Offshore Marine Protected Areas - fisheries management measures: SG response

4. Site-Specific Consideration

4.1 Anton Dohrn SAC, Braemar Pockmarks SAC, Darwin Mounds SAC, Scanner Pockmark SAC and West of Scotland MPA

For the five sites, Anton Dohrn SAC, Braemar Pockmarks SAC, Darwin Mounds SAC, Scanner Pockmark SAC and West of Scotland MPA, only one management measure option was considered appropriate. In line with SNCB advice, a full site restriction on demersal mobile and demersal static fishing gears was identified as the sole suitable option to support the achievement of the sites’ conservation objectives.

SG Response

We note the strong support received for the proposed measures across these sites. This reflects a shared recognition of the importance of protecting Scotland’s most sensitive offshore marine habitats and species.

Some concerns were raised regarding the socio-economic impact of proposed measures for the West of Scotland MPA. This site was designated in 2020, and initial discussions on management measures took place with stakeholders in 2022. While a large proportion of the site is already closed to bottom trawling and set nets under Common Fisheries Policy (Amendment etc.) (Eu Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I. 2019/739), these closures do not include shallower seamount areas. The proposed measures will now extend protection to the entire site, including those shallower zones, ensuring consistent and comprehensive coverage.

In the Darwin Mounds SAC, bottom trawling is already prohibited under the Common Fisheries Policy and Animals (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I. 2019, No. 1312). In line with JNCC advice, the final management measures will also prohibit the use of demersal static gear to strengthen the protection of this highly sensitive habitat.

While the Darwin Mounds Fisheries Assessment concluded that no additional measures were needed due to low levels of current activity, precautionary management is being taken forward due to the vulnerability of the site's features to demersal static gear.

We also acknowledge the concerns raised regarding the categorisation of fishing gears, namely static demersal longlines and nets at these sites and further detail is provided within this report in section 5.7. Within this package of measures, longlines and gillnets are classified as demersal static gear due to the potential for interaction with the seabed. While evidence suggests these gears generally have a lower impact compared to mobile gears, our statutory advisors consider that seabed contact, particularly from anchors and weighted lines, can still result in significant cumulative damage to protected features. As such this allows the potential to compromise the conservation objectives of these sites and therefore must be appropriately managed.

4.2 Central Fladen MPA

The Scottish Government acknowledges and understands the differing perspectives shared through the consultation, particularly regarding the ecological importance of burrowed mud and the significance of the site as valuable fishing grounds. Several respondents outlined the potential benefits of full site measures in protecting burrowed mud (a designated feature of the MPA). They described how burrowed mud is an important nursery ground for species such as juvenile cod, whiting and haddock, and protecting this from disruption by mobile demersal mobile gear will help support stock recovery.

Others wrote that the restoration of burrowed mud across the Central Fladen MPA, would preserve existing carbon stocks and had potential to support adjacent areas of the Fladen grounds through export of sea pen and other larvae. Those in support of Option 1 noted that the zonal fisheries management measures proposed for the Central Fladen MPA were the result of a lengthy and meaningful stakeholder engagement process and should therefore be respected.

SG Response

Following the public consultation, JNCC advised that the zonal measures originally proposed were considered insufficient to protect the burrowed mud and would not avoid a significant risk of hindering the conservation objectives arising from fishing within the site. This advice can be found online via the JNCC website.

In this additional advice, JNCC were unable to determine the precise proportion of the burrowed mud feature that requires protection to meet the conservation objectives. JNCC did not advise, however, that a full site closure to fishing was necessary.

Therefore, the Marine Directorate developed revised measures based on the best available scientific advice, taking into account JNCC advice and all other relevant factors. These were reviewed by the Chief Scientific Advisor for Marine (CSAm). The revised measures fall within the scope of the options consulted on and reflect JNCC’s advice.

