Highly Protected Marine Areas (HPMAs): consultation analysis - final report

7 Impacts (Q12–Q18)

Summary of key points:

• Support for the accuracy and fairness of the various impact assessments undertaken in relation to the introduction of HPMAs ranged from 9% (for the partial Business and Regulatory Impact Assessment) to 16% (for the partial Island Communities Impact Assessment screening report).
• Some respondents were content with the impact assessments that had been presented but recognised that there was further work to be done. However, a large majority of respondents – including individuals, and organisations of all kinds – were critical of the impact assessments.
• Criticisms of the individual impacts assessments were that they had omitted or given inadequate coverage to important issues; were vague or lacking in detail; underestimated the negative impacts of HPMAs; had not been developed in consultation with coastal and island communities; and were not relevant, given that individuals sites had not yet been selected.
• Respondents identified a wide range of possible impacts from HPMAs, including issues related to employment, prosperity, depopulation, infrastructure, mental health and wellbeing, cultural heritage and communities’ relationship with the seas, and community cohesion. These impacts were often described as potentially ‘devastating’.

7.1 The consultation paper was accompanied by a set of impact reports: a strategic environmental report and socio-economic impact assessment, both summarised within the sustainability appraisal; a partial Business and Regulatory Impact Assessment (BRIA); and a draft Island Communities Impact Assessment (ICIA) screening report. Questions 12 to 18 asked for respondents’ views on these reports and invited further comments on the potential impacts of the HPMA proposals.

Question 12: What is your view of the Strategic Environmental Report, summarised within sections 3 and 4 of the Sustainability Appraisal, as an accurate representation of the potential impacts, issues and considerations raised by the introduction of the draft Policy Framework and Site Selection Guidelines? [Strongly support / Support / Neutral / Oppose / Strongly oppose] Please explain your answer in the text box.

Question 13: What is your view of the Socio-Economic Impact Assessment, summarised within sections 3 and 4 of the Sustainability Appraisal, as an accurate representation of the potential impacts, issues and considerations raised by the introduction of the draft Policy Framework and Site Selection Guidelines? [Strongly support / Support / Neutral / Oppose / Strongly oppose] Please explain your answer in the text box.

Question 14: What is your view of the partial ICIA screening report as an accurate representation of potential impacts, raised by the implementation of the draft Policy Framework and Site Selection Guidelines? [Strongly support / Support / Neutral / Oppose / Strongly oppose] Please explain your answer in the text box.

Question 15: Do you think that the implementation of the draft Policy Framework and Site Selection Guidelines will have any significantly differential impacts – positive and/or negative - on island communities? [Yes / No / Not sure] Please explain your answer in the text box, including any additional impacts that have not been identified in the partial ICIA screening report.

Question 16: What is your view of the partial BRIA as an accurate representation of the potential impacts, issues and considerations raised by the implementation of the draft Policy Framework and Site Selection Guidelines? [Strongly support / Support / Neutral / Oppose / Strongly oppose] Please explain your answer in the text box.

Question 17: Do you think that the implementation of the draft Policy Framework and Site Selection Guidelines will have any financial, regulatory or resource impacts – positive and/or negative – for you and/or your business? [Yes / No / Not sure]

Question 18: If you answered “yes” to the previous question, please specify which of the proposals/actions you refer to and why you believe this would result in financial, regulatory or resource impacts for your business.

7.2 This chapter looks at respondents’ views on each question in turn. The following points should be noted about the analysis presented in this chapter:

• There was a great deal of overlap in the comments offered at each question – as far as possible, points are noted at the most appropriate question and are not covered in detail at multiple questions.
• Across this set of questions, comments suggested that some of those who selected ‘oppose’ did so because they were opposed to the introduction of HPMAs in general, rather than because they were specifically opposed to particular statements made in the various impact reports. Therefore, caution should be taken in interpreting the responses to the closed questions.
• Across this set of questions, comments suggested that respondents did not always (or even often) make clear distinctions between the four individual reports described above, or acknowledge the caveats which had been provided about the provisional nature of (much of) the impact assessments.
• By and large, the points made by those who selected ‘neutral’ at the closed questions in this section were not substantively different to the points made by those who selected ‘support’ or ‘oppose’; thus their views are not presented separately.

