dredge fishing on the seabed, and, occasionally, angling.

4.24 The inclusion of creel fishing on the list of prohibited activities was the issue that attracted most comment. Respondents of all types frequently stated that this prohibition was not justified by the scientific evidence and did not reflect the advice from NatureScot that management measures to reduce or limit the intensity of this type of fishing should 'be considered'.

4.25 Respondents (including both environmental and fishing organisations) generally argued that this form of fishing was low impact, and could be carried out safely in the designated area. Its inclusion on the list of prohibited activities was therefore seen as 'not proportionate', and potentially deterring the uptake of low-impact fishing methods. Respondents suggested a compromise position could be agreed in consultation with stakeholders. This might involve, for example, allowing creeling (for Nephrops) below a certain depth, on muddy ground and using lighter creels. It was argued that limited creeling activity of this type would ensure that creeling took place away from the flapper skate egg nurseries and did not interfere with the flapper skate eggs or their habitat. One environmental organisation took a slightly more cautious view and said their support for allowing creeling would depend on whether it could be demonstrated that such small-scale limited operations could be carried out safely.

4.26 Some respondents noted the importance of creel fishing to the economy of coastal communities in the area. It was also noted that the creel fishing community had been instrumental in bringing the flapper skate nursery to the attention of the authorities and were committed to protecting the species and its habitat.

4.27 One static fishing organisation provided a detailed submission setting out the case for allowing creeling under limited conditions. This organisation also highlighted the practical implications of adhering to and enforcing a ban on creeling within a fixed area given that marker buoys were subject to significant drift on the surface of the sea.

4.28 However, there was an alternative view – articulated by one environmental organisation – that it was right to take a precautionary approach in prohibiting creeling, given the lack of evidence on safe levels of activity and the importance of the conservation objectives of the proposed MPA.

4.29 The inclusion of mobile trawl and dredge fishing on the seabed on the list of prohibited activities also attracted comment. There was broad support among respondents for prohibition of this activity in the MPA because of the risk to the flapper skate eggs and their habitat. However, some argued that this form of fishing should also be prohibited all year in the Inner Sound area surrounding the MPA in order to protect juvenile and adult flapper skate entering and leaving the protected area (an exclusion zone of 10 nautical miles was also suggested). Such a step was seen as being in line with the advice from NatureScot 'to consider activities that take place within or outside the possible MPA that could potentially kill or injure flapper skate in the possible MPA' and consistent with a precautionary approach to establishing protective measures. Such views were generally expressed by environmental organisations and individuals, but one fishing organisation (representing the static sector) also raised the issue of the need for protection from trawl and dredge activities outwith the designated MPA and said that this would be in line with the precautionary approach taken with regard to creel fishing.

4.30 There was also a call (from one individual) to extend the prohibition on mobile fishing to include pelagic fishing (i.e. fishing above the sea bed). This echoed the point made by other respondents in response to Question 4 (see paragraph 4.6).

4.31 Finally, a few respondents commented on the proposed prohibition of angling in the MPA. These respondents offered two contrasting views: while some thought this ban was appropriate there was an alternative view that this was a low-risk activity and could even have a positive impact if any flapper skate caught by anglers were tagged and returned.

Diving

4.32 The exclusion of diving from the list of prohibited activities attracted a mix of comments. Most of the respondents commenting on this issue were content with the proposal to allow recreational and commercial diving which they saw as a low-impact, low-risk activity. However, some respondents called for a stricter approach to be taken – with diving either prohibited completely in the MPA or only allowed with greater regulation.

4.33 Respondents cited concerns about the possible effect of human presence in the area on adult flapper skate and about possible interference with flapper skate eggs (some referred to social media evidence of divers handling flapper skate eggs). Some respondents (fishing organisations in particular) argued that a ban on diving was justified within a risk-based approach to management which took account of the likelihood of activity taking place in the protected area as well as its likely impact. It was also argued that a ban would have no financial impact on those affected.

General comments relevant to advice and management measures

4.34 Respondents of all types also offered more general comments related to the development of advice and management measures. These comments were made by respondents at both Question 4 and Question 5 who said:

• Further research and continued monitoring should be undertaken (with some saying it was important that this was done through the official 'institutionalised framework') in relation to issues such as: the lifecycle of flapper skate and the behaviour of juvenile and adult flapper skate; the presence of other flapper skate nurseries in other areas; the presence of other marine features in need of protection; the impact of different activities, including those displaced as a result of management measures; and the impact of MPA status and related management measures, including in relation to cumulative impacts and impacts in the wider sea area.
• More consultation was needed to allow the views of all stakeholders to influence the development of measures acceptable to all parties – some argued that a perceived lack of consultation in developing the current proposals contravened the requirements of the BRIA process (see Question 6).
• Effective monitoring and enforcement of any MPA management measures should be put in place.