Publication - Consultation responses

2014 Consultation on the management of inshore Special Areas of Conservation and Marine Protected Areas - Consultation analysis report

Published: 10 Jul 2015
Part of:
Marine and fisheries
ISBN:
9781785444890

2014 Consultation on the management of inshore Special Areas of Conservation and Marine Protected Areas - Consultation analysis report. Summary of the responses received relating to each site.

236 page PDF

11.9 MB

236 page PDF

11.9 MB

Contents
2014 Consultation on the management of inshore Special Areas of Conservation and Marine Protected Areas - Consultation analysis report
18. St Kilda SAC

236 page PDF

11.9 MB

18. St Kilda SAC

18.1. Introduction

18.1.1. St Kilda was designated as a SAC for its reefs and submerged sea caves as well as for its sea cliffs which support the largest seabird colony in the north-east Atlantic. St Kilda is also a UNESCO World heritage Site, Special Protection Area, Site of Specific Scientific Interest, and National Nature Reserve.

18.1.2. One management approach was presented which would prohibit the use of demersal trawls, mechanical dredge, or suction dredges (boat or diver operated) throughout the SAC.

18.2. We Asked

18.2.1. The consultation asked: 'Do you support the management approach for this protected area?

18.2.2. The consultation also asked 'Do you agree with the economic, social, and environmental assessments of the impact of the management approaches?'

18.3. You Said

18.3.1. Twenty-nine out of the 31 respondents who commented on this area agreed with the proposed management approach. One disagreed, without giving a reason for this view. Another, from the static fishing group, did not specify an answer but instead said that they support proportionate conservation measures. A full summary of the responses can be seen in Table 18.1.

Table 18.1: St Kilda SAC - Support for preferred management approach

Yes

No

Other comments

No reply

Individuals (133)

7

-

-

126

Environment / Conservation (17)

10

-

-

7

Inshore Fisheries Group ( IFG) (3)

1

-

-

2

Industry / Transport (6)

-

-

-

6

Mobile fishing (8)

4

-

-

4

Local authority (3)

1

-

-

2

Local group (7)

1

1

-

5

Recreation / Tourism (13)

2

-

-

11

Static fishing (4)

3

-

1

-

Other (2)

-

-

-

2

Total (196)

29

1

1

165

18.3.2. Fourteen of the 29 respondents who voiced support for the approach commented further. The main themes to emerge from these responses were:

  • Reiteration of support for the proposed approach for a variety of reasons including the protection of species and underwater scenery (10 respondents).
  • The need to monitor the impact of creel fishing (environment /conservation).
  • The need to monitor the impact of management and designation (environment /conservation).
  • A request for an immediate ban on set nets "to prevent the risk to diving seabirds breeding within the SPA" (environment /conservation).
  • That proposals do not go far enough (static fishing).

18.3.3. Eleven respondents said 'yes' that they agreed with the economic, social, and environmental assessments of the impact of the management approach; only one of these, an individual, commented further saying St Kilda showcases good management.

18.3.4. Six respondents, mainly from the environment /conservation group, said 'no'. The main reasons given for this view were that the assessments do not take into consideration the full range of benefits that may arise from the protection of the area. One example given was that of well-being.

18.3.5. One environment /conservation respondent wanted to see creeling brought under management measures to ensure no negative effects: "A pre-emptive cap could be placed on creel activity for the site, such as limiting activity to a certain number of creels to be set and only by licensed operator/s determined following an assessment of current activity."

18.3.6. A mobile fishing respondent commented that the environmental report was not available at the beginning of the consultation, as did two other respondents from this group who did not specify a yes /no answer. These respondents also questioned the relevance and completeness of the data provided.

18.3.7. An environment /conservation respondent, who did not give a yes /no answer, wanted to see the use of static gear monitored "to ensure that this practice is conducted sustainably and without causing damage to the reef structure or its typical species".

18.4. We Did

18.4.1. Please see broad issues section regarding creel fishing.

18.4.2. The Scottish Government welcomes the broad support for the proposed measures. We have also accepted the suggestion to prohibit the use of set nets to protect the seabird colony populations.

18.4.3. We intend to implement the following measures for St Kilda SAC by an Order under the Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Act 1984;

  • To prohibit the use of the following fishing methods - suction dredge, mechanical dredge, beam trawl, demersal trawl, and set nets - throughout the SAC.

18.4.4. The measures and their ecological value are shown in appendix 18.


Contact