Strategic Environmental Report (Q12)

7.3 The Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005 requires that certain public plans, programmes and strategies be assessed for their potential effects on the environment. Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) is the process used to fulfil this requirement. An SEA identifies the likely environmental impacts of proposed plans and policies and reasonable alternatives; the mitigation measures that could avoid or minimise any significant adverse effects; and opportunities for enhancements of beneficial effects.

7.4 The HPMA SEA report set out a baseline, describing the character of the environments which may be affected by the designation of HPMA status, and provided an assessment of the likely impact of the introduction of HPMAs on that environment. It also considered the environmental effect of a ’reasonable alternative’ – in this case, the introduction of a more stringent alternative environmental management system.

7.5 Overall, the SEA concluded that the environmental benefits of increased protection that will result from the designation of HPMAs would be greater or at least balanced by the expected adverse impacts – identified in the SEA as those associated with displacement of fishing and longer cable or pipeline routes.

7.6 As the location of HPMAs have not yet been identified, the initial SEA undertaken involved preliminary consideration of the type of impacts that could arise from the designation of HPMA status. Once sites have been selected and proposed for designation, site-specific SEAs involving spatial analysis of specific potential sites and a more detailed assessment of the scale of potential environmental effects will be undertaken.

7.7 Question 12 invited comments on the SEA report produced in relation to HPMAs. The question asked respondents to consider the accuracy of the report’s representation of the potential impacts, issues and considerations raised by the introduction of the draft policy framework and site selection guidelines.

7.8 Table 7.1 below and Table A1.36 in Annex 1 show the following main points based on the substantive responses:

• Overall, around one in seven respondents (15%) said they supported the SEA (5% expressed strong support), while around two-thirds (68%) opposed it (60% expressed strong opposition). One in six respondents (17%) selected ‘neutral’.
• Organisations (20%) were more likely than individuals (14%) to express support for the SEA; conversely, organisations (51%) were less likely than individuals (70%) to express opposition.
• Among organisations, environmental organisations (55%) were the only group to express majority support for the SEA, with the remainder of this group (45%) selecting ‘neutral’. Levels of opposition were highest among fishing organisations (94%) and fish selling and processing organisations (67%). A majority of aquaculture organisations (58%) were also opposed, with most others in this group (33%) selecting ‘neutral’. Other organisational groups expressed mixed views.

Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

The table combines those who selected ‘strongly support’ OR ‘support’ into a single category (Support). It also combines those who selected ‘strongly oppose’ OR ‘oppose’ into a single category (Oppose). See Table A1.36 in Annex 1 for a full breakdown of the responses using the 5 original response categories.

7.9 A small number of respondents used their comments at Question 12 to affirm their agreement that the SEA provided an accurate (and fair) representation of the potential impacts, issues and considerations relating to the designation of HPMAs. These comments were sometimes accompanied by a caveat such as ‘seems fine at this stage’ or ‘the SEA needs to be seen alongside the social and economic impacts’.

7.10 More commonly, however, respondents set out the reasons why they did not think (some aspect of) the SEA was accurate or fair. In some cases, respondents made clear they supported the proposal to designate HPMAs, but they queried some aspect(s) of the SEA. However, in most cases respondents opposed the designation of HPMAs and also offered critical comments in relation to the SEA.

