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

5 Impact assessment (Q6 and 7)

5.1 The consultation paper was accompanied by a partial Business and Regulatory Impact Assessment (BRIA) and a draft Island Communities Impact Assessment (ICIA) screening report. Questions 6 and 7 in the consultation invited respondents to give their views on these documents, stating that any comments received would inform the development of final versions of each document.

Partial Business and Regulatory Impact Assessment (Q6)

5.2 The Scottish Government uses the BRIA process to analyse the cost and benefits to businesses and the third sector of any proposed legislation or regulation. The aim of the process is to use evidence to identify the proposal that best achieves the stated policy objectives while also minimising associated costs and burdens. The inclusion of a partial BRIA within a consultation is designed to encourage comment by those affected by the proposals.

5.3 The partial BRIA accompanying the consultation paper in this case outlined the policy objective of protecting the flapper skate population, and the benefits and estimated costs of two possible options: Option 1: do nothing; Option 2: creation of an MPA.

5.4 The partial BRIA argued that Option 1 was unlikely to achieve the policy objective and offered no other additional benefits. Furthermore, although no financial costs were identified, the possibility was raised of significant long-term and irreversible societal costs in terms of increased degradation of marine habitat and biodiversity.

5.5 With regard to Option 2, the partial BRIA stated that the creation of an MPA would help achieve the policy objective of protecting the flapper skate population while also offering broader benefits of contributing to an ecologically coherent MPA network, and protecting the biodiversity and ecosystems of Scotland's marine environment. The partial BRIA also included estimated costs for Option 2 for (i) the fishing industry (as a result of prohibited activities) and (ii) the public sector (in terms of future management of the MPA).

5.6 Question 6 in the consultation – an open question with no tick-box component – invited comments on the partial BRIA:

Question 6: Do you have any comments on the partial Business and Regulatory Impact Assessment (BRIA)? Please explain your answer in the text box below.

5.7 A total of 33 respondents – 16 organisations and 17 individuals – provided comments at Question 6. However, this included 9 respondents who simply stated that they had no comments to make. Those making fuller comments offered two broad perspectives as described below.

5.8 Some individual respondents offered broadly positive (and usually brief) comments. These respondents did not discuss the partial BRIA in any detail but made points (sometimes reflecting those made at earlier questions) of a more general nature, saying that:

• The costs of MPA designation and the proposed management measures would be minimal and outweighed by the potential benefits.
• MPA designation, and the introduction of management measures, was necessary because voluntary action to protect the environment 'has not worked'.
• The proposed Red Rocks and Longay MPA and / or the MPA network in general should be further expanded (in consultation with the local fishing communities).

5.9 In contrast, other respondents (both individuals and organisations) took a more critical stance in responding to this question. Within this group, environmental organisations and individuals argued that the management proposals put forward would have a disproportionate impact on the creel or static fishing industry (the partial BRIA did not differentiate between different types of fishing in the analysis presented), and reiterated points made at earlier questions that:

• The proposed restrictions on creel or static fishing were not supported by the evidence, and not in line with NatureScot's advice, and that the costs to local communities were therefore not justified.
• An integrated spatial approach to the management of Scotland's inshore waters was needed to protect the marine environment and support a just transition to low-impact fishing.

5.10 Additionally, respondents in this group offered the following more specific points in relation to the partial BRIA:

• Some environmental and fishing organisations thought that the document was insufficiently detailed given the size of the site under consideration. One respondent specifically called for greater clarity on the risks associated with the potential displacement of fishing activities to other areas, and suggested that temporary mitigation measures to support affected industries may be merited.
• Some environmental and fishing organisations, as well as individuals said that the requirement to consult with stakeholders as part of the BRIA process had not been met. There was a view that such consultation would have allowed the development of management measures that met the concerns of all parties. Some respondents said they were keen to work further with Marine Scotland and NatureScot on the protection of ecosystems, fish stocks and marine features.

Draft Island Communities Impact Assessment (ICIA) (Q7)

5.11 The Islands (Scotland) Act 2018 requires the Scottish Government (as a 'relevant authority') to have regard to the needs of island communities in carrying out their functions, and to undertake an Island Communities Impact Assessment (ICIA) of polices, strategies, etc., in doing so.

5.12 A draft ICIA screening report was issued alongside the consultation paper. This considered the impact of the creation of a permanent Red Rocks and Longay MPA on island communities, taking into account pre-consultation engagement with stakeholder groups (including those with an island focus) as well as available evidence and analysis (including that drawn on in preparing the partial BRIA). It identified the envisaged impacts on the fishing industry as being unique to the island communities of Skye and Raasay, but the scale of the impact was not anticipated as leading to significantly different outcomes compared to the mainland and other islands.

5.13 Question 7 in the consultation – an open question with no tick-box component – invited comments on the draft ICIA:

Question 7: Do you have any comments on the draft Island Communities Impact Assessment (ICIA) screening? Please explain your answer in the text box below.

5.14 A total of 24 respondents – 10 organisations and 14 individuals – commented at Question 7. However, this included 16 respondents who simply stated that they had no comments to make, with one respondent stating that they did not wish to comment as they were 'not from an island community'.

5.15 Of the remaining respondents, four (two environmental organisations and two individuals) made substantive comments about the content of the ICIA, offering the following views:

• Two organisations thought the ICIA had too great a focus on the negative impacts of MPA designation and called for greater consideration of the possible benefits of MPA status (in terms of eco-friendly tourism and recreational diving). They also thought the ICIA should consider cumulative impacts (both pressures and benefits), and be clearer about the risks (environmental as well as socio-economic) of the potential displacement of fishing activities for island communities.
• Two individual respondents focused on the assessment of the impact on the fishing industry. One thought that insufficient effort had been made to assess the impact on the local static gear sector, while the other was concerned that the ICIA may have underestimated the impact on the fishing industry if the analysis had not taken account of the fact that vessels from Skye log their catch at Kyle on the mainland.

5.16 The remaining respondents offered brief comments of a more general nature. These largely echoed points made at earlier questions, with respondents stating either (i) that MPA designation would bring positive benefits, including for island communities, and that these positive benefits outweighed any potential negative impacts, or (ii) that it was important for the management arrangements for the MPA to take account of the needs of the creel fishing sector.