The revised measures have therefore increased the level protection for the burrowed mud feature from 40% coverage to 62% within Central Fladen MPA. The location of these revised measures reflects the existing fishing footprint to help minimise potential economic impacts, while providing stronger protection for the burrowed mud feature and considering wider environmental outcomes.

4.3 East of Gannet and Montrose Fields MPA

Respondents were divided in their support for the proposed fisheries management measures for the East of Gannet and Montrose Fields MPA. Supporters of Option 2 highlighted the greater ecological benefits it would provide, including stronger protection for sensitive features such as ocean quahog, sea pens, and deep-sea mud habitats. Those in favour of Option 1 emphasised the comprehensive stakeholder engagement that informed its development and argued it would meet conservation objectives with fewer socioeconomic impacts.

SG Response

The Scottish Government notes the range of views submitted on the proposed management measures for East of Gannet and Montrose Fields MPA.

Following the consultation JNCC advised that there would remain a significant risk of the offshore deep-sea mud features within East of Gannet and Montrose Fields MPA being maintained in a modified state due to ongoing fishing activity should zonal measures consulted on be implemented. This presents a continued risk of not achieving the conservation objectives. This change was primarily due to an oversight in JNCC’s management advice, explained below. JNCC did not advise, however, that a full site closure to fishing was necessary to mitigate this risk.

The zonal measures consulted on were based on the best available evidence at the time, from 2015/2016. However, a 2022 evidence review by JNCC, incorporating 2017 survey data and updated modelling, better identified the distribution of the protected offshore deep-sea mud features. This revealed that a significant proportion of the protected feature lay outside areas covered by the proposed measures. While JNCC initially advised that changes to the management proposals were not necessary, further consideration of the updated evidence has led them to conclude that a more precautionary approach would be appropriate. Their latest feedback notes that, under the zonal measures as consulted on, there would be a continued risk of not achieving the conservation objectives.

To address this, the Marine Directorate developed revised measures based on the best available scientific advice, taking into account the JNCC advice and all other relevant factors. These were reviewed by the Chief Scientific Advisor for Marine (CSAm). The revised measures fall within the scope of the options consulted on and, reflecting JNCC’s post-consultation advice.

Originally, 29% of the protected mud area in the site was captured under the original zoned measures. Under the revised plans measures, this has increased to 70%. In determining the proposed measures, we have taken into account the distribution of fishing activity to ensure a fair and balanced approach. As most fishing occurs in the southern part of the site, the new closures focus on the northern mud areas, helping to minimise economic impact while still delivering meaningful protection. This helps create fair and balanced protection zones. Because only the southern part is heavily fished, the economic impact of increasing the level of protection does not increase dramatically.

4.4 East Rockall Bank, Pobie Bank, Solan Bank, Stanton Banks, North-West Rockall Bank, Wyville Thomson Ridge

Respondents raised a number of points regarding the proposed management measures at these sites, including support for tailored, site-specific approaches that reflect the ecological sensitivity of different features. Many welcomed the stakeholder engagement that informed Option 1 but also voiced concerns about the level of representation from the static gear sector during consultation. There were also questions around how fishing gears, particularly demersal static gears like longlines and set nets, had been categorised.

SG Response

The Scottish Government recognises the ecological importance of a number of features protected at these sites, particularly the sensitive habitats vulnerable to physical disturbance. By tailoring site-specific measures to different gear types, based on their impacts on these features, we can effectively address these sensitivities within the management approach.

At the same time, we recognise the value placed on the stakeholder engagement process that informed the development of Option 1, and the view that this approach reflects a more targeted response to fishing activity within the site. Concerns regarding the representation of the static gear sector during consultation have been noted; workshop and meeting minutes and further consideration on this have been discussed in section 5.8.

We also acknowledge the concerns raised regarding the categorisation of fishing gears, namely static demersal longlines and nets at these sites and further detail is provided within this report in section 5.7.

We remain committed to inclusive and transparent policy development and will consider how engagement with all sectors, including static gear operators, can be strengthened in future processes. The Scottish Government will continue to ensure that management measures are evidence-based, proportionate, and capable of delivering both environmental protection and long-term sustainability for marine users.