7.11 Both groups of respondents (i.e. both those who supported HPMAs and those who opposed them) stated three main criticisms of the SEA as follows:

• The SEA serves no useful purpose, given that HPMA sites have not yet been selected: Respondents making this point questioned the legitimacy of producing a SEA in advance of specific HPMAs being identified or designated. They argued that the location of any sites would need to be known before an assessment of the environmental impact of the HPMA(s) could be made.
• Important issues have been omitted or given inadequate coverage in the SEA: It was suggested these omissions were – at least in part – due to the lack of early engagement or consultation with relevant stakeholders; it was thought that comprehensive engagement with stakeholders would have allowed a wider range of (potential) impacts to be identified. The areas mentioned as not receiving sufficient focus in the SEA were wide-ranging – and included not only environmental impacts, but also wider impacts. (The wider impacts are discussed below at Questions 13, 14 and 16 as appropriate.) Comments made specifically in relation to their environmental impacts included: (i) environmental impacts of relocating businesses and the possibility of displacement, (ii) the requirement for a wide, comprehensive and coherent environmental management plan (which would set out, amongst other things, how HPMAs fit with the existing network of MPAs), (iii) cumulative impacts, (iv) the identification of other ‘reasonable alternatives’, and (v) food security. This last aspect was specifically mentioned by the Shetland postal campaign which said that ‘I would prefer that any government effort to protect the environment should aim to be compatible with the production of [this] low-carbon and nutritious protein [i.e. fish] rather than threaten its existence’.
• The SEA should not be seen in isolation and needs to be considered alongside an examination of the social and economic impacts of HPMAs: Both individual and organisational respondents – particularly those from the fishing and aquaculture sector – argued that wider considerations relating to social and economic impacts were equally (if not more) important than environmental considerations.

7.12 In addition, it was common for respondents who were opposed to the introduction of HPMAs to argue that the SEA in its entirety was based on unsubstantiated assumptions and generalisations, and that it lacked scientific credibility or justification. These respondents argued that: (i) the SEA had not provided any baseline from which to measure progress or change, (ii) ‘no quantification’ had been offered of the environmental impacts identified, (iii) the term ‘damage’ had not been defined, quantified or measured, (iv) the ‘potential’ or ‘possible’ effects discussed in the SEA, and the benefits that ‘might’ or ‘could’ be achieved were all speculative, and (v) it was not possible to measure the environmental impacts of ‘displacement’ of prohibited activities or the ‘spill-over’ benefits of HPMAs (i.e. the impact of HPMAs on non-HPMA areas), especially given the lack of evidence in relation to direct benefits of HPMAs.

7.13 Some respondents, particularly those associated with the aquaculture sector, provided examples and evidence where their own experience or knowledge conflicted with that described in the SEA. For example, some respondents described local initiatives involving ‘blanket bans’ which they said had not increased biodiversity. In addition, some of these respondents said that since no negative environmental impacts of shellfish aquaculture had been identified in the SEA, it was not clear why this activity would be prohibited within an HPMA.

7.14 Finally, a broad range of respondents – both individuals and organisations – wished the methodology for assessing environmental impacts to be described more clearly and to be applied more transparently.

Socio-Economic Impact Assessment (Q13)

7.15 A socio-economic impact assessment (SEIA) aims to identify and assess the potential social and economic effects (positive and negative) of a proposed development or policy on the lives and circumstances of people and their communities.

7.16 In the case of HPMAs, the SEIA process sought to estimate the effects of the designation and management of HPMAs both at site level and for a suite of HPMAs as a whole in terms of:

• Potential economic impacts to marine activities
• Potential social impacts
• Potential impacts on the public sector
• Potential environmental impacts (costs and benefits, including social benefits through ecosystem services).

7.17 As the locations of individual HPMAs have not yet been identified, the initial SEIA undertaken involved a preliminary consideration of issues and a scoping of the type of impacts that could arise from future designation of HPMA status. Thus, the report issued for consultation presented the results of this initial scoping work and set out a methodology for assessing the social and economic impacts once individual sites have been identified.

7.18 Question 13 asked for views on the SEIA report.

7.19 Table 7.2 and Table A1.37 in Annex 1 show the following main points based on the substantive responses:

• Overall, around one in eight respondents (12%) expressed support for the SEIA report (4% expressed strong support), while around three-quarters (74%) expressed opposition (65% expressed strong opposition). Around one in seven respondents (14%) selected ‘neutral’.
• Organisations (16%) were more likely than individuals (11%) to express support for the SEIA report conversely, organisations (63%) were less likely than individuals (75%) to express opposition.
• None of the organisational groups expressed majority support for the SEIA report. Environmental organisations (40%) expressed the highest level of support. Levels of opposition were highest among fishing organisations (97%), fish selling and processing organisations (83%), aquaculture organisations (71%) and community organisations (70%). Around half of public sector bodies (55%), recreation, tourism and culture organisations (48%), and organisations in the ‘other organisation types’ category (54%) expressed opposition, with the remainder more likely to select ‘neutral’ than ‘support’.

Note: In addition, 1 respondent who submitted a response by email answered 'Neutral / Opposed' in response to this question. This response is not included in the table.

Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

The table combines those who selected ‘strongly support’ OR ‘support’ into a single category (Support). It also combines those who selected ‘strongly oppose’ OR ‘oppose’ into a single category (Oppose). See Table A1.37 in Annex 1 for a full breakdown of the responses using the 5 original response categories.

7.20 A small number of respondents (including a substantial number of environmental organisations) affirmed their agreement that the SEIA provided an accurate (and fair) representation of potential impacts, issues and considerations related to the designation of HPMAs. These respondents thought HPMA designation would bring a range of benefits – environmental, economic and social. Their comments emphasised the importance of taking a long-term view in weighing up the benefits against any short-term costs.

7.21 More often, however, respondents set out reasons why they did not think (some aspect of) the SEIA, or, indeed, the methodological approach as a whole, was accurate or fair.

7.22 In some cases, respondents made clear they supported the proposal to designate HPMAs, but they queried some aspect(s) of the SEIA. More commonly, however, respondents opposed the designation of HPMAs and also offered critical comments in relation to the SEIA.

7.23 In addition, a wide range of respondents described (sometimes in considerable detail) the social and economic impacts they thought would arise if HPMAs were to be designated. This group of respondents were opposed to HPMAs, and they described the negative and adverse impacts which they believed would follow from the designation of HPMAs. These comments were made by many concerned individuals who described their situation living in coastal or island communities, as well as by individuals and organisations involved with fishing and aquaculture, recreation, tourism and culture, and community organisations. Similar comments were also made via the Shetland postal campaign which said that HPMAs are the single greatest threat to many of Scotland’s rural and island communities, who rely on the socio-economic benefits brought by local fishing and agriculture industries.

7.24 The comments made by these respondents discussed the potential impacts both on their own communities, and on island, coastal, and remote communities across Scotland more generally.

7.25 The negative impacts identified were wide-ranging and related to employment, prosperity, depopulation, infrastructure, mental health and wellbeing, cultural heritage and communities’ relationship with the seas, and community cohesion. Respondents’ comments highlighted the fragility of coastal communities, and the negative ‘snowballing’ effects which could follow from the loss of a few local jobs. These respondents thought the SEIA had failed to understand the magnitude of the potential adverse impacts on communities.

7.26 Some of the respondents who highlighted these negative impacts went on to argue that the positive impacts set out in the SEIA (arising, for example, from an increase in marine tourism / eco-tourism) had been overstated.

7.27 As far as general comments on the SEIA were concerned, the main points made were that:

• It was not possible to comment on the SEIA given that the location of HPMA sites had not been identified. However, it was also noted that the uncertainty regarding site locations was causing alarm and distress in communities and was (already) acting as a deterrent to investment.
• The methodology only identifies impacts at a national / area level. Respondents argued that it was the community-level impacts which were key.
• The lack of prior stakeholder engagement had undermined the scope and coverage of the SEIA.
• There was no proper (scientific) basis for the assumptions made throughout the SEIA that the designation of HPMAs might bring environmental, economic, and social benefits. Moreover, these respondents argued that the future (potential) benefits were simply theoretical; by contrast, they saw the costs (in terms of the adverse impacts described above) as inescapable.