While demersal static gear impacts stony and bedrock reefs are less understood than those of mobile gears, with earlier studies suggesting minimal effects, JNCC highlighted recent research which indicates the potential for impacts at high gear densities, especially inshore. This advice and the associated research is [available online via the JNCC website. SG acknowledge the additional evidence and will take this into account as part of the Scottish MPA monitoring strategy through pressure monitoring in these sites, capturing any additional risk through adaptive management if required.

Similarly, JNCC noted that wider protection for areas of potential reef would improve the likelihood of meeting the sites’ conservation objectives. SG have acknowledged this and in line with the approach taken across all sites, should new evidence be found of additional reef outside of management zones, this will be considered as part of an adaptive management approach.

4.5 Faroe Shetland Sponge Belt, North-east Faroe Shetland Channel

Several respondents referenced survey work carried out by JNCC in 2021 within the Faroe-Shetland Sponge Belt MPA and called for this new data to be taken into account before finalising management measures. Others raised concerns about the classification of static demersal gears—such as longlines and nets—and questioned how their potential impacts had been assessed in comparison to mobile gears.

SG Response

A number of respondents highlighted data collection conducted by JNCC in 2021 within the Faroe-Shetland Sponge Belt MPA. Officials are aware of this work and continue to liaise with JNCC to stay informed of progress. We are currently awaiting the outcome of JNCC’s quality assurance process for this data, after which it will be carefully considered and factored into the ongoing adaptive management approach as appropriate to ensure that measures remain effective and responsive to the best available evidence.

We also acknowledge the concerns raised regarding the categorisation of fishing gears, namely static demersal longlines and nets at these sites and further detail is provided within this report in section 5.7.

4.6 Firth of Forth Banks Complex, Geikie Slide and Hebridean Slope, Norwegian Boundary Sediment Plain, The Barra Fan and Hebrides Terrace Seamount, and West Shetland Shelf

A number of respondents, particularly from the fishing industry, raised concerns about the economic implications of the proposed management measures, especially when considered alongside the cumulative effect of other marine policies. Many industry stakeholders expressed support for the zonal approach (Option 1), which they felt was developed through a constructive and collaborative stakeholder process. This view was especially strong in relation to the West Shetland Shelf site,

where the zoned measures captured the voluntary agreement between static and mobile gear fishers to manage gear conflict and taking into account the safety of those working in the area.

Stakeholders from environmental and conservation organisations generally expressed a strong preference for Option 2, which proposed full-site closures to demersal mobile fishing gear. These respondents argued that a more comprehensive and precautionary approach was needed to support habitat recovery and secure the long-term conservation objectives of the MPA network.

Concerns were also raised about the assessment of environmental impacts in the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), particularly in relation to displacement effects under Option 2. Some respondents felt that while the SEA acknowledged the potential for unintended environmental consequences due to displaced fishing activity, the rationale for its conclusions could have been more clearly communicated, especially with respect to assumptions about where such displacement might occur and its likely impact.

SG Response

The Scottish Government acknowledges the broad range of views submitted in response to the consultation and recognises the value placed by many stakeholders on the collaborative development of the zonal approach. At the same time, the Government acknowledges the strong support from environmental organisations for more comprehensive measures. These views highlight the importance of continued monitoring and evaluation to ensure that management measures remain effective in delivering conservation outcomes. The Scottish Government is committed to an adaptive management approach, as set out in the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy, which allows for management to be refined in response to emerging evidence.

In relation to the Strategic Environmental Assessment, the Scottish Government notes the concerns raised regarding how displacement effects were presented. While the SEA did recognise the risk of unintended environmental consequences of displaced fishing activity, the Government acknowledges that the reasoning could have been more clearly articulated. Feedback from this consultation will be taken into account in future assessments, with the aim of improving transparency and providing clearer justifications for assumptions and conclusions relating to displacement and wider environmental effects.