7.28 A wide range of detailed points in relation to the SEIA were raised. These covered (i) issues respondents thought were missing or given inadequate consideration and (ii) specific assumptions or assessments which respondents disagreed with.

7.29 Examples of issues that respondents thought were missing, or given inadequate consideration included: impacts on shipping; viability of harbours; food and energy security; aquaculture; future investment; ‘stranded’ assets; compensation; language and cultural practices – including the impact on the Gaelic language which depends for its viability on the economic survival of (fishing) communities especially on the west coast and the Western Isles; discharge of waste material and ballast water; costs of communication associated with designation of HPMAs; and space ports.

7.30 In addition, it was thought that the SEIA had not properly or fully acknowledged the scale of the contribution made by the fishing industry to the Scottish economy.

7.31 Examples of specific assumptions or assessments which respondents disagreed with included: the costs for additional licensing (the aquaculture sector said these costs had been vastly underestimated), the costs of relocating businesses (fishing and aquaculture sectors in particular mentioned this), the opportunity costs associated with designating HPMAs where development consents are in place (e.g. in relation to renewable energy projects and offshore windfarms), and the timescale over which benefits would be achieved.

7.32 Finally, a small number of respondents discussed the SEIA specifically in relation to the existing MPA network. Two main points were made. First, it was suggested that the MPA SEIA guidance (issued in October 2022) provided a model for how the HPMA SEIA should be undertaken. Second, it was suggested that MPAs had failed to deliver benefits, and that an evaluation of the existing MPA network was required before proceeding with HPMAs.

Island Community Impact Assessment (ICIA) (Q14 and Q15)

7.33 The Islands (Scotland) Act 2018 requires the Scottish Government (as a ‘relevant authority’) to undertake an Island Communities Impact Assessment (ICIA) when developing new policies, strategies, or initiatives that are likely to have an effect on an island community that is significantly different from its effect on other communities in Scotland.

7.34 The Scottish Government’s ICIA guidance sets out a four-stage screening process that should be followed prior to preparing an ICIA. This involves:

• Developing a clear understanding of the objectives and intended outcomes of the policy, strategy or service including any island needs or impacts
• Gathering data, identifying evidence gaps and identifying stakeholders
• Consulting with appropriate stakeholders
• Assessing whether there are any issues resulting from the proposed policy that are significantly different from those that would be experienced on the mainland, or on other islands.

7.35 If any significantly different impacts are identified, a full ICIA should be carried out.

7.36 The work undertaken in relation to HPMAs addressed the first two stages of the ICIA screening process. The partial screening report identified potential differential impacts related to the fishing industry and eco-tourism, and identified data sources that could be used in carrying out full assessments for individual sites. The partial screening took a general approach; a full screening exercise and, where necessary, a full ICIA will be undertaken for individual sites once these have been identified.

7.37 Question 14 asked for views on the partial screening report issued for consultation. Table 7.3 and Table A1.38 in Annex 1 show the following main points based on the substantive responses:

• Overall, around one in six respondents (16%) expressed support for the partial ICIA screening report (8% expressed strong support), while almost three-quarters of respondents (72%) expressed opposition (65% expressed strong opposition). Around one in eight (12%) said they were neutral in their views.
• Levels for support for the partial ICIA screening report were similar for both organisations (15%) and individuals (16%). However, organisations (65%) were less likely than individuals (73%) to express opposition to the report.
• No organisational group expressed majority support for the partial ICIA screening report. Most environmental organisations (75%) expressed neutral views. Levels of opposition were highest among fishing organisations (91%), community organisations (81%), fish selling and processing organisations (80%) and aquaculture organisations (74%). Other organisational groups had mixed views but were, on balance, opposed.

Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

The table combines those who selected ‘strongly support’ OR ‘support’ into a single category (Support). It also combines those who selected ‘strongly oppose’ OR ‘oppose’ into a single category (Oppose). See Table A1.38 in Annex 1 for a full breakdown of the responses using the 5 original response categories.

7.38 A small number of respondents affirmed their agreement that the partial ICIA screening report (referred to hereafter as ‘the partial ICIA’) provided an accurate (and fair) representation of potential impacts, issues and considerations related to the designation of HPMAs. These respondents thought the designation of HPMAs would bring a range of benefits – environmental, economic and social to island communities. However, some of these respondents also emphasised that (i) community involvement / co-development with communities would be key if HPMAs were to realise their full potential in relation to conservation and the local economy, and (ii) affected communities and businesses should be supported through the transition process (both financially, and in other ways). This was referred to as ‘just transition’.

7.39 More commonly, however, a wide range of individuals (particularly those living in island and coastal communities and those associated with fishing, aquaculture and tourism) as well as organisational respondents from all sectors set out the reasons why they did not think (some aspect of) the partial ICIA was satisfactory. The main reasons they gave for their dissatisfaction were as follows:

• The stakeholder engagement which had taken place prior to introducing the partial ICIA was inadequate.
• The partial ICIA did not contain sufficient detail or substance in relation to its assessment of potential impacts.
• The partial ICIA had not fully acknowledged the wide range of contributions – economic, social and environmental – made by existing marine-based activities and industries to their communities, and to Scottish life more generally. The partial ICIA had also greatly underestimated the negative impacts on communities of the current proposals for designating HPMAs.

7.40 Each of these is discussed further below.

7.41 Some respondents explicitly recognised that the partial ICIA was at an early stage and accepted that stakeholder engagement had therefore, been necessarily limited. In addition, a small number of respondents said it was too early to provide feedback on the partial ICIA, but that they would give their comments once the proposals were further developed.

7.42 However, more commonly respondents were critical of the stakeholder engagement which had been undertaken so far. The main points made by this latter group of respondents were as follows:

• The plans for stakeholder engagement listed in section 7 of the partial ICIA have not been adhered to – respondents thought that much more stakeholder engagement needed to be done in advance of any site selection.
• The stakeholder engagement to date has been neither transparent nor inclusive – Scottish Government and NatureScot have simply laid out their intentions and said that more detail would be provided / more consultation would be undertaken as the plans progress.
• Stakeholder engagement to date has been limited to business representatives only. Some organisational respondents explicitly said that they had not been included in any engagement activities.
• The list of stakeholders engaged with so far does not include community representatives, community groups, or community councils. Neither does it include any local authorities. Respondents argued that both geographically defined communities and relevant communities of interest (including crofting communities and Gaelic-speaking communities) should be included in the stakeholder engagement.

7.43 The partial ICIA was described by respondents as ‘vague’, and ‘lacking in detail’. The partial ICIA notes that there are gaps in the data required to produce a full ICIA. However, it does not contain proposals for how these data gaps will be addressed and how further analysis of potential impacts will be done. The lack of baseline data from which to measure progress was seen as a serious omission, as was the lack of a clear statement of the objectives and intended outcomes for island communities of designating HPMAs.

7.44 As has already been discussed in relation to Questions 13 and 14, respondents thought the partial ICIA (like the SEA and the SEIA) had not fully acknowledged the wide range of contributions and investments – economic, social and environmental – made by existing activities and industries to their local communities, and to Scottish life more generally. These contributions should not simply be measured in financial terms, but on a holistic basis. Respondents also thought that the partial ICIA had greatly underestimated the potential for negative impacts on communities of the current proposals for designating HPMAs. This latter point was also emphasised by the Shetland postal campaign which emphasised the severe adverse impacts on Scotland’s rural and island communities if HPMAs were to be introduced.

7.45 Finally, it was suggested that (i) full ICIAs should be driven by, and carried out by, local communities – not ‘outside agencies’ and that (ii) the ICIAs (once completed) should apply to all remote coastal communities – not just to island communities.

7.46 A follow-up question, Question 15, asked respondents for their views on whether the proposed policy framework and site selection guidelines would have any differential impacts (positive and / or negative) on island communities.^[13] The question specifically asked about impacts additional to those already identified in the partial ICIA screening report.

7.47 No further impacts – in addition to those already discussed in relation to Questions 12, 13 and 14 above – were identified at Question 15. Respondents who were opposed to HPMAs (both organisations and individuals) reiterated the severe (‘devastating’) and wide-ranging negative impacts they thought HPMAs would have in relation to the economic, environmental, social, and cultural wellbeing of island communities. These respondents often expressed their views forcefully, using strong language. Respondents who supported HPMAs also reiterated comments they had made earlier about the potential benefits they thought HPMAs might bring to island communities, particularly in relation to improving the marine environment and encouraging eco-tourism.

Business and Regulatory Impact Assessment (BRIA) (Q16 to Q18)

7.48 The Scottish Government uses the Business and Regulatory Impact Assessment (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.

7.49 The partial BRIA accompanying the consultation paper in this case provided an overview of the background to and aims of the proposed introduction of HPMAs. It set out two policy options – option 1, a ‘do nothing’ option, and option 2, the option of introducing HPMAs – and identified the sectors and businesses likely to be affected by the introduction of HPMAs. It then presented an initial assessment of the potential costs and benefits of each option and the potential impacts on the public, private and third sectors, and on communities and society.

7.50 Question 16 invited views on the partial BRIA. In particular, it asked whether the assessment presented an accurate representation of the potential impacts, issues and considerations raised by the implementation of the draft policy framework and site selection guidelines.

7.51 Table 7.4 and Table A1.40 in Annex 1 show the following main points based on the substantive responses:

• Overall, around one in ten respondents (9%) expressed support for the partial BRIA (4% expressed strong support), while three-quarters (74%) expressed opposition (63% expressed strong opposition). One in six respondents (17%) selected ‘neutral’.
• Organisations (13%) were slightly more likely than individuals (9%) to express support for the partial BRIA; conversely, organisations (65%) were less likely than individuals (75%) to express opposition.
• Among organisations, no group expressed majority support for the partial BRIA. Two-thirds of environmental organisations (64%) expressed neutral views. Levels of opposition were highest among fishing organisations (94%), community organisations (74%), aquaculture organisations (74%) and fish selling and processing organisations (71%). Other organisational groups had mixed views but were, on balance, opposed.

Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

The table combines those who selected ‘strongly support’ OR ‘support’ into a single category (Support). It also combines those who selected ‘strongly oppose’ OR ‘oppose’ into a single category (Oppose). See Table A1.40 in Annex 1 for a full breakdown of the responses using the 5 original response categories.

7.52 A small number of respondents affirmed their agreement that the partial BRIA provided an accurate (and fair) representation of potential impacts, issues and considerations related to the designation of HPMAs. These respondents thought the designation of HPMAs would bring a range of benefits – environmental, economic and social. Some of these respondents went on to qualify their comments – for example by saying that the partial BRIA (i) accurately reflected the current situation but did not attempt to anticipate the impact of future scenarios, (ii) should be based on evidence and not assumptions, or (iii) should take into account the views of communities and other relevant stakeholders.

7.53 More commonly, however, a wide range of respondents (including individuals living in island and coastal communities, and organisations of all kinds) set out reasons why they did not think (some aspect of) the partial BRIA was satisfactory. The main reasons respondents gave for their dissatisfaction were that:

• The partial BRIA was based on an analysis of only two possible policy options.
• The partial BRIA contained limited discussion (or no discussion) of key areas of vital relevance to island / coastal economies.
• The evidence set out in the partial BRIA (or elements of it) was incorrect or contested.

7.54 Each of these is discussed further below.

7.55 As noted in paragraph 7.49, the partial BRIA set out two policy options – a ‘do nothing’ option, and the option of introducing HPMAs. Some respondents (both individuals and organisations) questioned this and suggested that other policy options should also be considered including, for example (i) improving the management of Scottish seas, and (ii) re-examining and revising restrictions within existing MPAs. Others suggested modifications of the proposed HPMA arrangements such as allowing greater levels of non-damaging activities within HPMAs and the gradual implementation of HPMAs, with reconsideration of the 10% target and the timescales for introduction. (See Chapter 8 for a fuller discussion of alternative policy approaches suggested by respondents.)

7.56 A range of fishing organisations described the partial BRIA as ‘a commentary on relevant potential impacts’, rather than an evidence-based analysis of impacts (which is what respondents said the partial BRIA purported to be). It was specifically noted by these respondents that the partial BRIA did not contain any quantitative assessments of impacts, and that the final table (Table 14.1 Summary costs and benefits) was blank.

7.57 In addition, some pointed to major elements that were missing from the partial BRIA. For example, attention was drawn to the lack of reference to the aquaculture industry at sections 5, 6 and 7 – even though organisational respondents said their own business had provided detailed evidence which could have been presented in these sections. Moreover, it was noted that section 11 (on enforcement, monitoring and compliance) contained ‘just 12 words’. Respondents from the fishing industry in particular questioned the value of the partial BRIA given the lack of detail it contained.

7.58 Some respondents questioned (aspects of) the evidence presented or argued that their own experience did not agree with the evidence presented. For example, fishing organisations argued that their experience of leaving marine areas unfished did not result in the benefits set out in the partial BRIA, while aquaculture organisations said that many more licences than set out in paragraph 4.4.2 would be required if finfish farms were to be relocated. More generally, a range of respondents from the fishing industry and beyond (i) queried the statement that ‘benefits will not change in the short / medium term’ if the ‘do nothing’ option is adopted, (ii) thought that assessing the impacts of displacement based on a single study from 2014 was not adequate, and (iii) believed the assertion that MPAs could mitigate climate change was not scientifically justified.

7.59 Other points, similar to those raised in relation to the SEA, SEIA and partial ICIA were also made. These covered (i) the lack of prior engagement and consultation to this point, (ii) the inability to judge information in the partial BRIA, given that specific sites had not yet been designated, (iii) the lack of consideration given to cumulative impacts, (iv) the absence of any proposed mitigations (that might lead to a just transition), (v) the lack of discussion about compensation arrangements, (vi) the relatively small-scale positive impacts that marine tourism / eco-tourism could bring, (vii) concerns about the lack of evaluation of the existing MPA network, (viii) a concern that there will be insufficient resources available to implement, monitor and enforce HPMAs, and (ix) a belief that benefits had been overestimated and adverse effects underestimated.

7.60 Finally, the Shetland postal campaign, while not directly addressing the partial BRIA, echoed the general sentiments of the fishing industry, and made the point that the economic viability of (fishing) vessels would be destabilised by HPMAs and that this would have severe economic and business impacts.

7.61 Two further questions, Question 17 and Question 18, asked respondents about any financial, regulatory or resource impacts – positive and / or negative – for their (own) business.

7.62 Question 17 was a closed (tick-box) question which asked if there would be impacts of any kind and did not ask respondents to distinguish whether these would be positive or negative. Thus, the findings in relation to Question 17 were difficult to interpret and not particularly informative.^[14] However, in general, a large majority of both organisations and individuals said there would be impacts of some kind for themselves and / or for their businesses. The only exceptions to this were environmental organisations, recreation, tourism and cultural organisations, and public sector bodies who were fairly ambivalent about whether their organisations would experience any impacts.

7.63 The follow-up question (Question 18) allowed respondents the opportunity to comment from a personal (or organisational) perspective about any financial, regulatory or resource impacts of introducing HPMAs. However, the comments offered at this question simply repeated points which had already been made in response to earlier questions in this chapter (Questions 12–16). Therefore, a separate analysis of these comments is not presented here.